Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/05

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


en:File:Rogers logo.svg

Is that file above, or below the threshold of originality? Thanks, Poké95 01:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that file is below the TOO, because Picasa's logo is below the TOO. But I need a second opinion for this. Poké95 01:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Riley said at IRC that it is below, so, transferring now the logo to Commons. Poké95 02:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 02:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sue Owen's (poet) portrait

User:Dolzhnikov has uploaded File:Owen picture for Wiki 2016.jpg, which was then removed due to Copyright violation. Now he uploaded the same picture as File:Owen photograph Wiki 2016.jpg.

The image seems a copy of the image from
which is a part of the image from

Please anybody inform the user about the legal aspects of uploading images to Wikipedia and Commons site. I am not fluent enough in English nor in Russian (Dolzhnikov edits mainly in Russian language, see Global contributions) to recognize all copyright issues and explain them to the user. --CiaPan (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

File deleted user warned. Ankry (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. --CiaPan (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: CiaPan (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictures with book covers in focus

File:Premio Euskadi de Plata 2016 Literaktum 02.jpg
File:Premio Euskadi de Plata 2016 Literaktum 03.jpg
Either these are copyright violations, because of the focus of the images are the books' covers, or they are a case of De minimis. I'm not sure which, though I lean more towards the copyright violation. I'm looking for another opinion here. Elisfkc (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The entire point of the photos is to show the front covers of the books. These are copyright infringements absent any licence from the cover artist. I have nominated both for deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 00:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright concern regarding dubious "own work" rationale

File:Horse back archery AD 4C.jpg

The work was apparently marked by APoincot as his/her own work, but if one looks closely it has a "" watermark. Actually we don't even need to look that closely to see some kind of watermark, as it was visible to me reading the "Culture of Korea" article on

I don't think there is serious cause for concern based on the fact that it's a still photo of a 2-D image that is almost certainly itself in the public domain. But we are keeping this on Wikimedia Commons because a no-longer-active English Wikipedia editor claimed it as his/her own work when it almost certainly is not -- that seems problematic.

Hijiri88 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. We have a large number of PD files that are incorrectly claimed as {{Own work}} and tagged CC, and they should indeed be corrected when identified. Please feel free to fix them! Storkk (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tara Lipinski photo - need help

I must have uploaded the pic without the exact license. I didn't see it in the upload wizard, so i did the best I could. I have now added it and would like someone to check that I did it correctly. Thanks. File:Tara Lipinski in Sochi.jpg. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The file File:Tara Lipinski in Sochi.jpg is visible both in your contribution listing (Special:Contributions/Fyunck(click)) and in your uploads listing Special:Uploads/Fyunck(click). For the license/copyright description fixes see the file history here. --CiaPan (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Flickr file is incompatible with Commons. I left a message on your talk page czar 11:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: License updated. czar 14:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:GosLinux.png and File:Goslinux01.png

It's CentOS-based distro for Russian government, but I think that CC-BY-SA is not suitable. 16:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Making a screenshot and calling it "own work" is usually incorrect, let alone assigning an arbitrary license. At the very least it is incorporating existing works (see COM:SCREENSHOT) and needs to be licensed that way. Those may very well have a valid license we can use, but it's unlikely to be CC, and we would need to credit someone else as the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Exact licence of free YouTube videos

Hi, I want to upload this video [1] published on YouTube under a Creative Commons licence.

  1. I would like to know what is the exact CC licence will I select when uploading this video on Commons ??
  2. After uploading, Can I cut the video or take snapshots from it ?? Cordially, -- issimo 15 !? 11:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's CC-BY 3.0 based on the link in the license. Is the uploader the copyright holder, though? A lot of YouTube videos are illicit copies from elsewhere.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Issimo 15, if it says "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" as its license, you can use {{YouTube}}. But it doesn't look like that uploader actually owns the rights to that video... If the uploader was indeed the copyright holder, yes, you'd be able to make derivative still images under the same license. czar 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse

Something is not clear for me and I would appreciate any help in understanding it better. These pictures are licensed as PD, using the template {{AbuGhraibPic}}. This templates includes a reference to the fact a work of a U.S. military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties, is in the public domain. Andy Grundberg and others consider these pictures to be rather private than public, "first delivered (...) as private messages confined to a small circle of the participants" (" Point and shoot: how the Abu Ghraib images redefine photography", The American Scholar 74.1), which would contradict the claim they were part of an official duty. See also Janina Struk, Private Pictures: Soldiers' Inside View of War : "only one aspect of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib seemed certain, that they were private pictures intended as souvenirs, to be shared only among friends and fellow soldiers, not to be seen by the public" [2] (see also [3]). The condition for such a work to enter automatically the public domain is that it should be part of "the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment" and not "work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty" [4]. Official duties are "the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment". Are we to understand taking such pictures was part of a job description ? Could some one point me to a proof of the relevance of the PD claim here ? In particular, the template says "the photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have asserted this was the case under oath". Where exactly and is this claim confirmed by whoever decided of what the official requirements of their job was ? Who exactly are the photographers who made such claims ? From my non-expert POV, there is some contradiction between the claim this would have been an official duty and the fact some of the soldiers involved have been condemned : how is is possible, for example, Lynndie England was not in her official duty but whoever photographed her was ? Taking another example, Charles Graner testified he was under duty but was thenafter found guilty of trespassing his duty. Idem for Sabrina Harman. As a side note, I notice some of our pictures come from the Washington Post, but this newpaper itself says they are not PD [5]. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 09:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That some people while executing their official duties may abuse their power does itself entails them to some property right which those officials who do not abuse their power will not have. Ruslik (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
How does this relate to the justification of the PD license ? — Racconish ☎ 10:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Commons does not have the same verifiability requirements as the English Wikipedia, but if there is a reliable source that indicates that the photos were in fact taken as part of the photographers' official duties (or another reason why PD-USGov applies), then that source should be mentioned or linked to in the {{AbuGhraibPic}} template. --Gazebo (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. — Racconish ☎ 07:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Swimsuits copyrightable?

Are the suits in these EN images copyrightable? And, as the suits are 3D objects, is there a separate copyright for the photos?

--Rrburke (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Generally speaking, swimsuits, and indeed, most garments would be interpreted as functional objects. There are some exceptions - apparently in Sweden, clothing may be seen as copyrightable (although apparently the Swedish National Museums don't see a problem with making hundreds and hundreds of clothing images available via Commons) but in the USA (these are American suits) I don't think it's an issue as long as the photographs in themselves are acceptable for sharing - I've not looked yet. Mabalu (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked at them now - GREAT images. if these images are being released under an appropriate license then there is ZERO problem with them as far as I can tell. And personally speaking it's always nice to see more non-sleazy images of this kind of subject on Commons. Mabalu (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
However, reading more carefully, I see that the uploader has assumed that she is allowed to share them because they were emailed to her. Plus, the images come from here - so they are NOT the uploader's images to share. We need explicit permission from the Harold B. Lee Library/Brigham University for these to be on Commons. So unless the Library explicitly says we may use these images, then they ARE a violation of copyright because the uploader is not the photographer, and the images clearly belong to an institution. Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the person who contacted OTRS to confirm what his/her position is with the library that empowers him/her to to license images on their behalf. There are a couple of other images from the same uploader that I think can't be accepted, namely File:Rose Marie Reid.jpg and File:Rose Marie Reid "Jewels of the Sea" Advertisement.jpg, unless the library can prove that they somehow acquired the copyrights. --Rrburke (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Odds tend pretty heavily to {{PD-US-no notice}} on those, especially the advertisement. Modern photos would need permission of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

European Parliament images

The European Parliament has many images of MEPs that would be useful for us.

However, I'm unsure if the license meets the standards for upload here. Can someone confirm whether this copyright disclaimer is compatible with Commons?

Many thanks.

--RaviC (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Images hosted on are not automatically public domain. There would need to be a specific release for them. At a minimum the website terms you linked to imply a no-derivatives restriction, which would make them unsuitable for Commons. I am sure this has been discussed before, you may want to trawl the archives. -- (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. --RaviC (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

US FOP and Street Art/Graffiti

Is street art/graffiti, such as File:D*Face grafitti LA.jpg, copyrighted in the US, or does it fall under FOP? Elisfkc (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It doesn't fall under FOP (in the US it's really only for buildings), but whether a copyright claim for an illegal graffiti (assuming that it is) would hold up is a difficult question per COM:GRAFFITI; if it's a legal mural you'd need permission from the artist(s).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: so, no permission tag and Template:Non-free graffiti would be correct? Elisfkc (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: {{Non-free graffiti}} can only apply if the art is actually illegal (and even then, it's not always indisputable). Is there any evidence that this was illegal? Storkk (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Is there proof that it isn't illegal? If it is legal, then there should be proof of it and evidence of the artist as well as copyright holder. Elisfkc (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems the non-free graffiti tag was meant for images which are kept per the illegal graffiti policy. So, it would be added if the image was kept for whatever reason. But if the artist name is known, sure seems like it would likely be a legal mural. I would prefer sending it to a regular DR rather than use a speedy-delete tag (which are not supposed to be used in FoP type situations), but it almost certainly should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Opening DR. Elisfkc (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
(Depricated User:Josve05a/GRAFFITI.) Josve05a (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
See also fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/mars 2012#Image de graffiti et ADAGP. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I think, right or wrong, there's a good chance a court is at least implicitly going to make a difference between graffiti and art. Stuff like this that looks like art and that's treated like art (with artist's name and stuff) is going to be copyrightable. Scribbles on a wall by Anonymous that are treated as graffiti (not someone anyone takes for artistic significance) may be a lot more likely to get dismissed by a court. It may not be great law, but there's a lot of court decisions shaped by the "right thing" instead of the letter of the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


This file is a POTD from 2005. The image does not appear to be online anymore, nor in the Internet Archive, and the only version of the file appears to be [6], which is similar but not the same (and taken after the POTD featured date). Would it be better to update the image on this existing file and approve the license review, or to create a new upload for the 2005 image and delete the old 2004 file page as unverifiable? czar 03:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That is old enough to be grandfathered (COM:GOF). So unless there is a dispute about the permission documentation as given, probably best to just leave it alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on "RealDoll"s based on actual people.

Just came across this image - a sex doll based on a real life person. Is that eligible for copyright as art, or ineligible as lacking creativity due to being a likeness of a real person? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Regarding derivative works, creativity is rather a copyright exemption than the lack of creativity which can be a part of the definition of derivative works. IMO no matter the model here, I think this must be considered as a whole creation. I mean if I do a painting of you that will stay my painting, not yours... Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    Regarding anything, in the US, creativity is required for copyrightability. I'm not sure how to interpret your first sentence.
I don't see why it would differ much from a photograph or sculpture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Perla de Fresquita

I've got a weird one here. On Flickr, File:Perla de Fresquita painting by Wildago.jpg is marked as being CC-BY-SA-2.0, as you can see here. It was uploaded by Wildago, who made the painting shown in the picture. However, on the same Flickr account, the painting itself is marked as being All Rights Reserved, as seen here. I tagged File:Perla de Fresquita painting by Wildago.jpg with de minimis, but is this correct/enough? Elisfkc (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The link to the painting gives a 404 error.
The inclusion of the painting in File:Perla de Fresquita painting by Wildago.jpg is not de minimis because the entire purpose of the photograph is to show the painting. However, since the photographer also seems to be the painter, the CC licence for the photo of the painting probably covers both the photograph and the painting. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: *sarcasm directed at Wildago* great, that's so helpful.* Anyways, thank you. Elisfkc (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


Is "No copyright on any content within the website. Use what you can. Go Ron Paul!" sufficient for {{Attribution}}{{Copyrighted free use}}? czar 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: No copyright means {{PD-author}}. Thanks, Poké95 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
But legally is that statement a sufficient release of license for Commons' purposes? Is there a page that compiles what kind of statements are sufficient without explicitly using a CC license? czar 03:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Just consensus. Commons:Licensing is the guidance page. In this case though, it's really {{PD-USGov-Treasury}}. It's a WWII poster slightly modified. The original says "Official U.S. Treasury Poster". Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Without an explicit release, how do we know "no copyright" means that the page's creator made those images and puts them in the PD as opposed to the page's creator found the images somewhere and claims no ownership over them? czar 13:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Naghsh-e-Jahan Stadium and Iranian FoP

I'm foggier with how Commons:Freedom of panorama#Iran works inside of architecture, such as this open stadium: Category:Naghsh-e-Jahan Stadium. Are these violations of Iranian FoP? czar 22:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: The architecture of a building includes the interior, since an architect designs both the inside and outside. Since Iran does not recognize any FOP, it's a violation. --Elisfkc (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

EN image and fair dealing

OTRS has a complaint from the copyright holder about the EN image File:Sir-adrian-boult.jpg. Anyone with knowledge on fair dealing (UK) have an opinion on whether the use in the article Adrian Boult qualifies as fair dealing (and fair use)? Broader question: does the use of a file originating in the UK have to qualify as fair dealing as well as fair use to be kept on Wikipedia? --Rrburke (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Rrburke Could you share the OTRS ticket number? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, @Bluerasberry: it's ticket:2016050910008937. --Rrburke (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The estate of the photographer asserts that the photo cannot be used unless they get a certain kind of photo credit which English Wikipedia cannot promise.
The photo seems in order for English Wikipedia. It is low resolution and of a deceased person. A fair use claim is made on English Wikipedia. The photo was likely taken in England and likely the copyright is held there. I know nothing about how fair use might work in England - thoughts from anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria says that it needs to qualify for US fair use, and it's cited as an acceptable EDP by The WMF Licensing policy. So no, fair dealing is not relevant to EN.WP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:KJU.jpg

I'd like to invite others to comment on this deletion request. It's an issue of freedom of panorama and derived work to isolate deminimis copyrighted work. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Jontron Magfest 2015.jpg & Jontron Magfest 2015(Zoomed In).jpg

Jontron Magfest 2015.jpg & Jontron Magfest 2015(Zoomed In).jpg are from one single image. On the Flickr source, the uploader seems to have received permission from the author of the original image to use and distribute the image under CC-BY-4.0. However, the image is still licensed under All Rights Reserved on Flickr, so I added the Unfree Flickr template on both, as well as no permission. I have informed the uploader of the discussion here, and have suggested that they get the original author to send permission to OTRS. I believe these are the correct actions, but if someone has a better idea, please suggest/act on it. --Elisfkc (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@~riley: I see you just deleted these images. Just wanted to make sure you read this first. --Elisfkc (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi :) I don't see the point in tagging with both no permission and unfree flickr. One qualifies for immediate deletion, the other qualifies for deletion in 7 days time. As it was a clear all rights reserved file on flickr, I treated it as a copyright violation.The uploader can request undeletion at UNDR or on my talk page once OTRS has been verified (I'll be happy to process it as well). Thank you for tagging them and notifiying the author. ~riley (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks Elisfkc (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Roasterie (11956950765).jpg

I'm about 85% sure that this is ok, but I want to make sure. I believe that File:Roasterie (11956950765).jpg is allowed, since the image is freely licensed and the DC-3 and its structure are a part of the building. Am I right? Elisfkc (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The shape of DC-3 is purely functional. It is not protected by copyright. So, it is irrelevant if it is a part of the building or not. The text is {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Sweet, I figured it was something like that, but wanted to make sure it wouldn't be considered a sculpture. Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Shahrdari Urmia VC.jpg

File is licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", but this seem more like a non-free logo than someone's own work. Files source is listed as a Farsi Wikipedia page, but I'm don't no if that means the file is freely licensed. Farsi Wikipedia could be like English Wikipedia and allow non-free content to be uploaded. I also tried to find an official website for the team en:Shahrdari Urmia VC to verify the image and its copyright status, but had no luck. Should this be tagged with {{No permission since}} because of COM:PCP or is the current licensing acceptable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That logo seems to be above the threshold of originality, so I tagged it as copyvio. Thanks, Poké95 00:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Candidate image from 501(c)(4) nonprofit website

Hi, not sure if this is the right venue to ask this question or if this is even a good question in the first place, but I'm new here so please bear with me. I'm creating a page for a candidate running for a state house congressional seat in Florida, and I want to be able to include an image of the candidate in the bio. Problem is, I'm not sure how to do this since there aren't any gov licensed images of this individual yet. The image I want to use I got from the website of Equality Florida, which is a political nonprofit registered 501(c)(4). I can't find anything on their website about photo credits, so I was wondering if anyone had advice/answers to what I should do next. --Mightysleepwalker (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good question. Non-profits can hold copyright perfectly fine, so if they don't explicitly say the image is released under a free license, it should be assumed copyrighted. What you should do is write the candidate (or the nonprofit) and explicitly ask for them to release an image under a license we can use, then send their release to COM:OTRS (more details are there). has some examples of requests you can use. --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--Mightysleepwalker (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 and de minimis

Although §38c ("Incidental Use of a Work") of the Czech Copyright Act states that:

Copyright is not infringed by anybody who uses a work incidentally, in connection with an intended primary use of another work or element

I have concerns about some of these files and would appreciate other sets of eyes on the issue. I think the software is not even identifiable in File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (2).jpg, so this one is probably fine. However, the Windows background image is clearly visible at full resolution on the laptop screen in File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (4).jpg. The software (Silverfast AI) and the Windows background image are clearly visible in File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (3).jpg, and File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (7).jpg depicts nothing except a screen image of Zoner Photo Studio 16 Pro.

So my judgment would be:

Anyone else have an opinion? --Rrburke (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It also depends on how strictly courts interpret the law.
Apart from the computer interface, you can also see photos which do not come with Windows by default. In File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (7).jpg, there's a large photo on the screen, and in File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (2).jpg, someone is holding a photo in his hand. Are those photos covered by the OTRS ticket or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The OTRS correspondent claims to be the author of all the photos depicted in images in this category, but the more I look at the ticket the more I think there may be a language problem preventing the correspondent from understanding what I'm asking about: I'll try again. --Rrburke (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
To me, most of those are absolutely incidental. The photographer did not choose the material being worked on or the software; they were trying to document the scene. Whatever photos happened to be there are incidental. But, I'm not sure all would qualify. For File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (2).jpg, the photographer is focusing on the photo in particular -- that probably does not qualify as incidental, but I think still is de minimis. File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (3).jpg is probably fine; it's not focusing on any one work in particular. File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (4).jpg is easily fine to me. File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (7).jpg is probably an issue -- it is focusing on one image in particular, and at least the computer screen, without really being about anything else. File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (6).jpg is also probably derivative of the photo. As a practical matter, the photos are probably all family photos which the people scanning them probably had rights over and could in theory have given permission for. If those are not an issue... File:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 (7).jpg is the only one I might have any concern for, and the concern would be much higher as a derivative of the old photo as opposed to the software, which is not really in focus. So... if the only concern is the Windows software, I think they are all fine. Microsoft does not get derivative rights over every photo in which its software appears -- we'd be more concerned about direct screenshots. Stuff like this is the definition of "incidental" when it comes to the computer software, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rrburke (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request review of Max Baer photo

Can someone review and maybe approve PD status of Max Baer photo? There is no copyright notice on front or back. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light show (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: It may or may not be in the public domain. Someone should be diligent in noting research on the photo before making a public domain claim.
Examples of good research include checking to see whether the public was published anywhere, perhaps by reverse image search or searching for the person by name. An attempt should be made to guess the photographer or photography studio, or any business affiliate of the era that might have owned the copyright. Someone should state the country where the image was created.
It sometimes happens that publicity photos from this era in some countries were published without a copyright notice, and by Commons:Hirtle chart, may be in the public domain. Still, if this argument is to be made, the uploader should talk about the research they did on the photo and post their thoughts on the talk page of the file upload. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If this was a traditional publicity photo, then this physical photo was distributed and needed a copyright notice (the act of giving out the photos was publication). There is a date of January 1934 and another in 1951 on the back. Seems pretty clear this was used by a reporting organization. The problem is if the original is a wire photo (where the physical copy was not distributed), and instead printed at the news organization and used privately for decades. In that case, the physical photo here was never distributed and thus never needed a copyright notice. I don't think there is much doubt that it was published at the time. The main question is if *this copy* was itself distributed and thus needed a copyright notice -- if not, then the lack of notice here is meaningless. I just wish there was a promotional agency's marking somewhere on it which showed that the physical photo itself changed hands. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
All of the Wirephotos I've seen included the Wirephoto inscription along with descriptive text, like this one. And per the "Precautionary principle, " the official policy for photos is only where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. How do we incorporate that policy for images like this one? Is there significant doubt? --Light show (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I came across this article which says that AP didn't start sending photos by wire until 1935. It also notes that the LOC checked on wirephoto copyrights before 1963 and found only a few of the likely millions were ever copyrighted, and even those were never renewed.
Another article gave some physical attributes for identifying wirephotos, as opposed to originals. --Light show (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Using Photos for educational presentations

I am a Master Gardener Volunteer and in that capacity use power point presentations for educational purposes at local libraries, senior centers, etc. Only fellow Master Gardeners will use the power point and it will not be put online. Can I just credit Wikimedia Commons at the end of the presentation? Do I need to give credit for each photo? (Many of the authors just have "Andrew Z" or a user name such as "Bugldy24")

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated! I'm having a difficult time understanding the copyright section!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrtomik (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
What you have to do depends partly on your local legislation. If you have a legal obligation to attribute the author, then attributing Commons is by no means enough, as Commons has no agreement with the author. Some authors do require proper attribution and licence notice – those requirements are the ones they have, instead of asking for money. Would you use images found on commercial sites without paying and without attribution? If not, then you should attribute the individual authors in some decent way.
If I understand correctly, you are going to put the presentations somewhere, so that your fellows can use use them. Then these fellows should know that the works are available as PD or with free licences, and be provided with enough information that they easily can find the works here at Commons and check details, probably by a comprehensive list at a page somewhere. Being able to edit the images for the presentation got from somebody else is one of the points of free licences.
Legally, the requirement of the CC-BY-* licences is attribution etc. "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". Other licences may be more specific.
I suppose mentioning author and licence in connection with every photo would be cumbersome (if not, you should do it). For the audience, a common credit in the end of the presentation proper should include a note about the photos being available under free licences and a reference to somewhere, where the exhaustive list can be found. If the audience gets a handout, then at least a link to the complete list should be included (if not, the reference should be simple enough to be useful).
This is how I would do it myself. You should not treat it as legal advice. Most people contributing here or choosing free licences in general should however appreciate a best effort, regardless of the legalese.
--LPfi (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jrtomik, LPfi: I concur with LPfi. For slide presentations, a common way to give credit is in a slide at the end which lists names, connects the names to the images, and perhaps links to the Wikipedia account of the uploader. It is fine to give credit to "Andrew Z" or any other account username, if that is how a person has identified themselves in the upload. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice on noting non-free logo animations in freely licensed videos

see the five seconds of logo animation at the end of the 4-minute video

An organization has applied a free license to a video for sharing in Wikimedia Commons. I can only expect that this will become more common. This organization presents their logo at the end of the video. This is a common practice - many organizations put their logo on the content they shared. I uploaded the video to Commons. I noted the Creative Commons license. Then I used template:Deminimis to note that the logo animation at the end of the video has standard non-free copyright.

Is this the ideal way to accept and manage video uploads which include non-free logos? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather edit it out before uploading it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Could you say why? Like for example, is that an editorial decision about the video content, an issue with copyright compatibility with Commons, an opinion about institutional partnerships, or something else? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright compatibility. If the logo isn't CC licensed and free to use, it can't really be featured prominently in a video here either. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I requested comments from English WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Medicine, Wiki Loves Video, and Wiki
Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Have they not, by licensing this video, also licensed the the logo as it appears CC-BY-SA 4.0? They are the copyright holder and they have knowingly chosen a license for their content, so I see no problem. Note that it's possible to license a set quality/resolution version of an image (COM:L#Acceptable licenses), so this would mean that the logo as it appears on the video is free, and no other rendition of it. Finnusertop (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I am not sure how this works. I am in touch with the organization, and they wish to avoid giving permission for other people to rip the logo out of the video and republish or remix it. Lots of organizations, for whatever reason, prefer to avoid making a copyright release of the logo which they use to identify themselves. I am not sure how different copyrightable elements of videos ought to be considered. If, for example, a corporate backdrop with the logo were shown in the background or on someone's t-shirt, then even if that were shown throughout the video, I think it would be considered de minimis and no one would expect that there was a copyright release of the logo. Works on Commons may include all sorts of copyrightable elements, and I am asking in this case whether and how Commons might host video that includes a non-free logo. I am imagining that this can be done on a de minimis rationale in which it is noted that the video is freely licensed, but not the logo within the video.
Is it, as you say, possible to communicate that the organization gives permission to show the logo in this video, but does not give general permission that the logo be remixed and reused elsewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You interpretation on de minimis is possible (it would certainly be the way this played out if the copyright holder of the video was not the copyright holder of the logo, and as such unable to license it). But I do not support adopting this interpretation. Generally speaking, if the copyright holder licenses something and does not explicitly single out any components, the work as a whole gets licensed (including derivative works they have the right to license that it may include).
The latter interpretation (to not allow remixing and reusing) is a licensing condition that is not compatible with the free licenses that Commons allows (COM:L), if it applies to the whole video. Because licenses are not revocable, I'm not going to entertain the thought if they could have singled out the logo as something they do not want to release under the license that the rest of the video is. Finnusertop (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I largely agree. I think the best solution would probably be to remove the final 5 seconds of video. Storkk (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:PD Iran etc.

Com:Licensing states that "uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." However, a random sampling of files in Category:PD Iran turned up not a single US copyright tag. This category has 5,972 members. Other countries' PD categories are perhaps not quite as bad, but are pretty bad nonetheless: a great many of the files in just about any given [[Category:PD-Name whatever country you like]] category lack US copyright tags. What to do? --Rrburke (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. has no copyright relations with Iran, so... there is no U.S. copyright for most/all of them. There are not many countries which have not joined Berne, but Iran is one of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The same problem exists to a lesser extent with Category:PD Canada, Category:PD India and a host of others. I randomly sampled 25 files from Category:PD Canada, a category with 21,235 members, and found that that only 7 included a PD-US tag. That's a failure rate of over 70%. Category:PD India, with 8,256 members, has a slightly better compliance rate of 40%, or 10 of the 25 sampled. Thoughts? --Rrburke (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Com:Licensing doesn't say the tag is required, just that the work must be in the public domain. Note that numerous PD items we have could theoretically be carpet bombed with tags, due to being in the public domain in 200+ countries, do we really want to require that? --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Com:Licensing says that " the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. ... The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag." I read that as saying that explanation for why it's PD in the US and the source country are needed, because that is the "license" that Commons requires for PD works. Most PD tags that don't cover the US explicitly mention the need for a US tag, and it has been fairly standard to have both.
The US and source nation are special to Commons, unlike the other 198+ nations. In practice, we could tag for all 200+ nations in a couple tags; in many cases, a PD-1923-100 tag would suffice, or a PD-1923-70 + PD-not-100, or PD-1923-50 + PD-not-50, or PD-US-non-renewed + PD-not-50-no-shorter-term-US, etc. So I deny that your slippery slope is relevant, or that the end would be that nasty. I'm not saying we should do it, but it would be convenient for all our reusers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I think having also a US tag was not common a few years ago, only after the URAA decision. There was no mentioning of the need on the tags until then. There is still documentation – or at least advice – saying nothing about the US tag. Understanding of US copyright is also non-existent among normal wikipedians (those who have not worked with these matters on Commons).
So the US tag missing should be no big surprise. Luckily many of these images are PD in the US. Most images that were PD 1996 (or whatever the URAA date) in the source country are PD also in USA. So the big problem are works the copyrights of which have expired in the last twenty years, mostly works of artists who died 1926–1945 and anonymous works created or published those years. They are many, but probably not the bulk of PD-X files.
--LPfi (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Some country-specific tags, such as {{PD-Australia}}, have a note indicating that a US public domain tag is also required. There is a {{PD-old-warning-text}} template that generates a message about the need to include US public domain tag. As mentioned previously, a work could be out of copyright in many countries, but the only two countries of significance to Commons are the US and the work's country of origin. If a work is of non-US origin, it would seem useful to include a US public domain tag in addition to a tag for the work's source country, particularly given that Commons is hosted in the US. --Gazebo (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Logos for COPS (the TV series)

For File:COPS.jpg the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and the "Own work" source seems questionable, but at the same time, it seems that the image might be below the US threshold of originality. Is the image a case of {{PD-textlogo}}? A second image, File:Logo of Cops (TV series).png is tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, even though the lettering has a metal-like shading/texture and the background has some striping or shading. Does this seem OK? --Gazebo (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

File:All India Trinamool Congress logo 2016.jpg

File is licensed under CC 4.0, but I'm not sure whether that can be assumed based upon the source given for the logo. Isn't content from Twitter accounts typically protected by copyright? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, stuff under a CC license is by definition copyrighted but still acceptable. I have to ask though where it says that the logo is CC licensed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if my OP was badly phrased, but that is exactly what I meant to ask. I am unable to find any indication that logo has been freely licensed on the Twitter page. Is something such as that needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, an explicit license at the source is needed. Otherwise, everyone could upload anything found on the Internet with a CC license. Other files in the category are suspect too: File:All India Trinamool Congress flag.svg, File:All India Trinamool Congress logo.svg. The party website says "All Rights Reserved", which would be the default, even if it didn't explicitly say so. --rimshottalk 06:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
What, if anything, should be done then? Tag with {{No permission since}}? {{Copyvio}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: The files should be deleted immediately, unless there is a reason to believe that they are free. @Mouryan:, you uploaded the files. Is there any reason to believe that these files have a Creative Commons license? You indicated that these files were free - did you find a copyright release somewhere? If so, where? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
All India Trinamool Congress recently unveiled its new Party logo with which it is to fight the West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, 2016. I only intended to upload that version on Wikipedia as I naturally felt doing so would be appropriate because the old logo of the Party is to fall out of use. I would urge this community to not delete the file straightaway as that would not serve any good purpose. Instead do kindly guide me on the proper licensing that I can apply for this image file which now has presence across all the online platforms/forums of the All India Trinamool Congress party including their Twitter, Facebook handles etc
Thank you -- Mouryan (cHiT-ChAt! - Contributions) 07:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mouryan. Are you able to provide the information about the licensing that Bluerasberry referred to above? Otherwise, it's kind of hard to tell how to properly license the image. The fact that the en:All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) uses the logo on its social media accounts does not automatically mean they have agreed to freely license it. A free license means that the copyright holder basically agrees to let anyone in the world use the logo for any puprose (including commercial) without needing to ask persmission to do so. Are you sure the AITC has agreed to do such a thing? If they have, then please provide a link which shows that they have or follow the steps in COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. If the free licensing cannnot be verified, then logo is likely to be deleted per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Mouryan The next step would be to get the head legal counsel for this political party to make a copyright release. It means you have to contact their top person, explain the situation, and get them to return a legal release by email. Either they can do that especially for Wikipedia, or maybe they already did this somewhere else. Very likely they would be doing this for Wikipedia first. The image has to be deleted for now. When you get the legal release, then it can be un-deleted. Un-deletion is no problem - they just return this form - Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:DD News Logo 2015.jpg

There's no evidence that the uploader is the original copyright holder, but I am wondering if this is simple enough for {{PD-Textlogo}}? It probably would be PD in the U.S., but not sure about India. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The above also applies to File:DD Metro 9 Gold Metro Gold Golden Hours Logo.jpg and File:DD News Logo 2004.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-Textlogo}} surely applies to File:DD News Logo 2015.jpg. I am less sure about File:DD News Logo 2004.jpg. Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sailko's pictures of artwork

Sailko seems to believe that images that they take of artwork are their own to license, as long as it includes more than just the art. I beg to differ, and Sailko also seems to believe that I should not notify them of the wrong license, "don't bother photographer who is uploading 1k of images". See the history of File:Pieter brueghel il giovane, il ritorno dal pellegrinaggio, 01.JPG & File:Pieter brueghel il giovane, il ritorno dal pellegrinaggio, 02.JPG for the discussions. Can someone help clarify the correct position here? Elisfkc (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sailko is an experienced user. Sure, the author-entry might be fine-tuned. However, as the filename and the description of both above listed files clearly mention Pieter Brueghel, there is Zero risk that someone thinks Sailko painted these paintings. Also, these images are very recent uploads. Please be patient. --Túrelio (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I have some fields filled authomatically by Upload wizard, I have to stay prudent because some images have the frame (not 2D), and I don't want them to be deleted. So if some images are freerer it's cool for me, just switch to any licence you think is correct, but please do not ask me to do that beacuse I am already getting mad with categories. Cheers --Sailko (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, as long as it;s obvious it's not yor own work and others are ok with it, I'm all good. Elisfkc (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

US city and state PD

Does California's state gov PD provisions {{PD-CAGov}} also apply to the work of city gov (File:Bill Bogaard.JPG)? czar 22:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is a work that was "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed law in California to extend copyright to CA state and local government works

In California, a bill (AB 2880) to allow copyrighting of California state and local government works has recently been approved. The EFF article mentions that the situation varies from state to state on the extent to which state and local governments claim copyright on works that they produce. However, in the case of works produced by the California state and local governments, copyright often does not apply. On Commons, the {{PD-CAGov}} template seems to indicate that many California government works are not copyrighted.

Techdirt wrote about the proposed law, stating that in their view, the idea is a bad one even though it may have been well-intentioned. (Around March 2016, the names of certain locations in Yosemite National Park were changed because a number of names, including "Curry Village" and "The Ahwahnee", were trademarked, with the trademarks being held by a private concessions company. Techdirt mentioned that the proposed bill would also allow the California state and local governments to claim trademarks, but that allowing such claims would not be a good solution to avoiding what happened with the Yosemite names.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sooo out of my depth here

I honestly don't understand 99% of what this wikimedia commons is or how to use it, or what is or is not copyrighted or the jargon involved in copyrights. I feel like I'm reading some strange alien language. All I know is the one document I uploaded is a PDF file of a land grant one of my ancestors received for his participation in the Mexican-American War. It was available on a government website "The US department of the interior Bureau of land management" it was relevant as a source citation on a Wiki article about "Claryville" in 1930 some "historian" made a mistake and told a story that was not true. That document verifies the true founder of that town's name as well as the true name of that town. I don't know how to work the wiki either as I have never made an edit before, it was very much out of my realm of knowledge. For that I am sorry but I have no clue how to talk to someone except the button I pushed that brought me here. Any help would be amazing to me on how to do this properly without breaking any kind of laws or infringing on anyone's rights. I just want the truth to be known about Claryville . Thank you kindly Awmanthisgirl

You're doing fine. I guess you are referring to notice on your talk page. My thought is that the person who left it was bothered that you had two license tags on the posting, or maybe that one of them was the PD-ineligible tag that gets misused a lot. I took that one off, you don't need it. Some people are fond of the canned tags, I suppose because they save time. I find it more helpful to just do the fix and leave an note explaining the situation.
Anyway, welcome to Commons (and I don't mean that sarcastically). Dankarl (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 :-) This is about File:MW Patent 1097-068.PDF, an 1847 US Government form. I added PD-USGov and PD-ineligible tags, as there really is no original authorship in there, and it's a US federal government work if not. (There was originally no tags on the page, which get automatically found and listed.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
With Carl's sanction I'll put it back.Dankarl (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Licensed fonts in images originating in the UK

Several files in Category:Gary Williams album covers include fonts the record label had to purchase licenses to use, since the UK extends copyright protection to typefaces. Do we need permission from the licensors for those files to be kept on Commons? --Rrburke (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so. Section 54:
It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work consisting of the design of a typeface—
(a)to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing,
(b)to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or
(c)to do anything in relation to material produced by such use;
and this is so notwithstanding that an article is used which is an infringing copy of the work.
Basically, it looks like UK typeface copyright protection is about preventing people from using a typeface to help produce another typeface. The restrictions are mostly around articles specifically designed or adapted for producing material in a particular typeface. If it's just a normal usage of a font, it doesn't look like there is a big issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

NATO media

Wikimedia received an email with an offer to provide a photo of Osman Olcay.

I explained that Wikimedia needs public domain or freely licensed photos and they explained that the source was a frame from a NATO produced interview. I don't know the status of media produced by NATO. Does anyone have experience with this and thoughts on whether it is worth pursuing?

(FYI for OTRS agents ticket:2016051610016272)--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • NATO is an alliance between different militaries. I believe the copyright status would depend on who exactly did take the photo - if the photo was taken by an employee of the US government as part of that employee's work, PD-USGov or something more specific would apply, for example.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Unless released under a free licence or produced by a US military employee as part of their duties, NATO media are non-free like any other creative work, so we need to know some more details from the uploader. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not guaranteed to map to this particular piece of media, but the nato library has this statement for instance: "Photo and video material is available to recognised members of the press and media and for educational purposes. Please note that NATO requires a credit mention should you make use of its images." source. So there is a good reason to presume that media is not free enough for us. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

US National Park Service Historic Register Documents

Greetings: I'd like an opinion on the copyright of "" which is the National Register application form for a historical district in California. The usual citation for this document includes "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form - November 29, 1993 Received National Register - Kathleen Stanton, Susie Van Kirk, Jeana Jahier." Also for this opinion, what is the copyright of any photographs appended to the application? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this policy, By allowing a photograph to be submitted as official documentation, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for print and electronic publication, and for other purposes, including but not limited to, duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audiovisual presentations. That implies that the NPS has a license, but would not imply anything for any other user. That probably does count as publication, so photos on submissions prior to 1989 might be PD-US-no_notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the opinion on the pictures, do you think it is the same for the text? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the best license to use with ? Other users have done {{Attribution}}, but shouldn't there be a template for the government of Taiwan? It's also not clear to me where the copyright statement allows for an attribution license. The file in question is File:President Ma Ying-jeou official portrait.png. czar 02:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like they require naming the "source", not necessarily the author, although moral rights probably require identifying the author anyways. It's not a CC license. It really should have its own tag where the conditions can be stated better. The Attribution tag is probably the closest we have, though a PD-because tag which mentions the Government Website Open Information license would be better failing a specific tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

FoP in Monaco

As far as I can see here there is no FoP for works of art in Monaco. However, French is not my native language. Could some people have a look at it before we add it to COM:FOP? At the moment there is nothing on Monaco there. Jcb (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Article 34 appears to cover FoP and is in the French document you linked to, but only for 50 years pma per their usual copyright term. Ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I looked at an English translation of the linked document that was generated via Google Translate. However, there does not appear to be any clear reference to freedom of panorama. Article 34 talks about Monaco's copyright law applying to works where the author or a co-author is a Monégasque national and also to works that were first published in Monaco. For works that do not fall in these two categories, Article 34 later mentions that such works can be copyrighted as specified in international agreements (i.e. copyright treaties.) If a work of applied art does not fall in the two specified categories (i.e. a work first published outside Monaco and whose author is not a Monégasque national), the work is copyrighted under Monacan copyright law to the same extent that it would be in its country of origin. Article 34 also talks about what constitutes publication (which seems to be similar to US copyright law.)
Articles 15 through 18 seem to be about limitations and exceptions to copyright. In particular, Article 16 talks about the publishing of material from literary or artistic works when the reproduction is an anthology or of a scientific or educational nature and the source of the preexisting material is indicated. However, there does not seem to be any mention of freedom of panorama or of reproduction of works that are publicly situated and permanently placed. Perhaps someone who can read French could look over the written law. (In the event that Monaco does not have freedom of panorama, it could still be useful to add a "no FOP" entry to COM:FOP for Monaco in order to clarify things for contributors.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:AT&T Globe Logo.png

Seems to be above the COM:TOO even for the US, but not sure. Source is given as Logopedia, but just because it was uploaded there does not mean it is freely licensed by AT&T, doees it? For reference, essentially the same globe design is being treated as non-free by English Wikipedia as en:File:DirecTVnew.png. If this ATT logo is acceptable as PD, then then non-free once can likely be converted to {{PD-text logo}} and moved to Commons. can't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody can give you a definitive answer here. Ruslik (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Mist Twst 12 Pack.jpeg and File:Mist TWST product lineup.jpeg

These two file seem to be photos of copyrighted product labels per COM:Packaging. The first file seems quite obviously non-free (at least to me) since the entire focus is on the packaging/label. The photo is also taken from Twitter so it's likely not automatic that the photo itself was freely licensed to begin with. A case for "de minimis" might be argued for the second one except it's not personal photo taken by uploader, but rather something that is said to come from the company's website which means the photo is not likely freely licensed to begin with. Moreover, the point of the company posting such a photo would be to specifically show its branding and product lineup not the utilitarian nature of the packaging, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Per the Ets-Hokin decision, the first one would not be OK, and the second one would -- provided there is a valid license on the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Carl Lindberg. What do you suggest be done regarding each image? Tag the first one as a "copyvio" and the second one as "no permission since". For reference, it looks like the second one comes from here. So, I'm not sure whether makes it a photo someone took or something they downloaded from the Internet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I would usually only use the copyvio tags for images lifted from the Internet. Derivative works are a complicated, non-obvious subject, and it can help to at least document the reason someone's work is being deleted, when often they took the photo themselves. So I would send the first to a regular DR (unless the photo is also taken from an Internet source, which is quite possible) and put a copyvio tag on the other. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please HELP! Huge discussion about the works of Creator:Peter Emilevich Bendel in particular and {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general

There's a huge discussion going on, in this | Undeletion Request, about the works of Creator:Peter Emilevich Bendel (stamps and postal cards) in particular and {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general.

I'm a beginner at Wikipedia and I've been writing an article about de:Peter Emiljewitsch Bendel. For completing it, I became a beginner at Commons for categorizing the images of his works, that already existed on Commons. For all of these, the template {{PD-RU-exempt}} is being used, just like for hundreds and thousands of similar instances of russian stamps and postal cards. In these cases, the creator line usually shows "soviet post" or "USSR post" or something like that.

I created the page Creator:Peter Emilevich Bendel and entered his name into the creator line of his works. If this is the problem, then I don't mind the creator line to be cleaned up.

Sadly, my actions seemed to trigger these deletion requests:

In my opinion, the deletion was done by mistake.
Please help and review this | Undeletion Request which resulted in a huge discussion about {{PD-RU-exempt}}.

Most of the discussion seems to go about {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general, so I think it's totally unfair to block P.E. Bendel's works, but keep similar files online. If {{PD-RU-exempt}} still applies, shouldn't it also be valid for Bendel's works? --ScriWi (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-RU-exempt}} for items that feature copyrighted work

This probably should cover not only {{PD-RU-exempt}}, but other post-Soviet templates such as {{PD-EE-exempt}}. Setting aside Bendel specifically, for a moment, and just discussing the copyright template, I think the most convincing case was made by Grebenkov (in [7] and [8]), where (please let me know if I am summarizing/paraphrasing incorrectly—I don't want to put words in your mouth) he suggested that the stamps documents are non-copyrighted, but that they may not be modified (e.g. by cropping to other copyrighted works). This does not seem to be a non-copyright restriction as we define them, since the underlying work is still copyrighted. This prohibition of modification and the fact that the underlying work is not "turned" Public Domain by being incorporated into a PD-RU-exempt work seem to make the template invalid as a commons-compatible copyright tag, in my opinion. That unfortunately would mean that many images will have to be examined for possible deletion. Storkk (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid a lot more files will have to be deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In his comments, Grebenkov claims that stamps are not 'in the public domain' but 'exempt from copyright'. The term 'public domain' is a legal concept in United States copyright law which does not always exist in other countries. This doesn't mean anything important for us; the main difference is that courts use slightly differently formulated legalese. For example, under Swedish law, it would seem more accurate to say that a work is 'exempt from copyright' than to say that it is 'in the public domain' if the copyright has expired, although the best formulation would be to say that the copyright has expired. I'm not sure if the comments are based on a confusion because of differences in the legalese in different countries.
The user also suggests that you only are able to use Russian stamps (and other things like state symbols, banknotes and laws) if it still looks like a stamp. If that is correct (I have no idea), then it would seem that such material isn't free content and that such material shouldn't be on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not that simple :) There is another provision in Russian Civil Code which effectively means that any rights that the original author of the project of official document or sign had initially, are terminated when such project is oficially accepted. In my opinion, this means if the image was created specifically for use on a stamp, we can use it without limitations. But that's only my opinion, and there are no court cases which even remotely touch that matter. There is also another conflicting opinion, but it does not take into account Art. 1264 of Civil Code so it's not very reliable. With stamps in question it's clear that Bendel made his works specifically for that stamps. But we talk about stamps that include other works of art, such as this stamp (in this case, the painting is PD, but there are many still-protected works), it gets more complicated. Art. 1264 is about the rights of creator of an overall design of a project of official sign (in this case A. Zharov). We cannot assume it voids the rights of another person too. We can only assume that the permission was given by copyright holder to use painting as a part of a stamp design, but not in any other way. In such case, we can use the image of a stamp in full, maybe in part (and maybe not, see above). But there are other copyright limitations that we must think of. For example, I take the high-res scan of a stamp, open it in Adobe Illustrator and proceed to 're-make' the original painting, essentially making a derivative work which I intend to distribute. Can I legally do this? Well, I certainly won't be doing it without consulting a very good lawyer who specialises in copyright cases. But there is real probability that he will say 'yes, you can do it'. Overall, we talk about thousands and thousands of images. Maybe we should escalate the matter to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team before taking decision to axe the stamps? --Grebenkov (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Something is "public domain" if it doesn't have any copyright. It doesn't need to be a legally-defined term. Works can be public domain if copyright has expired, if it wasn't eligible for copyright in the first place, or (if the law permits) the copyright holder has abandoned the copyright. It can also be country specific: a work can be public domain in one country but copyrighted in another. Commons requires it to be free in both the source country and the USA, which may be a problem for recent "exempt from copyright" works from Russia. Older ones would presumably be OK in the USA if they were originally published without a copyright statement, but may still be technically under copyright in other countries. --ghouston (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Would template {{Copyrighted free use}} be applicable in this case? --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if it is unclear whether unrestricted modification is allowed. Storkk (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's all unclear and senseless, as long as some admins doubt every argument in favor of the files.
Those admins will accept only a professional lawyer's exempt or the copyright owner's exempt from copyright.
I just wonder, why {{PD-RU-exempt}} existed for such a long time without anyone doubting it. There must have been some expertise that it's applicable, but it seems that this knowledge has been lost over time.
So, the only thing I learned from the disussion: It's all unclear. Delete the files. Delete them all.
I was asking for help, but apparently there won't be any help in this matter. --ScriWi (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. 'Exempt from copyright' is not 'in the public domain' (exempt is more free, you can even forget about author name, like strike the -BY postfix in Creative Commons Licenses).
  2. The Russian/Soviet stamps, postal cards (маркированный конверт/карточка, marked envelope/card) (not to be confused with postcard), and postmarks are official state signs of payment and exempt from copyright.
  3. The stamps, postal cards, and postmarks save their exempt-status until they have remain signs (for stamp - the obligatory elements of sign is denomination and country name). Authors (and copyright holders) of artistic works created for official Russian signs preserves their rights for such works outside signs.
  4. Departments of CBR (including Moscow and Perm Goznak factories, Moscow and Saint-Peterburg Mint) and Russian Post (including Marka Publishing) respondent for work with authors (both staff and out-of-staff), their heirs, and copyright holders are very careful since old Soviet days. There is no any significant case of civil action against them from authors, heirs, and copyright holders. All works for signs were created by job task, or by contract with author/heir/holder (in last case holder can offer own work for signs by itself - File:Valio PSE Russia 2006.jpg), or were PD.
  5. We can freely create from official Russian sings by upgrade methods (composition, inclusion, inversion, rotation, and etc.), but not by downgrade methods (crop).
    Does this prohibition violate definition of FCW? I don't think so. The 4th freedom of definition is freedom to make changes and improvements. The absolutization of definition (freedom to make any changes) will be disaster. If we want to deprecate free (free by legal cause with consent from author/heir/holder) (not only stamp) just because origin is not free (still not free), then... ohh. For example - we must deprecate photoworks created in term of FoP (because someone could not build similar building - that can be prohibition of 2nd freedom - freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it), we must deprecated PD Soviet animated films (because arts and characters from them are copyrighted separately by other term). And in worse case - we must to deprecated any PD work from Russia (PD under time matter), because all PD works in Russia have partial -ND-status and some kinds of are not possible without author/heir consent.
Alex Spade (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight, Alex Spade. Just addressing your point 5 for a moment... a "downgrade method" to you could easily be an "upgrade" method to me: What if I was researching the life of Artur Kapp and decided to publish a book about him. I would like a high-quality portrait of him on the cover. I see File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978.jpg, and note that someone has conveniently made File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978cropped.jpg... now all I have to do is clean it up (remove the unsightly "circle"-like printing artefacts) - since it's in the Public Domain, is this legal? Every step of the way has been an upgrade for my usage. Storkk (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978cropped.jpg is not PD-RU-exempt (it was obtained by downgrade method with deletion of all obligatory elements of sign), because it is indistinguishable from initial artwork, which was created for sign but which is not sign and copyrightable (can be copyrighted). I had successfully requested for deletion of such scraps several years ago, but then some commons sysops had decided for such cases that part of free sign is always free work despite clear contradictions with Russian jurist commentaries. I can understand why some sysops want to delete most of the Russian stamps and postal cards (we have not freedom to make any changes with such signs), but I can not understand, why some other sysops leave such clear violations. Alex Spade (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
If this type of remixing is not allowed, then I don't think the file is free enough for Commons. Prohibitions like this violate one of our central tenets. Storkk (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This strategy on Commons seems still confusing, if not chaos, for me. The template {{PD-RU-exempt}} was started in 2005 (if I found the correct date). The template explains all that and includes a warning that cropping is not ok. Is it common on Commons, to let people work with a template like this for 10 years, and then, suddenly, starting with Bendel's stamps, it's not ok any more? --ScriWi (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are cropping stamp - you do not make new work, you are just backing to original work. So remixing is not action with stamp, it is action with original.
    And as I said, stamp is not only example of free while original work(s) are not free - there are also photoworks created in term of FoP, Soviet films 1929-1946, pictures depicted fictional characters, low-resolution previews of paintings (several artists have licensed such previews under CC-licenses), and etc. Alex Spade (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    There is similar problem with drafts and sketches, for example final work can be published before author death, draft/sketch - after his death, and so these works have different time of copyright. Alex Spade (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Derivative works

I would like to upload a derivative works (Diagrammatic section across Sri Lanka) of w:Darashaw Nosherwan Wadia (Records of the Department of Mineralogy, Ceylon. Professional Paper No. 1. By D. N. Wadia. 4 to, pp. 38, with figures. Government Press, Colombo, 1943.). Can I use {{PD-Sri Lanka}} and is it suitable? --AntanO 05:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think this work is in public domain? Ruslik (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --AntanO 01:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this Russian metal band logo meet the criteria PD-textlogo? If yes, what about Iron Maiden logo? DartRaiden (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation icon

File:Playstation logo colour.svg Could use some opinions on this logo—does it pass the threshold of originality? Or is it close enough that we would make it fair use to be safe? czar 20:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It likely passes the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
For the US... not sure it would. It's two letters, and not sure the rest would qualify. I guess the argument would be on the arrangement... but it's just arranging two items, so not sure that would count either. No idea about Japan though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

FoP in a French amusement park

Hello everyone! Today, Elisfkc requested the deletion of many pictures from the Parc Astérix (a theme park in France) because there is no freedom of panorama in this country. Since the park is not a public area, I was wondering if there is a possibility to make pictures of the park allowed here on Commons if I get in touch with the park staff and they give a permission. I think that they own the copyright of all the structures within the park, so they probably will be ok.
So I want to know if there is a document or something that they can give me to officially allow pictures of their park on Commons.
I also know that I can upload my building photos on Wikipedia, but pictures made by the other people will be lost.
Thank you in advance for your help!

Obélus (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

From what one understands, if a copyrighted work is prominently depicted in a photo (beyond what would be de minimis) and freedom of panorama does not apply, then the copyright holder of the work has to license the depicted work under a free content license in order for the photo to be accepted on Commons. A license that allows the work to be used on Commons but not anywhere else is not sufficient. (As a side note, it can happen where the owner of a physical work (such as a sculpture) is not the copyright holder.) Assuming that a copyright holder is willing to license a work under a free license, one method is to have them send a declaration of consent to OTRS. More information is here. --Gazebo (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! You explained everything very clearly! Obélus (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fancyakitas's uploads

Fancyakitas has uploaded a bunch of files with the claim that they are their own work, but the EXIF data for them says this "Great Circle Mapper - Copyright (C) 1996-2016, Karl L. Swartz". Karl Swartz, the creator of a program that generated the images seems to have released the images under some kind of possibly free license. I don't see an license mentioned on that website, but it does give some MediaWiki markup that it says "would meet [the given] requirements" to "use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on Wikipedia". Is that enough for Commons to use them, or does the copyright holder have to explicitly release the images under a particular license? In any case, unless Fancyakitas is Karl Swartz, the "own work" claim is incorrect. What should be done about that? KSFT (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Libyan national anthem

Is the official recording of the old anthem broadcasted by the state TV sometime in the 1990s in public domain? Al-Douri (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of Pier Angeli photo

I came across an "original press photo" of Pier Angeli that I'd like someone to review for PD status. It is dated 1964, taken by MGM, lacks a copyright notice front or back, and includes an original typed description.

Some factors to consider:

  • From the explanation of how to identify original press photos from reproductions, which can be read here, it appears to meet all stated indications that this was original;
  • The sellers are professional dealers in mostly press photos with a 100% positive feedback rating from nearly 5,000 buyers that their photos were as described;
  • As noted here, with a source, according to the Library of Congress, only a few press photos were ever registered for copyright;
  • Based on U.S. requirements for copyright, described by Cornell Univ., it would be PD;
  • It should meet the basics of the Precautionary principle, and would not indicate there is "significant doubt" that it's a free image.

Thanks for any feedback. --Light show (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Responding to the "factors to consider"
  1. Those instructions require examination of the physical copy, which we can't do, so that doesn't help.
  2. It may well not be a modern fake, but doesn't mean it's not an old wire photo, or old copy made by someone other than the copyright owner, etc. Not relevant to the copyright determination.
  3. Registration is only required for copyright renewals, which were only required for pre-1964 publications. So 1), that fact is irrelevant for a claim of PD-US-no_notice, which is what you claiming, and 2) we don't simply hope on that basis anyways. So, that factor is not relevant.
  4. PD status is the question you are trying to answer. Under what criteria do you believe this became PD, using that chart? Please list out what facts lead to that conclusion. Simply stating "this is PD" is not evidence.
  5. If you don't think there are any doubts, you aren't playing devil's advocate very hard. Whether they rise to significant doubts... probably borderline and subject to debate. You should list the doubts which do exist and explain why you think they aren't significant.
You are claiming that this particular copy was distributed from the author (with permission) to another entity (thus qualifying the work for general publication) and had no copyright notice on it at the time. So, you need to present evidence of those factors. The best evidence is when it is obvious we are looking at the entire original, and that there are dated markings from two unrelated, named companies, one of which is the copyright owner, to demonstrate that this copy in particular was distributed. This one doesn't have all that, but has some. So, ask other questions:
Are we looking at the entire original? If not, someone may have cropped out the part with the copyright notice. In this case... it's hard to say for sure.
Do we know this copy was distributed by the copyright owner? If this was a private copy made by MGM, and stored there for many years, then lack of notice on this copy is meaningless. Likewise if it was a wire photo or something printed locally at a news organization, and kept by them privately, then again lack of notice on this copy does not mean anything as it pertains to the copyright status. The front does have written mention of MGM, and the back has a date and a marking which might indicate it was a news service, but it is not named. I think it would be rare that the handwritten note would be on a regular, distributed publicity photo -- normally that would be cropped. It could have been distributed to news organizations possibly, but there is no record of where this photo came from, from what I can see. We have to guess. It would seem to indicate that the copyright owner was MGM, and if you assume the stuff on the back was from someone other than MGM, then that might be enough evidence to show distribution. But if a news organization made a copy from another source, which had a copyright notice, under the defense of fair use -- again, it would not necessarily be PD.
Given the date on the back (1964), it would seem to indicate that the photo was at least published. It would also seem, though without slam-dunk evidence, that someone other than MGM did have this copy back then. But it's also possible we are looking at a crop, and it's possible it was a private copy. Secondly, as a 1964 work, we can't claim lack of copyright renewal if we are wrong about the copyright notice (as registration/renewal was never required for this photo to keep its copyright). If uploaded, it's the type of image I wouldn't mark for deletion myself, but also the type where I wouldn't argue to keep it either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's likely this is just one of the many hundreds of headshot publicity photos of her, this one by MGM, and that the added typed description on the back was used to tie it to some published story somewhere. Your comment that "it would seem to indicate that the copyright owner was MGM" would go against the generally accepted legal opinion about publicity photos, namely that they "have traditionally not been copyrighted." And for obvious reasons, copyrighting a publicity photo would defeat their intended purpose: "to remain free for publications to use wherever possible."
Your focus on proving who, what, where, when, or how it was distributed seems unnecessary, since publication is the only thing required, and you agree it was published. I can't reply to the "what if" cropping questions for a listed "original" photo, as the seller implies it is a complete image. The chart says that if it was published between 1923 and 1977 w/o a notice, it's PD. In addition, registration was required by any claimed owner before they could claim infringement for damages. The notice simply acts as a "notice" of intent to copyright, which only gave 5-year common law protection. --Light show (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a copyright owner at one point -- it may be that the copyright has been lost, but there was still a copyright owner. A copy illegally published by a third party without notice would not affect the copyright, which is why it's important -- you have to show that the copyright owner abandoned the copyright via lack of notice (or licensed it to someone who did). As for the rest, no, publication alone is not enough. You are trying to prove publication without notice. A copy that was never distributed does not prove that -- you can only show that on the actual copies which were published that there was no notice. Was this particular copy published (which usually means distributed)? If you can't show that, then you haven't shown that publication without notice happened, since this copy is the only "no notice" evidence you have. If some copies were published with notice, and other copies without notice were never published, then copyright still exists. You need to show both aspects in the same copy. Copyright does not defeat publicity photos at all -- you just grant a license for them for editorial purposes, which would be implied for publicity photos (and still works today, when copyright is never lost). All the CC-BY etc. images we have here are still copyrighted. Yes, registration was required in order to file a lawsuit, but you are claiming that copyright was flat-out lost. Lack of registration has nothing to do with that. You can still commit infringement; the owner can then register the copyright and then sue -- you're still guilty (though damages would be less). For your last sentence, no, that is completely wrong. Common-law copyright ended upon publication; if there was a copyright notice on all (or at least most) of your copies you then got copyright for 28 years, renewable to 56 and eventually 75. The notice serviced to preserve copyright -- it was all you needed for 28 years. And for 1964+ works, it's all you have ever needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Photography of live screens at events

Could people who know more about this please weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lily Allen gig Nottingham 2009 MMB 33.jpg. I was under the impression that taking photos of a screen at a concert/event which was showing an unadulterated live image was not a copyright violation per our rules. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • As well as for live television I don't think it is exempted of copyright, just because the screen is placed near the event. Some broadcast live regarding sport are also displayed on giant screen near/in sport venues, I don't think they are free too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping for ‎~riley at their request. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In some cases where the screen is only a minor background part, Commons:De minimis might apply. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ephemeral works don't get copyright, at least in the US. But this is the 21st century; if that screen wasn't being stored on a hard drive or some other permanent media, I'll eat my hat. I think we have to assume that all such screens are being recorded and are copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Flickr images from the Latvian parliament

There are over 9,000 images on Wikimedia commons that were transferred from the Flickr account of the Latvian Saeima (parliament) that are indicated on Flickr as having a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. However, at some point in the last few years, this account started including a link to in their image descriptions and updated their profile to include similar text to that page. When translated, that page says (in part) "Pictures and video material which are . . . uploaded on the official picture account of the Saeima on . . . are the property of the Saeima Chancellery and are subject to the Copyright Law." "Audiovisual material can be copied, reproduced, published, stored, archived, and distributed without consent of the right-holder if it is done for informative, educational or research purposes, for analytical reviews or for news releases . . . the material cannot be used for commercial advertising purposes." "Disregarding these regulations will be considered a violation of copyright and property rights." That last sentence seems to indicate that this isn't a non-copyright restriction.

Clearly, despite being uploaded to Flickr as CC BY-SA 2.0, the inclusion of this link in the description indicates a clear intent to license the image under something like CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 instead. I understand that legally, if the content is dual-licensed, the less restrictive license usually prevails, and that once these images were released under CC BY-SA 2.0 that license is irrevocable. However, in this case, where the file description made the intent clear, should we give the Latvian Saeima the benefit of the doubt honor the intent of the license and not host these images? There are approximately 2,200 images affected by this.

Perhaps someone with a better grasp of the Latvian language can contact the email address at that link for clarification (and/or arrange for an OTRS ticket). --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not give any benefit of doubt to official uploads from a government owned account. As they are the government they have access to the professional legal advise and have a responsibility to ask for it if necessary. They are not a clueless person who inadvertently has released their images. Ruslik (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sureshpandey tagging scanned photos as "own work"

User:Sureshpandey has uploaded a number of images of Indian politicians from the same family (list of uploads); at en.wikipedia the user states that he is working on behalf of the family and has been given access to photo albums. The photo uploads are scans of the photos in those albums, according to what he says here.

I know that Commons has a different ruleset from, but I'm reasonably convinced that he cannot tag the images as "own", which he has continued to do. He also cannot claim to be the copyright holder, unless I'm completely mistaken. However, what I don't know is whether the images need to be deleted or if there is an applicable licence for them. For the most part I think they are of people who are no longer living, so it might not be possible to get a free equivalent of e.g. - but the fact remains that there is a photographer who is not credited and who owns the copyright (that particular image is tagged as being from 2001 so it's certainly not out of copyright, and it looks like an official portrait type photo).

The user is not very communicative and did not take the advice they got in February seriously (per the talk page link above), and since I am not sure of what the Commons copyright/licencing policies are when it comes to photos scanned from an album I wanted to raise the discussion here. Thanks, --Bonadea (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I tagged all the files they uploaded (except two which are taken with a Nikon camera) with "no permission". They need to ask the copyright holder (not Sureshpandey) to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the copyright holder irrevocably agree to release their files under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Poké95 08:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply and action! --Bonadea (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 02:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Эта карта свободна? - какая лицензия у карт на основе этого видео из статьи? В чате админов пишут, что вроде работы НАСА под свободной лицензией, но в этой карте могут быть работы других ученых. Что думают участники форума? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The credit line begins with NASA/... , which means that it is a NASA work and is in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
A license which write? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-NASA}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 02:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Himachal Pradesh University Logo.png

This file is freely licensed and is sourced to Photoshop, but it can be seen used at, and Does using Photoshop to create a version of what looks to be a non-free logo equate to some sort of transfer of copyright? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: 99% sure that, yes, copyright does apply, because it is a derivative work at best, and at worst, is a simple recreation of the copyrighted material, which is also a copyright violation. --Elisfkc (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the repsonse Elisfkc. Do you have any suggestions as to what should be done in a case like this? Tag with {{No permission since}} or {{Copyvio}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer {{Logo}}. Elisfkc (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot about that template. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 02:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the owner of a picture I take of someone?

Hello: I'm editing an article in Wikipedia of a known living writer. The article doesn’t have a picture of the writer and there are no pictures of her available at Wikimedia Commons. If I take a picture of her (with her permission), in order to upload it to Commons and use it for this article, who owns this picture? the writer or me? In other words, if I try to upload it to Commons, in the upload wizard, should I upload it as my own work on not? If I upload it as not my own work, it will ask for a license. What would be the most practical way to do this? And a related question: If I’m writing an article about a celebrity, or a musician, who doesn’t have a picture available at Commons, and I take a picture of him/her in a public place, who owns this picture? Do I have the right to upload it to Commons? Thanks a lot for your help. Garai0316 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • If you are the photographer, you own the copyright to the photo, unless you did take the photo for hire or it includes someone else's copyrighted work as well (e.g a painting).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. Garai0316 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 02:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Is the licensing for this image correct? There's a non-free version of the same file being used on English Wikipedia as en:File:Real-housewives-of-new-jersey-logo.png. If this can be freely licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}, then the non-free version can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It may be so, but it is my subjective opinion. Ruslik (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Above TOO IMHO. DR started. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Please continue discussion on the DR. Poké95 02:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Dwekh Nawsha Militia.jpg

File has been tagged with {{PD-author}} aand a link is provided to the group's Facebook page, but I am unable to find anything there that which says that this logo has been freely licensed. The logo can be seen here and here as well as in some other posts, but there is no mention of it being freely licensed. This Facebook post even seems to indicate that the group is protective of its intellectual property, but if it is capable for putting out statements such as that, then it surely is capable of clearly stating that it has freely licensed it's logo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the copyright owner is Dwekh Nawsha Militia. More likely the copyright is owned by a person – the logo's author. Ruslik (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ruslik0. I think that the uploader might possibly be confusing "free license" with "freely available on the Internet". I don't see how the organization can freely license the image if it is not the copyright holder and I don't see any indication that it has freely licensed the logo if it is. Maybe this needs to be treated as a non-free logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
DR started. Maybe someone comes forward with a good source. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Please continue discussion on the DR. Poké95 02:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I need help. Valencian Museum of Ethnology WiR.

Hi. I', the WiR in the Valencian Museum of Ethnology. They have a great interest in releasing images of their collection, made by their personnel. They have a huge image where they illustrate the wide type of objects that can be used in an ethnological collection. The infography is shown in two sides, divided by a diagonal. In the right side are the "classical" objects of an Ethnological collection, while at the left side are represented "modern" ethnological objects. About the right side I find no mayor problem, the open request of opinions is about the left-inferior side of the diagonal. In this side are depicted a lot of industrial objects from the early 1900 until this date, with some publicity images from this dates. There some some images that will be obviously deleted (Massiel's screenshot in tv, being a derivate-work of the Eurovision broadcasting; also the Naranjito and Pumby characters) but there are some questions for me: shall We delete any other objects from this picture?

  • I believe that the Macintosh 128K and other industrials objects are ok. If We can have photos in Commons, We can have drawings.
  • I believe that other derivative works (Cola cao can with drawings, the Pong cartridge in the SNES, ...) are de minimins. Couldn't be?

All sugestions are welcome. The uploaded file could have the very same resolution as the pinterest image or could have a better resolution.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Some countries protect industrial design / applied art through copyright; Spain does not appear to be one of them, so those should be fine. Stefan2 did recently mention a case U2009.875Ø in a Danish court, which ruled a photo of a statue which was part of a collage did not result in the collage being a derivative work. Not entirely sure the same is true in Spain (and I haven't seen the ruling either), but it's possible -- if so, all of it should be OK. It's hard to rule that anything is "incidental" (the wording in the EU copyright directive) since they were all intentionally included by the artist, but they could still be de minimis. The Eurovision one is likely the most problematic if not, and the characters you mention. Perhaps the old photos if they are still under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. We'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of works by US citizens that are anonymous?

And which template to use? I.e. what is the US equivalent of Template:PD-anon-70-EU? If you respond here please ping me back. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: U.S. copyright before 1978 was based on publication date, not lives of authors, so the distinction didn't matter. However, copyright would have also required a copyright renewal, so it was more difficult to remain anonymous (though an agent could renew on behalf of a pseudonymous author). In short though, no real difference for anonymous works, so {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, etc., as normal. For works published since 2003, the anonymous term is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. {{PD-US-unpublished}} can apply to a few works. See Commons:Hirtle chart. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Educational logos

Just wanted to know if educational (Over 150 years) logos are public domain. Because when trying to upload the logo of mi high school the page haunts me with "Did you create the image entirely yourself?" which I have obviously not. So my doubt is, is it Creative Commons? Juanksape (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any image, which is over 150 years old, is likely to be in public domain. Can you be more specific? Ruslik (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Tre mason 2014.jpg

So, File:Tre mason 2014.jpg is sourced from Flickr. On Flickr, it is licensed as All Rights Reserved. However, the Flickr account seems to be the account of a US Army base, which, if the image "is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" would make it PD-USArmy. However, I cannot find the image in the DVIDS database, which usually would have such media. So, is the image a copyright violation, or is it public domain? Elisfkc (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I see you marked the file as All Rights Reserved. Just wanted to make sure you saw this first. Elisfkc (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not that clear if those images are part of "official duties" - there no text anywhere on that Flickr account to confirm/deny it. Probably best to err on the side of caution, as the Flickr page has an explicit "All Rights Reserved". Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Inheritance of copyright

I'm way out of my depth at this DR. Could somebody who understands the law of inheritance as it relates to copyright pitch in there? We have a good photo but whether the deceased photographer's sister has the authority to license his work under the particular circumstances is not a question I am competent to answer. BethNaught (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied there, but I'll add it here too. Copyrights can be inherited yes like any other property -- and they would be subject to terms in wills, etc. Personally, it's an area I don't like to wade into much -- if one of the co-owner heirs wants to license a photo here, I'd be inclined to just accept it, unless another family member opposes it. Part of U.S. copyright law is that any co-owner can license a work non-exclusively without the permission of other co-owners -- but while a free license is technically non-exclusive, the effects are pretty extensive, and I could see that type of license might be ruled differently by a court to require all co-owners. But I don't think there has been an actual test of that in court, and the statutory language might still rule. So... feels best to me that for family photos, we accept a license from any co-owner. Seems a bit over-the-top to require OTRS from all of them. If another member of the family (co-owner) asks for deletion (which I'm guessing would be rare) then I'd probably delete, and let the family sort it out. That approach would likely minimize uploading friction and administrator time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Eva Marie Saint publicity photo

Would this publicity photo of Eva Marie Saint be acceptable as PD? It's an obvious publicity photo created by her agency for distribution to studios and fans, and used for giving autographs. The reverse is blank. It would appear to meet the Precautionary principle. A similarly autographed photo is this one, which is clearer and preferred. --Light show (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

When and where was this photo published? Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Publication of publicity photos takes place when they are first made available to the public. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public.”definition. See also film still. --Light show (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
That definition is for 1978 and later. The question is when did it occur. What PD license are you claiming? {{PD-US-no notice}} requires publication before 1978. The only other tag is {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Which one applies, and why? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
To be safe, the 2nd image would be clearer, since it was likely taken in the mid 1950s. The listing actually shows the entire front margin but it's hard to make out. I could get the seller to show the reverse. The seller, a professional dealer, states it is an "authentic hand signed vintage glossy photo. --Light show (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Was it signed in the 1950s? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not dated. From "film still" article: "Beyond basic publicity purposes, film stills were given to the actors themselves to send, signed or unsigned, to their fans and fan clubs. At various special events, stars might bring along a stack of these studio photos to sign in the presence of admirers, much like book signings by authors today." --Light show (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it a virtual certainty this was signed before 1989? Or could it have been manufactured and signed later? That is your real question. Without evidence of this copy being distributed before 1989, then there is no way to prove the lack of copyright notice affected the copyright. The fact it was signed, OK, it was published at least at that point, but we need to demonstrate that copies were published without notice before 1989. If this was a modern reproduction of an old photo and signed only recently, lack of notice on this copy would not be meaningful. At least some of her publicity photos have been copyrighted, like here (and that one is still under copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

New Texas textbook is using images under CC-BY-SA; textbook licensing unclear

It appears that this new textbook up for review has lifted a lot of images off of Wikimedia Commons. For example, here's a page from their attribution section. (There's three more pages that are more or less the same.) Parentheses are my comments.

  • “Aztec Dance Look” by Jorge Gonzalez is licensed under CC BY- SA 2.0 (Direct from Flickr)
  • “Peopling of America through Beringia” by Roblespepe is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (Direct from Commons)
  • “Copán Ballcourt” by Adalberto Hernandez Vega is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by Simon Burchell)
  • “Teotihuacan Feathered Serpent” by Jami Dwyer is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by Madman2001)
  • “Tikal Structure 5C-49, Talud-Tablero Temple” by Steven Newton is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by Simon Burchell)
  • “Maya civilization location map” by Simon Burchell is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (From Commons)
  • “Amazon slash and burn agriculture” by Matt Zimmerman is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by M Tracy Hunter)
  • “Kukulcan, Chichén Itzá” by Kyle Simourd is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by CrazyPhunk)
  • “Cast of Maya maize god statue” by Geni is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (Direct from Commons)
  • “Mayan Zodiac Circle” by theilr is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by Flickr upload bot)
  • “Tula archeological site” by Russ Bowling is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by JotaCartas)
  • “Golden-headed Quetzal” by Lip Kee is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (From Flickr, hosted on Commons, uploaded by Helmy olved)
  • “Nopalera en Xochimilco” by Emmanuel Eslava is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (Direct from Commons)
  • “Mexican flag” by Ashwini biradar is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (Direct from Commons) (I'm not entirely sure why they included a license. Flags are public domain.)
  • “Peru Caral” by Hokan Svensson Xauxa is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (Direct from Commons)

My concern isn't with the use of images per se, but with the fact that they don't appear to be following the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. The copyright page at the beginning of the book states:

Copyright Year: 2016

Nothing else. Which means that this work appears to be licensed as "All Rights Reserved." This is obviously against the terms of the license; thoughts? Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything too problematic. I would hope that a textbook publisher would dot their i's and cross their t's a little better, but they mention the license and have proper attribution. They should have a link to the license, but that's largely a technical violation. That they have a copyright notice doesn't obscure the licenses on the works at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes. You don't need to mention the copyright year for each and every piece of a derivative work (which this book is as it includes the images in question) as long as you atrtibute the individual authors and licences. That said, even if there were copyright infrigements in terms of reuse, it wouldn't be an issue of Commons or Wikimedia to deal with but the authors would have to claim their rights individually. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that, if they would have taken an image and changed the colors and such, they would be required to publish that image and that image alone under the CC-BY-SA license. Since they mention the CC-BY-SA & CC-BY licenses, they are basically saying that the book is copyrighted, excluding the images mentioned. If, however, these images had been licensed under a CC-BY-NC license of any type, then there would be big problems. Does that make sense? Elisfkc (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Bit of confusion on my part regarding the nature of the "SA." I'm not sure how the images can possibly be licensed separately from the book, though. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
In the very same way that e.g. an article on Wikipedia that contains images from Wikimedia Commons with another license has different licenses for the text and for the images. We do it all the time. Finnusertop (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. Never mind then. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

TOO question

What is the treshold of originality for coloured text under UK law, as on File:Associated British Foods Logo.svg? I am processing "shadowing" files on enwiki and thus need to know whether the license on en:File:Associated British Foods Logo.svg is accurate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This coloring is trivial, in my opinion. It is unlikely to be above the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fabyan17 uploads

File:VicenteSantos-Vanguard5.jpg, File:VicenteSantos-Vanguard6.jpg, File:VicenteSantos2.jpg, File:VicenteSantos1.jpg and File:South Crest School Batch 2001 - Fabian Santos.jpg are all licensed as own work of the uploader Fabyan17. Some of these photos seem much older than their metadata indiates, and the class photo seems to have a watermark on it. It's possible that the older photos are family photos which were just simply rephotographed. Is OTRS verification needed for photos such as these? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Per COM:PRP, I tagged all their files as "no permission". Those 1966 photos may be copyrighted until 2017, but we don't know because the month is not given. And the 2001 photo, is clearly copyrighted until 2052, so we need OTRS permission from the photographer (not Fabyan17). The same too with the 2015 photo. Poké95 02:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Vicente Santos has a son named Fabian T. Santos -- and that is the name on the class photo. A couple of the others are obvious family photos that only a family member would have access to. That same user seems to have created a lot of the content on the Wiki article. Given that the photos were not on the internet to begin with, I don't think they qualify for speedy deletion. Seems overwhelmingly likely it is a family member, and probably the son. I am a bit suspicious of the class photo, and the public speaking one, but... not sure they are on the internet either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to note, I removed all the "no permission" tags on those images after a discussion with Fabyan17. No email was sent to the OTRS. Thanks, Poké95 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Missing author and therefore wrong license. I somehow doubt that he as the son took the photographs of the marriage and those 3 years earlier. :-) Some cleanup by the uploader should do the trick. I left a msg on his talk page. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:World of Disney (5310011053).jpg & de minimis

Does File:World of Disney (5310011053).jpg qualify as de minimis because of Stitch being a larger part of the World Of Disney store entrance, or is this a copyright violation? --Elisfkc (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Bump to keep from archiving. Elisfkc (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
IMHO copyvio. There's no FOP for sculptures in the USA. I don't think we can claim that Stitch is a part of the building. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: what about this picture, File:World of Disney (2307573262).jpg? Elisfkc (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, could one avoid the figurines? Probably not. I'd say it's borderline OK. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: no, I don't think the figurines could be avoided. Elisfkc (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
To me, the second one is definitely OK, the first one borderline. It's a matter if you think the photo is focusing on the character, or a larger subject. As the Ets-Hokin decision said, a photo of a bottle is not derivative of the label on the bottle, even if prominent -- you'd have to be focusing on the label for it to become derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A guide to Korean copyright

I created User:Piotrus/KoreaCopyright to try to explain which tags to use for images that may be in public domain. I also concluded that "Works by identified South Korean authors who died before 1957". I am however somewhat confused by Template:PD-South Korea which contains dates 1963 and 1976. The 1963 seems to be a restriction, but to what? And the 1976 seems to be an exception. What are their sources? If someone knows how to interpret those dates better, please feel free to adjust my guide. Also, I couldn't find anything about the status of anonymous works, i.e. ones where the author cannot be identified. This is covered by Template:PD-anon-70-EU for EU.

The above guide, in addition to being helpful to wikimedians, is also intended to answer a question posed by my Korean students: "can I upload this historical image to Commons?" I am currently convinced I can tell them "if the author died before 1957, you can". Do let me know if I should modify my lesson.

PS. If you reply here, please do ping me back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Piotrus Is Poland a typo? Random86 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Random86 Yes, I based this on my User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright and I guess I missed that one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Korea extended copyright from 30 to 50 years in 1986 or 1987, non-retroactively. Is that where the 1957 date came from? Then, in a 2011 law, they non-retroactively extended from 50 to 70 years. That law said it went into effect when the US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement went into effect, which was March 2012, though a wipolex document has certain sections being effective from various dates in 2013. If it was 2013, then the 1963 date makes sense -- anything which had expired by then, which would be death before 1963, would remain PD. It possibly should be 1962, if the effective date of the changes was 2012, but there are some specific term-related articles which do have an effective date in 2013 instead.
As for 1976... it looks like the 1957 law, article 35(1), said "Copyright in a photograph shall last for ten years". So... if the law which went into effect in 1987 was not retroactive, that means that photographs from 1976 and earlier (i.e. before 1977) expired and have never been restored. So, for photographs, that is one area where the 1957 law can still have some effect. I think that is what the tag is trying to say (though of course if the photos are derivative of a sculpture or something, the sculpture's copyright would last longer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, there. I agree with the opinion of Carl Lindberg. At first, I made some fix at "Template:PD-South Korea" based on Copyright law 1957 of South Korea. HappyMidnight (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I will also ping people involved in the discussions on the PD-Korea template: User:Adam Cuerden, User:トトト, User:HappyMidnight, User:Martin H., User:Hyolee2, User:84user and User:-revi. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, (ps. link is in Korean)

  • Copyright act (No. 432, 1957-01-28) article 30 says "Published works' copyright remains for copyright owner's life and 30 years after death". (If multiple author, 30 years after last author's death.)
    • However, article 35 says "Copyright of photography remains for 10 years from the next year of the photography's publish." (article 36 gives an exception for article 35 — if the photography's sole purpose is artistic or scholastic it is 30 years not 10 years.)
  • Copyright act (No. 3916, 1987-07-01) article 36 says "Published works' copyright remains for copyright owner's life and 50 years after death". (Same here)
  • Copyright act (No. 10807, 2013-07-01) article 39 says "Published works' copyright remains for copyright owner's life and 70 years after death". (ditto.)

Hope this clears everything. — regards, Revi 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do see that Article 36 (in the Google Books source I found) says Copyright in a photograph inserted in a work of literature or science, and which is produced or is ordered to be made especially for such work, shall belong to the author of the work of literature or science in question and last for the same period as the copyright in the latter. So it sounds like photographs made specifically for books or scientific articles would last much longer, using the pma-based terms. It's possible that Article 36 was changed at some point, as well as Article 35, as the Google Books source does not mention publication. It is an English translation, so maybe something was lost, but the Article 36 texts do seem very different between the sources, suggesting an amendment at some point. This was a compilation of laws from 1998, which I think listed both the 1986 and 1957 laws, so it may have been a version "up to" a particular, later date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No amendment was made during 1957 and 1987. That clause (photograph's copyright retains for 10 years) was removed with 1987 amendment. — regards, Revi 04:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The Google Translate of the links you gave is pretty rough, but I can see where the official or semi-official English translation I found matches up to those links, so it looks like the English source is accurate. Article 35 seems ambiguous if it was 10 years from publication or creation. Article 36 does seem to say that photos made specially for a larger work like a book or scientific article are basically part of that work and get that work's protection (which was 30pma). It does seem like unpublished works kept their copyright indefinitely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Basically all protection starts with publication. — regards, Revi 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but what about anonymous works? And related groups? Works which were never published? Etc.? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous work - 30 years after publish. Unpublished - there is no mention about it. (1957)
Anonymous work - 50 years after publish. (If real identity is known during anon work protection, it would be protected as natural human. Unpublished - no mention about it either.
I don't get what 'related group' means. — regards, Revi 04:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, by other groups I meant primarily the "never published" (or "never made public"). In other words, if the law says "Published works' copyright remains", what about "unpublished works"? For example, if someone had some photos in the family archive that are pre-1977, but that were never published anywhere, and puts them on the Internet (thus making it available to the public for the first time), does that mean they got published then? Are they PD or are they copyrighted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I'm contacting lawyers to clarify that. — regards, Revi 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, User:-revi I'll be looking forward to hearing what they say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. So [9] this presumably anonymous-author picture from 1931, republished in the 1995 Korean newspaper, is PD and can be migrated to Commons, yes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

  • If a work was first published in the Government-General of Korea, then is the source country Japan, South Korea or North Korea? How do you identify the correct source country? The three countries had different public domain rules on the "date of restoration" and also different dates of restoration (Japan+South Korea: 1 January 1996, North Korea: 28 April 2003). Is Japan maybe the source country if the work was first published while Korea was a Japanese colony? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)