Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/04

CROWCASS copyright status - Crown copyright? Publication?

I was contacted by a user who'd like to upload some pages from the Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects (CROWCASS) list, but only if the copyright status is clear. To me, the information is confusing and contradictory: English Wikipedia says "In 1947, CROWCASS published a four volume list (...)" and "In 2005, the British government sanctioned the publication of the CROWCASS Consolidated Wanted Lists. Originally the lists were not intended to be in the public domain until the year 2023." That reads as if the British government has put the lists into the public domain in 2005. However, if first publication really occured in 1947, and the lists were under Crown copyright, they would already have been in the public domain in 1998 ("works except engravings created prior to 30 June 1957: 50 years from creation") according to the Commons copyright table, so why 2023? And what exactly means the "sanctioning" of publication in 2005? If the lists were still under copyright for some reason, maybe it was only permission for a commercial publisher to publish them, but not a general release? According to the user (who owns a copy published in 2007 that is regularly available in bookshops) it bears a copyright notice saying "Images may be used only for purposes of research, private study or education. Applications for any other use should be made to ..." etc. and "Reproduced by the Naval & Military Press in facsimile from original documents housed at The National Archives" - looking a bit as if the original documents were, in fact, not really "published" before. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Uggh. The prints I see out there (here and here list SHAEF as the author... I guess it sounds like primarily U.S. and British military, so probably those two governments. But I'm not sure SHAEF lasted until 1947. I doubt by "public domain" they meant anything related to copyright -- that was potentially damaging to a lot of people's reputation and was allegations at most; it was probably meant to be confidential. I guess there is a question whether the "published" document at the time qualified for publication under the Crown Copyright clauses... distribution was probably limited to UN prosecutors. On the other hand, material at the National Archives website says it is available via the Open Government License. I don't think the material is online though. The records on their website generally say the legal status is "Public Record", which doesn't help. I guess it might be interesting to see how the printed volume got out there -- did they need permission to publish from the National Archives or did they consider it public domain material? Dunno... seems like it should be fine one way or another though being precise about it might be tough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Image Request Inquiry

To whom it may concern,

It would be much appreciated if this request finds you well.

I am SunYoung Park, an international relations manager in EuroCreon, which is an image library in South Korea.

I would like to ask you if you can help me to use the images linked like below:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kakubenkeigani_07h9960.jpg?uselang=ko http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haliplanella_lineata_tatejimaig.JPG?uselang=ko

As I know, one of these two images has no copyright, but I couldn't figure out. Please let me know how to clear copyright of the images.

I really appreciate for your help in advance and look forward to hearing from you. Have a nice day!

Many Thanks & Best Regards, SunYoung Park EuroCreon Co., Ltd.

Both images have been released under Creative Commons licences; you are free to use them provided that you credit the respective authors and indicate the licence for each as well. If you open an image in Media Viewer and click the download icon, in the box that pops up you will find an appropriate credit line, in plain text and HTML.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images

See above, regarding a recent change in Flickr's license options, and the implications for Commons. Ultra7 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

US federal labs managed by private companies

While looking into the copyright status of images for an article I was working on, I finally came across this clear statement of LLNL's image status. This states:

LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. government purposes.

So that's good news for people like myself who wish to document this work. This implies that the same is true for other government labs like Argone, who have previously ignored such questions when mailed to them.

So, should I re-license all the images from these sources? Many have been uploaded here as PD or a variety of other tags. What's the general solution for these sorts of issues?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That basically says that they are not PD-USGov; the government has a license but that is it (the copyright is owned by another entity). That license is transferrable to a point, but 1) you'd need permission from the government, 2) it's not clear that would also involve commercial uses and derivative works, and 3) the government's permission would be limited to "U.S. government purposes", not all purposes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what the law says (consider the IWM BS). Other labs are covered by the same law start with the exact same language, but conclude that images covered by such contracts are PD. This is also what practically every image here that is marked PD-Gov states. So either PD-Gov covers these, or it covers very few images indeed and a great deal of material would have to be removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Maury, the problem here is that the statement you quoted does not establish what you claimed. In fact, it states, explicitly, "Permission to reproduce may be required," though this might not apply to "LLNL-authored documents." What the statement shows is "LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344." If anyone wants to spend the time, here is the contract. It may not be necessary.

You then are claiming that federal law releases the documents, but you do not cite evidence for that. (What does "IWM BS" refer to?).

Clindberg is correct. Template:PD-USGov has This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. On the face of it, this does not cover contractors, who are not, legally, officers or employees.

And then there is this can-o-worms: [1].

USA.gov has this: Works prepared for the U.S. government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the U.S. government. I must point out that "a great deal of material would have to be removed" is not an argument that a work is public domain. Sorry. This may depend on the details of that contract, but it is apparently not automatic, unless Maury can cite relevant law. Of course, if we were hosting m:NonFreeWiki content, it might only be a matter of changing a tag to satisfy WMF policy. --Abd (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The contract () only allows the Contractor "to assert, without prior approval of the contracting officer, copyright subsisting in scientific and technical articles composed under this contract or based on or containing data first produced in the performance of this Contract, and published in academic, technical or professional journals, symposia, proceedings, or similar works". Also "When assertion of copyright is made, the Contractor shall affix the applicable copyright notice of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402 and acknowledgment of Government sponsorship (including contract number) on the data ... when the data are published or deposited for registration as a published work in the U.S. Copyright Office".

As far as other copyrightable works are concerned "the Contractor agrees not to mark, register, or otherwise assert copyright in any data in a published or unpublished work, other than as set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this clause."

These are very restrictive terms. So, the majority of the works produced by LLNL are probably in public domain (unless a copyright notice is affixed to the work). Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruslik. For reference, here is a pdf (Section I, page 212) containing that contract language. Documents subject to the exceptions, contractor copyright or that are "limited rights," will be so marked, explicitly, it's required.

This contract language appears standard, and my guess is that it's mandated by the U.S. Code. If so, if this is general, opinion I have seen here that, say, a photo taken pursuant to a government contract is not necessarily licensed for free use, may not have been correct. Such a photo, appearing in a document published under the contract, with no notice of copyright or restriction, would likely be usable. Our PD template, though, isn't correct, apparently. This is not public domain. So, the good news. We don't have to delete a huge pile of images. That template, though, should be fixed. --Abd (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: "IWM BS" is referring to the "Imperial War Museum", in England, which is a somewhat well known source of dubious and confusing copyright claims based on the digitization of images. Revent (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Abd So am I correct in believing that (1) the images fall into PD due to the terms outlined by Ruslik, and (2) that, as I started off, many of the images are currently improperly tagged? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think so. I'd prefer to wait to see if there are additional comments. The Template:PD-USgov may work, though. The term "public domain" may be inaccurate, the reality is that such works are public domain only in the U.S., and may not be, elsewhere. I would think it less confusing to not call them "public domain," but copyrighted works where the copyright is not enforceable in the U.S.

There is coverage of the "contractor" issue at w:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U._S._government#Works_produced_by_contractors. This is a bit misleading. It does not mention that such "reserved" works must be so labelled. Thus they will be, unless so labelled, available for free use in the U.S., and Commons may host them. Ordinarily, for many decades, in the U.S., author copyright is assumed unless released. For works of these contractors, the reverse is the case, the U.S. government work is released unless rights are reserved. It's clear in that contract. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

PD-self only on Wikimedia?

Hello, is there a license which I can only on Wikimedia sites choose an PD-self and only outside with an Attribution-license (multi-license?)? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No. If you release something into the public domain, you waive your copyright, and your copyright is the only thing that would make a copyright license enforceable. What exactly is it that you want to achieve, in more practical terms? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. I want to create buttons graphics without attribution in Wikimedia. Attribution made there no sense. Is there no opportunity? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I suppose you could license it under (e.g.) {{cc-by-4.0}} and explicitly waive all conditions in section 3 of the license with respect to uses on Wikimedia projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, but does a CC-BY-type attribution for buttons graphics make sense anywhere? Why don't just release the graphics as PD-self (or, better, CC-zero) universally? Gestumblindi (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I think you are right. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific File - Unclear on Copyright Status

Hello, I recently uploaded File:US Army Remount Station Front Royal.jpg, which was posted to Flickr by the Boston Public Library, who state in their file description that there are "No known restrictions" for rights, and published it under a CC by 2.0 license. However, the postcard depicted is definitely not old enough to be automatically PD, so I would like to get another opinion on A) whether this is truly a free image and B) if so, the proper way to indicate the license.

I also originally uploaded it thinking BPL had posted it as part of the Flickr Commons, and had used the "Flickr-no known copyright restrictions" template. They are not part of the Commons, so I've swapped it out, but didn't know if this would interfere with the automatic Flickr Review bot check. Thanks! Antepenultimate (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Most likely {{PD-US-not renewed}}, if not {{PD-US-no notice}} (though we'd need to see the back for the latter). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on the history of the location (when it was transferred to the USDA), the image is most likely pre-1948, not that it helps much. Revent (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate the responses. I am unsure if I should add the {{PD-US-not renewed}} template, as I really don't know if that's true - but I am assuming that an institution such as the Boston Public Library would have done due diligence in researching the status of these items before uploading them to Flickr with a CC by 2.0 license (and yeah, these companies not renewing copyright is most likely how these are asserted to be copyright-free). The problem is, I don't know that for sure, and I really don't understand this enough to do the research on my own.

There are a few other historical postcards that the BPL has uploaded that I would be interested in using for certain en:wiki articles. Is it a problem to upload them here as-is with the CC by 2.0 license they were posted to Flickr with? Am I overthinking this? Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong term

Hello! This templates uses wrong terms while describing the pd-italy context (in the English version and in the Italian as well). It says that the keypoint is when a photo is considered a "works of photographic art" [...] "Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years [...]", the template also stats that "the simple photography must not have artistic merit [...]".

Now, the Italian law never refers to the "artistic" value or merit of a photo, it talks about "creativity", which has a very different meaning. Actually, the subject of the whole law are (literally) "intellectual works with creative characteristics" (art. 1 L. 633/1941) and includes among them "works belonging to figurative art". This has definitely a different legal meaning and the law should be properly cited/summarised. --Lucas (msg) 07:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Mislicensing on bulk imported Flickr images

I left this comment at a user's talk page regarding the bulk importation of Flickr images that are mislicensed.

These were taken from a Flickr user called "What's that Picture?", whose uploads (by definition) clearly *aren't* his own work and nor is he clear on their origins. Therefore he clearly has no right to claim the "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic" license on the original images. (*) Because that was what was claimed, however, it was mirrored by the import tool.

If the images are free, it's because the vast majority are probably so old as to be out of copyright. So, to be fair, this *probably* (with the emphasis on "probably") isn't Flickrwashing in the majority of cases, but it's still mislabelling on a large scale. (**)

Commons uploader states that "the images are old (the uploader claims most are pre-1945)"... note the claim is for "most"- not "all"- and that the seventy year cutoff only applies in the UK to works with an unknown author. It's then further acknowledged that "Some images may not be free and should be deleted."

Commons' modus operandi has never- or should never- have been "upload first, then check if it's okay later".

My point is that if it isn't possibly to bulk upload them under the correct license (or at least acknowledge that the license may be incorrect) then perhaps they shouldn't have been bulk uploaded- at least that way- in the first place?

Apologies if this comes across as overly critical of the original uploader, but at the end of the day I don't believe that the shortcomings of bulk upload tools absolve their users from ensuring that the information is correct.

Essentially, I'm trying to raise two issues here; What the situation is (or should be) with respect to mislabelled- but not outright Flickrwashed- bulk uploads like these ones and what the expected standards for bulk imported images should be in general.

(*) It's not clear whether under UK law, the re-photographing would itself be entitled to copyright. (I know that in some European countries, it would be, whereas in the US, it probably wouldn't). But that would be on top of the copyright status of the original image, which still remains and should be acknowledged anyway. I strongly suspect the former wasn't what the Flickr user was claiming anyway; in fact, he has changed his recent uploads to a "PD" license, implying that the former CC claim reflected little more than Flickr's default setting.

(**) Some people may argue that the claimed license doesn't matter if they're free anyway, but I'm strongly opposed to that argument. Aside from the fact it encourages sloppiness in general and waving through "it's probably okay" cases, it makes it harder to spot abuses or copyvios if everyone's doing it, and it makes it harder to determine whether an image is free and usable as such in countries that have varying copyright laws. (Commons can't cover every variance of copyright law, but we can make it easier for people to determine whether the criteria under which it was judged "free" appies to them, i.e. by labelling them correctly).

Ubcule (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This concerns these images: [2]. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks- I forgot to include that here(!) Ubcule (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Irfanview logo use on Wikimedia commons

I received an email from Irfan Skiljan, owner of the Irfanview logo permitting its use on wikimedia commons. Would the email forwarded to the proper authority here, be sufficient as permission to use the logo? — Ineuw talk 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Permission to use the image on Wikimedia Commons is not sufficient. Commons only hosts content that can be used by anyone for any purpose. So what's actually needed for content to be hosted on Commons is permission to publish the content under a free license – a license from the copyright holder that gives anyone the right to use, modify and redistribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply.— Ineuw talk 10:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the copyright status of an individual file: File:Saina Nehwal-During-A-Match.jpg

I have been having a conversation with Shekharhoney about the copyright status of an individual file (File:Saina Nehwal-During-A-Match.jpg), and collectively we are a bit unclear on its status. Shekharhoney pointed out that the source webpage clearly notes that "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" in the footer of the page. My concern, however, is that this license may not apply to the image, but only the text of the page; the two photographs on the page (including the one that Shekharhoney uploaded to Commons) do not appear to have any notes, credits, or metadata concerning their specific licensing or creators. I initially tagged this file as "missing permission" due to my aforementioned concern about licensing, but after my discussion with Shekharhoney I have since removed that tag and have instead begun a discussion here. Thanks in advance for any help and guidance you can provide in resolving the copyright status of this file. Michael Barera (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The photo probably doesn't originate from that particular page, since it can be found at many other places on the web, e.g., [3] from three years earlier, were it's credited Reuters/Bazuki Muhammad. --ghouston (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shekharhoney: That's essentially what I feared. What do you think the best thing to do at this point is, Ghouston? Create a regular deletion request, or perhaps a speedy deletion request on the grounds that it is a copyvio? Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Either way would be fine, it seems to be clear enough to qualify for speedy. --ghouston (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

An email was received in OTRS about this picture File:Ioannina Greece.jpg. The person who sent the email said that he took the photo and that the user copy it from his account at [4]. According to this link, the picture was submitted at 2006-02-21 13:22. In commons the picture was submitted at 2007-09-01. What to do? Xaris333 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to start a regular deletion request. --Sebari (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ioannina Greece.jpg Xaris333 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions

It seems Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions needs more community attention as it affects a lot of files. Jee 02:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Videos from YouTube with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) but with a different license in the actual video

Hi all, I've frequently found videos in YouTube under the YouTube 'Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)' (that is {{YouTube CC-BY}}). However, the actual video shows a different, not compatible, license (for instance, CC-BY-NC). How should we proceed? Which one is the valid license? Mind that YouTube just provides two options: copyrighted and CC-BY. Best regards --Discasto _talk 14:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Similar issues also come up with other content in the form of watermarks and descriptions that clearly contradict the selected license. In such cases, we can hardly in good faith pretend that the more restrictive terms aren't there. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it the baseline approach from Commons? I say that because I've just found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valencià a Alacant.webm where the opposite has been stated by involved administrators? --Discasto _talk 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've just found Commons:Multi-licensing. It states that Commons contributors can offer as many licenses for a file as they wish, as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses specified in the licensing policy. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use. I assume that the same approach is valid for material from other sites, isn't it? --Discasto _talk 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the approach I've seen used in the sample of deletion requests that I've seen.

The number of people who understand what multi-licensing means, particularly when dealing with a combination of free and non-free licenses, and have the inclination to do so is vanishingly small. If the intention really had been to multi-license, don't you think the author would have mentioned both licenses in the video rather than mentioning one in the video and the other in Youtube's license selection? In all likelihood, it's what they've actively written that's the intention, and the Youtube license selection is the result of Youtube's limited options in combination with either simple oversight or a lack of understanding that there are many different CC licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. But the fact of being licensed under a free license, which cannot be revoked, remains. What shocks me most is our lack of coherence in the application of policies (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Diània.tv videos). Anyway, if your analysis is right (or at least widely supported) a new writing of Commons:Multi-licensing would be needed, wouldn't it? --Discasto _talk 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

LX is right in that many legislations (Germany, …) and the PRP require us to consider whether releases have been fully intentional or not. Whether such files should be deleted should IMO be decided on a case-per-case basis as there might be other hints (ToUs, licensing of other works, …) which can make intentions clearer. As far as I can see Commons:Multi-licensing only deals with multilicensing here on Commons.    FDMS  4    19:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I've asserted from the very beginning that it was referred to commons. However, the underlying principle, in the way it's written down, apply to any multilicensing scenario. Therefore, if your interpretation is right (or widely supported), a mention in Commons:Multi-licensing should be added, as it's been used in the DR I've mentioned.

On the other hand, the "intention" argumentation can be easily used in many other cases in which we explicitly refuse to accept it. In my many years in commons, many times I've seen how uploaders have tried to revoke the picture license. If we follow the "intention" argument, it can be argued that the uploaders didn't know the terms of the licenses (for instance, that they cannot be revoked) and therefore such licenses are invalid... anyway, I agree with you in that a case by case analysis is needed, but the license they have assigned (which cannot be revoked) keeps on being free. Best regards --Discasto _talk 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The "cannot revoke" clause in a license would be meaningless if a licensor can claim at any time that they hadn't read the license and want to revoke it. --ghouston (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but why doesn't the very same argument apply to YouTube videos? "Hey, guys, I didn't read the license conditions (or did it, but wasn't able to find a better license) so that I'm licensing my video under CC-BY but actually meaning NC-ND". Weird, isn't it? I insist. Whether they like it or not, whether they've read it or not, whether they love it or not, the uploaders agree to license under a not-revokable CC-BY license. Nobody forces them to do it. But they do. I understand the point of being kind to them, as they possibly do not know the terms of the 'Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)' but... why aren't we equally kind to those that, for example, change the license terms in flickr when they notice that they doesn't actually want to make their pictures commercially available? --Discasto _talk 07:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

They certainly aren't forced to use CC-BY on youtube. They can select the default non-free youtube license and put NC-ND in the video itself and perhaps mention it in the description. --ghouston (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not their claim that matters, but how they have licensed a work under the free license – saying, "[license], but [additional restrictions]" is not the same as licensing a work and later imposing additional restrictions on its use or claiming that they didn't understand what they were doing. Same thing on Commons – if someone uploads a file and puts "may only be used on Wikipedia" in its description during or immediately after the upload, we'll have to delete it.    FDMS  4    19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Licence issue, but can we assume the image is PD?

Regarding File:Colonel Henry Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell.jpg; this image which apparently dates from 1862 is clearly not the "own work" of the uploader, which means the licence is not valid. But given it's age, can we safely assume that this image is in the public domain? Or am I better off opening a deletion request? PC78 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You can simply ask the uploader to fix the source, the date and the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message on thier talk page, I hope I've worded it ok. But if they don't respond, or don't know what to do, or insist that it's "theirs", what then? If you could give me a bit more guidance, if only for future reference, that would be appreciated. PC78 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing the date, there is no doubt that it is in the public domain. I changed the license. Finding the source would be great. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

blackpast.org

There are a number of images that have been uploaded here from http://blackpast.org. I noticed some questionable ones that seemed unlikely to be public domain and so I emailed the site. The response I received is available as Template:OTRS ticket. The bottom line is that we need to independently verify anything sourced to blackpast.org - just because they say "public domain" does not mean it is "public domain" in the legal sense of the term. Mass DR? Individually look at the images and (possibly) in an orderly fashion, move them to :en for fair use if they turn out not to be PD? --UserB (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We either need an OTRS permission, or at least the original picture with EXIF data. I think that for recent pictures (after 1977), we need to know who is the photographer; for old pictures, we need to know where they were first published (might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}). I created Category:Pictures from blackpast.org. It would be useful to add all of them in this cat. Yann (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have added a description to the category referencing the OTRS ticket. In many/most of the cases, we have no idea who the actual author is. File:Damon Allen running.jpg is almost certainly a news media photo (I couldn't find this particular one from Getty, AP, or Corbis, but from looking at it, it's obviously a news media photo). Most of the old stuff (old, but not PD old), we can move to Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. --UserB (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Screenshots of re-encoded "no copyright" videos

The screenshots in question are:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20131021064010/http://doom10.org/compare/parkrun_ssim.png
• https://web.archive.org/web/20131021065546/http://doom10.org/compare/parkrun_psnr.png

Both of them have been re-encoded from the source video called parnrun which can be found at https://media.xiph.org/video/derf/

The readme file of the video states that it is distributed with "no restriction" and "no copyright":

Restrictions of use:	No restrictions
Copyright:	No copyright

So can I upload the screenshots above to Wikimedia Commons? If yes then what license template(s) should I use? Tuankiet65 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-encoding does not change the copyright status of video/images. So, you should use the license tags which you would use for the source video. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So I would use PD-author? Tuankiet65 (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Romanian images

I recently uploaded several hundred photos I took in Bucharest last December. I've done my best to conform to Romania's very limited FOP and somewhat strict personality rights laws, but it's possible that I've uploaded one or more images that do not belong here on Commons, e.g. a picture of a building that is more recent than I'd have thought. I'd very much appreciate it if someone more familiar with Romanian law in these matters could take a look through my uploads and see if any of what I uploaded should not be here. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thirty Meter Telescope copyright issue

File:Top view of tmt complex.jpg seems to be uploaded without a proper license and doesn't appear to say that it is at all free on their webpage. In fact, it states that some images may be owned by other entities. Could someone check this out to be sure it is not a clear copyright violation for our standards. Website states: "Some image and video materials on the TMT public web sites are owned by organizations other than the TMT International Observatory. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses." [5]. --Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A clear CC license with the proper disclaimer for such is found with this image: File:OverWhelmingly Large Telescope.jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If everything is as you say you could start a DELetion Request with {{Delete}}, or ask for help how to get this right. The file is INUSE and was uploaded almost 30 months ago, therefore a {{Speedy}} deletion won't be a good idea. Just adding a {{License review}} request also won't do, the reviewer could miss the fine print like the uploader, and you can't present your facts (e.g., a permalink to this section) in a license review request. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They don't have a CC license, it is more a generic license that anything is OK as long as you attribute it, from what I can see. And that is exactly the license tag which is on the image. What indications are there that this image is by a separate entity? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange that you did notice that "Ownership of images and video by parties other than the TMT International Observatory is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image.". Nothing is noted in the caption of this image. Ruslik (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Full text of GFDL

Is it required in practice to use the full text of GFDL when attributing a GFDL licensed image instead of simply linking? What are the practical consequences for not doing so, if they are actually enforced at all? Editor abcdef (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is required. The consequences of not complying with this or any other of the license requirements is that the would-be licensee's rights under the license are terminated. If nothing else makes the usage of the licensed content legal, this means that non-compliant uses constitute copyright infringements. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That being said (and LX is completely correct) in 'historical' practice (the GFDL is rather old) the requirement has frequently been ignored, and to the best of my knowledge the FSF has never pursued the issue... the GFDL was never intended to be used for anything other than actual documentation, and the inconvenience of actually complying with it was a major factor in the creation of other free licenses such as the CC suite. Technically, however, yes, inclusion of the entire text is explicitly required. Revent (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not the FSF who could enforce the license. It's the owner of the rights of the licensed work. In practice, someone ignoring the requirement in one of your works means that you can suit him with the same claim that your could if the work was "all rights reserved". Reusers might not be likely to be prosecuted by ignoring the claim, but they are in fact as likely as if they grab any copyrighted image in the Internet and reuse it without permission. As Revent said, GFDL was never intended to be used for some of the stuff it is actually used, and some of the people that use it just want to make his work less likely to be reused. In fact, this has lead to some proposals to restrict accepting GDFL licenses in Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Change of license on trivial "derivative" image legitimate?

This image is at the centre of a dispute regarding whether the license can be changed from CC-BY-3.0 to CC-BY-SA-3.0.

The original description claimed it as an "own work [..] based off [6]". (Implying it was a derivative work that CC-BY-3.0 lets be licensed under different terms).

The sole change from the original was the removal of a block of text (i.e. rectangular select, then delete).

McZusatz considered that the change of license was not legitimate because the change was below the threshold of originality. (I'm assuming uploader's right to change the license rests upon whether he/she can claim copyright on changes made for this allegedly "derivative" work).

The license has been changed back then restored more than once, so I think it would be useful to have further discussion on whether or not this is legitimate. Ubcule (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not really legitimate. You can't "re-license" a work… if you create a derivative work, you can license that, although the new license only applies to the copyrightable expression added to the original. The original work still has its own license. In this case, simply removing the credit and changing the background to transparent are not copyrightable changes, so there is no new expression which can be licensed. It is rare that new expression can be created by removing elements… I guess it could conceivably be possible if there was a "selection and arrangement" copyright and someone created a substantially new arrangement via deletion (though even that is dubious as the selection would still not be new), but just like you can't get a copyright by selecting and arranging 2-3 items, you certainly can't get a new one by removing 2-3 items. So in my opinion, all of the expression existing at that new image belongs to the author of the original image, and thus the license needs to stay that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. (*) IMHO the problem with CC-BY-3.0 is that the additional leeway it grants derivatives is due to what it *doesn't* say, i.e. it omits BY-SA's "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. "

Considering what the license says logically *would* lead to what you say, but that's not obvious to the casual user.

Would a CC-BY-3.0 work with changes made under a different license have to declare CC-BY-3.0 for the base work *and* (e.g.) CC-BY-SA-3.0 for copyrightable changes? Even if the latter effectively made the derivative work only distributable under CC-BY-SA-3.0 anyway?

Of course, even the ability to do that legitimately would require CFCF's changes to be above the threshold of copyrightability. It seems that you, myself and McZusatz already agree this isn't remotely the case, implying that there is no right for the CC-BY-SA-3.0 to be added, regardless.

(*) I hadn't really considered the CC-BY-3.0 much until now, since I wouldn't use it for my own works, nor have I felt the need to license changes I've made to others' works under terms different to the original. (IMHO that just makes things confusing for everyone). Ubcule (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaronia PowerLOG Horn-Antenna.jpg

I apologize in advance if I am asking a stupid question, but I haven't dealt with copyright issues before. The image Aaronia PowerLOG Horn-Antenna.jpg uploaded under cc-by-sa-4.0 is pretty clearly this image: http://www.aaronia.com/products/antennas/PowerLOG-10800/ presumably belonging to Aaronia AG. The only difference between the two images is a dropshadow that has been hamhandedly photoshopped in. Is this a copyvio? Thanks. --Chetvorno (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Tagged and deleted. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I know what to do if I come across a similar situation. --Chetvorno (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Friedland

Posters with embedded photographs and different creators named in the template... do we need a permission for this? Also, the portraits aren't taken by the same photographer. --Woupie-Triit (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done DR started: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Friedland. Yann (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:PM Modi at thes at the concluding session of the National Workshop on Make in India.jpg

Hi, What about the image on the background? Not permanent and no FoP in India for 2D art anyway. De minimis? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not, the logo is much too prominent. --El Grafo (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I cropped it. Yann (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FWL??

Is {{FWL}} German only and obsolete?? (S. Commons:Copyright_tags #Various_free_licenses, Wikiweise is dead since 2012) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks more or less obsolete to me, and it doesn't seem to make much sense to use it for new uploads, but there are some files using this license, so I think we have to keep it, maybe add an appropriate note... Gestumblindi (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The link to the license text does not work anymore. Actually it might be a good idea to see if we can get the authors to relicense their files under another license, if not already done so, and delete all remaining files. It seems to be around 100 files, of which most are already under a CC license as well. --Sebari (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The license is meaningless if the license text is no longer available. archive.org doesn't have a copy due to the original site's robots.txt, and I can't find it anywhere else either. --ghouston (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is an archived copy at https://archive.today/ukNMr Thincat (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

, after about 8 hours of searching and not finding a stupid copy of this odd license for an ancient dewiki fork: thanks, good enough for a {{Deprecated}} instead of a mass deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well... it seems it's best to officially "retire" the license here, if a web archive is the only means to retrieve it... I think we should proceed as follows:

• Add a note to the license template along the lines of "license isn't maintained, please don't use for new uploads", link to the archived copy...
• Remove license template from all files that also have another free license (CC-BY-SA, FAL etc.)
• Review remaining files, ask uploaders if they might be willing to add another license.
• If uploaders don't respond or aren't willing, what to do? Delete the remaining handful of files or keep them, thus necessitating keeping an obsolete license template?

Gestumblindi (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say start with the three first steps and then review what's left. --Sebari (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If no one is objecting, I will start removing the obsolete license tag from images that have another free license soon, so we can start to see what's left. --Sebari (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I expect stage one is good but note the template now links to an archived copy of the licence and the template has been tagged as deprecated. Thincat (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I did now remove the tag from dual-licensed images. Here is what is left:

• 
  In use, easily replaceable
• 
  In use, easily replaceable
• 
  In use, easily replaceable
• 
  In use, best photo of subject, but alternatives available
• 
  same, alternative here
• 
  in use in a gallery, mediocre quality, no big loss
• 
  Unused, mediocre quality, there are some alternative images, although I am not sure, if they depict the same thing exactly
• 
  I replaced the only use, mediocre quality, not a big loss
• 
  very small, unused, but with ORTS permission, we have at least one better alternative photo, although six years later, not a big loss, in my opinion
• 
  Unused
• 
  Screenshot of the defunct wiki that caused this mess, not used in a main namespace

I will update this when a file gets a better license or is deleted. I suggest we review this list again next week. In my opinion, the only big losses are the two rose closeups, the diagrams, the Waskasso Park image, and the two photos of persons one photo of a person with no alternative. Not enough to keep a custom license, which can't be found on any official page anymore. --Sebari (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I agree with your assessments. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The author of the diagrams kindly relicensed them, so I removed them here. --Sebari (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbwd on nonfree images spree

So far, I've reported as copyvios by this user File:Katara Prize for Arabic Novel.jpg and File:Katara Prize for arabic novel.jpg - identical copies of the same event's logo, reported as "own work", CC-BY-SA. Also File:Khalid_alsulaiti.jpg (found a newspaper article a year older).

I'm pretty sure File:Khalid_aljaber.jpg is 'shopped from the same image used for eg [[7]] (the folds of the shirt and the pen in the shirt pocket are identical), and bluntly, I think all this user's uploads are copyvios, but I don't know what to do about that that's better than playing whack-a-mole with Google Images.

Help? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:EdinburghTramsNoText.svg

Hello. I'm pretty sure that File:EdinburghTramsNoText.svg is a copyvio. As it is basically a cutdown version of the actual company logo (See here}. It is claiming to be PD under threshold of originality. But the article on that states that in the UK, this cannot be claimed for most logos. So this would seem to me to be a clear copyvio. What do others think? I've already created a generic replacement btw, just to be on the safe side. G-13114 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this particular picture original? It is a combination of simple geometrical shapes and it may itself be based on some old source. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that there are four images featuring this design on Commons:

• 
  the tram symbol only
• 
  the full Edinburgh Trams logo
• 
  the Lothian Buses logo

I uploaded some of these based on the fact one of them was already here, being claimed as PD for being under TOO - so obviously if that's not the case, they all need to go, as they all feature the same crossover symbol. I personally don't think they are, but I don't really care either way. You're unlikely to get any firm opinions either way unless you actually file a deletion request. However, if these are deemed to be copyright, then I am personally not seeing why the generic replacement would be OK - it surely a derivative work of the actual logo. Ultra7 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If a work is too simple to be copyrighted it does not matter if it was derived from a copyrighted work.    FDMS  4    19:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

IS/ISIS/ISIL Videos

Could someone with more expertise please weigh in at Commons:Help_desk#Inquiry_regarding_the_hosting_of_IS.2FISIS.2FISIL_Videos_for_the_purposes_of_referencing_said_works_in_an_academic_article.? I'm linking rather than rehashing so as to try to keep the conversation in one place. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Tapissery is 2D art?

Hi, I think File:Arhats Panthaka, Nagasena, Gopaka, and Abheda, from a six-part set of Arhat Immortal Thangkas FS-7619 08.jpg can be considered as 2D art, but since the Smithsonian Institution is claiming a copyright, I rather ask. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

To the right of the right-side edge of the tapestry, there does appear to be a bit of a shadow. For the bottom section of the tapestry (which starts below the somewhat golden border), it appears that the very bottom of the section is closer to the camera and that the tapestry slopes away from the camera as one goes from the bottom to the top of the bottom section. At the very top of the tapestry, a red and gold section is just visible, and there may be a perception of depth when it comes to the transition from the red-gold section to the blue and gray section that comes underneath. --Gazebo (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So OK or not? If not would it be OK if cropped? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

All paintings have some depth as well. If we crop this it should be ok. But if not cropped to the flat surface it seems not 2D to me. --Hannolans (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I cropped it. Hopefully, it is OK now. Thanks for the comments. Yann (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Photos of street art on Commons

A bunch of well-known street artists are in town (Australia) for an event this week and I have the opportunity to photograph their portraits for their respective Wikipedia articles. Photographs of some of their previous work have been uploaded to Commons and to avoid potential embarrassment, I thought I'd check whether these photographs are actually allowed on Commons.

1. Photos such as this, this and this were uploaded to Commons. They were taken in Australia, in a public place, are legal (commissioned works) and not anonymous. They were uploaded without the permission of the artist. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Australia, Freedom of panorama does to apply to 2D artworks. So should photos like these be deleted off Commons?
2. The same goes for photos like this and this, which were taken in the UK and Norway where Freedom of panorama also doesn't apply to 2D paintings. Should these also be deleted? Do we need to do a big cleanup of Category:Street art?
3. How would you go about asking the artist for permission for photographs of their work to be uploaded to Commons? Because the license for the actual photograph is OK, the problem is the license for the artwork being photograph. So would the artist have to release their artwork under a free license allowing commercial use, modification and distribution? Would that mean that the license/permission would apply to all photograph of that particular artwork (ie. anyone can then take photographs of that particular artwork without the artist's permission)? Also, hypothetically, does that mean that someone could legally produce and distribute copies of that particular artwork commercially?

- Kollision (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the pictures linked above are not OK without a permission from the artist (except in countries where FoP includes 2D art). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

keep, and tag Template:Non-free graffiti; get an Com:OTRS, derivative of 2D work so 2 licenses; so no, release of a particular derivative does not apply to other deravitives. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 12:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Non-free graffiti only applies to illegal graffiti. These are produced legally with permission from the property owner.

Ok, I think I get it. So they don't actually have to license the actual artwork. They can just provide permission for their artwork to be photographed under a free license for just that one photo. So in the case of the consent declaration at Commons:Email templates, they'd say "...owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media... I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license ..." Then if I'm asking for permission for a photograph that's already on Commons, they would have to give consent under the exact same license as used by the photographer, right? - Kollision (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The question 3: "So would the artist have to release their artwork under a free license ..." is interesting. The question is whether it's possible to license a particular view of an underlying work without licensing the work itself. It's a bit like trying to license separately high and low resolution versions of the same photo, which turns out to be questionable. Since the CC licenses allow the creation of derived works, once an artist has licensed a photo of the work, there's nothing to stop somebody creating a new street art representation based on that photo. The same applies to sculptures and buildings: somebody could create a new three-dimensional object based on CC licensed photos. --ghouston (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For a mural, I don't think the license of the picture is equivalent to the license of the art work itself. Other opinions? @Clindberg: Regards, Yann (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems a pretty big loophole in freedom; if I want to upload a work under CC-BY-ND, can I take a photo of it and say the photo is free, but the underlying work is not to be edited? If you have a free photo, you should be able to edit it and remix it in any way. Under PD-Art, we know that for most photographs of 2-D objects, there is no license on the picture in the US, and we conveniently expand that to the world, so no, you couldn't separately license one from the other.

Limitations on photos of 3-D objects are less onerous; I don't know the legal details, but I would say that the limitation of the rights on the sculpture or building is annoying, but non-unfree. Legally... nobody in the law probably worries about this shit. If they wanted to license 2-D rights and not 3-D rights, they would explicitly write that in the license. Any concept of using a blanket unspecific license like CC-* is a new thing, and a tiny minority, especially when looking at cases involving the money to justify going to court.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Authors can slice and dice their copyright any way they like. So if they want to license their work just as far as it appears in a particular photograph, I think they can. Obviously, if there is a photograph of a 2-D work taken head-on, they probably want to be careful about how that photo is licensed (maybe only a reduced-resolution version). Even distorted versions can be un-distorted if they allow derivative works. If street art is a substantial part of the photo (and not just incidental or de minimis), then I'd think we would need permission from the author of the underlying work (at least for the photo). I think recreated works would not necessarily be derivatives of the photo; they would probably be direct derivatives of the original work (since none of the expression in the photo would be present anymore). I can easily see a judge saying that goes beyond the permission granted by allowing the photograph. The permission would probably be something akin to FOP -- just so long as a subsequent use doesn't directly compete with the original work, or something like that. But, something like that has probably never been tested in court. Judges would tend to side with copyright owners though if they could, I'd think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

From what one understands, if a photo is under a free license, then any copyrighted artwork depicted in the photo must also be under a free license for the photo to be reusable, unless the artwork is de minimis or subject to a copyright exception such as freedom of panorama. For a given photo, it might be all right if the depicted artwork is only freely licensed with regard to the entirety of the specific depiction in the specific photo. In such a case, the free license would allow third parties to produce copies and derivative works of that specific depiction of the artwork. Regarding the situation where a work is under a free license but with a specification that the license only applies to a low resolution copy of the work even though the work exists in higher resolution versions, the Commons licensing policy indicates that such a specification should be honored even though it is not clear as to whether the specification would be legally enforceable. --Gazebo (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Public domain photograph published in Japan

Would a photograph published by a local government agency in Japan qualify as a public domain image? I've read Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Japan and it seems like it would fall under criteria 2 of Article 13, but I'm looking for a second opinion.--Khanate General (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a photo could generally be considered a "public notice, instruction or circular notice". This type of exemption is typically intended to facilitate distribution of edicts (textual announcements made by governments). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with an image of Laurus nobilis

This picture of Laurus nobilis has overwritten the (completely different) original pic which had granted an authorization from www.legambientearcipelagotoscano.it (OTRS token); the present pic has no clear info. How can we do to fix this problem?--Carnby (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried to fix it by myself. Please check whether everything is all right now.--Carnby (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Should {{PD-Art|FOP-....}} be considered a license?

Few times I run into files tagged by a database query as no license, that were trying to use {{PD-Art|FOP-....}} instead. But some technical background first: All the license templates on commons transclude Template:License template tag so searching for files without license templates just means searching for files not transcluding that tag. All such files are listed periodically at Category:Media without a license: needs history check and either fixed or tagged with {{No license}} tag. FOP templates are not considered license tags since they always need information of the copyrights of the photographer. {{PD-Art}} also is not by itself a license template since it required information about why the original is in public domain. But {{PD-Art|FOP-....}} seems to cover both. For example this file. Such license could cover graffiti, if it is cropped to 2D and in the countries with FOP. Am I missing something? May be the best way would be to nominate one such file for deletion and have a discussion there. --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a switch in {{PD-Art/layout}}, with six known cases, do you think you could enumerate the FoP… there? If yes and you do nothing else you get a Category:PD-Art FoP… for each permitted FoP…, but that's no problem—better than keeping two switches in synch. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Being covered by 2D-FOPs does not make works PD, it just allows us to host reproductions of them onwiki, so the wording of {{PD-art}} doesn't apply at all. Maybe we need {{PD-FOP}} ("This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art on permanent public display. […]"; with a country parameter)?    FDMS  4    16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:FDMS4 I agree that wording of {{PD-Art}} is not perfect and something like {{PD-FOP-2D|country}} might be in order, where we would carefully validate each country included. Some countries with FOP, like Template:FoP-Poland or Template:FoP-Peru also have strange "not for the same use" condition. This I understand to mean that you can not create identical building, sculpture or graffiti, but a photo of a graffiti, mural or poster should be OK assuming you do not use it to create your own graffiti, mural or poster. By the way, Now we do have first DR related to this issue Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vietnam-Has-Gained-Complete-Victory-on-30-April-1975.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I have is that something which qualifies for PD-Art means it is essentially a copy, and as such has removed all public context from the photo. Almost all FOP laws have a qualifier where such works cannot be usable as a substitute for the original (or "unreasonably prejudice the rights of the original" or something along those lines). If a photo is basically a copy, and the underlying work is still under copyright, I think it is probably an issue -- that is basically a straight copy of a copyrighted work. A FOP template usually indicates that the underlying item is still copyrighted (where the photograph still needs to be licensed), and a PD-Art template generally indicates that it is not (rather it is the photographic work which added no originality). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

At least in Germany and Austria that doesn't matter, as long as the work isn't reproduced on or as a building and (only in Austria) plastic works aren't reproduced plastically (might be an issue with hosting 3D files?).    FDMS  4    20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Carl and FDMS, sorry I lost track of this discussion. Carl, I agree that {{PD-Art}} might not be ideal, but the question is are there cases where we do have purely 2D photograph of an object covered by FOP, where we would not need permissions of either photographer or the creator of the original work? We could create {{PD-FOP-2D|country}} where country parameter would be used to add proper FOP tag and countries with "qualifier where such works cannot be usable as a substitute for the original" or some other disqualifying FOP provisions would not be included. Please also see this and this deletion request. --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In my mind, again, if PD-Art applies (which is purely U.S. law) that would amount to a straight copy of a copyrighted work. I don't think the combination would apply in the U.S. -- if the painting is still considered copyrighted there, then a PD-Art photo is just a copy. I don't think there is any chance of the foreign FoP law helping. So I don't think it helps the "PD in the United States" side of things. Are you saying in Germany it would be OK to sell postcards of a copyrighted painting, as long as that painting happened to be in public, and the postcard was taken from a photo of it? The Berne Convention (in article 9(2)) has this clause: It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. It would seem to me that FoP is one those those certain special cases. Does the text of the Berne Convention have legal effect in Germany? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Clindberg: IANAL (definitely not "happened to be in public", but permanently situated), I just read COM:FOP#Germany and the German original of UrhG §59 (the translation is (only) missing the "by means of painting or graphics, on photographs or film" part).

The Austria FOP law seems to be more detailed, here requirements are that a work has been created to be permanently situated in a public place and one is allowed to "copy/duplicate/reproduce (Vervielfältigen), share, perform by optical means, broadcast and make [it] available to the public, exceptions are the reconstruction of architectural works, the copying/duplicating/reproducing of works of painting and graphical arts for permanent situation in said [public] places [I don't fully understand this part] and the copying/duplicating/reproducing of sculptures as sculptures" (literal translation of most of UrhG §54 Abs. 1 Z 5).    FDMS  4    23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the German law is a bit interesting -- most laws have that same qualifier from the Berne Convention in their laws, or something basically equivalent. The German law does not, but rather mentions that straight reproductions are only forbidden for architectural works. So maybe Germany does not consider such photos against the normal exploitation rights. That is why I asked about the Berne Convention text having legal effect -- if it does, that still may be an argument in court, even though it's not mentioned directly in the German law. However, while it may (on technicalities) seem to be OK per Commons policies, I still don't like it, as it may not actually be free in either country. First, there is the Berne Convention gray area. Second, the PD-Art tag implies that it is not a photo by a Wikimedia contributor or otherwise licensed; such photo might still be covered by copyright in Germany (even though Commons policy is to apply U.S. law to those), at the very least under their simple-photo rules (which have a shorter term, but still exist). In the U.S., the gray area we rely on with foreign FOP laws I think becomes considerably more unlikely to apply in a case like this, which is basically a copy of a copyrighted work. Somebody's rights are being infringed, either the painter's or the photographer's. If FOP applies in Germany, it would at least be good to have a licensed photo, which would avoid the PD-Art use of policy. So... I really do not like the combination as a gut feeling, as such images may not really be free anywhere, and even if they are, it will not be in many countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether German law says that Germany has to follow the Berne Convention, but German law definitely says that Germany has to follow EU rules, and there is a similar wording in Article 5 (5) of the w:InfoSoc directive. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In both these cases, this template is ill-suited. Either the work is in the public domain, and then we need a PD-something tag, or it is not, and we can't use this tag because it is not in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting licensing info...

Aaargh..! I've uploaded a bunch of nice images from Flickr only to now notice their metadata contains a conflicting license vs. the one mentioned on the Flickr page... What the heck should be done now? I guess that theoretically we could go with the most relaxed license given. Why do people do nasty things like this... Example image, some of the images are contemporary photos instead of photos of old paintings. Palosirkka (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your example image File:Sailboats on the Seine.jpg is in the public domain anyway, as it's from 1874 and the author is Claude Monet (1840-1926), not the flickr uploader. Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are considered public domain in the U.S. (see en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) and that's the position the WMF and Wikimedia Commons have been following. That means that neither of the Flickr uploaders CC licenses for this image (CC-BY, CC-BY-NC-ND in the metadata) are applicable - you can't issue licenses for works that are in the public domain anyway, so the template for this file would be {{PD-art-70}}. - However, other files are indeed problematic, for example File:Pine Grosbeaks.jpg. Flickr licensing says CC-BY 2.0, but metadata contains CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0. Well, in theory one could assume that the author indeed released this file under both licenses, although it doesn't make much sense. Im not sure how to handle such cases, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: It could make sense to release a work under BY-SA and BY-NC-SA simultaneously, as this would allow easier reuse of the work in remixes with other works that are released with the "NC" restriction - you can't force an NC license onto content that is released without this restriction, so if you mix a "regular" BY-SA and a BY-NC-SA work, the result as a whole would be only usable noncommercially (NC), but for the portions that come from the BY-SA work, BY-SA (and commercial reuasability) would still apply, so you would have to label your remix in a complicated way. If, on the other hand, you can choose to use a work either under BY-SA or under BY-NC-SA, and you have to use works with the NC restriction, you can opt for only using the NC variant. However, a combination of CC-BY and CC-BY-NC-ND (!), as in the example File:Pine Grosbeaks.jpg, doesn't make any sense, in my opinion: As the "ND" clause forbids derivative works anyway, there is no imaginable cause to use the work under this restrictive license, as it's available under the very liberal CC-BY. Yet, as long as we think that the copyright owner released a work under a license acceptable for Commons, we can accept the work even if it has more or less meaningless additional licenses (and Commons doesn't accept files licensed only with a NC and/or ND restriction). But of course, that's now the question: What is it we should assume if a file has a restrictive license in its metadata that wouldn't be acceptable as a sole license for this file, but apparently is released under an acceptable license at flickr? There are several possibilities:

• The author earlier used the restrictive license, but then opted for releasing the file under a more liberal one - and didn't think of changing the metadata.
• The author really wants to release the file under both licenses.
• The license in the metadata is the one really intended by the author, and CC-BY at flickr is a mistake.

As we don't know which possibility applies, we could say that we have to delete such files according to COM:PRP - the licensing is unclear. Ultimately, one could always try to ask the file's creator for clarification... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you've been really thinking about this Gestumblindi, thanks alot! Good reasoning. I would think that the first option is the most likely. However since we cannot know for sure what the intentions of the person in question are, we go with the facts we have. Since we're given a Commons suitable license, we'll go with that. (But I won't be uploading any more of those.) I also tried to find some contact info but failed... Take care and thanks again! Palosirkka (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think (unless there is an indication that the Flickr license is a mistake, like a mention or indication of a more restrictive license in the written summary at Flickr) that the Flickr license applies (i.e. the photo was originally under the license in the metadata, but then more liberally licensed on Flickr). Practicably speaking, all images start out fully copyrighted, so we could assume that *any* Flickr license is a mistake -- that uncertainty is something we live with for any uploads. And even if a mistake, if it's been that way on Flickr for a while, that may be the actual fact despite the author's intention. I don't think COM:PRP applies since basically it's the same situation with all CC licensed images on Flickr. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Images with embedded ICC color profiles and Copyright

As requested here what about images with a embedded ICC color profile under copyright?

For example, this photo has a "sRGB v1.31 (Canon)" profile with a Copyright (c) 2003, Canon Inc. All rights reserved. notice.

Does this conflict the licence of the image and can we upload them? I guess there a lot affected images (already uploaded images too), because nobody had notice this yet. --Slick (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've noticed this before, but it doesn't really count since I decided to pragmatically ignore it. I'd question whether an ICC profile is something that can actually be copyrighted. Copyright only applies to certain types of works as enumerated by copyright law. I'm not sure exactly what an ICC profile is, however I doubt that it's a computer program, it may be a table of numbers or mathematical functions. Assuming that it is copyrightable, then presumably Canon have provided a license somewhere that allows people to distribute photos. However that alone wouldn't enable you to relicense the work in its entirety under a license such as CC. Perhaps there's a way of replacing such embedded ICC profiles with something else without damaging the colours. --ghouston (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.color.org/faqs.xalter#p13 Ruslik (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They think ICC profiles are copyrightable because "The contents of the tables are vendor specific and each uses different algorithms. It is this that gives the vendor something which they can copyright." Possibly it may take the nature of a document and be copyrightable, or it may just be uncopyrightable data. I'd say the latter if the data is derived in a technical manner (it's something like a mapping from a device response to a standard colour space) and if the means of expressing it isn't very creative (a standard format where the data is plugged in.) --ghouston (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If a JPEG image uses the sRGB color space, then it may be possible to use a utility such as exiftool to losslessly remove the ICC color profile and to specify via the EXIF data that the image uses the sRGB color space, i.e. exiftool -ICC_Profile= -ColorSpace='sRGB' example.jpg . For a PNG image, it may be possible to use image editing software to specify that the image be matched to the sRGB color space if it is not already, after which a utility such as pngcrush can be used to remove the ICC color profile i.e. pngcrush -rem iCCP example.png optimized.png . (In some cases, when pngcrush removes the iCCP chunk that holds the ICC color profile, it appears that an sRGB chunk will be added to the PNG image to specify the use of the sRGB color space.) Aside from any copyright issues, the usage of metadata specifying the sRGB color space instead of an embedded profile for images that actually use the sRGB color space may be useful for reducing the file size of images. --Gazebo (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that GIMP (at least how I have it configured) seems to reduce the file size of images by about 20k or so even when making minimal changes (slight rotations). I suspect that it is because I have it set to convert all files to an RGB workspace when opening, which would remove the color profile when saving (this is what I have noticed from checking with other utilities). I've also noticed that many image sources seem to have 'black and white' images that are really 'color'...converting them to actual greyscale reduces the image size by a substantial amount. Revent (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Revent, Gazebo, please do not remove colour profile information from JPGs. The saving of 20k is nothing important; this is not the 1990s. The Canon profile is not absolutely identical to any one standard and there are actually several profiles that implement sRGB. The difference is likely to be very small, but not zero. I've seen other users have problems with GIMP removing colourspace tags and profiles. If the tags are lost (and they only support sRGB/AdobeRGB) then that's a disaster but the profiles are always worth having. Run your JPG's through Jeffrey's Exif Viewer or use EXIFTOOL to ensure they are correctly tagged preferably also include a profile. I'm not familiar with GIMP but an "RGB workspace" is not the same thing as "sRGB". The RGB there refers to the colour model (vs CMYK). If you are working with other people's images, you should ideally maintain whatever colourspace/profile they used. I'd also be wary about assuming a b&w image had zero colour. -- Colin (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: Fair enough, I changed my default to 'keep existing color profile.' FWIW, I never edited any image just to make that change, and I always check in a couple of different programs afterward to make sure the colors looked the same. As far as converting an image to grayscale, I always checked the histogram and colorcube analysis first to make sure it actually was black and white, instead of just eyeballing it, so I doubt I've ever broken any that way. I can not do that if it's an issue, tho... iirc the ones I did that on were things like old newspaper scans where I was futzing with cleaning up bleedthrough or artifacts from halftoning. Revent (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Revent. However, checking by eye "to make sure the colors looked the same" isn't a reliable way of detecting a loss of colourspace or that someone else may have a problem. If you have a standard consumer monitor, it will mostly support sRGB and so lots of mistakes or guesses will work out for you (the exception being, say, an AdobeRGB JPG that's lost its tag/profile and is read as though it was sRGB and look a bit desaturated). For users with wide-gamut monitors, or older Apple computers, the results can be worse. Also, few image programs are properly colour managed. For example, GIMP and Photoshop are (if you set them up correctly) but IrfanView isn't [it has an option to be colour managed, but it is broken and very slow]. So on my desktop (with wide-gamut monitor) IrfanView will display sRGB JPGs a bit over saturated, but on a standard-gamut monitor it would display AdobeRGB JPGs desaturated -- the actual files are fine but the software is not. Modern desktop browsers are usually colour managed (though can be a bit crude in their conversions) but mobile ones don't appear to be yet. As well as colourspace, try to make sure you also keep the other EXIF info generated by the camera or creator's software, as often these contain useful information about the camera settings/model and any adjustments made in software. EXIFTOOL (or that webpage) is a good way to check nothing has been lost there. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: (nods) I do make a point of always keeping the EXIF information (as well as using the 'use original quality settings' option)... when I say I look to see if the colors are the same, I have a 'manufacturer' profile for my LCD, but I have noticed with some images (that have unusual profiles) that GIMP and ImageMagick do not show the same colors... so I check that the original and the edited one display the same in both programs before and after.. it only seems to be on images that have really unusual profiles that I see a difference (an example would be File:1공수특전여단_강하훈련_(7634164590).jpg, where the colors where altered substantially) but I always poke people on IRC for a second opinion... in that case, I think the color in my version is probably more realistic, and others agreed. The original profile on that one was "Japan 2001 Color Coated", which I don't actually have installed, and I edited it with the 'convert to RGB' setting on... I would be willing to install that profile (if I can find it) and redo the edit if the color change seems problematic to others, tho.... I think that's by far the most drastic example of a change, and tbh I was a bit unhappy about it until I got feedback. Revent (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, to me at least in the original of that image it renders as substantially 'greenish', especially if you look at the sides of the helicopter. Revent (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I will have a look at those test pictures at home later. I'm seeing differences in how Chrome (v37, not latest) and IE (v10) interpret both those versions (IE looks correct with both similar, Chrome wrong with the original looking odd). The original actually had the "Japan 2001 Color Coated" profile embedded in it -- you don't need to download/install it as it is in the JPG. A colour managed application should display this with correct colours. The version you uploaded has no colourspace tags or profile, is is faulty in that regard. If you have correctly converted it from that odd colourspace/profile to sRGB, then the JPG should be tagged as sRGB and ideally embed an sRGB profile. Embedding a printer-paper profile is a mistake and not something we should encourage -- but in principle the original file should display properly in any colour managed application. It looks like the original photographer prepared an image for sending to a printer, rather than for use on the internet, or they simply didn't know what they were doing when fiddling with colour profiles. I've see monitor profiles embedded in JPGs too. Since many (especially mobile) browsers are not colour managed, I would support a careful conversion from an odd colour profile (Pro Photo, monitor, printer, etc) to sRGB, but the resulting image should have colourspace tags and preferably also a profile. I know Photoshop can convert nicely (dithering any colours that don't precisely match), but don't know how clever Gimp is at doing this (if it just uses nearest-colour then there is a risk of posterisation in the sky or skin tones). I'm disappointed that Gimp allows anyone to save a JPG without a colourspace tag, as that's like having a thermometer with dash markings but no units. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

From my web searching, I get the impression that GIMP will not embed a profile if an image is in the sRGB colorspace, and ImageMagick does indeed show "Colorspace: sRGB" for the version that I uploaded. FWIW, the original, when opened in ImageMagick, has horribly broken colors... the sky is orange, and in Chrome (for me at least) the color of the original is decidedly off (I'm assuming it tries to bisplay it in sRBG despite the embedded profile). When I open the original in Gimp, I see the same colors that Chroms and ImageMagick display for my version... a deeper blue sky, a a much less green helicopter with a much lighter bottom surface. I strongly suspect that the colors I see in Chrome for the original are wrong, and that Gimp is converting it to sRGB (and just not embedding the profile).... but I have no idea how to make it embed it. Revent (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It is one thing not bothering with a profile for sRGB but not including the correct tag is inexcusable as it is just a few bytes. I would appreciate if you could find out how to set GIMP to save an sRGB image properly, since I know other people are having problems with it in this regard. One mostly gets away with it as many software apps will default to sRGB without a tag (but I believe older Macs did not and made unhelpful assumptions). When ImageMagick reports "Colourspace: sRGB" is it really reading the value from the EXIF or just assuming/using that profile because it is missing? EXIFTOOL reports the tag and profile missing. Whereas the original file on EXIFTOOL reports the non-standard embedded profile, which is correct but not really very useful to anyone with a non-colourmanaged browser or image viewer. Looking at ImageMagic colour management appears quite confusing. I think when they say "non-linear sRGB" they mean sRGB with a gamma applied (as it should) and this is what they use as a default when no tag is present (as I'd expect). Their "non-linear RGB" is a gamma-less image that I've only seen used for HDR intermediate formats, not for anything displayed to a human. I've only ever used ImageMagick (to a very limited extent) on the Command line. When you say you open the file in it, what GUI tool are you using and what OS are you on? I want to check later, as I hope Photoshop will display the original file correctly and also the new file (provided it was accurately converted to sRGB). -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It is in Edit -> Preferences -> Color Management. There one can choose what to do when opening a file: "Convert to RGB workspace", or "Keep embedded profile", or "Ask what to do". Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am on Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS, and using the "Imagemagick (display)" package version "imagemagick 8:6.7.7.10-6ubuntu3". (at Yannf) I am aware of that option, but it does not seem to affect what is exported by Gimp when you save a jpeg file. Revent (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I'm experimenting and reading various helpful webpages. So far, I have discovered that problems with untagged images are not restricted to old Macs (as I read somewhere) but also affect users of wide-gamut monitors on Windows (i.e. me). I can configure Firefox to be "fully colour managed" (i.e. respect embedded image profiles [or assume sRGB] and respect monitor profiles) for both tagged and untagged images but by default it, like Chrome is only "fully colour managed" for tagged images. Both Firefox (default, unconfigured) and Chrome just seem to send untagged JPG values straight to my monitor and don't respect the monitor profile. Internet Explorer 10 is only partly colour managed in that it seems to always ignore my monitor profile but will respect the JPG embedded profile if present. So the conclusion certainly seems to be that having untagged JPGs will mean you really can't be sure what colours people are seeing, even if the JPG really is sRGB. I'll do some more research and may set up a page in my user-space to discuss. -- Colin (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the official profiles are "Copyright International Color Consortium" with permission to use for any purpose but the profile itself cannot be modified. So if we are paranoid about copyright EXIF metadata then we'd need to delete/strip all JPGs with any colour profile. Let's worry about the actual work-of-copyright (the image, video or sound) rather than data that merely lets you view the image correctly (and then the re-user can choose to save the JPG in a different colourspace if they wanted to, or use a different profile, and leave the conversion between the two up to a proper colour managed application like Photoshop, rather than just strip this data off in EXIFTOOL). If Commons was a repository of free colour profiles, it would be a different matter, but it's the content we care about. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Is it legal to upload an image that is CC by Attribution if the attribution requirement is that every page contains the words: "Download for free at http...". I presume this means the attribution has to be visible on each uploaded image. I want to do it for images in openStax College Physics--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That isn't required by the license. Also there is a category for images from OpenStax Category:CNX. CFCF (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you provde a source-link for that image. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The last entry might be a statement with "you" and "could" reversed, as in "You could (do something)." Or it might be a request with a missing question mark, as "Could you (do something)?" If it is the latter, I plan to convert examples into quizzes on Wikiversity that have random number inputs, as in most of the quizzes in Wikiversity:Category:Physics equations/Quizzes I have spoken openstax, and registered with them as an editor. They like the idea because a company that provided free quiz software withdrew the service. So far I haven't figured out how to link to openstax's images. They are good people who sacrificed the simplicity of wikitext in order to gain a more professional look in their textbooks.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK it's easy, you just user your browswer to copy the url. For example, here is the link that I do not at the moment wish to be copied: http://cnx.org/resources/badffd4baf2e4bb8e8e81da8b9f66228/Figure%2026_06_06.jpg But if I did want it entered into commons, how would I do it? --Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Soviet maps

Are soviet maps freely licensed or public domain in terms of commons?. In particular this one?. --Keysanger 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think so; see COM:Copyright rules by territory#Russia and former Soviet Union. Pertaining to a Moscow publication by a Soviet government ministry, the rights to that 1967 atlas will have been ‘inherited’ by the Russian Federation on behalf of the collaborators. AFAICT it will only enter PD when all the contributors have been dead for over fifty years. I don’t see anything to indicate there’s an exemption for Russian governmental works (other than laws, official symbols, &c.) like the USA’s.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, sad but true. Thanks, Odysseus. --Keysanger 08:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Benbonlen

My grandfather was a painter. He died in 1963 and left over 1000 paintings. My father and his brothers inherited the paintings. My father and his brothers died 20 years ago and more. My wife and I took photographs of all my grandfathers artwork. I would like to write an article about my grandfather in Wikipedia and upload some of his work for illustration as well of photographs which show my grandfather as a young man about one hundred years ago. Since my grandfather died only 52 years ago, am I entitled to upload pictures of some of his work and photographs of him - or do I have to wait another 18 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbonlen (talk • contribs)

@Benbonlen: Hi,

Your grandfather's works are not yet in the public domain, but since you are his heir, you can grant a license for his works. So there should not be any issue for the paintings. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. For the photograph, it is more complicated. You need to know who took the photo, and where it was first published. Regards. Yann (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It might even be more complicated than you say, Yann, as there might be multiple heirs. Benbonlen didn't say anything about being the sole heir and a correct answer would depend upon who exactly inherited the copyright on the grandfather's work, or there might even be other copyright owners if the painter transferred copyright or granted a license (depending on jurisdiction) for his "work for illustration" e.g. to a publisher. I'd say that, as the question lacks all this information, we can't even attempt to give a really helpful answer here. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Kosovo-exempt

I'd like to point people to this deletion discussion which is a bit difficult and probably needs some outside opinions. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to see there except for the usual "Kosovo doesn't exist" nationalism.    FDMS  4    09:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Nothing to see here except for the usual pro-Kosovan nationalism. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Liliana-60, your nomination is simply disruptive. Yann (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia relicense?

I'm right to remove the GFDL license here and here? And another question, is it right to use this Wikimedia-logo icons on Wikipedia (Wikimedia sites) without explicit link to the copyright (for example as button, which we can't do with all this GFDL and CC-BY-SA, because every page include a Wikimedia disclaimer)? For example all the using of the GNOME-icons without link to the file is not conform to cc-by-sa-3.0 and {{LGPLv3}}. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama for models and sculptures

A DR[8] was just closed after what appears to be ill-informed discussion of the subject of freedom of panorama. The discussion was about a model reconstruction of an extinct animal in a museum in France, which does not have FOP[9], and therefore the image is a copyright violation. It was claimed that the reconstruction, which is pure fiction apart from the underlying proportions of the skeleton, was not "original" enough, but this seems to be an invalid argument, since sculptures of living animals (and humans) are considered original, and these have even less fiction/speculation involved in their creation. So I felt it appropriate to bring the issue up here, where people may be more knowledgeable on the subject than in a regular DR, to set some sort of standard, because dozens of such images have already been deleted before due to FOP violations and the commons:precautionary principle. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems inconsistent at least, since models of presumably uncopyrightable utilitarian objects from France have been deleted, e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Renault FT17 French Army WWI model.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/Models_of_the_Philae_lander. Especially for the 2nd case, it was deleted because it is a model, according to US law, even thought the object it was based on was considered uncopyrightable. --ghouston (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What I thought, I'll ping the closing admin, Ellin Beltz. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My consideration here is that the taxidermy is done from the bones of and with the skin of actual animals, making the result not a model but as the French use the word "reconstruction"; to show their best guess of the creature while living. I considered that we have photographs of dinosaur mounts, (e.g. File:Ampelosaurus mount 4.JPG and search "dinosaur France" in Commons) which are the same things without the skin on, as well as other extinct animal mounts and taxidermies (e.g. Category:Collections of the Musée de la chasse et de la nature and search "taxidermy France" in Commons). I did a little research to try to determine the age of this rather moth-eaten specimen, and found [10] and [11]. Once Kawerk's name is searched in that document, the text translates to "Reconstitution conducted by Joseph Kawerk, From a complete skeleton in the Museum of Natural History, Toulouse. Molding the antler branches was performed on a copy in the Stuttgart Museum." Thus the original work might even have been considered Derivative way back when it was done (!) as the writer clearly gives two references for the finished appearance of the work before continuing with a paragraph on the animal's range and habits while living. With all that said, if the decision was inconsistent with those before it, I think that a DN with the links as above and so on clearly stated to prevent too much more confusion would be in order to rediscuss the image. For now, to me it looks like a taxidermic reconstruction of an extinct animal, not a sculpture or a work of art. But, and as we all can be, I can be quite wrong, so please keep me in the loop on this one! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the mistake is that no one in the DR even claimed it was taxidermy, and the DR was therefore closed prematurely for wrong reasons. Taxidermy is preserving an existing animal by mounting/stuffing its skin. But these are just reconstructed models of animals that do not exist, covered in hair from other kinds of animals. This Megaloceros is clearly is just a model with hairs on it, this animal does not exist, no soft tissue remains are known, so there are no skins to use. Likewise, here's a model of a mammoth.[12] Yes, the model is covered in musk ox hair, but that does not make it taxidermy. This dinosaur model[13] has feathers glued onto it, but it is not taxidermy. The hairs may even be made of an artificial material. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Rama has expressed interesting arguments in the DR, so it is probably best to ping him. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Still founded on the belief that it makes a difference that the model is based on something that has at one point existed in nature. That point should be rather irrelevant to the fact that it is a model/sculpture. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• So what to do? Start another DR? FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Image has been nominated for deletion again.[14] FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The information in this essay from User:Elcobbola claims that taxidermy can in fact be copyrightable. One's guess is that the copyrightability of taxidermy has to do with the way in which the preserved animal is posed. --Gazebo (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention, but the verb "claims" has a certain connotation of novelty, an implication that I personally derived that conclusion. It is rather an adjudicated finding of, among others, the cases I cited in the essay (Superior Form Builders, Inc. v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co. and Hart Scr v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Company Inc.) Remember, taxidermy is Greek for "arrangement of skin" (think of the root derm(a)- in dermatology); the taxidermist creates a model/framework of the animal over which the prepared skin is stretched. This underlying model, per the aforementioned cases, may be subject to copyright protection (unless it's of a fish). The comment "Yes, the model is covered in musk ox hair, but that does not make it taxidermy" is objectively untrue. Taxidermy is not linked to or dependent on whether an animal actually exists (for example, using real rabbit skin to make the fictitious Jackalope is no different than using real ox hair to make an extinct elk - both cases involve placing skin over a model, just like putting real goat skin over a model of a goat). Эlcobbola _talk 15:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing is gluing hairs on a model, another is to cover it with skin (which is what taxidermy is, the former isn't). See this page for how such reconstructions are made: https://www.facebook.com/quagga.associats/photos_stream Also, what you're talking about is "rogue taxidermy", which is of a much more artistic nature than regular taxidermy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The page User:Elcobbola/Models only discusses United States law, which is special in the sense that it exempts utilitarian objects from copyright, while considering toys as 'non-utilitarian'. Utilitarian objects are subject to copyright in France (see e.g. this - photographs were found to be copyright violations of chairs). Under French law, I would assume that there is no difference between cars and car models: either we delete both, or we delete neither. I have no idea how to determine whether a specific car model meets the threshold of originality of France, but per the chair case, I wouldn't be surprised if some car models are copyrighted. There is a difference between animals and 'animal models', though: animals are not created by humans and are therefore not subject to copyright per {{PD-animal}}, but 'animal models' are created by humans. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It seems this discussion will soon be archived, so it would be appreciated if someone would chime in at the DR[15], which still seems to be dominated by misconceptions. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I, frankly, do not believe that the covering is only hair; to glue ox hair onto a model instead of using a prepared ox skin seems illogically inefficient. Even if we grant that it is merely hair, the notions in cases I referenced still apply: an original model under a covering (e.g., skin) is subject to copyright. Because the object of the copyright is the model, it does not matter whether it is covered in paint, metal sheets, hair or skin. Alternatively, even if this were a whole preserved animal (Ellin appears to be under a misapprehension about what taxidermy is), it could still potentially have a copyright. Remember, copyright applies to “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium." That medium can even be animal tissue; for example, certain plastinates of Body Worlds are expected to be copyrightable (a related case was brought, but settled out of court; certain bar associations have published papers on the validity of the concept; etc.) given their being original, above and beyond mere facts of the world. This is sort of a tone-deaf conversation. Ellin argues this is taxidermy, thus it is not copyrightable. Funkmonk argues it is not taxidermy, thus it is copyrightable. Both are 50% correct. This is taxidermy, and taxidermy has the potential to be copyrightable. Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright does not apply to just any "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium." In the US, it did not apply to audio recordings before 1972 and to architecture before 1990. Right now in the US, it only applies to "(1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works." (17 U.S. Code § 102(a)) Taxidermy may be considered sculpture, but as per the case you brought up, I doubt the courts will broadly interpret sculpture to cover all taxidermy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sound recordings are neither 'original' nor 'works' nor 'of authorship' under Swedish law, which is why the term of protection is shorter. The statement that 'copyright applies to "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium"' is not true, at least not under the laws of Sweden and various other European countries. Works only need to be created but not fixed in a medium. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, please read critically. I never claimed it applied to all such works. I clearly said "This is taxidermy, and taxidermy has the potential to be copyrightable," which does not reconcile with your bizarre "I doubt the courts will broadly interpret sculpture to cover all taxidermy" Indeed, I said " an original model […] is subject to copyright.” The key word is “original,” which is why the case(s) I cited found "Because these animal mannequins were designed to portray the appearance of animals through artistic features introduced by the author in their creation, we hold that they are not 'useful articles' as defined in the Copyright Act and that therefore copyright protection is available for them." Nothing you’ve said addresses my points. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Эlcobbola, please speak carefully. You said "copyright applies to “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium." That's not necessarily true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I did; however that caution is of little use when others add words that were not said. I did indeed say “copyright applies to “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium.” You'll note I did not say, for example, “copyright always applies...", "copyright only applies...", "copyright applies, without exception...", or even your initial misrepresentation of "any 'original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium'". You provided the any, not me. Again, Prosfilaes, please read critically. Эlcobbola _talk 15:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What did you mean by “copyright applies to “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium.”? The default interpretation is that when you say "x applies to ys", that for all y, x applies. Sometimes it can be read as for non-y, x does not apply. You disclaim either interpretation, meaning that I have no idea what you could have meant, but I do know that what you said did not communicate what you intended it to communicate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant precisely what I wrote. Again, your misapprehension is no failure to communicate on my part. Courts routinely find using the phrase I've written, without the need to elaborate on possible exceptions or even to cite the entirety of Section 102. They rely, as I did, on readers to understand context and to abstain from adding words or notions not in the original. There are hundreds of examples, here are several with cites lest you think I misrepresent them:

• "Copyright protects 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.' 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(a)." (Midler v. Ford Motor Company, 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988))
• "Copyrightable work must be 'original' and 'fixed' in a 'tangible medium of expression.' 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (1994) ('Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression....')." (Medforms Inc v. Healthcare Management Solutions Inc L 290 F. 3d 98 (2nd Cir. 2002))
• "Copyright protects 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.' 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)." (Midler v. Young & Rubicam Inc, 944 F. 2d 909 (9th Cir. 1991))
• "The first statute, the general copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., has been with us in one form or another since 1790 and grants copyright protection to 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,'" (Lexmark International Inc v. Static Control Components Inc, 387 F. 3d 522 *6th Cir. 2004))
• "Copyright protection is available for 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.' 17 U.S.C. S 102(a) (emphasis added)." (Southco Inc v. Kanebridge Corporation, 258 F. 3d 148 (3rd Cir. 2001))
• "The Copyright Act of 1976 provides protection for 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.' 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(a)." (US Payphone Inc v. Executives Unlimited of Durham Inc US Payphone Inc, 931 F. 2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991))
• "Copyright protection 'subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression....' 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(a)." (Financial Information Inc v. Moody's Investors Service Inc, 751 F. 2d 501 (2nd Cir. 1984))

This level of precision is good enough for the circuit courts of the United States, so it's good enough for me and for a discussion on the Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Images from Wasabcon II

Checking license unreviewed uploads made by Shin hi in 2014, all uploaded files were taken from http://wasabcon.tistory.com and were licensed by uploader with {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-kr}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}}. Well, Commons is hosting +1000 photos from http://wasabcon.tistory.com but I could not retrieve any license infos from this site. At Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/02#Images_from_Wasabcon @Tabercil: said in 02.2014 that "(...) I don't read Korean myself, so I tossed the page into Google Translate. Yes there is a Wiki-friendly CC license present (CC Attribution) (...)" I did the same for the indicated source, but I am still unable to find any CC-whatever license indication. Could someone please help me out here (before I reserve a budget to buy new glasses...)? Pinging @-revi: who was involved in some discussion related to images from Wasabcon here. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't remember it looking like that when I took a look at it back when. However, on casual looking I found what looks like a clear case of license-washing on the site. This page has a number of screen shots from Psy's Gangam Style video, and if you go right to the very bottom of the page there's a little Creative Commons icon indicating the license is "CC-BY". And the same can be seen of a number of earlier pages such as here.

If you scroll almost to the bottom, after the index-type images but above the user comments, on the far right side there is a small CC-BY icon, and clicking it does link to a Korean CC-BY license. I have no idea if that applies to all the images, but it's there. Images obviously from another source obviously wouldn't count. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Carl Lindberg is correct, but there is also a number of self-made (by the wasab) contents.
2. Images were originally CC ~~~~ 2.0 KR according to Tistory (the blog service provider said their default license option is ~~~~ 2.0 KR) but after I requested to put clickable link to the image, they have linked it to CC ~~~~ 4.0 Intl. one, so it is now 4.0. (Put CC BY or CC BY on ~~~~ part.)
3. How to find license link: Let's see this as example, go to bottom (above twitter/facebook button) and see the right side, you will see BY icon which links to CC BY 4.0 Intl. deed. (And it is obviously self-made photos.) — regards, Revi 04:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I got it :-). Thx all for your indications (and I feel relieved to reschedule the budget for new glasses to something more... suitable. Beer garden?) but one file uploaded by above mentioned user remains (for me) unclear. It is a similar source but with contradictory licenses. Details at Commons:Deletion requests/File:L.joe in NO.1 ASIA TOUR.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Commented on the DR. — regards, Revi 08:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting license information

I was wanting to add this image to Commons, but the licensing information on its parent page is conflicting; near the end it states "El contenido de esta publicación, está disponible bajo los siguientes términos: CC 2.5 BY-NC-SA" (i.e., not permissible on Commons), while right at the end it states "NUESTROMAR por Fundación NUESTROMAR se encuentra bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución - CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported" and linked CC-BY-SA 3.0 (permitted on Commons). Which license takes precedence? Unfortunately, the Spanish is beyond my ability to understand. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My Spanish isn't the best either, but I did find the more detailed legal page, http://www.nuestromar.org/condiciones. That seems to make it more clear. Paragraph 3 (first unbolded paragraph): "Los contenidos incluidos en NUESTROMAR, el sitio de Internet en general, o de sus páginas Web vinculadas, son de Propiedad, Registro y Copyright exclusivo de la "Fundación NUESTROMAR para la Conservación y Desarrollo del Mar", y de sus editores o autores, no permitiéndose la reproducción por cualquier medio, salvo que sea citado el autor y la fuente ( "NUESTROMAR" o "Fundación NUESTROMAR" ) ." Basically: "Contents ... may not be reproduced unless the author and the source (Nuestromar or Nuestromar Foundation) are cited." That sounds a lot like an Attribution license. In addition, the second from last paragraph "El contenido de esta obra, está disponible bajo los siguientes términos: NUESTROMAR por Fundación NUESTROMAR se encuentra bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución - CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported." or "Content of this work is available under the following terms ... Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike 3.0". So I would say CC-BY-SA 3.0 it is. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely that Fundación NUESTROMAR (based in Argentina) is able to CC license images like http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/categorias/05-05-15/italia-rescata-5800-inmigrantes-en-aguas-mediterr-neo (04.05.2015) = http://www.nuestromar.org/imagenes/noticias/2015/MAY/040515_DSRESCATE.jpg, considering (example) http://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/n269743.html (03.05.2015, credit: "Afp", most likely "Agence France-Presse", originally taken most likely by Italian Navy) and "(...) no permitiéndose la reproducción por cualquier medio, salvo que sea citado el autor y la fuente (...) does not specify CC issues to its end (only reproduction is allowed, what about commercial use & derivates). The file in question (http://www.nuestromar.org/imagenes/noticias/2011/NOV/291111_calamarillex.gif) is embedded in this news entry from 29.11.2011, credited with http://www.pescare.com.ar/ (© 2003 - 2015 Copyright pescare.com.ar Todos los derechos reservados) and was previously published via Google = (example) http://www.genesisny.net/Seafood/IllexArgentinus.html (wayback to 2003/2004 available) = http://www.genesisny.net/Seafood/images/calamarillex.gif (last modified: 2010). Summarizing: License chaos at http://www.nuestromar.org + per above: I would not recommend uploading this file to Commons. Gunnex (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Films in public domain

Three Came Home and Tokyo File 212 are available for download at https://archive.org. When I checked for their copyright status I found that they are mentioned in this document. Does that mean that they are copyrighted?--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not something is on archive.org unfortunately doesn't say much. I'm not sure what the document you're pointing to is. Tokyo File 212 is a primarily Japanese film with directors who lived into the 1990s; as such it seems to be copyrighted in Japan and would not be eligible for uploading to Commons no matter what the US copyright status. "Three Came Home" is a US movie and seems to be considered public domain in the US; there are already images in Category:Three Came Home from the movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To expand upon this: In most countries, movies are protected by copyright for 50 or 70 years after the death of the director or last major contributor. For example, in Germany, the contributors considered by copyright law for the duration of a movie's copyright are: Director, authors of the screenplay, composers of the movie's music. Only after the last of these is dead for more than 70 years, the movie is considered public domain. According to Swiss copyright law, only the year of the director's death is relevant. The US are an unusual case in that relatively recent movies may be in the public domain (e.g. published from 1923 to 1963 and copyright was not renewed - apparently, Three Came Home is such a case). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Japan is an unusual case as well; as per {{PD-Japan-film}}, a "pre-1953 Japanese film or image thereof, directed by a person who died more than 38 years ago, is now in the public domain."--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the former copyright law of Japan, a film is subject to a copyright term of 38 years p.m.a. (author = director) if the film isn't a work for hire, but I think that this is reduced to 38 years pd if the film is a work for hire. According to the current copyright law, the copyright term is 70 years pd regardless of whether it is a work for hire or not (50 years pd if first published before 1953). Unless I have misunderstood something, there was a court ruling where it was concluded a) that the new copyright law didn't have the effect that any copyright terms were shortened (at least not for already existing films), and b) that the films by Akira Kurosawa aren't works for hire. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• User:Gestumblindi: Are you sure that your explanation of German law is correct? Article 2 of the w:Copyright Duration Directive says that the copyright term expires 70 years after the death of four people, but Article 10 (1) says that the directive doesn't have the effect that any copyright term is shortened. In Sweden, Article 10 means that the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the four people listed in the directive or 50 years after the death of certain other people, whichever is later. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4: Yes, I'm sure. German copyright law is very clear in this regard, see § 65 (2) of the Urheberrechtsgesetz: "Bei Filmwerken und Werken, die ähnlich wie Filmwerke hergestellt werden, erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach dem Tod des Längstlebenden der folgenden Personen: Hauptregisseur, Urheber des Drehbuchs, Urheber der Dialoge, Komponist der für das betreffende Filmwerk komponierten Musik." My unofficial, amateurish translation: For works of film and works produced in a similar manner as works of film, copyright expires seventy years after the death of the longest-living of these persons: Main director, creator of the script, creator of the dialogue, composer of music that was composed for the work of film. - My post above was a bit imprecise in that I condensed "creator of the script" and "creator of the dialogue" into "authors of the screenplay". Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Gestumblindi: What does § 137f (1) mean? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4: Attempt at translation: If by application of this law as amended on 1 July 1995 the duration of a previously originated right would be shortened, the protection expires when the duration of protection expires according to the provisions in effect until 30 June 1995. In all other respects the provisions of this law as amended on 1 July 1995 are also to be applied on works and related rights where the protection was not expired on 1 July 1995. - But I don't know what provisions German copyright law had before 1 July 1995 regarding the duration of protection for films. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Gestumblindi: That's precisely the problem you have in Swedish law: you can't only consider what the law currently says (the 1996 law), but you also have to consider the former law (the 1961 law). In Swedish law, there are two major situations where the 1961 law is relevant, and several minor situations which rarely occur. The 1961 law is only relevant for works which predate the 1996 law. The two major situations:

• Films: The 1996 law says that anything created independently of the film is independently copyrighted for life+70 years, but that things created directly for the film get a special 'film copyright term' which is life of four people+70 years. The 1961 law says that the 'cinematographic work' essentially only is the film in 'script form', written on a piece of paper, and that everything else is individually copyrighted for life+50 years, whether created directly for the film or not. Under the 1961 law, this means that there is not a specific date when the copyright expires to the entire film but that different parts of the film enter the public domain on different dates as different people with different death years created different parts of the film. Some of these other things may have been created by someone other than the four people listed in the EU directive, and in that case you have to consider both the 1996 term (life+70 years of four people) and the 1961 term (life+50 years of someone else) and use whichever is longer.
• Unpublished anonymous works: The 1996 law says that anonymous works are protected for 70 years from publication. However, if the work isn't published within 70 years from creation, then the term is shortened to 70 years from creation. The 1961 law says that anonymous works are protected for 50 years from publication. However, if you can somehow prove that the work was first published after the death of the anonymous author, then the term is shortened to life+50 years. Life+50 years is sometimes longer than creation+70 years.

Since Sweden and Germany often have had similar copyright rules, I'm wondering if there might be a similar complex mess for films in Germany. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4: That's an interesting question indeed. I'll present it at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen (the German Wikipedia's equivalent of this page). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4: I've already received an answer, see there. It seems there are some similarities to Sweden, though it seems a bit less complex: Before the changes of 1995, German law had no special provisions for works of films, so for the duration of copyright, all people that could be considered (co-)creators of the film were of relevance - and still are for pre-1995 films. Amongst others, this apparently includes the cinematographer in most cases, possibly also set designers, costume designers and others, depending on the kind of movie. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like the Swedish situation: the death year of most people who were involved in the film needs to be considered. Some of the involved people only do things which create related rights, and with respect to those people, it should be enough to consider the copyright term for the relevant related right. For example, actors are 'performers' and cameramen are 'photographers' and create film recordings and possibly also sound recordings (but some film frames might be photographic works of art in which case the cameraman's death year matters). However, if the contributions are separable, it seems that the old law sets the copyright term independently for each contribution. I think that the European Union made a big mistake when deciding that the Copyright Duration Directive shouldn't have the effect that the copyright term is shortened. These rules are way too complex. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"That sounds exactly like the Swedish situation" - well, yes, but it seems there are at least not differing terms of protection to account for (more people, but 70 years p.m.a. for these, too). According to a German law commentary (Schricker/Loewenheim, 4th ed.), cameramen (cinematographers) may very well be considered co-creators of the work itself (so not just creating related rights); for the relevant locations in the commentary, see Pajz' post in the German discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't laws limiting anonymous work to a flat 70 years generally save us from considering cameramen? I guess not if you're looking at a modern-style movie with a cast list of thousands (at which point we assume the last person died, say, 80 years after the movie was made and thus 150 years from publication), but I haven't seen many older movies where cameramen and the like have been noted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If some of the co-authors are anonymous, then you should apply the rules for anonymous works with respect to those authors, at least as far as Swedish law is concerned. I am not sure if you can use rules for anonymous authors if some of the people listed in the EU directive are anonymous as the EU directive doesn't mention the situation where some of them are anonymous. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Stefan4, by virtue of law, they are always "separable." A cameraman is the creator of a moving picture (§ 95 UrhG), or a joint author of the resulting cinematographic work (§§ 2(1) no. 6, 8 UrhG) if it is protected; and he's also the creator of the underlying photographs (§ 72 UrhG), some of which may even be photographic works pursuant to § 2(1) no. 5 UrhG. These are separate rights. — Pajz (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why can't running copyright terms be shortened by a law? --84.61.164.50 15:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It could, but laws in EU countries have to follow directives (according to EU law, there could be cases where national bodies would question its validity, but hardly about these matters).

The reason EU chose to do it this way is probably that ownership is considered holy – making someone's property a commons is difficult – while the public right to cultural heritage can more easily be postponed. The copyright lobby is strong and generally has nothing much to loose on orphan works.

--LPfi (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)