Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 29

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

Contents

PD-Old templates wording

A good point, I think, was recently brought up about the possibly confusing wording of the PD-Old templates ({{PD-old-100}}, {{PD-old-80}}, {{PD-old-75}}, {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old-50}} - {{PD-Old}} itself having been deprecated) when applied to 3D works. The templates seem implicitly written for 2D works, as “This work is…” becomes unclear when there are two copyrights to be considered (e.g. File:Panorama of the Fountain of Time.JPG - a subject sculpture and the photograph itself). En.wiki has PD-art-3d and PD-art-70-3d templates to address this circumstance; I'm not aware of a Commons equivalent.

Does it make sense, instead of creating additional templates, to tweak the wording of the PD-Old templates to be applicable to both 2D and 3D works. For example, phrasing of “The work depicted …” instead of “This work is …” (and even that might need tweaking to fit with non-image media) and a notice, parenthetical or otherwise, that, when used with 3D subjects, there should be an additional license indicating the status of the photograph itself? Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the term "work" seems fine for all cases; the photograph's copyright has to have a license tag too. For pictured objects, we may need two license tags, one for the object and one for the photograph -- that's a matter of labeling on the image description page itself I would think. That particular statue is {{PD-1923}} (though PD-Old may be relevant too, for those countries using the rule of the longer term). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Try reading that again; I'm not sure how your response addresses the question(s). Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to have a license for 3D works that are out of copyright, since we are talking about the image itself, which of course can have any kind of license. That's the important part. Otherwise, you could tag every 3D object depicted in a photograph with some kind of tag in the same way we tag every image itself even if they aren't copyrighted including things not eligible for copyright. I think it would just cause confusion without any real benefit to end-users (hey, we went this long without it and seem to be doing fine). It kinda makes sense for obvious works of art like sculptures, but when you bring things like architecture, FOP, performance art, toys, coins, etc. It's a mess. en.wp's template only has 8 transclusions (2 of them without any other tag). I don't think there's much demand for this. Rocket000 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
What about changing the description in {{PD-old}} and {{PD-US}} from "This image (or other media file)"/"This media file" to "this work" to bring them in line with the other PD-age templates? Hekerui (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Felsenbeißer (Rock Biter).jpg: Does freedom of panorama in Germany apply indoors?

File:Felsenbeißer (Rock Biter).jpg is a photograph of what appears to be a copyrighted sculpture (a character from the 1984 film The NeverEnding Story) that is presumably permanently displayed at the Bavaria Filmstadt. Does freedom of panorama in Germany apply indoors? According to this English translation of Article 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, "[i]t shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies". — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If freedom of panorama does not apply indoors, "File:Heilbronn, Mose, 1981.JPG" may be a problem too. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FoP in Germany only applies to out door photos. sугсго 10:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag and logo of the city of Chula Vista, California

Hello. I've recently created vector versions of logo and flag of the city mentioned above and have no idea how to choose the license for them. How does it work for logos and flags in the cities of the US? In my country (Poland) the official insignia are in the public domain... Avalokitesvara (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Works of the US Federal Government are in the public domain, but the situation concerning works by state governments is not very clear. {{PD-CAGov}} might apply. Let's see if there are other editors who are more familiar with this issue. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears that en:File:City-of-chula-vista-seal.jpg is listed as a non-free image, so I assume a vector of the same seal would be non-free as well. Although the seal is just text and what amounts to some squiggly lines of varying width. §hepTalk 17:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the image part of the seal is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} to apply. Avalokitesvara, if you wish to use the vector version of the seal you have created at the English Wikipedia, you should upload it there and use it under a fair-use justification. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
How were the vector versions made? By tracing a version from a city website? That may be a copyright issue, but creating one yourself from a written description is OK. Also do remember that the content of local laws is public domain, and flags are typically defined in such laws, quite possibly including a (PD) graphic depiction which could then be used to make a vector version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It was neither tracing nor drwaing from description. It was drawing while looking on the original... Avalokitesvara (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Calatafimi.jpg: Possibly in public domain?

File:Battle of Calatafimi.jpg was recently tagged for renaming. It appears to be a historical painting – TinEye shows it has appeared on the cover of a number of books. The uploader asserts that the image is a photograph of another image that is free of copyright (in which case the current licence is wrong, because he or she cannot have released it into the public domain). The uploader has provided no source for the image. Can anyone shed light on the matter? — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the image source and a date - it's PD-Art. Hekerui (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is identical to this image linked at the Museo del Risorgimento web page here. But I could not find the date of death of the painter, except that he was still painting in 1932 here. -84user (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
To me these cards look like reproductions of paintings, so 1932 could be the year they were made. In any case, I couldn't find his date of death either, but knowing the painting is from 1860 I made an assessment: if he painted it age 20 and lived to be 100, he would still be dead for 70 years by now. It's very unlikely he painted it so young and lived so long, making the image certainly free. Hekerui (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose on a balance of probabilities Remigio Legat has died, though we have nothing really conclusive. Perhaps that is enough for the time being for us to leave the image as PD-Art. Maybe someone who has access to an Italian art encyclopedia can do a bit of research and find out when Legat lived and died. Or I wonder if the Museo del Risorgimento would respond to an e-mail inquiry on the matter (it is the job of museums to educate the public, after all). — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
For an 1860 work... yes I'd assume that. He was not still painting in 1932 BTW; that is only the date of the postcards themselves (using pre-existing paintings). In fact, there is a "1932" postcard with this exact 1860 painting in the set from the above link... while it's best to find the actual lifetime (and I couldn't either with some searching), I think this one is old enough to assume. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Which license for a CC-BY-2.5 from Wikipedia en?

Hello,

I have imported on Commons the image File:Bmj cdj.jpg, which was originally imported on the English Wikipedia under a CC-BY-2.5 license (and basically to use it on the French Wikipedia).

Would someone be so kind as to help me to choose the right license for this image here? What seemed to me the closest choice available in the dropdown menu of the impot form was a CC-BY-3.0 & GFDL, but I'm not sure I can publish this image here with this license based only on the fact that it was published under a CC-BY-2.5 on the English Wikipedia.

Thanks very much for any help!

Cos-fr (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can edit the image description page manually and add {{cc-by-2.5}} to it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The CC-BY-2.5 license exists here and should be chosen. The Move-to-commons assistant can assist you and also gives you an original upload log. Hekerui (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
A bit late, thank you both for your quick replies! When facing the import form, I thought the licenses suggested in the dropdown menu were the only acceptable ones... which I now know to be wrong.
And I will remember the Move-to-commons assistant next time I have to move a file from a Wikipedia to Commons.
So, thanks for the help, the answer, and the advice Face-smile.svg - Cos-fr (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Telephone books

I added a table of the historical numbering plan for the former +1-809 Area code (for the Caribbean + Bermuda). Would this be considered copyright violation? The company that made this phone book was Barbados Telephone Company, which has since gone through a merger (with Barbados External Telephone), and a reorganization into the regional company named LIME. Therefore, the actual company that created the directory doesn't exist anymore. The only licensing selection I could come up with says I have 6 more days to resolve what the image's copyright status should be. Any ideas what a single page from a telephone directory would fall under? The page w:Area codes in the Caribbean links to that image as a reference. CaribDigita (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The page may be a copyright violation. First, the copyright in a work does not disappear just because the original company that published the work does not exist anymore. Since the Barbados Telephone Company merged with Barbados External Telephone and were then reorganized into LIME, it is very likely that all copyrights owned by the two original companies were transferred to LIME. Secondly, it is possible that the page of the telephone book in question contains enough content to amount to an original literary work, though I suspect this is pretty near the borderline. On the other hand, {{PD-ineligible}} may apply. Let's see what other editors think. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos of people in public spaces (Finland)

Greetings. There's a statement in the policy under Finland that "[p]hotos of regular people in public places may not be published without their consent". I'd like some input on whether this is a reasonable requirement since it seems that it's not based on any existing law. The law only forbids publishing photos that 1) violate a person's privacy or 2) associate a person with a product or cause without their consent (eg. use in marketing or advertisement). Since photos of anonymous people in public places are normally allowed, I think it's worth considering removing the restriction for Finland from the policy. This came up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Immigrant familyFinland.JPG; comments are welcome there on how to handle images like this. Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then we should probably change the statement on COM:L -- we should be able to back up such statements with either laws or court cases, and provide references. Some countries do have sort of a "portrait right" but I don't think that usually applies to snapshots taken in public. So, unless this sort of thing is covered under Finnish privacy rights, it seems like it should change. Use in marketing situations is completely separate from privacy; those are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and are fine here (consider adding the {{personality rights}} template). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the statement is about privacy rights. Portrait rights exist, but are not relevant to these cases (they are about work for hire). The privacy rights that I know are defined in the criminal code and are about defamation, privacy in private areas and publication of (sensitive) information pertaining to private life (chapter 24 in the criminal code, 6 and 8 §).
Legally the situation is very unclear. The pdf referenced in the section about Finland (linked above by Jafeluv) is advice to professional photographers and does not try to define the legal line, although it certainly discusses the law. The law itself just defines the crimes in a few sentences.
The definitions start with "he who unrightfully ...". You are supposed to be able to take photos in the street, so people in the picture as part of the landscape are unproblematic. The same goes for photographing an event. But when taking a picture specifically of one private person or a group of private people, then not asking permission might count as unrightfully, if there are any problems.
I think the Moral issues section of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people prohibits most photos that would be illegal to publish in Finland. In the Examples section there are two problematic areas. The "anonymous person in a public place" may be identified and any problems will then concern a non-anonymous person. The other problem area is "unless obviously taken in a public place", where this does not suffice as excuse in Finland.
--LPfi (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
So if the picture would be alleged that the refugee family so badly when going into the gray area. then the claim should be insulting or refer to the negative things.
So if the picture would be alleged that the refugee family so badly when going into the gray area. then the claim should be insulting or refer to the negative things.
In a public place to be able to describe objectively, without having to think about shooting violates his rights which may be personal issues or preferences in the interpretation of the law, which usually is not an insult or what is another man of honor? We live in a free society in which anyone may have a photograph without a needle in you will be asked to do anything. Saved images should be able to effectively use the forums or what is morally offensive. Only then comes the interpretation of whether an image is negatively related to immigration or in the article where it is likely to provide positives and true picture of modern-day life
[1] D100a (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
We have right to privacy also in public areas. If somebody is kissing his girlfriend, wife or misstress in a public place he should not have to be afraid that he will appear in the next textbook about Finnish geography. Or even on Commons. Freedom is more about being able to conduct normal life without such fear than about the "right" to publish the picture. I suppose the image of the kiss would be "information pertaining to private life" and at least in the last case "likely to cause suffering" and thus illegal to publish. (This in the case of long lenses and non-public persons)
Suomessa on oikeus yksityiselämään myös julkisilla paikoilla. Totta kai voin olettaa ympärilläolevien näkevän jos suutelen jotakuta, mutta minun ei pidä tarvita pelätä, että joku paparazzi toiselta puolen jokea nappaa siitä kuvan ja laittaa Commonsiin. Rikoslain 24. luku, 8 § kieltää tällaisen "yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon" levittämisen. Jos kuvasta ei ilmene mitään loukkavaa tai vahinkoa aikaansaavaa, lupaahan ei yleensä tarvitse pyytää.
--LPfi (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Violate the privacy of information is certainly not if it's not the picture even though Squash family walking in the park! Let us suppose that, if the picture would you say in a gay bar on the coast when you kiss a man, it could be problematic in itself would only take place once your picture appeared negative gay image to open the article or use it in the election advertising, but if you kiss a woman in public park, and the picture would end up in even the article park or Kiss as There should be no problems in relation to the publication of the image. The most important thing is how you light your picture is presented. Finland does not need to describe the bush secretly. At least yet. Hopefully, never. Lain käsittely eduskunnassa kopio minun Hiekkalaatikolla D100a (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How the images are described can be an issue too, I would think -- the people in the image linked above are labeled "immigrants", but is that known? Could they just be tourists? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The uploader says he has often seen them there, so probably not tourists, but at least the children may have been born in Finland. There is also no guarantee that they are a family. But I think those issues are separate from the one whether the section about Finland in this page needs clarification.
And yes, I think taking a picture of me kissing my wife in an empty park with a long lens and illustrating the article Kiss with that is certainly something I would find disturbing, to say the least. If I were kissing a mistress and the photo would result in a divorce, then publishing it would have been clearly illegal. Broken friendships are one example mentioned in the parliamentary papers you cite in the link you gave (kiitos linkistä).
What is allowed is publishing photos of people doing ordinary things not considered private. Only if publishing it "on omiaan"/"är ägnat" to cause harm, publishing it is illegal. I have no good translation, but something that can be supposed to possibly harm is probably illegal.
--LPfi (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
So now it is only the case that I have appointed a picture of the immigrant family and it is probably also the concept is correct. Finnish Wikipedia has estimated the possibility that even if I was on holidays in Thailand and walk on the beach dressed as a woman with a man. And the picture would be published on the internet, so what then. Once they have started to consider whether the picture really for immigrants or the children why they should be characterized? Would not it be best to describe the real terms, ie immigrants, and when these four seem to be a family unit as the image name is not intended for immigrants family and I can not describe them even though I tried to think about how the image of a neutral name so I could not find it.We do not know whether the children actually were born here it is a matter of privacy, not public. Admittedly, I could ask my son, he knows the relevant children. But it is not important.
As I wrote that I had been able to appoint its image as refugees but also it could be a really negative and false description of the Finnish changed jobs elsewhere in the world .. I myself have been working for the international work place which has been working as Tatars as laborers from Jamaica. D100a (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The general issue

[toivottavasti keskustelu siitä tietystä kuvasta voidaan pitää yllä, jotta täällä alla voidaan keskittyä Suomea koskevan osion saamiseen kuntoon.]

I now read a seminar work on the issue: Henkilön kuvan julkaiseminen tietoverkossa by Pauliina Sipilä. She seems to know what she is writing about and the paper clarifies many issues. I tried to rewrite the section about people in Finland, but the result is not very good. And the version before mine was not correct either.

The problem is that the law is unclear. There are the two above mentioned parapgraphs, but beside those there is the general statements in the constitution. It seems that the right to ones image partly stems from the latter. The supreme court has made some decisions without referencing any law.

Beside the criminal code also the law on damages is relevant, where you might have to pay damages for breaking good practices, such as asking for permission, even when there is no crime and no actual harm. Such cases are few, but explain the discrepancy between what is said to be required and what can be found in the law.


I try to explain some points, that need summarizing in the section itself.

First: public persons, current events and the like may be photographed and the photos published, because otherwise the free word would be threatened. The right is (as I understand it) equal for private persons and mass media. Also public persons have right to privacy in their private life, unless some important public matter asks for publication of such information.

Pop idols and such are usually thought of as having given up their right to privacy, so that permission to publish photos is implicit, but only as long as they do not withdraw this permission. Relatives of the person have to give up their privacy themselves (girl friends often do, other relatives more seldom).

Ordinary people are considered to have the right to their image. It may not be used for advertising, even non-commercially. There was a case (1982 II 36 KKO) where a photo of a person fishing on a lake was used to promote tourism and the person got damages, although he was not clearly identifiable.

On the other hand photographing an event is allowed and no permission is required from people accidentally in the photo (Painovapaustoimikunnanmietintö 1973 p.110 and 136).

When publishing a photo related to private life may cause damage, suffering or despisal, publishing it is explicitly forbidden in the criminal code (24 chapter, 8 $). The damage etc. has to be such that normal people would expect it could happen. This concerns especially photographing a certain person doing something that is expected to cause despisal. One case (KKO 1980 II 99) concerned unclothed children in a public place, where the parents might be thought to treat their children badly.

The photographer and the uploader may be held responsible for allowing commercial use (KKO 1989 62). This means that the {{personality rights}} may have legal implications for the uploader. I would like the template to include some language for the case where the photo is to be used somewhere where use as advertisement is allowed.

(Privacy in private places was not described in the work. Private yards are considered private also when seen from public places, which may differ from what is expected. I suppose private yards can be freely photographed as part of a landscape, as long as nobody is doing something special in them, such as sunbathing undressed.)

I do not know how much this differs from the situation in other countries.

--LPfi (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's really focus on today's situation when the law was photographing in a public place was changed substantially in 1995. If you want to be guilty of criminal activities taking photographs should be limited after a certain someone has been injured. So photographing a private area or the privacy to enjoy the place as Squash summer cottages or private beach, or, as one example, one couple had a house in the yard by sexual intercourse with each other as they described the private investigator was sentenced to fines, privacy, an area under the shooting. Iltalehti artikkeli or that Blog and taht aricle

Tampereen yliopiston toimittajakoulutuksen viikkolehti D100a (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, take a position on the shooting is permitted, as well as publishers go, but also may not submit an advertisement without permission, or it may not be published in a negative context. So should Finns pictures or video recordings reminder that the use of the above cases, is prohibited without written permission is stored in the practices as determined in this community.On the other hand how it is enforced is a different story. D100a (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The "advertisement" thing is publicity or personality rights; those are separate from privacy rights and would not affect our ability to keep it (though adding the {{personality rights}} tag may be a good idea). The "negative light" thing is also not related to privacy; that is more defamation/slander, and is the type of thing the "living people" policies (such as en:Wikipedia:BLP) are being careful with (and which type of policy should basically apply to image descriptions and titles here). For privacy stuff, we are mostly concerned with laws which make it illegal to publish them at all (i.e. simply hosting it here is a problem), rather than only illegal in certain situations, or things which can be fixed by editing image descriptions, etc. Those can generally be kept. By your description, it sounds like things are fairly in line with other countries, though like many European countries, public photos are not as clearly OK as they are in the U.S. Things like "seen them in that area several times" may be too much information to disclose and that sort of thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I am opposed to that image because of the publication of a reminder device to the protection of privacy when the law in Finland does not feel it a public place is moving towards. It is a different matter if the law would have said so clearly in the park or a walk in the foreigners or aliens identity may not be described. However, when we were living in North Korea is not an open society. The main thing is that the current vague law is repealed and too strict conditionality leads to situations where we can no longer be used throughout the project other than certain types of images such as cars or the subway from which can be described without the protection of privacy on the model facility. Going to be too strict or difficult D100a (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that the Criminal Code of Finland (including chapter 24, section 8) is available in English, too (© Ministry of Justice, Finland):

"Section 8 – Dissemination of information violating personal privacy (531/2000)
(1) A person who unlawfully
(1) through the use of the mass media, or
(2) otherwise by making available to many persons
disseminates information, an insinuation or an image of the private life of another person, so that the act is conducive to causing that person damage or suffering, or subjecting that person to contempt, shall be sentenced for dissemination of information violating personal privacy to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
(2) The spreading of information, an insinuation or an image of the private life of a person in politics, business, public office or public position, or in a comparable position, does not constitute dissemination of information violating personal privacy, if it may affect the evaluation of that person’s activities in the position in question and if it is necessary for purposes of dealing with a matter with importance to society."

--Apalsola tc 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To deliberately confuse things the other way round as they are. Wrongful release is only then if the picture should be described Squash closed the factory gates or inside the airport or a nuclear power plant from the yard of the reserved space as Toa man from home secretly photographed.Unlawfully, it should be also if I had notified them of the refugees or any of the alleged racis D100a (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between taking a photograph and publishing one. It is, indeed, legal to take photographs of people in the public places in Finland. There are more restrictions for publishing such photographs, e.g. those stated in the chapter 24, section 8 of the Criminal Code. --Apalsola tc 08:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Finnish on the removal of the existing practice of category

I believe that maintaining the current practice is repealed and the future save image files can be saved only {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and no other explanation need not be put. D100a (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-copyright restriction?

Isn't the Finnish privacy law a non-copyright restriction not affecting copyright? In other words, a person who takes a photograph in Finland that may infringe another person's privacy still owns the copyright in the photograph and may validly license and upload it to the Commons. However, the following risks must be noted:

  • Finnish authorities could take action against the uploader for infringement of the privacy law.
  • The authorities could take action against people who reuse the image (presumably if they are present in Finland).
  • The authorities could take action against the Wikimedia Foundation (although, again, the fact that they are not physically present in Finland could make it difficult for the authorities to do so).

— Cheers, JackLee talk 05:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That should be correct. So the section is merely advice for the photographer, uploader and reuser. I would like some wording in {{personality rights}} that would ask the reuser to respect the laws in the country where the photo is taken. I think that would diminish the legal risk of Finnish photographers and uploaders (and probably those of many other countries). --LPfi (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Personality rights are completely different than privacy rights. The former is purely about using someone's name or likeness in commercial advertizing; that is a situational aspect only, and the notice is basically to say that there is no model release whatsoever for any of the images here (and should be clear that those rights are not being claimed in Finland either; advertizers need to obtain those on their own). Privacy rights are completely different; if an image violates someone's privacy, that means the simple fact of hosting it here is illegal (regardless of copyright ownership), and so we tend to delete in those circumstances. If something is not illegal in the U.S., but is illegal in other countries... more of a debate (as there is no immediate liability for the Foundation), but we do try to respect the law in those other countries. The main question though is how much can photos taken in public violate privacy rights, when the pictured people are in full view of the public. Long-range photos which focus in on particular people may rub some people the wrong way, as the people involved may not know they are being photographed. Obviously there can be case-by-case requests by either the pictured person or the uploader; those can be handled separately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not seeing the conceptual difference between privacy and personality rights, or indeed other non-copyright restrictions. Your argument concerning respecting privacy rights applies to a host of other laws imposed by various jurisdictions, such as obscenity laws, laws protecting national symbols, laws restricting the reproduction of images of national patrimony, and German laws restricting the display of Nazi symbols. I thought we generally do not have regard to non-copyright restrictions, taking the position that it is a private matter concerning the uploader or the subsequent user of the image in question. If we are now taking the position that some non-copyright restrictions are to be enforced, then a decision has to be reached on the criteria for determining when we are going to and when we are not. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty clear to me than a picture which violate privacy rights has to be deleted. Now it is a matter of debate when a picture infringes on someone's privacy rights. Yann (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Because it is illegal for the Commons to host such material, or because it is our policy not to do so? I am absolutely fine if we decide that as a policy matter we should not have material that violates people's privacy. However, if we are doing so because it is deemed to be illegal to host such material, then to be consistent we need to decide whether to give effect to some or all of the other laws mentioned in my comment. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The main difference between "privacy rights" and other non-copyright restrictions, is that most non-copyright restrictions are dependent of local laws. But if an image violates someone's privacy rights, these rights are violated everywhere. For a given picture, the violation is the same wherever the person is resident, and wherever the picture is published. It depends only on what the picture shows, and where it was taken. This makes a difference with "personality rights" which depends on some local laws. As an example, using a picture of a personality for an ad will depend on the local law where the ad is published. Publishing a picture of someone in his/her bathroom, which obviously violates his/her privacy, create the same violation wherever the picture is published. Yann (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
So privacy is only when the sauna is a naked man. Finland has published countless pictures of people in the sauna, I believe that everyone must also asked for permission to publish on the Internet or a newspaper. But how can we be sure if the picture is downloaded commons-member? Privacy is not covered if it is described in empty bathrooms, which does not identify the location or owner. I went yesterday with residential sales happening, I asked for permission to describe the homes I was also put as it does not identify where the dwelling is located or by whom it lives D100a (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
We have the Moral issues section in Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. That is policy about privacy rights. I think local laws and customs have to be taken in account as a private place (in that policy) is defined as a place where you should be able to expect privacy. Those expectations are dependent on local laws and customs.
What you do not mind showing a couple of persons nearby and another what you do not mind having spread all over the globe are different things. The area does not have to be fenced for that (although the 6 § has special regulations about areas where you do not expect passers by). So a place being public (in any sense but as a circle definition) is not enough for the privacy question.
--LPfi (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I think the assumption that a breach of privacy is against the law universally is unwarranted. As I mentioned in my posting below, there is no general right to privacy in Singapore, for example. Yes, it would probably be against the law to take a photograph of someone in a bathroom, but possibly for the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress, and not because there is a prohibition against breaching privacy. Therefore, it will be difficult to formulate policy on the basis that the act has to be against the law everywhere, because there are likely to be some countries where the act is not against the law. On the other hand, in many countries obscene material is against the law. Should we then remove all content that is deemed to be obscene (whatever that means)? Furthermore, it will often be a matter of degree. It has been asserted that a photograph of an Arab family taken without their permission breaches their privacy rights in Finland, but in many other countries there would be nothing wrong with such a photograph. What standard of privacy should be applied? — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not really understand what this picture would be wrong towards Arabs or Muslims? Why do we not describe all the other national minorities, but the Arabs would be a taboo subject in Finland? Gypsies, black people, Russian or Thai women who have moved to Finland with my husband on holiday as well as the Finnish Swedes living in Finland from Somalia have moved? Who so ever so the argument is put forward here?D100a (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I explained why I think the image may cause harm and therefore be possibly illegal in the deletion discussion. The specific image is better discussed there.
Regarding the question of what laws to respect regarding privacy, I think it is logical to respect the laws where the picture is taken and the ones that directly concern WMF. The former because they influence expectations of privacy. Besides that we may forbid photos that are against human rights as we perceive them. The above mentioned section about moral issues is supposed to be about them, but seems to me to be about as restrictive as US law.
--LPfi (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate my point: I am not against having a general policy protecting privacy. But then let's simply say it is our policy here at the Commons, and not because it is against the law of any particular country or countries. Once we start relying on law, then we have to answer the question why we apply law A and not law B. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How many of you are generally not aware of the protection of privacy in Finland? Judging from the writings of many not at all. In Finland, the law is quite unambiguous. Privacy is not residing in a public place. Only accounts for publication should be subtle that it is guilty of gross defamation if in publishing pictures of identifiable people. Occurring in the picture does not publish articles that might give a negative image. I use a model of google received attention in Finland where they described the prospects for street google map service. Privacy Officer to investigate and found that in a public place can be described without prior censorship, or that the picture occurring need to remove or edit unknown. Privacy Satan enjoys the only home garden which is fenced or not sa window to describe the inside. For example, airports and ferry terminals in shops or in public places they may describe as much as you want and also be published without permissioneffectivelyas described in connection with the people. Here we describe the substance for immigrants and not the picture that purport to contain the image not refugees or criminals, for example, or Muslims. D100a (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it then our policy that photographs taken within a particular country (or, more accurately, jurisdiction) must comply with all laws applicable in that country? In Germany the display of Nazi symbols is prohibited by law. Should we now nominate the contents of "Category:Nazi Swastikas" for deletion? There are presently no privacy laws in Singapore. Does that mean photographs taken in Singapore that violate people's privacy are fine for the Commons? We really need to clarify this. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you interpretation is weird. Some country will use a law, and another country will use another law, but the result will be the same: breaching privacy is not allowed. Could you mention only one country where it would be lawful to publish a picture of someone's in his/her home without his/her consent? Yann (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the laws of all the countries in the world, and so can't answer your question. But is it right for us to assume that there every country has such a restriction in its laws? Anyway, as I pointed out, the problem is one of degree. The original issue raised was that having a photograph of an Arab family on a public street (not in their home) on the Commons breached their privacy under Finnish law. That may well be true (I'm not familiar with Finnish law), but such a photograph would not be against the law in other countries. Therefore, my question is: which countries' laws do we comply with and which do we not bother about?
I am concerned about what I see as an inconsistency between copyright and non-copyright restrictions. Where copyright is concerned, our policy states that a photograph must be in the public domain under US law as well as under the law of the country in which it was taken. However, it appears that we generally disregard non-copyright restrictions by saying that the uploader or the end user must decide whether to expose himself or herself to legal liability by uploading or using a particular image in contravention of such a restriction. A privacy law is a non-copyright restriction. Therefore, shouldn't "Commons:Non-copyright restrictions" apply? If there is something special about privacy laws that warrants us taking them into account when deciding whether an image should in the Commons or not, then I think we need to think of some guidelines on when we are going to apply laws and when we are going to say that our "Non-copyright restrictions" policy applies. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If publication itself violates the law, then the Foundation is liable, and yes we have to delete (legally). Not really a choice there. This would seem to be legal by U.S. laws, but we do have something of a policy of trying to respect the law in the country of origin -- so if this family would have expected such photos to not be publishable, it's something we may take into consideration (especially when requested by the uploader or people pictured). But, it's not strictly a legal requirement for a U.S. institution (though it could possibly be an issue for local chapters, or something). This is strictly for privacy rights though, as the publisher is liable there. Personality rights (often referred to as publicity rights) are different; those are using the person's name or likeness in connection with commercial advertizing, and is something along the lines of trademark (the Library of Congress has a page here talking about them). If an image violates privacy though, then it is illegal to publish under *any* circumstances, which is why it is a special case of Commons:Non-copyright restrictions that we have to pay attention to. Obviously, Wikimedia itself cannot violate the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If the image is likely to break the law so I wonder what law would it be? And what is the law which would mean disregarding the image is or where it is published? Strange that I who live, and I live in Finland and I am a European Union citizen, so why should I take a clear picture of a possible release for example, in Chile or South Africa? Does not publish a picture in a local project or image is not the Journal of the publisher's risk and not my image that people in Finland and I am stateside. Admittedly there is much to photograph visited the street perspective, so it is quite a small risk that I necessarily by the picture of those innocent people who end up in a newspaper. Thus, when I suggested that the repeal of Finnish restriction because it is not based on any law, but one man's opinion and their own interpretation of the Finnish privacy law ..D100a (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In the U.S., there may well be issues with photographs taken in private. In public such as your photo, it would not be generally considered a privacy violation (the actual situation differs between states, actually). The EU has some different takes on the matter, and each country is different anyways. But I agree that the original statement seemed overbroad, and not based strictly on the statutes posted here, and we should be careful to not interpret them (unless courts or other legal scholars have, which we can reference). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy on non-copyright restrictions is more or less a heuristic that fails in some cases. It is the best the community has come up with so far, though. What really matters is not matter where restrictions come from (copyright, trademark law, etc.) but what effect they actually have.

  • Trademark laws, for example, only affect a small number of potential acts (using them to identify products, basically), but they could affect a large number of content (even PD works). Excluding trademarked content from Commons would remove a lot of content the restrictions on which only affect a small number of users.
  • Laws on privacy and other personality rights, on the other hand, affect a large number of potential acts. They make most ways of publishing content that is subject to them illegal without permission. In that respect, they are similar to copyright laws. Excluding this content from Commons only removes content a majority of users would not be able to use anyway.

The bottom line: Content subject to restrictions that are quite similar to copyright should not be uploaded to Commons. — cfaerber 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really -- "free" licenses are enforced by copyright, so the tiny details of copyright law matter a great deal. For any restrictions outside of copyright, Wikimedia merely needs to follow the law itself -- obviously we can't break the law. For third-party users, following the law is their responsibility. Personality rights affect relatively few usages; they are not really a problem. (If you think they are, you are talking about removing every single photo of a living person from Commons.) Trademark can make certain images, like logos, not usable in many many contexts -- but there are some quite legitimate ones, including on Wikipedia, so we will host them if we can (i.e. the copyright is OK). Privacy on the other hand (completely different than personality/publicity rights), is a much bigger deal -- if an image constitutes a privacy violation, it is illegal for Wikimedia to publish it at all, and the Foundation would be directly liable. Thus, we are very careful about privacy rights. If there are other situations which make works illegal to use in educational contexts, then we would probably not keep those either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Carl Lindberg here explains very well what are the issues, and what I wanted to express myself above. Yann (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More on copyright and non-copyright restrictions

[Continued from the section above.] I think we must keep two things separate and clear in our minds:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation must follow the law. The question is, the law of which country? As the Foundation was established in Florida (I assume), it must certainly comply with Florida law, and relevant US Federal laws. No problem there. The difficult question is whether Wikimedia is also obliged to comply with the laws of other countries because the Commons is accessible in those countries, even if Wikimedia does not have a legal presence in those countries (for example, a branch or a subsidiary corporation or organization of some sort). I don't know what the answer is, but knowing the answer is important because it determines whether Wikimedia needs to consider, for example, Chinese censorship laws and German privacy laws.
For copyright matters, we take the stand that images must be in the public domain in both the US and in the country where the photograph was taken. This suggests that Wikimedia recognizes the need to comply with both US law and foreign law. If so, why do we not apply a similar standard to non-copyright restrictions? This is what I find puzzling. Is it the case that Wikimedia does not actually need to comply with foreign copyright laws, but that we do so as a matter of policy to ensure that Commons content is as widely usable as possible?
  • Commons policy can be stricter than what the law requires. At a minimum, Commons policy must comply with the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, Commons may, of course, adopt a standard that is stricter than what the law requires. For example, the Commons community may decide that it will not host material that violates people's privacy, even though US law does not require it to take this stand.

The main issue that has come up in this discussion and elsewhere is the extent to which privacy concerns should be taken into account. Bearing the above in mind, in my view we need to find out the answers to the following questions:

  1. What is the applicable privacy law? US law, or the law of the country in which the photograph is taken as well? If only US law is relevant, what does US law on privacy require us to do?
  2. Do we as the Commons community want to adopt the US law standard (or US law and foreign law standards, whichever is stricter, if foreign law is also applicable), or adopt an even stricter standard?

— Cheers, JackLee talk 11:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Legally speaking, only the US has jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation. Commons policy that we include images that are free both in the US and in the country of its origin is merely to try and make sure that e.g. the German Wikipedia can be freely distributed in Germany. (It ignores the wide variety of countries that don't have the rule of the shorter term. Note also that in practice, Commons flagrantly ignores the rule that images must be free in the US, in gross violation of the law.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I see – thanks. A few comments and questions about this:
  • It seems rather inconsistent to say that although the Foundation only needs to comply with US law, we nonetheless adopt a policy that images must also comply with foreign laws so they can be "freely distributed" in those foreign countries, when there may be non-copyright restrictions in those countries that prevent the images from being freely distributed too. If we want to host images that are truly free, should we not ensure non-copyright restrictions in other countries are also adhered to?
  • Let's assume the answer to the above is no because we are only concerned with copyrights (and relevant non-copyright restrictions applying in the US only), and people reuse images at their own risk and must ensure that they are complying with the laws of the country they are intending to use the images in. In that case, do we protect people's privacy in images because it is a US law requirement (in which case what exactly is the US law on this matter?), or is it a Commons policy decision?
  • In what way does Commons flagrantly ignore the rule that images must be free in the US? I don't understand which rule you're referring to.
— Cheers, JackLee talk 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything labeled {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. is still in copyright in the US, and yet on Commons without permission of the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, pardon my ignorance, but why do we then not remove {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} images that do not have any other valid free licence? — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've tried, but not generally been successful, so I gave up. Go ahead and bring it up on a new topic here, or try a trial DR, and I'll be right behind you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

CC licensing for government coat of arms?

File:Armoiries république française.svg is tagged with the cc-by-sa-2.0 France license. What's present in this image that could be claimed as copyright by the uploader? Surely the French government, or someone working for it, is the only copyright holder on the government's coat of arms? Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

SVG is computer code, and can be copyrighted, just like a TrueType file can be copyrighted even though the font can't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
No, each drawing of a coat of arms is a separate artistic work, and the copyright is held by the person who drew it. They can be derivative works of other specific versions, but not of the general design -- the French government only owns the copyright in specific versions that government artists draw. See Commons:Coats of Arms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted toys in the background

Behind the bike in File:Balance bike.jpg are toys which I'm guessing are non-free sculptures. One of them looks like Miffy. Should these toys be blurred out? --Damian Yerrick () 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can't have those copyrighted toys in the background. Would the image look a bit strange with blurred-out bits? Perhaps someone can remove the entire background, just leaving the bicycle against a plain background? (Volunteers at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop" may be able to help.) Or perhaps you can contact the uploader and see if he or she can take a different photograph of the bicycle, for example, outdoors. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made a request at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Balance bike". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Would probably depend on your country of residence. Should be safe enough if your country has a good first-sale, freedom of panorama and fair use rules - otherwise Commons could not have any photographs of commercial products (cars, bikes, etc). see also this WIPO suggests background copyright objects should be ok as in this case http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm Shyamal (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Cars, bikes, and that sort of thing are utilitarian and not copyrightable in the first place, so photos there are always fine. Toys unfortunately are generally considered copyrightable artistic works (there are multiple U.S. court cases on that, including some involving photographs of toys being derivative works). While in the background, they still seem to be a significant part of the photo -- it may be hard to claim de minimis. I'm not sure there are many countries which automatically allow photographs of purchased products -- it would usually matter what the photographs were used for. So, I could see the caution here by blurring the toys. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A Graphic Lab volunteer has done a great job removing the background. Can an administrator remove the earlier version of the image from the file history? — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice job with the image! Older version deleted now. Jafeluv (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Graphic licensing

I would like to import an graphic from [2] to use as an example in an article. The data are public as it comes from a member of the World Meteorological Organization but the images are made by the webmaster of this site who claimed that he has the copyright on them. Since he uses publicly available data, can he claim a copyright and what licence apply to these image on Wikipedia if I can import them. Pierre cb (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the webmaster can claim copyright over the images, because copyright protects the way an idea or data is expressed, not the idea or data itself: see "Copyright". — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Paintings by Edmond Dyonnet

Fabrice Lorin (talk, contribs) has uploaded a number of paintings by Edmond Dyonnet:

For most of the uploads, Fabrice Lorin claims to be the author and/or copyright holder of the paintings, which is obviously false. For Paysage de Dyonnet.jpg, they claim that the author died more than 70 years ago, which is also not true, as Dyonnet died in 1954.

I'm guessing these may be {{PD-Art|PD-Canada-creator}} or {{PD-Art|PD-Canada}}, but I don't feel confident enough to re-tag them myself, for the following reasons:

  • I'm not familiar enough with the artist to verify that these are indeed his works.
  • According to the Wikipedia article, Dyonnet was born French in 1859, emigrated to Canada in 1875 and became a naturalized citizen (no date mentioned). I'm not sure if that has any bearing on the copyright status of the works.
  • It seems that whether or not the work was published is important in Canadian copyright law, but I'm not sure when a painting is considered published, and if or when these ones were published.

I'm hoping someone familiar with Canadian copyright law and/or this artist can shed some light on the situation. LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that many of the works are PD in the US as they predate 1923 - I don't know enough about Canadian copyright law to say whether they're copyrighted in the source country. The uploader may have assumed Dyonnet was dead by 70 years ago, since he was born in 1859, but he lived to quite an old age. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the copyright of photos of scientific instruments?

I'm sure there's a pre-existing policy here somewhere but can someone give me a pointer to where I find out about the copyright in photographs of scientific instruments? Specifically, I'm talking about relatively old (sometimes 50+ years) medical equipment used in surgery etc. now in museums. Sometimes these are made by companies still in existence sometimes these are effectively homemade tools. The jurisdiction is Australia. There are many such photos on Commons that are of contemporary obejcts (e.g. File:Defibrillator (UOMZ).jpg) but I just wanted to make sure that if I had my own shots then there's no other impediment to me uploading them under a free-license to Commons. Witty lama (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

These instruments are not "work of art", so they do not get a copyright. There might be under a patent, but we are not concerned about that. Yann (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it is not so much the fact that they are not "works of art" but that they are utility objects. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as long as there is no art on the surface (f.e. painting on cars). So utility objects in itself is not sufficient. Yann (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FOP - Romania

Romania apparently doesn't allow FOP, but what about an image like File:Constructii noi in Timisoara..jpg? There is preciously little (if anything) to copyright about what can be seen in those buildings. Might this image be allowable as de minimis? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer (and know nothing about Romania) but it looks de minimis to me. --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force Auxiliary

This template was deleted according to a deletion discussion. However, deleting the tag does not help with all the Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force_Auxiliary transclusions. How to proceede? --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A further problem is that Civil Air Patrol was not incorporated until 1 July 1946. CAP started as a division of the Office of Civilian Defense with assistance from the Army Air Corp, then was taken over by the Army Air Forces when OCD was dissolved. So, I'm unsure what template would best service these images, since none exists for OCD or AAF (aside from generic PD-USGov or PD-USGov-Military). Thoughts? Huntster (t @ c) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I should add that the above accounts for some of the now-CAP licensed images, so I'd like to find a resolution before they all get deleted. Huntster (t @ c) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

UNED images on Flickr

I just found some nice pictures that are listed as having free licenses on the Flickr page of Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia[3], but some of then, like this one[4], seem to be owned by specific authors, so are the images fair game or not? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the images are OK since the user seems to be the UNED itself. You may want to e-mail the Flickr user or leave a comment on one of the image pages to be sure. If an image is attributed to a particular author, be sure to state the author's name on the Commons image description page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
But for example if someone made an image (photo or painting) for UNED, isn't the image then his intellectual property, and not UNED's, which would keep them from being able to license the images as they want? This painting even hasa copyright c on it:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It depends on whether there was an agreement between the artist and UNED for the copyright to be transferred to UNED. I had assumed that such agreements existed since UNED released these images under free licences through its Flickr account. However, you may be right that it is best not to make such an assumption. Since there is a doubt, it may be best to contact UNED to verify the situation. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both PD-self and copyleft

File:04580005.jpg has had both GFDL and PD-self tags since it was uploaded. Has anyone any idea which in fact applies? --Damian Yerrick () 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that since the image has been released into the public domain, that takes precedence over any more restrictive licences. There is no longer any reason to use the image under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0 licences. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There may very well be a reason: in much of Europe you cannot release things into the public domain (and the alternative stated in the template is legally highly dubious), so having a real licence as backup does make sense. E.g. Finnish law says you cannot give up the "moral" rights (right to be attributed, not to have the work misinterpreted etc.) other than regarding some special use of the work. --LPfi (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Odd, the upload comment was "GFDL-self". But the uploaded version had both licenses. As long as PD-self wasn't just a mistake, it would seem to be valid. There is a possibility though that the uploader accidentally left the "PD-self" selected in the license popup on the upload page, then typed in his desired license, and didn't realize that both were included. The style of the original text makes it look as though the Licensing section (the only place PD-self showed up) was created by the old upload page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Battlestar Galactica flags

What is the copyright status of the banners and other fictitious insignia in this category? Are they simple fan art? Or they are "official" works of the Battlestar Galactica project/franchise? SV1XV (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether the insignia are entirely made up by fans or adapted from graphics on merchandise or shown on the TV programme (which seems more likely). In the latter case, unless the shapes are very simple, the insignia are copyrighted and have to be deleted if no OTRS confirmation is available. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

German copyright law relating to photographs

Could editors familiar with German copyright law relating to photographs please comment at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeter.jpg"? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that German copyright law is not actually relevant to that particular image, but nonetheless there seem to be some points of German copyright law that need to be clarified. Perhaps it is best for me to raise the issue here. There are two provisions of the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights of Germany that seem to be inconsistent. §64, which applies to "photographic works" (Lichtbildwerke: see §2(1).6), says "Copyright shall expire 70 years after the author's death." However, §72 states:

72.—(1) Photographs (Lichtbilder) and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works.
(2) The right afforded by subsection (1) shall belong to the photographer.
(3) The right under subsection (1) shall expire 50 years after publication of the photograph or after its first lawful communication to the public where such communication took place at an earlier date, but in any event 50 years after its manufacture if the photograph has not been published or has not been lawfully communicated to the public within that period. ...

I do not know whether there is a difference between "photographic works" (Lichtbildwerke) under §2(1).6 and "photographs" (Lichtbilder) under §72. There don't seem to be any definitions of the terms in the law. Can someone clarify the situation so that "Commons:Licensing" can be updated? — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, cases in Germany since the EU copyright directive have pretty much limited the "simple photographs" thing to images like X-Rays and similar types of things; most any photograph is now a "work". User:Lupo/Simple Photographs has a little bit of info. There have been other discussions before but I can't find them at the moment. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That is pretty correct. :) Since the en:Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) (de:Schutzdauerrichtlinie) almost everything is regarded a Lichtbildwerk (see also de:Lichtbildwerk). --Isderion (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Additionaly, in the German Wikipedia there’s a consensus to regard every fotograph as a Lichtbildwerk as there is not enough legal practice for judging reliable—although e. g. in Switzerland, simple fotographs are not protected at all. --ireas :talk: 11:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
So if I understand both of you correctly, at the German Wikipedia as a matter of caution all photographic works are subject to the 70 years pma rule, and §72 (which applies to Lichtbilder) which states a copyright expiry period of 50 years from the date of publication is not applied? — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct. There are only two exceptions:
  • Two-dimensional reproductions of paintings etc. are regarded as public domain. (Vorlage:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe)
  • There’s a special license for non-two-dimensional reproductions of paintings etc. that applies the Lichtbild rule (Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-50), but it’s not used often and in my opinion, it should not be used anyhow. It’s a bit strange. ;)
Regards, --ireas :talk: 11:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd like to see if there is any consensus here at the Commons for adopting the position taken by the German Wikipedia, i.e., photographs are generally subject to the 70 years pma rule and not the 50 years after publication rule (§72) due to uncertainty over how the latter is to be applied, except for photographic reproductions of two-dimensional artworks that are already in the public domain. If so, I would suggest that "Commons:Licensing#Germany" be updated to make this point clearer. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons does not apply a 50 year rule to photographs of paintings. And not all German photos are works, for example aerial photos (straight down) and other similar photos made by automatic cameras. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant to say that there is no copyright in photographic reproductions in Germany of two-dimensional artworks already in the public domain, following the general Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. principle. But are you suggesting that the 50-years-after-publication rule applies to photographs that are not "works"? Could someone explain the difference between what the German legislation refers to as "photographic works" (Lichtbildwerke) and "photographs" (Lichtbilder)? The distinction is not clear from the English translations of the terms. Is it something to do with the amount of creativity involved (in other words, if there is no creativity on the part of a photographer, it is not a "photographic work")? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Generally, the German copyright law only protects ‘persönliche geistige Schöpfungen’—I don’t know how to translate that. So, as a matter of principle, not every fotograph is considered as a ‘work’. Only fotographs that are ‘persönliche geistige Schöpfungen’ are protected (70 years pma).
Then there is an additional property right for ‘Lichtbilder’—photographs that are no ‘persönliche geistige Schöpfungungen’—which are proteted 50 years after first publishment.
That’s quite logic: Only a professional/artistic photograph is considered a work, but other fotographs relish a minor protection, too.
But: With the Schutzdauerrichtline by the EU, the upper limit of a Lichtbild has been lowered dramatically. In fact, there are only few images this 50 year limit is applied to.
I hope you understand my point. :) --ireas :talk: 13:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"Persönliche geistige Schöpfungen" translates into English as "personal intellectual creations", and "Schutzdauerrichtline" as "directive on the term of protection". Are there any laws or cases on what sort of photographs are not persönliche geistige Schöpfungen? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The limit was lowered dramatically in Germany because of the interpretation by a German court of the directive, in a decision about a wartime photo of a vessel (submarine?). The court gave priority to the EU-principle of non-discrimination over other important principles of law like the undesirability of retroactive legislation. But the Finnish copyright council has a different interpretation: File:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg was ruled a simple photograph. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was a photo of a submarine: wikisource:de:Oberlandesgericht Hamburg - U-Boot Foto 1941. Trycatch (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What was the test or principle of law applied by the Oberlandesgericht Hamburg in the U-Boot Foto 1941 case to determine whether or not a photograph is a persönliche geistige Schöpfungen? Has the case been appealed to or applied by any higher courts? — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
@Jacklee: There is the commentary opinion (interestingly cited by the highest court in Austria) that Lichtbilder are only (besides photos taken by accident by accidently hitting the trigger) "technical photos" for which a photographer with the same skill would come to a the same result (e.g. reproduction of painting, photos of machinery, mug shots, cartographic aerial photography and passport photographs out of a photo booth). ("Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)" form de:Lichtbildwerk). Please note however that in the German Wikipedia reproductions of painting aren't considered works on their own, but photos of machinery are considered Lichtbildwerke because the photographer chooses a the angle. Additionally x-ray photos are also only considered as Lichtbild (see de:Bildrechte) --Isderion (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for this information. I will attempt to prepare an update of "Commons:Licensing#Germany", and then share it here to see if everyone agrees with it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, we've pretty much always treated German photographs as being 70pma due to all of the above -- this is nothing new. Documenting it better would help though. Other countries do not appear to have altered their "simple photo" definition, though I'm not sure there have been court cases to confirm that. We do allow Sweden and Finland's version of simple photos, though we did get cold feet over Italy's version and didn't allow them, something which I now feel was a mistake. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

copyright status of File:Ricardo Lacsamana painting.jpg

I have an OTRS ticket requesting guidance on reuse of File:Ricardo Lacsamana painting.jpg. Could someone please investigate the copyright status? Thanks. --Jeremyb (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going with no. I'm a little frustrated that this managed to get through the filters; I would have thought that the bots would have noticed that it had no license template and readded {{no license}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that surprised me. I've no idea if it's applicable in this case but I was wondering: do the bots responsible for this miss things if there's downtime? or they checkpoint and pick up where they left off? --Jeremyb (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Koenigsfelden 04.jpg

Is this a valid license for a picture took in a swiss abbey: Cc-by-sa-2.0-de? -- Badener  07:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I have changed it to {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why wouldn't Cc-by-sa-2.0-de be valid? Seems perfectly OK. "Country of origin" is where a work is published, not taken -- uploader may be German (or Swiss, which does have large German-speaking areas). And anyways, there is nothing preventing a user from using a specific language version of a license regardless of where the photo was taken or published, if that is what they want to use -- I don't think it's a good idea to change it to a generic CC license, as that is not specifically what the author specified. CC-by-sa-2.0-de is a perfectly valid license for the photo, if the uploader is in fact the photographer. I changed it back ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I overlooked the place of publication point. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright in music file

I have been looking at whether an audio file might exist in public domain to illustrate the article at the English WP, on Bix Beiderbecke. I have found some files that are claimed to be public domain here. These appear to be be recordings of Beiderbecke, published in 1924 and 1927. Beiderbecke died in 1931. My question is: are these recordings public domain and therefore eligible for upload, or should I suspect that the claim of public domain is faulty? Thanks. Hamiltonstone (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The law on sound recordings published prior to 1972 in the US is ugly, ugly, ugly. They are not protected by federal law, instead there are state laws that cover them. The laws I've read don't have any time limit on them; until Federal Law preempts them in 2067, these works will effectively be under copyright in the US. See w:United States copyright law#Duration of copyright, the last paragraph. Massachusetts General Laws, to give one example, says "Section 143A. Whoever directly or indirectly by any means, knowingly transfers or causes to be transferred any sound recorded on a phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film, videocassette or other article on which such sound is recorded, with intent to sell, rent or transport, or cause to be sold, rented or transported, or to use or cause to be used for profit through public performance such article on which such sound is so transferred, without the consent of the owner, or whoever sells any such article with the knowledge that the sound thereon has been so transferred without the consent of the owner, shall be punished as provided in section 143E." MGL Chapter 266; see sections 143A-H. So effectively, there is no recordings in the US in the public domain due to age.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ouch. I take your general point, but presumably to be conclusive one must determine which state's laws apply in a given case (and then examine those laws). Are we talking about the state in which the work was originally published as a sound recording, the legal state of residence / business registration of the current owner of the recording, or the state in which the Wikimedia servers are located?? Hamiltonstone (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In a given case, the laws of the state the user is in will apply. In Wikimedia's case, the servers are in Florida, whose laws on the subject are pretty similar to the Massachusetts laws. It's founded in California; I assume the laws are pretty similar there, especially as California is strong on protecting the media rights of the companies there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Because sound recordings in that era were not protected by federal copyright law, recording companies obviously fought for common-law protection in the courts, and in most cases they got quite a bit -- pretty harsh penalties and in many cases the protection was of unlimited duration (though it is now set to expire in 2067 by federal law). The Library of Congress sponsored studies of the case law; many states (including both Florida and California) had examples. Links to the volumes are here. The emphasis was in general more on protecting the commercial opportunities... we may have to use common sense when it comes to other types of sound recordings. But I'd be very leery of hosting a commercial sound recording like that -- if there are any rightsholders still existing, we wouldn't have much of a defense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PD Status of Dutch / Aruban government works

Hello, I would like a second opinion on a long-running discussion that has stalled regarding this official police photo from Aruba. Because Aruba is a subject of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, would I simply use Template:PD-NL-Gov for a file that can be confirmed from an Aruban authority? Otherwise, if Aruba is considered a separate nation, should there be a new PD template created for Aruban government works if it is concurred that Aruban law is based on the Dutch model? Thank you. KimChee (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since (per that discussion) it would seem as though Aruba has enough governing power to make their own copyright law, it would be preferable to have a separate template if we are relying on clauses in that Aruban law. It does appear as though Aruban copyright law Article 11 basically just combines the Dutch copyright law articles 11 and 15b, which are the relevant ones (and mostly 15b, as 11 just refers to the text of actual laws and that sort of thing), but we should be able to point to the actual governing law, which in this case appears to be different in Aruba. Dutch article 15b does indicate that the author retains some very limited rights, which fuzzes the picture a bit, although I do not see that clouding clause in the Google translation of the Aruban law, so the Aruban image has a better case of being "free". Note of course that copyright protection could still exist in the U.S, though for government works this could be considered a form of PD-author, since the author themselves are disclaiming copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can this image be transferred to Commons?

Hello guys,

I would like to have this photo uploaded on Commons.

The question is: Is that legally possible? --88.130.90.227 17:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The license stated here is not compatible to Commons. --Leyo 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The question is whether this logo is ineligible for copyright or not. --ireas :talk: 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(BK) The guys at the german WP told me, that the licence was only of interest, if the image as such could be licenced at all. In Germany it cannot, because its threshold of originality is too low.
How is that for Commons? --88.130.90.227 18:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This image is definitely a candidate for {{PD-textlogo}} because it is composed simply of text and simple shapes made into a logo. However, in respect for the organisation, I would add the {{trademark}} template to the image file if you decide to upload it here. Ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If you mean that it's legally fine to upload the picture here, I would like to ask someone to be so kind to upload it here then! As you see, I don't have an account... --88.130.70.24 22:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the image to File:Logo Typo3.svg - I believe it does not meet the threshold of originality, but I would appreciate input by others on whether it is indeed legit. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Opinions of others are still welcome! :-) --88.130.70.24 09:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

National Science Foundation PD-USGov-NSF

Most text appearing on NSF web pages was either prepared by employees of the United States Government as part of their official duties and therefore not subject to copyright or prepared under contracts that gave the Foundation the right to place the text into the public domain. The same is true of most publications available for downloading from this web site. ... photos and illustrations found on the NSF web site should not be reused without permission.

—National Science Foundation, http://www.nsf.gov/policies/reuse.jsp

NSF images have been discussed before, but it appears that reliance for use on Wikimedia was based on the clause "Images credited to the National Science Foundation, a federal agency, are in the public domain. The images were created by employees of the United States Government as part of their official duties or prepared by contractors as "works for hire" for NSF." This clause only seems to appear here. As such, it seems to follow that:

  • images found on a .gov website and credited back to NSF, where the image on nsf.gov is credited to a party other than the NSF, cannot be used without permission (eg 50px which is "Credit: Artwork by Lynette Cook")
  • images found on nsf.gov that are co-credited (eg Gliese 581 system compared to solar system.jpg which is "Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation") to NSF MIGHT be usable, by relying on the clause that says "images credited to the NSF are in the public domain", with emphasis on "might" because this clause arguably appears on a particular NSF page and doesn't have general applicability.
  • as the previous point but solely credited to the NSF. Almost certainly created by NSF employees or public domain by contract terms because why else would no other entity be credited (especially given NSF's frequent use of co-credting for photographs). I suggest that Wikipedia policy accept solely credited works, using our reasonable judgment and relying on the "public domain" clause if required.Bdell555 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Any works created by NSF employees as part of their duties are public domain, period. That is not something the NSF can opt out of, and we are not relying on some license text on nsf.gov; rather that is the law. It applies to text, images, and any other kind of normally copyrightable work. Government agencies often do name the specific employees which created a work, so credits to particular names do not necessarily mean they are done by third parties. That said, there is a lot of work done under NSF *grants*, which are not done by employees, and that stuff usually cannot use that tag. For the above, it reads like Zina Deretsky is an NSF employee and that would be fine. A co-credit would usually use the word "and" or slashes, not a comma. Lynette Cook does sound like an outside source though, so that should probably be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was in contact with Lynette Cook this afternoon and she advised me that as a condition of her commission she gave the NSF "use rights to send it to whomever they wish for press release/educational purposes" but that she retains copyright. On an unrelated note, she granted OTRS permission to "post on Wikipedia" with attribution but I don't think a "license" like that allows us to do anything. I hope you are right about co-crediting because otherwise this Picture of the Year 2008 finalist would be in jeopardy. The Deretsky, NSF image has a NSF stamp/watermark in the top right corner.Bdell555 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Compton Heisenberg 1929 Chicago.jpg

This image File:Compton Heisenberg 1929 Chicago.jpg needs an expert copyright review. It is certainly not GFDL-self.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Eugh. I wouldn't say "certainly" yet. It is a crop of File:Hund,Friedrich 1929 Chicago.jpg, uploaded by the same user with the same license. That version has handwritten annotated notes of who is in the picture with a date, and appears to have been uploaded by a descendant of one of the pictured people (the person who apparently wrote the annotations). Small chance the family does own the copyright, in which case the license is actually OK. Found one small copy here where they identify the year but not all the people, and another page on the same site here, where they identify the names but not the year. They say it was a gift from the Max Planck Institute, a German institution, but taken in Chicago... but no note of author. Wouldn't be surprised if they just have a print as well. They just claim to have scanned it. Found no indication yet of who took it, where it was published, etc. Makes it kinda hard to determine anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Friedrich Hund wrote the names on a very good print. It seems likely that more copies were made, as a memory for the people in the photo, and that copies ended up in different collections. Authorship is not so important in US copyright, Hund had possession of the highest quality print that we have seen so far (Commons has a better photo than the Segrè collection at AIP!). I would say that the license is fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Authorship is still important in US copyright; unless it was a work for hire, it belong to the author or the corporation the author worked for. If it was published at the time, which is more than just copies for the people in the picture, then it's almost certainly PD; if it was never legally published, it's life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This did not seem to be a big worry in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lisa11-big.jpg. Another copy is here, published in Germany in 1993. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There are some notes by Mulliken published in 1975 where he mentions he had a copy of (I'm pretty sure) this exact photograph; it was apparently of Heisenberg, Hund, and Dirac with the University of Chicago physics faculty in the summer of 1929 in front of Ryerson Laboratory (which is definitely the location of this photograph). Still no idea of the photographer or publication details, but it seems pretty likely that prints were made and distributed at the time. I'm not sure it would necessarily count as "general publication" by U.S. law but it may count enough for "publication" for Berne country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Unasur BsAs Crisis Ecuador.jpg

Ive never asked here before so pardon me if im wrong, but the file above seems to be taken directly from the page (albeit govt. one), and I wasn't sure of its copyright status.(Lihaas (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC));

While the uploader has added an OTRS ticket to the image, he has also applied the same ticket (2007042610015988) to several other images some going back as far as File:Cristina Fernandez en Casa Rosada con Sebastian Piñera.jpg that was uploaded in April 2010. Could one of our OTRS volunteers check if this ticket gives blanket permission for all images from the same source, or if the ticket is being improperly applied? Ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You may want to post a message at "Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard". — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a request for clarification at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-AR-Presidency, and the template was modified to reflect the discussion. I don't think it's needed to ask again the same thing. Belgrano (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Map of the Kirchenprovinz (ecclesiastical province) of Eger, Austria-Hungary (1909).jpg

What is an appropriate public domain licence for "File:Map of the Kirchenprovinz (ecclesiastical province) of Eger, Austria-Hungary (1909).jpg"? I cannot find one at "Commons:Copyright tags". The map was published in Vienna and Leipzig, Austria, in 1909. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Austria requires 70pma... If Cölestin Wolfsgruber is the author as now stated on the image, he would appear to have lived from 1848 to 1924[6], so PD-Old would be the license. Or PD-old-80. PD-1923 can be added for the U.S. side, which I see was done. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the Mitteilungen des K.u.K Militär-Geographischen Instituts, Volume 27, p28, 1908, see google books, a publication where that institute lists all their work of that year, the map was prepared by them. The report contains a list of staff, for the map no individual author is identified. --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice sleuthing, guys. What is the position in Austria regarding the expiry of the copyright in works prepared by corporate authors? 70 years from the date of first publication? Or should the map be treated as an anonymous work, in which case what is the relevant period of copyright? — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If the author is known, the copyright lasts for their life + 70 (even if the corporation actually owns the copyright). Otherwise, probably {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like we'll be able to find out the name of the exact staff member(s) who prepared the map, so I guess I will go with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Again, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be the wrong selection. The map is attributed to Wolfsgruber in many occasions, according to Austrian copyright he, as the book author, has to be assumed an copyright holder if no different attribution was made with the publication and unless the opposite is proven. I dont know the original publication or the attribution on the map. I however assume that there is no attribution to a person, that would be bad, but the uploader did not mention an attribution. An authorship or input of Wolfsgruber can not be excluded, the source I gave above is not sufficient to exlude his input in the map creation. Therefore he is at least co-author and it will fall into the PD 70 years following the death of the last surviving author. While the Institute only helds copyright 70 years from publication pd-old applies here for Wolfsgruber. — Martin H. 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

← But if there is clear evidence that the map was prepared by unidentified members of staff of the Militärgeographisches Institut as you indicated earlier, why should Wolfsgruber be regarded as the author of the map? Surely the logical conclusion is that Wolfsgruber simply made use of the map that had been prepared by the Institut for his book. Or are you saying that the Mitteilungen des K.u.K Militärgeographisches Institut is not explicit enough to rule out Wolfsgruber as a possible author? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Arcav340.jpg

"File:Arcav340.jpg": de minimis or unauthorized derivative work? — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not de minimis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll nominate the image for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User claiming "own work"

User:Harfang has uploaded some images with claimed sourcing of "own work". Some are unlikely to be his/her own work, for example:

This user has uploaded more than 200 files; how many of them need to be scrutinized? Magic♪piano 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All of them, I suppose. You may want to start by sending the user a message reminding him to use the correct licences on his uploads, and to leave messages here if he is not sure. It could be that he is simply unaware of what licences to use. Also ask him to start reviewing all his uploads to check if the correct licences have been used. In the meantime, if you are interested you can start helping to review the uploads and nominating dubious ones for deletion if necessary. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Since this posting (including notices on his/her talk page), User:Harfang is continuing to wrongly label uploads. See for example File:Marquis de Beauharnois.jpg, uploaded on the 26th (and may have been copied from here). Magic♪piano 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible or probably copyright violations by this user (March-September 2010):

  • Deleted - Video grab from the movie "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992)
  • Deleted - Album cover
  • Deleted for reasons set out above
  • File:Fort Saint-Pierre.jpg (an older colour picture, presumably 20th century) - Left note on Harfang's talk page asking for details of this image
  • Deleted as a copyvio
  • File:Canadiens français.jpg (looks like an outdoor mural) - Nominated for speedy deletion (scan/photo of a copyrighted image in a 1969 magazine); if the magazine decides to freely license the image, it can uploaded again in accordance with the procedure at COM:OTRS
  • Uploader assumed that there was no longer any copyright because the magazine had ceased publication - deleted.
  • File:Vieux Poste.jpg (an older color picture, presumably 20th century) - Left note on Harfang's talk page asking for details of this image
  • Deleted - in response to the no source tag, uploader revised the image description to indicate that he'd gotten it from an "old scrapbook"; image was copied straight from the Fort Bon Secours website.
  • To be fair to the uploader, there was another work by this same artist on the Commons, which had never been identified as having potential copyright problems - both images nominated for deletion as the artist is still alive
  • Uploader advised that the image is from the 1940 edition of the Canadian almanac - still to be verified.
  • Uploader says he took a picture of this model at a museum in Quebec City; deleted as it was actually copied from here

Probably incorrectly sourced to self by this user (in addition to the ones noted above), but may well be public domain (March-September 2010):

  • Deleted - copied from Fort St. Charles (and, as User:Lupo pointed out, image appears to show Fort Saint Charles, Magnussen Island, Lake of the Woods, Minnesota; not Fort Saint-Louis, Nova Scotia)
  • User:Lupo was able to identify source, author and year
  • User:Lupo was able to identify source, author and year
  • Uploader transfered the image from en-wiki, where it was similarly unsourced - could be a public domain historic image, or could be a contemporary woodcut-style image (without a source, it's hard to know) - Harfang has said that he's emailed the uploader at en-wiki to find out where (s)he got it
  • File:Acadie 1658.jpg - nominated for deletion (appears to be a contemporary map of Acadia in 1658) on Sept 30
  • Uploader's own work
  • Uploader's own work
  • Uploader's own work
  • User:Lupo was able to identify source, author and year

This user has also uploaded many photographs of places and buildings in Quebec; these are also claimed as "own work", but there is no particular reason to question the claim. Magic♪piano 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected those that came from the Government of Canada and are older than 1949. The others I took in front Quebec Parilament building where I live, with my camera, and the building is more than 100 years old, and there is no name under the sculptures. Beauharnois and Beaujeu are from government files, and not from your files. The old map of Canada I modified, but it comes from government files older than 1949. The same with old engravings and pictures I found in the government files. They are all very old with no copyrites. I only wish to improve and enhance wikipedia commons.--Harfang (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Harfang made these changes [7] in others comments; relevant, but very poorly placed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Harfang, I understand you are trying to improve Wikipedia/Commons. However, your incorrect and incomplete attributions make work for other people; I've already spent more time scrutinizing your uploads than I care to. (I would argue that your failure to correctly label and attribute images ultimately places a burden on other editors that exceeds the added work it would take you to do it right; editors now have to examine all of your uploads.) It also means those images cannot be used in high quality articles whose media content is scrutinized for complete attribution, sourcing, and correct licensing.
For example, you have now edited File:Canadiens français.jpg, and placed a license tag in the source field of the information template (instead of placing it in the "Permissions" field, where a license tag would be appropriate). The "Author" field is still you: did you paint the artwork, or take the picture? Where is the artwork located? Was the artwork created in 2010 (the date listed in the metadata), or the photo? If the artwork was not created in 2010, in what year was it created? Just because the building is 100+ years old does not mean the artwork was. What evidence beyond your assertion is there that (1) this artwork was under Crown copyright, and (2) it was created before 1949, and said copyright has therefore lapsed?
The photo of the d'Iberville statue, for another example, is useless to someone trying to prepare a feature article because of these issues; you didn't make the statue (I accept that you took the photo), and the file data does not even say where the statue is. How am I (or any other potential user of this photo) to know that the statue is 100+ years old (or whatever age is necessary for it to be PD), when the file metadata has an incomplete "own work" label (correct for photo, incorrect for statue), and a date of 2010 (correct for photo, but incorrect for statue)? Magic♪piano 13:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you, so I corrected Canadiens français.jpg by phoning the magazine who published it back in 1969. As for the government documents, Beauharnois and Beaujeu lived 250 years ago. As for the statues in front of Quebec Parliament, if you go after me, you should also go after the following photos taken of the same statues. File:Pierre le Moyne sieur d Iberville.JPG, File:Pierre LeMoyne d'Iberville.jpg, File:Francois-Gaston Duc de Levis.JPG, File:Assemblée nationale du Québec - Wolfe et Montcalm.jpg, File:Honore Mercier Quebec.JPG, File:Jacques Marquette.jpg, File:Louis Jolliet.JPG, File:Assemblée nationale - Statue René Lévesque2.jpg, File:Assemblée nationale - Statue Robert Bourassa1.jpg, File:Charles-Michel de Salaberry.JPG. These are but a few, but obviously, I am not the only one that did not know how to label this.--Harfang (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of pursuing deletion of the d'Iberville statue photo (but others may go after it, and those you listed that are provided by others); I merely wanted to illustrate to you why it is not of use to me with its present metadata (and thus does not further my goal of improving Wikipedia). This is why it is listed above as "incorrectly labelled, but probably public domain". The images that I listed above as potential copyright violations are the ones you should look to providing proper sourcing for. (If you don't know who the sculptor is, you should list the Author as "Sculptor unknown; photo own work by uploader", or something similar; at a minimum you should also identify where the sculpture stands.)
I'm well aware that Beauharnois and Beajeu are long dead. This doesn't tell me who created those works. If you got these from a government site (Library and Archives Canada?), don't they have identifiers and metadata for these works?
By the way, I still don't understand why you think Canadiens français.jpg is public domain, even after updating it; according to Commons:Licensing#Canada, the work is copyrighted unless you can demonstrate it was created before 1949, or its creator died more than 50 years ago (i.e. before 1960). (The Montreal Canadiens logo in the work probably puts some minimum date on the work, based on when the logo shown was adopted.) By US copyright law, the work is, since you have identified it as being published in 1969, also apparently still under copyright (to one or more of the artist, photographer, or magazine). Magic♪piano 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists above now updated as far back as March 2010. Magic♪piano 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The uploader needs to provide the sources for many of these images. Some of the images listed above as being possibly public domain could be copyrighted images out of a contemporary textbook (this one, for example). While I appreciate that Harfang likely had the best of intentions and was simply trying to improve the project and contribute images to the various Wikipedias, (s)he needs to indicate the source for each and every image -- adding the {{PD-Canada}} tag in the source field does not suffice. There is an onus on the uploader to provide adequate information so that the copyright status of an image is clear; if there is any doubt, the image should be deleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of the images are fine. Others could be huge copyvios. I've made notations to the lists above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the remaining images, they look fine to me; the above lists are complete as far as I'm concerned. Magic♪piano 18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The uploader has, to put it mildly, been less cooperative than I would have hoped. I will make notations above where necessary so that there is some sort of record as to what has transpired. Happily, some of the images have been saved, largely due to the efforts of other contributors. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:485546main Soyuz TMA01-M.jpg

Is "File:485546main Soyuz TMA01-M.jpg" entitled to be licensed under {{PD-USGov-NASA}} and {{PD-RU-exempt}}? It appears to originate from NASA but bears the watermark "Courtesy Roscosmos/RSC-Energia". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Not all images hosted on NASA websites are NASA produced images, like this one, which is clearly attributed to someone else, so cannot use the NASA PD template. A restrictions note on this page says: NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. which clearly shows that some material is not theirs and retains its own copyright status. Ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this is not a freely licensed image. The infographic may be NASA's, but the cutaway graphic of the Soyuz comes from Russia. Roscosmos, and especially Energia, does not release their material into the public domain like NASA does. Huntster (t @ c) 15:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion here on the basis of my belief that RSC-Energia is a private company and not an agency. Otherwise, the {{PD-RU-exempt}} text has "Paragraph 6 Shall not be objects of copyright: * official documents of state government agencies ..." (and Russian Federal Space Agency has "Roscosmos ... is the government agency ..."). Therefore, would an image that was courtesy solely Roscosmos be considered such an "official document"? -84user (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess so, assuming a graphic produced by Roscosmos amounts to an "official document". It is not clear from {{PD-RU-exempt}} what the scope of that term is. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that Roscosmos is more akin to a federal corporation, and anything they create remains copyrighted. Historically, this is how all Russian Federal Space Agency material has been treated on Commons. Unfortunately, I see tons of stuff in Category:Space program of the Soviet Union and Russia that appears to simply have been pulled from NASA history articles and labelled with a PD-NASA license, when it is rather obvious that NASA didn't create the work. Huntster (t @ c) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

copyrighted fonts in svgs not possible?

Commons:Licensing#Simple_design claims that svgs containing a non free font should not be uploaded. I was very shocked when I read this, because this is totally contrary to the masses of svg logos with non free fonts we have.

In Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_17#SVG_and_fonts there is a discussion about this. Sadly it has no real conclusion. But as far as I can see (I only skimmed through it) no one agrees with the paragraph. So I propose to delete it→ the paragraph forbidding the use of non free fonts to make svgs. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC) added clarification after the "→" --Saibo (Δ) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's the law. Vectorized fonts are treated as computer programs; see [8] and [9], which cites Adobe vs. Southern Software Inc., and are copyrighted as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That is what I argued in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opera O.svg, but the logo was kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Fonts are treated as software programs (originally) because they have a lot more information (kerning hints and lots of other stuff) beyond the outlines of the letters, and the Copyright Office decided that was enough to qualify as software. The Copyright Office continued to maintain the shape of the letters themselves was not copyrightable, although then there was a case where someone took a font, extracted only the outline data, and made a competing font -- that was found to be a copyright violation. The US court cases seem to be moving in the direction which is explicitly codified in UK law -- basically any *use* of a font is OK (and not a derivative work), provided of course the creator of the image has a license for that font to be on their computer in the first place, with the only exception being to use that data to create a competing *font* -- that seems to be the only situation where it could be a derivative work. So no, I don't think any legitimate *use* of the font in an SVG should be deleted -- there is no court case, nor law or Copyright Office guideline, which has ever indicated that such a thing is a derivative work as far as I know. An image usually should not be able to be a derivative work of software (which is what fonts are protected as). Obviously we should not directly host font files unless they are freely licensed, and if possible it would be better to make sure that SVGs don't have embedded fonts if not needed but rather just outline data (although PDFs routinely embed fonts; not much we can do about that most likely). An SVG sheet which shows every character in the font.... would probably make me uncomfortable though, mainly as I could maybe see a case for contributory infringement against the Foundation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any court case that copying an entire font in such a way that others can use it isn't a copyright violation? That's my primary concern here. I'm not sure I believe that embedding a font in, say, a Word document where someone could reuse that font for their own documents, without the license explicitly permitting that, is going to pass copyright muster. For PDFs, we can use freely licensed fonts--except for packaging scans, PDFs are usually the wrong choice anyway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
First, having the outlines in all the letters in an SVG is not really the same as having a font -- there is lots of stuff which goes into making a font which would have to be recreated to make a good reproduction. Obviously it makes it easier, but there is still only one person committing the direct copyright violation as far as I can tell -- the person actually making the second font. There is really no way to do that accidentally by using our SVG, nor would we really expect people to. On the other hand, is it making it too easy for others to use the letters in say their own logo without having actually purchased the font in the first place? That sort of contributory infringement is really the only argument against them that I can see though, and that seems to be an inexact and relatively recent creation of common law -- basically, are we making it too easy for someone to do that, relative to the otherwise legitimate uses we may have? Which is why I mentioned the sample sheets... our uses would probably be served just as well by not having *every* character, or by using bitmaps instead of SVGs, so that would be something to consider. As for embedding fonts, I think that is OK per the UK law, as that is basically how fonts are designed to be used these days. I don't think there is much we can do about it -- many documents are being authored as PDFs these days (with the author desiring a particular look), say by the US government, and many will have commercial fonts embedded. Those are just as easy to find all over the web though, so while that makes it relatively easy to extract complete embedded fonts (much much easier than an SVG example sheet), it's hard to argue that anyone is guilty of contributory infringement because of it. Only the person who actually extracts the font and copies it illegally would be committing a direct infringement I think. That said, PDFs and SVGs also support partially embedded fonts (i.e. stripping all but the characters actually used in the document; this makes editing impossible in most cases but does mean somebody can't extract a complete font). And obviously, expanding everything to full outlines removes all other embedded font information; someone would be forced to manually create a font using the outlines at that point -- better still than partially embedded fonts. Using bitmaps is safer still, at least for the US -- I'm not sure there is any real difference in UK law though; by my reading if you use someone else's outlines to create a competing font however you do it, it would be an issue. [Fonts are also only protected for 25 years there, it would seem.] I wouldn't sweat individual characters or words, particularly when used in say a logo -- that would be a ridiculous stretch for contributory infringement in my mind. That would be similar to arguing we are guilty of providing too many SVG building block elements, which someone else could collect and combine and alter so as to infringe on some graphic work by someone else. Copyright in typeface is a pretty contentious issue; with computer fonts it is now far easier to make copies, and courts do seem to be moving to prevent that avenue (though still permitting someone to create a similar-looking font if they do it from scratch, which has always been allowed in the US, and it would seem some other countries). It may be worth thinking about what Commons really needs for a particular graphic, and if there is a way to lessen the amount of font information without really affecting our use of it. But really, even SVGs with all characters in a font is far from a slam-dunk problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(I clarified in my opening comment that I do want to delete the paragraph in our policy. I do not want to delete the svgs made using non free fonts. Thanks very much for your discussion so far! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

Per discussion above with no real reasons against deleting the section and with Carl's long explanation (thank you!) I have deleted it now from our policy. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Are Chinese characters copyrighted?

I'm wondering if this image http://claireanddominic.ghostspace.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/double_happiness.jpg is uploadable? Is a calligraphic-like work like this copyrighted? Thanks, --Teemeah (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It would fall under PD-Text, so it should be uploadable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I would not use PD-text in the case of Chinese or Arabic calligraphy, as calligraphy is regarded as an art. Not knowing the scripts, I cannot tell whether a specific text is regarded as calligraphy, though. --LPfi (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Calligraphy is regarded as PD-text in the U.S., without question. The Copyright Office uses Chinese calligraphy as an explicit example in their guidelines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Does that cover all calligraphic work? {{PD-text}} talks only about basic handwriting. It would be nice to have the relevant text referenced and explained somewhere, perhaps here with a link in template:PD-text/doc. Law of source country still applies, I suppose. --LPfi (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. "Thus, it appears to be practice that calligraphy cannot be protected, and the analogy with signatures is obvious. [...] If the signature is sufficiently complex to be considered a protectable artistic work in the US (akin to a non-trivial drawing), it cannot be hosted on Commons regardless of the position under local law." Seems it is not totally clear. I would suppose e.g. file:Mahdi.svg would be copyrightable (if a new work). Even more complicated designs are easy to find. --LPfi (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Signatures don't always have to be text -- in theory, someone may have a pictorial component to them, and therefore in theory there may be some which could actually rise to a copyrightable level of pictorial matter. That is a pretty hypothetical situation though. The Copyright Office is pretty consistent though; as long as the figures are meant to represent letters, they are not copyrightable. And Chinese letters are still letters, so the same concept applies to calligraphy ;-) In the U.S., anyways. I don't see how the Mahdi file would be copyrightable, unless the placement of the bits of text could be considered copyrightable arrangement -- the figures themselves would not be copyrightable though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle photograph

Amazon Kindle 3

I took the photograph on the right of an Amazon Kindle. I thought it would be OK to put on Commons because there are other similar photographs in the Amazon Kindle category. But I'm worried that the Amazon logo at the top, the 'Locations' bar at the bottom, and maybe other aspects of the image might make it ineligible to be on Commons on copyright grounds. The actual text on the screen is from the public domain novel Moby-Dick. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Amazon's logo since it's a copyright-ineligible text logo (we actually have it here on Commons). Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, great. I'm assuming that the 'Locations' bar is OK because it's very simple and generated from the nature of the file's code, and therefore does not cause the image to fall foul of the restrictions that we have in place on uploading screenshots of copyrighted software. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help creating template for cc-by(-sa)-3.0-br

The license Creative Commons Attribution(-ShareAlike) 3.0 Brazil exists. I wanted to create a template for the 3.0 version modelled after the 2.5 version and another 3.0 country version, but the link to the CC homepage was broken when I previewed the template. Can someone assist please? Thank you Hekerui (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the template you created? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about copyright

I have made a number of photos of recent trophy cups won by the footballclub F.C. Barcelona (Spain), as displayed in the trophy room in their stadium. Are these cups protected by copyright ? JoJan (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If they have to be considered "art", probably: yes. If they are only of simple and usual shape, probably: no. If you are not sure: just upload (without license) and ask then here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

--129.105.19.103 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Images in public domain question

Hello,

I have some file images which I gave a public domain usage a couple of years ago. That time I was not aware about the extent of it. On one side, it worked out well, on the other side it had some negative impact, for example, the images were used on some sites which where out of a professional field - completely! Since all images belong to me, can I change the copyright for the images I created? I think it has been used enough, and it is sad to see it here and there with no sense. I will appreciate your reply, thank you.-- Rozochka129.105.19.103 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, once you have released the images into the public domain you can't retrieve them. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your images having been "used on some sites ... out of a professional field". However, if you mean that you were surprised to find that your images were used for commercial purposes, you should realize that when you release images into the public domain or license them to the Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution ShareAlike licences or the GFDL, you are allowing people to use them for all purposes, including commercial purposes. Sorry about that. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree you are right. However, the images I contributed belonged to such a narrow musical field that I would never imagine it would happen. While I agree I made a mistake it is still strange that I, the owner of the images, cannot change my mind due to the current situation in Internet. --Rozochka (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)rozochka

Looking at your uploads these are all old images from "family personal archives" and there is no evidence you own the copyright in the first place. They all list "unknown" as the author. Hekerui (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Aha, a possible way out for you. If you can't show that you actually own the copyright to the images, someone (including you) can nominate them for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My God, what are we talking about?!?! This is my father's photos from the pre war (World War II) and during the war, and soon after the war in the Soviet Union! The photos were taken by numerous backstage fans and amateur photographers who simply gave those photos to us and they are all dead now, we even never knew those people, let alone their names! Sure, I can delete the photos but the goal of it was to have them shown for the opera historians. They have been used perfectly fine in Wiki for the opera articles, etc. and it is great but I am just trying to protect them from future use like for the candies named Otello, or something else. OK, no way out. I thank you for your kind replies and time you spent on it. --Rozochka (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Umm, you can't really have it both ways. If you want to have the images here on the Commons, you have to accept that people are allowed to use them for any purposes (including purposes not associated with Wikipedia). The only way to impose conditions on the use of the images is to have them removed from the Commons. However, Hekerui has raised a valid point – if you don't hold the copyright to the images and do not know who does, then this may create an issue as to whether you were entitled to release the images into the public domain in the first place (unless the images are so old that any copyrights in them have expired). Can you provide a link to the images in question? — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is the question about implicit contracts raised above (#Self photos by a third party), which may mean you have the copyright after all. If some of the fans taking photos were young (17?), they may not be dead or at least some have not been dead long enough for the copyright to expire (if the photos are to be treated as ”works”).
Back to the license issue: although you by releasing the photos to the public domain lost the rights to dictate how to use the photos, the persons in the photos have the right not to be on candies. At least where I live. You probably also have the right not to have to see your father on such candies. You could put {{personality rights}} on the image description pages to make that right obvious.
--LPfi (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. All photographs presented in Wiki had been also published in his biographical book with no copyright issues (the book was printed at the University Press in Michigan with no photo copyright problems). All people involved in the photographs were gone long ago in the Soviet Union. No teenagers were backstage lovers of an opera. I understand that it is a useless discussion. I thank you for the link on personal usage and will look into this. I am just deeply upset. The candy was just an example. Again, thank you.--129.105.19.103 16:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)