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

• File: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

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?

China FoP - Cropping out photo to use as a copy of the original

Hi Carl. After reading your comment at Help Desk, I would like to get your opinion on this image: File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg, which is a photographic copy of an outdoor painting in China and appears to be an abuse of FoP. I and other users have DRed it several times but it has been kept. Is it worthwhile trying to fight for its deletion one more time? Any comment on this is much appreciated! --Wcam (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that such photos compete with the original, and as such prejudice the original author's rights (as mentioned in the Berne Convention, and Article 21 of the regulations. On the other hand, article 22 of the actual law does list "copying" of works on public display as OK. I'm sure that particular portrait is iconic enough, and has been copied so extensively, that there isn't too much risk of a copyright lawsuit. While that really isn't a valid reason to keep by policy, and I would lean delete on that image, it's probably not worth bringing it up in a fourth DR. The last DR pretty much had all the arguments, which we could not add anything to, and it was kept in the end. If the artist's estate filed a DMCA takedown, it would get deleted I'm sure. If there is a new legal development (court case or something) which bring up some new arguments or solidify older ones, possibly start a new DR then. But not without bringing up an argument which was not previously discussed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! --Wcam (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wcam: I have discussed this on your talk page last year, but you did not respond. I was severely excoriated by Reke this year (see: 戶外藝術品著作權), because he thought I didn't ask anyone. No matter what I explain to him, he'll not listen. What's worse is that now he still thinks it is my fault and used threats to force me to do what he said (see: I woke up from a nightmare this morning...I was driven away from Wikimedia Commons by Reke). Can you help me explain to him?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan FoP - Image for painting in Taiwan's temple to use as own work of Commons user

I know I have asked the question about "FOP Taiwan" 24 days ago, but you and Reke only talk about murals or outdoor wall painting. I read Reke said on my talk page, he only cares about I submit that the photo for outdoor wall painting to COM:DR because he think that this practice should be stopped immediately. I explained to him that the problem should be solved from the FOP Taiwan policy and the community should discuss on that, but instead of listening to me, he accused me of evading responsibility. Actually, I have discussed about the policy on Wcam's talk page last year, but the difference is I talk about all images for Taiwan's temple arts and not this image: File:Memorybank2019-萬安國小振興分校.jpg. Because painting is widely and commonly used in Taiwan's temples. For example:

• Door: File:尖山顯濟殿｜門 太監門 (5).jpg
• Beam: File:大關口觀音廟 04 橫樑彩繪.jpg
• Ceiling: File:南甲海靈殿 03 天花板彩繪.jpg
• Indoor wall: File:2019 五德威靈宮 (8)公館彩繪.jpg
  

The problem is that COM:FOP Taiwan clearly states: "Not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works". It has been changed by Reke since I submitted this image: File:Memorybank2019-萬安國小振興分校.jpg. I don't feel it appropriate to make such a change without discussion with the community on Commons. I request review of this situation again, and assistance in dealing with the issue of the FOP Taiwan policy for the images for temple painting.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That is the question. I'm not sure there is any support for the "2D" part of our previous wording in the law itself -- paintings, murals, and sculptures would all seem to come under the definition of "artistic works" in the law. Part of the issue was that we interpreted clause 4 as a general non-commercial clause, which made murals not OK. But the interpretation Reke found would seem to indicate that probably only head-on photos which show only the painting, i.e. which could be deemed "copies" instead of derivative works, would be an issue there, since photos of buildings with outside murals were OK to sell as postcards, meaning clause 4 must be more narrow than how we had interpreted it before. Your first photo up there looks to be on the outside -- I don't think it matters if it's on the outside part of a door, a wall, or whatever, just that it's on the outside of the building. Not sure about the second one, if that is outside. The latter two are more problematic, it would seem. I think indoor photos of buildings in general are fine if it's just the architectural work -- but photos of artistic works on indoor walls would seem to be outside the FoP scope. The second question is how old are those indoor wall / ceiling works. If anonymous or corporate-owned, and more than 50 years old, they may be OK that way.

FoP deletions are always among the most contentious; since most such non-commercial uses are legal around the world, people aren't expecting problems uploading them, and it's always upsetting to have your work and effort uploading them eliminated -- plus, as here, there could be law interpretation problems (there are relatively few court precedents on such photos to help us, meaning people almost never get sued over them in the first place). People uploading copyrighted photos is a far bigger problem for Commons than these FoP situations, which are more on the edge of copyright law. If that is the only type of work you are putting up for DRs they may feel you are more hunting and targeting them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you tell Reke the above. And you said: "They may feel you are more hunting and targeting them". Who are they? Taiwanese users? When I discussed the issue of the FOP Taiwan policy with Reke but his response was: One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has no firm rules (translated by Google). At this point his attitude towards FOP has become clear enough but in addition he even states explicitly: "這個規則一查文獻就知道錯了，智慧局出版品上明確寫出拍攝牆上彩繪無需授權，你什麼都不查。我們就算明白規定如此，也會努力先去查清來龍去脈。" What he meant was: "We can find that COM:FOP Taiwan is wrong by searching information about the Copyright Law of Taiwan. 智慧財產權月刊 was clear written that wall painting do not require any permission to takeing pictures. Even if we know what is written in the policy, we still think you (Kai) should search it on the internet first, but you didn't. Instead, you submitted that the photo to COM:DR." So, I could practically feel his hostility towards me. If you know what I am talking about, you should be able to feel my pain on this. No one wants to be a problem maker because my purpose of discussing COM:FOP Taiwan is to solve the problem. That's why I need your help to improve the policy.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, there is a more serious problem with COM:FOP Taiwan may cause new problem: If all images of 2D art work should be deleted per the policy on FOP, it would be a widespread disaster to all of Taiwanese users. Because too many people have such images. They don't understand what FOP is and they might never even heard about it. Outdoor walls as a painting surface, where such art works are common in Taiwan and became especially popular after 2000s. However, the problem is not only outdoor painting, but also indoor painting such as I mentioned above the issues of Taiwan's temple arts on FOP (painted door, painted beam, painted ceiling, painted indoor wall, etc). In my view, the images for painting art works in Taiwan are a particularly pressing problem on FOP.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

About Judgefloro's claim of "extinctive prescription" for RA 8293

Hello Clindberg. Sorry for another trouble. Judgefloro has claimed in his defenses against no FOP in the Philippines, like this contemporary Waltermart Mall of Plaridel, Bulacan and Jose Paua Monument from 1989, that the copyright law contains "4-year extinctive prescription" and that "from 2016 uploading, any and all photos of Commons can no longer be deleted much less be brought to the Special Court even by the creator artist or assigns of the artist sculptor...." Personally I heard the so-called extinctive prescription for the first time, even claiming that American copyright law has 3-year extinctive prescription. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

U.S. copyright law does have a three-year statute of limitations. I guess it's four in the Philippines. However, the existence of a photo here is ongoing exploitation -- the limitation would just mean that three years after deletion (or otherwise stopping exploitation of a work) that you could no longer be sued over it. Our question for uploads is more about policy -- if someone who creates a new exploitation using it could get sued, then it's not "free". So no, that aspect really isn't relevant for us. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Artwork inside Philippine museums

Hello again Carl. Can some extracts or the interpretation of this IPOPHL article about Philippine museum artworks be incorporated too at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't see anything specific in there. What did you have in mind? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought that there is some wording there that would state that museum artworks might be copyright-protected. Anyway, can I add IPOPHL-Bureau on Copyright and Related Rights' reply on their November 30, 2020 FB post (seen at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Retroactivity of Philippine RA 8293 for FOP-reliant works), about government works. To quote:

The fact that the government owns a work does not necessarily mean that it is not covered by copyright law. Section 176.3 of the IP Code states that, “the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it x x x x.” In other words, while Government works do not enjoy copyright protection, it may enjoy copyright protection over works transferred to it.

Section 178.4 of the IP Code provides that copyright over commissioned works remains with the author/creator but the work itself shall be owned by the person or entity who commissioned the work.

Though it was just a reply from IPOPHL-Bureau on Copyright and Related Rights. And I'm not sure if I'll put this on section about Government works or Freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible that works are copyright-protected, but not simply because they are in a museum -- it would be if their author died less than 50 years ago. The copyright status does not change when the owner does, unless the owner explicitly releases it to the public domain. Like PD-USGov, the lack of government copyright is only for works authored by employees of the government -- if copyright exists on a work, that doesn't change if the government later comes into ownership of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Pre-1989 country of origin

Hello, sorry I didn't get back to this conversation before it got archived. You seemed to be suggesting that the country of origin can retroactively change as countries join the Berne Convention? Is there any authority to support that? It seems to me that this rule, if it were true, would have caused a great extinguishment of many copyrights in Berne countries in 1989. Consider a book written in England by an English author, published simultaneously in 1960 in England and the U.S., and for which the U.S. copyright was not renewed. If the U.S. accession to Berne applies retroactively, then the U.S. became the country of origin in 1989, because it provided the shorter copyright term at 28 years. Since the U.S. copyright expired in 1988, the author suddenly loses their copyright in all the other countries that follow the rule of the shorter term. So wouldn't the consequences of this retroactive rule be quite contrary to the intent of the Berne Convention to guarantee at least 50 pma? Toohool (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, yes. However, I don't think the "shortest term" calculations would involve the old U.S. notice and renewals if simultaneously published -- it would be 95 years from publication only, I think. So for your example, only if the author died after 1985 would the U.S. be the country of origin, and even then, the "shorter term" probably would not expire until 2056. Even the 95 years is a bit odd because that was a compromise during the Uruguay Round of talks; the nominal U.S. term is 70pma, other than corporate works, which remain 95 years from publication -- so it's possible 70pma would be used for calculating the country of origin (and certainly would for any 1978 or later works). I'm not sure there have been any rulings on this kind of thing, which leaves a lot of possibilities open, but the act of joining the convention should have *some* effect. Certainly, the plain wording of the convention does get "interesting" in these situations -- but there is nothing in there that says the country of origin, or term to use in the calculation, is cemented at the time of publication. The UK was 50pma then. If a country joins Berne, can it really not be the country of origin for any of its previously-published works, since they were a non-Berne country at the time, if they were also published in non-Berne countries? What would be the country of origin of works published in Czechoslovakia? If a country of origin changes their law to extend the copyright terms, should that have no effect at all on existing works? Keep in mind that getting countries to increase their copyright terms is the main idea behind the rule of the shorter term in the first place -- it's an incentive to get increased protection in foreign countries, which they would not if the calculation term was frozen at the time of publication. By that logic then, the country of origin could then certainly change in simultaneous publication situations if a country increases their own term. For example if an author published in a country which went from 50 to 70pma, plus say India, why wouldn't the country of origin change to India, given that the first country was only the country of origin by virtue of being shorter than India? Or would the shorter term of 50pma still apply even though that is no longer the term in either country? If the country of origin can change due to that sort of thing, I don't see any reason why it can't also change dynamically when countries join Berne. Or split apart, etc. Of course, that could supposedly bring something back *into* copyright in a country where the law didn't change at all. I suspect that existing exploitations would still be allowed in such a case, but that situation isn't really spelled out either.

It's the type of thing where you could get really different rulings based on the case or court. Sometimes, a judge will go with the most ridiculous interpretation, more as a message to legislators to fix the ambiguity themselves rather than leaving it to courts. I think there have been a couple U.S. cases where it was a question if works published on the Internet were simultaneously published in all Internet-connected countries, or just the main country of the website in question (or the country where the person was when they uploaded it). One case ruled for global simultaneous publication, one did not, if I recall. I'd have to look those up to find them. In general though, by the written rules, the country of origin can jump around some, so I don't see why the U.S. (or any other country) joining Berne wouldn't cause some to jump. In the end, the simultaneous publication situation is probably rare enough so that politicians can ignore it, even if there are weird results sometimes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwanese FOP Problem-Aftermath

Kai3952 contacted me again regarding the problem of Taiwanese FOP. To determine appropriate actions, I have read through your comments on the HD discussion thread. However, I'm not sure about what is your exact opinion regarding the issue, besides from the factor of de minimis.
I'll be grateful if you can summarize your viewpoint and opinion to me, so that I can explain some more authoritative opinion to the stakeholders, and determine follow-up actions (such as opening a amendment discussion on COM:VPC, etc.). Many, many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

By the text of the law, I think we had always assumed there was at least a non-commercial restriction on FoP in Taiwan. Japan has much the same wording in their law, and we have had a similar interpretation there. Of course, it's always possible we are reading the laws wrong, which can especially happen when we are going by an English translation and not the native text. Reke's finding of a government opinion was pretty persuasive to me, that we had been reading the law incorrectly -- that pretty clearly says that commercial use of photos of buildings with graffiti (and therefore murals) on them would seem to be OK, in which case our interpretation must have been wrong. So, I was mostly OK with the changes to policy that Reke made. I assume that Kai3952 had been nominating a number of works for deletion under the original policy text. FoP deletions are always controversial, especially of buildings, since we hardly have any court precedence that such things are really a problem, and none in Taiwan -- so such deletion requests do tend generate anger, even in places where there are some precedents. It can conflict with typical practice in a country, or people think it's OK since all non-commercial uses are OK and that is mostly what they see. Without court case interpretations, we have to judge the wording in a law based on similar wording in other laws. The most effective way to argue against our interpretation is to find some court precedents, or at the very least some significant legal opinions, which Reke did for Taiwan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)