Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 28

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


Possibly incorrect/nonfree license?

Could someone please take a look at the license tag on File:JGSDF 1st Airborne Brigade.svg? It's an armed forces patch. The license noted is {{PD-Japan-exempt}}, which states that "the text of national or local laws, regulations, and circular notices and/or directives are exempt from protection." It doesn't seem to me that anything in either the template or the law (from the link I followed to read it) cover armed forces patches under that exemption. Could someone with a bit more experience please take a look at this? Seraphimblade (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that {{PD-Japan-exempt}} is wrong. I had a look at the English translation of the Japanese copyright legislation linked to that template, and the provisions referred to clearly do not cover artistic works such as logos. However, {{PD-Japan}} may apply. Assuming the date "1956-03-20" stated on the image description page is correct (I note that the source file states "19560302") and that is the date of first publication of the patch or the patch was published earlier than that source, then according to that licence the copyright in a work owned by an organization lapses 50 years after publication. You may need to get a Japanese speaker to look at the source document and see whether there is enough information from it to determine when the patch was first published. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status/source of maps?

I am working on an image copyright investigation on Wikipedia and as many of the files have been transferred here I figured I would ask for input here. A good portion of the user's work is maps, such as File:Muhemet Ali Empire 1805 - 1953 (AD).png and File:Seljuq Dynasty 1037-1194 (AD).png. The user maintains that they created the work themselves but they have not indicated how they made them, i.e., from what base maps and what software. Does anyone here recognize a program that may be used to make these images or otherwise have some input which may let us determine whether they are appropriately released under free licenses? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The software does not matter, but a source for the base map should be given. In this case, there are plenty of free category:Maps of Africa. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I was really wondering about software if it was a program that came with maps which you then modify, like w:Generic Mapping Tools or the like, so basically the same thing as the source for the base maps. I went looking through the free map categories earlier today and didn't find any matches that look like these. I'll keep after the user to see if they will provide an actual source, but if they don't provide one what's the policy here? Should the files go to COM:DR or are they assumed to be ok or what? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
So do I just need to fire up a mass deletion request (once I've identified all of the maps) in order to get a firm answer as to whether or not these are a problem or not? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Even then you may not get a firm answer. Such is the way of wikis. Powers (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Grey Sunflower by Vertical Submarine.jpg

File:Grey Sunflower by Vertical Submarine.jpg
Grey Sunflower by Vertical Submarine.jpg

Comments are welcome as to whether this photograph can remain in the Commons. It is of an art installation at the Singapore Botanic Gardens consisting of artificial grey sunflowers. The installation was temporary and was removed in 2010 (see [1]), and so freedom of panorama does not apply. Certainly a fair amount of creativity went into creating the faux flowers, so I'm inclined to think that the photograph is an unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted artwork. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a derivative work and should be deleted, notwithstanding its strong resemblence to non-copyrightable actual flowers. This does raise interesting questions though about photographs of more mundane "fake plants" of the sort you buy from a department store to stick in an office, which one could argue are purely functional. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
These pieces of installation art are always tricky, especially readymades. I suppose in this case the artists exercised creativity and effort in designing and constructing the plastic grey sunflowers which would give them copyright over the work, but what about a work like Tracey Emin's My Bed, which is essentially a real bed with sheets, a carpet, and miscellaneous bits of trash? — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Statues in Turkey

Have I misunderstood the Checklist when applied to the photographs in Category:The Flintstones?

  • Are those figurines permanently installed? I think they are.
  • Does Commons:Freedom of panorama#Turkey apply to these figurines?
  • Does the section "Questionable, Symbol OK.svg may or X mark.svg may not be OK" (which has "Permanently installed works of art in a public place") take priority over the "not OK" section which includes "Action figures, statuettes, costumes ..."

Now that I re-read the Commons:Freedom of panorama#Turkey section, it seems it could easily exclude these figurines as they are not "fine arts stationarily placed on the public roads, streets and avenues". If those images are indeed not free I will need to nominate all those images, including the derivatives I uploaded. -84user (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to myself, it seems Commons:Derivative works#Casebook makes it clear: photographs of three-dimensional copyrighted objects retain the copyright of the original work. If this is correct for all nation states (is it?) then there are several groups of images on Commons that are non-free. Examples: Category:Smurfs, Category:Harikalar Diyari (because some of the statues are copyrighted comic figures), but not Category:Gulliver (why exactly?) -84user (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of these images are not okay and should go through a deletion process. It remains unclear to me whether a permanently installed statue in a country with FOP of a copyrighted character is free or not (also, whether it makes a difference whether the copyright holder of the character did or did not approve the sculpture). Regardless, I'm pretty sure Gulliver there is fine because the character design itself is either public domain or was designed for the sole purpose of creating that statue. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think they are all fine. By allowing the statues to be placed there permanently, the copyright owners of the graphic images of the characters should be aware they no longer control copyright of photographs taken of them in that location. (BTW, a "character copyright" is a literary copyright regarding use of specific details of a character, backstory, etc. in another book/play/etc. It should have no bearing on graphic depictions of a character, which are entirely separate copyrights.) Obviously the photographs are still subject to restrictions on the character trademark, but that is a different subject. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a possibility that the statues of well-known cartoon characters have been permanently stationed in the park without the knowledge of the copyright owners of the characters. If so, I don't think that freedom of panorama can save photographs of such statues from being unauthorized derivative works. However, in the absence of any evidence that this is the case, I guess we should assume that the copyright owner has consented to the statues being made and placed in a public place. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Gulliver — the character himself isn't under copyright, because he first appeared in a book that was published in 1726, so the design of the statue itself is the only way that copyright can be an issue for these images. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recordings from Church

A question about performers rights at Commons:Village_pump#Recordings_from_Church; please comment. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

CaliSwagPressPhoto.jpg "permissions"

I see that a photo on the Cali Swag District Wikipedia page has been tagged as showing no proof of permission. I disagree, but it would be helpful for an admin on Wikimedia Commons to examine the issue. I posed this question to an admin on WP, and was referred back here. I did not upload the photo, and do not own it, but I did add it to the Cali Swag District page on WP because it was available in Wikimedia Commons at the time without the tag it has now. The photo, File:CaliSwagPressPhoto.jpg, was placed on Wikipedia by Cali Swag District [[2]], who own the photo as they have stated. I've added many photos of my own, and released them into the public domain as you can see on my user page on WP. But in this case I'd like an admin to examine the issue since I have no connection to this photo. I addressed this issue and made some corrections to the files description, specifically to the owner, that should have corrected this but someone else added the tag right back. Thanks for your help! While I am new to WP Commons, I am well established on WP. Michaelh2001 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

An administrator already left a message on the uploader's talk page. It's at User_talk:CaliSwagDistrict#File_Tagging_File:CaliSwagPressPhoto.jpg_2 and explains what needs to be done by the uploader.  Docu  at 16:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This was probably requested as it's a stated to be a press photo and probably already widely distributed. It frequently happens that we get such uploads and OTRS is the current way to ascertain that the uploader is authorized to do so.  Docu  at 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, got it. I will post the same warning on their WP page. Thanks for the quick answer! Michaelh2001 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


What about copyright in Cuba? You obviously omitted any mention of copyright laws in this country which assesses property rights different from many other coutries -- including the People's Republic of China. Perhaps in this countries there is a balance made between the property rights of the author and the property rights of the citizen. Kindly inform on this matter by filling up the "informational gap" that has obviously emerged on this subject-matter.

--Psychonaut01 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's much more likely to be a matter of there not being any editors familiar enough with the laws of those jurisdictions to update the guideline to include those laws. If you are knowledgeable about the laws of China and Cuba, feel free to update the guideline yourself. Both China and Cuba are WIPO members, so copies of their laws are available on the WIPO website here (China) and here (Cuba). — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Germany: Official works

Question: What about applications from government agencies or information from the same source? Are these covered by German law as documents that are in the public domain?

--Psychonaut01 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "applications from government agencies"? As for "information" from government agencies, it appears that in order for the material to be in the public domain it must have been "published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or ... released as an official announcement or for public information". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cornell University Library images

According to this and this, the photograph of the House of Commons chamber I have just uploaded is in the public domain. However, I don't know which licence template to use; based on the photographer's name, I have used Template:PD-UK-known but I am unsure this is indeed the right choice. Even worse, some images of the same collection which I wish to upload do not identify the photographer, and in none of the photographs which interest me is the date of publication—as opposed to creation—given. Please advise. Waltham, The Duke of 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You already selected one correct. See Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom, subsection "Ordinary copyright" and the flow chart linked at the end of that section. So Template:PD-UK-known applies. However, that tag is for photographs redundant to Template:PD-old, better use that template. The people who scanned the images dont have any copyright (although they may have in the United Kingdom, but we use US law here). See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. --Martin H. (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I do believe that simply using Template:PD-old would make things much easier, but its page claims that the template is awaiting deprecation and therefore the use of another template is encouraged. In any case, there is little doubt that the images in question are indeed in the public domain (I'd like to believe that the staff of Cornell University Library know what they are doing). My unease stems from my inability to determine the precise conditions under which the works have passed into the public domain, and therefore the fact that the selection of licence template—even though an essentially procedural matter under the present circumstances—relies at least partly on guesswork.
I am grateful for that flow chart you mention, as it simplifies things enormously, especially where the photographer is known; assuming that the lack of photographer information in a picture's description means that they are unknown, my problems are pretty much solved. Which is great, because these photographs, no matter how old, are possibly the only available free pictures of the interior of the Palace of Westminster. Everything else is copyrighted, and fair use is so restrictive... Waltham, The Duke of 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't likely need to worry about the "This tag is to be deprecated" bit on Template:PD-old/doc; these words were in the original version of the documentation page, which was created almost exactly two years ago. I can't imagine seeing this page being deprecated any time soon. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Very well, then; I am switching to PD-old (which requires no guessing whatsoever), in the comfort that I have an alternative in mind should someone complain. Thanks again! Waltham, The Duke of 11:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can upload Bryher image?

Without author info it is difficult, generally only pre 1923 images are in Public Domain. As such it shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. feydey (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PDF with possible unfree images

File:Theoildrum 6538.pdf is a document from licensed under CC-BY-SA. The oildrum site contains "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License" linking to [3]. However, I doubt that the license applies to images on the site or in files uploaded to the site.

Some images in the document are probably Ok:

  • page 1 the oildrum banner
  • page 3 BOP open diagram probably from the source of File:Cameron Ram-type Blowout Preventer (1922) - plan view.jpg - I replaced the stale URL with detailed instructions
  • page 4 BOP open diagram also probably derived from the same patent, but I was unable to find it in the system

But these are probably not freely licensed:

  • page 4 BOP connection to casing - apparently from PCCI report for MMS but no source
  • page 5 photograph of shear blade - labeled "Varco"
  • page 5 RAM layout - labeled "Times Picayune" - probably the newspaper
  • page 6 Section through the BOP - labeled "initially from BP"

Should we remove the doubtful images from the PDF? Apart from this PDF Category:Blowout preventers has freely licensed images from which free alternatives could be created and inserted into the document. I can make the free images but I have no idea how to modify a PDF. -84user (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PDFs are generally not editable unless the creator has given other users special rights to do so. If there is copyright-infringing content in the PDF, the whole PDF must be nominated for deletion. I think the creators of the PDF have applied the Creative Commons licence rather carelessly. They may own the copyright to the text and layout of the document, but are not entitled to take material the copyright of which is owned by someone else and relicense it under a Creative Commons licence as part of their document. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless they're DRMed, any PDF can be edited, though it's not always trivial. I think Adobe Acrobat is the most well-known tool for this. If nothing else, it can be converted to Postscript, standard Postscript editors applied to remove pages, and converted back to PDF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought only the creator of a PDF could edit it, because one of the advantages of PDF files was that they are not changeable. — Cheers, JackLee talk 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You can modify them if you have Adobe Acrobat Professional. I own the program, but I'm not skilled enough with it to do more than making minor textual modifications and chopping out, adding, or rotating pages. I don't know if it's possible to remove images. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm an Acrobat Professional user at about the same level of competence as you. I once tried to remove the annoying cover page from a document I had retrieved from an online database and failed, so I figured that PDFs created by someone else cannot be edited. But I haven't explored all the ins and outs of Acrobat Professional. It is an extremely complicated program with an interface that is not exactly easy to use – too many options. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The next two paragraphs are copied from en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing:

Assuming that the file doesn't require a password, is it possible to remove images from non-locked PDFs with Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional? A discussion is going on at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing, section "PDF with possible unfree images", about a PDF that's marked as free but has images that may well be non-free; people are talking about deleting it because the images can't be removed, but it seems silly to delete if it's not too hard to remove the images. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to Tools → Advanced Editing → TouchUp Object Tool and select the image, then hit DEL on your keyboard. You can also right-click on the toolbar and select Advanced Editing, then click on the TouchUp Object button.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Following the directions I was given there, I've removed the images and uploaded the modified version. Jack, I'm about to be leaving for several days with only periodic Internet access; if I didn't remove all the nonfree images, would you please do it, using these steps that I found very simple? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, anyone who needs help with this can leave a message here for me. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos of ancient petroglyphs

Several images in Category:Leo Petroglyph are of individual carvings on a large boulder. The original carvings aren't in copyright, because they're well over a thousand years old; but are images such as File:Leo Petroglyph, human stick figure.jpg copyrightable by the photographer? All of these images are indisputably PD, because I as the photographer have marked them as PD-self, but I wonder if the four images of individual carvings should instead be marked as PD-art. I've seen the "Cave paintings" section of Commons:Derivative works, but as the individual carvings are all on sections of the large boulder that are remarkably flatter than cave walls, and as they're all taken from directly above, I don't see much originality on my part as the photographer. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used? states that {{PD-art}} should not be used for photographic reproductions that you created yourself based on works whose copyright has expired; instead, you should use {{PD-old}} for those. I can't say solely based on that photo whether or not other angles or lighting arrangements would have been up for consideration. If the photograph is not eligible for copyright protection, using {{PD-self}} could technically be construed as copyright fraud, since you are claiming to be the copyright holder prior to "releasing" it. I would use {{PD-old}} in combination with a statement in the permission field to note that "As the photographer, I do not claim any copyright to the photograph." LX (talk, contribs) 08:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd not read the PD-art use guide when I posted my original comment; thanks. I'd be very hesitant to claim copyright at any over this image simply because I don't think it's copyrightable, so I'll take your suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Request copyright check on Winter War -era insignia

I uploaded some pictures of Winter War (1939-1940) volunteer unit insignias, fundraising pins etc., but now it occurred to me that some of them might be covered by copyright (currently {{PD-Self}}). Could someone check that the following files are not copyvios:

MKFI (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Assuming that these insignia are anonymous works, the ones created in 1939 are already in the public domain. Those created in 1940 shall become PD in five months' time, so you could wait until then. SV1XV (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea who the authors of these insignia are, or the exact date when they were created. MKFI (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ilove214 may be User:2ne14ever

Based on the English Wikipedia edits regarding the images posted here, I suspect that User:Ilove214 may be the return of blocked User:2ne14ever. I have initiated an investigation at [4] but I am not sure how to address that concern here. 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops moving to user problems board. 20:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14.gif

The File File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14.gif is made from images taken from site which has copyright disclaimer. Although the loop might be done by the wikipedia user, it seems to me that is it in violation of the copyright rules on Wikipedia. 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they're en:EUMETSAT images, which are indeed copyrighted: ("Note: All EUMETSAT data and products are subject to EUMETSAT copyright." [5]). Powers (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Photographs taken in transit

When photographs are taken on or from a train, ferry or aeroplane in transit between two countries, which copyright laws apply? What about photographs taken on the high seas? I do actually have one photograph taken on a ferry in mind, so this is not an entirely theoretical question. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the subject of the photo? Is it something that may itself be copyrighted (thereby making your photo a derivative work)? If not, then it doesn't much matter where the picture is taken. COM:FOP - which I assume is your concern - only applies if the subject of the photo is copyrighted. Wknight94 talk 01:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, good point. The picture is File:Rear of Stena Hollandica ferry arriving at Hook of Holland.jpg. I also have three aerial photographs, but they were of clouds, an estuary, and a town, none of which are copyrightable. So it seems it was a theoretical question after all. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that one is definitely fine. Wknight94 talk 03:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Berne Convention defines the "country of origin" as the country where a work is first *published*, not taken. Not really sure what that means when publishing things on the internet, particularly a project like Wikimedia Commons, but may be the country where you were when you uploaded it, or maybe the country where you live at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I should have made it clearer I was referring to COM:FOP as Wknight94 mentioned. Suppose an artwork was installed in international waters (or the Arctic or something like that). Or Pepsi do an advert on the Moon... At this point, I think I should wait until an actual example is found (maybe oil rigs?), as this is getting too theoretical. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, one could imagine the installation of artwork on a ship; enough things are put on cruise ships that I can easily imagine FOP issues coming up on cruises. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Under section 162(1) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the provisions dealing with copyright apply "to things done on a British ship, aircraft or hovercraft as it applies to things done in the United Kingdom". Thus, a photograph taken aboard a British aircraft would be governed by UK law. I expect there are similar provisions in the laws of most other jurisdictions. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Antarctica contains a few images of memorials, plaques, and the like which arguably could fall under copyright, though all but a very few are old and could be PD due to age. What the law is there is an interesting set of questions. Jonathunder (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to get back to this. In real life... you would apply the law in whichever country the lawsuit was brought ;-) For Commons... as mentioned, I'm pretty sure ships are considered territory of the country of their flag (one example, the first pope to visit American "territory" was Pius IX in 1849 when he boarded the USS Constitution in the harbor at Gaeta, Italy). Oil rigs are in the same situation (they are vessels). Antarctica... probably the law of the country making the particular settlement (there are some territorial claims, but not widely recognized). If even more ambiguous than that... probably just use the nationality of the author I'd guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Antarctica is probably quite an unusual situation. Out of curiosity I had a look at the "Antarctic Treaty System" article. It does not appear that the Antarctic Treaty or other treaties dealing with Antarctica address the issue of copyright at all. Further, while the Antarctic Treaty states that no new territorial claims over Antarctica shall be recognized while the Treaty is in force, it says nothing about claims that were made prior to the treaty. It appears that a number of countries have asserted claims. Presumably the law that applies to a photograph of a memorial on Antarctica is the law of the state that is asserting a claim over the part of Antarctica on which the memorial is situated. Then again most of these territorial claims are not recognized by other countries, so it is questionable whether one country can unilaterally insist that its laws apply over a portion of the continent. The legal position will remain unsettled until some states bring a dispute to the International Court of Justice for determination. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure a lawsuit in Australia would consider everything in Australia's claimed territory as being under their law, but given that most other countries would not recognize those claims (some claims overlap so not even all other claiming countries do), lawsuits elsewhere would probably be different. I would think, de facto (and probably best for Commons purposes) that settlements would use the law of their own country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of stamps of Abkhazia

The Abkhazian stamps which have been uploaded are tagged as {{PD-AB-exempt}}, which is as follows: {{PD-AB-exempt}} As Abkhazia is not one of the countries listed yet on Commons:Stamps/Public domain, I would like to clarify the copyright status of stamps issued by them and verify the above license tag is good for stamps. Thanks. BrokenSphere 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as the postal agency is govenment entity, then it will be perfectly fine to upload the stamps. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
But these are stamps of Abkhazai, so they aren't government stamps of any government recognized in the greater world. What does that mean to us? If we worry about the law of Abkhazia, we're defacto recognizing a government that isn't recongized.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We are not in the business of recognizing countries. We have ROC law and, once we find it, Kosovar law and we follow those, even though many countries do not recognize them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think your two sentences contradict each other. If we use ROC law, we are recognizing ROC law as the relevant law in the situation and thus recognizing the government and nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...ok. What I am trying to get at is, like it or not, there is a place called Abkhazia and a select few UN members call this place a country. While some (or many, not sure what Wikipedians feel) do not think of it is as such, it should not really be our place to exclude works from there, S. Osettia, Kosovo or Taiwan because we do not see them as members of the UN or nations with high recognition. Now, back to the stamps, this is a clause I seen often in laws of former Soviet states. Some places, like Russia, does allow stamps to be in the public domain. Others, like Belarus, it has copyright to it. It is depending on if the postal service is government owned or a private corporation. Once we find that out, we can get a step closer. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a place called Abkhazia. Most countries call it a part of Georgia. If it is part of Georgia, then it's Georgian law we need to look at, and {{PD-GE-exempt}} would not cover documents of an unofficial nature. (Likewise, even if we considered Taiwan to be part of China, that wouldn't mean we exclude works from Taiwan, it would just mean that we would consider the law of the originating country to be that of China, not Taiwan.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's say we do have to apply with the laws of Georgia (which I do not agree with, but that is another time and place); Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Georgia says stamps are public domain but I only seen maybe 1 or 2 stamps even tagged with this (and those are from the Soviet Georgia period). Either that text is wrong or just we have a lack of stamps from that country. So the stamps are fine, just we need to know if we are going to use the Georgian tag or Abkhazian tag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
{{PD-GE-exempt}} is not applicable, because Abkhazian stamps wasn't created by any government recognized in Georgia. See also opinion of Georgia on Abkhazian stamps (though it's sort of obvious). Trycatch (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Then this template should be used. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The law text linked to in the Abkhazia PD template is an archived version from the Internet Archive. The current government website is There's a link to its laws, which I'm having a little trouble pulling up in English. The website is also in Georgian and Russian. BrokenSphere 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) is the website of the Georgian-sponsored government-in-exile. Its opinions about Abkhazian intellectual property law matter about as much as Queen Elisabeth's opinions about the United States Code. — Tetromino (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I found it right on the Wikipedia page. That would explain the why it's on a Georgian host, thanks for clarifying. BrokenSphere 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Or Abraham Lincoln's opinions on IP law in Virginia? As a simple fact, Wikimedia could possibly get tangled in Georgian copyright law if someone could convince the judge that the law in the originating country was relevant to the court case at hand (like the rule of the shorter term), but except in Russia and Abkhazia, a judge is going to apply Georgian law, not Abkhazian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
We do not follow the rule of the shorter term, but this is something I personally think we should ask Mike Godwin, WMF legal counsel, over. I remember having the same issues a few years ago when Kosovo became a country is how Kosovar IP law will be enforced because the country that used to contain/still contains (depending on your POV), Serbia, will never recognize anything Kosovo does. Nothing was decided, but if it helps, we do have Template:PD-ROC-exempt and no one has asked for its deletion because it is only a country recognized by 20 or 30 some-odd places and claimed by PR China as part of her territory. The only other thing I can think of is that we recognize copyright laws of areas that the US does not, such as Iran. It is going to be a confusing issue since we still have S. Osettia to worry about (which are tagged as PD-GE-exempt, not sure if there is a template for them or not, have not checked), Kosovo and who knows what other nation will create itself in the next few years. I see your point of view Prosfilaes and there is nothing wrong with it, but I believe this is an issue that should be solved by people "higher" than us. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should ask Mike Godwin (though this may be beyond his expertise), but I'd also remark: if Georgian copyright law obtains, that would mean that the copyright falls to people whose intent was to place this in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I know the folks who run Sealand sent us OTRS tickets to put items into the public domain, so that is another route. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will say nothing about the legality of the Abkhazian stamps, but given that they are made and published by the Abkhazian government I do not see how anybody could claim any copyright. The persons that would have the copyright have clearly accepted the Abkhazian law and thus the public domain nature of the stamps, as that law is what gives them the right to make those stamps in the first place. The only exception I can think of is if some of these stamps are derived works of something that is copyrighted elsewhere. --LPfi (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The template does not mention stamps specifically, only just a Commons page saying Georgian stamps are OK. I would feel more comfortable if we had something more concrete, because as I mentioned above, not every entity that used to be part of the Soviet Union considers stamps a "state sign." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the same is true of any work of the Abkhazian government: it may be legal or illegal, but the (possibly illegal) Abkhazian government cannot claim copyright to its works in contradiction to its own (possible illegal) laws. Neither can those that did the works by working for the government (without quite a stretch). --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; it is effectively a form of PD-author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a vector version of the UEFI-Logo [link] which I would like to add to its German Wiki page. May I do this? I couldn't find anything regarding the copyright... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouagip (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Normally, logos should be assumed to be copyrighted, even if you can't find information on them. This particular logo might be simple enough to be considered {{pd-textlogo}}. At root, it's just three letters on a hexagonal background, so I'm thinking it might be okay. Powers (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Mouagip (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)



I wonder if this picture is really free, because I have the feeling that it may be seen as a derivate work... In other words, can I import it here, or not? Thanks. Binabik155 (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

Definitely a derivative work. I don't see this falling under the "useful item" exception. Powers (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks for the answer. Binabik155 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User keeps removing GFDL tag

Starting in December 2004, File:Red Wine Glas.jpg was tagged as GFDL, but in August 2005, the creator removed the GFDL tag and replaced it with a cc-by-sa-2.5 tag. I've restored the GFDL tag and the relicensing cc-by-sa-3.0 tag, but the creator keeps removing it. I've pointed him/her to the licensing update page at Meta, but I don't know how well this will work. Any advice on ensuring that these licenses remain on the image? Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that the creator has not claimed that s/he opted out of the license migration. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, the licensing is not revocable, but if the creator prefers us to distribute this work under a different license, why shouldn't we acquiesce, so long as the new license is acceptable for our purposes? Powers (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the revision history on that file, it could not be more clear that the original contributor wishes to replace the GFDL with another free license. That's OK. It is certainly not worth an edit war which is probably antagonizing the uploader. Let it be. Jonathunder (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I endorse LtPowers and Jonathunder's views. But in a different case (for example, a person other than the uploader replacing a licence on an image for no good reason), a request can be made at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections" for the image in question to be protected from editing and for the offending editor to be blocked. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

St Edwards Crown copyright

Hi, I would like to use the image of St Edwards Crown on website that is to celebrate the diamond jubilee of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. The image I refer to is on this page: - please can you confirm that I am able to use this image and that the reference to the author can be placed within the website code.

many thanks


Regarding copyright, you are free to use it, according to the terms of the license. However this image, which is a heraldic device of HM The Queen Elizabeth, is subject to other limitations and restrictions (not related to copyright), which depend on the exact usage. SV1XV (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

FOP and stuff in the UK

Hi Licencing people. I took a close-up, out of focus shot of the wall of Montpelier railway station, which was decorated as part of an art project I assume. FOP rules in the UK do not grant an exemption for 2D works (although the station is admittedly 3D). Therefore would my photo be a copyvio if I uploaded it here? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as in scope. I think it might be a copyvio, though probably not in the scope of a picture of the station.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Can this picture, taken by the museum, be taged with PD-Art, or do I need to crop the frame? —P. S. Burton (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The frame would have to be cropped to comply with Commons' requirements. Be advised that by uploading such files to Commons, you will be violating Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk 49 a §, which regulates photographers' rights to control distribution of simple photographs until 50 years after their creation. LX (talk, contribs) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the frame would have to be cropped (and in the case of the oval pictures, removed by other means). You may be in violation of the local law in your country by uploading them here, as warned above, but we will accept them and we believe it to be legal in the United States where the servers are hosted. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No copyright holder?

Is there any way we can use a picture if it appears on the internet multiple times but the original publication on the internet and thus also the copyright holder, if one even exists, cannot be found? The picture I am referring is of Eckhart Tolle. It appears in an article on suite101, but it the photo is credited as coming from "a fan site". (I can't post a link because suite101 is apparently blocked by the spam filter, annoyingly, but you can find it by searching for "Eckhart Tolle suite101" on Google Images) I believe the fan site in question, on which the photo originally appears, may have been at this location, but the site no longer exists.

Does any one know of any way to locate the copyright holder that I have not thought of? If not, I can't even request permission to use it., which would be a pity, as it is a fantastic picture. I was wondering if there is any way to upload such a picture on commons. It appears to have been made by a fan, and as I cannot locate them, it seems to me that there is no practical legal danger in commons or wikipedia hosting the photo. If the fan objected to us using the photo without permission, they would have to come forward and claim copyright, at which point we could take the photo down immediately, and would at least know who the copyright holder was so we could then ask for permission. Though I believe there is no practical legal danger, I was wondering if there is anyway to get around the red tape and upload this photo without seriously violating policy. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to upload it and thats the only possible way: Find the photographer/copyright holder and ask for permission. Anonymous works will become public domain 70 years after first publication, this file isnt 70 years old. It doesnt matter if the copright holder is not traceable. For your argument no practical legal danger and they would have to come forward and claim copyright read COM:PRP and Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons is not concerned about copyright holders not caring. --Martin H. (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I thought that would be true for Commons. Is it also true for uploading images directly to Wikipedia? if so, can you think of any other way of locating this copyright holder? Gregcaletta (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia another way is en:Wikipedia:Fair use, this is a photo of a living person, so also fair use isnt an alternative. Of course I dont know a way other than searching with the given information: Image size, fansite, subject. [6] But in this case it doenst look as we will get any information on the true origin so it might be much more simple to forget this image and ask someone else who created a photograph. --Martin H. (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: Per, which shows a very, very similar image from the same angle (body) it is an Associated Press photo, I emphasize my point above: Forget about this image, search another one. --Martin H. (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A small clarification: the English Wikipedia does not allow non-free photos of living persons under policy, but it is almost certainly possible for such a photo to be used under fair use (just not on Wikipedia). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Associated Press photographer is called Kyle Hoobin. What do you think by chances are of getting permission from this guy if I tried to contact him by e-mail? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Pretty low, I'd imagine. The photographer works for AP, so AP probably owns the copyright to all photographs taken in the course of the photographer's work and is unlikely to license such content freely to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
AP freelancer photographers can retain licensing/distribution rights or they recover them after some (e.g. 5) years, depending on individual contracts however. So maybe they are allowed to publish their work elsewhere under a free license allowing everyone to reuse the image without breaking contracts. Dont know for employed photographers. So it is possible but not likely. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
To answer your original question, what to do if you can't find the author of a work - see orphaned work. This is a huge problem with the copyright paradigm currently dominant in the world, but a few nations are beginning to adopt legal frameworks to deal with them. In the US such measures have so far been unsuccessful. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh cool, copyright law is a mess. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Greg, if you are able to contact Kyle Hoobin, why not ask him about the copyright status of the photograph? Then you will know for sure whether the image may be uploaded to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Finding the original photographer of a particular photo AND getting their permission to upload to Wiki Commons per Wiki's policies is, a lot of the time, next to impossible. Everyone is scared to death of being sued. This fear really is quite ridiculous. Unless the photo is reproduced to be used for the purposes of monetary gain, or to damage the public reputation of someone, most creators of photos won't attempt any lawsuit. In other words, unless there's money to be recouped in a legal action (damages), who bothers with a lawsuit? A lot of times, creators are happy to have other people see their work on a widespread basis.
Bottom line, photos uploaded to Wiki are used for informational purposes. They are not used for monetary gain, and as far as I can tell, not used to defame people in any malicious way (although, this could happen). So, Wiki, why all the hassle with photos? If a creator of a photo wants their work taken off Wiki for whatever reason, just take it off. More than likely, you'll be asked to take it off before any legal action is pursued. Chloe93 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If getting permission to upload to Wikimedia Commons under our licensing policy is problematic, perhaps it's because most photographers don't want to release their work under a Free license. Photos uploaded to Commons are used for commercial purposes; ad-laden copies of Wikipedia are found all over the net, and DVDs of Wikipedia are sold. Photos uploaded to Commons are also edited in various ways, which is another thing that photographers frequently don't like. And finally, obeying the law and taking care to do everything on the up-and-up is a positive thing, and adds to the trust people have in the system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that keeping things on the "up-and-up" is generally the right thing to do, but the ubiquitous nature of the Internet and everyone's access to it tends to cancel this out, whether we like it or not. I still feel Wiki needs to lighten up on its tight policies on photo uploading; maybe just require citation of sources -- like we do writing the text for an article -- and not actual "permissions" from whoever, or whatever agency, took a particular photo. 21:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you need permission when copying text for Wikipedia, too. When the law commands us to do something, then we must follow the law. In any case, we're trying to build something permanent here, not something stolen from others that will get dismantled when they come by and take their toys back.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the main thing to think of is that Commons images are intended to be trustworthy even for potentially commercial enterprises to use. If anyone trying to use Commons pictures in a book is only going to get sued anyway once they start raking in some cash, why not just "steal" them off the Web to start with like everyone else? We know how tremendously vague and censorious these laws really are, but that's because for so many years there's been almost no public domain sector to stand up and lobby against every new giveaway to great-grandchildren of authors. We want to breathe some life into it. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:PD-CERN-CMS still valid?

Can anyone tell if {{PD-CERN-CMS}} is still valid? I don't see evidence on the CERN web site to support what that tag says. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. All I can find is [7], which states that all content is copyrighted. Perhaps someone can contact CERN at to clarify the situation. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you found nothing, what is the next step? Since we have no idea when the copyright status changed, it wouldn't seem we could nominate all files for deletion with that tag. But we also shouldn't allow future use of the tag. Maybe change the text on it to say it cannot be used after July 7, 2010 (when I noticed the lack of free usage on their licensing page)? Wknight94 talk 01:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete this template: these images are copyrighted. No indications for "public domain" can be found. As long there is no OTRS-permission of "CMS CERN Web Pages", this tag is invalid. --High Contrast (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the template for deletion. Please comment at "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-CERN-CMS", and help sort through all images tagged with this template and nominate for deletion as well, if warranted. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also e-mailed CERN to find out whether it is correct that images from the CMS Detector media page are in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The template cannot be deleted right away as there are some 20 images uploaded between 2005-2007 which use it. However the wording on the template must be modified to indicate that it must not be used for any new uploads. In the meantime the date of change of CERN copyright policy must be discovered. There are indications but no conclusive evidence that the date is 2008. SV1XV (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there even a change in policy? There is nothing in the template and, as far as I am aware, no OTRS confirmation that CERN images between 2005 and 2007 were released into the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems something changed in 2008 as all CERN pages indicate "Copyright CERN 2008", while most images using this template were uploaded before that date. Some investigation is needed before taking any direct action. SV1XV (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a warning message to the template; feel free to adjust it. I also sent another e-mail to CERN asking if there was a change in policy, and if so, when that change occurred. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
And the irritating thing is that they have applied a robot.txt file to their site, so I can't even use to see what older versions of their license may have been. Oi. Huntster (t @ c) 10:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I noticed that too. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The respective page seems to have been at . Can't find any archived version though for the reasons above. I don't think User:Harp would have made the whole thing up, so I'd say we should atleast keep all images before 2008--DieBuche (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's see how CERN responds to my e-mails. Perhaps someone can also leave a message on Harp's talk page to see if we can get confirmation about the release of the images into the public domain back in the day. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not found the letter I gave from the outreach person of CMS. I have seen Lee asked CERN. I will ask too again. -- Arpad Horvath (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I have found a letter, but I think I had an other, or I have read the options on the CMS Outreach website. I forgot it. -- Arpad Horvath (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, it's not clear from the e-mail that CERN is agreeing to release the images into the public domain. I doubt that OTRS would accept it. Still waiting to hear from CERN. (Perhaps they are recovering from a night of partying after the World Cup ...) — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I just received a response from Dave Barney, the CMS Education and Outreach Coordinator. He says: "Apologies for the delay. In fact we are currently reviewing our copyright policy. For the moment please do not delete anything from the commons. As soon as I have some information I will let you know." — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I just closed the deletion request with a "keep". A new DR can be opened when CERN establish their copyright policy. Would you please modify the warning, so that it still discourages uploading due to uncertainty in CERN copyright policy? SV1XV (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In what way do you want the warning modified? Isn't the current warning adequate? — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose something along this line: "As of 11 July 2010, please do not use this licence tag, as copyright policy of CERN is under review, affecting images uploaded on their website after 2008. Steps are being taken to verify the copyright status of older images." No need for a reference to a closed deletion request. SV1XV (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording along the lines you suggested. However, there's no reference to the deletion request. The notice just links to the discussion here, in case editors want to ask questions. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure a logo is copyrighted or free

I'm still learning about what is copyrighted and what is free, and if it's not much bother, I'd like to ask if this logo is copyrighted or free. I learned that logos made only of text are usually free. In this case does it count the color, the way the tagline is displayed and the text of the tagline itself? Gatyonrew (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this logo consists only of plain text and it does not meet the criteria of threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, so it is PD-ineligible. Of corse it may be protected by an trademark law. Sign it with tempalates: {{PD-textlogo}} & {{trademarked}} and all should be OK. Electron <Talk?> 10:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that this logo almost certainly does not meet the threshold of originality. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll upload it here with the suggested templates. Gatyonrew (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with possible copyright violation

Some time ago I uploaded File:Silver fern flag stylised.svg which is a vectorized (svg) version of some original (not sure what I used). Since I considered the vectorization a creative work, I marked the file as "own work". After a discussion on my wikipedia user page I am not sure that this was the proper way to do it and if the design might not be copyrighted. On the other hand there are many vector images of flags on commons, so it should be possible to upload flags as well. My questions are: (i) Can this file be uploaded at all to commons? (ii) If yes, what license should I use and what shall I put instead of "own work"? bamse (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a derivative work, and you don't remember where the original came from, you should not upload it here, because we would be unable to verify whether the original source was free enough for our purposes. Powers (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked for its deletion. bamse (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty. I've deleted it and removed the link from the appropriate articles on Wikipedia. Powers (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating KIT licenses

I would appreciate comments on my question at Commons talk:Tropenmuseum#Updating KIT licenses. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for coats of arms

I would like to upload this CoA for Cumbria County Council, but I'm not sure which license would apply or where such images stand with regards to copyright. The files in Category:Arms of British County Councils seem to have been uploaded under various licenses, while similar images have been uploaded to the English Wikipedia as fair use. My understanding of the text in {{Coat of Arms}} is that a CoA is generally regarded as being PD, but that a license is required for the actual file. Is that accurate? PC78 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • This particular rendering of the CoA is quite recent (after 1974), so still copyrighted. However blazons (verbal descriptions of coats of arms) are not copyrighted, therefore you may create your own rendering based only on the blazon and upload it.SV1XV (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Please review the facts of the template and the language. This is another Commons:Copyright_tags#US_Library_of_Congress_public_domain_collections copyright tag, this tag is intended to

--Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


This registration certificate was issued by the editors of Popular Electronics in the early 1960s. I believe {{Cc-by}} is not an appropriate tag. The most likely tag would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. SV1XV (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Finnish copyright laws regarding maps

When does a map become PD in Finland? Particulary, is this map in PD (1942 is printed in the lower right corner)? --One half 3544 (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The year 1942 is also printed with the text "Maanmittaushallituksen topografinen osasto", the name of the governmental office, to the left, probably the year when it was made. The "1942" to the right is accompanied by the name of the print shop of the Maanmittaushallitus.
There are also the stamps "ainoastaan virkakäyttöä varten" (only for use in office) and something that might read "sotahistoriallinen tutkimus" (research of war history). It seems it was used only in-house and published later, perhaps only after war archives were opened.
Anonymous works become PD 70 year after publication, or if not published in 70 years, 70 years after they were made. If the author is identified within this period, the copyright will last 70 years after the death of the person. If works are published only after the copyright has expired, the publisher gets the copyright for 25 years. (43-44a §)
As I read the law, it seems probable that the copyright had not expired (it would in 2012). Thus it will be extended to 70 years after publication. If the author is identified before (in?) 2012, the publication date will be irrelevant and the copyright will last 70 years after the death of the (last living) author.
There may be special things that I have missed about maps or about works made under old laws.
--LPfi (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


User:Ianare has the below template on all their photos. This contradicts the CC-SA-BY tag that is found below on the picture, and is intimidating to many users planning things Commons demands be permitted by our licenses. Comments?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This image was created by Ianaré Sévi. Some rights are reserved, see license details. Special permissions :

Non-profit uses (non-commercial academia, non-profit groups, Open Source projects, etc) are not required to follow the Share Alike requirement, but any for-profit use must do so. If you wish to use this image commercially without the Share Alike requirement, please contact me to negotiate licensing.

Any other use is strictly prohibited by international copyright law.

Yeah, that template is definitely a violation of Commons:Licensing policy. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've left a notice on his talk page. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would have been better to subst that template. =) Ianare has clarified it and I was left wondering what was wrong with the wording! =) Powers (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It still looks pretty bad to me. It strongly implies that the use of a CC-BY-SA image in a commercial setting is noncompliant. I'll be bold and fix it. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording is quite clear (and the meaning was the same 23/7). This is normal dual (multi) licensing: if you do not want to use -SA, then you'll have to be non-commercial or negotiate a separate licence. If the SA-clause is ok, then you use the normal CC licence. Of course odd licences might be confusing, but other than that it seems ok. --LPfi (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have interpreted the July 23rd version differently. The current wording is mostly clear, though Open Source projects and non-profit only clash in a number of ways. In any case, it's clearly a free license in combination with the CC-SA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Cc-nc white.svgWhy Commons not support the NC Licence? I want my work to be used only in schools or by individuals and organizations using the content rather than their material value but its value in knowledge for people. Why I can not upload images with NC? --The Photographer (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Commons:Licensing/Justifications? LX (talk, contribs) 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You can always upload NC material to Flickr. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The short answer is: NC is banned because Jimmy Wales said so. It is a silly rule, but unfortunately, it is a rule that is carved in stone, and changing it will likely require appealing to the Foundation. — Tetromino (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It is hardly a silly rule. Part of promoting free information and knowledge is allowing it to be promulgated by everyone who wants to do so, no matter what his or her motive might be. It may be that only a for-profit entity has the resources to assemble and sell a compilation of Wikipedia articles to poor villages somewhere in the third world. Or perhaps a small publisher wants to use Wikibooks material to create textbooks for one-room schoolhouses. Powers (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's "silly", but it isn't the way I personally would have gone. I understand the rationale (which is the one LtPowers gives), but I think if it had been my call I'd have said "non-commercial is always fine" and approved commercial uses a bit selectively, allowing any that were clearly educational, or at least public-spirited. I think it is regrettable that (1) Wikipedia articles are constantly mirrored on sites that add no value and add advertisements and (2) people's photos placed on the Commons can, for example, freely be reused with no payment to the author by (for example) someone promoting a condo development project. But, in general, it's the way Wikipedia went from the outset, and when the WMF decided to add a CC license to GFDL, it was a decision to go even further in the direction of making reuse easier even in commercial print media. At this point, the direction taken is pretty clear, and seems to me unlikely to change. I personally have decided to just live with it. And, yes, Flickr is one of several easy ways to put your photos out there without allowing commercial use. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
But I am the only person who has the right to approve uses of my copyrighted material. Setting up a scheme where the Wikimedia Foundation has the right to approve anything changes everything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
True enough. And the issues are somewhat different for jointly composed text than for images, which typically have only one contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
All WMF projects must be free as defined at . NC is not free. Multichill (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That definition does not allow for privacy rights encumbered works, which are allowed on WMF projects. There might be other discrepancies. --LPfi (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
We use that definition as it applies to the copyright license only, just not restrictions from non-copyright laws. CC-NC licenses are however quite related to the copyright, and so yes that definition applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We are free media and we use only free licenses. Przykuta[edit] 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Material from published advertising brochures and product manuals over 50 years old

To give product illustration, and encylcopaedic referencing, to my edits in an article I wish to include extracts from advertising brochures and product manuals. The original material was published in the 1940s, in England, by the English Electric Company. At the moment, assuming that some copyright applies even though there is no copyright claim anywhere on the published material, I have the images on my computer but have not uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons.

This is a bit of a "grey area", and I would be grateful for advice. It has not previously arisen for myself since my previous uploads have been mostly my own original photos, or occasionally from books I am sure are old enough to be out of copyright. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Copyright protection in the UK is for 70 years. See COM:L#United Kingdom for details. Specifically for anonymous works it states: If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after first publication. SV1XV (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'ev been looking at some of the other guidelines pages. I think that the best I can do at the moment is to upload a cover of the one manual, since this is just minimal plain text and seems to be allowed. The remaining material comes under the time from publication rule relating to material by unidentifiable authors. Since these items were published at various stages from about 1944 to 1948, I think I can upload my copies in stages from 2015 to 2019. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error at GFDL-user-de

I applied {{GFDL-user-de}} to an image, and noticed that the wording of the template is ungrammatical. It says: "User at the German language Wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license" – it should say "publishes". The problem seems to be that the template makes use of {{self}}. How can the grammatical error be fixed? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The problem is in {{self}}, which is so heavily used that I hesitate to mess with it. And the problem appears to be that it was written with the assumption that there will be no "author" parameter, and that it would say "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license." Correctly written, if "author" is present, it would change publish to publishes. Does anyone know if it's OK to change this on such a heavily used template? - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. It will not change the functionality of the template to make the change you have suggested. I'm not an administrator and can't change the template. Are you? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am, but I still want to hold off until a few others weigh in. Also, I see some of the form author=I, User:Username generating "I, User:Username, hereby publish it under the following license." I'd like to get intent clear before I make changes. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ooh. I just looked at the underlying code. There are several additional template layers under {{self}} (for internationalization, I believe) before we get down to actual text. So I believe, in any case, this will not be an easy change. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Mistake was fixed. We just have to wait for the code update. Multichill (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering – when does the code update take place? I notice that it hasn't happened yet. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi I'd like to take an image from this book - as far as I know the author hasn't been dead 70 years (UK copyright) - but what I want is an image of a company logo p568 (or p652 by page count) - it's of a company that originated 1862, amalgamated 1863, en:Eden Valley Railway - this isn't the authors text, but another work which I assume was used with permission - it's the only source of the image I can find. ('Seal of Eden Valley Railway'). The company doesn't exist anymore

Can I copy this image an use it, if so what license. Thanks. 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • The question would be when the logo dates from. The place where you found it reproduced should be irrelevant for copyright purposes, as is the continued existence of the company. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The book's author died in 1916 and the logo has to be from the 19th century. The logo is public domain by now. Use {{pd-old}} as the license. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes the logo is of a company formed in 1858. Its creation will date to then. Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
ok thanksSf5xeplus (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Inhalt die großen deutschen im bild1.jpeg

This is an list of illustrations from a book. It lists all images from the book in an alphabetic order and does not contain any creativity. Does it qualify for pd-ineligible? --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I would guess not, but it's probably a close call. Other opinions? - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your opinion at least. I change the license of this and 4 other index pages of Category:Die großen Deutschen im Bild to pd-ineligible, this meets the uploaders intention (On filedescription: Ich glaube nicht, dass ein Inhaltsverzeichniss die nötige Schöpfungshöhe hat). --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --Martin H. (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious PD-NASA licenses

Some images have been uploaded with a {{PD-Hubble}} or {{PD-NASA}} license template, but on inspection a few appear to be copyrighted by third-parties (not NASA, not STScl, and not a US government department). I discovered them by searching for "" after I had nominated File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg for discussion - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg for more details. Another example is File:M100 cepeid.jpg from [8] where it is credited to "Dr. Wendy L. Freedman, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and NASA". -84user (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying to myself, Nard the Bard pointed out to me here that now assumes uploads to their site after 2008 are freely licensed unless the media carries a notice of copyright restrictions.
I am instead nominating File:M100 cepeid.jpg from [9] because it was uploaded October 26, 1994 and is the collage created by "Dr. Wendy L. Freedman, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and NASA". However components of the collage appear to be free, for example: [10]. -84user (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures uploaded by User:Bradmays

Coming from the article , w:Brad Mays, an independent film producer in response to a image use question, I saw a lot of images that appear to be from films that Brad Mays has directed which the user here, User:Bradmays has uploaded ([11]) as his own work. I'll assume good faith that it is the same guy but I do question if Mays has the rights to do this uploading. While his works are independent films, they have a distributor, and without knowing the contract, we cannot be assured that he has the copyright license rights. (eg, for example, w:The Watermelon is one of the films distributed by a third party). I particular, I question whether a photo of a TV picture of this person can even be appropriate if this guy owns the distribution rights. (see File:Bradmays.jpg). Maybe this can be solved with an ORTS ticket or something to assure us that he does have copyrights here. --Masem (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you contact him about this by e-mail or through his talk page? — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian copyright law

The section on Egyptian copyright law currently describes the terms as follows:

Egyptian law states that photos, paintings, and drawing are protected for 25 years starting from the publication date, after which they are in public domain.
Per Article 167, audio recordings are in copyright for 50 years after publication.

The first link will not open for me, but in perusing the second I find these articles which seem to contradict our current stance:

Article 140: The rights of the authors to their literary and artistic works shall be protected by

the law herein, and particularly the following works:

  1. Books, pamphlets, articles, brochures and other written works.
  2. Computer software.
  3. Databases which are either legible by computer or by any other device.
  4. Lectures, speeches, recorded sermons, and any other verbal works, provided that such are being recorded.
  5. Dramatic or dramatico- musical works, and pantomime.
  6. Musical compositions with or without words.
  7. Audiovisual works.
  8. Architectural works.
  9. Works of drawing, painting, sculpture, lithography, printing on textiles, and any similar works of fine arts.
  10. Photographic works and analogous works.
  11. Works of applied arts and plastic arts.
  12. Illustrations, geographical maps, plans, sketches, and three- dimensional works relative to geography, topography or architecture.
  13. Derivative works, without prejudice to the protection granted to the works from which it has been derived. Protection shall include the title of the work, provided that such title is innovated.
Article 160: The protection term for financial rights of the Author granted by the law herein shall be the life of the author and fifty years calculated from the author's death.

I'm far from an expert on such matters, but as far as I can tell these articles in conjunction mean that (excluding audio recordings, covered in article 167) the term of life+50 years applies to all other works relevant to Commons and our policy should be amended. Or does the document I cannot access contradict and supersede this one? AJCham 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that the 25 years from publication is out of date. However, the new life+50 law was not retroactive, meaning that works which had expired (e.g. photographs more than 25 years from publication) remain public domain. So, basically, copyright expirations are frozen for quite a while (for photographs anyways; it appears many things were life+50 prior to that). This is spelled out better in Template:PD-Egypt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Karim Achoui.jpg

What is going on with this image? On 2010-08-08 the original uploader User:Lamanamgyal uploaded a copyrighted cartoon image over this photo, which was tagged as {{Copyvio}} and I deleted it, reverting to the original photo. Now it is tagged by an IP address as {{Copyvio}} with the cryptic reason: Straight ahead in the image. While it is tagged as "own work", the description and author fields indicate only "Berbère". Should we speedily delete it? SV1XV (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that the {{copyvio}} tag has been removed. A Google and Tineye search I conducted turned up nothing, so for now I am inclining in favour of assuming good faith and supposing that the uploader is the copyright holder or is authorized to license the image to the Commons. However, I note that there is no EXIF information, which one would expect to see if this was a photograph taken by the uploader. Nonetheless, the image could have been edited. I am quite puzzled by the replacement of the proper description of the image ("Karim Achoui") with "Berbère" (which, Google Translate tells me, means "Berber" and no doubt describes Achoui's family background), so I reverted this. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems the person pictured has claimed a "portrait right" of some kind on the image page -- some countries have that but not a speedy deletion reason. However, the original uploader asked for deletion on French wikipedia here; by Google Translate it appears he scanned it from a book thinking it was OK but is now aware it is a copyright violation (and, the pictured person also asked that it be removed). So yes, it does appear to be a copyvio, and posting the same (quite polite, it seems) message on the image page here would have gotten it deleted more quickly than trying to overwrite it, etc. Speedy is appropriate for this one it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that User:Lamanamgyal tried to suppress/delete this image sneakily, possibly due to inexperience or language barrier (or both). He is not a regular contributor here and this is his only upload. SV1XV (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summer Youth Olympics mascots

The 2010 Summer Youth Olympics in Singapore is starting this week, so we are likely to begin getting content relating to the event. I have already noticed photographs of the Games mascots, Lyo and Merly. Am I right in saying that these are unauthorized derivative works?

Screensavers featuring the mascots can be downloaded from the official Games website, but the website also asserts copyright over all content on its website. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The first and third definitely are, unless there's FOP freedom. (We should have tags to explicitly claim a work is okay in FOP rules of the country.) The second is more complex; there's special rules on clothing that may or may not apply here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Singapore doesn't apply to flat objects, unfortunately: see Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Singapore. What are the rules on clothing that may apply? I presume the same issue raised by a photograph of a person wearing a Mickey Mouse suit. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In connection with this, the images in "Category:Olympic mascottes" may be problematic. (Also, why is it spelled mascottes and not mascots?) — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikimedia general counsel Mike Godwin, costumes count as clothing, which can be photographed freely without violating the copyright of the clothing designer or of the character creator. Powers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Great! Do we have a policy capturing this advice? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's mentioned in Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?, with a link to the deletion discussion that sparked MGodwin's comment. Powers (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Open Publication License

This question has been prompted by a discussion in the Russian Wikipedia.

Is the Open Publication License considered sufficiently free for use on Commons?

The license permits the author to append an ND or NC requirement to the license text (see part VI); obviously, a work whose license includes one of these requirements would not be acceptable. However, even the basic variant of the license includes the following text:

Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with respect to the title.

It's a rather unusual requirement; as far as I can tell, it does not violate any of the Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses conditions, but I wanted to double-check. — Tetromino (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What sort of content is available on Open Content? The requirement you mentioned makes more sense if the content is textual in nature (i.e., articles and documents that are included as chapters in books). However, it makes no sense at all for images. Why should anyone want to put the name of a photographer of one of the images used in a book on the front cover, back cover and spine of the book ("all outer surfaces", remember) in a font size as large as the title of the work? But I agree with you that the licence seems to comply with "Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The license is generally used for software-related textbooks and howto guides; two well-known examples are the Mason book and Advanced Bash Scripting Guide. It's a text-oriented license, and most of the material licensed under it would be more suitable for Wikipedia or Wikisource. The reason I am asking about OPL's suitability here is that (a) the Commons licensing requirements serve as the baseline for other Wikimedia projects: if some piece of content is free enough for Commons, it's free enough to use anywhere; and (b) if a textbook licensed under the OPL includes figures or diagrams, it would be nice to be able to upload them to Commons. — Tetromino (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I agree with you that the licence is fine for the Commons. Even the CC-BY licence entitles copyright owners to impose whatever attribution requirements they desire, so I do not see the Open Content licence as markedly different. You may want to create a new licence tag that Commons editors can use to tag content from Open Content, providing a link to the website containing the licence code and perhaps also highlighting the more salient requirements. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The CC-BY license says "You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner;[...]" that's fairly limited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a least one requirement modification have to meat in this licence which no WMF-wiki can comply with:

 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated.

The WMFwikis allow anomymous edits, but Anonymous modifications violate the Open Publication License. sугсго 13:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They are identified as much as the author of the edits wants to be identified. GFDL etc. requires the same I'm pretty sure, as does CC-BY, and that is not an issue. Granted, both of those do have some language which anticipates wiki-style editing a bit better than the above does. Not entirely sure the text could be mixed in with wiki articles, but it does seem to be a "free" license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is known as the Dissident Test. The GFDL's faults in this area are well known. The problem is the way condition 4(c) is formulated ("State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version"). Regarding the OPL and its outer surfaces requirement, this of course means that it is impractical for use in articles intended for print versions of Wikipedia (for example). That's not in itself a hindrance to its inclusion here, but that restriction should be made very clear. Use of such illustrations should probably be kept to a minimum, but I'd say that's up to the individual projects. LX (talk, contribs) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
But if a file is uploaded to Commons, people on other projects are reasonably going to assume they can use it. If a license forces changes in current processes, like interfering with the current system of printing books from Wikimedia through PediaPress, I think we should think carefully before allowing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


This image is a screen capture from the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. It says it is "credited to C-Span as per

Per the page pointed to, "C-SPAN does NOT permit unlicensed commercial use of any of its video programming..."

As I read it, that would indicate the image is not free, but I would appreciate clarification if I missed something. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, media with non-commercial restrictions are not suitable for Commons. Powers (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Some C-SPAN content is actually created by the federal government and is PD. That image does not appear to fall into that category. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Review PD user/self texts

Hi everyone, I already moved a lot of license templates to Translatewiki. Next up are {{PD-self}}, {{PD-user}} and related templates like {{PD-user-w}} and {{PD-author}}. In the future I want to use these texts. Please review and improve:

  • wm-license-pd-author-self-text - I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release this work into the '''[[{{int:wm-license-pd-wiki-link}}|public domain]]'''. This applies worldwide.
  • wm-license-pd-author-self-any-purpose - I grant anyone the right to use this work '''for any purpose''', without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
  • wm-license-pd-author-with-author-text (option A) - $1, the copyright holder of this work, hereby releases this work into the '''[[{{int:wm-license-pd-wiki-link}}|public domain]]'''. This applies worldwide.
  • wm-license-pd-author-with-author-text (option B) - This work has been released into the '''[[{{int:wm-license-pd-wiki-link}}|public domain]]''' by its author, '''$1'''. This applies worldwide.
  • wm-license-pd-author-with-author-any-purpose - $1 grants anyone the right to use this work '''for any purpose''', without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
  • wm-license-pd-author-not-legally-possible - In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
  • wm-license-pd-wiki-link - w:en:public domain

What do you think? Are the texts ok? Option A or B? Multichill (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say option A, since it more closely matches the wording of other texts. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's please leave the personal pronoun out of it. I've been wanting to do that for a long time, and now is the perfect time. Saying I doesn't really make sense on non-personal pages. It's unprofessional sounding and isn't correct in cases where there's multiple authors, but the worst part is it's commonly used by people that aren't the copyright holder (so much so that we should change the template not the behavior). The "hereby release" thing should go too. It's just silly. Either it's under a given license or it's not. And what if I released it to the public domain previously or first uploaded/published it somewhere else? I would really love to have a single PD-author template. There's no good reason to treat authors differently depending on if they're the uploader or not. (I also want to change {{own}} to something way less ambiguous and informal: "created by uploader" but that's a fight for another day). I like option B the best for both PD-self and PD-author. Rocket000 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me too. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with that. We want to know why something is pd (that's why we don't like {{PD}}). If I'm the author, {{PD-self}} is the proper template to indicate that. If the template gets abused, get people to stop abusing it (although I think some of the upload bots are the worst abusers). If the fact that I'm the author is not clearly stated in the template, doubt about my authorship might arise. Doubt gets useful stuff deleted. Multichill (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is important to know who the creater of the work is and if creator is not the same as the uploader we would normally like to know why the uploader can upload the work under a PD-license. Sadly I doubt that we can create a system with PD-self "I, the author of this work, ...." and PD-copyrightholder "I, the copyright holder, ... (+ some reason why uploader has the copyright)". --MGA73 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Licensing Question: Share-Alike

In preparing a textbook (ultimately, a commercial product), I am confused regarding the restrictions posed by the Share-Alike licenses for images. If an image has the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, does its inclusion in the textbook mean that the whole textbook would have to be under the same license (and hence, non-commercial), or would just the reuse of the individual image fall under the same license? I believe it is the latter, but what would be the appropriate fashion to credit for the above license vs. the GFDL license? Just the URL or mention of the exact license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licensing (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This "Share Alike" restriction applies to derivative works, like retouched versions of the photo, collages or other modifications. SV1XV (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So, if a particular image is retouched in any manner, the resulting image itself must fall under the same license (rather than the textbook as a whole)? Any use of an the exact same image, on the other hand, is usable simply with attribution; is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licensing (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The answers you seek can be found in the legal code for the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence:
  • If you use a CC image in a "Collection" (defined as "a collection of literary or artistic works ... which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole"), you are not required to license the entire collection under a CC licence: clause 4(a).
  • Clause 4(c) indicates your responsibilities when using CC images in collections. Assuming you do not intend to make a modification or adaptation of the original image:
  • You must mention "(i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI [Uniform Resource Identifier], if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work".
  • You are allowed to give credit "in any reasonable manner". However, in the case of a collection, "at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors".
  • You must not "implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties".
By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~"). — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just make sure you don't use any GFDL images in your textbook. Then you have to reproduce the entire license in the book and the entire book has to be GFDL. Luckily, CC's share-alike clause is much more sane in the case of images. Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Disagree that the whole book would need to be GFDL -- the text and other images are separate (not derivative) works from included photographs; their copyright status would be unaffected by such image inclusion. (The book in this sense is a "collective work", combining the text and images, which is another separate copyright unto itself.) But yes, the entire GFDL text would need to be reproduced if you include images which have only that license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to add permission PD-self to an image I have uploaded

I get the feeling that I am probably about the millionth person to ask this, but I just can't find an answer anywhere. I uploaded an image but did not add the permission as I somehow got the idea that the "((own))" part took care of that. However I got a Bot response telling me that the permissions were causing a problem. I cannot work out how to add the permission "PD-self" to any of the images that I have already uploaded. Can someone please point me to where this question is answered. Sorry to be so stupid. My IQ is only about 128.

TuckerBag (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have just worked it out. On the image "wikipage" I just needed to click on the "Edit" tab!! By default the "View" Tab is selected. After clicking the "edit" tab all became obvious. D'oh!

Your uploads look good now though File:Honda NSR250R MC18 CrankShaft.JPG appear to be a scan of an image from a service handbook, but you claim this to be your own work. Did you actually draw it yourself from scratch, or is it a derivative work? If it is derivative, then you cannot claim copyright over the image and unless it is obviously freely licenced we cannot keep it. Ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reponse from TuckerBag. Yes I did indeed create the crankshaft image from scratch myself. It took me about 10 hours and I am pretty happy with the result. It pleases me to hear that it looks like a scanned image from a service handbook. I doubt that Honda ever produced a drawing like this in their manuals as they sold the complete crankshaft assembly as a single part, and did not sell the individual parts that make up the crankshaft assembly that I have drawn here.

Source country

Maybe this is not the right place for the topic, but could somebody clarify for me the concept of "source country"? I am in fact trying to get a grip on the way COM:FOP is to be considered.

Consider this hypothesis: I am a Swedish taking a picture of an object that was created by a Spanish artist living in Germany in his german workplace. The object is first displayed on a public place in The Netherlands, where I take a first picture of the object, just before it is purchased by a rich Dutch benefactor who gives it to the French city he is living in (for tax reasons probably ^_^), so the object is transported to France where it is installed on a public place where I take a second picture, then I leave France for England where I use the internet access at my hotel to upload the pictures to a server located in the United States.

Assuming I wish to upload them to Commons, What is the the source country of the works (original and derivatives)? And what is/are the source country(ies) of importance when considering FOP? Thanks for any enlightment  :-) Asavaa (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case you cannot upload the photos on Commons. The object is/was not permanently locateded in a public place in the Netherlands (see COM:FOP#The Netherlands). Why don't you try Flickr instead? SV1XV (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You misinterpret the dutch law, but I reckon you have some base for that due to the fact that the translation of the law is slightly misleading. According to the translation, the law refers to artwork "which are made to be permanently located in a public place". The correct translation would in fact be: "which are made to be permanently located in ["a" is striken] public places". "Om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst" is a plural form, meaning that the object is supposed to be displayed in public places, but not necessarily in one single place for eternity, thus the current wording, "which are made to be permanently located in a public place", is to be understood as referring to any or some public place at any particular moment, not a single public place for ever.
But this is not the point of my question, and neither is Flickr: this hypethetical scenario was build to help me understand FOP and the concept of source country.
There is no question that the dutch law on FOP did apply to the item when it was in the Netherlands. And so I think nobody will argue against the fact that FOP will apply to picture 1 (or in any case, let us assume that point is not discussed, again it is not the point I want clarified here). I might in fact delete the "dutch part" of the scenario that is not really relevant for the question I raise, and we can focus on the second picture and on the concept of source country that you did not address. Asavaa (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Irrespective of the finer points of Dutch law, the work of art in question may have been "permanently displayed" in the Netherlands. If it was exhibited as part of a temporary display (to sell it to a purchaser) that's one thing, but it may have been on permanent display before the sale. If for example, the Angel of the North was purchased by the French government and moved to Calais, we could still host the pictures of it located in the UK. However, we could not host pictures of it in its new location in France. The "permanent" depends on the intent of the exhibit: For example, permanent = "indefinitely" or "for natural life of the work", temporary = "will be removed after X months" or "until someone buys it".
In answer to the original question, if it was "permanently" displayed in the Netherlands, then we could host it on Commons. The source country for FOP (for our purposes) is the location of the photographer when the photo is taken. There may be additional restrictions in other countries, but for FOP we only worry about the source.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so you say source country for FOP = location of the photographer when the photo is taken.
This means that in my rethorical example, picture 1 can be hosted on Commons, but picture 2 can't, right?
I am somewhat puzzled by one element, again in this rethorical example: the fact that somebody who is not the author can, just by buying the object and moving it to another legal environment, create new rights for the author (or destroy existing rights for other people, which is the same). Care to comment on that? Of course, an obvious comment is that the situation is a bit theoretical, but still...
Anyway, thanks for the answer. Asavaa (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of many court cases using any the country-jumping scenarios, let alone all of them in one go, thus we have to come up with a reasonable compromise. In general, "country of origin" is defined by the Berne Convention, which is usually the country of first publication (thus the nationality of the author is not often relevant). The photograph is a separate work, and the one actually being licensed, so the copyright on the photograph is what we are most concerned about. In a country with FOP, the copyright on the pictured object does not continue to the photograph (i.e. the photo is not a derivative work in copyright terms), thus the photographer owns full copyright, and can license it. If taken in the same country where the object is located and published there, then the photographer would unambiguously own full copyright, using the law of the country of origin of the photograph. Things can get complicated when taken by tourists and published in other countries, but for sanity's sake, for COM:FOP we use the law of the country where the object is actually located. In most cases, you would think the object is in that location with the artist's permission, or at least knowledge (since they would usually know what a purchaser was going to do with it), and thus should be aware of the law in those locations. So yes, we use the location of the photographer when the photo was taken, unless future court cases make it obvious we need to change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You talk about the location of the photographer, not the object. Could you please explain further? This has important implications if using a telephoto lens on border (and perhaps coastal) cities. --LPfi (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 :-) I also was wondering how "over the border" pics would be treated. Not necessarilly theoretical: borders are usually ornated with some artwork. But I guess what is meant is location of the object. So don't start saving for that superlens  ;-) Asavaa (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, those may need to use common sense. I do remember one case where an object in a non-FOP country was placed on the bank of a river, obviously intended to be seen from across the river (a FOP country). I think we decided to keep that one. (I think the photo was made by a citizen from that FOP country, so that was the "country of origin" for copyright purposes anyways.) But if something wasn't meant to be seen, i.e. you need abnormal photo equipment to get a shot, it would probably go the other way. Depends I guess :-) If anyone has any kind of court case precedent, it's always good to bring those up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uniform/kit graphics

Could someone familiar with {{PD-ineligible}} weigh in on the debate here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Logos on football kits. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Siegfried Schieweck-Mauk

Licence: Is it sure, that all pictures in this category are free of rights? The Uploader was not Siegfried Schieweck-Mauk. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

At a quick read, de:Benutzer Diskussion:KBWEi it looks like the original uploader may have uploaded a lot of images with rights issues. At a quick read, it looks to me like at least most of these issues were not successfully addressed. I suspect that all of the images in this category should be deleted, but someone with better German should weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that the uploader is not Schieweck-Mauk? He claims to be. Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Fmag sandy10.jpg

This image File:Fmag sandy10.jpg appears to be a studio shot and seems highly unlikely to have actually been taken by the uploader as claimed. I dont spend much time on Commons and so might not be back soon. Could someone review and make any appropriate tags/deletions etc. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently comes from a fashion magazine photoshoot; see here. Apparently posted on a message board in 2004[12], so it's not a new picture. Seems like an obvious copyvio; we definitely need OTRS permission for it anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously an image grabbed from a random website and uploaded with false "Its entirely my own work" claim. See google search. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Chalk sidewalk portrait

File:Toronto Street Art.JPG
Toronto sidewalk chalk art
Vermeer: Het Meisje met de Parel (1665)

I have no idea if this photo of a chalk drawing on a sidewalk is either:

  1. A derivative copy of an original 2D work of art, based on the 1665 portrait (thus copyrighted and not saved by FOP); or
  2. A photo of a reproduction of the public domain 1665 portrait (thus public domain).

Any help would be appreciated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. Are repaintings of PD artworks covered under {{PD-Art}}, or only photographs/photocopies? I suppose it depends on what you consider to be the threshold of originality. Does the repainter introduce an element of their own originality when they are repainting a work? Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly the question - thank you for wording it so concisely. It's not an exact copy, the way that a photograph would be - it differs from the original portrait. Having said that, it appears to be an attempt to reproduce the portrait. I just don't know the answer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that this is an original work based on the 1665 painting. The threshhold of originality when it comes to reproducing 2-D artworks is whether or not it is a "slavish reproduction" -- that is, one that anyone with the needed skill, undertaking the same task, could produce. In this case, if you set two expert chalk artists to the task of producing a chalk sidewalk drawing based on Girl With a Pearl Earring, you would get two different interpretations. Powers (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It may be simpler: Freedom of Panorama usually includes (ignoring some other, irrelevant parts) things located (or intended to be located) in a public place for the life of the artwork. This image clearly isn't moving before the end of its life. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure which country's laws you're referring to, but freedom of panorama doesn't quite work that way in the UK and Singapore. It doesn't apply to two-dimensional artworks such as paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs. A chalk drawing on a pavement clearly falls within that category. Your other point about an artwork being displayed in a public place and then destroyed is interesting – I wonder if there has been any case law on this? — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "slavish copy" as I see it; there is a degree of interpretation here. Not free, unless the uploader is the sidewalk chalk artist, or that artist has also released under a free license. Jonathunder (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that is pretty clearly its own work (different medium, in particular). I would consider that type of thing "permanent" for countries with FOP... but I think Canada basically has the UK version (buildings, sculpture, and "works of artistic craftsmanship" are OK, but that term seems to explicitly exclude drawings, paintings, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't considered FOP. But a chalk drawing is necessarily impermanent, isn't it? Powers (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It can't ever be moved from that location -- it is there for the full extent of its existence. I'm pretty sure there was a court case (in Germany?) where an ice sculpture was deemed "permanent" since it wasn't going to move before it melted, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What you say is in any case consequent with COM:FOP#Permanent vs temporary. There is also a reference in COM:FOP#The Netherlands to the fact that "literature mentions that [the permanency condition] would also apply to graffiti, even if these normally are removed rather quickly. This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explained above; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal". There is a footnote to a dutch legal book for that part. Asavaa (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarize, the consensus appears to be that the image of the sidewalk art in Toronto has to be nominated for deletion as an unauthorized derivative work. It is probable that the artist exercised sufficient creativity to gain copyright in the drawing. Whether or not the work is regarded as temporary or permanent, the freedom of panorama defence cannot apply as in Canada FOP does not apply to two-dimensional images: see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the image for deletion. Please participate in the discussion on the nomination page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

PD-UKGov query

I have a question about how to interpret {{PD-UKGov}} in regard to the status of such works in the US. Unlike works of the US federal government, which never have a copyright to begin with (thus nothing to expire), eligible crown works do have an initial copyright which is capable of expiring. My understanding from USC 17 itself and the ubiquitous Cornell chart, is that, with perhaps the exception of works administered by the Alien Property Custodian, the US doesn't consider who the author was (i.e. whether it was a governmental or private entity) when determining copyright status, only whether the author has been dead 70 years for unpublished works or alternatively, for published works, the date of publication, (non)compliance with US formalities and status in the country of origin as of the restoration date.

That being the case, I question the accuracy of HMSO Email Reply which seems incorrect (at least by virtue of lack of specificity). To use the example therein of a crown work published in 1954: it seems it would be PD in the US not merely because the UK copyright had expired, but presumably because of pre-1978 publication without compliance with US formalities and being public domain in its source country. What would we do with, say, a hypothetical crown sculpture (unpublished) created in 1959. The UK may well consider it PD, but isn't that not necessarily the case in the US (even if the author is deceased, 70 years have not elapsed)? So is the HMSO email indeed incorrect (again, just due to lack of specifity), or have I overlooked an issue? Do uploaders using this tag need to consider the (independent) US status of a given work, or should the email be read as essentially PD-UKGov = {{PD-self}}? Эlcobbola talk 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If a copyright holder says their works are in the public domain, I see no reason to disagree.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Ofenkachel Ludwig Pfau I.jpg


I would like to ask if the licensing of this picture I uploaded here is valid. What you see here is a photo of an old stove pile. I licensed is as a copy of a 2D-art thing. But now is a stove not completely 2D, its not on a paper or so, but its also not 3 Dimensional like a plastic. Now is my question if my licensing is still valid in this case?

Greets Fundriver (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Err... I'm pretty sure "stove pile" is not the right word in English for Ofenkachel. Kachel is "tile" in English and I'm not sure how stove modifies it, because stove tile doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Looking at de:Ofenkachel, File:Kachel rund.jpg and File:Kachel1.jpg are certainly 3D objects whose photos would be copyright by the photographers. An image printed flat on a tile, even if that tile was a bit curved, I would count as 2D, personally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a ceramic tile installed on the side of an old fashioned stove (see the images in "Category:Tiled stoves"), hence "stove tile" is probably correct. I agree with you about the two-dimensional nature of the image on the tile. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

FOP in Thailand

Category:Wat Phra That Ruang Rong is filled with new pictures of a temple. COM:L doesn't mention anything about FOP, but if there is no FOP in Thailand, the whole category has to go; if it doesn't include statues, most of the category has to go (some are just buildings); and there are many statues that look like they're inside, which is also frequently a restriction even in broader FOPs. How do we handle this?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Thailand has full FOP. From [13]:
37. A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, molding, carving, lithography, photograph, film, video broadcast or any similar use of an artistic work, except for an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.
38. A drawing, painting, engraving, molding, carving, lithography, photograph, film or video broadcast of an architectural work shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the architectural work.
Not sure what the definition of "public place" is but it may include indoors too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Free use?

This image says "Rights Usage Terms: Free of use". This means it isn't under any copyright regulation, correct? Sort of an ambiguous statement. Ericleb01 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, "free of use" isn't valid grammar, so I have no idea what it means. Lower on the page it says "All photographs and other elements of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre website ... may not be copied or retransmitted by any means without explicit authorisation from the World Heritage Centre... Any use of photographs requires a separate request for authorization from the World Heritage Centre." SO it sounds like it's probably not free enough for Commons. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the WHC does not hold copyright, so that statement is not relevant. Here they state Please contact the copyright owners directly to negotiate terms and conditions for any use other than those expressly permitted by the or refer to the Rights Usage Terms. The copyright is owned by Sébastien Moriset, and on the image page it says: Rights Usage Terms: Free of use. I have unfortunately not found a more specific definition of that term on the site though. You could argue it is something like {{Copyrighted free use}}, but we generally require a more specific declaration of rights to commercial use, derivative works, etc. Many of the images on that site do no contain such a statement, so the author would appear to have intended some sort of license, but it's not really clear what the details are unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Can the File:Svg-edit-screenshot.png be moved to, please? -- 08:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an account there? You can upload it yourself, however, I don't know if it would be allowed since there's no reason why Mickey Mouse has to be in there to illustrate unrelated SVG editing software. Rocket000 (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The image has been reverted to a version without Mickey Mouse, and the Mickey Mouse version has been nominated for deletion as a copyright violation. There is no longer any need to move the current Mickey Mouse-less version to the English Wikipedia. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Digital" copyright of PD-old images that have been recently scanned

The Utah State Historical Society claims "digital image" copyright of this photo taken in 1870. Does that mean it is off limits, or is it public domain according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp because it is a faithful reproduction of an image over 120 years old? (based on this chart) KimChee (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Commons treats faithful reproductions (including scans) of two-dimensional artworks to have the same copyright status as the underlying work. Powers (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep. Which in this case would depend on when the underlying photo was first published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • In this case, I think it's safe to assume that it was either published in the first 50 years of existence, or the 2009 scan was its first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a clear example of Bridgeman v. Corel; having participated in an image digitisation program myself, I can testify that such scans are meant to be as slavish as possible. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikibooks logo old.png is tagged as GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0, but the identical image at en:wp is tagged as all-rights-reserved-by-WMF. What's more, the en: image says that it's taken from File:Wikibooks-logo.png, even though the local image was uploaded four years before the en: image. I'm not clear either on the copyright situation of the old logo here or the history of the current logo; should the old logo be tagged as nonfree? And has the new logo been edited and old revisions deleted? Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


File:TTseal2.jpg appears to me to have some components that pass the threshold of originality. Could someone here please see if they agree? Thanks, §hepTalk 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree; a palm, for just one part, is not a simple geometric shape.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup, far too complex. Have nominated the image for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked through some of the uploader's other contributions. Is it possible to group images together in one deletion or do they each need to be done separately? Specifically: File:Tt seal address.gif and possibly File:FloridaCollegeLogo.jpg. Thanks again, §hepTalk 17:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You can do a mass deletion request. See "Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request". — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this be copyright?

Hello. I have uploaded several images belonging to a relative of mine that he occasionally sends me; they aren't my work. Would that be a problem? --MicroX (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You need to get your relative to send you an e-mail confirming that he is the copyright owner, but that he wishes to release the photographs into the public domain or consents to the photographs being licensed to the Commons under a free licence such as the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY-3.0) licence. See "Commons:Email templates" for sample templates you can use to e-mail your relative. When you have received your relative's confirmatory e-mail, forward it to, and place an {{OTRS pending}} tag on the images. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
And if he doesn't, would the images have to be removed? --MicroX (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they would have to be removed because the copyright owner hasn't given permission for them to be licensed to the Commons under a free licence. Sorry, but we can't interpret the fact that your relative has sent you copies of his images as a general permission on his part for you to license the images to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)