Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NASA Space Science Data Center and NASA-PD

I've noticed since researching the Chang'e 1 image (see post above) that a specific NASA website, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov is being used as a source for a considerable number of copyright violations/non-free imagery. The site hosts images of non-NASA spacecraft, (for example, photographs of Soviet spacecraft), our editors go there and see the image hosted on a NASA URL, upload it here on Commons, and slap a NASA-PD tag on it. Aside from recognizing and being aware of the issue, Is there anything we can do to help inform our editors that hosting on a NASA site does not necessarily mean NASA-PD? Geogene (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a good observation. I'm beginning to wonder if NSSDC shouldn't be specifically prohibited as a primary image source, since it seems to provide an image for all spacecraft without attempting to provide any kind of attribution. Sure, any number of pictures there are likely PD-NASA, but we have no way to determine at a glace where any given image came from. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media without a license: needs history check

I've been reviewing some of the now less than 1,500 images in this category and both fixing some and nominating some for deletion. However, about 700 of those files have no licence and, (without checking them all), never had one. The publication date is from 1877, so certainly {{PD-1923}} applies. They also appear to be all listed in this category Category:Русский энциклопедический словарь Березина том 4.2. Is there a bot or script that could add the appropriate licence without having to manually do this? Also all the images only give the source as Russian State Library without actually linking to the source document. Again without checking each on, this applies to all the files in the parent category too Category:Русский энциклопедический словарь Березина. Are there any automated or semi-automated solutions for these images? Ww2censor (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-1923}} isn't enough, because Commons also requires that they be public domain in their source country. That can be tricky to determine, and is too hard to automate as far as I know. --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The chief editor died in 1800's and other anonymous contributors can use clause # 2 of {{PD-Russia}}. I can add those licenses. The problem is that many of the images were already deleted ( see here) and should be restored. --Jarekt (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
This case is an easy one: it falls under {{PD-RusEmpire}}, as Russian Empire was the source country. Thus all files from Category:Русский энциклопедический словарь Березина are in public domain — NickK (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am going through these. Removing obvious copyvios, and out of scope images first will help. Yann (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks for working on this so quickly. Category:Media without a license: needs history check has such a backlog but is now down to 700+ from 1,500+. There are now just over 50 left. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

FOP for WWI and WWII memorials in France - mass delete?

On the heels of two recent discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-12#Files_in_:Category:Beaumont-Hamel_Newfoundland_Memorial is it now the view than unless crown copyright status can be proactively shown through a document (I expect that to be impossible) than any most images of WWI and WWII memorials in France should be removed from the Commons? This would likely result in the removal of notable amount of material located under Category:World War I memorials in France and likely everything under Category:World War II memorials in France. Would those monuments raised by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission continue to be acceptable?--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You have to take into account two factors: if the creator died for more than 70 years (possible for WWI), and if the monuments have a copyright (simple ones don't, possible for WWI and WWII). Additional, many images are not concerned in these categories (US-gov pictures, etc.). I wouldn't do a mass delete for the the whole category, but case by case. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd advice against mass deletion as well. Copyright law is very complex in most countries, including France, and it would be interesting to see what an inventive professional French copyright lawyer would put up as a defence if, for example, a sculptor's heirs took members of a local French community to court for taking photographs of their local war memorial, which their grandfathers had paid to have erected. Case by case would surely be most appropriate. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a clarification on what Yann said, just because a photo is USGov doesn't mean it's necessarily free of copyright. If they take a photo of a modern French building, they have to abide by FoP rules as much as we do. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, our FoP rules are more or less self-imposed, because legally we would be required to only follow US law. So, the US government doesn't have to obey French FoP laws if they do not publish in France. darkweasel94 11:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
But as Commons exists to serve the whole world, not just the good ol' US of A, we have to abide by the copyright laws of both the source country (in this case France) and the country in which the servers are hosted (which happens to be the United States). We do it to make Commons a better resource (even if it is a bloody nuisance at times), not as some masochistic ritual. Images that comply with US copyright law but not the law of the source country can of course be uploaded locally to individual projects if they are needed in articles (subject to each project's own policies, of course). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we have to, because we have imposed this rule on ourselves. Whether that is good or not, is not what I wanted to discuss here - all I wanted to say is that the US government might well publish stuff that is FoP-problematic in France, and still not break any laws that apply to them. darkweasel94 12:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Are the standard war memorials in every village considered as creative works? I doubt it. They all look the same and have the same layout. The sculptures may be made by a local artist and be protected, but certainly the list of names. The same as a standard appartement building is not considered creative work and be fotographed and published.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Case by case determination seems to be the desired route. I've submitted three test examples, all memorials raised by national governments or in the case of the CWGC, sponsored by a collection of national governments but still FOP France. See:
Do provide comment.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The conclusion reached by Jameslwoodward in all three cases was to delete. Consequently, I'll put the images of most of the commonwealth war grave commission memorials and American memorials in France up for deletion in the coming days. A very disappointing conclusion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I wish you had waited a bit to allow some more discussion here before going ahead with that mass deletion nomination (how many images did you nominate?). One of those deletion discussions had three keeps (with reasons given for keeping) and no deletes. What was the point in having the discussion if it was going to be closed as delete? Also, for at least one of those discussions, the deleting admin's rationale included an incorrect attribution of ownership for the memorial. I will bring that up on the admin's talk page. I don't think anyone really knows what the status of these memorials is as regards French FoP laws. Is there a way to get an opinion from professionals who deal with copyright issues in this area? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Spirostachys africana

Can i use the picture on [1]? The license is called: No Rights Reserved. Greetings, --M. Krafft (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC) @User:M. Krafft: yes, it seems to indicate that the picture was released to public domain, so you would use a public domain copyright tag (and of course link to the source with the note as you did above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Valentin Serov PDF

I have a copy of this PDF. I found that I can extract pretty high-quality jpgs from this. Would these be uploadable under {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}, or am I missing something? I just want to be sure before going thru the trouble. This PDF contains Serov paintings we don't have, and others that we have inferior versions of. INeverCry 23:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why they wouldn't be uploadable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Serov died in 1911, so that all of them would be {{PD-RusEmpire}}--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both. I'll upload a few under PD-old-100/PD-Art, as Serov has been dead 100 years and PD-RusEmpire recommends this where possible. INeverCry 17:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Derivative work licensing

File:Jonquil flowers merged.jpg is a DW of File:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg and File:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg; the merger (published in January 2010) has GFDL (any) and CC-by-sa-3.0, while the originals (published in 2005) have GFDL 1.2. Two questions:

  1. When the originals were uploaded, they were tagged with {{User:Fir0002/20D}}, which at the time had a basic GFDL tag, allowing 1.2 or anything later. Do I understand rightly that the DW can be used under 1.3, since 1.3 was permitted for both source images when they were uploaded?
  2. Is it appropriate to add a 1.3 tag to the source images' description pages, since they originally included permission for 1.2-or-anything-later? A check of the personal permission template's history makes it seem as if the uploader basically attempted to revoke the anything-later for all the images he'd already uploaded with his personal license template.

If it's appropriate to add 1.3 to these two images, I assume it would be appropriate to add it to many or all photos that he uploaded with this tag before my "attempted to revoke" diff. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A GFDL 1.2 only flag don't allowed a GFDL 1.2 or later flag. File:Jonquil flowers merged.jpg has a false license. It must be corrected. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
But my point is that the image originally didn't have 1.2 only; it had 1.2-or-later. Had it been that simple, I would have changed the license on the DW. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe the originals are still licensed as GFDL 1.2 or later, despite the 2009 "attempted to revoke" edit, and so derivative works could indeed be licensed as GFDL 1.3. It isn't clear to me whether they can be licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, however, because I'm unsure whether the originals were included in the WMF's republishing of Wikimedia sites (including Commons) under that license. If they weren't, then attempting to publish derivative works under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license would terminate one's rights to license those works under the GFDL (with some possibilities for reinstatement), so this is an important point. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC).
Definitely cannot be CC-BY-SA. It's also pretty arguable there is not enough creativity there to support a derivative work at all, so there may be nothing additional to license, and each half of the picture just carries its original license (which are the same, so this file should probably just carry the same licenses. If you want to go with the license on the original upload, that could be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my confusion, Carl, but why can't it be cc-by-sa? Per COM:LU — point 1, it was licensed under 1.2-and-later; point 2, I don't believe we've ever permitted cover texts or invariant sections in our GFDL tag; point 3, it was uploaded 3+ years before August 1, 2009; point 4, if it were published elsewhere, it was uploaded to Commons 2+ years before November 1, 2008. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right, I see. Yeah... if we are going with the original license, that makes sense. I thought though we allowed uploaders to mark works 1.2-only during the relicensing to opt out basically, and I thought this author was one who did that -- the change to 1.2-only happened in January 2009 it looks like and the COM:LU text says we should use the state as of June 2009. I'd probably be reluctant to change the 1.2-only status, basically, and if those are indeed 1.2 only then this combination one is probably the same. It did not pre-date the change to 1.2-only on the source images either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw the license is "fixed" in the DW; but not in originals. Be bold. I like Fir's works; but no need of any personal preferences. (I don't know much about those "forced migration" though.) Jee 13:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

South Korea and COM:SIG

Hello, is there any advice confirming if Template:PD-signature applies to signatures in South Korea? Thank you. Cube00 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you posted a notification about your question at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the suggestion. Cube00 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd also try to contact KAFIL (Korea Association for Info-Media Law), an organization which is the parent organization to Creative Commons Korea. If you are really really lucky they might even reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think {{PD-text}} applies if sign is not complicate. (but, most korean sign is just writing his/her name, so....)--레비Revi 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Hym411. Do you think the South Korean signatures currently on Commons would be simple enough to be considering PD-text? Cube00 (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Contributions of user:Davidphenry

I think many of Davidphenry (talk · contribs) contribs should be nominated for deletion. He added a bunch of illustrations to artist bio "w:Ewa Kuryluk" claiming all to be own work, including magazine covers, artist's works, photos of the artists, etc. Without OTRS to prove s/he owns the copyright to most of the images, many will need to go, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a signature taken from a non-free source

I was going to upload a signature of Katharine Hepburn; I found an online auction site which is selling a fan letter, which has a digital scan of her signature. I can easily download the bitmap image from the auction site, extract the signature and make it into a svg. I gather from the proposed policy page Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag that the signature itself is not copyrightable. Does it matter that it comes from a non-free source? Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

French military foto

Hi. Prompt please. Are the files on this cite, section Chronologie du 3 juillet 1940, available under a free license? Made by French sailors, the author is unknown. Photos related to 1940. Publication date unknown. Sas1975kr (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a free license anywhere on that website. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
{{PD-Old-70}}? Sas1975kr (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know who the author is, you can't know they died at least 70 years ago - and if the photo is from 1940 it's pretty likely the author lived until 1944 or later. If you can find a place where it was published anonymously in 1943 or before, {{Anonymous-EU}} might work. darkweasel94 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this permission good enough for commons?

A number of images from the GCIS website of the South African government have been uploaded linking to this page as evidence of permission. This is a copy of a 2005 email and it only says that "you may use the photos on GCIS website", without explicitly allowing commercial or derivative use, as the attribution template does, or even explaining if 'you' refers only to Wikipedia/Wikimedia or extends to others as well. Can we accept it as a valid free licence for our purposes?--Underlying lk (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not enouugh. The permission is limited to the recipient of the email. --Martin H. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought so, I'll nominate them for deletion and see what happens. Thank you Martin.--Underlying lk (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Mimizane

User:Mimizane uses to upload pictures of the works of an artist, claiming the source to be "own work". Expect of the license statement, there is no verification, that this user is the actual copyright holder. The user has been asked about the copyright situation in September 2013, but did not react. There may be a copyright problem in this situation. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See now Commons:Deletion requests/Reproductions of Nina Staehli works by Mimizane. --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin statue (UK)

I have a couple of questions relating to photographs of the Yuri Gagarin Statue in the UK. I asked about this earlier here. This statue, based on an original in Russia, was unveiled in the forecourt area of the British Council at the Trafalgar Square end of the Mall in 2011. I took a photo of that event, but as the installation was not permanent the photos were deleted at this deletion request (a photograph of the statue being unveiled was OK because the statue is not visible there). A few days ago, I became aware that an article (linked above) had been created on the statue, and that two other photographs had been uploaded to Commons of this statue: 1, 2. Am I right in thinking that if those photographs are OK, then the one I uploaded in 2011 can be undeleted? Or do the photographs need to be of the statue in what is now its permanent location? The statue can be seen in its permanent location here where it was unveiled in 2013 (I have plans to go and take a photograph at some point). It does seem bizarre that if photographing something while it is not permanently installed is not OK under UK freedom of panorama rules, it becomes OK once it has been permanently installed. Do I have that right, that the 2011 photo was not OK back then, but now that the statue has been permanently installed elsewhere in 2013 the photo taken in 2011 suddenly becomes OK to use? Or is that not the case? (It would have been more confusing if the statue had been permanently installed in the place where it had only been granted a temporary license). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As daft and as bizarre it might seem I don't think they can be un-deleted because they were taken at a point when the statue was not on permanent display.
An interesting side point, the statue would appear to be a gift from Russia, there is no FoP in Russia (nor in the US) and following the Oldenburg DMCA and WMF response the new images could still end up being deleted. LGA talkedits 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Not that it is much consolation but there's a free photo at the new location here. Regarding DMCA, yes, if WMF received a takedown notice they would take them down. And there is not the remotest prospect that such a thing would happen. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I find that an interesting situation, we are hosting an image, we admit, if the copyright owner of the statue complained about, we would remove ..... Isn't that exactly what COM:PRP #1 meant to cover ? LGA talkedits 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think PRP achieves that at all. WMF invariably take down on DMCA request, don't they, regardless of the merits of the case? And Commons knowingly, and with WMF support, hosts images that break non-US copyright law (e.g. photos of 2D Art) and images that reusers could employ to break US non-copyright law (e.g trademarks). Thincat (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the WMF doesn't take down DMCA requests unless they find a colorable claim. Following non-US copyright law is policy, not law. And we have any number of images that reusers could employ to break US non-copyright law; photoshop someone's head on a nude for blackmail, or cut letters out for a ransom notice. It's not interesting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If we were to only consider US Law, all photographs of non-PD statues would have to be deleted as there is no FOP in the US (see Commons:Lex loci protectionis). LGA talkedits 07:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Either the US law would apply foreign FOP to the photographs, or we should delete them all. It's not something that I'm willing to push, but it's not something I buy as an argument, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The "permanent location" element can be a real trip hazard and it is unfortunate you got caught out on this one. The best perennial example being graffiti, as we are not even exactly sure whether "permanent" means "the entire life of the artwork being located in one public place" or not. On the whole, I'm am darn grateful for our lovely FoP rights in the UK, compared to other countries in Europe we have pretty good rights and in the case of this statue, thank goodness there is no debate to be had with it in a final location. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've uploaded the photo I mentioned above as File:Geograph-3624209-by-David-Dixon.jpg and included a cropped version at w:Yuri Gagarin Statue. Thincat (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Climatron Garden Glow-2013-12-27 1.jpg

After uploading this fine photo I got to wondering whether the institution has a restrictive photo policy. Alas, it does:

We welcome visitor snapshots; individual, family, engagement and senior class portraits; and other photography or portraiture intended for personal use only (i.e., not for commercial use).

Does that mean that this photo needs to be deleted? Go ahead and do so if that's the case. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a non-copyright restriction. I don't think it's problematic: you didn't make it for commercial use, and if a reuser uses it from here, they've never accepted these terms. darkweasel94 14:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You own the copyright to the photograph, and you licensed it, so there is no reason for us to delete it. Often, that kind of thing is to ensure that commercial shoots (with all of the lighting and other equipment) doesn't damage the premises. They might try to consider you subject to an implied contract in case of any non-commercial use, but I'm not sure there is precedent for that. It's really up to you, if you think they would not want such photos published here. If you want to delete it for those reasons, we would honor that request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that FoP applies here. Although the building is old enough for U.S. FoP copyright exemption, the photograph was taken on the grounds of the garden. There is a fee for admission, and I wouldn't think it's considered a "public place" unless I misunderstand what that means. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Two things: one, COM:FOP says "This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc.", and thus would presumably external places open to the public by admissions. (Globally, some nations explicitly include places with an admissions fee.) Secondly, it's not "old enough for U.S. FoP copyright exemption"; it's old enough to never have been covered by copyright, period. FoP simply doesn't come into play, and you never have to worry about its copyright in any way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Two more things; the U.S. copyright law has no prohibition about where the photographs are taken from. As long as the building is *visible from* a public place, then photographs of it are fine and are not derivative works (even if taken from elsewhere), by the wording in the law. (And yes, that building is old enough --before 1990 -- to not have any copyright protection at all anyways.) Second, yes typically "public places" would include those -- while not explicitly defined, there are some very close terms defined (such as performing a work "publicly"), and those use the definition of "where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered". Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Hello everyone, I could use some help from someone with more experience on Commons. A user on enwiki uploaded some files to Commons for use in an article without the correct copyright information. I asked them if the sourcing and copyright information was accurate, and they confirmed that it was not, and they would like to fix it with the correct information. As I do most of my work on the English Wikipedia, I'm not sure what advice to give or how to proceed. The files in question are here and here, and the enwiki talk page of the user in question is here. Novusuna (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on Shadowisahero's talk page and will tag the images on the basis that an OTRS verification will be sent. Ww2censor (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What does non-free use rationale imply?

Hello,

Would someone kindly enlighten me on the "non-free use" restrictions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hahn-Cock.jpg ? Does this actually imply taking photographs of this statue and uploading it to Wikimedia Commons (which I'd like to do sometime this year) is strictly prohibited, unless I manage to contact the artist somehow and get her permission? Is it generally forbidden to photograph contemporary art in public places now? I'm afraid I couldn't find any information on this issue here.

Thanks in advance,

Anglogermantranslations

Hoffentlich habe ich jetzt die richtige Stelle für meine Frage erwischt?

Basically... yes. Copyright not only protects the material an author produced, but also the "derivative works" made by other authors using the first author's work as a basis. One example of a derivative work is a translation of a book (the translator does own a copyright in the translation, but distribution is additionally controlled by the first author until that first copyright expires). Another example would be a movie made from a novel -- the book's plot is expression used in the movie, so the movie is a derivative work, and the movie makers must get permission from the book's copyright owner in order to distribute the movie. (Obviously in that case, the rights would be obtained before they ever get serious about making a movie about it.) And more pertinent to your question, is that photos of statues and similar copyrightable works have in several cases been ruled derivative works of the statue. Now... a number of countries have a limitation on that derivative right for works permanently installed in public, allowing photos of such to be distributed without any permission from the underlying work's author. Germany is one, and actually the UK is another, though the U.S. is not. For more details on this limitation, see Commons:Freedom of panorama or de:Panoramafreiheit. We have generally been allowing photographs which that limitation applies to. Unfortunately for this case, the limitation usually applies to works permanently in public, and that is the problem here. Even though it's scheduled to be there for 18 months, that means it's not considered "permanent" and thus does not qualify for the limitation, so we presume that full derivative rights apply. If it ever stays there past those 18 months with no scheduled date of removal, the situation might change. But until then, the photograph would be considered "non-free", unfortunately. While a great many uses of the photo would fall under fair use (say, putting it up on your own non-commercial website) there would be uses which would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Adaptions

Are trivial changes to a Work construed as an adaption when it comes to "free licenses" like CC Licenses? I ask becasue I have taken an image on Commons and modified it somewhat. I am not certain the modifications meet the normal threshold for originality but may meet the threshold for being considered an adaptation with regards to CC licenses. 131.137.245.208 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution This is a good attribution for material from which you created a derivative work: "This work, "<title of your work>", is a derivative of "<title of original work>" by <name of original author>, used under <license>. "<title of your work>" is licensed under <license you choose> by <Your name here>.
If you think your modification is not enough to consider an adaptation, See This is a good attribution for material you modified slightly: "<title of original work>" by <name of original author>, used under <license> / <modification from original> CC suggests to mention any modifications we make even if it is below threshold for originality. Jee 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that was quite helpful, but it doesn't get me to understanding what is construed as an adpation according to CC licenses. If I just alter the white balance and crop an image is that a derivative, an adaptation or nothing much at all? If it is nothing much at all should I just upload it over the original as it is better and/or more usable? 131.137.245.207 17:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, that did answer my question, but it raises a new one. If removing a watermark is considered a minor change according to the Commons official guidelines you provided, which I did with the crop, then this is NOT an adaptation according to CC-BY-SA licenses? Did I get that right? 131.137.245.208 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are correct. A simple crop is not an adaptation (or a derivative) despite what is often argued here on Commons to support the removal of watermarks. Cropping does not generate a new copyright. If you are asking is it OK to remove watermarks the answer depends on who you ask. If you ask Commons it is fine, because we consider the so called moving of a watermark to be in line with the attribution elements of the CC license. If you ask a US copyright lawyer he or she will point out that it is a violation of the DMCA with respect to removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI). The lawyers will point out that moving the watermark from the file is removal of CMI given the intent is to enable re-use without the CMI. The lawyers will draw a clear distinction between CMI and Attribution. Generally speaking given the free culture bias on Commons anything you do to wrest copyright from a creator is considered a good thing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It is difficult to distinguish whether a small modification is an adaptation or not. But IMHO, it is not a big deal. The only advantage you get by calling your new work a adaptation is that you can insist the reusers to mention your name too in every reuse. In Commons, we discourage such practices (although I failed to find the page where I read it earlier). So I suggest you not to mention your name in simple crops even though they are separate uploads (preferred). Jee 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jee, I think you are sidestepping the issue of cropping a watermark, and that is what the IP is indicating it did. The most recent case law on this issue has made it clear that removing CMI in this way is a violation of the DMCA.[2] [3] The CC license does not trump the law here in that it only addresses attribution not CMI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry; I didn't see any comment regarding removal of watermark from that IP. It is better to wait as that matter is in the consideration of legal. Jee 05:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Talking to print shop employees

I recently tried to get http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png printed at a FedEx Office. They told me they couldn't, because of copyright, even before I had said anything about where it came from (it was on a CD). I explained it was licensed to allow for reproduction and showed them the license info on the image page with my smart phone as they are not allowed to view any web page on a workstation apparently. Still they refused. "You see, YOU are allowed to reproduce it (referencing You are free: as if it were directed at me alone), but we cannot, because we are making money off of it." I explained this was not actually part of the license, and was not indicated anywhere on the summary they were looking at, but in the end I gave up and left. Any advice?

Beyond submitting it to NotAlwaysWorking? If people don't understand licences, and choose not to, then you can't do much. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at the picture at https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/11306023 and see if the "attribution" copyright release is sufficient to allow it to be uploaded to Commons? The article about this ship has no picture. Thanks. HowardMorland (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Lupo 06:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Image has been released into the public domain by the owner.

I have been attempting to put up a photo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolie_Justus and people keep deleting it citing copyright violations. The photo I'm trying to put up is not copyrighted and is in fact owned by Jolie Justus who has given me permission to put the image up. The website listed in the editing history below does not own that image nor does any other website that has the image have it copyrighted. In fact the website openstates.org/mo/legislators/MOL000012/jolie-justus has a creative commons license which allows it's material to be redistributed and copied.

Would someone please tell me what I can do to ameliorate this problem?

Here are is the website:


2:55, 7 January 2014‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,466 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (Removing "Sen._Jolie_L._Justus.JPG", it has been deleted from Commons by Natuur12 because: Copyright violation: From [4].) (undo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jolie_Justus&action=history

The fact that Jolie Justus owns a physical copy of a photo does not make her the copyright holder. Only the original photographer can release his work into the public domain, so you would have to ask the photographer for permission. Please see COM:OTRS for more details. De728631 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Kühlewindt (1870-1945) | Bundesarchiv | CC-BY-SA 3.0

Hi, I just created Category:Alfred Kühlewindt and Creator:Alfred Kühlewindt. Kühlewindt died on January 30, 1945 (see last page of Das Ostpreußenblatt) so his works are not yet in the public domain and should be deleted and added to the appropriate undeletion category. Yet there's one special case involving File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R11236, August von Mackensen mit Familie.jpg from the Bundesarchiv. I would have brought this up at Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable licensing but the page doesn't seem to get much attention any more. The Bundesarchiv made this file available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 - I think it might be worthwhile to investigate how (and maybe if) the Bundesarchiv got the necessary rights to make this particular file available under a CC licence. The idea is that the Bundesarchiv's record might cover more than just this single image, eventually saving the others from 2 years of inaccessibility. Your opinions on this are highly appreciated. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more then 2 years; in the US, which is where Wikimedia servers are, works get 95 years of protection from publication, with works published before 1923 grandfathered into the public domain. So it's 5 years on up depending on when these works were published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
His works have no proper copyright notice and we don't know if they are published. Could you explain why you think they get 95 years of protection? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
One is a postcard published around 1914-1918. Four have clearly been published somewhere (and marked "Zensur genehmigt"); they've been taken in 1915 and most likely been published also around 1915-1918. Then there's the Bundesarchiv file taken in 1929; comes from a news service archive: unclear whether it was really published before the Bundesarchiv did so. Finally a steam locomotive published 1902. So all but one have been published pre-1923: these don't get any US copyright, and it's only the 70y p.m.a. we have to consider. For the Bundesarchiv file, Commons:URAA would indeed give it a US copyright of 95 years since publication if it was published. Lupo 08:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how they have "clearly been published". Their mere existence does not imply publication. However, I agree on the steam locomotive photo's publication status. So we might as well end up with none but one published pre-1923, based on information we can actually verify. If they have not been published and are no work for hire (which we also don't know) they'll enter the public domain on January 1, 2016. If they have not been published, but were works for hire, they'll enter the public domain on January 1, 2036 (for works created in 1915). If they have been published pre-1923 and don't have a proper copyright notice (which they don't as far as we can tell), they are in the public domain. If they have been published post-1923 they might also fall under copyright restoration, since Kühlewindt died in 1945 and his works were not in the public domain in Germany on January 1, 1996. If the 1929 photo was unpublished and a work for hire it enters the public domain on January 1, 2050. If it's unpublished and no work for hire it will enter the public domain on January 1, 2016. If it's published and subject to copyright restoration, 95 years of protection will apply, as you mentioned above. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Somebody printed those postcards. That's a publication.
Didn't find the two remaining ones, though. But somewhere they must have been published, otherwise how could the uploader have gotten these versions with the legends? He didn't have access to the original negatives or some such, but obviously to some publication. Furthermore I think it's rather likely that such publication occurred before the end of WWI. Lupo 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: Re: "Furthermore I think it's rather likely that such publication occurred before the end of WWI." Especially since they were cleared by a censorship office, which indicates to me that these were published during wartime. After the war, they wouldn't have had to be cleared, would they? In fact, I think that after 1918, there wouldn't even have been a body/an office in Germany to clear them. Lupo 21:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that printing postcards is - of course - a form of publication, there should be no doubt regarding this. - Regarding the Bundesarchiv matter, this licensing isn't more or less "questionable" than that of the majority of Bundesarchiv CC-BY-SA photos, I'd say. I think we usually just trust the assertion from the cooperation agreement with Wikimedia Germany "that the Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license" (as per Commons:Bundesarchiv) except when it's obviously implausible resp. when there's a tangible reason for suspecting they made a mistake, that's what Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable licensing is for. - An entirely different question is, by the way, whether the licensing of Bundesarchiv photos as a whole will be sustainable in the future, see above. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort Lupo and Gestumblindi. I think it will be worthwhile to continue research in this area. However I disagree on the issue of publication. Printing (i.e. creating) a postcard without making it publicly accessible (through selling, exhibition, etc.) is unlikely to be a publication under German or US copyright law. Other than that, the uploader could have had access to unpublished postcards, say from an archive. Either way, it seems we lack a reliable source to prove these possibilities. As for the Bundesarchiv file: its source is "Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst - Zentralbild (Bild 183)". Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst (General German News Service) was established in October 1946, a year after Kühlewindt's death. It seems like the Bundesarchiv had access to this photo (and attached rights?) through the ADN collection. The ADN might have had obtained the photo themselves or it could have been part of one of the companies' collections that formed the ADN. Mere speculation once again. The next step will involve contacting the Bundesarchiv for any further information regarding the publication and legal status of this photo.
The bottom line of this joyful endeavour is that having access to CC licensed content without having access to its provenance and legal history doesn't seem to be very smart.
Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if a postcard were only printed and the printed copies then stacked away in a closet, it wouldn't be published. But I think it's safe to assume that printed postcards were disseminated shortly after printing and that the the case of "printed, but unpublished" postcard is extremely unlikely. That only applies to "real" printed postcards, however. There existed another popular kind of postcard in the time of World War I, we could call them "personal postcards" - people using "postcard" photographic paper with postcard formatting (address lines) on the back to send personal photos to friends and family, usually only a few copies. Whether we could call postcards of this kind "published" may depend upon the definition of "publication" which isn't very stable, I think. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I also think it's evident that these postcards by Kühlewindt were not just printed and then stacked away, but actually published (offered to the general public). This is clearly the case for the Gloria-Viktoria Album, Serie 17/3: the whole point of these albums was to sell the images. And File:Memelbrücke.jpg, for instance, was very clearly in use as an actual postcard in October 1915: [8]. (Incidentally, that particular postcard was still in use in 1926...[9])
So, back to Category:Alfred Kühlewindt: yes, the images are not PD in the source country (Germany). They are under copyright there until 2015-12-31. So, except for the Bundesarchiv file, they should be updated with PD-1923 and PD-old-70, then deleted and marked for undeletion in 2016. For the Bundesarchiv file, we either blindly trust the archive's CC license, or you investigate more and either ascertain or debunk the claim and then either keep or delete it. Lupo 23:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the postcard at File:Eroberung von Warschau.jpg is a retouched version of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R42025, Warschau, Einmarsch deutscher Kavallerie.jpg. Lupo 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged all but the Bundesarchive files with {{PD/1923|1945}}. Apart from that I too think that all these should be speedily deleted and marked for undeletion in 2016. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, before deletion here they could be moved to the English Wikipedia and tag there as PD-US-1923-abroad. Lupo 16:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The pre-1923 ones (all except the Bundesarchiv files) are now at Commons:Deletion requests/Alfred Kühlewindt. Lupo 22:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and effort in researching more information about the publication status of Kühlewindt's works. Good to see that we moved on from mere assumptions to factual knowledge. Yet, I'm afraid that this is just another example amongst many other images on Wikimedia Commons and won't have much impact at large.
@Lupo I'm not sure what you mean by "retouched version". Looks this is only a different print of the same image.
Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The boy running across the scene in the foreground has been removed. Lupo 10:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Exit sign photo

Would a high-resolution version of this photo be acceptable on Commons? To be sure, it seems that the positioning of the luminous tubes in the letters of the sign is not that elaborate. Also, the text on the label underneath the sign appears unreadable even with a high-resolution photo. --Gazebo (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you take the photo, a copyright on the sign would not be a problem, at least in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes. The exterior of the sign is substantially the same as every exit sign in the U.S. for the last several decades, so both (1) too simple and (2) almost certainly pre-1978; either one makes it public domain. The tubes are uncomplicated letters themselves, and were placed where they are to center the light through the old-fashioned exit sign form, so (1) too simple and (2) derived from functional utility, and therefore not a copyright-eligible aspect in the U.S. --Closeapple (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:DerpTrolling logo 200x200.png

Can someone make a judgment as to whether or not this meets the threshold of originality and is eligible to be uploaded to commons? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it meets the threshold of originality, pretty strongly in my opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Old National Geographic Magazine issue.

Would a photograph taken from a 1931 National Geographic issue that I own be admissible in Wikimedia Commons or is it under copyright? Thanks for your help. --Lubiesque (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Works in the US published after 1922 are under copyright. There are a lot of exceptions, but National Geographic has made sure that they don't apply to their magazines. (Magazines after 2002 that have a photo by someone who died more then 70 years ago are the exception, but that's pretty rare.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Zgornje Rute.jpg: NC or free?

Hi, the image File:Zgornje Rute.jpg is ascribed the CC-BY-2.0 license, but the source site cites the CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 license.[10] Does this mean the license has been changed since the upload here or that the File Upload Bot didn't correctly recognise the license in the first place? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It is just a case of {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. --Sporti (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

US Navy images

I notice that many of the US Navy image source links don't work any more. I don't know how many as I have not checked but I think these image all use the {{ID-USMil}} template and there certainly seem to be more than 10,000. A very simple one word change in the link fixes it. The links are in the structure of this example: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=75285 is the current source link but it is now actually located at: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=75285. Is it worth while or even possible to just change the word "single" to "image" in all instances and can this only be done manually? Is this even something we should pursue? Ww2censor (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a job for a bot. The Yeti 09:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That's my feeling but I have no idea who could do it. Ww2censor (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done by User:LymaBot. More than 54,000 images were involved. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If there are future mass change jobs like this, feel free to raise them at Commons:Bots/Work_requests. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated image has been released with 2 differents license

Hi, first of all sorry for my bad English. I was moving it:File:Altare della patria di notte.jpg in Commons but I have to stop it. Look at those files: it:File:Altare della patria di notte.jpg and File:Milite Ignoto in Altare della Patria in Vittoriano in Rome.jpg: it's the same file, but they have been released with two differents licences by two differents authors (or by the same author? I don't know), in it.wiki and en.wiki. I can't see the cronology of the en.wiki one because it was deleted (the file which is in Commons now is the second one). PD licence vs. GFDL licence: anyone (who can see the cronology) can resolve this problem, fix the correct licence and then put the template "now commons" in the description of the file in it.wiki? This week I merged the informations in Commons, but you can undo my edits and fix it. I've begun a discussion also in the italian Village Pump, but no one has fixed the problem. Thanks.--84.223.249.179 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This file was uploaded at the English Wikipedia on 29 October 2006 by en:User:Codice1000.en with a PD-self license and no explicit source. Judging from the dimensions, it seems that he took the 2nd revision of Larky's photo from the Italian Wikipedia. It is strange though that neither version has any exif data. De728631 (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated image has been released by 2 differents authors

A similar problem with this file with two differents authors: File:PiantaCappella.png is a duplicate of it:w:File:PiantaCappella.png, but the author is not the same. I've merged the two history to show the problem. Can anyone fix it and purpose for speed deletion the duplicate in it.wiki? Thanks.--84.223.249.179 11:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It may look a bit confusing but now the attribution seems to be alright. The original creator was Hotepibre (Giuseppe) at it.wiki. Then this file was uploaded at en.wiki by Hohenloh who credited Hotepibre. And finally the file was transferred from en.wiki to Commons. But apparently the additional CC-by-SA 3.0 license was "invented" by Hohenloh when he uploaded the file at the English WP. It should be removed. The original upload text at the English Wikipedia was

== Summary ==

Plan of Cappella Sansevero, Naples, Italy. (Author: Hotepibre (Giuseppe); Soggetto: Pianta della Cappella Sansevero con indicazione delle opere maggiori; Software: Power Point; {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}) From Wikimedia Commons (Italian-language version)

== Licensing: ==

{{cc-by-3.0}}

De728631 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The it.wp file was deleted five days ago (log), so it's not possible to look at it. If the Commons file is an unmodified copy, the creator should be credited, not the copist. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Javanese font images

Surely all the Javanese fonts about 200 in all, such as File:Javanese la.svg, found at Category:Media without a license: needs history check, are not copyrightable and should be tagged {{PD-font}} but what about the country of origin: Indonesia? They all also appear to have a © symbol which I presume carries no validity. I doubt the uploader actually created the font themselves but perhaps just the files which are digital recreations of existing fonts. Maybe one of our language experts can chime in. Ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about this issue but I know who to ask. Try ask Chris or Benny. SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I missed the context of this discussion, so I couldn't commented on it earlier when I was pinged. After digging a bit, it turned out that the © logo in question has already been deleted (Template:JG Aksara Jawa), on 21 November, no less.

{{Attribution|text=Javanese font provided by Jason Glavy, available from http://www.reocities.com/jglavy/asian.html}}

The font was made by Jason Glavy who put this information in his website:

Note: The fonts on this page were created by me, Jason Glavy (unless otherwise indicated to the contrary). I own the copyright (see previous caveat). In reality, if you take them an use them for whatever purpose you wish, there isn't much I can do to stop you. I could ask you to send me money, but better than that, if you found these fonts of use, please give money to your local Church/Synagogue/Temple.If you aren't religious, then buy a homeless person some food. If you can't manage that, then just be nice to someone who you wouldn't normally be nice to.
Umm.....it seems that a number of people have accessed these fonts. I do request now, that if you use my fonts, please let me know what application you used it in and if it is used in a book, I'd very much like a copy, considerring I am offerring these font's for free..
Last Revised 16/Decr/2006

And from it's documentation:

© 2003 Jason Glavy, GlavyFonts

From technical perspective, the font was not Unicode font, and thus was pretty much useless in light of the recent development (in 2009 Javanese font already entered Unicode) other than as a visual comparison.

Personally I never used this font, and Wikimedia's ULS that I developed used R.S. Wihananto's Open-License-Font Tuladha Jejeg. If -- and that is a big if -- I have time, I'd prefer to replace the basic 20 letters in Category:Javanese SVG letters into Tuladha Jejeg (from Category:Javanese letters in Tuladha Jejeg font's PNGs, for example). If someone has a good skill of doing that would like to help, I'd offer him/her a big thanks. Meanwhile, feel free to ask me questions about Javanese script.

PS: While we're at it, the fonts in Category:Javanese letters in Hanacaraka font were mis-licensed. The ANSI-based (again, not Unicode) Hanacaraka/Pallawa by Teguh Budi Sayoga might had been uploaded by the user, but the font was not his as the license would imply. According to the font maker's disclaimer (in Indonesian): 

Jika Anda Mendownload dan menggunakan Hanacaraka Font berarti
Anda Setuju dengan ketentuan di bawah ini.

Batasan Penggunaan Hanacaraka Font

1. Hanacaraka font ini adalah Gratis berbatas, yaitu hanya boleh diinstall pada komputer pribadi dan tidak terhubung jaringan publik (intranet / internet).
2. Digunakanan untuk Penulisan teks dalam bentuk buku, karya tulis, skripsi, thesis, tulisan surat kabar/majalah, pamflet, lembaran informasi dengan mencantumkan nama hanacaraka font dan menuliskan nama website ini dalam referensi pustakanya.
3. Digunakanan untuk pembuatan disain Website/Weblog baik pribadi maupun instansi dan media publikasi internet lainnya dengan mencantumkan/menyediakan referensi Website ini.

Dilarang Dalam penggunaan Hanacaraka Font Family

4. memperjualbelikan baik secara langsung maupun tidak, dengan melalui transfer data maupun media penyimpanan data lainnya.
5. memodifikasi dan mengubah nama font, identitas, dan bentuk glyph font baik sebagian maupun keseluruhan dalam set character hanacaraka font untuk kepentingan komersil dan atau dipublikasikan kepada khalayak umum.
6. digunakan dalam pembuatan perangkat lunak (software) yang dikomersilkan, baik secara langsung maupun telah dimodifikasi.( Permintaan khusus sehubungan poin ini dikenakan perjanjian lisensi)

Hanacaraka Family adalah Hanacaraka dan HanacarakaJG font (tidak disertakan dalam versi ini) yang sebelumnya pernah kami kirimkan ke beberapa pengunjung website ini atau yang telah menyimpannya dan menyediakannya untuk didownload pada situs-situs pribadi/lembaga yang terlanjur menyediakannya sebelum adanya perjanjian ini. Perjanjian ini bersifat subyektif, tidak ada update berkala untuk versi ini dan jika anda tidak setuju dengan perjanjian ini mohon tidak menginstall dan menggunakannya.

The important disclaimer was #1 (no online usage), and #4/#6 (non-commercial license). Thus the font's are not suitable to be hosted on Commons.

I'd also like to invite @Alteaven: and @NoiX180: in this discussion to ask their opinion. Bennylin (yes?) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

PPS: See also previous discussion regarding the template on Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/10#Question_about_a_template.

  • I think Hanacaraka and JG Aksara Jawa are not preferable in the first place for several reasons, most notably the incomplete set of characters. Since both usage has been replaced with Tuladha Jejeg (except regarding font comparison), I see no dire reason not to delete them.Alteaven (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Image permission

For File:Timezone-logo-pfade-arecordcompany.png, we have a statement of permission at http://www.timezone-records.com/Timezone-Logos/. Does this qualify as good enough? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion that declaration is inadequate. It doesn't appear to clearly specify which free license applies to the Timezone logo and the language could be interpreted as restricting the use to WIkimedia Commons, which Commons considers to be a non-free restriction. —RP88 17:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to add this picture to Wikimedia Commons, but I have doubts whether it may be used or not. Can I pick your brains on this? Thanks! --Ricercatrice81 (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, You don't tell what your doubts are about. I'm guessing they may relate to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, but if not please develop the question. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Asclepias, thanks for your reply. My doubts concern the usage of the image. I mean, given it is on the Museum website, it is of course also downloadable; however, the Copyright symbol below the same image made me wonder whether it may be uploaded on commons or not. I have read that images cannot be uploaded when the original work of art is not in the public domain or if there is some specific license. I have no idea if these specifications apply to the painting at issue here. I have never uploaded any image on Commons, so I am completely lost in this licesing/copyright maze and I was hoping in some help from the Wikimedia-Commons veterans. :) Regards, --Ricercatrice81 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an Old Master found on the Internet, but there is an explicit notice of copyright claim says it's OK to upload. Larger version of that image from the same website. Lupo 18:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply, and thanks for the HD image! So, what license specification should I use when I upload the picture? I'm sorry if I bother you guys with these trivial questions, but I want to make sure I don't infringe any copyright policy or state that the image has a certain license when it isn't true. Thanks for your help! --Ricercatrice81 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to be hyper-correct with the license tag, use {{PD-art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1622}}. —RP88 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is East Wind Over Weehawken by Edward Hopper in the pd?

Can anyone tell how to find out if a particular painting is in the public domain? I need to know if Edward Hopper's East Wind Over Weehawken is in the pd, because I want to put it in the Boulevard East article on Wikipedia. All or most of the Hopper works seen on his category page, including his most famous work, Nighthawks, are in the public domain, but I don't want to make an assumption, and run the risk of the image getting deleted after I upload it. I could really use some help here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Paintings are hard because it's hard to get a clear year of publication, publication depends on facts of how it was exhibited that could be unknowable now, and it could be first published as part of a publication that was renewed without any indication the painting is included in that renewal. Nighthawks has a gallery that explicitly claims the painting is in the public domain, and the easiest thing would be to find someone reputable willing to say the same thing about East Wind and explain why.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The painting in question is from 1934. Does that help at all? Nightscream (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello? Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of other resources, you could try asking the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts about publication and historical copying policies. Dankarl (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

front text copyright

hi - I am hoping to confirm the use of an image for the front cover of a free magazine. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinus_albicaulis_8580.JPG

The licensing states "no cover texts". Is the image licensed for print/distribution use? The magazine is published by a non for profit and distributed at no cost. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.115.177.26 (talk) 22:53, January 16, 2014‎ (UTC)

IMO you should be alright. That section is part of the GFDL which allowed authors to exempt their front and back covers from the terms of the license, so that they could release free software with a copyrighted front cover. This is explicitly saying that doesn't apply. Also, the image is dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0, which has no such provisions. Finally, IANAL, so my advice is just an average user's opinion from this site, not a substitute for professional advice. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Using images in Wikipedia, Wikibooks etc can ever break CC/Copyright rules?

Hello,

Sometimes I create a template or page using icons and others graphics from Wikimedia Commons, because the icons are only decorative and for UX reasons I tend to hide the linking (using |link=]]), but some users urge that this is against CC or copyright rules. I can't understand how on earth this can be against CC/Copyright if Wikipedia is a project that relies on Wikicommons images and that is impossible to upload files here that doesn't agree to be used in Wikipedia, Wikisource etc. Is there any doc defining that when Wikipedia, Wikibooks or else uses a graphic the linking are mandatory even if linking is not wanted for UX reasons?

Thanks a lot for any feedback.

Dianakc (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes; the attribution requirement will break if you use "link=". So you can only use PD/CC0 works for such purposes where attribution is not mandatory. Answer to your other question: Not all images found here are works of Wikimedians and those authors are not abide to agree wmf:Terms of Use. For works of Wikimedians also, a bare minimum hyperlink is a must per "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Jee 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jkadavoor, but you wanted say "PD/CC0 where attribution is not mandatory"?! Dianakc (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes; corrected. Thanks. Jee 04:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@User:Jkadavoor: What is the source of your citation "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."?? The Wikimedia Terms of Service do not state that a hyperlink would comply with the license requirements for images or other media files. "When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors)" - But: "Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy, and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing. Also see the Wikimedia Commons Licensing Policy for more information on contributing non-text media to that Project." --Martina talk 05:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Martina, my quote was from the text ("By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.") that just displayed above the "Save" button of every edit screen. Currently CC clarified that a hyperlink is enough for attribution for a CC license which is specified in the CC 4.0 legal text and they said it was intended in previous versions per the clause "reasonable to the medium". Jee 05:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In my understanding, the Save Button applies to text, not for uploading media files. Dianakc's question was about graphics, not text.
CC 4.0 actually states "it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information". This is a new condition in this specific licence and not applicable to differently licensed material. What Creative Commons now might say what they would have intended in previous wordings does not have any impact on former legalcodes and contracts. --Martina talk 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Martina, do you ever see WMF projects provide attribution in a way other than merely hyperlinking to the "File" page for media files with various licenses (CC, GFDL, ...)? Do you think it is a breach of the license terms? I don't think so. I don't think any court will say a hyperlink to a page where all information is provided is not enough.
"What Creative Commons now might say what they would have intended in previous wordings does not have any impact on former legalcodes and contracts." I had discussed this matter months preior to the release of CC 4.0 and the answer I got is exactly the same that they added in CC 4.0. It looks like a situation as the current issue regarding whether a license is applicable to all resolutions including higher resolutions. Many things are vague; but as far as I understand, CC or any other similar licenses are defined to encourage free use, and it is difficult to enforce strict restrictions. Many people think we can enforce re-users to provide attribution near the media where it is displayed. No; we can't enforce anything more that we practice here, in WMF projects. Jee 06:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
On the French language Wikipedia, images & icons that are link=-ed are listed in fr:Wikipédia:Crédits graphiques which is linked from the footer in every page. This was assessed to be sufficient attribution by the fr.wp community (jsut reporting, IANAL & feel free to disagree, etc.). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
May be an acceptable compromise. But I prefer "Where possible, preference should be given the use of icons in the public domain and can reconcile the recommendations of W3C compliance and licensing images." as said there. Thanks for the info. Jee 13:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Creative Commons clearly explains how to attribute CC content and offers some best practices.
"I don't think any court will say a hyperlink to a page where all information is provided is not enough." - They do. Urteil LG München I-37-O-9798-11, 5. Oktober 2011: "Dabei ist das Gericht der Auffassung, dass eine Pflicht zur Nennung des Autors ('copyright notice') eine Nennung des vom Urheber hinterlegten Namens im unmittelbaren räumlichen Zusammenhang mit dem Lichtbild erfordert. [...] Die Verlinkung auf eine andere Webseite stellt keine Namensnennung in diesem Sinne dar und erfüllt daher bereits dem Wortlaut nach nicht die vereinbarten Lizenzbedingungen."
The state court's main argument: A hyperlink is, literally and in itself, not an attribution. A local attribution is required. The court also mentions the practise in Wikimedia projects as not correct but - in this case - as consented by the suing copyright holder. I personally also tolerate the practise in Wikimedia projects but, as files can be renamed or even deleted, this practise should imho definitely not be spread into the public. If authors of and licences for derivative works are not named in the specific fields of the description page, the stockphoto gadget "reuse this file", for example, produces a wrong credit, naming the author of the derived work and its license only. This produces another breach of the license terms: if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. --Martina talk 18:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
See section "Don't make it too complicated" under Best practices: "There is no one right way; just make sure your attribution is reasonable and suited to the medium you're working with. That being said, you still have to include attribution requirements somehow, even if it's just a link to an About page that has that info."
"I personally also tolerate the practise in Wikimedia projects but, as files can be renamed or even deleted, this practise should imho definitely not be spread into the public." I'm not talking about hot-linking to Commons; re-users can also setup similar pages (like our "file" pages) and link to it if the space is the exact reuse page is not enough or they are not comfortable to provide attribution there.
We can't have different approach for on and off-wiki uses as many files hosted here are by third party volunteers. Otherwise we have to stop thirdparty uploads or at least add a warning message stating that "this file is not uploaded here by the copyright holder; so not suitable for on-wiki use as a bare hot-linking is not enough for attribution for such uses per the license terms." Pinging Fae and Avenue for opinion. Jee 04:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a local "About page" should be okay. As long as all authors of a collection are attributed in the same manner, and not some more prominent than those of the freely licensed material.
In Wikimedia projects this local attribution takes place on the description page - might it be technically mirrored from Commons only, but at least it can be found under the same domain.
My point is that other re-users do not fulfill the CC-by-sa, GFDl, or FAL requirements by a simple hyperlink to the external Wikimedia file page (except if the content is licensed under CC-by-sa 4.0), and that we should not state otherwise (like you did above).
we can't enforce anything more that we practice here, in WMF projects. - Of course, every copyright holder can enforce the rights granted to them by the licence. Even if he or she might consent with the actual handling in Wikimedia projects. Our handling includes that deleted or renamed files are either no longer displayed, or that former links are corrected. This is not the case for external usages which would suddenly "credit" by a dead hyperlink to a no longer existing Wikimedia file description page. --Martina talk 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The initial question was about in-wiki use and my answer too. It is you who brought this discussion to a generic reuse case. In my opinion, the terms are same for both cases because WMF projects are not like other sites where all contributors are registered users bound to a ToU. Here most contents are uploaded by third parties and so no separate terms are possible other than the license terms. I don't know whether a link in a different domain or same domain make any difference (other than chances of broken links); so no comments on that matter. Jee 06:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If you talked about internal use only, I misgot your statement on "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." --Martina talk 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I thought that linking would be silly because just linking were never enough afaik, but ok if this is a local practice :) I'm confused that some icons, even here, do not link to their pages, e.g. in any image page there are icons next to links at the top of the page ("Donwload", "Use this file" etc) why these icons are linking to the actions itself? I found that these icons are from GNOME Desktop icons, actions then GNU do not need the linking?Dianakc (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some graphics/icons might lack Threshold of originality. Copyright claims by the authors and requrements for reusage could then be ignored; attribution would not be required. But as the definition of threshold of originality varies from case to case and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this issue is a potential minefield. --Martina talk 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, I see. Thanks for reply. Dianakc (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
According to its info page, the previously mentioned "Save file" icon is actually licensed under the GNU GPLv2 (or any later GPL version.) Furthermore, the GNU GPL is not compatible with the GFDL or the CC licenses although the GPL allows GPL-licensed works to be combined with other independent works in the form of an "aggregate"-even so, this is not totally clear.
From what one can tell, given the information from Creative Commons, providing attribution by having a hyperlink to a separate page with attribution is not ideal but is compliant. Creative Commons Australia seemed to be all right with this practice in their guide on attribution.
--Gazebo (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
See how icons are attributed that are used at Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Galleries. So it seems a practice here. Jee 16:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload a Prospectus_(finance) from an Australian Company dated August 1949.

I am working on the Hartnett_(car) page. I have copies of the original company prospectus that was created by the company and circulated to potential investors.

Can I upload this so that I can reference the document in the article. If so what licence type should I specify?

Similarly, I have correspondence from the founders to potential investors - not addressed to any person in particular and with no details of who the author is/was. Can these be uploaded?

Brycewhite (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. If the prospectus was in the public domain in 1996, then it should be out of copyright in the US and thus uploadable using the {{PD-Australia}} copyright tag. The correspondence on the other hand, unless it was ever published, is still technically under copyright in Australia and cannot be uploaded. Lankiveil (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Historical images of Coretta Scott King and family

A new user recently uploaded several images of the King family, which I marked for deletion on the grounds they're still copyrighted. I wanted to post here to make sure I'm not missing something (e.g., Jet Magazine never properly filed for copyright protections). The user also questions about how to contact the parties involved for permission if the images turn out not to be free.

Anyone's assistance and input would be appreciated.

The relevant discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Redsonjustin. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Review Required

I have uploaded File:Queensland_Government_Gazette_10-01-14.pdf and File:Queensland_Government_Gazette_17-01-14.pdf based on information at their source (https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/gazette-january-2014) which states pretty clearly that they are licenced under CC-BY-3.0-AU. However, after upload I have noticed that the files themselves state that reproduction is prohibited. Can someone more knowledgeable than myself please review these two files and delete them if they are not compatible with Commons licencing requirements? Thanks and apologies in advance. Lankiveil (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Uploads by User:IFCAR

So... all of the images uploaded by this user account (who has gone inactive) state "All Rights Reserved" then are tagged {{PD-Self}} - this is mutually exclusive... I believe that we need to remove all of these images unfortunately. --AdmrBoltz 06:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, please read carefully. They all say "released," not "reserved." IFCAR (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You are right, this is what I get for editing too late in the evening... --AdmrBoltz 06:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

«Terrorist organisations» have no Copyright?

Look at File:Maoflag1.PNG. So any organisation listed as «terrorist» by any state has no copyright on her works? -Thylacin (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No. A more correct interpretation would be any criminal organization cannot have an enforceable, or even register-able, copyright for their works; any court in a country where such an organization is accepted as criminal, would be unable to recognize them as a legal entity (that can legitimately own property) by definition. Individuals who are, or were, members of such organizations may be able to claim copyright for their works. Of course, they may be subject to separate prosecution. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Could someone go convince the people at Wikisource about this? Wnt (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
About what? What Fæ just said, combined with standard copyright law, boils down to it's all copyrighted, it's just not held by the organization.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please quote some actual laws here, rather than opinion? I was of the understanding that copyright doesn't disappear just because the rights holders cannot claim it (cf. COM:CB#Graffiti). Also, we have to deal with the interaction of the laws of several states here: the US, Peru, and - if the photograph was taken in Mainland China - the PRC (the latter of which I seriously doubt considers a Mao-sympathizing group to legally be terrorist). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
+1 Copyright simply doesn't disappear, because we don't like the people holding it or their messages. China ist member of the Berne Convention and works are protected at least 50 years after the author's death. And if you apply Lex loci protectionis it's even protected for 70 years in the US and most European States.
But (and that might be the case here) official flags and coats of arms are public domain in many states. --Martin Kraft (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The Berne Convention contains a bug with regard to unrecognised countries. Japan doesn't recognise North Korea, and the Supreme Court of Japan discovered that this has the side-effect that Japan doesn't have to provide copyright protection to North Korean works under the Berne Convention. See [11]. However, in this case it seems that the authors of the flag presumably are citizens of either Peru or China, and in that case someone holds the copyright to the flag at least in all countries recognising that Peru and China are countries. Therefore, the flag seems to be protected by copyright. If, according to the official US point of view, the terrorist organisation can't hold any assets, then I would assume that US law simply stipulates that someone other than the organisation is the copyright holder within the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos from 1896-1899

Hi, I've uploaded File:Round the world on a wheel-mr fraser in burma.jpg. I'd like to check if it's ok to upload. If it isn't it should be deleted. If it is then I can upload another six photos that I've stitched together from the same source. - Francis Tyers (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

To upload here you need an actual publication date and John Foster Frazier's year of death. Publicatioon before 1923 anywhere makes it ok in the US, and 70 years pma makes it ok in the country of publication. If you miss on the second criterion you can upload to WP. This was almost certainly published before 1923 but a real date is needed if challenged. Dankarl (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The description staets it's Robert Foster Fraser in the picture, but English Wikipedia states it's John Foster Fraser. Which is it? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's John. He died in 1936. It was published in The Strand Magazine in 1898 in the UK. - Francis Tyers (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's John in the picture, was he still the photographer? I think with 1898 publication you're still ok with an anonymous photographer but it just got a lot tighter. Dankarl (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It might be one of his riding companions: Lunn or Lowe. One of the two was supposed to be the trip-photographer. - Francis Tyers (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion on PD not renewed AP photo from Library of Congress

Please cast your eye over my question at File talk:Lolita Lebron.jpg#Metadata? --Hroðulf (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

With regards to File:Lolita Lebron.jpg, I'd consider the statement from the Library of Congress that the photo lacks a copyright renewal as pretty definitive. However, we also need evidence of 1923-1963 publication to correctly apply {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Note that the LoC carefully doesn't make a copyright status claim about these photos, presumably since they haven't determined when, or if, these photos were ever published. The photo in question, despite being taken in 1954, could have remained unpublished until after 1963, perhaps even remaining unpublished until LoC began distributing electronic copies of it in 2006. Can you identify a newspaper that used this photo in an article before 1964, perhaps contemporaneously with its creation? —RP88 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
In the case of this photo, given that the LoC did not acquire it directly from an AP storage vault but acquired it through the New York World-Telegram and the Sun Collection (of which all items were collected before 1968), can that constitute a safe enough indication that the photo was almost certainly published in 1954 (at least by AP)? It seems improbable that AP kept it unpublished until 1964 and then distributed it to its subscribers between 1964 and 1967. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Currently, the statement that the copyright was not renewed does not seem to be based on evidence. It is possible that the copyright of the photo was not renewed, but we can't tell unless the specific research is done. (Or, for a given agency, perhaps it could be shown that a clear pattern exists to the effect that no photo from that agency has ever been known to have its copyright renewed, but otherwise it is not possible to just assume that the copyright of a photo was not renewed.) On the description page, half the notice of the Library of Congress is quoted (but the important other half is left out). Unfortunately, the LoC notice, which the LoC uses about the materials from several photo agencies, is not useful. Its wording seems to imply that the LoC did not research the copyright renewals for the vast majority of the photos, i.e. the unregistered photos. Basically, that LoC notice boils down to "users must do their own research". Some Commons users have experience about copyright renewal searches and they could probably tell if a renewal can be found or not. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Asclepias, in the period in question it was not possible to file a renewal for a work that was not registered. Renewal registration of works for which there was no registration during the original 28-year term was only available to works first published in 1964 and later. See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 15. —RP88 16:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. That is very good. Thanks for the explanation. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If the photograph appeared in a publication, then what happens if the publication was renewed? Does that renewal cover pictures in the publication? In which cases would those have to be individually renewed? Advertisements do not use the same copyright notice as far as I have understood, but what about photographs in articles? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The owner of a collective work (such a periodical) may claim renewal in all material to which they originally secured copyright, including the collective work as a whole, as well as any contributions in which the owner originally claimed copyright. The author of a contribution to a collective work may claim renewal in their own name to their contribution, but only if they originally secured a separate copyright for their contribution (either by separately registering their contribution or if the collective work included a separate copyright notice in the name of the author). —RP88 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
That works for material that is exclusive to a particular collective work (e.g. a particular newspaper). But would that be applicable to included works that are taken from press agencies, which works are normally republished concurrently through a number of subscribing periodicals? In that respect, the situation of material from press agencies looks more comparable to the situation of advertisements, than to the situation of material exclusive to the particular newspaper. When 50 newspapers printed an item from a press agency, can each of those 50 newspapers claim renewal as the owner of the copyright on that item? Would the renewal on that item be granted to the first of those newspapers who sends a notice for renewal to the Copyright Office? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
With regards to collective works, current U.S. copyright law specifically identifies only advertisements for special treatment, all other contributions are treated the same. So contributing a photo to multiple publications is no different than contributing the same article to multiple publications. With regards to renewals, it's important to identify the first publication in which the work appeared.
Let me explain with a hypothetical (assume all of the following are in the U.S.): an employe in the course of his work takes a photo for a wire photo agency in 1960. The agency does not register the photo's copyright and does not renew it 28 years later. It is subsequently published in many newspapers and by no one else, most of these publications occurring before 1963. If the first newspaper to publish the photo failed to renew the copyright the photo is eligible for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Whether or not later publications renewed or failed to renew the copyrights to their collective works is irrelevant, as, due to the lack of separate registration, the right to renew the photo's copyright was vested with the owner of the first collective work to publish the photo. Any renewal of the copyright in the subsequent publications is void with respect to the photo's copyright.
As you can see, for unregistered wire photos, usually it's simpler to apply {{PD-US-no notice}} by identifying an instance where it was published before 1978 without notice, rather than applying {{PD-US-not renewed}} by tracking down the first publication of the photo. —RP88 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seal of Alabama.svg

This is a derivative work (SVG) of the 1939 state seal. The 1939 seal is seemingly different enough from the original 1817 seal (different map, rivers, words, border, colors, stars, etc.) that it would be copyrightable in its own right. At least, reading through some of the cases on the copyright page would suggest this. Therefore, I believe this image is actually still under copyright and should be on Wikipedia with a fair use tag. Hazmat2 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's minimal chance in my mind that this is under copyright, that it was registered for copyright and renewed. The formalities were rarely observed for stuff like this in those days.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There is hardly any chance any of the state seals are under copyright (well, certain depictions can be, but not the general design). The design is written (and part of law, not covered by copyright anyways). A graphical depiction of the written design is not a derivative work -- it is its own original work, provided there was enough leeway to make each version original enough. See Commons:Coats of arms. Anyways, the definition of the seal only says "principal rivers" and does not explicitly define each one, meaning every depiction will be a little bit different (both the images at that link are of the modern version -- see File:1817 Alabama seal WPA.png for one version of the older one; there are many variants). Additionally as Prosfilaes mentioned, each depiction would have needed a notice and needed renewals at the copyright office, which were not likely to happen. But even if a new seal were designed today, the graphical depiction would not be derivative of the (uncopyrightable) written design, so there could easily be free versions of those (just don't take someone else's graphical version and upload it, without knowing the copyright of that version in particular). That's also why we can have a number of different uploaded versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos of Sabinaria magnifica

Today I came across some photos and line drawings of a newly described species of palm, uploaded in December 2013. These images now can be found in Category:Sabinaria magnifica. Most likely the source of the photos is the paper where the species is described - doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.144.2.1. A footnote at the first page tells that the paper is under cc-by-3.0. Would this apply also to the photos? However, as the same user uploaded also a photo of the corresponding author (R. Bernal, File:Amacayacu, Leticia, feb 2011, GG 145.jpg), which I could not find in internet, it seems possible to me that this stuff was uploaded by some person connected to the authors of the paper. So, the stuff from the paper might be OK anyway, if cc-by-3.0 can be applied to it. Would it be sufficient to give a link to the paper? Or is it necessary to know the actual author of each photo/drawing? The acknowledgments at the end of the paper do not give enough information to be sure about authorship. Asking the uploader for more information at the talk page probably will not give any results, as this was the only activity of this user. One map already was deleted by this procedure. Additionally, also the license of the photo of Mr. Bernal clould be questioned. How to proceed? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC on COM:DM

This seems like the most appropriate board to advertise this Rfc - Request for comment on the current interpretation of COM:DM. Ultra7 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Trey Burke defends Vince Carter.jpg

The flickr photographer says on this image here: "NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2013 NBAE (Photo by Danny Bollinger/NBAE via Getty Images)". Can Commons use this image? If it can, please pass it. If not please tag it with a speedy delete or file a regular DR as I might be away on Monday. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that this image is trouble, unless Danny Bollinger (the photographer) sends something to COM:OTRS to explain whether he still retains the copyright, and whether he allows users to follow CC-BY-2.0 instead of a Getty license. Otherwise, there are 3 problems:
  1. Bollinger could say that he didn't mean to select CC-BY-2.0 specifically, but only selected "some rights reserved" on Flickr because it was the closest thing to the Getty license.
  2. This might be work for hire for NBA Entertainment, such that Bollinger might not have any copyright.
  3. Getty Images might claim that, since the work was sent to Getty then retrived back from Getty, that somehow anyone in possession of the copy through Getty agreed to the "Getty Images License Agreement". (This claim would probably fail, but it would still be annoying for whoever had to tell Getty to go away.)
Without Bollinger's explanation, I would vote for deletion if it were nominated. --Closeapple (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This photographer's works have been discussed at length before; see e.g. Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/07#What if a Getty Images photographer gives his own photos free license on Flickr? and Commons:Deletion requests/NBA photos by Danny Bollinger. --Avenue (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I contribute to Getty Images. The photographer always retains copyright unless the image goes through a buyout. If the images were bought out they would likely have been removed from Flickr. Getty only accepts images on an exclusive basis and would not tolerate images they represent being made available elsewhere with CC-BY. The text in the info box is likely a copy paste and is not valid when made in conjunction with a CC license. All CC licenses include a commercially standard clause making clear that there are “no other understandings, agreements or representations” not specified within the licenses themselves relating to use of the work. It certainly isn't enforceable since the EULA is not made available. Later additions to his photostream of games do not have this caveat yet are similarly licensed as CC-BY. In summary you can't dual license a work like this. Only the CC license is a valid license in this case. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload CC-BY images?

I apologize if this has already been answered here, or elsewhere. I was wondering if images that are explicitly licensed CC-BY (even in the EXIF data) can be uploaded to the Commons. For example these images from the Wellcome Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Edsu (talk • contribs)

Yes. I suggest they are all batch uploaded rather than piecemeal. Thanks for highlighting this release.
I have kicked off a batch upload project at Commons:Batch uploading/Wellcome Images CC-BY. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
See this related discussion too. Jee 11:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I've created Category:Wellcome Images. I don't imagine there will be too many images in their until the batch upload, but wanted to note it here to avoid uploading duplicates. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about duplicates too much, a good batch upload will check for identical image duplicates and skip them. So if anyone wants to upload some in advance of any future batch upload, that's fine. --Fæ (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are we accepting images that the museum has decalered as out of copyright as CC-BY. 131.137.245.207 13:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, at first it seems like a contradiction. CC-BY is a free license under which copyright owners of copyrighted works can release these works; if images are out of copyright, the appropriate license tag usually is basically a variant of PD-something resp. PD-scan. However, as this is a library from the United Kingdom, they might have claims to copyright on the scans according to UK law, if I'm not mistaken, so it could be appropriate to honor their CC-BY license for the scans in some kind of combination with a PD license tag for the original PD work. What do you think? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I have now seen the related/duplicate discussion at COM:VP and see that there are already suggestions like {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-by-3.0}}, which seems fine. "Licensed-PD-Art" seems to be a useful template for freely licensed scans of PD works from jurisdictions where the reproductions might be protected by their own copyright. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

TV Screen Shots

Can one post TV screen shot? How to attribute such TV screen shots, while posting them? Should one give the name of the TV channel where it was broadcast?

Thanks Sabazkot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabazkot (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 January 2014‎ (UTC)

No. See Commons:Screenshots. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wan King Path picture

I would like to eventually create the Wan King Path page and I would like a CC-sa licenced image to supplement it before I create it. Something like this would be beneficial, this one Is licenced under cc-by-nc 2.0 so I know its not CC-SA licence. Is there a way that either the mentioned image could get a licence or if Hong Kong's Freedom of Panorama would allow it to be used? If not, could a Hong Kong based user maybe be of assistance? The C of E (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding a Hong Kong user to take a new photo would be the best solution. A by-nc photo shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. Freedom of Panorama doesn't affect the photographer's copyright, and in any case you don't need Freedom of Panorama to take a photo of a street sign. The licence on the image can only be changed by the copyright holder. --ghouston (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a section on the commons where one can make such a request? The C of E (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Picture requests – more specifically, Commons:Picture requests/Requests/Asia#Hong Kong/香港. You could also contact the Flickr user and see if they're willing to change the license; see Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Some uploads of Pulmonological

Regarding some uploads of @Pulmonological: (last here in 2012): I don't think the licenses I've looked at are valid. For example:

A source of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asthma_action_plan.jpg is page 117 of http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/05_sec3_comp2.pdf , where it is credited:

Source: Adapted and reprinted with permission from the Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) Initiative, a program of the Public Health Institute. http://www.calasthma.org/uploads/resources/actionplanpdf.pdf; San Francisco Bay Area Regional Asthma Management Plan, http://www.rampasthma.org

I think it's PD (Public Domain) , as it's a PD derivative of a PD work; see {{PD-USGov}}(+{{PD-USGov-NIH}}) and {{PD-CAGov}}. But it's tagged with a CC license.

OTOH, also tagged with a CC license is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Veno-arterial_(VA)_ECMO_for_cardiac_or_respiratory_failure.jpg which I'd bet isn't free at all. Likewise, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Veno-venous_(VV)_ECMO_for_isolated_respiratory_failure.jpg

Any thoughts before I fix and nominate for deletion per the above?

P.S. My attempt to verify the source of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inhaled_Nitric_Oxide_(iNO)_Delivery_with_High-frequency_Jet_Ventilation_(HFJV).jpg (at http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v23/n4/index.html) failed, but I found the correct source (the following month's journal) and updated the file's page. The source is a PDF with a vector version, so if it's really free…SVG? Journal policies do allow authors to release under the stated license. So I'd call it valid.

--Elvey (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

COM:DW in Category:Wiki Loves Monuments exhibitions

The Category:Wiki Loves Monuments exhibitions contains lots of images which are derivative works; they do not credit authors and licences of the (freely licensed) original works. As I do not (yet) want to start a mass deletion request for these images: Which is the best way to address and fix this problem? --Martina talk 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these images can be de minimis. Therefore, the first step could be listing the images that are not de minimis.
A second step could be writing in category page "Images in this category "Exposition in..." are derivative works of images in category "Winners of WLM in..."" to ease the work of fixing licenses. Contacting uploaders would be an alternative second step.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I pointed the uploders to the copright issue. De minimis does not apply to most photographs in these categories as the exhibited works clearly are in the focus. Can File:GLAM-WIKI_2013_068.jpg and File:Wikimania 2013 reception area, Jockey Club Auditorium, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - 20130811-03.JPG be regarded as best practice examples how a correct attribution has to look like? --Martina talk 05:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Great efforts from your side. If the license of sources and adapted work have a similar license (CC BY-SA in most cases), there is no need to specify the license of the source again (but good). Difference in version and port fall in "similar license" clause. Thanks again. Jee 07:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I see that {{Derived from}} exists to provide links to included images, although it doesn't attribute the author or give license terms. I guess that template should be improved at some point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Some uploaders/photographers, and sadly those of most pictures in that category (or its subcategories), do not want to add the required attributions. (Answers vary between none, "too much work", "do it yourself"). What now? --Martina talk 07:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Complying with license terms, including correct attribution, is unquestionably the responsibility of anyone who uploads to Commons. You've already done them a courtesy by bringing the issue to their attention and giving them the chance to address the issue themselves. Perhaps you could pick one of the uploaders/photographers and nominate their uploads for deletion, and let the results of that DR inform your actions with respect to the rest of the suspect images? Pick one of the uploaders who responded to your inquiry but doesn't want to add the required attributions (so you know they're around to respond to the DR). —RP88 14:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Answers like "do it yourself" is very rude and there is no need to tolerate it. Jee 14:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment This looks like a serious problem. If you refuse to follow the licence, then according to Article 7 b, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence is automatically terminated if you violate it. As User:Mike Peel clearly violated the licence by neglecting to attribute the authors of the included images when he uploaded File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 068.jpg, his permission to use the included images was presumably automatically terminated when he uploaded the photograph back in April last year. Also, any reuser who used the Commons image without attributing the author before the author information was added in January presumably also had the CC-BY-SA licence terminated. This could mean that quite a lot of people no longer can use the included photographs. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Well, there's a reason to switch to using CC-BY-SA 4.0 - if your rights are automatically terminated by not complying with that license then they are reinstated if you fix the issue within 30 days of realising the mistake. I'm not quite sure how this should be resolved here beyond assuming good faith since I've fixed the mistake... I'll work through some of the other images to add the requisite attribution - hope that helps. (BTW, Stefan, thanks for alerting me to this discussion by linking to my userpage!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Personally if this were a DR I would accept a De minimis rationale as a good enough reason for parking it. In fact there are extremely close exemplars in our case book, perhaps Mike's photo should be added to it? --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    There's not a chance that this is de minimis. See the examples of court rulings at COM:DM#Sweden and COM:FOP#France. The entire purpose of the photograph is to show the contained photographs, and that explicitly rules out any de minimis claims. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Technically, the aim of at least my photograph was to show the overall exhibit rather than the photographs individually, but I agree that this probably doesn't count as de minimis. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Agree with Stefan4 here. Although those photos are not intended to show the photographs individually, they are not intended to show the overall exhibition too. In File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 068.jpg, only the three photos in the third fold are eligible for a de minimis in my opinion. Jee 02:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

File:SAEINDIA LOGO.jpg

Moved from Commons:Help desk.

Hello again. I need some advice from more experienced Commoners to help me in deciding what to do with this current image. Specifically, the first version as of 21:07, 18 August 2013 (direct link) in my opinion may possibly fail to fall under the threshold of originality so it might warrant RevDeletion. The current version has also been reduced from a higher quality version because it was, according to the uploader's summary, "With The permission of SAEINDIA Organisation to use low quality logo only". Also in my opinion the second version could fall under the threshold of originality, so I'm considering reverting to that version, but do we generally prefer to keep the higher quality version over the current one? Finally, the name might warrant renaming to a less ALLCAPS title to something more appropriate like "SAE India logo.jpg" since it's already linked to the organization's webpage on enwiki. What do you guys think? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Mplc QS ex1 part4.jpg

Can someone review the copyright status of this file? One of my concerns is that the use of the Internet Explorer background covering a rather significant portion of it may break de minimis, but more importantly the author specifies they created the graph using some sort of special software labeled HMI and presumed to have been released by an organization specified in the source as MasterPLC Designer. Problem is that the official website http://www.masterplc.ru/ is mostly in Russian and run under one of Google's user-personal domains, so I've been having a hard time looking for their official copyright license, but perhaps someone will have more luck than I. A related concern is also whether this graph portrays anything useful for COM:SCOPE; well, it does show an "example of HMI" but if someone could enlighten me as to what HMI software is all about and how this best exemplifies it in action, it'd be much appreciated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this is eligible for {{Screenshot}} (speedy deletion). --AdmrBoltz 20:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I marked it as {{Non-free frame}}. Someone could crop out the IE part. (I also marked it {{subst:npd}} by accident before that). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
That's good, but I hope we get someone to comment on the copyright status for the rest of the picture, which is the software used to make the graph (i.e. either MasterPLC Designer or HMI). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Normally it would be {{subst:npd}}, but it seems to be out of scope, so I nominated it at DR instead. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo of CCFL light bulb

Would a high resolution version of this photo that I took be acceptable on Commons from a copyright standpoint? On the base of the light bulb, there is a GREENLITE logo with a tiny CFL bulb for the "I" and underneath the logo is the text "8W/ELC/CL 2700K Lumens 350 HAF 8W 120V 60Hz 74mA" which seems to be technical details to do with the light output and power consumption. (If there is an issue with the logo in particular, an option might be to use another photo of the same light bulb in which the logo and the line below it is covered over.) --Gazebo (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you should be alright. It's almost impossible to read the logo, which is almost certainly below the threshold of originality in most countries anyway. Of course, standard disclaimers: IANAL, so upload at your own risk. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would be fine to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This Guinness logo (the harp, specifcally) is rather current and was in use until 2005. It's quite different from the old harp design in use by them. It's definitely a trademark so I tagged it as such, but I'm wondering if in the UK this would also meet the Threshold for Originality. It's not Freedom of Panorama if it is copyright-able, because it's a logo. Any thoughts? The Haz talk 06:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant to add that it may in fact meet FoP because it's in a public place. The Haz talk 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jetsterpack.logo.png

Does this meet the threshold of originality? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on Google's cached description of the deleted Wikipedia article en:JetsterPack, the source country is Indonesia. Commons:Threshold of originality does not contain any information on the threshold of originality in Indonesia. But since the article is out of scope, the logo is likely out of scope as well, which makes the question irrelevant. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It would depend on the country of publication, and the Google cache (from Jan 25, 2014 16:41:09 GMT) doesn't seem to mention Indonesia anymore. It's a mess, but like LX said, it fails Commons:Project scope anyway. I've put some more details at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jetsterpack.logo.png. --Closeapple (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

File:10a_MI_25_Hind_in_Wadi_Dom_chad.jpg

The image File:10a_MI_25_Hind_in_Wadi_Dom_chad.jpg was moved to Commons from en.wiki as it was licensed by the uploader and photographer as cc-by-3.0. It's now been uploaded by the same user to en.wiki w:File:Lybian_MI-25_Hind_Captured_by_Chadian_forces_at_Wadi_Dom,_Chad.jpg as a copyrighted image. I have asked on the uploader's talk page a week ago to confirm the licence and there has been no reply. Once a photo has been released under the a CC licence I thought there was no way for that licence to be revoked so even if it the uploader changed their mind. What is the next step? If the CC licence can't be revoked I guess it means the Copyright en.wiki version can be deleted? Cube00 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The copyright holder can't do anything to have the licence revoked, but he can of course refuse to tell people that the file is licensed, making it harder for people to find out that they can use the file. If any person uses the image in a way which is contrary to the licence terms, then the licence is terminated for that person (even if the licence violation was accidental or unknown to the person). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama, USA, historical markers and plaques

I've had a photo of a historical marker tagged for deletion. The grounds are that freedom of panorama doesn't apply to texts. An historical marker isn't a work of art, is it? I've been trying to dig up details on this, but it seems to be subject to local laws, not a blanket federal law, but I'm not clear on it. Can someone else clarify? Thanks. OttawaAC (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, a historical marker isn't a work of art. USA only has freedom of panorama for architecture, and as long as a historical marker isn't architecture, there is no freedom of panorama for historical markers. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The text of the sign is copyrightable. Some historical societies have claimed copyrights, and even control of photos, on grounds the photo is a copy of that copyright. It's not clear whether those claims are valid -- fair use would cover almost all uses of such photos -- but there is a small chance there is a problem in some commercial situations. It's not an easy situation as I don't think there is a court precedent to really prove they could be a problem, and I normally don't like deleting without something like that, but it is a bit muddled. I would imagine a book which simply copied all the text of all the signs in a county might be a copyright violation, and the question would be if a book just used photos of the signs (instead of typing in the text separately) would also be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1989 Jeopardy "Seniors Tournament" Photo...

Re: File:Ouida Rellstab - 1989 Jeopardy! "Seniors Tournament" Winner.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Sorry if I caused a Wikiruckus! (Yeah, I just coined that - should I copyright it?!)

I'll see if I can get permission from Merv Griffin Enterprises, or maybe SONY now, to use the photo. I'm putting it on a Website with all of the other things written about my mother, as well as the videos I have of her four "Seniors Tournament" episodes. (They cannot be found anywhere else and I do not think the ones who own the copyright will care, but I doubt I'll ask them about that particular aspect.) If I receive permission, how can I get the photo, or will you allow the photo, onto the "Jeopardy Champions" Wikipedia page. I updated it re her winning that particular event, and cited "The JEOPARDY! Book" as a reference. Let me know when you can, please, and thanks for your prompt reply.

Sincerely, Martin Muller (504) 305-1824 -- 08:33, 27 January 2014‎ 68.105.53.9

Standard procedure is Commons:OTRS, but I'm not sure how much good it will do you in this case. AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nathaniel Thomas Lupton

Hello. I've just created Nathaniel Thomas Lupton's page on wikipedia, and I was wondering if we could add this picture to his page? Can someone please upload the picture on wikimedia commons if there are no copyright restrictions? (I don't want to use my own account.) I will then add the picture to his infobox on wikipedia. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add it. Why wouldn't you use your account? Hazmat2 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please add it to your account and then I'll link to it? Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Anybody?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Does no one want to do this for me? It wouldn't take long at all!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. See File:Nathaniel Thomas Lupton.jpgI preferred the original (coloured) portrait, naming also the painter "C.K. Smith"... Gunnex (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if this logo meets the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. I would think, no, but you never know. This logo is for the Toronto company Temple Street Productions, so it needs to comply with Canada's copyright protection policy too. Thanks in advance! |CanadianDude1| 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a very close call in the U.S.... it's on the edge I think. Canada unfortunately has a lot of UK precedent, which has an extremely low threshold for logos (this one would easily be above the threshold there), and while Canada has moved above that line I might be a bit nervous claiming there is no Canadian copyright on it. There is an article on the situation at w:Originality in Canadian copyright law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on your own judgement, should I upload the logo to Commons, or upload it to Wikipedia? |CanadianDude1| 21:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it'd be safer to upload to Wikipedia, and probably under fair use there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I second Clindberg's comment. --AdmrBoltz 13:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. |CanadianDude1| 22:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology.JPG

What's the copyright status on this? Surely not {{Free screenshot}}. And does it meet Commons:Threshold of originality? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say its a copyvio as a logo. The text I'd be ok with for being under the ToO but not the design up top. --AdmrBoltz 14:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Eyes requested for high quality California Historical Society photographs

I am in the middle of uploading around 3,500 high quality scans of glass negatives from before 1923 taken in California. I have inadvertently included 89 images where the dates are less certain (I have included a filter against further mistakes of this type). As the photographer for most of these lived into the 1940s, the PD-1923 rationale cannot apply, however I would appreciate some eyes on these as a few might have other rationales as to why the copyright is okay; otherwise I'll ask for them to be batch deleted. The photographs are in Category:Images from USC Digital Library uploaded by Fæ (check needed). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we know if these images have been published? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not in the USC catalogue, however I believe these are well known collections/photographers and it would be worth looking into the history and adding some of that to a Commons catalogue page or making a creator template. For example George Wharton James was a popular lecturer, photographer and journalist, with over 40 books on America; in this context it is reasonable to assess that through his lectures, his photographs were on exhibition to the public soon after their creation even if we do not find all of these printed in his books. --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright gambling it is! Well, I think identifying if these images are works for hire remains mere guesswork too. Using http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html could be helpful for the remaining 88 images. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:-) *cough* I would use the concept of less than significant doubt and whether we can judge that reasonable efforts have been made to determine potential remaining copyright issues (in this case for photographs taken a century ago). The situation may be more complex than it first appears, as some of the collected items under a named photographer are not actually their own photographs, and some have unknown photographers.
Anyway, I'm more than happy to see DRs on any of these that there are doubts about; the process of discussion will help clarify their status and may help better to categorize and licence the remaining uploads. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge University's coat of arms

User:CUInfringements has been marking images based on the coat of arms of the University of Cambridge for speedy deletion as copyvios. The reason given is

This image is based on a trademarked image, is used without permission, and implies that it is the official University trademark which it is not.

I believe they are mistaken: the images are not based on the University's trademark, but on the blazon which that trademark also represents. If they believe that there is an implication that this is the official University trademark, they need only add a notice to the page pointing out that it is not. But I am no expert, so I'd appreciate it if this were discussed here on the Village Pump.

Note also that we had this argument back in March 2013 and decided to keep. Marnanel (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed these. We don't delete files because of trademarks, and if there is a copyright issue with these files, it is sufficiently uncertain so that a proper DR is needed anyway. Yann (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FOP in Oman and Kuwait

Some recent COM:FPCs (File:Kuwait Towers RB.jpg, File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpg) raise some doubts on COM:FOP in Oman and Kuwait. So bringing those matters here for expert opinion. Pinging Rehman too as he seems from an Arab country. Jee 07:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jkadavoor. I moved out of Bahrain at least a decade ago. :) I did notice though, that many good images of Bahrain (which were online for years) were deleted last year due to FOP, but I am not entirely sure of the FOP situ in the Middle East. Sorry I couldn't help. Best, Rehman 11:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The Omani copyright law does cover "works of architecture" (article 2) and has no FOP exception in chapter V. Of the Kuwaiti copyright law, WIPO lex has two different but equally bad English translations,[12][13] one of which says "works of architecture" were covered, while the other says that "architecture drawings" were covered. (Both also say that plans and models are covered.) In both versions, there's no FOP provision. Lupo 13:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Lupo: So we need to delete those pictures? Jee 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Richard Bartz: Sure; and such information is useful, and highly appreciated. Thanks. 02:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

File:CityAvenue Business Alliance.jpg

I'm tempted to say the curly style of City Alliance (the y connecting with the A) puts this out of the realm of the threshold of originality, but I need more opinions before I decide to DR it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just typography, a simple ligature. Signatures are usually much more complex, and still aren't copyrightable.
However, Googling "CityAvenue Business Alliance" comes up with crap results (two people have it in their Google+ Circle, and that's one of the top hits?!?); given that it's a modern logo uploaded by a user with a promotional user name and it's not in use, it's probably deletable as out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info! TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/01&oldid=115852848"