Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 32

The Murder of Geraldine Foster book cover

I discovered this file yesterday when I looked at the Wikipedia article, Book cover. The image caption was sketchy ("An early twentieth-century paperback") so I checked its documentation here. The only summary provided was this: "Mystery/thriller paperback cover from the early decades of the twentieth century." I added what information I have to the summary; but I don't believe the file is licensed correctly. — WFinch (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I've tagged the image as lacking a source. We can't tell if the licence currently applied to the image is correct because there is no information as to where the image was obtained or who created the cover illustration. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Where the image was obtained from is not really relevant, it is a book cover from a known publisher. The real problem is the lack of information about the cover designer. If this design was really anonymous according to the strict terms of {{PD-UK-unknown}}, then this image would be OK. If we are not sure, it's very unlikely that the copyright has expired, as the book was published after 1931 (publication date for the hardback edition [1]). SV1XV (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the 1930 original was a U.S. publication, and it did get renewed. No idea if this was the cover for that or not though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fir0002

I open a deletion request for his contributions, but this discussion is old (already happends), and I was told that this was the right place to do it, I came here. Before the pic was kept as not the right place was. Now I hope that this time, Commons community could take a resolution, not matter if keep or mantain. I copy here the DR arguments:

"The list is huge (his WP page says he has 2.500), because the user used to be an admin. But an example is like this:

• File:Buses in canberra.jpg
• Here is the list of his contributions

All the pictures have a licence GNU GDFL 1.2 ONLY, wich actually has Copyright. Not only the pics must be linked and atributtion of the creator is needed, but derivative works are also banned. Even more, the author says "If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms." And all the pics have got a link to his website. It doesn´t look that this agree to the Commons procedures and licenses. The author write in his user page that he retires from Commons, and the discussion in his archive make me believe this was related with this problem. Also he was deadminship for inactivity, but all the files still remains. There was a similar DR about this point 9 months ago but the file was kept because it "wasn´t the proper place to propose", but no resolution above the other pictures were taking neither."

An user told me that Fir never says that derivative works are not banned. Maybe I missunderstud because my first language is spanish, but I understand that the way this is make and the spirit of this add is that these aren´t indeed free photos and there is no intention to release them.

I also think that if it is proper this attitude ("attribution of this image to "Fir0002/Flagstaffotos" is required in a prominent location near to the image", the link to his web, etc) the "standar" users also can do the same, as no problem report.

Thanks.--Andrea (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that "derivative works are banned" on {{GFDL-1.2}}? "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Also you must give attribution for {{Cc-by-sa}} licenses, fact is Wikipedia was licensed under GFDL until it was changed to CC-BY-SA 3.0. I really don't know why you have targeted one editor (retired) when we have 30,000+ images using the GFDL-1.2 license. Bidgee (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a problem of "target" anyone. Just to know that, If he can do it, no problem if the rest do it, right? Just a definition of the point. And as I already say, maybe I understud wrong. --Andrea (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Usually, you don't ask if you can do something by opening a DR. If you want to use the GFDL 1.2, that's your right, though it's discouraged.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not, but I think it's a point to be clear for once, because it has take too long. With so many problems for licensed stuff every day, and all the notability gives to the cc-by-sa 3.0, it's at least odd to allow a GDFL 1.2, but if it's valid in this case it´s valid in any other. --Andrea (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is discouraged for new uploads, though not prohibited, since the license was not designed for photographs or other non-text media, but it used to be the *primary* license and we will generally not reverse course on existing files, since it used to be the recommended thing to do. It still qualifies as "free" (not surprising, since GNU pretty much invented the "free" concept in the first place, and its licenses will generally qualify by default). Sort of grandfathered, really. Just as countries, when they change laws, usually do not apply the new laws to acts done under the previous law. 05:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is, then, GDFL 1.2 allow "attribution of this image to "Fir0002/Flagstaffotos" is required in a prominent location near to the image" or this statement steps beyond the boundaries of what the GFDL requires, and should be removed. --Andrea (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not a deletion type of question though. The GFDL is more geared towards printed book type of documents, which is primarily why it is discouraged now, as it expects that most credits will be on the title page or in an "acknowledgements" section nearby (and requires the full text of the GFDL to be printed there too). It is kind of hard to translate that to the use of single images on web pages. It may require credits in the same location the web article author is credited, unless some other prominent way is done. Placement near an image is a typical way it is done on the web and print, so it is not an unreasonable request, but there are likely situations where it is technically not "near" the photo but still obvious (like a separate illustration credits page, or something like that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also a complex issue of the fact that some of its proponents have basically stated that they use it to hinder commercial reuse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but, at least I´m wrong that´s the opposit of Commons, that allow the commercial use --Andrea (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Licenses that forbid commercial use is not acceptable in Commons. The GFDL has been deemed as being sufficiently permissive of commercial use to be acceptable in Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That´s clear, but he also includes "he´s own restiction" for said somehow. --Andrea (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:NickHits.png

Hi, i found the above file, a logo for Nickelodeon - likely PD-textlogo, but license that's on it clearly incorrect (US-Gov). Can someone confirm this is PD-textlogo? thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is easily PD-textlogo to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No question. Powers (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - will update. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Harikalar Diyari

Category:Harikalar Diyari contains a number of photographs of cartoon-character sculptures found at an amusement park in Turkey. FOP is allowed in Turkey, so the fact that the photos are derivative works of the sculptures is okay. My question is whether the sculptures themselves infringe on copyright (specifically, of Hanna-Barbara for the Flintstones characters, and of Disney for Daisy Duck and Aladdin/Jasmine, and of whomever owns the Smurfs these days). Some of the images are used on various wikis to get around copyright restrictions; for instance, File:Harikalar Diyari Duck 06022 nevit.jpg is used to illustrate da:Andersine And, the Danish Wikipedia article on Daisy Duck. Powers (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. In fact, several questions. First, my reading of our quote of Turkish FOP law is not as clear as yours. The category lead calls it a "public amusement park", which suggests to me that that it is fenced and there is an admission fee. The PDF translation of the law says,

"Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means."

That is very similar to the German law and I don't think we would permit images of sculpture in Germany that was not in a completely public place. Also, splitting hairs a little, even if the park is not fenced, a park is not a "street, avenue, or square". So, the FOP question rests on a better reading of the Turkish, I think.

Second, Turkey honors USA copyrights, so I would think that the sculptures would have to be either licensed or copyvio in Turkey. It seems very unlikely that Disney, Hanna-Barbara, and the others would license these characters in a place where copyright was problematic -- in fact, even licensing them to appear in the same place as their competitors seems unlikely. That leaves me betting on their being a copyvio in Turkey, and, of course, we are not permitted to take advantage of that.

So, which of us should copy this to a DR?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Disney etc. gave permission for those statues to be there, if there was any such issue like that. I would not worry about that aspect. As for the rest, there is apparently no admission fee, and it is government-owned (i.e. therefore could be deemed a "public square"). This has been hashed over many, many times before, such as Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Harikalar Diyari, linked from the category discussion page. Don't keep repeating DRs without any substantial new information; I don't see that anything has changed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Disney doesn't own Aladdin, and just because he's on the carpet with a girl doesn't make them Disney's property. I think that falls well within COM:FAN; there is no copyright in Aladdin having a girl on his carpet, even if it is an allusion to Disney's Aladdin. Several of the others I'd go the same way with; Gulliver's Travels and Snow White are also out of copyright. Others are harder for me; I've never heard of Lucky Luck, so obviously some I won't recognize, and File:Harikalar Diyari 05998 nevit.jpg may be the spitting image of some character I've never heard of. (If it's supposed to be Conan, I'd invoke COM:FAN.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, those are distinctly Disney's dwarves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But for the rest, I don't buy Disney licensing its characters to hang out beside the Smurphs and Lucky Luck. I'd vote for deleting most of these, but please nominate the more generic ones separately so they can be hashed out separately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And I would give the proprietors more credit than that (i.e. I would assume permission was given). So no, I don't think any of these should be nominated. It has been there for some time, so you would think Disney would have complained by now if it was without permission. Particularly if it is a government installation, as claimed. I can easily buy Disney giving permission for a project like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The first Tanya Grotter book is widely believed to be a rip-off of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and when it was translated into Dutch, JK Rowling and publishers sued, and a Dutch judge stopped the publication. Yet they have not even tried to stop the publication in Russian. Some battles in some nations are too hard to fight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You would think they would have at least complained publicly about them being used without permission. If we find that, my opinion may change. Particularly if it is a governmental project; I find it hard to believe the Turkish government would ignore trademark and copyrights to that extent, and deleting these is tantamount to an accusation along those lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We are arguing on which of two things is more probable:

• That Disney (certainly Daisy Duck, and perhaps the Dwarfs, etc.), Hanna-Barbara (Flintstones), IMPS (Smurfs)and the others, fierce competitors some of whom run their own parks in both Europe and Asia have licensed their characters to a single park in Turkey, and nowhere else, or
• That the City of Ankara, which runs the park, is infringing on the various copyrights.

Since, to my knowledge, Disney and H-B have not licensed their characters anywhere else, my vote is for the latter and it seems to me that our precautionary principle requires deletion, at least of the Disney and H-B figures.

As for Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Harikalar Diyari it is not completely clear why the nominator, User:Rtc withdrew it. It appears, perhaps, that he or she did not understand that the Smurfs, the Flintstones, and Daisy Duck are all under copyright in the USA. It was hardly a thorough discussion of that aspect of the question. so I see no reason at all not to reopen it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rtc is fully aware they are under copyright in the USA -- he or she is well versed in copyright law, given many discussions in the past. But yes, I'm not completely sure why it was withdrawn. There were other DRs which decided FOP applies. As for your two-part question, my guess is the former, actually. I would doubt Disney would do something similar in the United States but foreign countries, where they probably have much less penetration, is an entirely different matter. It would surprise me quite a bit for a government trying very hard to gain final acceptance into the European Union to demonstrate a flagrant disregard for copyright and trademark like that. Anything is possible I suppose, but that strikes me as much less likely then Disney etc. trying an approach like that to get into other markets. And, to this point, there is no evidence whatsoever that they have used them without permission, and also zero evidence that Disney or Hanna Barbara has stated anything to that effect. If you want to argue that FOP does not apply, that is a little different, but otherwise this sounds like purely an automatic presumption that the Turkish government would habitually ignore copyright, and we should operate DRs on that assumption. Again, if Disney even just claims they were used without permission, that would change things in my book, but until then I would tend to assume good faith on the part of the Turkish government (just as we give to anonymous uploaders). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The only standard by which you could say that there is no evidence whatsoever that they have used them without permission, would also say that there is no evidence whatsoever that they have used them with permission. We don't generally give any good faith to uploaders of pictures of Donald DUCK; without OTRS we don't accept them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the park's existence in Ankara is in doubt. If there is FOP, that is not an issue. Basically, we would be quite simply assuming that the government there are copyright violators. Do they have a history of that? Usually this kind of permanent thing gets permission first; if there has been no action (or even a public complaint), I will usually very much assume that permission was given, yes. It is hard for me to believe that Disney has not heard of this park, and would have at least complained enough to make the news I would think We accept FOP pictures for sculptures without the sculptor's permission to OTRS, and we do not usually question if they had the sculptor's permission to be there; I don't see how this is any different. This description of the park sounds pretty expansive; there is an area with a bunch of cartoon characters (a number of them Turkish) and it would not surprise me in the least if Disney etc. wanted a small area in there for their stuff. To me, this is a FOP question, pure and simple. There would be possible trademark issues with re-use, yes, but that is separate from copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that without an expert in Turkish copyright law, we must assume that FOP applies. On the other issue, I'm not convinced. Remember that this is not the government of Turkey, it is the City of Ankara. I don't know Turkey very well, but I suspect that a city might do something that the national government would not. The part of this that I find difficult is that there are several fierce competitors here, all of whom would have to license characters to appear in the same park. That's not likely. Remember, too, that Disney has parks in many places -- I would be very surprised if they would take whatever modest revenue they get from the City of Ankara when they might open a theme park there in the future.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Disney also exerts very tight control over the representation of their characters; the colors on Aladdin and Jasmine do not match the official colors, and Daisy Duck is visibly off-model as well. If Disney licensed them, they'd have assigned someone to make sure the characters match the corporate-approved guidelines. Furthermore, Prosfilaes makes a good point that if someone uploaded a drawing of Daisy Duck and said "it's okay, Disney licensed it to me", we wouldn't give them the time of day before deleting. Powers (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ankara is Turkey's capital; you would think the national government would be aware of this. Second, Aladdin is a Middle East folk tale to begin with; that very well may not be Disney's version at all. The park has a lot of Turkish cartoon characters too (rather disappointing we don't have photos of them actually). So, I don't see how that one qualifies as derivative of Disney's work in the first place, even without FOP. Not sure I agree on Daisy Duck, but to each his own there. Someone making a drawing of Daisy Duck is not remotely relevant here -- someone making a drawing of a private piece of artwork would also get deleted, but FOP changes all of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine's dress matches the Disney version almost completely, aside from coloration. Compare [2] and File:Harikalar Diyari Jasmine 06003 nevit.jpg. (Note that they colored in what was skin in the original to look like she's wearing a less revealing top, but the original outlines are still there. Her headband/tiara is also nearly identical. The main difference is that they Arabized her facial features.) Note also the lock of hair that sticks out of Aladdin's turban. In fact, the only reason you can tell the sculpture is supposed to represent Aladdin is because it resembles the Disney version so closely; there's no lamp and the flying carpet was introduced in the Disney version. Powers (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be. Enough changes though, and it becomes more and more difficult to argue a copyright issue (trademark could well be different). For a fun example going the other way, there is this (angrier version here). If that ever went to court, I think Disney could well have a case, even if they were familiar with the original work, though it would be a thorny question and may come down to the judge. My main issue however is in having a basic assumption that Turkish authorities would violate copyright gratuitously. I can't fathom making the same assumption of any other European governments. Somewhere like North Korea, sure (since Disney would be forbidden from doing business with them anyways, and I've seen reports that North Korea pretty much entirely ignores copyright law in general) but Turkey is a rather different matter to me. Maybe even if it was a private corporation doing it... I'm sure copyright violations are more common there than most Western European nations. But a governmental thing, which could cause diplomatic issues? If Disney were to contact us and tell us they were used without permission, or made a public statement to that effect, that would be different, or if the city/national government was shown to ignore copyright in other areas, that would again be different, but in general I would like to assume good faith. The other possibility I guess is some sort of law (fair use or similar) which makes their use in that park OK (by Turkish law) without permission, which could be a thorny corner case for FOP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Disney, that they would not be complicit in the construction of such seriously off-model reproductions of their characters, in close proximity to those from competitors' studios. Powers (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a few notes, the park is not under the Turkish federal government. It is under the municipal government of Sincan (district of Ankara).[3] I would not readily believe the Turkish government would be so aware of the activities going on in each of its districts and pro-active to deal with any copyright violations committed within its country (judging by its slothfulness in prepping itself for entry into GATT: the country was practically over-running with copy violations in the 1990s, and amendments to its copyright law was only introduced at the end of 1993),[4] especially with the municipal body (ANFA) touting the park's aim as a "spiritual relief for the citizens".

My personal experience has been that even in countries with heavy copyright laws, enforcement may be another different issue. I have seen several small carnivals in Europe with their rides and displays shaped in the likes of copyrighted characters (close enough to bear resemblance but certainly not faithful in appearance). Small shops and street peddlers sell pirated items as well. Bureaucracy also pokes the eye of copyright enforcement. In Singapore, the police actively co-operate with a local copyrights body, raiding shops for copy violations. However, shops were once (and maybe even now) selling pirated media that bear the approval stickers of the censorship board. The police, apparently, are not involved with the inspection of copyrights of imports, and the censorship body does not concern itself with copyrights (only violations against codified moral standards). As such, there is a weird little situation on whether such goods are legal in the country.

Based on the above, I too believe the Turkish park does not have the permission to use those characters, and the deviations in appearance are flimsy attempts to put up a defense that the statues are not faithful recreations of the copyrighted characters. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Ankara is Turkey's capital city, this would be happening where the national government works. Hard to think they are unaware of it. And yes, I can completely buy Disney letting things get altered a bit to fit more with Turkish sensibilities. Being part of a Turkish government project probably comes with its own rules -- among them, no ability to dictate what other characters are there (most of which appear to be Turkish characters, with a few different Western ones -- frankly, the selection seems odd enough that it may well just be the ones they got permission for). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Turkish government may be aware of it but they would not care; they owe Disney nothing nor do they owe a majority of their national income to the US corporation. Disney's enforcement of their copyrights abroad is mostly through the US government,[5] whose relationship with Turkey is not entirely close to the degree that one would be so concerned for the other's economic corporation. The Turkish government would likely only care if copyright violations were in such high international profile that it would hurt its national interests (like what happened in its attempt to join GATT). There is Disneyland Tokyo and Disneyland Hong Kong, but you can find cheap knock-offs (talismans, kiddy ride machines) in those countries. Those pirates certainly did not receive permission to create such imitations but they do exist.

On a side note, governments, such as the US, have codified a "federal fair use" in the law, allowing them to use any copyrighted material for official purposes as fair use, without any redress for the copyright holder. Who knows maybe that is what the municipal government of Sindan think they are doing as well... Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Works combining WMF logos and CC-BY-SA works

Recently I nominated File:10 lat ery Wikipedii.png and File:Poster Wikipedia10 Culleredo.png for deletion on the theory that they both are derivative of non-free WMF logos as well as CC-BY-SA works. Any derivative work of a CC-BY-SA work must itself be released under the CC-BY-SA license; but the uploader does not have permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to release a derivative of the Wikipedia logo under the CC-BY-SA license. Someone pointed out that virtually any screenshot of Wikipedia also contains both the Wikipedia logo and CC-BY-SA content, and we have lots of those - I'm not sure what, if any, distinction exists between these cases. I would appreciate any comment here or on the deletion request subpages. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If a work contains the unmodified versions of the originals... the containing work could be considered a "collective work" and not "derivative", quite possibly. Thorny theoretical question, but I feel DRs like this would just prevent people from assisting with Wikimedia campaigns. Maybe just indicate that the non-wiki-logo portions are licensed as CC-BY-SA. I can't see any of that as a true reason for deletion. If something blends the Wikipedia logo with another CC-BY-SA work, that is when it may get more concerning, but less to me if they are simply contained in different places on the same page. That is definitely true of a wiki article (or screenshot) -- those are "collective works" and not derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The collective work/derivative work distinction was always a bit fuzzy to me but your comments help to clarify it in this case. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unofficial emblems Finnish Air Force WWII

Hi, i came across File:LLv34.gif and File:2 llv16 42.gif (possibly from here which appear to be the images related to the Finnish Air Force in WWII. These logos have no information on them, but are hardly self made (so incorrectly licensed), but I think {{PD-FinlandGov}} might apply. However, for the first one, the en: article states "Unofficial flight emblem of the 2nd Flight of No. 16 Squadron 1942-1943". So where does that leave these images? Should they be deleted as copyright status is unclear? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Portugal ice hockey national team jersey.jpg

Concerning the above image: does anyone think it might be a copyright violation because of the logo and artwork on it? I'm thinking of nominating it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not worry about photographs of real-life clothing. If someone were to take the design and make a graphic out of it... yes, that could be a concern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Example of Ben Avram's signature.jpg

The above file: I notice it is for an Israeli man. I also notice that per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, it is not OK in the UK to use the tag, but the page says nothing about Israeli law (although Israeli law is based on an old version of UK law). Can anyone assist? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No idea unfortunately, and a legitimate question. On the other hand, Canada's laws are also based on the UK's laws, and they have stepped back from the fairly hardcore interpretation of "original" that the UK appears to have -- that is the en:CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada case, where the judge ruled that "the exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". You could very much argue that signatures (writing one's own name in one's own handwriting) is a purely mechanical exercise (since that is what makes it repeatable), and so that signatures are likely OK in Canada. So... it is possible an Israeli court could rule another way, but I have no idea if there are any relevant rulings. For that matter, I'm not sure there are any direct rulings in the UK either, but it is apparently what a majority of lawyers there think, given the cites in the page you link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User Jamesabaldwin is uploading copyrighted images from the web

Hello! I think that the user Jamesabaldwin is uploading too much copirighted images from web telling that are OTRS pending. Nothing can be done to stop the user to continue to upload this copirighted images? Look for example at File:APF TV Fun Game 401.jpg or File:Bandai Super Vision 8000.jpg --Arosio Stefano (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Im in favor of nuking all uploads. The author and source information is all wrong, nothing is "own work" as claimed. The uploader claimed that this files have been published elsewhere and an email has been sent to OTRS. But without having the true source information a valid OTRS release can not happena and therefore this OTRS-pending tags come because the upload form asks to tag the files with OTRS-pending, it not comes for any valid reason and is also nonsense as all other information. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I put the Copyvio to 4/5 images. For every image I have shown the web site the image came from.I have no power to do something else.--Arosio Stefano (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

All gone. I didn't check them all, but User:Bidgee did the deed on the one's I did check. Looks like a good call to me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of buildings in my town

nl.Wikipedia has a list of historical, but private houses in my village. All these buildings are at least 70 years old. I would like to complete this list with pictures. Do I need the permission of the owners of these buildings, for pictures taken from the public way? What type of license do I need to publish on wikipedia? Luxil (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If nl.wp has a list of buildings in a village it must be, I assume, a village in the Netherlands. Uploading photos of architectural works located in the Netherlands is not problematic. Unlike some other countries, France for example, the Netherland copyright does allow taking photos of architectural works and use them commercially, see COM:FOP#The_Netherlands. Therefore you can upload them. For your second question: If this are your photos - and they must be your photos - you can select whatever license you prefer, you are the licensor of the photographic work. See the license selection in the upload form. If this are not your photos you can not upload them unless the photographer gave permission to a free licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Actually this village is in Flanders, Belgium. I assume that the same rules apply for Belgium as for the Netherlands? And yes, I will make my own pictures.Luxil (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Belgium does not mention anything about buildings one way or the other, but the warning on Category:Buildings in Belgium suggests that the copyright term of buildings is indeed a concern there. If the buildings are old, you might want to just upload them anyway and then post about it here and let the admins sort out which ones to keep and which ones to delete and restore later. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion link in the COM:FOP#Belgium section that claims there is no freedom of panorama for buildings. Any building that is newer than 70 year old you should not upload them otherwise you are just giving the volunteer admins necessary work when the burden of proof of the copyright lies with the uploader. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Note in all of this that the copyright rule in Belgium is not concerned with the date of the building. The rule is 70 years from the death of the architect. Since a building can be built from drawings after the architect's death, all you can say about a 70 year old building is that it might be OK -- if the architect died in 1925, it would be fine, but if the architect died in 1960, it will be 20 years before we can host the image.

Also, please don't claim that the architect is anonymous just because we don't know his name. In most developed countries, a set of architectural drawings, identifying the architect, will be on file in a government office. I would be very surprised if Belgium permitted construction of a building with an anonymous architect.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that most of the buildings I want to take a picture of are from the 19th century or even older. So I assume that the architects have died earlier than 70 years ago and there is no longer a copyright on their work. Is that correct? Luxil (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Often but not always. If an architect designed a building at the age of 25 in 1895, they might die at the age of 85 in 1955, and the work will be in copyright for at least 15 more years. I usually use a cutoff point of about 1860, just to be safe. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PD-Ukraine

Before my edits today, the template read "This file is a Ukrainian or Ukrainian SSR work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, for one of the following reasons: It was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date." However, after reading http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Law_on_Copyright_and_Related_Rights#Period_of_Validity_of_Copyright the copyright term has changed to 70 years. So I changed the template to read 70 years. However, I looked at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Law_on_Copyright_and_Related_Rights#Section_VI:_Final_Provisions and it says "4. It shall be established that as from the day on which this Law enters into force, the terms of copyright protection, stipulated in Article 28 of this Law and parts 1 and 2 of Article 44 of this Law, shall apply in all cases where the 50-year period of copyright validity after the author’s death or the period of validity of related rights has not expired prior to the date of entry into force of this Law." This tells me that if the work of an author that died over 50 years ago will still be out of copyright even with this new law. However, this still brings annon works back to the 70 year after publication rule (which is before Jan 1, 1941). So, I created Template:PD-Ukraine-pre2001/en to have a visual layout of what I am reading and seeing from the laws. Thoughts or concerns? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that reads to me that it was not retroactive at all. That would mean anything where the 50-year anonymous term (or 50 pma) had expired, is still public domain. That basically puts a 20-year freeze on anything else becoming public domain, but it does not read to me as though anything was re-copyrighted. It appears to have been in 2001, meaning it is 50 years before that, so I think the tag was correct before. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is if the items that were PD before 2001 are still PD now, then we need to check all images to make sure that is still in play. Everything else, including anon. works and corporate works, is 70 years. So should we use the new template (like what we did with Russia in 2008) or what is the best course of action? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they do say "or the period of validity of related rights" -- that to me means the 50 year anonymous terms too. So I think anything anonymous published before 1951 is fine too. Russia made their law retroactive; I have not seen an indication Ukraine did the same yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then what is the next course of action. Still have the two templates (one for the 50 years and one for the 70 years) or what is the best course? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need the one for 70 years -- it's not really relevant to any work at all, either in the U.S. or the Ukraine. Unless we missed a law which made stuff retroactive (or another law comes around, which is not impossible), the Ukraine is stuck on 1951 the exact same way the U.S. is stuck on 1923, so we can hardcode that 1951 date until 2022. Making copyright laws retroactive seems to be actually kinda rare, other than the European enforced changed to 70 (or countries joining the Berne Convention for the first time, which need to get retroactive until at least 50pma). The only thing that tag does not mention is the part which relates to the U.S. copyright, which is instead based on what was PD in the Ukraine on Jan 1, 1996, which means the line is 1946 when it comes to what is still copyrighted in the U.S. (also depending on publication date, of course). But most of our copyright tags don't mention that either. (actually, the tag does mention that part, duh). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this right, we will still have the template say 50 years, even though since 2001 that it changed to 70 years? Pardon me, but I am still very confused. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The template says "1951", and does mention that the terms non-retroactively changed from 50 pma to 70 pma. What that means is, works where the author died in 1950 or before (and anonymous works published in 1950 or earlier) were public domain in 2001 in the Ukraine, and they still are. The effect of that kind of law is to put a 20-year freeze on copyright expirations; works where the author died in 1951 will now not become public domain until 2022 but that does not affect works where the author died in 1941 or 1946 or 1950 or whatever. Therefore, for 20 years, the 1951 line remains the same and does not change from year to year. If you want to look at it another way, in 2001 the effective term was 50 pma, in 2002 it was 51 pma, in 2003 it was 52 pma, etc., and that pattern will continue until it gets to 70 pma. The U.S. situation is exactly the same -- in mid-1998, they changed the term of copyright protection from 75 years from publication to 95 years from publication, but it was not retroactive. Therefore works published in 1922 or before were and still are public domain, but still-copyrighted works published in 1923 got their copyright extended, such that they will not become public domain until 2019 (so in eight years we will rename those PD-1923 tags). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The two previous comments by Clindberg explain this point well, I think, but let me try to say it in other words. The purpose of the template is to tell, as clearly as possible, why the files tagged with it are actually in the Ukrainian public domain. Works from authors who died in 1951, 1952, etc., will respectively begin to enter the Ukrainian public domain only in 2022, 2023, etc. At present, and until 2022, it does not seem really essential or useful to complicate the template with information that will not make a difference before 2022, for files that will only be uploaded to Commons starting in 2022 and later. At least, that's how it seems to me. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-UN

Template:PD-UN is used for Category:Stamps of the United Nations. Is that correct? Especially for File:1983 UNstamp.jpg (which is incorrectly attributed)? Who's the expert on this? Thanks for any clarification. --Elya (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That licence was added to the Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates with this edit by Michael Romanov back in November 2007 but I don't know where he got that information from. He is an active editor so I will mention this post to him and also check it out myself. Ww2censor (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for this confusion. Although United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol are in PD (see statement 2 in Template:PD-UN) and UN stamps do bear the UN symbol, they seem not to be in PD because they cannot be considered as UN documents. So, Category:Stamps of the United Nations and its contents should be deleted for now. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:CC-AR-Presidency

As the April 2007 (OTRS ticket number is 200704xxxx) E-mail agreement contains no deadline, and as the presidency website licences its contents today to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/es/deed.es (see "Terminos de uso" at the bottom of http://www.presidencia.gov.ar ) which is non commercial, I think this template should be discarded for contents added to the website after the agreement was made. The Nestor Kirchner presidency finished in December 2007, and I don't think we should use the template for the Cristina Kirchner and later presidency terms.

I have requested the deletion of two 2010 or 2011 pictures provided with that template :

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristina Kirchner and Abdullah Gul in Turkey 3.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristina Kirchner, Rifat Hisarciklıoglu Zafer Caglayan in Turkey.JPG

Teofilo (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A sad example of a government forgetting its mission to its people. I suggest editing and renaming the template to indicate it applies only to works published/downloaded before 2008 (call it say {{CC-AR-Presidency-2007}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The website was under cc-by-2.0 a long time, is the exact date (X) of change to NC known?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristina Kirchner, Rifat Hisarciklıoglu Zafer Caglayan in Turkey.JPG is on an image uploaded at January 22, at that date the license was unfree already, other images from that day are also not longer under cc-by and X is <January 22. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CC-AR-Presidency, that list is sorted by date of inclusion afaik, newest uploads at the end. However, all images uploaded here before X are ok, any uploads after X are not ok. The licensor (§7b) stoped distributing the work under the license, so no matter what date the images have been published on the website or if at that date the website was cc-by, we can no longer transfer this images. Maybe images published on the website before 200704 are still allowed to copy under the OTRS ticket, that depends on the wording of the ticket. The case is similar to Template:PD-Mexico-NIP. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The latest available archive.org archive is this one, dated 27 October 2009 it does not show any "terminos de uso" at the bottom of the page, next to the webmaster e-mail address as today. Teofilo (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was convinced that at some time there was a free cc license on the website, but I can not provide evidences for that :( The finding that possibly the webiste never was free (except the individual OTRS permission) will disalow to upload images published post-200704 and possibly the date X is the date of the OTRS ticket. Im searching for evidences that the website was licensed under cc-by longer. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Before (mass) deleting images from this website, it might be a good idea to contact the owner of the website and ask for clarifications. If AFTER having contacted the webmaster of the website the license change for Commons is confirmed, THEN I would suggest that we ask for the specific date on which the new license was applied. If no answer was to be given on that, I suggest that we use 27 October 2009 mentioned by Teofilo as the date after which the license became "unfree". (Or any other later date which provides indication of the use of the "free" license. So please do NOT rush things, contact the webmaster and then let's see what happens. (BTW: by-nc-sa means also that the press can not use the image. Or am I wrong?) --ALE! ¿…? 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to contact them ? Are you the person who last exchanged E-mails with Secretaría de Medios Andrea Caldararo as is suggested on en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina/.gov.ar ? Concerning the meaning of Non Commercial, the "non commercial" wording of CC-BY-NC-SA is found in legal code section 4c) You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. You may also read http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial saying Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Teofilo (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I contacted them once when I created the license {{PD-AR-Presidency}}. However, later - after a deletetion request - it was confirmed that the site is under a CC license instead. I can not recall who contacted them in 2007 but it was not me. Maybe somebody else could contact them, as I do not have time now to draft a letter to them. --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Only someone with access to OTRS who can read the E-mail from Secretaría de Medios Andrea Caldararo can negociate successfully. And negociating a renewal or the termination of a former contract is best done by a lawyer or someone experienced in that sort of negociation. I am leaving a message on User talk:Pathoschild as he is shown as a person involved in the Secretaría de Medios Andrea Caldararo E-mail on Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-AR-Presidency, but I see he did not contribute much during the last few months. I am also calling for help on commons list and foundation list and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:CC-AR-Presidency. The good news is that Andrea Caldararo is still working at the presidency (mentioned as "Directora de Contenidos" at http://www.medios.gov.ar/content/view/15/84/ ). Teofilo (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the site with way back machine, and got this. As of October 2009, there were no terms of use. The X date when distribution terms were modified is somewhere in between 27/10/2009 and 22/01/2011 Belgrano (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the same finding as mine (my message above dated 15:53, 25 January 2011) Teofilo (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Fæ made the following answer at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:CC-AR-Presidency:

• The first request to presidencia.gov.ar was on 04/26/2007 but replies from Caldararo are dated 06/19/2007 and a follow-up on 07/12/2007. --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• The name of the Wikimedia volunteer who was in touch with Andrea Caldaro: Pathoschild was originally involved, but this was some years ago so you may wish to check their interest in any further follow-up. --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(copied from Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:CC-AR-Presidency by Teofilo (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Template:Open Beelden

Files such as File:Opening Theater De la Mar.ogv should be tagged with Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl, because this is the licence mentioned on the source website at http://www.openbeelden.nl/media/52569/Opening_Theater_De_la_Mar#license (click on the small icon below the video).

I have added {{Copyright-tag-still-required|{{{lang|}}}}} in the template layout (diff).

Does anyone remember the name of the bot which is supposed to mark pictures without license tag as such ? I would like to talk to the bot owner about that problem, so that files such as File:Opening Theater De la Mar.ogv are marked by the bot untill they receive a proper Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl tagging.

Teofilo (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A recording by a Cuban singer

A user asked me for help in determining the copyright status of File:Anabell Improvisation.ogg, a segment of a 1988 commercial recording by Cuban singer Anabell López. It's from the end of a song and the only vocals in it are improvised and not words, so it's possible it's not derivative of any written work of music (although the trumpets might be...). I don't know what Cuban sound recording copyright law is like. Comments? Dcoetzee (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Licence photo "camp de Hradishko"

Bonjour J'ai téléchargé une photo "camp de Hradishko" et on me signale que la licence que j'ai indiqué n'est pas valable. Mais j'avoue être perdu, ne pas savoir quelle licence mettre pour cette photo. Pouvez-vous m'aider? Merci d'avance

Henri MOREAU 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FOP - Science Fiction Museum

Regarding File:Science Fiction Musuem.jpg, what do you guys think? Is it architecture, or is it art? The uploader calls it art (sculpture), but I note it kind of seems like the building (cf. File:Monrail in EMP.jpg). If it's a sculpture, it is a FOP violation, as the US doesn't allow FOP except for buildings. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• It contains two separate things: an antropomorphic "sculpture" in the foreground (bottom half) and the building in the background. See File:Monrail in EMP.jpg taken at a longer distance and a different angle. Some folks say it's art. NVO (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FOP and body painting

It suddenly occurred to me today that body painting (Category:Body painting) may fall foul of freedom of panorama laws. I think there are a few issues here, first off, is the work 2D or 3D (it could be argued either way). The works are clearly not permanently situated (though tattoos could be said to be), so... what do you guys think? -mattbuck (Talk) 04:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not permanently located, if that is a requirement under the laws of the country in question. (Neither are tattoos – the issue is not permanent location on the person's body but permanent location of the artwork in a public place. People move around, and (usually) go indoors into private places on occasion.) I'd regard it as a three-dimensional work, as body painting is akin to a flat painting on a three-dimensional surface such as a column. Photographing it requires a choice of angle, lighting, and so on. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jacklee. We've deleted PD-Art works painted on curved walls and ceilings before, as well as engraved objects like coins that straddle the line between 2D and 3D. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's permanent like ice sculpture though. Frankly, deletions of most of that seem pretty silly to me. If you want to go at it another way, technically that is clothing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any case law on the meaning of permanence for FOP purposes? If an artwork is created for public display for a limited period and then is dismantled or destroyed (e.g., works displayed on the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square), is it "permanent" for the duration of the display? This seems like a rather odd use of the word. In addition, I would not regard body painting as clothing. This seems to be stretching the concept to breaking point. Perhaps the de minimis principle may apply to some of the photographs. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a case in Germany on ice sculpture, yes. And I can't think of a case, ever, which considered a photo of this kind of thing a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'd like to make clear that I'm not worried about stuff like File:Hoyas painted chests.jpg, more File:Bodypainting Saints.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the question, were to draw the line. Too subjective. Take it too far, and any form of facial makeup will be "art". NVO (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Would photos in Category:Body painting and Category:Facepainting be derivative of copyrighted artwork, if the depicted work is sufficiently creative? Kelly (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, unless the painting is de minimis in each photograph. I think Carl takes a different view, though. P.S. No point starting a new discussion when there's already one on the same issue in progress. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If the photo is really focusing on the tattoo itself, then maybe (and even that is near-uncharted territory). If it is focusing on the person as a whole, no, I don't see a reason to be concerned. Doing a Google search, the topic is actually kinda popular. H.H. Munro even wrote s:The Background in 1911, which goes into some of that kind of what-if territory. Some lawyers wrote a paper here, going into the theoretical issues, and noting one case where the face-painting for some characters in the musical Cats were deemed copyrightable (I think in a situation of someone else using the same face-painting). This paper was written in the wake of Reed v. Nike, Inc., where a tattoo artist did sue Nike and Rasheed Wallace over a tattoo which was prominently featured in something Nike did (settled out of court, so no legal precedent, and not sure how the case was going). That is the single case on the tattoo matter, apparently. Some other links here and here. Run-of-the-mill tattoos are probably en:scènes à faire. Tattoo artists apparently do make "flash sheets", where they can make a design and give/sell/etc. it to others, and those are certainly purely artistic works. But when you are talking about photographs of tattoos, particularly photographs of people who happen to be wearing them, no I can't see an issue. It sounds like the industry mostly tries to avoid the issues by simply not suing... that may change someday, and courts will probably have to come up with certain limits on artist's rights in that situation if they do (for example, there is no way the plain language of VARA would apply). If cases do get more commonplace, perhaps revisit the issue then. But I don't like deletions purely based on speculation about where courts might draw the lines if something hypothetically went to court -- photos like this seem to be de facto accepted practice as OK today, and I would only revisit them if that situation changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Aunt Louisa's Oft Told Tales

I noticed File:Leo et mus.jpg was tagged {{Cc-by-2.0}} but that the Flickr bot review failed due to a claimed non-commercial license. However, it appears to have been published in the United States before 1923 (1870s probably) (see [6] where you can read the whole book) so I have now changed the license to {{PD-US}}. This seems correct but as it is the first time I have removed a flickr review template, I hope this is the right way to do this. If anyone wishes to, there are other images from the book that could be uploaded. -84user (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Be Bold! It's a pity that the Illustrator's name is not provided. A signature is seemingly present, though not readable on the bottom left corner of the first picture of the book. Some of Aunt Louisa's books were illustrated by Joseph Kronheim (1810-1896) (Category:Joseph Martin Kronheim) but I don't manage to find evidence for this for the "Oft Told Tales". Teofilo (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Liqueur Bottle

Hello. Does this image: [7] fall afoul of our copyright requirements? It appears to be an image of a copyrighted label, but is described by uploader as own work. The Interior (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have listed it for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amarula packshot.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of a photo

Hello, I have asked a user on Flickr to release this picture under a free license. She replied that her name must appear as photo credit on all the pictures. I'm not sure what to propose to her. Is this request compatible with one of our accepted licenses? Or should I tell her that I can put an "attribution" template next to the picture? On the other hand, when the photo will be displayed on Wikipedia, her name won't appear right next to the picture, right? (or would it?) Sorry for all these questions, I'm not familiar with these licensing issues so if someone could help that would be great. Laurent (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP articles do not credit photographers on the page, but the attribution would be just a click away on the image page (as well as a link to the Flickr page). Captions, credits at WP:Image use policy. So yes she would be credited, but not on or beside the image on the WP article. Propose that it is still great exposure, though - you could link her the page view stats for the Barrow article. The Interior (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to note that traditionally, most encyclopædias have not provided in-line photo credits in the style of newspapers and magazines. In printed encyclopædias, photo credits are typically provided in a separate section at the front or back of the book. Wikipedia's crediting practice is analogous to this tradition, which makes it a reasonable method to provide the name or pseudonym of the author pursuant to the attribution requirements in the CC-by and CC-by-sa licenses (and per section 4(a), no additional requirements may be imposed). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help guys. I followed your advices and she accepted to release the picture under CC BY 2.0. Laurent (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of Israeli Air Defense logo

"File:מערך ההגנ"א.jpg" appears to be the official logo of the Israeli Air Defense. Any idea whether it is in the public domain? Section 6 of the Israeli Copyright Act 2007 states: "... copyright shall not subsist in statutes, regulations, Knesset Protocols and judicial decisions of the courts or of any other government entities having judicial authority according to law." There is no indication as to whether the logo appears in any statute, regulation or Knesset Protocol. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it's public domain. Each version might carry its own copyright, so it may depend on what the source is. I can't find anything with tineye, closest with a google search is File:מערך ההגנה האווירית.JPG, uploaded by the user on the same day. If it was user-created after that photo, I'd probably keep it, but if it was copied somewhere off the internet I'd delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think I'll have to tag it with "no permission". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Significant 1984 press release photo

I possess a scan of a highly significant media release photo issued in 1984 by agents of a now-defunct Western Australian organisation, the John Curtin Foundation. The photo also bears directly on the Wikipedia article WA Inc and portrays a number of the key businessmen and politicians who were involved in that notorious period of scandal. The photo was published in 1984 in a now-defunct Saturday newspaper, the Western Mail. It was scanned and reprinted by The Australian newspaper on 8 August 2009 in the article Business and Labor at the birth of WA Inc, though the photo no longer appears in the online version. The persons depicted are Foundation members Denis Cullity, John Horgan, Alan Bond, Laurie Connell (dec), Ric Stowe, James McCusker, Rod Evans, Kevin Parry (dec), prime minister Bob Hawke, premier Brian Burke, John Roberts (dec) and Perth lord mayor Ernest Lee-Steere (dec). Those who are not yet deceased ('dec') would probably not welcome republication of the photo. Because the copyright status is unclear and possibly unobtainable, I hesitate to upload the item and would appreciate some advice. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If the photograph was only taken in 1984, I think we have to assume that it is still copyrighted unless there is some clear evidence that it was released into the public domain. The mere fact that the photograph was released to the media is not enough, since content uploaded to the Commons must be unambiguously modifiable and usable for commercial purposes. Also, assuming the copyright in the photograph was owned by the organization (which may not be the case – the photographer may hold the copyright), just because the organization has become defunct does not mean the copyright expires. It will be held by whoever is now entitled to the property of the organization, such as a government receiver or a creditor. Copyrights owned by the defunct organization may even have been purchased by a third party. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this is for en-wiki, I'd recommend adding it there, explaining what you know about the copyright situation (as you did here) and providing a non-free use justification. Much more likely to survive than on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both. OK, I'll essay the en-wiki approach. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Denkmalplakette Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010.svg

I’ve uploaded File:Denkmalplakette Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010.svg (which has some issues) and claimed it to be public domain. (

Amtliches Werk

to be exactly.) But honestly I’m not too sure about it. While there is a

Runderlass

about the emblem, it could also be derived from the coat of arms of North Rhine-Westfalia (which would also be in the public domain) or the

Wappenzeichen

. (Compare information of the

Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen

and de:Wappen Nordrhein-Westfalens.) I assume the alteration aren’t subject to

Schöpfungshöhe

, so there shouldn’t be any problem to licence them. Am I right? --Alex (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PD-Australia

Hello, I uploaded a picture, but I am not sure whether it is PD-Australia or not (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:D-1925 Atlantis Nla.pic-vn4774233-v.jpeg):

• Commons:Licensing#Australia clearly says: not published → not PD, but
• {{PD-Australia}} says (as far as I understand it) author known and taken before 1955 → PD and
• Commons:Licensing#Australia says Photographs taken prior to midnight on the 31st December 1954 are in the public domain.

I am confused. --El Grafo (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The two pages say the same thing. The amendment to the law was not retroactive. It did not change the status of works that already were in the public domain. Photographs taken before 1955 remained in the public domain. Asclepias 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(Let's discuss this here …) Even if they were not published until, say, 2010? That would be great. What confused me is, that at Commons:Licensing#Australia it says that Unpublished works are not in the public domain. So maybe someone should add something like unless taken before 31st December 1954? (Yes, I read the note in the lines below that sentence, but I was not sure whether this included unpublished works or not.) --El Grafo 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, going by what COM:L says, the amendment did not revive any copyright that had already expired. I guess the note was supposed to make that clear, but, if you think it necessary, do not hesitate to modify the wording to make it even clearer. -- Asclepias 16:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The term for photographs in particular was based on date of creation (until 1969 anyways, which covers all possible current PD photographs). The term for certain other types of works was based on date of publication, but that does not affect photographs. The only possible hiccup would have been if the photo was first published in another country, which could change the "country of origin" and affect which laws we use, but that is not the case here. Commons:Licensing#Australia was incorrect on some of its dates, which I just fixed, and added a note that photographs (published or unpublished) taken before Jan 1 1955 are PD in Australia. Note however that only photos taken before Jan 1 1946 are PD in both Australia and the U.S; photos taken between 1946 and 1955 would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg 16:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both, I think I got it now :-) --El Grafo (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions

Template:Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Teofilo (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Rana-website300.jpg

I am not seeing anything on the source website of the image that in anyway indicates it is released under the copyleft licencing tag used by the uploader. Can someone check it out? Active Banana (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've marked it as a copyright violation. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Gutenberg

• Who is going to do the cleanup ?
• Can we add something like, "this template is deprecated, please don't use it, use regular public domain templates such as {{PD-old}} together with an {{Information}} template with |date=<illustration's first publication date> and |author=<illustrator's name> fields, and provide in |source= the Gutenberg html address of the exact page where the illustration is shown ? Teofilo (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As I proposed there, I would simply edit it to take a real license template as a parameter, defaulting to PD-US, similar to what PD-Art does. That way it is a combination source/license template (but does not duplicate the actual license text, and can be more specific about why it is PD), which seems fine by me -- that way people can still use it just fine without change, though preferably they would add the argument (maybe add an additional line requesting a parameter if none is given). I would also add, in small print, that non-U.S. works need an additional license tag. The template is protected though so I can't edit it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would depreciate its function as a copyright tag completely and require that an appropriate public domain copyright tag will be added. Similar to Template:PD-LOC (is a redirect, was cleaned up from January 2007 and removed in June 2008) or Template:PD-USGov-NARA to give examples that comes to my mind, and other such images that had taken the long way through Category:PD tag needs updating or still taking this way. It can take some years until it is finally gone. --Martin H. (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree, because all of Gutenberg's books have been analyzed for copyright and deemed public domain in the U.S. It is not the same as PD-LOC or NARA at all; there is no real chance they are still copyrighted in the U.S., so it is fine to assume a PD-US tag. I would still prefer an argument tag be present of course, but PD-Gutenberg is basically a synonym for PD-US as it is, so may as well transclude it if nothing better is provided rather than duplicate it. There will be a few foreign works, but those are best handled as they are found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A few or many ? The Super Power both economically and intellectually of the XIXth century was Britain, and aren't most of the books published in the USA at that time mere copies of books published in London a few years earlier ? See Aunt Louisa's books discussed 2 sections above this one which are typically British books reprinted in the USA (although they are not from the Gutenberg Project). The failure of that template to correctly provide the illustrators' names produces mistakes like the one I had to correct with the following diffs : diff1 on French Wikipedia, diff2 on Wikimedia Commons (A French book translated and illustrated in the USA). Every book scan uploaded on Commons should be fully described using Template:Book. Teofilo (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There were boatloads of American books in that era. I'm sure there are many examples of republishing foreign works, but nowhere near "most". And giving enough source details should enable other editors to add the Book template if appropriate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If all was published <1923 in the U.S. the PD-update can of course go automatically with a quick addition of {{PD-1923}}. The result of the replacement must be IMO that PD-Gutenberg will not longer be used but be replaced with a generic copyright tag and a source tag. A tag indicating for the source should not read "PD-"Gutenberg but something without the PD piece. Similar to my examples: both require a generic copyright tag and both have a successor template for the source (Template:PD-USGov-NARA -> Template:NARA-image; Template:PD-LOC -> Template:LOC-image). I think thats good because it breaks the sometimes misleading comibination of souce and license, gives room for individual copyright considerations and it reduces the number of confusing individual license tags. --Martin H. (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And I would prefer it be more like PD-Art, and contain another PD tag. A copyright analysis was done on the work; only relative to one country, that's all. I think that aspect should be more part of a license tag, since we are relying on that analysis to a point. It also gives us the opportunity to mention that an additional tag is required if it is a non-U.S. work, and the contained tag should represent why Gutenberg thinks it is PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

PD-Laos

The {{PD-Laos}} appears to be out of date and needs review, even though it was created in June 2008 perhaps the, then very, new law was not easily found. The 2007 document linked in the current template has been superceded by the April 2008 enactment of the Intellectual Property Laws No. 08/NA of December 24, 2007 found linked on this WIPO page. On page 27, in Part 6, Section 93 it states:

Section 93: Term of Protection of Copyrights

1. The term of protection of copyrights begins from the date of creation of works and subsists for the life of the author plus 50 years as from the death of the mentioned author of works. In case of the joint authors, the term of protection of the copyrights shall subsist for the life of last surviving joint author plus 50 years as from the death of the relevant person.

2. In case the author is organization, the term of protection subsists for 50 years as from the date of creation of the works. In case that the works is published, the term of protection of such copyrights shall subsist for 50 years as from the date of first publication.

The template's own talk page had similar statements added in September 2010 but no one appears to have taken any action. While I see there is no Laos entry on the Licensing page it is mentioned at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Laos so that need addressing too. That means all images found in Category:Stamps of Laos will need to be deleted except for the 1951 stamp File:Sisavang Vong - 1951.jpg and the entries in Category:PD-Laos will need careful review. Have we agreement on this? Ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Non-PD files should be deleted. And what is outcome of the Template:PD-UN discussion? Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No one else appears to be interested in this topic, so I suppose we need to modify the template ourselves and add a Laos entry to the main licencing page. Regarding the UN stamps, most should be deleted as the template appears improper except for File:Un1981-343.jpg which I think is uncopyrightable and should be tagged as {{PD-text}} with the UN template used to cover the UN symbol. Most of the others UN stamps can only be used under a local wiki fair-use claim, where such exists, though several are not used in any articles. File:Un1951-1.jpg can be moved to the enwiki for use in en:United Nations Postal Administration. Cheers & thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the description of {{PD-Laos}}. Please feel free to change and correct my wording. And I support your other suggestions as to Laos and UN stamp deletions. Please initiate them. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little busy at the moment, but I can look into creating an entry for Laos at "Commons:Licensing" at some stage. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack that would be great. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. OK, I have created "Commons:Licensing#Laos" and "Commons:Freedom of panorama#Laos". I hope I got it right, because the official English translation of the relevant law is not very clear. The main issue that I am not sure about is how section 93 should be interpreted. The section states:

Section 93: Term of Protection of Copyrights

1. The term of protection of copyrights begins from the date of creation of works and subsists for the life of the author plus 50 years as from the death of the mentioned author of works. In case of the joint authors, the term of protection of the copyrights shall subsist for the life of last surviving joint author plus 50 years as from the death of the relevant person.

2. In case the author is organization, the term of protection subsists for 50 years as from the date of creation of the works.

[(a)] In case that the works is published, the term of protection of such copyrights shall subsist for 50 years as from the date of first publication.

[(b)] In case that the author uses pseudonymous without knowing who the author is, the term of protection shall comply with first paragraph of item 2 under this section.

[(c)] In case knowing of the owner of works using pseudonymous, the term of protection shall comply with item 1 under this section.

What is not clear to me is whether the last three paragraphs, which I have marked (a), (b) and (c), are part of section 93(2) or not. Paragraph (a) could possibly be part of subsection (2), but since it doesn't appear that subsections (b) and (c) are, I have treated all three paragraphs as independent of subsections (1) and (2). If my understanding of the Lao law is correct, then {{PD-Laos}} needs to be updated.

All suggestions for improvement are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears fairly clear that the three sentences you have named (a), (b) and (c) are an integral part of section 2 because Section 94 only has 3 distinct clauses and section 3 reads:

In case of International treaty Lao PDR is a party thereto or agreement Lao PDR jointly signed, the term of protection of copyrights shall comply with such International treaty or agreement.

I don't think your addition of the alpha sub-sections is proper, or necessary, to the document even though I too am only reading the English translation. Unfortunately there does not seems to be any other language version available online, and not from the WIPO site. I could have had my wife read the French version but can't find one, so this is all we can use for now. Michael Romanov already modified {{PD-Laos}} but you might want to review it. I thought it looked good. Thanks Jack. Ww2censor (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I only named the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above for ease of reference. Good point about the existence of section 93(3), though. I accept Michael Romanov's interpretation in {{PD-Laos}} that although paragraphs (b) and (c) are part of section 93(2), they are independent and do not apply only to works by organizations (as that would not make sense). What continues to puzzles me, though, is whether paragraph (a) applies only to works by organizations or whether it is a general provision applicable to all published works, which would mean that the 50 pma rule does not apply to all published works. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of the wordings in this translation seem very odd. Look at the definition for "derivative works" for example. Anyways... I'm thinking the above terms are something like a common standard -- corporate works are copyrighted 50 years from creation, and if published in that time frame, then copyrighted 50 years from publication. So, basically, 50 years from publication unless that publication took place more than 50 years after creation, in which case it became PD by then. And then, the usual scenario of pseudonymous works where the author's identity becoming known (within the 50 years from publication) means the term reverts to 50 pma.

I'm pretty confused on the FOP section as well. It almost reads as though photographs of other works regardless of where they are are OK, provided it is for "presentation to the public". I'm not sure how to read that. The other two limitations (cannot prejudice normal rights of author, and cannot be used in works of architecture or fine arts) are not relevant to photos, unless it is a photo of another photo (although it seems that a painting, as opposed to photo, of a building could be an issue). Still, I'm wavering on what "presentation to the public" means, and if that is a substantive restriction or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you think that paragraph (a) is applicable only to section 93(2)? The odd thing is, if we treat paragraphs (b) and (c) as free-standing and not merely referring to section 93(2), then why not paragraph (a) as well? But, as I mentioned, that would have the effect of limiting the copyright in all published works to 50 years from the date of publication.

As for the FOP point, the relevant parts of section 96 are as follows:

Section 96: Limitation of Copyrights Without Remuneration

1. The uses of the publicized works without authorization from the copyrights' owner and without payment of remuneration are as follows:

1.8 Photograph taking or video recording of fine arts works, photographs reports and adapted arts for presentation to public.

2. The person uses such works as defined in item 1 of this section must show the works owner's name and source of works without prejudice the rights of the works' owner and without prejudice the normal benefits of the owner of such works.

3. The uses of the works as defined in item 1 of this section shall not include the architectural works, fine arts works or computer programs.

The section is clearly not well translated, but the way I understand it is this:

1. One can take photographs of works of fine art, photographs, "reports" (?), and adapted arts that are presented to the public (adapted art is defined in section 1(33) as "art adapted for use in other purposes"). The phrase for presentation to public may apply only to adapted arts, and not to works of fine art, photographs and "reports".
2. The limitations in sections 96(2) and (3) apply to all works mentioned in section 96(1), including those mentioned in section 96(1.8). Thus, it applies to derivative works created by photography or videography.
3. The limitation in section 96(3) is difficult to interpret. I took it to mean that if I took a photograph of a work of fine art (section 96(1.8)), I am not permitted to reuse it in an architectural work, work of fine art, or computer program. I suppose another interpretation of section 96(3) is that in order to make use of architectural works, works of fine art or computer programs, one must obtain the copyright owner's permission and may have to pay remuneration. I'm not sure, though, what "making use" of an architectural work or work of fine art means in this context. Also, does section 96(1.8) constitute an exception, that is, I cannot "make use" of a work of fine art (whatever this means) but I can take a photograph of it without the copyright owner's authorization and without paying remuneration?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The wording of 96(2) is generic wording which comes straight from the Berne Convention text. That applies to all FOP works everywhere pretty much; nothing special here. 96(3) does not seem to be really relevant, since that is talking about non-photo works (it applies generally to all of the listed elements in the first section, most of which are not about photos specifically). I'm taking it to mean that you can't make a copy of an architectural work for purposes of scientific research, i.e. it is referring to the types of copies which are made. You could be right on the "presentation to the public" part. Admittedly this is such an odd translation it's almost hard to feel confident about any of these interpretations. It could also easily be read as photos of buildings are not OK. As for section 93... it almost makes more sense to me if your part (a) was actually another sentence in the first paragraph, and (b) and (c) were separate paragraphs. That would then amount to what I wrote before, which is a common pattern in copyright laws (seems like most countries use WIPO's template these days). But, here is a copy in Lao, and though I can't read it, the structure does seem the same. Hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of clarity in the English translation of the Lao law, perhaps we should apply the precautionary principle until a Lao speaker is able to shed more light on the law:

• Section 93: we should assume that paragraph (a) is part of section 93(2), and therefore only applies to works by organizations. Otherwise, the copyright in all published works expires 50 years after the date of publication.
• Section 96: we should assume that the rules on freedom of panorama are not free enough for the Commons.

Thoughts? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on section 93. Laos is trying to join the WTO I think, which means they need to join Berne, which would have minimum 50pma terms so that is the most likely situation. As for 96... I would just say we don't know yet, and ask for help in translation. Another issue is photos taken before April 2008 or whenever that law went into effect, when there was apparently no copyright on buildings etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Derivative work licensing

It used to be the case that when I wanted to upload a derivative work here, I got something that helped me pick the right licence. But I couldn't find it when I wanted to upload file:The Age colonial masthead.png, derived from file:The Age first edition, Melbourne Museum.jpg. I'm not sure if what I've done is valid. Can someone help me? I have no particular interest in "tightening" the licensing restrictions, so if the inlicence was BSD, I'm happy for the outlicence can be BSD too, but I don't know if I meet the BSD requirements. Thanks Cassowary (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The original newspaper page file:The Age first edition, Melbourne Museum.jpg has a wrong license. I guess (as there is no description) that it should be tagged as {{PD-scan}} with a flavor of "PD-old-xx". Therefore you can license your PNG file under the same flavor of PD-old. SV1XV (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've refined the licence and added an information template but the image still need an original source and author. The original should be updated likewise. Ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've filled in the missing fields. Thanks for your help. Cassowary (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Building or art? OK or not?

These photos I just took: OK for Commons or not? On one level it's a building in the US (OK) but on another a case could be made that everything interesting about it is really more a matter of artwork (possibly OK, since it dates from 1939, and presumably wasn't systematically copyrighted, which would have been necessary then, but possibly not becuase the paint job has certainly at least been renewed since then). I'd guess OK, but not with enormous confidence, hence I'm coming here to seek an opinion before uploading to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a nondetachable part of a building, I think it falls under architectural copyright in the US. And certainly the time to claim copyright on anything done before 1978 is long gone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking closer at the pictures... I don't know. There is a mural aspect to some of the material that concerns me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the standard is "conceptually separable", not necessarily nondetachable. That very well could be, at least for the totem pole and the paintings on the surface. But, I think it would have all needed a copyright notice (if before 1978 and probably if before 1989) and renewal (if from before 1964). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK None of them will fall under the FOP exemption for buildings, but it doesn't matter. Given a pre-war creation and assuming there is no notice (or at the very least, no renewal), they are all PD. The repainting -- unless it was substantially different from the original -- didn't create a new copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not as sure of the date of the painting on the side of the building as on the carvings, so when I upload I'll omit that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

licensing for old family photo?

I would like to post a photo of my grandfather, Sir Murray Tyrrell, but I have no idea who took it. The one I am thinking of is a wedding photo from 1939, but the same applies to any photo I have. My mother now owns the photos, and is happy for me to post one, is that sufficient? KMcCulloch-Oz (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)KMcCulloch-Oz

Is the photo taken (or publised anonymously) in Australia? Then it is public domain (pre-1955) and can be tagged with {{PD-Australia}}. SV1XV (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh thank you, that's great, because yes, it was taken in Australia. KMcCulloch-Oz (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)KMcCulloch-Oz

U.S. national laboratories

As this seems to be a common issue at Commons:Deletion requests, I've added a new section on U.S. national laboratories at Commons:Bad sources. Can you guys look over it and make sure that it is accurate? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Interaction of PD-Italy with PD-Art

I think that if Commons decides to accept Template:PD-Italy as a valid template, that means that we must ensure that we have a permission from the photographer or that the photograph is older than 20 years old in cases like File:'Nativity with the Two Midwives', oil on canvas painting by Pellegrino Aretusi, Estense Gallery, Modena, Italy.jpg. PD-Art photographs are photographs with little creativity where Template:PD-Italy should apply.

This striked me when I read "including reproductions of figurative art" on Template:PD-Italy.

The same goes with Template:PD-Sweden "fotografiska bilder".

It seems strange to try to enforce Bridgeman vs Corel in countries with low creativity photo protection like Italy or Sweden.

What do you think ? Teofilo (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think in cases like Italy, we should do the followings:

if less than 20 years old {
   if we have permission {
      use appropriate CC license tag and Template:PossiblyPD
   } else {
      use Template:PD-Art
   }
} else {
   use Template:PD-Italy
}

That should give us the maximum coverage for each situation. I'm not sure that Sweden is analogous as it isn't clear what the threshold for copyrightability of reproduction photos is from the template. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Teofilo, I think you see a distinction or a difficulty where there is none. Nobody, at least here at Commons, is trying to enforce Bridgeman vs Corel in any country other than the United States. It may well be that the copyright laws (or jurisprudence) of other countries give copyright protection, inside those countries, to photographs that are not protected inside the U.S. under the principle of Bridgeman vs Corel. It just doesn't concern the hosting of those photographs on the Commons. The Commons has decided that for the hosting of that type of photographs, we limit ourselves to applying the only copyright law that is externally binding on the Commons, which is the Copyright Act of the United States (as interpreted by the jurisprudence of the U.S. courts). The Commons has decided not to impose complex requirements of internal policy to this type of photographs (by contrast to what is the case for most other types of photographs, for which the Commons has decided to add an internal policy requirement about considering the laws of the country of the first publication of the photograph). If a subsequent reuser plans to publish such a photograph in any countries other than the U.S., it is his own responsability to make sure that such publication in those countries will not violate the laws of those countries. Therefore, for this type of photographs, as far as the hosting on Commons is concerned, and as long as the photograph is not copyright protected in the U.S., it is immaterial if that photograph was first published in Sweden, in Italy or in India, or in a country where such photographs might be protected for 20 years or for 70 years or for any other time, or in a country whose copyright law has one or two or three categories of photographs. There is no distinction to be made in this regard. The policy has been kept simple on this point. The question you asked about Sweden or Italy, you could have asked a similar question about a photograph originally published, for example, in the United Kingdom or in any other country whose copyright law has only one category of photographs, and where this sole category includes reproductions of art. The fact that the copyright laws of some countries have one, two or more categories of photographs does not change anything. The passage you quoted from the Italian law merely tells you into which category such photographic reproductions fall as to the duration of their copyright, whereas in the countries with only one category of photographs they simply fall into that only existing category. Your proposition would only bring back the notion of taking into account the laws of a second country, besides that of the U.S., for the hosting of this type of photographs on the Commons, a notion that has been explicitely discarded from the policy. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we should not pick and choose which laws we follow (-mattbuck (Talk) 15:56, 26 July 2008 on Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll#B. Keep the current PD-Art policy and enforce it). When the law of any country does not clearly mention a threshold of creativity, you can still hope that Corel can win in that country. But It looks hopeless that Corel might win in Italy where the concept of simple photograph protection means that the threshold is zero for such photographs. I am not an Italian lawyer, so I may be wrong, but... that's how I feel. Teofilo (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We already chose with PD-Art. Technically, the "public domain in the country of origin" policy is also "picking and choosing" of a sort -- we don't try to ensure that photos are "free" in all countries, meaning users always need to determine status in the country of intended use. But if per policy we aren't going to recognize potentially valid UK (or Swedish etc.) copyright claims on PD-Art photos, we won't recognize Italian ones either. It is more a philosophical position, backed up by the Foundation, that such photos should not be copyrightable, in turn backed up by U.S. law, which was enough for the community to decide on the particular exception to otherwise usual policy (which is also a community decision). PD-Italy does not affect that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0

Are my eyes deceiving me? "File:Ti.jpg" is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0. I'm assuming this is a mistake, in which case the file should be nominated for speedy deletion? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

An IP removed the license, was reverted (next diff), removed the license again, was reverted and then the uploader came and finaly removed the free licenses. Therefore I assume that the IP=the uploader who not released this images under free licenses (the license removal was short time after upload), but wanted to release the image under the homebrewn cc-by-nc-nd license. Either speedydelete the image as "Does not allow for commercial reuse and/or modifications" or tag with nld and inform the uploader, I will do the second with informing the uploader in german language´. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll leave it to you to tag the image for deletion if you don't receive a satisfactory response from the uploader. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to (now) be dual licensed with CC-BY-NC-ND and CC-BY-SA. That is fine; we are keeping it under the terms of the latter license (but others can use it under the terms of the former one). I'm not sure what the additional license gives, since the "share-alike" provision is only for derivative works, and if you're not making a derivative work you can use the latter license and not be restricted to commercial uses anyways, but .... Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks to all who helped resolve this case. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

A section on simple photography in Iceland was added. This raises the question: What is a non-artistic photo in Iceland? We know that the use of this description varies from country to contry, in some countries it is most photogrpahy, in some countries it is almost no photo. What does case law or interpretation say for Iceland? Or must we assume the most restictive case if their is no infomation? --Martin H. (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of JFK photo

I'm writing to question the licensing of this photo of John F. Kennedy — stating that "the copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." The source is correctly identified as the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, although the uploader doesn't indicate its location on the school's website. There are no specifics about the photographer, the date and place the photo was taken, and the identity of the second person pictured. If the uploader is not the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, which would hold copyright, I don't believe the photo can have this license. — WFinch (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I added the source and tagged as missing permission from the copyright holder with {{subst:npd}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New Paltz station photos 1911

Why are these two photos:

• File:New Paltz station original.jpg
• File:New Paltz station postcard.jpg

licensed under {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and why an OTRS ticket was required for them? They were published in 1911 in the USA, therefore they are {{PD-US}}. SV1XV (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving old PD Italy images from WP to Commons?

There are a number of 1920s aircraft images on :en WP, tagged as {{PD-Italy}}. en:File:Macchi M.52.jpg & en:File:Macchi M.52 right side.jpg are examples. As per PD-Italy, these are flagged "Do not move to Commons".

Now as I understand it, this is because the Italian PD duration is too short for Commons, i.e. a "simple photograph" under the short Italian PD rules (20 years from creation) could become PD long before it's also acceptably PD under other jurisdictions. However what's the situation if the photograph is sufficiently old that we'd regard it as {{PD-UK-unknown}} etc., if it were under another jurisdiction? Should this "No Commons" clause of PD-Italy still be observed, or can it safely be ignored if the image is 70+ years old?

There's also this one File:Macchi 52, 1929 (The Book About Aircraft, 1936).jpg, which I'm assuming is acceptable under a {{PD-UK-Unknown}}, as it was published in a UK book in 1936, with no credited photographer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the usual policy is to be applied to each case, i.e. an image may be uploaded to Commons if it is free in the U.S. and free in the country of its first publication. For the image "Macchi 52, 1929 (The Book About Aircraft, 1936).jpg", taken from TBAA published in 1936 in the UK, it is reasonable to assume, if there is no evidence to the contrary, that this colorized derivative work was first published in that book and that the author of this derivative work is the person who is considered as the author of the book. I'm not sure that it can be considered as being from an unknown author, if the author or the publisher of the book is known. (Your name should probably not be placed in the "author" field, as this could be confusing.) For the original photograph "Macchi M.52.jpg", the description page on en.wp does not mention the author nor the country of first publication, and that makes difficult the determination of its receivability under Commons policy. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, so (if the image is now PD) as the scanner I hold the copyright to the scan from The Book About Aircraft (note the UK distinction between creative works and "sweat of the brow" work) and it needs a licence from me if it's to go on Commons.

Also there's no credited author or editor for the book, and it would be a bizarre interpretation anyway to assume that the author would hold the copyright. Under UK "work for hire", this copyright (if any remains) would reside with the publisher, unless there was some agreement for the illustrators to retain it personally. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you referenced the PD status of the version published in the 1936 book, but you did not license your scan (nor did you declare it PD-self). That is good, because you published the scan on the Commons, in the U.S.A., so its authorship status (in this case the absence of a distinct authorship for the scan) would be determined under the U.S. legislation (which conveniently saves us from debating if scanning devices affect brows in the UK). For the version from TBAA, if really there is no identifiable author after a reasonable enquiry, then I suppose that its description as being of unknown authorship may be fine under UK law. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure *scanning* (as opposed to taking a photograph from a distance) is copyrightable in the UK -- see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Their test is "skill, labour, and originality" I believe, not quite "sweat of the brow". PD-UK-unknown does apply from the sounds of it. However you should add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} as well since its U.S. copyright will be valid until 2032. As for PD-Italy, for quite a while Commons had decided to not allow that tag (for poor reasons in my opinion), so they were marked "Do not move to Commons". That situation has changed; I think they can be moved now. {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} may also apply, if old enough, and would be good to add in addition if they do apply (since that indicates they are useful across Europe as well, not just in Italy, as other European countries would use the rule of the longer term for Italian photos). However, for those tags, we do need information on the original publication, as "unknown" is very different than "anonymous". I personally would prefer to not use PD-Italy photos taken after 1976, as those had their U.S. copyright restored, but those shouldn't exist on en-wiki anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cisco icons

These icons, found at Cisco's website, are quite widely used in network topology diagrams, even those that don't specifically involve Cisco products. Thanks in part to Dia, we have numerous image containing them. Now here's the bombshell: they are under an ND license. We may now have to delete or alter hundreds of images that use this icon set, as it is a clear violation of our community policies. Anyone have any bright ideas?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than that: the "you may use them freely" message doesn't really amount to a clear licensing statement, explicitly allowing commercial use, etc. Some may be {{PD-ineligible}} if they're very simple. For the rest, the only hope is to talk the copyright holder into selecting a different license, or perhaps multilicensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking Cisco to change their copyright? You must be joking -- aren't you? Cisco is notoriously unfriendly to the entire libre community, their lawyers will probably laugh at you. "You may use them freely" implies that they may be used and copied without permission, but "you may not alter them" falls clearly afoul of our prohibition on ND licenses. I see no choice but to replace these with free network icons and add a text label if a Cisco® product is in fact the subject. These icons serve no purpose here and therefore must be excised for our own good.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be the case, yes, at least for the ones that aren't ineligible (most of them aren't). It's unfortunate though that Cisco is so controlling of property that has fallen into universal use. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's really unfortunate that we keep massively re-using icons without checking the license terms. I can't even count the number of derivative images we have of GPL icons + CC-by-sa images (which are not compatible AFAIK). Requests for new icons can be made at en:Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop (ask for them to be PD if you can). Kaldari (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the GFDL and CC-BY-SA are not compatible by themselves, but because the work is dual-licensed, there is no conflict. It's as if the creator released two copies of the same work, each under a different license. Anyway, I do agree that we need to replace these with better free images such as ones from free software projects. We could start by turning a bunch of them into Dia shapes. Just be aware that the default converter scrubs the fill color so the user can set it instead, that will have to be corrected either by writing an XSLT or by hand.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

originality in US copyright law

Here is the honeycombs category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Honeycombs

Like in many other categories, many of these photos are covered by either the GNU Free Documentation License or the Creative Commons License, and both of these licenses require that all derivative works be re-licensed under the same license.

These images portray exceedingly generic items, such as honeycombs. Such generic items do not pass the originality test under US copyright law. However, many of these photos have a combination of generic honeycombs under some unique arrangement with other elements and angle (just angle is not enough).

If you cut out some other elements of one of the photos (eg: wood, table, leaves, frayed ends..) and just leave a clean piece of the honeycomb, that can be considered a derivative work under the Creative Commons License ("art ... abridgment"). But, it also now becomes completely unoriginal: it is simply a portrayal of some honeycombs.

To put it simply, it seems that these photos, like many photos of "common items" on Wikipedia, are licensed under terms that inevitably conflict with US copyright law.

--Agamemnus (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They don't conflict at all; if a work is not copyrightable then the license is simply irrelevant and unenforceable (but still may be applicable in other countries, so best not to remove it). For a photo like that... there may still be a thin copyright on that particular photo, even if another unrelated photo looks essentially identical. And if the crop is truly not copyrightable, then it is the same situation with any other work here which merely contains a non-copyrightable element -- anyone is free to extract and use that part without regard to the license (since the license could not cover that to begin with). These licenses can only cover so far as the derivative works clause of copyright law allows them to (in relation to the original, licensed work); they can't cover anything which is inherently uncopyrightable (or pre-existing elements where the copyright has expired). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense, I guess!--Agamemnus (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Letters

Can someone please tell me what the situation is regarding letters, which are obviously signed by the author(s) and which I can scan and put somewhere. Can they then be quoted from? They are (say) 29 years old and the authors are dead2829VC (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unpublished letters where it's been less than 70 years since the death of the author are still under copyright. US courts have also historically been sensitive to any copying from unpublished letters; stuff that would be fair use if copying from a book would not be from private letters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the sensitivity about letters or about unpublished sources in general? Over here many aspects of fair use concern only published works, but fair use is irrelevant for Commons anyway.

As those letters are not old enough that any rights would have expired, you have to ask the copyright owners, but with letters you probably have some connection to them, so asking may be quite easy.

--LPfi (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises is a good example of where users of unpublished non-letters lost a case they might have won if they waited until it was published; I can't find the famous hermit author case who sued over his letters and won to compare.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Air crach in B.jpg

Age of the image does not suggest copyright has run out. Republishing under CC-By-SA and/or GDFL not justified. Posted speedy deletion notice, which got deleted. Unsure how to proceed. Kleuske (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If the uploader repeatedly removes the speedy deletion tag without justification, post a message at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" so that an administrator can take action such as warning the uploader and even blocking him or her. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. Kleuske (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. The source site was explicit (C).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Campaign road sign against female genital mutilation.jpg

Should "File:Campaign road sign against female genital mutilation.jpg" be nominated for deletion? It is clearly a useful image, but arguably an unauthorized derivative work of the drawings on the sign. We do not appear to have any information about the copyright law of Uganda at "Commons:Licensing" or "Commons:Freedom of panorama". Also, it appears that the place of first publication may not be Uganda – the uploader appears to be from Israel. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It does appear they have FOP for works of art and architecture; from section 15(1)(g): The fair use of a protected work in its original language or in a translation shall not be an infringement of the right of the author and shall not require the consent of the owner of the copyright where— [...] any work of art or architecture in a photograph or an audiovisual or television broadcast is reproduced and communicated to the public where the work is permanently located in a public place or is included by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the main object represented in the photograph or audio-visual work or television broadcast. So, it would appear that photos of works permanently located in public places in Uganda are OK. The nature of "permanent" may be difficult there... but I think I'd be inclined to keep that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, great. As I said, it is a good picture to keep if we can do so. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've created "Commons:Licensing#Uganda" and "Commons:Freedom of panorama#Uganda". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagrams

Hi! A quick question - where do we sit with self-drawn versions of diagrams from academic publications? For example, this representation of the Technology Acceptance Model is identical to that offered by Davis, except that it has been translated and self-drawn. The original used only simple geometric shapes and text, so I assume this means that it can't be copyrighted (only trademarked, although it isn't a logo)? If that's the case is it reasonable to upload a new self-drawn version of the diagram in the original language and release it as CC, even though the format (although not the individual design elements) is derived from Davis' publication? (As an aside, I note that it would still need to be sourced to Davis, whatever happens).

My apologies if this has been asked before, as I assume it has - I checked the archives and the FAQ, and didn't manage to dig up the answer, although I probably just missed something. - Bilby (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe anything in that diagram would be copyrightable, especially as it is has been redrawn. Kaldari (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:IMG Coca Cola Logo.svg

See "File:IMG Coca Cola Logo.svg". The words "Coca-Cola" are not copyrightable, but surely the background images (the waves and bubbles) are? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, text is copyright free but the background isn't. I'm not going to delete it but it should be moved to the projects which use the image and uploaded as fair-use. Bidgee (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed existing instances of this image, and replaced with File:Coca-Cola logo.svg, which, being either PD-old or PD-text, will always be the more appropriate than the above image. I've nominated this one for speedy deletion. There's no reason to host it here any longer than necessary. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for helping to resolve this issue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Commercial use inviting donation

Hi,

I've come across File:Brunei.geohive.gif, a map extracted from a database whose Terms of use states the following: “Data can be used freely [...] Anyone using data from my site for commercial reasons is invited to donate some money to a worthy cause.” (highlighted) Does this word invited carry any legal obligation? If not, which licensing template could best describe this picture? Tachymètre (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd say this is easily understood as an optional request (the fact that they don't stipulate which cause to donate to or provide any means of verifying such donation is further evidence of this). Even a CC0 waiver can be accompanied by requests of any sort. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I fear that the appropriate tag might be {{Copyvio}}. The data on that website are statistical data (mostly demographic and economic), generally copied from the publicly available data from the various countries' official censuses and statistical organizations. As such, these statistical data cannot be copyrighted by this website's owner. At most, he could copyright his particular presentation of those statistics and a few original graphs he made from them. Anyway, whoever wanted to reuse those statistics should better use directly the original sources and credit them. Now, as far as I can see, this website does not have data of the type needed to create maps. Anyway, the website's notice says that "data can be used freely". It does not say that works such as original and creative graphs, maps or other images are free. The original uploader of the maps to the en-wikipedia did not use data to create original maps. He clearly (and honestly) said that he "just copied those maps from Geohive after having asked the permission of the proprietor (Johan)" [8]. And he recopied to the description page the note saying "data can be used freely". Which does not mean "maps can be used freely". Now, unless I missed it, there are no such maps on this website. In the end, we're left with many questions. Where did the maps come from? Were they ever on that website? If so, why are they not there anymore? Did the geohive website owner ever own the copyright on those maps in the first place, or had he himself merely copied them from somewhere else? Even assuming that the maps were owned by geohive, what type of permission was asked from the website owner? Even if a valid permission was asked, did the owner give it? We don't know the answers to those question. Unless we can find a confirmation that those maps are free, the information available does not seem enough to support their being considered free. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've to admit I was also wondering where this map came from. Big Adamsky not being active anymore, I'm going to send him an e-mail. But five years have past now… The problem lies in the fact that I was about to replace this file with another one that I've just finished today. I've used another map (File:Map of Brunei Demis.png) to create this one, but I've resorted on the GeoHive map in order to roughly correct the coast of the Brunei Bay. Sémhur on the French Graphic Lab told me it shouldn't interfere with copyright restrictions, given the fact there isn't anything original here and that we can find these pieces of information elsewhere. Hope so. May I upload my file? Tachymètre (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You will probably not get much information from the uploader. Even if he answers, he will likely repeat what he already said, that he just copied the maps from the geohive website. He might also tell what sort of permission he asked, but other than answering some of our curiosity, that would not advance us much, because anyway we would need a license confirmation from the actual copyright owner. If you really need more information about this map, you may obtain better results if you contact directly the owner of the geohive website and ask him what he knows about it. Anyway, if you created your map from free sources and you did not copy from the problematic map, it should be fine. But perhaps some people might say that you should not have taken inspiration from it for corrections to the coastline, I don't know. Perhaps you can ask the people at the Graphic Lab (maybe there) for advice on this point. I know it's for the technical aspects, but I assume that the people there also have experience with those licensing aspects that are directly related to maps. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You must be right, I'll get in touch with GeoHive directly. There's something like 30 maps in the same case, so I'll have to sort them and submit the list to GeoHive. It might take some time, as I'm particularly busy for the moment. May I get back to you once the situation will have been clarified? I'm not really used to OTRS and mass deletion requests (depending on the answers I will get from GeoHive). Anyway, Sémhur told me my work should be fine like this, so I'll proceed. Thank you for your thoughtful advice, Asclepias. Tachymètre (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

After a quick exchange with Johan (GeoHive owner), he confirmed me that he was the owner of these maps (although he didn't make all of them) and that he was ok with Commons hosting them. However, he wasn't willing to hold them anymore on his website, that's why we couldn't find them (besides that, some of these maps aren't current anymore, he said). Should I ask for an OTRS ticket, or is it already fine as it is now? Tachymètre (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Un ticket OTRS serait certainement utile. Cela éviterait que les utilisateurs soient de nouveau confrontés aux mêmes questions. C'est bien le but d'un ticket, de conserver une confirmation qui soit explicite, qui soit incontestablement conforme aux critères et qui provienne directement du propriétaire des droits. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

PD-self removal from upload form list

{{PD-self}} license is no longer available in normal upload form [9], only CC0 {{Cc-zero}} is available for self-created public domain works. As I understand it, the change was made by User:Multichill diff. Removing a widely used license PD-self transclusion count Cc-zero count from the list without wider discussion was, in my opinion, quite inappropriate. Has there been a consensus to favor CC0 over PD-self? MKFI (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, CC-0 supersedes PD-self; I can't imagine any case in which the latter would apply but the former could not be used. An uploader might have a specific beef against Creative Commons, I suppose. At any rate, I believe it was decided not to replace existing PD-self declarations with CC-0, but I'm having trouble figuring why we would need both in the dropdown. Powers (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am personally very happy with the present upload form. We should not be encouraging the use of terse, unclear license statements that have not been reviewed by attorneys, and if CC0 had existed when Commons was founded we probably would never have had a template PD-self. If you really want to use PD-self you can stick {{PD-self}} in the Permission box. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there was a discussion. As result of this discussion amateurish public domain dedication ({{PD-self}}) was replaced with professionally written one. Trycatch (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

About PD and CC-0: I don't mind PD not appearing in the list, but CC-0 does not supersede PD in every country. CC-0 has an explicit waiver of moral rights, and in France, for instance, moral rights still apply when a work is in the public domain (and a waiver of moral rights might even be invalid in France). This is why my second point is quite important to me: Could somebody, PLEASE, amend the French version of the licence description list so that CC-0 is not simply labelled "public domain"? There should be an explicit mention of the licence, just like in the English version. PLEASE. --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if any other upload dropdowns incorrectly label CC0 as public domain. Also, CC0 doesn't waive moral rights in France, because they're inalienable (which is why it reads "to the extent allowed by law"). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

World Wind layer

Is the "MS Virtual Earth Aerial" layer in World Wind a PD-compatible layer?--GrapedApe (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Or at least, I'm sure Microsoft or one of their data sources claims copyright on that layer. Whether it's possible for satellite imagery to be copyrightable is kind of an open question in general. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institute = public domain?

The Smithsonian Institute "is functionally and legally a body of the federal government" (per w:Smithsonian Institution#Administration). Thus we have the template {{PD-USGov-SI}}. And yet they have a copyright policy that requires attribution and doesn't allow derivatives for certain images: [10] ("You may not remove any copyright, trademark, ... [etc.] that are placed in or near the... images"). Does this mean that the SI has placed a false copyright notice up? To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised (museums are zealously protective of copyrights, even when they're not applicable, e.g,. {{PD-art}}). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, anything they produce is in the PD. However, if someone else, like a contractor, produces something and gives the copyright to them, they can have a copyright. And if they're hosting someone else's work, the original owner still has copyright. I think the SI has gone out of their way sometimes to conflate the three groups, to make it harder to reuse their work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Prosfilaes has said it is important to note that not everything *at* the Smithsonian is free of copyright so taking an image only of something under copyright would make the image a derivative and most likely out of scope for use here. Not only that but, as Prosfilaes pointed out, an image in question may not have even been taken by an employee of the Smithsonian. That is another issue that has been coming up lately, both here and at Wikipedia. The "old" saying that "Just because you found it on the internet doesn't mean it is free" applies to material found an State and government websites as well. Have a look at DMCA take-downs of fair use and US-Gov-PD images for more details. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Painting on a curved wall

Hey all, one of the Google Art Project works, File:John Vanderlyn - Panoramic View of the Palace and Gardens of Versailles - Google Art Project.jpg, is painted on a curved, semicircular wall. The original upload shows this curvature; it was modified by User:Amada44 to depict it as a flat work. What I wonder is whether this is sufficient to meet the requirements of PD-Art or not (that the work involve no creative input from the photographer). Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what our official position on it is. In my estimation, the painting is a two-dimensional work that just happens to be applied to a curved surface. If you choose the proper coordinate system, it's flat! That makes it eligible for PD-Art in my opinion. Powers (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Dcoetzee is driving at. I think he is asking whether the effort put in by Amada44 in manipulating the graphic so that the original curvature is no longer so obvious is enough to enable him to claim an independent copyright in the work. It's borderline, but I'd say no. However, more extensive manipulation of an image beyond cropping or deskewing might be sufficiently creative to require the editor to license the manipulated version of the image to the Commons. Nothing I have said so far changes the position that photographing three-dimensional works is a creative process because of the need to select the right camera angle, lighting, and so on. Thus {{PD-Art}} cannot be applied to photographs of artworks that amount to two-dimensional images on three-dimensional surfaces; the photographers must explicitly license their photographs to the Commons under free licences. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I'm asking. My concern is whether it is possible for any artwork painted on a curved surface to be eligible for PD-Art, since the policy as written only applies to two-dimensional works, and it seems like any two-dimensional rendering of a curved work implies some creative choices on the part of those creating the image (which in this case is a combination of both Google's work and Amada44's - if I could solve this problem by asking Amada44 to license his retouching that wouldn't be a problem at all). Is the deskewed work actually devoid of creative choice, or does it represent a particular creative choice? Dcoetzee (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The original work is oil on canvas and canvas is 2D by nature. Amada44's version is a faithful representation of the original 2D work. The creative element in Google's work was in the choice of angle and lighting of the surrounding environment, and it's lost with deskewing, just like with cropping creatively lighted 3D frames of other paintings. --M5 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I've deleted the original file revision now and I think there's consensus about it remaining. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)