Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/09

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.

Contents

Appropriate copyright tag for audio pronunciations

I’m unsure about which license to use for speech output generated with MBROLA and eSpeak. Which copyright tag is suitable for my audio pronunciations? Latisc (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

For MBROLA it is en:AGPLv3 or en:GPLv3. For eSpeak it is only GPLv3. Ruslik (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure the source code license pertains to the output. Normally an algorithmic alteration of an input would carry the same license as the input itself. But I don't know enough of that field to know if anything copyrightable (i.e. a portion of something created by a human and already existing in the source) is added to the output along the way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The voice databases likely come with the same license. Ruslik (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Epicenter.gg Media

Hi all. What do you think about the "About" section of this media bank, epicenter.gg ? It states "Photos published online in the public domain, can be used in magazines and newspapers, on TV channels and radio stations exclusively with reference to the "official photo bank" and the sites and pages on the Internet (including groups in social networks, websites and media pages) - can only be used with a hyperlink". This wording is pretty vague, do you guys think these images could be seen Wiki-usable in any way? Could someone fluent in Russian perhaps check the original version, to see if the wording is any clearer? The most notable esports wiki Liquipedia seems to interpret this license to be valid for Wiki-like use. Example. --Kissa21782 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably say no. The most important part is the restriction to only "magazines, newspapers, TV channels, radio stations" and Internet sites/pages. Can you use an image on a T-shirt or postcard? If no, it's not "free", so does not conform to Commons:Licensing. The "published online in the public domain" seems like an odd translation, so would need clarification there -- obviously if something is already public domain copyright-wise it's OK, but they probably mean something else by that. But the restrictions on where works can be used seem pretty explicit even through translation, and too much to be "free", even though the general spirit does approach something similar to CC-BY. It's definitely a good resource for blogs and stuff elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Right, that's about what I figured as well. Thanks for the response. --Kissa21782 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Collage of Washington Star Advertisements 1935.png

Can Commons keep this file as licensed? The original source of these clippings is not the en:Library of Congress, but rather en:The Washington Star, isn’t it? Moreover, I think these are PD simply because the paper no longer exists. The way the clippings are combined together might make the file a COM:DW, but the copyright status of the clippings themselves still needs to be accounted for, doesn’t it? —- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing becomes PD only because the company does not exist anymore. Ruslik (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Ruslik0. Yes, I agree; however, this particular uploader seems to be using "no longer exists" to justify (at least partly) that content from The Washington Star is PD. See File:Black Tells of $5 million Lobby - Washington Evening Star - August 9, 1935.png for another example of this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No; I would use {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this Clindberg. I thought that might be a possibility, but couldn't figure out how to verify that there was actually no copyright notice, particularly since this is a collage of multiple files. Moreover, the uploader seems to be using the same justification for some of their other uploads such as File:1927 12-18 WES Walsh Resolution calling for utility industry probe.png, File:Black Tells of $5 million Lobby - Washington Evening Star - August 9, 1935.png and File:Washington Evening Star Wheeler-Rayburn Bill Death Sentence Comic 7-3 1935.png are also PD, but neither the L of C or the US government seem to be the original creator of such content. The files might be found on the L of C's website, but I don't believe that automatically makes them PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
If there was no notice on the advertisement, it was PD-US-no_notice, and I didn't see any on the image. The evidence would be in the ad itself. If the Library of Congress is putting that stuff out, it's probably PD, but we just need to find a better reason. For one example, no daily newspapers outside of New York were renewed prior to WWII. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but there's virtually no chance any of this stuff is in copyright in the US. The Washington Star as a whole wasn't renewed, and it's highly unlikely any of these peaces were renewed individually.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That might be true Prosfilaes, but I don't think {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} or {{PD-USGov}} are the right licenses for these files (and perhaps some others uploaded by the same uploader). Maybe the file licensing can be converted to {{PD-US-not-renewed}} or something else instead? Just for clarification purposes, I'm not necessarily advocating that the files need to be deleted, but rather only that they seem to be incorrectly licensed because the original source is not really the Library of Congress. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, definitely go fix the licenses. Library of Congress is extremely unlikely to make any copyright mistakes, so it's usually just a matter of thinking about the reason. PD-US-no_notice and PD-US-not_renewed are always likely candidates if later than 1924. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you Clindberg for helping to sort this out and for tweaking the licensing of these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on open access journals

There are open access journals free for everyone to download, and I am wondering if it is possible to upload an image taken from one of these articles to use in wikipedia. Specifically: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.676.5918&rep=rep1&type=pdf which is from an open access journal: http://oaji.net/journal-detail.html?number=588. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Open access journals use various licenses, some of which are not acceptable here (see w:en:Open access#Licenses). The article you linked to is marked '© 2014 Asociación Peruana de Helmintología e Invertebrados Afines (APHIA)'. I cannot see any acceptable license, so its images should not be uploaded to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
In addition, even if the article is suitably licensed, the image also needs to be - an open access article may include photos under different licenses (just as an article on en:wikipedia may include fair use photos).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The journal in question, Neotropical Helminthology, is published under a Creative Commons Non-commercial, non-derivative license, per notice at the page bottom, and thus we cannot host any content on Commons unless it is otherwise free (e.g. a 200-year-old image public domain image reprinted in the journal). --Animalparty (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Mattximus, it is worth writing the journal to point out that m:Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses. Many journals do not know the real implications of the NC clause and a real life example helps. Nemo 07:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this acceptable on commons? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We already have a raster version here under {{PD-textlogo}}, so the only potential issue appears to be if the SVG source code itself were to be considered original enough to be eligible for copyright protection. LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright and (public?) images modified by me (and whom to ask for permission, and how, if necessary)

I was referred here from the general Wikimedia hell desk. I am unsure of the rules regarding copyright and images that I have modified. I have an png image whose original form (and some other forms) has/have already been displayed on Wikipedia (a map diagram, probably originally created by another Wikipedia editor though I do not know who, not from a book or other media, showing the possible migrations of y-haplogroups/paternal lineages with arrows, colored lines, and simple labels (letters and numbers for the names of the haplogroups). I have created a modified version, adding some arrows and labels to represent the proposed migrations of additional haplogroups (to reflect the hypothesis of a recent genetic study). Is this considered my own work since I have modified it, and thus can I upload it without permission (or other similar procedures)? I do not know who created the original (unmodified) image, so I would not know for certain whom to ask for permission (if that in fact would be the thing to do). Does the image not qualify as mine, since originally it was a simple line-drawn world map (which to which someone had added lines/arrows with simple labels, and to which I then added more lines/arrows with two additional simple labels)? However, if I were to guess who I might ask for permission to upload my modified image, it might be the Wikipedia user who uploaded the last version (which I then modified). Would that be the thing to do, and how would I go about asking them (Is there some formal procedure or process for that?)? Thank you for your help. Skllagyook (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the license of the image you modified. Could you post a link to the original image in wikipedia?--Work permit (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Work permit: I will try. Below is the current image (not modified by me), the second image down in article (if link does not bring you to large version of image), captioned "Hypothetical migration of haplogroup D according to Haber et al. 2019" (click to see full detail):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D-M174#/media/File:Haplogroup_D_(Y-DNA)_migration.pngt
Here is my modified version
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1ggWIWzTpqz4-nNTkMc1nTUuI0kk4hBBlhA_mdkHyGUY/edit
Other modifications were made previously to both maps present on the page by other users (I am not sure whether copyright applies to those). I am, in the edit/revision notes, proposing that a revised version to the "African Hypothesis" map perhaps be added which includes other haplogroups discussed in the study on which it is based - that is if the other editors prefer to modify the other map representing the other hypothesis — (and this is my attempt to find out whether my new modified version is allowable).
The revision history of one of the relevant pages (including the various images added):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_D-M174&curid=4148265&action=history. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like you are good to go assuming the original author took data from a publication and created a map. The direct link to the image is here [1]. You can see in details that the license on that image "is Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)". So you can create any image you like from it and upload it to wikimedia. But you must use the same license for the new image, give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You would usually do that in the wikimedia file description. Here is an example of a file that I modified [2].--Work permit (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Work permit: Thank you for your help. One more question. How and where would I do what you have described? I am not sure how (by what method) and where to: use a license, give credit, provide a link to a license, indicate the changes, etc. I am rather new to this. Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really an expert either. The easiest way I know is to use the upload wizard. I still use the old one but the default one works well too. Call the file your own, give the appropriate release rights. Then when the file is uploaded, you can add the appropriate links to the previous wikimedia image. You can do that by editing the file description page for the image you uploaded. Editing the description page is easy, its like editing a wikipedia article. You just need to know where to put your edits. Take a look at other pages to see how to refer to a previous work.
Like I said I'm no expert. A real expert may give you better advice.--Work permit (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
By the way, for your reference here is a description of all the fields in the information box [3].--Work permit (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Would it be described as a "a copyrighted, non-free work, that is is Fair Use" or a "free work"(as in the below form)?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skllagyook (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That is the wikipedia upload wizard. I was suggesting using the wikimedia commons upload wizard. When you logon to wikimedia commons, you will see on the left bar an entry called "upload file". Click on that entry. Call the file your own. Edit the description later. --Work permit (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You may notice in my example I used the "RetouchedPicture" template. All of my "derived" works are retouching photographs. For your work, perhaps you should use the "Derived from" template (seen here [4]). You can put that into the description after you upload the image.--Work permit (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Many authors without OTRS

c:Special:ListFiles/Фавик_питерский — many authors without OTRS. — Niklitov (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigo, the sorror of Muldavia, the scourge of carpathia, commands you

I need some help with this. I want to use an image of Vigo from the movie Ghostbusters II to help understanding of him and how he is setup in the film. I've found these images under largely Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Can I get some wider input on if any of these images would be acceptable for use on Wikipedia? I know there are fair use purposes but I'd rather use a free version if possible.

@Darkwarriorblake: We can't host any of these here- they are all derivative works of a copyrighted image. The photos may well be licensed under CC, but their content isn't, so you'd have to justify any of them with a Fair Use argument. HTH. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Rodhullandemu. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

License tag {{PD-traditional}} for sound recordings may be outdated

On Commons, there is a license tag, {{PD-traditional}} which appears to be intended for certain sound recordings. However, given the passage of the Music Modernization Act (MMA) last year, it seems that the information in the template about US copyright and recordings first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 is outdated. The template references the {{PD-US-record}} template, which has already been adjusted with regard to the Music Modernization Act. As of now, there are a number of pages on Commons which appear to incorporate the {{PD-traditional}} template. In short, depending on who you ask, it seems that a published sound recording from any era could be copyrighted in the US, particularly given the MMA. (Two possible exceptions are sound recordings that are works of the US federal government and sound recordings that were first published in a country that does not have copyright relations with the US, such as Iran.)

For adjusting the {{PD-traditional}} template, here is one possibility:

Copyright This file is a recording based on a folkloric or traditional musical composition which has fallen out of copyright. In certain countries outside the United States, but not necessarily within the United States, this recording may be in the public domain due to the expiration of any recording rights to this version. In Germany, this recording right is called "Leistungsschutz" and lasts for 50 years from the date the work was created. For recordings from Italy, see Template:PD-Italy-audio. Other countries may have differing legislation.

In the United States (where Commons is hosted), the vast majority of sound recordings are copyrighted as of 2019. See COM:L#Material in the public domain for more information. Works of foreign (non-U.S.) origin must be out of copyright or freely licensed in both their home country and in the United States in order to be accepted on Commons.

Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hallgrímskirkja photos on Commons in violation of Iceland FoP

Can someone explain what all of these photos are doing on Commons and why we have established a Category for them, when they're non-free in Iceland until ‎January 1, 2021?  JGHowes  talk 22:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The category would be kept if it was non-empty after deleting copyright violations. E.g., it contains Category:Views from Hallgrímskirkja and some images where the building would be de minimus. The non-free files were presumably uploaded by users who weren't aware of the copyright issue or decided to ignore it: anybody can nominate them for deletion. --ghouston (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Russian portraits (1921)

There are a few images extracted from Russian portraits (1921) (see Category:Russian portraits (1921)). While these are public domain in the US (published before 1924), I think copyright might still be valid in the United Kingdom. The author, Clare Sheridan, died on 31 May 1970. --MarioGom (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Was he the photographer? Ruslik (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
She took photographs with her Kodak camera. The book was published in the U.S. under the title From Mayfair to Moscow and in the U.K. under the title Russian portraits. The book was published in the U.S. in early 1921. Likely simultaneous publication in U.S. and U.K. Commons internal policy could probably be satisfied by applying U.S. copyright rules only. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Maps based on public domain information

A deletion discussion has popped up about my work on things like Territorial evolution of the United States. They have been noted as being derivative works lacking source, and some deleted. I disagree with this assessment. The core of the map is a shoreline and modern state borders. These are:

  • non-copyrightable (as established in COM:DW);
  • public domain (see above);
  • sufficiently low-resolution as to not claim any authority or to fall afoul of any copyright traps; and
  • were traced over 12 years ago;

therefore it's impossible to know accurately which public domain representation of non-copyrightable information I used to create the relatively low-resolution outline.

User:Ruthven helpfully pointed out that my Pacific maps said they were built 'from SVGs on Wikimedia Commons'; I went back and linked the exact SVG I used. Because, going over the list above:

  • Copyright and public domain: I don't know if they're copyrightable but they certainly took effort to make and to make available, by a Wikimedian, and they licensed it BY-SA and I will honor that;
  • Resolution: A major difference, since I simply pulled the SVG into an editor and modified it from there, whereas the shorelines of the US map were traced, as can be seen by the horrible handling of islands; and
  • Time: I made these in recent memory and know exactly which map I used.

I am being given the options of 1) Source where I traced the maps from, which is impossible; 2) Lie about which map I used to trace them, which I would think would be a case for deletion on its own; or 3) Do nothing, because this is my own work and I refuse to believe that we have to source a public domain representation of non-copyrightable information. But if you're going to delete my work based on this, you're going to have to delete a lot of other maps. The logic used to say a trace of shorelines is derivative means literally everything is derivative, and nothing can simply be labeled "self-made" or "own work". A photo is derivative of everything in it. A use of a circle object from Photoshop is derivative and must be sourced. (Why not? A circle is non-copyrightable and public domain, but I didn't draw it, therefore I have to source Adobe Corporation?)

I'd like to this get resolved quickly one way or the other, because the stress of having my work deleted is really grinding on me. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the template used on these files specifically states, "In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work". The creator has no rights when it comes to public domain, that's what makes it public domain. Therefore, these were even tagged incorrectly. --Golbez (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Instead of opening a discussion now at the fifth (!) place, you could just edit the source field of the four involved files, so that they reflect the truth. Now you are claiming own work, although this is not true. Why don't you just correct the source information instead of starting all those discussions? Jcb (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Because it's impossible, as I couldn't tell you exactly what public domain representation of non-copyrightable information I used 12 years ago; and, I shouldn't have to, because it's public domain non-copyrightable information. You portray this as the "fifth" place, this is actually the first place beyond our own talk pages. (Edit: Oh, right, and the immediate undeletion request I made, but this is different. That was to remedy the mistake, this is to discern what the next step should be. But sure, keep mischaracterizing my efforts.) --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
At least you should tell what you did. The 'own work' claim is false and cannot stay in place. You must tell in the source field that you traced it from another map, or the files will be nominated for deletion again. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Edit: You know, no, I'm not going to snark further. I opened this discussion to get community involvement; I now await such involvement. This isn't a place for Jcb and I to continue this moronic back-and-forth. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Golbez If you stated that you used a "SVG map from Commons", I respectably suggest to source File:Blank US Map, Mainland with no States.svg, as it was the map (or one of the maps) used to inspire/derive almost all our SVGs of the US. In that way, it wouldn't map the exact map you used, as you're source its source (I recognised the Florida's islands profile in your map). --Ruthven (msg) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I feel like that would be improper for several reasons. One, I can't say for sure that I traced it from that, so wouldn't it be dishonest to say so? But, really, the prime reason is this:
So, per Jcb, that file should be either deleted or the user - idle for six years - contacted and asked to recall what they made this map from 15 years ago. Since that is not going to happen, Jcb would have it deleted. That would render all the files derived from it similarly fruit of the poison tree (derived works from a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION OMG), so they must be deleted. And so on and so forth. It looks like this could impact thousands of files. But it's okay, because per the deletion template, we need to "protect the rights of the creator of the original." I refuse to simply say "traced from a map", because that's nonsense and opens us up to the insane precedent of having to give a source for every single thing in our works, even the obviously public domain, non-copyrightable ones. "Traced from public domain information using Adobe Photoshop (copyright Adobe) and the Arial font (copyright Monotype) and circles (copyright God, because the Creator has rights)" Yes, I'm being irrational because I'm furious. --Golbez (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Another reason for opening this wider discussion is that if my best work on Wikipedia is going to be destroyed for no reason, I'd rather it be a group decision rather than one unilaterally carried out by User:Jcb and User:Castillo blanco. --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is a copyrighted map, with some very detailed outlines, and the exact contours were copied, there could be an issue. If there are lots of the same elements arranged in the same way, it is almost certainly an issue. But if nobody can identify such a source map, we really shouldn't delete over basic map outlines. The subsistence of copyright is more on the arrangement of the other elements represented on the map, not standard national boundaries. The Copyright Compendium states Similarly, maps that consist solely of public domain elements, common elements, or elements that contain no original compilation authorship are not registrable, such as an outline map of the United States containing nothing more than the names of the state capitals. So, a basic outline map of the U.S. is not copyrightable in the first place, meaning a source is not necessary. The 1945 case of Christianson v. West Pub. Co. explicitly states: Its similarity to plaintiff's map in the general outline of the United States and state boundary lines necessarily results from the fact that both parties used a map of the United States. Such fundamental map outlines are in the public domain and not subject to copyright. So, if the only similarity between this map and another is the basic outlines of the U.S., it is not derivative. The claims of "own work" are for the original additions to the map, and is a perfectly reasonable claim. If known, it is good if the sources should be named, but I would not delete over anything close to this, and they are definitely not a speedy-delete reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jcb (talk · contribs) is now saying he will nominate them for deletion tomorrow again. I would love some kind of consensus here, instead of relying on a single person to dictate whether or not this is reasonable. --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that I will nominate them, I said that I will nominate them if you insist to refuse to correct the source fields. You have uttered many kb of text at five different talk pages, while the only thing you need to do is to bring the source fields in line with the truth. The very minimum is that you tell in the source field that you traced a PD map. You already admitted that over a week ago and since then you have spent a lot of time to involve a lot of people instead of just fixing the source fields. Don't you think we have better things to do than spending many hours in pointless discussions, while you could resolve this in five minutes? Jcb (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The source of the general U.S. outlines is virtually immaterial compared to the rest of the content of the map. It's not worth any kind of deletion. They can be left alone without specifying a source, since they are basically inherently PD, as noted above, with no need to credit anyone. The copyrightable expression here is all by the uploader, so "own work" is accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Clindberg is exactly correct. While we would prefer to have the precise sources for the map outlines, their absence is not a copyright problem in this case and therefore shouldn't be grounds for deletion. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
And I maintain that there's no reason to do so. My description is perfectly accurate. I won't do it just because you say I have to - I want the community to chime on on this. --Golbez (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Images Of Smartphones & Apps

Is it possible to have a review of my images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Tenace10&ilshowall=1

These photos were taken by me yesterday. However, now I am questioning whether they are ok to be on Wikimedia Commons. While none of my images are screenshots, they do include copyrighted apps along with an iPhone and iOS which are all copyrighted.

I found many instances of similar images on Wiki Commons so I thought it would be ok, but perhaps these images are not appropriate on Wiki Commons either:

Any help sorting out whether these are ok for me to upload? I have 100's more similar images of various apps that I was planning to upload but want to be sure upfront that they are ok to upload.--Tenace10 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Shogi-Set-12.JPG

I'm not sure that this file as well as the other files is Category:Nekomado Shogi sets are licensed correctly and whether they can be kept per COM:DW and COM:PCP. While the photos themselves are almost certainly OK as licensed, the copyright on the pieces being photographed is what I'm concerned about. These are not typical en:shogi pieces where the image is basically a en:kanji character like in Category:Shogi pieces; they were specifically created with animal imagery as part of the concept behind en:Dōbutsu shōgi (see also ja:動物将棋 and web.archive.org/web/20090821171523/http://www.joshi-shogi.com/doubutsushogi/) and the copyright over the design of the pieces would seem to be held by the game's creators and/or the company Nekomado (ja:ねこまど). For educational use, neither the creators nor the company might care about the images being uploaded, but Commons licensing also allows for commercial and derivative use, which is something they might care about. I don't think COM:DM can be argued for the pieces since showing them is the primary reason for the photos, but perhaps COM:TOYS could be argued since the copyright holders are based out of Japan. Even in that case still, I'm not sure what that means with respect to US copyright law (toys are generally considered eligible for copyright in the US) since that's where the Commons servers are located. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Graf Spee letzte Ruhe

File:Graf Spee letzte Ruhe.jpg is almost certainly not, as claimed, the "work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy". What licence should it have? It is also unlikely to be by Louis A. Davison. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Per here, the collection is 13 copy negatives and prints, copied from the scrapbook of Louis A. Davison in 1977. Topics shown include Naval Training Station Newport circa 1937-1938; views of USS Savannah (CL-42) in 1938 including the ship drydock to repair damage, and Curtiss SOC-3s in flight; German freighter Leipzig, and Somers class destroyers. In addition to these photos, other views were copied and placed in the NH collection: NH 85619, NH 85620, NH 85621, NH 85622, NH 85623, NH 85624, NH 85625, NH 85626, NH 85627, NH 85628, NH 85629, NH 85630, NH 85631, NH 85632, NH 85633, NH 85634, NH 85635, NH 85636. This one is NH 85636. The archived source is here. I did find another copy here which is a slightly wider crop so it did not come from the history.navy.mil website. Based on that, no, not PD-USGov, but history.navy.mil had no problem putting it up, meaning they probably thought it was PD. To be in a contemporary scrapbook it must have been a published photo from the funeral at the time, maybe even prints that got around. It was taken in Buenos Aires, where the funeral was. Not much other information I can find. So maybe {{PD-AR-Photo}} ? If it was first published by a U.S. news agency presumably it was PD-not_renewed or maybe even no_notice, but we'd probably need better source info to use those tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg again

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg, which has been discussed here earlier. The games company now has sent a message to the uploader, including:

  • [...] we do not consider that photographs taken by members of the public, hobbyists and customers constitute intellectual property owned by Games Workshop. We therefore do not consider the images in question to be property of Games Workshop and do not object to their use.

Is this sufficient? Does "we do not object" amount to a licence for the use of the image? Presumably the message would have to be processed by OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The key phrase is "we do not consider". In other words, the image was never an infringement of their copyright in the first place. Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd say this is something we definitely need OTRS for. Games Workshop is the type of company I wouldn't be surprised to to see send a DMCA notice on the work even after writing this email; they have a litigious history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

An image from a government website

I'm wondering if I can upload this map from the USGS, since it says it was created by the PALEOMAP project (which uses a CC-BY-NC license) but the USGS copyright page says anything published is released into the public domain Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Dunkleosteus77. It looks like en:Christopher Scotese is the guy behind the Paleomap project, and although the images are on the USGS website, Scotese does not appear to be a US government employee. So the CC-BY-NC license would stick, and it wouldn't be acceptable for upload to Commons because we don't allow non-commercial licenses. GMGtalk 18:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Threshold of originality (posters and concert programmes)

I'd like to ask for some help to assess whether concert posters such as this one (printed in 1905) and concert programmes like this one (also printed in 1905) could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons based upon the threshold of originality concept, since in the case of the poster we cannot confirm if the printer has been dead for more than 70 years, and in the case of the concert programme we actually don't know who printed it. Any help will be highly appreciated, please let me know if further details are needed! ESM (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It difficult to answer this question as it is largely a matter of opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
In the event that the posters or programmes are of non-US origin and are possibly still copyrighted in their country of origin, there is the question as to whether the items are copyrighted in the US. From what I understand, if the posters or programmes are out of copyright in the US (for example, if they were published more than 95 years ago), then they could be hosted and used locally on the English Wikipedia. (It might be a case of finding an article where an image of a poster or programme could be used; I am not sure if the English Wikipedia hosts images that are not being used in any articles.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The first one has a graphic at the top left which would be copyrightable, and possibly a non-standard arrangement as well but that is debatable. The second one is probably not. I suppose there could be the UK 25-year typographical arrangement copyright on them, but that has long expired. If there is no author listed, and since they were obviously published then, the tag {{PD-anon-expired}} should work for them (covers both the U.S. and France) even if there was something copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

US painting copyright

Copyright on paintings in the US is the same as copyright for other things, but it's more problematic since painting publication is hard to prove. This came up because of Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Mujer_con_flores_by_Alfredo_Ramos_Martínez,_c_1932.jpg, where there's some disagreement about the standards, so I'd like some community opinion. (The source nation questions of that should probably get a separate thread, if people are concerned; I'm solely asking about US works.) Basically

If it was published more than 95 years ago, it's PD.
If it was published before 1963, it (or the containing work) needed a copyright renewal.
If it was published before 1989, it needed a copyright notice, which I would assume could have been attached to the frame.
If it was published between 1989-2002, it's under copyright until 2046 or life+70, which ever is longer.
If it was unpublished as of 2002, it's life+70.

To complicate this:

It could have been published in a book or separately, and renewed as such.
It could have been published by displaying it prior to 1978 without a notification that photography or drawing was prohibited. See s:Letter_Edged_in_Black_Press,_Inc._v._Public_Building_Commission_of_Chicago#Defendant's_Claim_That_Display_of_the_Maquette_did_not_Constitute_General_Publication. As I said, if it had a copyright notice attached to the frame, I assume that would have preserved the copyright.

If we knew the details, this wouldn't be a problem. But it's very hard to establish that it wasn't published, and one needs to find details of publication before one can check for renewal. In this case, there are several books of the artist's work in which it could have been published prior to 2002, and nobody has done any search for renewals.

I've assumed before that paintings created more than 95 years ago were published around their creation, and are thus PD in the US. That's got its problems. There's been a bunch of uploads, including the one at Undelete Requests, that have been uploaded as PD-US-unpublished, but I think that's less reliable. I have a real trouble with any sort of non-renewal license if nobody has checked the renewal notices and checking those books to see if the work is in them. Again, a painting first published in a book after 1963 would have needed a copyright notice, standard for works at the time, and that would keep the work under copyright for 95 years from publication.

This is all complex and hard to verify. How do we want to balance the probabilities for the future? The far extreme would be only uploading works we can show were published before 1923, but it's pretty hard to prove that without an excellent art library.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: You closed the UDR as a restore, so hopefully you can give your two cents on what type of standards should be used for uploading American paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This is really hard to decide, really, given the lack of information. Normally, I don't mind assuming publication around the time of creation if nothing is known, unless there is some indication it remained unpublished (which we don't have here, since we know next to nothing). We can use {{PD-US}} if we are not sure about the exact U.S. reason it's PD, but think it is one way or another. Do any other paintings from this artist have copyright notices? If so, that could change some assumptions on this one. If he was not in the habit, odds are this one did not have a notice either. While it could have been published in a book, the book's renewal would not serve to renew the painting, unless the book copyright owner also owned part of the copyright in the painting -- renewals had to be someone with standing in the copyright, so a non-exclusive licensee would not be able to renew (i.e. it would only apply to the book text and other original material from that owner). If published 1951 or later, the renewal should be on copyright.gov, which should be easy to search -- when searching for Martinez' name, I only see registrations for poster reproductions of some of his paintings (i.e. derivative works) in 1996 and 1997, and a book about him from 2009. With a Google search on earlier volumes (not at all definitive), I just see three books he illustrated. As you say, if it was published without notice before 1989 it's PD. If was published with notice before 1964 but no renewal, it's PD. If it was never legally published before 2003, it's PD. So... the only way it would not be PD is if it remained unpublished long after the artist's death but was then published with exquisite timing. Or if it was renewed and had notice, but there seems to be no evidence for that. While it's possible it is still under copyright, that does seem to be more a theoretical doubt than anything based on some evidence we have. My only hesitation is that given the accession number at the library, it seems they acquired it in 1979, which if unpublished to that point may result in some of that exquisite timing. I'm still of the mind to allow it, given that we can't find any copyright records and we do tend to assume that things were published around their creation, plus the fact that if legally unpublished it would also be PD. It doesn't seem like the doubts we have rise to "reasonable doubt". If someone can find or supply further provenance information, we could re-evaluate then. It just seems reasonable to assume that it was published sometime around when it was created around 1940, and if not then, then probably not long after his death in 1946. If someone wants to contest that via DMCA or something, they would presumably give us the provenance information we need. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that my comment in the cited UnDR is clear -- the only case in which it could be under copyright is if first publication was during 1989-2002. It's hard to generalize, because this painting is without notice, and, no, I do not think notice can be attached to the frame. If the painting had the required notice on its face, I would not have restored it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

File talk:Hedy Lamarr 1944.jpg

User:Peaceray has asked me, the uploader, why this is (or is not) a free file. As my English is not very good, I beg YOU to give him an answer. Thank you Mutter Erde (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It had the wrong license -- there was a notice, but it appears that magazine never had any of its issues renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for changing the licence. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thank you! Peaceray (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance of files from external sources without a license review

See "Acceptance of files from external sources without a license review" proposal in my userspace.

Does anyone have suggestions for improving this proposal? I'd like to make sure there are no obvious flaws before putting it up for a vote. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Flickr user oscepa

I noticed some photos from OSCE Parliamentary Assembly were not their own. For example:

  1. File:Tymoshenko OSCE.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/oscepa/33360642458/ Photo courtesy of the All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland"
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/oscepa/albums/72157709489868001 says Photo credit: Chamber of Deputies, but in Chambre des Députés' own flickr album https://www.flickr.com/photos/127713902@N07/albums/72157709489483131 , everything is CC-ND.

Perhaps this flickr should be blacklisted.--Roy17 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

They specified author information correctly. So, this is problem of users who upload these files - they should check the authorship before uploading. Ruslik (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

May I import in Wikimedia Commons a picture taken by me of a military cap badge created in 1960 for the now disappeared Independent State of Katanga (1960-1963) ? This former secessionist province is now part of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Impartial (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Impartial. Being honest, I'm not 100% sure we would retroactively apply the copyright laws of the DRC to the State of Katanga. If we do, then it seems this would be likely be an anonymous/pseudonymous work with a copyright term of 50 years.
Does anyone know how we treat other similar situations, like maybe former Soviet republics or something like works from Bangladesh? GMGtalk 16:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Legally, I don't think Katanga ever existed as an independent nation, so they'd be treated like any other work from the DRC.
We've always taken the law of the current owner of the land as relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Botnam

Hi,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Botnam&oldid=365518862 contains a copy of https://botnam.com/enzymes/ (search "systematic approach") and File:Classification of enzymes with type of reaction catalyzed.png is https://botnam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/classification-of-enzymes.png

The short quote on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Botnam&oldid=365629390 comes from https://botnam.com/

Only "© Copyright 2019" in the footer of copied pages and https://botnam.com/terms-and-conditions/ are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons.

Is there a history masking to do?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Lacrymocéphale. It's a pretty common misconception that releasing content under a free license removes the copyright, but it does not. There are edge cases where this gets extremely complicated, but by and large, the license merely stipulates the terms under which the owner exercises their copyright. For example:
  • All rights reserved. You are not allowed use this.
  • You can use this for non-commercial purposes.
  • You can use this for any purpose, but you have to give me credit.
  • You can use this for any purpose, no strings attached.
If the person didn't own the copyright, then they couldn't very well dictate the terms under which people could use the stuff that they own. Having said that, what may be needed here is for the user to send verification of their account to OTRS. Obviously, anyone could register an account under any name they want, and we don't automatically assume that it is officially connected because of the name of the account. GMGtalk 13:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Suitable templates for anthologies and collections

I've been looking for some sane template to use to give the licensing status for edited books collecting works by multiple authors. For example this one at IA: japanbyjapaneses00stea.

Its copyright status in the US is PD as publication pre-1924, but its non-US status depends on the death date of the individual authors (assuming I don't find any indication of US publication within 30 days). On thing is that it's a pain to research all of them to find the vital dates, but I've also not found any good ways to provide the information on the file's page once found. A long list of author namePD-JP-expired (or whatever) is… well, it doesn't seem very elegant at least.

At the other end, I've seen variants where the license tag is picked based on the vitals of the editor only; or on the last deceased of the contributors (which makes sense for a movie and other collective works, but not as much for a book and other collections of works); or (most commonly, even if not in compliance with policy) just the US status.

Do we have any guidance on this that I've just failed to find? Do we have tooling/templates to make this a little less awkward? Or, possibly, is an assumption of expiration (due to age, typically) for all the individual contributors/contributions considered sufficient in the absence of any actual evidence to the contrary?

Just scanning the table of contents for the above linked work I can already tell that it's going to be a right pain to track down any vitals for most of the authors. And on the flip side, given it was published in 1904 and the contributors were men in positions of authority (i.e. they weren't spring chickens), it seems eminently reasonable to assume they all shuffled off this mortal coil before 1968 (Japan was pma. 50 until 2018). Other books of this kind are going to be much more reasonable to research, but things like old newspapers and magazines—where the majority of authors are anonymous, pseudonymous, or eminently non-notable—are going to be essentially impossible.

Does that perhaps weigh the scales in the direction of accepting something like a "assumed expired based on: reasoning / research undertaken", somewhat akin to what one would do for PD-no-renewal? --Xover (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

There's always {{PD-old-assumed}} if you can't find a death date. The assumption of 120 years for life+70 would mean 100 years for life+50, so 1904 would be fine for a Japanese work.
I'd upload most of this stuff directly to Wikisource. Looking at s:Index_talk:Weird_Tales_v01n02_(1923-04).djvu and s:Index_talk:Weird_Tales_v01n03_(1923-05).djvu, you're looking at a number of authors published in 1923 dying in the 1970s, with one letter writer dying in the 1990s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of notable US Congresspeople's tweets

such as Pelosi's and Paul Ryan's. Obviously their staff operate their twitter accounts. Are the tweets works of the federal govt and hence PD? If they are, does the Commons community want a OTRS from them confirming it? Some files are challenged in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel.--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The tweets are works of the federal government to the extent they're created by the staff. There's almost always open questions about any attached media, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-commercial license to prevent monetization

Would the release of an image under non-commercial Creative Commons license prevent its seizing for monetization by the likes of Alamy and Getty Images (considering cases like Highsmith v Getty / Alamy)? I also wonder whether it's possible for an image's author to license a low-res version of an image under the commercial clause and a high-res version under non-commercial clause - the former to be used on Commons and the latter elsewhere, including our featured pictures (if the image's author doesn't want the monetization). Brandmeister (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Nothing has yet been shown to prevent seizure by their ilk, not even having to pay settlements.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that the non-commercial clause legally prevents it. If they seize such an image anyway, the will lose the lawsuit if it's filed. With that in mind, perhaps we should make some allowance for NC licenses. Brandmeister (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, an NC license would prevent it. But a CC-BY license (let alone CC-BY-SA) also means they probably would not bother, since they would have to credit the copyright owner, and also inform users about the CC-BY license, which they would likely be loathe to do (since the users could then obtain it without paying Alamy / Getty in the first place). Highsmith released the images in question to the public domain, meaning they are the same as if copyright expired, so Getty can sell copies while obscuring the source and author. A CC0 license would give them similar free rein, but with any other CC license there is still copyright control being exercised, so doing the same thing as with Highsmith's images would be a copyright violation, NC or no NC.
As for the second question, I would tend to accept that situation -- copyright owners should be able to license any slice of expression they want. If a low-res version of a painting shows much less expression than a high-res version, then I don't see why the artist could not license the low-res differently than a high-res. There could be a tricky legal question for photographs in particular though, which is probably the hedge that Creative Commons gives on this practice. For most photographs, the copyrightable expression is generally not the subject matter, but instead elements under control of the photographer, such as angle, framing, possibly lighting, etc. In that situation, it's possible the low-res version has all of copyrightable expression already, i.e. there is no expression in the high-res version that can be identified over and above the expression in the low-res version, meaning that there is no additional expression which can carry a more restrictive license. And as usual, those analyses can differ by country, based on what aspects each country deems copyrightable. Additionally, you can't stop someone from enlarging the licensed low-res version. In a general sense, yes it's very possible for an author to only freely license a low-res version -- we would accept those. But legally, you would need to identify copyrightable expression which exists only in the high-res version in order to have a more restrictive license on that. In many situations that should be fine, but especially with photographs there could be an issue identifying such expression. I would not recommend that Commons itself ever makes that assumption and upload a high-res version against the author's wishes when only a low-res was licensed, but it may not be possible to guarantee that situation for all countries if someone else uses it that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Brandmeister (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios from Wikipedia in Hindi

Several accounts created back in February at Wikipedia in Hindi post today files which are all copyvios. It must be a school project but I don't know who is (mis)guiding it. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Do you have more information? What did you find and how? Can you share an example? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Transferring files from Instagram to Commons

I'd like to help out on OTRS because I've been working on a new project: Requesting Instagram photographers to share their images on Wikipedia/Commons. Till date, more than 8 photographers and a drone-photographer have shared their images. But since the OTRS process got a backlog, some of their images were nominated for deletion like these, due to which they've halted uploading images for a while. If I'm an OTRS volunteer, I can accept their submissions in no time, so they can submit more images. And, as per my research there isn't any OTRS volunteer in our state.--IM3847 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe using a system like we use (and made) in the Netherlands is useful for your project? We use Wikiportrait (website) for kind of the same thing you are doing. DutchTom (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@DutchTom: It looks good for new-comers. But, I think even they should be submitted for OTRS permission. But, sadly there lacks any OTRS volunteers in our region to accept them in a quick phase. I would like to know a bit about Wikiportrait & how it can be implemented in our country.--IM3847 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
OTRS access is indeed necessary for the system to work. I could give you some more information but maybe that goes faster when we meet on IRC. Otherwise I think @Ellywa: would like to give you some more information since she setup the system for NL-WP. DutchTom (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course I would love to see Wikiportret translated (localized) and used by other projects. In this case, it possibly would be much easier if an open licence is connected to the instagram images like it is done sometimes on youtube and flickr. No OTRS effort is required in these cases (no tedious emailing...). Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Prior to this, I've requested Instagrammers to place Avaialble on Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 in their post's caption. That worked well until a point where a photographer submitted tens of images and adding this text to every image makes his work difficult. Since he does sells some of his images, he can't even add the sentence directly to his account. But, I dunno how to release images under a license on Instagram like in Flickr.--IM3847 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi @IM3847:, I think it would be wise to discuss this further on Commons, for instance here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Perhaps a procedure on Instagram can be designed. For Flickr and Youtube there is a procedure, where specific people check the licenses of automatically uploaded images, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review
A better process should be derived to transfer images from Instagram to Wikimedia Commons, as Instagram has now became one of the largest photo-sharing social media.--IM3847 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Facebook and Google have worked overtime to cultivate walled gardens and make sharing less easy, so Instagram and Google Photos lack structured licensing metadata which their predecessors used to have. We'll never get them to be as good a source for Wikimedia Commons as Flickr is. It doesn't hurt to try, but I suggest to rely on methods whose cost is shared with others: if [5] is still accurate, the IFTTT method is still the easiest way to get stuff out of the Instagram cage. Nemo 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Most notably, Instagram no longer provides a public API to retrieve media from an account. That means it is dificult and likely against Instagram's TOS to extract images from there. I believe that IFTTT still works, at least for your own account, but I haven't tested it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber:@Nemo bis:Previously I've requested Instagram photographers to place Available on Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 in post's caption, but when they're ready to submit images in a bulk, this method isn't gonna work, for ex: case of KshitizBathwal, who want to submit many of his beautiful shots to Commons. His images were tagged with deletion, due to backlog in OTRS. And now he do want to upload few more images and doesn't like to get a deletion tag on them. I think there should be a list that saves Instagram users who uploads images to commons, so even if the same user upload an image which was already published on his Instagram account, it should be moved on with previous ticket given for his uploads.--IM3847 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Image Licence Change

Hi,

Some time ago, I had uploaded an image under an incorrect copyright licence and would like to rectify this discrepancy. The image has been flagged as a possible copyright violation, and changes cannot be made without the 'speedy deletion' tag prompt. The image relates to an academic institution's Wikipedia article (logo cited incorrectly as 'own work'), which would prompt a 'non-free use' rationale to use the logo. What would be the best way to proceed with correcting the aforementioned; would deletion be possible and reupload with the correct parameters? If so, how would this be carried out. Thank you so much.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReflectiveJuice (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey ReflectiveJuice. I presume you are referring to File:DBS-logo-fit.png. As the image consists of merely simple shapes and text, I have updated the information on the file to indicate that it likely falls below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. GMGtalk 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:PD-Norway50

Is it just me, or should the second part, the bit about 25 years, be a seperate template? I'm pretty sure there was no art exemption in the second case. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the benefit of having two templates instead of one? Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: In particular with this one, it emphasises the first item in the list so heavily that it's not clear the second is even an option the template covers. Also, I think there's a lot of benefit to explicitly stating the logic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the point of a different template. The 1995 law stated "This Act shall also apply to literary, scientific and artistic works and other works produced prior to the entry into force of this Act." In other words, they made a retroactive restoration in 1995 like EU countries did around that time, so any photographs which were also works got restored to the full term in 1995, and cannot use the 25 year term. It was only photos which did not rise to "works" which got a non-retroactive extension to the longer term, and where existing PD works remained PD. Since it's been 24 years since that law went into effect, I think it becomes almost irrelevant in Norway by 2020, since anything which had expired by 1995 would have expired by the new terms by 2020 (well I guess except for the 15pma terms if those are longer). And their 2018 law may have retroactively restored even the old 25 year ones... not sure I can trust that translation, but they may have changed "works" to "intellectual property" in that transitional clause in the new law (and I think the photographic 50 year thing is now section 23). The old 25-year terms will remain relevant for the URAA though -- non-"work" photos before 1970 were still PD on the URAA date, so they would not have been restored. Possibly even 1971, if that 1995 law did not upgrade existing non-work photos and only applied the longer term to new photos created after that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
§ 23 regulates exclusive rights for "photographic images", and gives the term as pma. 15, but at least 50 years from creation. § 117 regulates applicability to pre-existing works as "This law also applies for creative works [åndsverk] and other works [andre arbeider] from before the law came into effect." In other words, lov 15. juni 2018 nr. 40 om opphavsrett til åndsverk mv. is retroactive (§ 117) and applies a pma. 15 / minimum 50 year term of protection to photographic images that do not rise to the level of an artistic work (§ 23). Incidentally, note also the 25-year publisher's right for otherwise expired previously unpublished works in § 13, that applies to creative works but not "other works" (i.e. "photographic images").
For anonymous/unknown "photographic images" the term of protection is the minimum term (50 years) from creation, but with a requirement to do the research for both identity and date of creation.
Note that the protection for "photographic images" is not a limitation of copyright, but an extension of it: photos that would not otherwise be afforded copyright protection due to, e.g., lack of creativity, are given equivalent protections but with a differing term of protection. This means that § 23 should be narrowly construed: if a work would not otherwise merit protection it will not gain protection unless it specifically matches the criteria in § 117 (but the criterium is broad, so this will rarely be relevant). And mere mechanical reproductions (i.e. scanning an old photo / PD-scan) are not intended to be protected by § 23.
@Clindberg: Where are you seeing a worksintellectual property issue? "Åndsverk" is defined in § 2 as "… literary or artistic works of any kind, that are expressions of original and individual creative effort …"; that is, it's defined in terms of creativity and originality of expression. "Creative works" would be a decent translation. But the transitional clause explicitly refers to both "Creative works" (åndsverk) and "other works" so the distinction is moot in that context. --Xover (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: The "intellectual property" was just a machine translation issue -- seems that is what "åndsverk" gets translated to. Didn't feel right, so thanks for the clarification :-) I guess that is the question on the new §117 -- does "andre arbeider" also apply to non-creative "fotografiske bilder", or does that more refer to related rights (nærstående rettigheter). $103 appears to use the word "arbeider" in relation to the latter. The 1995 law, § 60, said basically the same thing -- "Loven gjelder også åndsverk og andre arbeider fra før lovens ikrafttredelse". In the official English translation, "andre arbeider" was translated "other works" which seemed to imply that it only applied to "works", i.e. did not apply to non-work simple photographs. Whoever made this tag assumed the same, since it says that such photos did not get the retroactive extension in 1995, meaning such photos which has already expired per the older 25 year term remained expired. If that was erroneous from the get-go, it should be removed from the tag. But it would seem that the 2018 law has the same wording, so if not restored in 1995 then nothing has changed since.
And yes, the PD-Norway50 is talking about the works discussed in Commons:Simple photographs. Most European countries have a shorter term for photos which do not rise to "works". That can be defined differently by country -- in many countries, it was for snapshot-type photos, as opposed to studio portraits and the like where the photographer controlled the entire scene, but some countries are completely different. I'm not sure we have any explicit examples for Norway. I think Finland ({{PD-Finland50}} has some decisions along the "snapshot" lines -- this photo (which apparently is quite famous in Finland) was given as an example of a non-work photo (and Finland did not retroactively restore them either, apparently). Similarly, Sweden decisions have said that news photos are typically not "works". The presumption may be that Norway is similar, but any court case guidance would be good -- both the simple photos page and COM:TOO Norway is lacking of details. The EU directive did not apply to things which were not "works", so countries were pretty much free to protect them or not, and restore them or not. Germany on the other hand apparently changed their "simple photo" threshold, which used to be similar to Finland's, to only mean things like X-rays and elevated virtually any photo to being a "work" per a couple of their court decisions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: § 103 says "What this chapter [chapter 7, the DRM stuff] says about works, applies equally [mutatis mutandis] for works that are protected after chapter 2." Chapter 2 is titled "The rights of performing artists and producers etc. (related rights)" and includes §§ 16–24: exclusive rights for performing artists, terminating an agreement relating to rights in an audio recording, performing artists right to additional compensation, agreement regarding ongoing compensation, producers' exclusive rights, compensation for public performance and transfer [broadcast] to the public of audio recording, broadcasters' rights, exclusive rights to photographic images, exclusive rights to databases. That is, when § 103 refers to "works" the term encompasses photographic images (in addition to a ballet dancer's performance).
The confusion stems from the translation. The law distinguishes between "åndsverk" and "arbeider". "Arbeid" (in both verb and noun forms) is usually translated as "work", but in a legal/copyright context means something like "any product of deliberate effort". "Åndsverk" is translated as "work" because that's the meaning in a legal/copyright context, but the word itself means something like "a working of spiritual effort" (it connotes the soul, or human spirit; the creative spark). In case law there's the concept of "verkshøyde" ("the working's elevation") that roughly equates to the threshold of originality. An "åndsverk" is always a creative work, and all "åndsverk" are "arbeider"; but not all "arbeider" are "åndsverk". That both translate to "[creative] work" and "work" is misleading: an "åndsverk" is by definition a creative work with sufficient originality to merit copyright, but a mere "arbeid" is just the sweat of your brow and does not usually merit copyright protection.
Or put another way, all of chapter 2 is about extending certain rights and protections to works that would not normally (i.e. in chapter 1, the basic copyright rules) be accorded copyright. Nothing in chapter 2 is a "åndsverk" (creative works), they're "arbeider" (mere works) or "nærliggende rettigheter" (rights related to, but distinct from, copyright; like database rights).
As to the precedents for TOO… The proposition for the 2018 law (the codified legislative intent) specifically mention an intent to align the law with the EU harmonisation act and the laws of Sweden, Denmark, and (iirc) Finland. I know there is some case law in the area, but I am not familiar with it. I do know that in some contexts there is a debate regarding whether an amateur photographer (vs. a professional photographer or a photographic artist) can ever be considered to have created a "åndsverk" (vs. a mere photographic image). I would be very surprised if that is current jurisprudence, but it might be suggestive of where the line lies. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
But the retroactive extension in the 2018 law seems irrelevant today as almost 25 years have passed since 1995. Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks. Thought I replied to this yesterday, but seems it did not post. In looking further though, at the reference link in the tag, it looks like there were further transitional sections in the 1995 law which are not in the wipolex consolidated versions. The link (given in the tag by Stefan2, who added that part in 2014) is broken now, but there is an archived version which has the content. Among other things it says: Bestemmelsen i § 43 a gjelder ikke når vernetiden etter de eldre regler i fotografiloven er løpt ut før loven her trer i kraft. That seems to be explicit in that the general restoration clauses did not apply to photographic pictures, so the tag does seem accurate. Sort of doubt the 2018 law was intended to change that situation, since it seems to have just reorganized the same text in the older law. That clause does seem to have extended the term for any of the pictures which had not yet expired, so it would seem as though photos from before 1970 would be the cutoff date for the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

One advantage of the image that led me to ask this is that the National Library of Norway has declared it out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

{{PD-CAGov}}, California agencies claiming copyright and "copyrighted outside of the United States"

The {{PD-CAGov}} template has a section that lists at least some of the California governmental agencies that are permitted to claim copyrights. In the section, there is the statement that "...any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted outside of the United States..." From what I understand, if a California government agency can claim copyrights, it would be such that those copyrights would not be restricted to countries outside of the US. As such, would it be more accurate to change the statement to "any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted in the United States" or "any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted" instead? Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Inside USA {{PD-US-GovEdict}} may apply. Ruslik (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Anonymous" (and not the kind we normally deal with)

There are a number of files here that are licensed with the statement "Anonymous release their flyers and press release under public domain." This includes a link to here, which is a suspended Twitter account. They also include a link to here which says " You can post the flyers anywhere you want. We release them as public domain."

Now, setting aside the question of whether this is a legitimate site for the "group", and to what extent these are derivative of other works, I don't know that "Anonymous" (with a capital A) actually can make a blanket PD dedication. As far as I am aware, Anonymous is not a legal entity. They're not a registered non-profit, they're not a business, the don't "exist" as an entity that can own and transfer property. I'm not sure I understand how this is different than a public domain dedication from a street gang or your local sewing circle. If it's not a legal entity, then it can't own anything to release into the public domain, and the intellectual property for these works would still be held by the individuals who created them, and they would continue to own them until they fell out of copyright as an "anonymous work" (lower case a).

Am I missing something here? GMGtalk 13:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's like Wikipedia; the Wikimedia Foundation actually owns little of it, but all the contributors have agreed to release their works under CC-BY-SA. If the individuals who created these works understood that releasing them as Anonymous work meant releasing them as PD, then they are PD. By the nature of Anonymous, it's going to be complex and somewhat unclear, but I think if they were created by a member of Anonymous and released by Anonymous, that's a clear enough license for us to use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the problem there is that content on Wikipedia is not licensed as a collective under a blanket declaration. Every contribution from each contributor is individually licensed. That's the By saving changes...you irrevocably agree to release your contribution bit at the bottom of the edit window, above the publish button.
I mean, compare a private business. It is a legal entity that is able to enter into legal contracts. You are a graphic designer, and you enter into a contract with this entity that the intellectual property you are paid to produce is transferred to and owned by it. That entity can then enter into another legal contract to release the IP under a free license. Anonymous can neither enter into a legal contract, nor own property. There's nothing for the individual creators to transfer IP to, nothing to hold ownership of the IP in the meanwhile, and nothing to release content under any license. GMGtalk 12:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Each Wikipedia page says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". That looks like a blanket declaration to me. Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation is much better at crossing their t's and dotting their i's. But I don't think it changes anything; someone releasing their works as Anonymous is agreeing to license their works as public domain.
Anonymous is not a private business licensing something. It's a group of people agreeing to license their works published as Anonymous as public domain. It's not as pretty as we'd like, but I think it's a clear license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to be curt, but I'm not sure you understand exactly. There is no "pretty as we'd like". The content is either released under a binding agreement by the owners of the intellectual property or it isn't. The statement at the bottom of the Wikipedia article is not the legal instrument that licenses the content. The legal instrument that licenses the content is the declaration at the bottom of the edit window. I am not aware of any copyright laws that allow for a loose confederation of anonymous users to release their content in a legally binding irrevocable license on behalf of unnamed individuals that may or may not "belong" to this "group" which is not a legal entity. GMGtalk 02:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The statement at the bottom of the edit window is merely a reminder, at best a repetition. When you use Wikipedia, you agree to the Terms of Use, wherein you agree to license your content freely.
I'm not saying that a loose confederation of anonymous users is doing anything. I'm saying that releasing works without a copyright notice or explicit license labeled Anonymous is much like releasing works with a note saying CC-BY-SA 3.0; it's not as clear as a lawyer would recommend or we would like, but I think a judge would find the license was offered and accepted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a copyright specialist here, but I know we have consistently said exactly the opposite. Something published on the web without a copyright license is assumed to be copyright, as nowadays there is no requirement that the item bear a copyright notice to be copyright. Something is only free according to CC-BY-SA if it says so, or says it's in the public domain, or is known to come from a source which is known to publish everything in the public domain, or which is explicitly licensed under that licence.
There are several reasons for our taking this position besides the fact that I think most legal systems expect a certain degree of due diligence before making any such assumption about other people's property --(1), people frequently publish on the web something they have copied elsewhere on the web without worrying about copyright. (2) Many, perhaps most, of the people who publish something on the web which they would like to permit other to use, are intending to release it as -NC. (3) People rely on us to publish only items that have a free license. (4)As WP has as one of its main purposes, establishing a new model of publication free from the restraints of conventional copyright, we need to be exemplary in our respect for the existing law.
And for this particular sort of item, I know from reading history that in the UK at least armorial bearings are most definitely property, and there have been numerous legal disputes through the centuries about who is free to use them. The College of Arms letter is not saying the items are free from copyright--they are saying that the owner is the person holding the arms, or for whom the drawing was made, and that the owner is free to license them to us. But that owner has to explicitly do so. .DGG (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Huh? What do coat of arms have to do with this?
As for the rest, we've never required that works have their license embedded in them. Saying it's published by Anonymous effectively says that it's under the licenses that Anonymous works are published under.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No, you've got it exactly backward. Per the TOU itself the content is licensed when it is submitted. GMGtalk 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's licensed when it's submitted. But that would be when it's submitted, even if the submission form didn't remind you of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

[outdent]
I think what GreenMeansGo is missing here is that it is not the entity "Anonymous" that is releasing the work, but the original anonymous authors or somebody on their behalf. The question is whether we believe the author has released the rights. It is not much different from John Doe releasing his work as Commons User "I'm brilliant". We don't know it is the person behind "I'm brilliant" who is the author, neither do we know the authors of the works published by "Anonymous" have released their rights. In both cases we have to make an assessment about the trustworthiness of the statement.

I think it is highly probable that persons making flyers and press releases for an entity have given that entity the right to use these works freely, especially when it comes to works such as You call it piracy.PNG. I find it very unlikely that the author would not have meant the entity can publish them as public domain, perhaps authorising some members of "Anonymous" or declaring the works PD personally.

--LPfi (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @LPfi: Regarding the entity can publish them as public domain, the problem is that there is no entity. For the entity to release content there must first be a transfer of intellectual property to an entity which can hold property and enter into legal agreements. The only thing that we have here is "some twitter account" telling us that they are releasing content created by "some person" who may or may not be them, under a legally binding agreement. There is, as far as I can tell, not even any real way of having permission sent via COM:CONSENT. In order to do so, the respondent needs to affirm that they have "legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright" on behalf of themselves or a legal entity which owns the intellectual property, usually via a contractual work-for-hire transfer of rights. Because there is no legal entity, there is no capacity in which any individual can be legally empowered to enter into binding agreements on its behalf.
Own work uploads aren't really relevant. An individual can release their own works pseudonymously. But that does not transfer to collective licensing. I cannot release your works on your behalf based on the unverifiable claim that we belong to a club together. GMGtalk 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I still think you've got this from the wrong end. When I release a work labeled CC-BY-SA 3.0, it's not Creative Commons releasing the work on my behalf; it's me, leaving a label on my work that communicates to you and other people that I am releasing my work under a free license. When someone releases a work labeled Anonymous, it's not Anonymous releasing the work on their behalf; it's them, leaving a label on their work that communicates to people that they are releasing a work to the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Coat of Arms for General Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd baronet

I would like to upload an image of Asgill's coat of arms to the relevant Wikipedia page for Charles Asgill. I had difficulty finding an online link for reference purposes [1], so I sent a 'contact us' online message to the College of Arms in London (so I have no copy of my wording) telling them exactly what I was proposing to do - to upload the image to Wikipedia - and could they please send me an online link for reference purposes. I now have the reference sorted out, but have been requested to ask here if I can upload the image I paid £350 for back in 2009? I do hope so, since I would like to share it.

I got a beautifully hand written (in gold ink) letter back yesterday (from the Lancaster Herald) enclosing a photocopy of the relevant page by way of reference and proof. Would he not have made some objection had they been displeased at my request?

Guidance is requested please. Arbil44 11:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Signing again with 4 tildes. Arbil44 11:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

@Arbil44: Commons:Signatures policy dictates that a signature "must link to the user page, the user talk page or the user's contributions." Please comply.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet#Asgill_and_Washington I do not have the IT skills to do this, I'm afraid. I'm nearly out of here, just a couple more things to do. I only need an answer to my question please. Arbil44 12:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordless Larry (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have had a long telephone conversation with the Lancaster Herald today [Lancaster@college-of-arms.gov.uk]. He tells me that when artists are engaged by the College of Arms to create images they have to sign a document releasing the copyrights to that image. He confirmed that my having purchased the artwork gives me the right to do whatsoever I might wish with it. I do hope that that is sufficient? Could someone let me know please? I hope this is linking as I am supposed to do? [1] Arbil44 21:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see my attempts at linking to the Asgill talk page didn't work I'm afraid. I also notice that the coat of arms for Lord Cornwallis has no reference attached to it and the copyright is given as the person who uploaded it User:Rs-nourse - am I free to do the same (and I do have references)? Arbil44 22:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Template:Request edit

Please could someone help me here? I am going to hospital on Friday and I really want to be finished with my tasks here well before then. I apologise for not knowing how to do the correct link to the above referenced talk page. Arbil44 07:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As requested by SignBot, signing again, but this time with brackets round the tildes. (Arbil44 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This website is bringing me to tears. I just can't do it the way I am supposed to. I have just left an answerphone message on the Lancaster Herald's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_Herald phone 020 7332 0414 for him to email me as soon as possible to prove that what I have said he said is true. I have explained to him what is happening to me here on Wikipedia and I just hope he is not out of London and will get back to me a.s.a.p. SignBot's message says to put brackets round the tildes, but even that doesn't appear to work. Arbil44 08:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Robert Noel <rjbnoel@college-of-arms.gov.uk> To: Mrs A (my personal email address) 17 Sep at 12:26

From Robert Noel, Lancaster Herald, 130 College of Arms London EC4V 4BT

17 Sept 2019

Dear Mrs A, thank you so kindly for talking to me yesterday on the telephone and what follows below, as you can see, which I have headed ‘To whom it may concern’, will constitute the necessary desideratum. With very warm salutations yrs Robert Noel

To Whom it may Concern:

From Robert Noel, Lancaster Herald, 130 College of Arms London EC4V 4BT

17 Sept 2019

In respect of the image which I provided to Mrs A in 2009 vizt. Asgill, 2nd baronet, this is to certify that we at the College of Arms have no objection to its release by Wikipedia.

Robert Noel

Lancaster Herald

Tel +44 207 332 0414

[N.B.by Arbil44] a suitable reference is online at the Universal Historical Dictionary [1] Arbil44 12:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

This has now been resolved by OTRS. See File:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet coat of arms.jpg. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

SVG map with Gnu DW

I’m at loss on how to license File:PT-exCCFL(eletricos).svg. It is a map whose cartographic information I cobbled from three different source images, one of them being licensed as {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated|Cc-by-2.5}}, the others as {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} and {{self|cc-zero}}. How should/could the final result be licensed? -- Tuválkin 19:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tuvalkin. My understanding is that it would be dual licensed GDFL and CCBYSA 4.0. CCBYSA licenses are all forward compatible with newer versions, and have to be licensed under the newest version of which the new work is derivative (because they are forward but not backward compatible). GDFL is AFAIK generally not compatible with other licenses, and dual licensed works would need to continue to be dual licensed. If I've missed something, please ping me and let me know, because I would very much like to correct any misunderstanding I may have here. GMGtalk 12:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo, Tuvalkin: I think that's incorrect, and a correct answer is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Dual-licensing with GFDL would entail making a derivative of a CC BY-SA 4.0 work available under GFDL, and I don't think CC BY-SA 4.0 allows that. By a slightly non-obvious means, CC BY-SA 4.0 allows derived works to be licensed under any compatible licence, but the only compatible licences are CC BY-SA 4.0 itself, FAL 1.3, and GPLv3. CC BY-SA 3.0 has similar requirements, but its compatible licences are only localised CC BY-SA 3.0 licences and CC BY-SA 4.0. Since CC BY-SA 4.0 is common to both lists, you can use that. Note that there's no problem with removing GFDL from a source: {{Self}} allows you to select a licence of your choice, and you choose CC BY-SA 3.0. It's possible you might be able to license under FAL 1.3 or GPLv3 by using the multi-licensed source under CC BY 2.5, but I'm not sure about that and I'm not sure it's worth trying to work it out. --bjh21 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oooh. Okay Okay. Because the work is specifically GDFL 1.2 or any later version, then it is compatible with GDFL 1.3, which is compatible for re-license under CCBYSA 3, which is itself compatible with CCBYSA 4. That makes sense but its a long walk to get there. GMGtalk 14:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup, if it is truly derivative, then cc-by-sa-4.0 is really the only option due to the second work mentioned. However, if it was only the information that was used, and not the way it was expressed on the map, it may not be a derivative work of the copyright. Facts themselves are not copyrightable, just the way they are expressed on the map. Really depends on which aspects of the originals were copied. If just the first one provided the outlines, with the other two just supplying facts but expressed differently, you could use almost any license (though mentioning the vector outlines are CC-BY-2.5, in case those do have a copyright, which is possible). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

CC licence music video on Youtube

Hi! I would like to ask your opinion. en:Jay Chou's Ninja music video has been published under a CC licence on youtube by his official publishing company (that he also owns), JVR Music. The channel is linked on the official website (left hand side, under the facebook icon). Does this mean that the entire video can be uploaded to commons, with the sound? Or just that I can screenshot some of the scenes? (I know I can do the latter, but what about the music? I would guess that remains copyrighted despite the music video being licenced under CC? Am I right?) Teemeah (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the contract between the video producer and the copyright holders of music. Ruslik (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why the CC license would only apply to the visual aspect of the video. It doesn't specify that it does, and the music is an integral part of the video. The only possible objection would be that JVR does not have the right to CC-license the music and did so incorrectly - but if it's responsible for publishing the music and owned by the artist, it seems likely that they would have that right. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WLM

Most of these photos are available on Instagram. Is it necessary to ask for permission? Hanooz 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Under which license they are available on Instagram? Ruslik (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't find anything about licensing images on their Instagram account. Hanooz 16:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of the user's uploads have original EXIF that infers that the files are "uploaded from" a camera instead of Instagram. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

COM:TOO Switzerland

Hi, I found a website that might help with the expansion of TOO Switzerland. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

PD-SlovakGov

Please, modify {{PD-SlovakGov}}, per discussion: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-09#COA_Slovakia. State symbols, municipality symbols, symbols of self-governing region have no copyright in Slovakia. --Regasterios (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mates: can you help me? --Regasterios (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The new section should be added. And maybe link to the wipolex version, since that can show the law in both Slovak and English from there, and in both PDF and HTML. But this may also need to be in the form of an edit request on the template's talk page, with the exact desired modifications provided. In this case you probably need to provide a rewrite of the whole thing (including links), as the text of the old section shown has been broken up into multiple new sections in the new law, and we should use the new wording throughout. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Anybody else? --Regasterios (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Carl.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I read it in Slovak, §5d clearly states that all state symbols, municipality and regions symbols are not subject to copyright. However if the symbol happens to be a derivative work the original is still copyrighted. Carl's link doesn't include changes made in 2018. We'd better find the translation of current version. --Mates (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Clindberg, Jeff G., Mates: Thank you for your support! Who will modify the text? --Regasterios (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry? What's the next step? --Regasterios (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Regasterios: I changed the protection level of the template, please fix it. Ankry (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: thank you, however I think you should have to change the protection level of this template: {{PD-SlovakGov/en}}. --Regasterios (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Regasterios: OOPS, done for all languages. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: thank you. I modified the English version. Please check it. However I can't rewrite the other languages. Could you do this with Polish version? I'm going to ask for help other users to translate the other languages. --Regasterios (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Die shot copyright?

I just stumbled upon File:Diopsis.jpg. This is a die shot of a chip. The chip is undoubtedly patented, but completely utilitarian. So what about the die shot? Because no matter who creates it, its always going to look pretty much the same. How many creative choices does one have for a die shot? Angle? Nope. Lighting? Nope.

I think this may actually be {{PD-scan}}, but we seemingly have no suitable primary license for it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends on whether the chip is considered a 2D or 3D object. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It already survived a deletion nomination, linked on its talk page. --ghouston (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: a modern chip (which the one pictured isn't) can have multiple layers, but the layers are so close together (nm scale) it doesn't matter. While the angle can change the perception (though any angle is worse than no angle), sort of like those hologram security stickers. If you scan a hologram security sticker, do we consider those stickers 3D objects? Anyway, as I looked for more, I did find something nice: File:How to de-package and expose a GPU flip chip die.webm. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The chip was protected mask work; see the Copyright Office Circular. I'm not sure if a photograph is an optical copy of the mask work, which would be illegal in the US and other WTO nations. I say was, because it only lasts ten years, so doesn't apply to this photo, but might be a concern later, especially if we want to argue it's basically PD-art. It's not copyright, but that doesn't help us avoid the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Interesting, I did not know that. However, I doubt a photo of a die is illegal. And non-copyright restrictions are no problem for Commons. (we also have trademarked stuff) I wouldn't think that a photo like this actually violates that protection for mask works. A photo (unless the resolution is extremely high) can't be used to reproduce any part of the chip. But we'd have to do more research to be sure. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Drawing of Misericordia Hospital (Winnipeg) from 1906 newspaper

I have recently been working on the Misericordia Health Centre (Winnipeg) article. While searching the newspaper archives, I found a drawing published in 1906 of an extension to the facility.

Today the photo was tagged as violating copyright and could be deleted soon. I would prefer to keep this image in the article, since this wing of the Hosp. is the main one. It also shows a steeple/spire that is not on the building now.

The image was published more than 113 years ago, so I assume that it is safe.

Please help with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericordia_Health_Centre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericordia_Health_Centre#/media/File:Misericordia_Hosspital_1906_Extension_Drawing.png

Jimj wpg (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Mainly, I think the UploadWizard marked it as no-license. While you added PD-Canada, you did not remove the no-license template so the image was in some speedy-delete categories. However, copyright can last a very long time. PD-old-assumed generally waits for 120 years, although 113 years may be enough for a 50pma country. The tag you used (PD-Canada) said it was either Crown Copyright (which this was not), or was an old photograph (this was not), or the author died more than 50 years ago -- while likely, the author is not named nor is their death date specified. More appropriate tags are probably {{PD-Canada-anon}} (presuming the human author was not named in the newspaper, or later source) and (for the U.S. status) {{PD-1923}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Less than 120 years from creation PD template would require also a separate US PD template, while the {{PD-old-assumed}} might cover the 120 years from creation US term for anonymous works. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It's clearly {{PD-US-expired}}, so just add that to whatever is uploaded. The US part is trivial and shouldn't affect what Canadian tag is used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The WFP archives place it on page 38, not on page 50. It is difficult to believe that the author of this drawing was not known. PD-Canada (50 years pma) is likely, but PD-Canada-anon is unlikely and sounds like possible falsehood. Better to use PD-Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If the person has the newspaper and the author was not mentioned, it was published anonymously. Using PD-Canada says that you know the author died more than 50 years ago. We differentiate PD-old and PD-old-assumed for that reason -- the first says we know the year of death, and the latter does not but being old enough to be "really likely". If PD-Canada can be used in the latter sense, OK I guess, but we have a publication here and if the author is not mentioned, it was at least published anonymously. Now if it was signed somewhere in the work, it would not be anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding availability for use status of image from two academic studies

There are two image from two academic studies regarding the migrations of dna haplogroups (maps with proposed migration routes), at least one of which I hope to post on a relevant page (if allowed) but I am unsure how to determine whether this is permitted. How would I go about doing (determining) this — I'm afraid it is all rather confusing to me. Would I need to seek permission from any particular party? The first image is "Figure 4" in the first link below. Also, on that page another user (I believe about a year or more ago) uploaded an image taken from another (a third) academic study (which is also a map image showing proposed haplogroup migrations), which seems to suggest that doing so is (at least under some circumstances) allowed (unless that image too is prohibited). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6401177/ The second image is "Fig. 5 from this study: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/3/915/1005941 Thank you for your help. Skllagyook (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook:: The first article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, as indicated by clicking "Copyright and License information" below the list of authors at the PMC, or "Rights and permissions" at the original article. Thus text and images from that publication can be uploaded to Commons with {{CC-BY-4.0}}, and reused for any purpose as long as the authors/creators are attributed and other terms of the license are followed. The second article however, while free to read online, is not free to reuse: the note at the bottom states "© The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved." Thus we cannot host content from that publication. See Commons:Licensing for the types of licenses we can use, and those we cannot. --Animalparty (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty:: Thank you for your response. (for the image at the first link) How would I use that template you linked, the "{{CC-BY-4.0}}" link (I'm not really sure how that kind of template works and I'm afraid I don't understand the link)? And how would I go about uploading the image? Would I download the image from the academic article onto my computer and then upload it to Wikimedia? And would I somehow use that template to name the image (I'm not sure what it is or what it is used for)? And how would I attribute the authors and follow the terms of license? As you can likely see I am very confused regarding this. Thank you again Skllagyook (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Step one: download the image you want at the largest file size you can find. Step two: follow the instructions at Upload Wizard, which will walk you through the subsequent steps (see Commons:Upload Wizard for background info). When asked for source and author, copy and paste the journal citation, with a link to the website or DOI, and paste the entire list of authors into "Author" (unless otherwise credited, such as in Fig. 1 b). You would then select "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" from the list under "The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license". And don't worry too much about getting it wrong the first try: like any Wiki, files and file descriptions can be changed or corrected at any time. --Animalparty (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty::Should I put in the journal citation into where it asks for "author(s)" the way it is in the Wikipedia article (complete with the the "<ref" and "</ref>" on either end and everything else, or should I simply post a list of the authors' names (perhaps with the doi)? Skllagyook (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Skllagyook: You may, but are not required to, use {{Cite journal}} (although it does not always display the same) but do not use <ref>. You can also copy and paste plain text. Again, once you've gotten images uploaded, you can experiment with different styles of formatting. See one example here. --Animalparty (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty::Ok. So for now I will simply past a list of the authors' names where it asks for "Author(s)" (copied and pasted from the study) and where it asked for "Source" I pasted the url (of the study). Would that be correct/acceptable? Skllagyook (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty::I did the above and it seems to have worked. It appears to have been simpler than I thought. Thank you for your help. Skllagyook (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Skllagyook: Good job! However, it appears you mistakenly selected the Creative Commons Share-alike 4.0 license ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). You can simply edit the file description and replace the errant license template with {{cc-by-4.0}}. And the most specific categories are recommended to keep things files well organized, e.g. Category:Haplogroup L3 (mtDNA) rather than generic categories like Category:Diagrams, containing hundreds of thousands of unrelated images in its nested categories. See File:Geographic dispersal routes of out of Africa migration, and secondary worldwide human expansions.PNG for another example. --Animalparty (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty:: Oh dear. How would I do that? Where would I go to make the correction, and what exactly do I post there?
Nevermind. I think I figured it out. Thanks again Skllagyook (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Do these scans/photographs of this public domain document have ":creativity" or are they not "creative" photos?

I found copies of the Armenian National Constitution of 1863 at the british Library. I notice the scans include rulers and color checkers:

I'm sure that these photos don't have elements of creativity and should be treated as simple scans (as the rulers and color checkers are just there to be guides for the document), but I want to make sure the British Library would have no copyright claim on the basis of creativity of the photo (simply scanning a document doesn't give you copyright, but adding a creative/transformative element DOES) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO, they are not creative. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Use {{Pd-art}} template to tag them. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Uploaded raw scans at Category:Armenian National Constitution raw unprocessed scans WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The exact paintings involved in the court case that ruled that photos of PD paintings are PD in the US was referring to paintings that had color checkers and (I believe) rulers in the photo. Given that case and PD-Art, you're fine with uploading them to Commons; if you're worried about British law, I believe there's some argument that under British law the Library might have copyright to it, and some argument that British courts would rule similarly to US courts, both from sources skilled in British law. If you're personally worried, I suggest you look up the question and weigh your personal acceptable of risk.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I submitted a request in the graphics lab for people to "process" the photos so that in newer revisions only the pages are shown, instead of the color checkers. If the UK authorities ever do have an issue with the unprocessed photos, the processed ones which only show the pages would still exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Not directly relevant, but there is a 1901 English translation of that constitution as an appendix of this work, which should be PD I believe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: That is an excellent find! Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: See User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice! It's telling they did not respond. It's a good guide on what to do in case this happens. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Finding date of death for French translator, and presumption of death?

Does anyone know more about Évariste Prudhomme? I want to find whether this is public domain in France, and I believe France uses death year + 70 years for determination of public domain status.

Does the commons presume that if one doesn't know the birth and/or death date of the author, he/she was born 20 years before the first known work (for this, would be 1842?), and/or that he/she died 120 years after the presumed date of birth? (would be 1962?) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There's the somewhat controversial {{PD-old-assumed}}, which basically says that an author can be assumed dead 50 years after their earliest known work, so his works would be PD in 1982 in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This French publication, in a July 1870 issue (pages 15 and 16), mentions that a M Évariste Prudhomme, translator of Armenian works, died at age 43. So sounds like he died in 1870, though don't know an exact date, and was born in 1826 or 1827. But without that knowledge, we do have the PD-old-assumed tag, for works more than 120 years old (not 50). This would have qualified for that, but I think we can safely use the PD-old-100 tag instead given the above reference. Stuff from the 1860s is probably getting old enough that we don't have to use PD-old-assumed; that would require someone living 80 years past when they made the work, though that is still inside the edge of theoretical possibility which I guess is the reason to use PD-old-assumed in such cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
[6] says the oldest British work in copyright was from 1859, from an author 1842-1940, with 2011 making the oldest an 1865 work from an author 1846-1941. For well-known long-lived authors, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) was first published in 1884, and Bertrand Russell (1871-1970) first published in 1895. So worrying about 1860s is pretty extreme.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright almost expired

What is the usual treatment for files with an almost expired copyright? I found File:Cover-play1913.jpg. Author en:George Bernard Shaw died in 1950 in England, so PD-old can be used from the end of 2020. Is such a file normally deleted and then undeleted after a year and a bit, or do you normally let it go, because the problem will disappear shortly by itself? Castillo blanco (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Castillo blanco, Broadwaygal: Who created that artwork?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been looking around a bit. The artist may be en:May Wilson Preston. If so, the copyright would expired by the end of 2019, making it even more logical to let it go. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Bogus copyright claim

A while back, I uploaded a higher resolution image of File:Launch-of-the-SS-GB.jpg. I noticed at the time that the copyright tag was evidently bogus, but was unsure what to do because the situation is complicated by the fact that the tag was endorsed by OTRS, and the issue subsequently fell off my radar. But I think it's time something was done about this.

The reason I believe the copyright claim is bogus is because the image is from a lithograph published in 1843, which is surely public domain. The location of the larger image that I downloaded is here. Can I alter the source field and copyright tag as appropriate, deleting the OTRS ticket, or is there some other approach I should take? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Gatoclass. Yup. It's public domain. Seems to be a work from en:Joseph Walter, who died in 1856. The Lordprice Collection might assert copyright (in fact they clearly do), but museums and government agencies misunderstand the rules all the time, and this pretty clearly seems to be the case here. Even if this was a different Joseph Walter (which seems unlikely), the lithograph was presented to "Prince Albert K.G.", otherwise known as en:Albert, Prince Consort Knight of the Garter. He died in 1861, meaning the publication date had to be some time prior to that. GMGtalk 13:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, should be public domain (but see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for information on why there may be a UK copyright claim). It might be a good idea to upload under a different filename, since you have a different crop of the image, and leave the history / licensing of that other one alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting support for a template covering a specific French public domain revision

I am new to Wikicommons and uploaded a letter I received from a French Government official in their official capacity. Apparently, there is no Wikicommons licence template for a specific public domain provision in France. According to article 1 of the French law of 17-July-1978, Government documents including correspondence, according to. The law establishes that all government administrative documents are public domain including correspondence pertaining to laws and administrative procedures and it specifically states that correspondence that contains interpretation of law or description of administrative procedures are considered administrative documents and therefore public domain. Here is a link to a page on the French Government website: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000339241 I am requesting support in creating a template. I was told that, if the community agrees, somebody can create a corresponding license template that would allow for this document to be hosted on Wikicommons. Any support is greatly appreciated, thank you in advance.MireilleBernadac (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@MireilleBernadac: Bonjour, Malheureusement, vous confondez deux types de lois, qui relèvent de deux notions différentes : d'une part, la notion de loi sur le droit d'auteur et, d'autre part, la notion de loi sur l'accès du public à l'information. Ce n'est pas la même chose. Par l'expression «domaine public» utilisée dans le contexte du droit d'auteur, on entend les oeuvres qui ne sont pas soumises à des droits d'auteur patrimoniaux et qui peuvent donc être reproduites et utilisées librement. Par contre, un document administratif qui est normalement soumis aux droits d'auteur, bien qu'il soit accessible au public par l'effet du droit du public à l'information, ne devient pas pour autant une oeuvre libérée de ses droits d'auteur, lesquels ne sont pas affectés par l'accès. Un tel document, bien qu'il soit accessible au public, n'est pas dans le «domaine public» au sens des droits d'auteur. Autrement dit, en bref, le public a le droit de consulter un tel document mais n'a pas le droit de l'utiliser librement. Il n'est pas possible de proposer un tel document non libre sur Wikimedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If a mp3 of a song is ccby/ccbysa, how far can it be reused?

Suppose a mp3 of a song, that is, a specific rendition of that song, is ccby/ccbysa. This mp3 can be remixed anyhow, but can people perform (play with their instruments/sing) the song in their own way? That is, make cover versions?--Roy17 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: Assuming lyrics and melody of the mp3 are all original, yes. In case of CC BY, reasonable attribution is required, which could probably be fulfilled by just saying what you're going to sing before you start. In case of CC BY-SA, if you are going to perform your version live and nobody is recording it and you didn't write anything down, you can't claim copyright. No copyright means no derivative work, so you could ignore ShareAlike. If you do record it, you'll have to ShareAlike. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Note that for a Mp3 or other recording of a song is free licensed, all three factors must be true: 1)The composition must be free licensed or public domain, 2)The recording must be free licensed or public domain, 3)The performance must be public domain. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by the performance must be public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I think Infrogmation considers both the performance (whoever sings/plays) and whoever pressed "record" on some recording device. When there is no recording, there can't be copyright. Ideas or memories ("I played this great song once") can't be copyrighted. This interpretation of law is problematic in quite some cases though, and on Commons we generally ignore it. I don't know if anyone who provided no creative input but merely pressed "record" was ever granted royalties in a lawsuit. Kind of related: security cameras. There is extremely little to no creative effort involved. Granting copyright for years of footage to whoever installed it is ridiculous, besides, the installation is likely utilitarian. (try to capture as much relevant area as possible) So there is no artist, only a recorder. (whoever maintains the camera) Who owns the copyright for those images? Probably nobody, but legally it's not fully clear yet. What if you provide a canvas and paint to a monkey and the monkey makes a painting? Arguably you made the recording possible. So should you now be the copyright holder? Monkey selfie says no. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just pressing "record" is hardly the action giving you rights. Recording a performance as audio involves e.g. placing the microphones to get the music and not too much noise, balancing the signal from the different microphones, choosing the recording media and its parameters, and so on. In any but the simplest cases there is a lot more involved than pressing "record". --LPfi (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I asked.
I asked, when a mp3 is ccby/ccbysa (the premise is true. dont discuss this.), is reuse limited to that mp3 only, or the song itself? Can people make cover versions (that is, a new performance or recording by someone other than the original artist or composer)?--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Did the composer give you the rights to make cover versions? How can you know that premise is true if you don't know who has licensed you what rights?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
(Since people cant understand...)
I release an mp3 in ccby/ccbysa, can other people make and sell cover versions of my song?--Roy17 (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Instead of hiding Infrogmation, why didn't you read what he wrote? Yes, if you release a musical recording under a free license, you release all copyrights in that recording under a free license, including the composition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how patents or copyrights in the mp3 format affect things, but yes, you cannot release the mp3 as cc-by(-sa) without releasing the rights to your underlying works. You can release some aspects of the mp3, e.g. the lyrics, without releasing the other aspects, but then you have not released the mp3. The licence allows making derived works, which would include covers. --LPfi (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@LPfi: The patents for mp3 have expired. But regardless, you release the content with a Creative Commons license. Embedded fonts in a document for example are not released when you license your ebook as Creative Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there really a copyright on this image?

https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/si-86-533hjpg

The Smithsonian Institution claims a copyright - but I thought, as they're a federal government body, they had no such right? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: The photographer may have donated the photo & rights to the Smithsonian. That photo is all over the web.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The Smithsonian has mostly federal employees, and their works are PD-USGov. They also do have a number of employees paid through donations or their own fund, and those would not be PD-USGov. Additionally, the government can have copyrights transferred to it, and own those copyrights. The Library of Congress will typically release any such works, but don't think the Smithsonian does. And lastly, yes they do seem to try to raise money off of their photographic archive, quite possibly even if the images are PD (I know I have seen it with some U.S. Army Air Corps photos in the past). This one though, no idea. I see it labelled elsewhere as Jackie Cochran in the cockpit of her North American Aviation P-51B-15-NA Mustang NX28388, #13, at Cleveland Municipal Airport. She bought that plane in 1946 and it crashed in 1948. Unsure of where the Smithsonian got it. If that was part of a family archive donated to the Smithsonian, it could very well be true. If it was a publicity photo they simply have a print of, maybe not. But can't find information on where they obtained it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

My images rights were incorrectly attributed

I have multiple images that were submitted by Joseph Fuller and would like to see the supporting ticket information to understand where things went wrong. ticket #2016071010007995 is what is shown under the images. They are being incorrectly displayed as non-attibution free images. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.126.215.82 (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please email more information about this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a subject including "Re: [Ticket#2016071010007995]" without quotes, and carbon copy anyone appropriate. Pinging @BU Rob13 as holder of Ticket:2016071010007995.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
BU Rob13 is retired. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Sorry about that. I wrote as an OTRS volunteer member.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
From a quick search, there seems to be three files with ticket #2016071010007995. I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly displayed as non-attibution free images". The three files are tagged with the license "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", which does require attribution. The three files are also attributed to a name, which is also the same name that appears in the EXIF of the photographs. If you are the author, the OTRS ticket would contain what you wrote in the email you sent to Wikimedia. So, it's unlikely to tell you anything that you don't already know. To obtain details about the ticket, usually you could contact the OTRS agents who placed the mention of the ticket on the files. Unfortunately, in this case, the mention of the ticket on two of the files was added by a user who retired from Wikimedia this summer and is therefore unavailable, and on the other file it was added by another user who has been rather inactive in the last year. However, you can contact other OTRS volunteers on the page Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and they can help you. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

wrong license?

I don't spend a lot of time on Commons, so forgive me if this is incorrect, but I'm seeking help related to File:Eucrossorhinus dasypogon (cropped).jpg and File:Eucrossorhinus dasypogon.jpg. The license listed on the file pages (CC 2.0) is not congruent with what I'm seeing on the flickr webpage itself. But it says the images were checked and verified to have the right license. Could the photographer have retroactively changed the license on the Flickr page? Unfortunately it's not on the Wayback Machine. I'm currently doing a GAN review on ENWP where this image is used. Please ping on reply Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Yes, a change of license by the flickr user is probably what happened. That's exactly why files are reviewed at the time of upload, to record what license they had on flickr at that time. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Asclepias! Glad to know that this image is probably acceptable to use. Enwebb (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Does this have a free license?

The image File:Frequency of African Maternal Lineages in the Europe and North Africa.jpg that was just uploaded by a new user, and added to a Wikipedia article (en:African admixture in Europe), says that it's licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. But the listed source has no mention of copyright or license: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2148/85ca3d6236a8fd49e2cab33e23207aaa35a0.pdf. The Semantic Scholar website says to contact the original author for copyright information.

The paper was published in the journal "Collegium Antropologicum": [7]. The journal has an "open access policy" that says "This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge." But it doesn't say anything specific about licensing for reuse, etc. It definitely doesn't mention CC BY-SA 3.0. Is that good enough?

I reverted the edit adding it to the article, because I couldn't find license info. Should I put it back? Is there something else that should be done? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Note to self: Looks like a Template:No permission since, aka {{subst:npd}} was added, so I guess that's the answer to what to do about it. That template is mentioned at Help center > Help for editors > Copyright violations & deletion guidelines (aka Deletion policy) > Missing legal information - though there's no real explanation of the templates there, and barely any information at all about "deletion tagging", so I wasn't able to figure that out from the help documentation.
There are also these related discussions, which basically say that just because a publication is "open access" or says "freely available", doesn't mean that it has a free license compatible with its reuse on Wikipedia: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Is this CC-BY or CC-BY-NC?, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/08#Canadian field naturalist, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/09#Copyright on open access journals. The user who uploaded it should not have indicated a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, since there's no evidence of that. --IamNotU (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this logo copyright-eligible?

On the Wikipedia article on Valley Bank the logo for the bank was uploaded under a fair use rationale, but to me the logo seems to be quite simple and not meet the threshold of originality; it merely consists of simple geometric shapes and the words "Valley Bank" on it. Should the file be categorized as PD and uploaded to WMC or should it remain as a fair use image? Thanks, Kalimi (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in USA the logo is likely below ToO. Ruslik (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Rev. Troy Perry at MCC 50th Anniversary.jpg

The EXIF data provided for this file shows that it has been released under a free license Commons accepts; the sourced webpage given for the file, however, doesn't indicate any license and the main website is not under a free license that Commons accepts. Is OTRS verification required for this type of thing per item 2 of COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It is already verified through OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Ruslik. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Olive Snell - The Illustrated London News

I've just uploaded File:Olive Snell - The Illustrated London News.jpg as {{PD-UK-unknown}}. The source website attributes it to The Illustrated London News, but does not give a date, nor the name of the photographer. A Google search finds neither datum. In the picture, Snell looks, I think, younger than in the photo at [8], which is dated 1918. What do people think? And could we also use the latter image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

See also a 1912 pic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure the image is unattributed? The website states "© Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans", and it looks like a name appears at the bottom right. --Animalparty (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Rita Martin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking "Mlle" something, as in mademoiselle. Perhaps someone should order a poster sized print to verify. In any case, I think it's too premature to apply {{PD-UK-unknown}} as public domain rationale. --Animalparty (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree, this does not suit PD-UK-unknown as the ILN is definitely research-able. -- (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
"Mary Evans" is a reference to the "Mary Evans Picture Library"; not a reference to the photographer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Five minutes of research provides, Published: Wednesday 19 October 1910, Newspaper: The Tatler at a non-free source which I'll not be promoting; no doubt you can find others with this info. May be a different publication of the same portrait photograph, but gives a firm published date and verifiable terminus ante quem. Update, I get the photographer being Rita Martin, which is actually visible in the version already hosted on Commons. I also see a date of 1918, but if someone can find better free archives of the Tatler, that can probably be verified better than my half analysis. -- (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah well, as can come from research, looks like a copyright issue. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olive Snell - The Illustrated London News.jpg. -- (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Youtube CC videos of celebrities

Do they have to be made by the celebrities themselves to be properly licensed? For example, these three videos were released by Narendra Modi's channel:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si8F3sn9neI
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMHcdJ-Flg
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO0-J7bDcQ

Obviously it was Modi's staff rather than Modi himself who produced the videos. Is this fact a reason the youtube cc licence is bogus?--Roy17 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I only think the original copyright holder needs to be the uploader for the YouTube license to work as intended, unless it was a en:work for hire or there was a en:copyright transfer agreement of some kind. It also may depend upon whether the Modi YouTube account is considered to be an official government account only being currently "borrowed" so to speak by Modi while he is the Prime Minister of India or more of a private account that he uses for other things like campaigning, etc. and will still control upon leaving office. If it's an official government account and the videos were made by his staff as part of their official duties, then perhaps they would actually be public domain; if, however, the account isn't official or it's official but the video was created by a staff member on their own private time not as part of any official duties or someone else who just happened to be there at the time, then the YouTube license wouldn't really be correct in my opinion, at least not for Commons purposes. It might be OK for the video to uploaded to YouTube based upon some agreement between the copyright holder and Modi, but that may only extend to using the video on YouTube which is too limiting for Commons.
Just going to use the United States as an example, but things may be different depending upon the country. If, for example, someone working for the US government creates a video of the President of the United States as part of their official duties and then posts it on one of the president's official government social media accounts, the video would then most likely really be {{PD-USGov}} instead of the standard YouTube license. Not everything you find on an official government website, however, was originally created by a US government employee as part of their official duties; some websites might use en:fair use content created by others and not really own the copyright on said content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
IMHO it doesnt really matter whether the video was produced by a staff on official duty or not on duty, because these are CC licences. The question is, is a video a work of this channel? If it is, I see no problem of accepting the CC licence. And these three videos are works of Modi's channel, rather than say a third party TV channel's work.--Roy17 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Dublin and Drogheda Railway map

I uploaded File:Handbooktodublin00dubl 0012.jpg but I'm far from sure I've got the licensing correct and hope someone can check. The original publication was 1844 but I am trusting there are no issues and I have done the licensing and attribution correctly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark: Published before 1923 will take this license {{PD-1996}}, so I've added it for you. I also uploaded a higher resolution version derived from the single page scans that's around double the resolution. Ww2censor (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Please don't use PD-1996 on works published before 1924. It's a complex rule that's very hard to check all the details of, whereas {{PD-US-expired}} (published more than 95 years ago) only requires knowing the publication year. Either of them require a source nation tag, so use {{PD-old-expired}}, preferably with a deathyear parameter when known.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)