User talk:Clindberg

Welcome to the Commons, Clindberg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Cosplay

Do you happen to know of any references that might help me on this, other than the various Lucasfilms cases in the US and UK? --MichaelMaggs (talk)

(un)deletion of some of our files

Many thanks for your help and suggestions. We will proceed accordingly. With best, ESDC Secretariat

Help ...

Hello ... Pls Delete all Old & New version of this file

commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harminder_Singh_official.JPG

• Harminder Singh official.JPG

Thanks :)

« Wemmick's Castle »

Thanks for the information. You're absolutely right. The best thing is to remove the file from Commons. It's not all that important, since it's not a genuine illustration. Personally, I'm deleting from the article Les Grandes Espérances. Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Clindberg⧽: العربية, български, Deutsch, English, ‎français, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎മലയാളം, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska, اردو, 中文

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 7 February 2014. Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

VPC

Hopefully you took my comment in the spirit it was meant, as a 'teasing' joke. What you said was quite apt, just a bit of a 'wall of text'... I try to keep things friendly.. the OP's comment was rather not, so a bit of a digression seemed in order. Revent (talk)

Oh, no offense taken ;-) That's hardly my worst example of a stream-of-consciousness wall of text reply on here either... I have some pretty long ones sometimes ;-)

FYI

this got archived within hours. :-( Missed it?

Datawrapper.de

I need an expert opinion again.

Is the answer in this section of their FAQ sufficient to meet the requirement for a free image license acceptable by the Commons?:

• https://www.datawrapper.de/faq/#can-i-use-my-charts-in-a-commercial-product-or-publication

I have been communicating by email with them. I asked them to stop by here. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is David from Datawrapper - let me know in case there's anything we can do to clarify the copyright/licensing questions regarding graphics created with the tool. We'd be very happy to see it in use here. -- David —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.151.187.212 (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Hey, thanks for the note. I may not have time to look at this in-depth for a few days, maybe until new year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this yet? :) --Timeshifter (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: (and David from data wrapper) :-) -- In looking, the terms seem OK for charts, as the FAQ notes that the users own the full copyright to the charts, meaning there is no copyrightable expression from datawrapper in the result, so the users can license things as they wish.

Just to point out though, I believe that also means that datawrapper has no grounds to sue anyone other than the user of the site, who presumably agreed to the terms of service, which is a contract between datawrapper and that person specifically. If that person offers something under a free license, they really cannot further enjoin other users who use it from Commons. So, enforcing the "Created with Datawrapper" may be difficult or impossible. The user could make that part of the information they want reproduced as part of their Creative Commons terms I suppose, but in the past Commons has preferred to remove watermarks from the image itself and put the information on the image page (see Commons:Watermarks). There is a court case in Germany which ruled that doing so with a copyright notice violated the Creative Commons license, but (given the other rights to modify stuff given in the licenses) it's not clear that would be true everywhere. Secondly, the Created with Datawrapper is not related to copyright, so it's not really part of a copyright-protection scheme. The uploader could mandate that "Created with Datawrapper" at least be on the image page, but that is up to the uploader. If something allegedly violates the terms of the contract, that is between datawrapper and that user -- Commons would generally keep the uploads unless the uploader themselves asked to change something. Commons cares just about the copyright specifically, which it sounds like datawrapper would have no rights to, in the case of charts.

When it comes to maps, datawrapper almost certainly does own copyright in parts of the maps. Users may have a contractual ability to use their derivative works per what they have paid for (or terms of service when they have not), but anyone else would have no more than a fair use right for them. So, I don't think those can be licensed freely for upload here, unless datawrapper makes such downloaded content available under a free license themselves (such as CC-BY-SA). I don't see anything like that in the FAQ or the site terms (which is of course perfectly understandable). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent an email to David at Datawrapper.

The discussion at Commons talk:Threshold of originality#MapChart.net is relevant for map copyrights.

CC-BY might work better for Datawrapper's interest in getting its name out there. Attribution (the BY part) would be required. Though that attribution could be satisfied with a link back to Datawrapper.de from the image description page here on the Commons. I could make another template similar to this one: {{mapchart.net}}. This would allow users at Datawrapper, or here on the Commons, to do anything they want with derivative images as long as they attribute the original image to Datawrapper.

CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA. The 2 Creative Commons (CC) licenses accepted here on the Commons.

The 2 templates are much easier to understand: Template:Cc-by-4.0 and Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bassano Ltd files from the NPG

Hi, Carl Lindberg. I read your comment here and so was surprised to see the file kept without any consideration for its US copyright. On the strength of that decision, the uploader has now requested that all of the Bassano Ltd files s/he uploaded be undeleted, and has garnered unexpected support. However, it seems to me that only those that were PD in the UK as of the URAA date are eligible for undeletion. Am I missing something? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Happy New Year! --Rrburke (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be an argument between User:Jcb (who seems to dislike all of the EU anonymous tags and will often delete even though works clearly seem to qualify) and User:Yann (who will undelete those but also often ignores URAA-restored status when doing so). Both generally good admins, particularly Yann, but they have those particular points of view and likely no budging them. Anything published before 1926 should be OK for Bassano stuff though, if no authors are named. The prints are often fine, but the ones based on the negatives donated in 1974 get more difficult for me unless there is some other indication of making available to the public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A great many of the files in Category:Bassano Ltd are later than 1926. It's not clear to me how the issue of their URAA-restored US copyrights can simply be disregarded. --Rrburke (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It was disregarded for a time (when there was a pending case before the Supreme Court), so we didn't delete them but instead added the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, though after the ruling we are supposed to apply it (provided we have documented what the actual terms were on Jan 1 1996; for example France did not extend to 70pma until 1997). But the UK is pretty straightforward; they restored their stuff the same day as the URAA. However, a couple admins still prefer the policy we had during the court case, even though it's been years now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Aph.John Curtin Official Portrait.png

Hi, Carl. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the copyright status of this 1947 official portrait of Australian Prime Minister John Curtin by Antonio Dattilo Rubbo (1870-1955). As with other official portraits, presumably it was commissioned by Australia's Historic Memorials Committee. As a work created "under the direction or control of, the Commonwealth or a State"[1], I further presume it is subject to Crown copyright. In that case, if it was ever published, its Australian copyright expired in 1998, fifty years after its creation[2]. If it wasn't ever published, then, as I understand it, it was copyrighted right up to January 1, 2019, when the provisions in the Copyright Amendment Act 2017 regarding unpublished works came into effect, rescinding their indefinite copyright[3].

I'm less confident about its US copyright. In the case that it was never published, I presume it doesn't qualify as a "work made for hire" because its creator is an independent contractor and not an employee under the general common law of agency, and it also doesn't fall under any of the other definitions of a work made for hire under 17 U.S.C. § 101. Is the term then 70pma even though the creator was never the copyright holder?

And if it has been published (abroad only, without compliance with US formalities), is its US term 95 years after publication date if publication was before 1978, and 70pma if after? --Rrburke (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Australian Crown Copyright artistic works which are not photographs or engravings last 50 years from creation, with no provision for publication. Subject to the next succeeding subsection [regarding engravings and photographs], copyright in an artistic work of which the Commonwealth or a State is the owner, or would, but for an agreement to which the last preceding section applies, be the owner, continues to subsist until the expiration of 50 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the work was made. Literary, dramatic, and musical works (when Crown Copyright) explicitly say they retain infinite copyright when unpublished. Crown Copyright engravings and photographs say they are protected 50 years from publication, I guess implying that unpublished ones keep copyright. Australia is aggressive about converting stuff to Crown Copyright -- anything made under direction of the government, or even first published under direction of the government, become Crown. The UK did away with that stuff in their 1988 Act but looks like Australia still has them, and certainly did in 1947. If it is Crown Copyright, {{PD-AustraliaGov}} says their copyright expires worldwide, so it would be effective PD-author for the United States I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Thomas Hart Benton - Achelous and Hercules - Smithsonian.jpg

File:Thomas Hart Benton - Achelous and Hercules - Smithsonian.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. 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!

Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)