Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/08

File:Syrian-Old-Pound.jpg

If, how can we license this banknote used/made before 1948 in Lebanon and Syria? We don't have much info on the copyright laws of both countries.

• Syria: PD 10 years after publication
• Lebanon: PD 50 years after the author's death and 50 years after publication for anonymous works.

That's all we have listed here. I'd hate to have it deleted. Anyone with a good idea and the right language knowledge around? Thanks in advance! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's obviously not a personal work, so public domain 50 years after publication should apply. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my thought as well. But I am not familiar at all with the laws in Syria and Lebanon, especially during this time. It would be nice if we could clarify this a little bit and maybe expand both section, incl, info about the currency of Syria and Lebanon. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not an expert of Syria and Lebanon copyright laws either. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(C) in watermark, image under right licence on Flickr

Hey everyone, there is some debate on Wikipedia over this image. It was uploaded to Flickr with the (C) in the watermark. I then contacted the author and asked him to change the licence, so that we could use the image on Wikipedia. He agreed, changed the license to cc-by-sa-2.0 and I was happy and uploaded it. It has now been raised that there might be a problem with the (C) being in the watermark. Is that the case? Do I have to ask the author to change the watermark and upload the image again? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No. All a copyright notice means is that he's asserting it's not in the public domain, the same thing he's asserting by offering it under the CC-BY-SA-2.0.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

UK Death Certificates?

A British death certificate I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons has been tagged as a copyright violation. As I have explained on the Talk Page of that image, the legal advice I received before uploading the image is that UK death certificates are allowed on Wikipedia under the UK's Open Government Licence provided that the names of any living persons (e.g. informant) are redacted. The official UK National Archives/GRO policy is online here: Reproduction of birth, death and marriage certificates [1]. Could we get an official WM Commons statement on this matter please? Muzilon (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I converted that to a regular DR. Yann (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:オイスター2012（１）.JPG

or File:Moscow ticket "Troyka" +.jpg - Are public transport tickets the subjects of copyright (especially when they have some kind of artwork like on these examples)? Some images of them are on Wiki ("fair use"), and a lot of them are here on Commons. Who's right? //Stolbovsky (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they're the subject of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The back side of troika ticket is probably ok. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Panorama-detail-2.jpg

Image is licensed as "own work", but there is no OTRS permssion verifying such. Image actually looks like a photograph of a painting. This Wikipedia en:Draft:Alberto Gómez Gómez says that painter was born in 1956 and is still alive. The draft also says the painting is from 2015, so it's definitely not "too old" for copyright. Unless the painter has agreed to the free licensing and filed that with OTRS, I do not see how this is OK for Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct... without OTRS (from the painter) it's not OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Clindberg. I've tagged the image with {{No permission since}}. If something else should've been done instead, let me know and I'll remove the tag. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since File:Temporal-in-situ-reduced.jpg, File:Study-aves-colombianas-reduced.jpg, File:Gomez-gomez-with-mural-reduced.jpg and File:Daydreamer.jpg also added to Commons the same uploader are missing OTRS permission, I have tagged them with "No permission since" as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright images

I am on the board of directors for a tiny western museum that is a memorial to the artist Arthur Roy Mitchell, I want to add some images of paintings from our museum to his wiki page and I added text to the images that say Image Copyright A.R. Mitchell Museum. I understand that people want to download the images and use them for educational purposes but quite often his images are used by companies in the U.S. and China to create their own cowboy images. How should I upload these images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2bluesuz (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't. Any works uploaded to Commons must permit commercial use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues with images uploaded by User:Howellboy

Someone with more experience and time than me should look into the images uploaded by Howellboy. At least two of them - File:IUPUI Urban Garden.jpg and File:Student volunteers at Cesar Chavez Day of Service.jpg - claim to be self-authored but the metadata appear to contradict that claim. At the very least, it seems like we need more information from the editor in question before we can accept that he or she truly created these images and can license them for our use. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google search does not show up any other copies of these images, nor the captions. So, it's not a case of someone copying from the Internet -- it would appear the uploader has access to the originals. The copyright holder may well be Indiana University though... might be nice to verify that the licenses are with authorization, and not just taken from some internal resource at IUPUI which is not available on the web. It still may well fall inside "assume good faith", though, like most uploads. Sure feels like the editor is probably an employee doing work on the Wikipedia page -- looks like they updated a lot of the information to be more current (same author rewrote a lot of the article in April 2014). Still, even if the article is a bit on the promotional side, that doesn't mean the images themselves aren't OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Images of a Magic Fingers Vibrating Bed coin box

This may be a long shot, but here goes. Would the labeling on the Magic Fingers Vibrating Bed coin box in this image and this other image be copyrightable? Secondly, if the labeling is copyrightable, does anyone know as to the age of the labeling, which would seem to affect as whether it would still be copyrighted? (This USA Today article talks about the Magic Fingers technology being invented in 1958, and that its heyday was during the 1960s and 1970s, but that may not be exactly precise.) --Gazebo (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

One, no I don't think it's copyrightable. Two, even if it was, I think the photos are OK. That would be like the decision in the Ets-Hokin v. Skyy case -- a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle; a photo focusing on the label would be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Murals at Namdroling Monastery

I'm currently categorizing and improving the descriptions of files under Category:Namdroling Monastery as I am very familiar with the place having visited the place over 35 years - and having once lived there for 5 years. However I'm uncertain of the copyright status of some of the files I'm placing under Category:Murals at Namdroling Monastery. These are recent (i.e. painted in the last 20 years) murals (mostly 2-D though a couple are 3-D) on public view some on the inside and some on the outside of temples at the monastery which is located in India. They were painted by monks living at the monastery and all follow traditional Tibetan designs and iconometry which goes back centuries - so they are not strictly speaking "original art" nor are they the work of any one painter. Namdroling Monastery freely allows still photography of these murals and scores of people can be seen taking photographs of them everyday. I don't know who is technically the copyright owner - the monks who painted them, the monastery - or if essentially being copies of traditional designs if they are subject to copyright at all as they may not meet the "threshold of originality" (an argument could probably be made all these ways). Permission for these pictures could probably be obtained from the monastery (if that institution is the one that owns it) - though I'm uncertain whom to ask - and I know that getting such permission might be a lengthy process as, since the death of the Lama who founded the monastery, everything there is decided by committees and many of the important members of these committees are frequently absent for long periods of time. Finding out who the monks who actually painted the murals were would also now be virtually impossible since most were painted at least 15-20 years ago and the monastery now functions mostly as a monastic school/college and once the monks complete their studies there, almost all leave - returning to smaller temples and monasteries in Tibet, Bhutan, Nepal, and Himalayan regions of India. Perhaps as many as a hundred individual monks may have been involved in painting these murals - though any one mural would typically be the work of about 6 monk painters.

Though I'm unable to find anything, this topic may have come up before, as many of the photographs of these murals have been on Commons for 4-6 years, and several are used in Wikipedia articles.

Christopher Fynn (talk)) 03:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Cfynn If the murals are original art and work for hire with the painters being employees of the monastery, then the monastery is the copyright holder. It is a common belief that this kind of art is based in tradition and copies without modification, and for that reason, it seems plausible to me that these murals would not be copyrighted but rather in the public domain.

I feel like there is enough evidence in the common knowledge about Tibetan culture to conclude that these images are copies of public domain work. Copying is about faithful representation and good sense. If a technician intends to make an exact copy of a public domain work, then even if there are minor unintentional variations like the scanner changing the color of something or a non-creative artisan not exactly matching the scale or color in a painting, then the resulting work can still be in the public domain.

In examining these works, based on my own understanding, I have these premises:

1. These murals are based on public domain works which are older
2. As a matter of practice, this tradition of art seeks to make faithful reproductions without embellishment on older designs

If those things are true, then I would say that the new murals are also public domain. It might be nice to add licensing tags indicating that - right now, they are tagged with copyright ownership for the photo which is one necessary license, and the second license template should be for public domain.

It would be diligent to confirm the copyright of these murals with the monastery. Two questions which could be asked are (1) would they confirm that these murals are based on public domain art (2) irrespective of opinions on the first issue, what copyright do they assert for these murals. It might also be useful to confirm that the painters were "employees" (or legal equivalent) of the monastery, to confirm that the monastery and not the painters are the copyright holders.

Wikimedia Commons does what is reasonable given an explanation, and I think it is reasonable to expect that these photos of these murals meet Commons' inclusion criteria and do not meet Commons exclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Christopher Fynn (talk)) 08:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is File:Ministro Portales.jpg from?

It could be that I moved File:Ministro Portales.jpg from en:Wikipedia to Commons. Indeed I have moved some pictures from en:Wikipedia. But in en:Wikipedia appears that I am the original uploader of the image!. I never have had rights over this picture. I guess that some error ocurred as the file was transferred to Commons: the original uploader name was replaced with my name. Please, probe it and delete my name as uploader or delete the file. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger 07:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Keysanger: I can see you as uploader but User:Romvlvs2 as author. I think the only important fix needed is changing User:Romvlvs2 to en:User:Romvlvs2~enwiki.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pere prlpz. I find it would be better to transfer the history of uploads to commons. --Keysanger 14:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template for email permission

I have sent an email to a copyright holder asking for his permission to upload two photographs (available on this page) here. If I understand Commons:Email templates correctly, a mere written permission will not be enough. The copyright holder might not speak English, however, so I cannot expect him to fill the template suggested at Commons:Email templates. How do I proceed if he agrees to release the images? Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The page Commons:Email templates comes in a number of languages and is autotranslated according to the user's individual settings. You can also select a language from the list right below the page name. I'm quite sure that your photographer will find a version in a language he understands. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The copyright holder is not a Commons user. If it happens that he does not understand any of those languages well enough, would it be okay if he sent the same text translated (by me) into Serbo-Croatian? Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue

[Moved from "Commons:Help desk"] I currently have an article (HMS Emerald (1795) en:HMS_Emerald_(1795)) undergoing a good article review on the English Wikipedia, and have been pulled up on the licensing of some of the images I have used. See here en:Talk:HMS_Emerald_(1795)/GA1] The images in question are:

• File:Vaisseau-Droits-de-lHomme.jpg
• File:Rescate del navío de línea Santisima Trinidad por el navío Infante don Pelayo en el combate del cabo de San Vicente en 1797.jpg
• File:Ataque británico en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.jpg
• File:Admiral Sir John Thomas Duckworth (1748-1817).jpg
• File:Map of Essequibo and Demerara, 1798.jpg
• File:AMH-8054-KB Map of Surinam.jpg
• File:Chart of the Road of Basque 1757.jpg

Firstly, is the copyright issue more to do with the digital representations of the paintings rather than the paintings themselves? And secondly, what if anything can be done to fix it? Because File:AMH-8054-KB Map of Surinam.jpg has no (re)makers mark, I assume that Dutch law puts it in the public domain, and because File:Map of Essequibo and Demerara, 1798.jpg was uploaded from flickr [2], it is also available under (CC BY 2.0) licence; but it looks like I am going to have to delete others unless anyone here can kindly help me. Many thanks--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks fine, except File:Ataque británico en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.jpg which needs a date, a source, and an author. I changed the license to {{PD-Art-100}} when appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk)

I've fixed that. All the necessary information for File:Ataque británico en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.jpg could be retrieved from the description. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, for your help.--Ykraps (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Movies, screenshots and copyright

See the uploads by Vicki254 (talk · contribs). I would assume that the movies in question are still copyrighted as they were published after 1963, and as such screenshots are also copyrighted, but it is all a jungle to me, so perhaps someone else can take a look at it. I think they are all copyright violations. Nymf (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Trailers tend to be complex, because they do need a copyright notice and frequently don't have one. On the other hand, you actually have to look at the whole trailer, and in my experience, as you approach 1989, most stuff has copyright notices anyway. The copyright status on these is virtually uncheckable without a copy of the whole trailer, which should probably be uploaded to Commons if we have a copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Seems to me that it's easy to claim that something is from a trailer, when the exact same scenes are most likely present in the movie. Either way, I found Barfly on YouTube, and that one does include a copyright notice at the end, so it's safe to assume that at least one copyright violation have been uploaded.

Any administrator? Nymf (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Trailers are not necessarily using the same footage as the film, but if it's in the trailer and in the movie, and the trailer was first without a copyright notice, it's in the public domain no matter what your exact source for it is. In any case, if you feel something should be deleted, then go to the page and click on the nominate for deletion button and fill in the form; no administrator needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I know how deletion nomination works, but I am looking for an administrator to possibly delete them all as dubious/no source. We have one confirmed copyright violation, so cannot take the uploader's word for it. Nymf (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nymf, these shouldn't be deleted without a proper deletion request. So if you think these should be deleted, no need for an admin, just create a DR as Prosfilaes said above. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I tagged them all as no source and speedied the one that I already checked. I'll check the rest later, too. Thanks. Nymf (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality and the Copyright paranoia

I've recently transfered a US logo from en:Wikipedia to Commons, that the original description was only the source (now a 404 page but assuming that was valid at the moment of upload). The logo is clearly bellow the Threshold of Originality in the US (and also, the original logo has been created before 1925, therefore, is already in the PD).

Then, the admin Ellin Beltz nominated for deletion, claiming the lack of a date (1911, as the description says) and a valid source at the moment of the upload (regardless if is currently not longer available).

The big question there is if the lack of important information, is reason for deleting a logo bellow the TOO in the US, or {{PD-Textlogo}} is enoug? Several users said that, but this admin insist that is not enough (even ignoring another DR of a raster version of this logo and resolved as Withdraw, even if the source is Facebook, that seems to be just witch hunt).

What actually matters on PD-Textlogo cases? {{PD-Textlogo}} is enoug for most of cases?

I think that this discussion is stupid, because this has been already discussed, but the Copyright paranoia (or witch hunt in coarse language) has become a huge problem in Commons; there is a discussion of that in Meta, but further discussion in Commons is recommended because is very relevant to this project in particular. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If the claim is below the threshold of originality, all the evidence is part of the uploaded work itself. It is good to credit sources, but correct, it should not be a reason for deletion. It is a rare case where a source is not absolutely required, although it should still be given. The threshold can be different in various countries, so information (publication date, author and when they lived, source) can still be critical information for use in other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I understand very well the improtance of sources and date. Then, and considering that the original logo has been created in 1911, but this SVG version is unknown,

• Is actually relevant the date of creation of a particular version (vector in this case) of a PD-Textlogo, or just the date of creation of the original one?
• Is the lack of date of creation of that particular version of the logo a valid reason for deletion?

As I mentioned, this (the Threshold or Originality) has been already discussed several times, and Ellin Beltz is just incurring in Copyright Paranoia and abusing the Commons Policies in order to get rid a very simple work already in the PD in the US. This should not be allowed, Commons must grow, not shrink. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If copyrightable expression is added to a PD-ineligible work... then the result is not PD-ineligible, and then yes there would be a problem. But if the second version is still PD-ineligible, then no it doesn't matter. It can get difficult... for one example, see here -- someone made a version of a PD painting using a mezzotint process. Even though the base image was not copyrighted, the judge ruled that the mezzotint process itself had enough expression to qualify for its own copyright -- someone else making a mezzotint would be very different in the details, even though the basic image would look similar. Thus, copying that mezzotint version was therefore a copyright infringement. As for the SVG... that can get a bit difficult. If an SVG was hand-edited (rare but it happens), that may be about equivalent to a computer program copyright. The next question is if there is a copyright in all of the precise position of all the control points that make up the image. There have been cases on computer fonts which basically ruled that way (the basic shape of the letter, even of that particular font, is not copyrightable -- but the specific implementation of it is). Granted, that was about the control points on an entire font, and not one simple image. It should definitely be fine for someone else to make an SVG and license that, since the base logo is fine (if it isn't PD-textlogo it is PD-1923). Whether we can lift someone else's SVG without permission is a bit cloudy. There are most likely many SVGs which even given the control point question really don't amount to copyrightable authorship. That may be one. The question is really about if PD-textlogo applies -- if it does, then we think that even the SVG authorship is non-copyrightable; if that aspect is a problem then we can't apply the tag and we'd need permission (since regardless of the date the SVG's copyright has not expired). If the SVG is really just a slavish copy of the original (such that the control points were more or less dictated by the original)... it may still be PD-ineligible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, there is a case which would support PD-ineligible for the SVG logo -- the Meshwerks case (decision text here). I might tend to vote that way, but it might also be helpful to see the original. On the other hand, I probably would never upload someone else's SVG myself unless it was pretty clear it was licensed or given away. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As the admin involved, I'd point out the use of the sexist and emotionally laden terms (e.g. Copyright paranoia, and witch-hunt) and suggest that there is no reason to emotionally overload a simple discussion on procedure. They are upset because I marked for deletion a file which they moved from en:Wiki - without a valid source. The file was an .svg which comes with (as Carl points out), a cloudy situation. However, the rules of moving files from en:Wiki to Commons are clear; source, author and license are required. It wasn't hard to find a source for the image which started the problem, but there is no reason for this or any other user to dump files into Commons without finding the accurate sources. Besides the borderline-insulting behavior shown here (and on my talk page previously), this user also has a habit of removing {{Speedy}} tags placed by admins and users essentially creating double and triple work for admins. I support 100% Carl's statement "I probably would never upload someone else's SVG myself unless it was pretty clear it was licensed or given away." Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

People can get emotional over deletions -- definitely not the first time. They can put a lot of time and effort into the uploads, and then to have images deleted for reasons they don't entirely understand -- copyright has some weird areas, and furthermore our concentration on "free" works mean that the more typical real-life "fair use" situations that people are instinctively used to don't apply here. It's best to ignore the emotion, and try to figure out what the actual argument is, and just respond to that. In this case though, they did have a point -- COM:EVID says that uploaders need to supply enough evidence to support the license. That typically requires a source, but there are exceptions -- in the case of PD-ineligible or PD-textlogo, the argument is that the uploaded content is not copyrightable, therefore does not need a license. That can be determined simply by the content itself, so a source is actually not relevant to the license (though it's still nice to have). Thus, in those rare situations, lack of a source is actually not grounds for deletion. If the PD-ineligible tag is incorrect, then of course there would be no recourse but to delete. That is probably a closer call than the uploader assumed, and a discussion on deletion review to see what others think is still quite reasonable, though on balance I'd probably still vote to keep in this case (even if it was something I would not have uploaded myself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that the SVG can be ignored, here is a source for it from the internet http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/508407/pins-for-my-n-m-w-tow-tabs. It took all of three minutes to find. I think that the uploader in this case was careless with this upload and has become defensive - not because of this issue, but because of their habit of removing tags from copyrighted images, for two examples only:

• " (change visibility) (diff) 19:58, 5 August 2015 . . Amitie 10g (talk | contribs | block) (875 bytes) (Not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion.) "

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Façade principale du château de Gudanes.JPG ** "Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa"

• " (change visibility) (diff) 16:04, 5 August 2015 . . Amitie 10g (talk | contribs | block) (1,309 bytes) (Not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion.) "

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip of Edinburgh.jpg **Delete. Source page says "Copyright Richard Stone".

This complaint about the SVG is most likely an reaction to of a couple dozen of these tag removals being sent to Deletion Nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been paying attention to the others... doesn't sound like those tags should have been removed. The source you found is actually a .PNG from what I see, not the .SVG, though probably generated from it (or more likely, from the .SVG found on en-wiki). Bitmaps are more obviously PD-textlogo since that would strip out any potentially copyrightable material specific to the SVG. The SVG upload did mention the source actually, just no longer available other than archive.org. It would be nice to have the original upload log though, to see when it was originally uploaded to en-wiki. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question regarding 2D copying

Hoping someone knowledgeable can help me on this. I've found some interesting images from the French government website http://gallica.bnf.fr. For example the image here. According to the details listed on the website, this is "Droits : domaine public", public domain, yet the website claims in its terms of use that I can't download an image and use it for commercial purposes? Surely this is just a case of Commons:2D copying. It's no more than a scan or photo of a public domain photograph? If someone could help me clear this up I'd greatly appreciate it, because it I'm not experienced in these issues. -- Shudde (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this image is OK for Commons. Please use

Agence Rol
Description	French English: photo agency Français : Agence de photographie
Work period	from 1904 until 1937 date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P580,+1904-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P582,+1937-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
Authority file	: Q18507700 VIAF: 301958700 SUDOC: 193862948 BNF: 14944579q

creator QS:P170,Q18507700

for the author. You can get the highest resolution with this tool. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: I'm having problems with that tool. So that image is fine to upload, even through their terms of use seem to want to prohibit it? -- Shudde (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, this image is OK for Commons. For the license, you can use {{PD-old-70-1923}}. The high resolution is now available at [3]. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And yes, Gallica is a bit inconsistent at times. It says that documents are in the public domain, but has a general term of use in contradiction with that. But it is better than most other French museum, archive and gallery websites on that point. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A tiny clip of a word from a copyrighted image

I want to clip the name of a store (BOND) from the background of a copyrighted photograph that is on WP with an acceptable FUR. This bit constitutes less than 1% of the total area. The reason is because there's a clock inside the letter O, and I want to upload an image processed version that very clearly shows the time on the clock. I'd prefer to upload the whole word BOND, and not just the O, to visually aid in seeing how the distorted image relates to the full image.

I'm assuming this is too simple for copyright. If it matters, the photograph is from 1945, the photographer died in 1995. Choor monster (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If the photograph is copyrighted you will need a permission from its copyright holder because any crop is a derivative work of this photograph. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads up re uploader who, since 2013, has been uploading many non-public domain images mixed in with good images

Someone may need to take a look at this user's uploads. There are a lot of photographs of copyright protected modern sculptures/artworks and the uploader is STILL claiming everything as being his "own work" even though he has been warned about this several times before. Although a lot of his pics are fine, someone needs to weed out the copyright-protected artworks.

Stuff like File:Dr Tom J Honeyman by Leslie Hunter c.1930.jpg is probably OK because the artist died in 1931 so the uploader's photograph can be shared as a public domain image, but the object info implies that the painting is the uploader's own work, there is no info as to which museum or institution holds the original, and generally it's all a bit messy. For example, here is an upload of a sculpture by an artist who is NOT yet in public domain as per Category:Gilbert Ledward.

I see the uploader has been active since 2013 - and a glance at his talk page shows he's been advised quite often since then, and doesn't really take it too well. So someone with a firmer understanding of the issues here than I do needs to step into the breach.... Mabalu (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mabalu: I've {{Speedied}} all the pictures/sculptures by living artists and those who have not been dead for 70 years. It was quite a list. As you say, there are hundreds of really good images uploaded by this user, but also as you say, their uploads are rather short on details. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've speedied File:Alfred Wolmark by Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, 1913.jpg. The original plaster was cast in 1913. The bronzes were cast in the 1950s/1960s. I highly recommend speedying all this uploader's contributions. His source/dating information is flat-out deceptive. Choor monster (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because something was copied in the 1950s does not mean it gets a new copyright starting from that date. What is the additional expression added over the original plaster? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To my naive eye, a bronze cast and a plaster cast are strikingly different. I do not know enough if this is an entirely mechanical reproduction process, but even if it is, the work (both original and later) was all done in the UK, where sweat-of-the-brow is recognized, so I don't think that allows for Commons usage. Choor monster (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of this stuff needs checking for source nation. Dead for 70 years may be relevant in a handful of nations, but most people in the world live in a country with shorter terms (or at least other, in the US) than that. FoP may also come into play in many nations. It should not be speedied.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Zirkel (Studentenverbindung)

The status quo in this category is rather muddy and problematic. A lot of these monograms are being claimed as PD-ineligible and PD-Ineligible, others as PD-old (which seems reasonable if verifiable), and others are licensed as own work under a creative commons license (which often has not yet been verified). Since the basic black-on-white Zirkels generally follow the same concept, I think a discussion on their copyright is in order.

Do these files surpass the (German?) threshold of originality? I have included a file above which shows how these monograms are constructed. If they aren't considered original, all of them should be transferred to a PD license. But if they are considered original, the files in this category that aren't PD-Old need OTRS permission from their fraternities. Tom-L (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If they are logos which are also the subject of trademark, then almost certainly not -- Germany has a very high threshold (way higher than the U.S.) for those. See Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany. For the U.S., all of the elements appear to be letters, and I doubt any are copyrightable. The only question is the arrangement of them... but they seem to be basically on top of each other. The fact that the arrangement happens to be aesthetically kind of cool actually doesn't matter in the U.S. -- just a question if the same arrangement of say square boxes would also be copyrightable. I'd lean no in the above case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Germany is somewhat outdated, there were long discussions over at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen (German Wikipedia's equivalent of VPC) regarding newer developments lowering the threshold for logos substantially. There is an English summary available here. Probably Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Germany should be updated with this information. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Sir John Waters.jpg

Moved from Commons:Help desk

hi, here is the picture of sir john waters - http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw06605

I really don´t know how to make this legal, help me please

thanks Helena

--Águas (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

End moved from Commons:Help desk

• Presumably the picture is a work of art by someone who died long enough ago that it should be out of copyright; given the date, it should presumably be {{PD-100}}. But the National Portrait Gallery seems to be claiming otherwise (they claim it is copyrighted). I know that in the UK there is a notion that the "sweat of one's brow" (in this case, the digitizing) can create intellectual property rights that would not exist in most countries; I don't know whether this is a legitimate claim under that doctrine, so I moved your question from the Help desk to this page, where it is more likely that someone can weigh in with a good answer. - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• User:Águas, you can access it on Commons at File:Sir John Waters by William Salter.jpg. Mabalu (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment No real copyright issue, but do we need this copy? To me, this is a lower duplicate. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fonts

Some fonts show figures instead of characters when one presses any keys. There are ways to save those figures in JPG (or other pic) formats. How should we act for their licenses? Mhhossein (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The usual copyright situation around fonts is because an alphabet's letters are generally considered utilitarian. Making bitmaps of letters removes the last potentially copyrightable aspects of regular fonts. Unless the figures are part of a "system of communication", i.e. if they are just graphics that you can use in the middle of a text stream (like Dingbats), then they are artwork just as copyrightable as regular artwork. Making bitmaps of them would still be a problem; we have to get a license from the authors. There is nothing magical that happens by putting artwork in a font, basically. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks for your comprehensive explanation. Mhhossein (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Dellschau

What would be the copyright status of the works of Charles Dellschau, which were published posthumously? If they are not now in the public domain, then when would copyright expire? - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends on when they were published. They got the same 95 years from publication (with all the funky rules thereof) if published before 1978, they expire in 2048 (basically a 70 year term starting in 1978) if published 1978-2002 (copyright notice required during parts of this period), and are life+70 and thus PD if first published after 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the article, he drew privately in notebooks, and they were kept by a relative after he died. The house had a fire in the 1960s, and apparently the contents of the attic was sent to a landfill, which included the notebooks. They were somehow rescued and ended up with an unrelated person (per one article, a trash person sold them for $100), were seen by a university student who used them as part of a display, and were sold off to two different people in the 1970s. They were probably gradually made more public after that. There could be multiple ways to interpret that... they may never have been published legally, by authority of the copyright owner (Dellschau's heirs), in which case they are still "unpublished" and PD. Or maybe throwing them out could mean the copyright was abandoned, thus PD. Or maybe it meant the copyright went with the notebooks (the only copy and thus means of making copies), since the transfer was before 1978 (case law was split on the issue before 1978), so whoever owned them also owned the copyright and as such the copyright could last for a long long time (they were probably published before 1978 sounds like, or at the very latest in the 1990s). Of course if nobody put a copyright notice on them and they were legally published... then they could be PD as well. I would probably lean towards PD via either still being unpublished, or abandonment. I don't see any claim of copyright on the charlesdellschau.com website, or in some of the article images (just "courtesy of" credits). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

So would it be reasonable to upload a bunch of these? And if so, what PD license tag would you recommend? - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If we go with the legally-unpublished theory, it would be PD-old-70. Or {{PD-US-unpublished}} rather is a more specific version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Printing musical scores in Germany

Are German residents allowed to print out musical scores, which are public domain in the source country and in the United States, but still copyrighted in Germany? If not, then a restriction tag needs to be added to all such musical scores. --84.61.184.81 11:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Residents should know the law where they are. We do not have restriction tags for all situations in all countries -- that would get unmanageable quickly. What if a work is public domain in Germany, the U.S., and the country of origin, but is not OK in the Ivory Coast or Colombia? The hope would be to supply enough information for someone to figure out if it is legal where they are, but there can't be a guarantee of that (the variations of law are endless).

To be a bit more specific to your question... since Germany uses the rule of the shorter term, there will be relatively few situations where something is PD both in the US and the country of origin, but not Germany. I guess one situation might be U.S. works which are still less than 70pma, since Germany has a specific treaty with the US to not use the rule of the shorter term for those but instead use German terms. No idea if Germany has other similar treaties. And of course "allowed" is also subject to what use you make of the work -- for example section 53 of the German law specifies some private uses of copyrighted works which are OK. Most laws have something similar, but the details always differ. The answer to most questions like that is "it depends", and we can't really document every aspect of every use to be able to answer that question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio ?

Hello. I would like to know if this image is a copyright violation of that one. Thanks in advance. --Fugitron^⇢Discuter 20:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a copyright violation as the simple arrangement of those shapes doesn't pass the threshold of originality. That said, it is a rather ridiculous and misleading illustration for the article Stan Marsh, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the first part of the answer. But then... Is it ridiculous and misleading because it's only composed with geometrical forms ? Well, that's easy to say when you have fair use (FYI, I work on the french Stan Marsh, which has 0 image on). I tried everything to illustrate those ------- articles and I am obliged to finally import an image so miserable. But in addition to that, someone has to say me that it's ridiculous. Well, that's right, that's ridiculous. Thanks a lot. Brdgs, --Fugitron^⇢Discuter 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If it gets to the point that it is no longer derivative of the Stan Marsh character, then it's really not a viable illustration of the character. If you think it is good enough for an illustration of the character, then it's probably a copyvio or at the very least trademark infringement. It looks like the image has been changed since the above question -- the colors have been changed to match the cartoon, and one of the shapes has been changed to be closer as well. I frankly would not keep the image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fugitron: I didn't realize that you created the image and added it to the article. I didn't mean to offend you, so my apologies. In my opinion, though, having no illustration is much better than having a misleading illustration. Kaldari (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cover of a medical journal on the page for the journal

I want to upload the cover image for the en:Annals of Saudi Medicine to the page. I see that the page for the en:Canadian Medical Association Journal has a picture of the cover and so I wanted to do the same for the en:Annals of Saudi Medicine. I think the same non-free media information and use rationale would work, as on en:File:Canadian Medical Association Journal.gif. I could get permission to use it from the hospital (I know the people there), but this would be quicker and easier. I tried to upload it again and use the non-free use rationale guideline, but the image seems to be blocked from uploading. How do I proceed? ~ Jtamad (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jtamad. Commons does not accept non-free ("fair use") images for the reasons given in COM:FAIRUSE. Non-free images can be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia, but only if they satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. I believe that the only way you can upload the cover art to Commons is if the original copyright holder agrees to license as free it per COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder or if it is either too old or too simple to be protected by copyright.- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright in food in Germany?

Hold on a sec (there's information in English here)

Apparently, this situation goes back to a German court judgment from 2013, which widened copyright law to include the applied arts too. As a result, the threshold for copyrightability was lowered considerably, with the practical consequence that it was easier for chefs to sue those who posted photographs of their creations without permission. The Die Welt article notes that this ban can apply even to manifestly unartistic piles of food dumped unceremoniously on a plate if a restaurant owner puts up a notice refusing permission for photos to be taken of its food.

Basically, Germany loosened the requirements for copyright protection in applied art, and there is now case law saying that even professionally-presented meals can be considered an eligible work. So would this affect us? I don't think FOP would apply, because its only being temporarily presented in a place that may or may not be public, and I don't think it's permanently exhibited in a public place if it's in your stomach? And then I wonder if even taking a bite of it would be considered an unauthorized derivative work.. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No, AFAIK (or have read the article), there is actually no case-law about that. This seems to be just a clever promotional campaign/activity by a lawyer, who even got mentioned by name in the article. The second example in the cited article, a sort of food-leaks scenario, would be irrelevant for Commons, as we do honour only copyright, but not "Hausrecht". Whether an artistically presented meal might result in a copyright over its image, should be answered by our legal experts. Currently, I see little relevance. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it may have to do with the "Geburtstagszug" decision, don't you think? The same reason we're now discussing what to do with logos in German Wikipedia we formerly assumed to be not copyrightable in Germany? See de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/angewandte Kunst with this English summary. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-free licence

Hello, I have a feeling that licence conditions are made in a way that it looks like a pseudo-free licence , see HERE and the licence on the file concerned. What is the commons policy concerning such a licence? Is this allowed?--Havang(nl) (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The license is correct, what is the problem? --Ralf Roleček 08:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The file is licenced CC-by, so it's fine with commons' regulations and if the guy asking User:ComputerHotline wants to use the file under this licence he could've just done so. But the request on User:ComputerHotline's talk page sounds a bit like he wants an additional licence. Sure, it might be meant just as kindness, but are you certain it can't be interpreted differently? And the "best" I would answer to such a request (unless I'm fine with giving an additional license) is something like "No, unless under the terms given on the file description page", but probably just "no". It's not like every commons user has to give legal advise to every requestee. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.--Havang(nl) (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If you follow the link to Wallpaper Abyss, it does not even seem possible to properly follow a CC-BY license! It seems like yet another collection of indiscriminate copyright violations with a thin DMCA blanket. If you're not feeling garrulous, I think "no" is a more than sufficient answer to the question of whether you can post images there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nitabuhar

All the images uploaded by User:Nitabuhar are described as "own work", but seem to be photographs of older images, from a book or museum display. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Inside of churches in Sweden

Sweden has FOP for permanently placed works of art outside. Does that make an image like this free? I would say that its clearly art (made by sculptor Bertil Vallien) and its not located outside. Also the church is from 1993 so its not PD-OLD. /Hangsna (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

British Honduras

Does anyone know what the copyright term would be for a work published in British Honduras in 1949? British Honduras was a British crown colony until 1964. It is now the country of Belize. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like their terms are still 50pma, and those would have been the terms in 1949 as well. UK copyright law was usually applied in various colonies at some later date... looks like there was a Copyright Ordinance 1915 which basically applied the UK Copyright Act 1911 to the British Honduras, and it looks like the UK 1956 Act was applied there on June 16, 1966 by Copyright Order 1966/684. That would be superseded by current Belize law, but it looks like the basic terms have not changed that much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploading old publicity photos

Hi,

I'm writing a new Wikipedia article on a singer, David Blair McClosky (1902-1988). I have found two of his old publicity photos, one from the 1930s and one from the 1960s, which I'd like to include in the article. However, I do not know who took them, and the relevant people to ask are all deceased. Am I allowed to upload these photos to Wikicommons? My apologies if the question has already been answered elsewhere. I did make a determined search through various FAQs, but could not turn up a clear answer.

It depends on whether those photos were published with a copyright notice. If the original publication did not have a formal copyright statement the photos are out of copyright in the US and can be uploaded. This would also be the case if the copyright notice was defective as explained in {{PD-US-defective notice}}. If they were actually copyrighted upon their first publication there's also a good chance that the copyright was not renewed (see {{PD-US-not renewed}}). De728631 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Google books - First few pages

How about the first page(s) Google inserts into the scans, e.g. File:Achard - Le Journal d’une héritière, 1868.djvu, File:An introduction to linear drawing.djvu. IMHO those generic pages don't fall under any copyright protection. Otherwise we'd have to strip all Google books here of the first page(s). --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

These first pages should be removed, but doing it manually one by one takes ages. It would be great if some automated tool takes care of that. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But is there really a copyright issue? I don't think so. Otherwise we need to scan through all google books uploads and start removing those pages ASAP. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

At least until the last period the first page in Google Books considered as Copyrighted and files were deleted for that reason. I personally agree to treat them the same way we treat with {{Watermark}}. As we can fixed the files with some tool or manually. -- Geagea (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FICIX logo threshold of originality

Does the FICIX logo pass the threshold of originality or does it fall to public domain? The logo consists of simple text and three circles connected to each other with lines. The author has suggested to use CC BY-NC 4.0 license, which is unacceptable for Commons. 80.222.34.157 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also a black and white version of the FICIX logo published by the author. 80.222.34.157 19:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll be fine using {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion which may be of interest to users of this board

The deletion requests mentioned at this discussion may be of interest to users of this board. They are related to the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom and train tickets. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Syria

As you might know, ISIL has just destroyed the Monastery of St. Elian, parts of which was1500 old.

Looking for pictures, I found this. I´m totally green when it comes to copyrights (I mostly only upload my own pictures, or from the pal.rem-site): can I upload this St. Elian Monastery's New Church-picture? If so, which license should I use? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that Flickr photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license. Commons licensing policy requires images be usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose, including commercial uses. Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses can not be uploaded to Commons. —RP88 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Do you know if I can use it on English Wikipedia? I understand it has less strict rules? Huldra (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia will accept a non-free image if it meets their non-free content criteria and it is uploaded with an appropiate non-free use rationale. I think you can meet those criteria since now that the historic landmark has been destroyed it will not be possible for a contributor to create a free photo (assuming you've done a search for free photos and not found any). The en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard will walk you through the steps (i.e. choose "Click here to start", add description, click "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" and "This is some other kind of non-free work" and answer the questions. You can get help specific to English Wikipedia over at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —RP88 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot, will do that, Huldra (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright query - no notice

Hey all,

I have recently nominated a file for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pappa Fourway.jpg), however after looking into it, the file appears like it may fall under {{PD-US-no notice}} - there is definitely no clear notice on the work in question. I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with this could take a look. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Recommended way to acknowledge Commons images

I am planning to use some images from Commons on my own web pages. I intend to acknowledge WP Commons as the source of each such image in its alt tag, title tag, or both. Is the acceptable? What wording is recommended? Maproom (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. In short: every image is accompanied by information about its license. How to credit the image depends on the terms of this license. It is nice to acknowledge Commons, but what is usually needed, is crediting the author. --rimshot^talk 21:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Billboard advertisements

There is a deletion discussion going on now that affects hundreds of images taken from advertisements in Billboard magazines lacking separate copyright notices. Further input is welcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Buttram Billboard 2.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The publisher's copyright notice for a pre-1978 U.S. collective work (typical examples include magazines, newspapers, or other periodicals) is not sufficient for advertisements that appear in the collective work unless the copyright to the advertisement is owned by the publisher of the collective work. Advertisements published in pre-1978 collective works without their own separate notice can use the {{PD-US no notice}} tag. Specific details are at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Advertisements. I'll take a look at the DR you mention. —RP88 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

screenshots

What about those screenshots: Special:ListFiles/Wolfgang_Holle? Are they OK under a free license? --2A02:810D:27C0:5CC:49C:A448:5446:A916 12:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you could please be more specific? I searched most of that gallery and found no hits. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The screenshots show proprietary software like Autodesk Inventor. See Commons:Screenshots. --2A02:810D:27C0:5CC:3127:25C8:29E1:511B 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• If these are non-free software screenshots, just tag as {{Copyvio}}. Be sure to review the screenshots before tagging, in order to don't tag free software screesnhots by mistake. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BSD license

 Question Is {{BSD}} useful here since it is only a software license? It doesn't say anything about photos or screenshots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedwig in Washington (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Commons hosts thousands of BSD-licensed images going back to 2005. While certainly not a preferred license for photos, it was not at all uncommon for one of the available "free" source-code licenses like BSD to be used for images before the Creative Commons licenses achieved greater recognition. The license satisfies wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and Commons:Licensing. I agree it that it is cumbersome (although definitely less cumbersome than the GFDL) and I would definitely discourage anyone from using it for newly created images uploaded to Commons, but it still serves a purpose for images that were released elsewhere under this license. —RP88 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't touch a deletion request with a ten foot pole. Should we add something like Use discouraged, please use foo or bar? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't bother since I can't think of a reason to single out {{BSD}} as a discouraged license that does not also apply to all of the other software licenses (i.e. {{GPL}}, {{MIT}}, {{Apache}}, {{CeCILL}}, etc.). For that matter, licenses like {{BSD}} are already discouraged by virtue of the fact that the Upload Wizard initially only offers CC-BY-SA-4.0 for new uploads of one's own work (and even if you ask for an expanded list of licenses the wizard only makes it easy to use CC licenses). —RP88 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The BSD license specifies that is for software, but not explicitely restricted to binaries and source code. Therefore, the {{BSD}} (like the {{GPL}}) applies to any file related to software licensed under the BSD (ie. screenshots of software like Chromium). In these cases, is important to specify the free software license in order to make a screenshot properly licensed, because the software screenshots are the result of execution of the code covered in that license; for that purpose exists {{Free screenshot}}.

Therefore, if a picture is licensed with BSD and does not belongs to software in any way, we can discourage its ussage, but we can't restrict its hosting and ussage in any way.

And finally, experienced users (like me) preffer to add the license manually (that include {{Free screenshot}} with its parameters). I think that will be a good idea to add free screenshts to the Upload wizard. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but technically, the result of executing copyrighted code is not necessarily copyrighted. It is usually because many graphics you see on the screen were provided as resources, and those usually have the same license as the software (unless specified differently in the documentation). The arrangement of the interface might also be copyrighted; that could be embodied in the code or other resources as well. But in general, just being processed by copyrighted code does not make something copyrightable -- it has to be human expression to begin with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Old works from Korea prior to the end of the WWII (1945)

I ve found this file, picture taken in 1930, but tagged by Krdbot because lacks of a valid license... but, ¿what license we should apply?

Currently, we have {{PD-China}}, that covers the works of China before its splitting. But, I don't found any PD tag or prior discussion in the Village Pump concerning about Korea.

¿Is actually necessary a PD template for Korea in the same way as China? Considering that the Copyright laws of the both current Koreas is quite different, I open this thread to discuss this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That is another messy situation. At the time, Korea was part of Japan (at least de facto; the de jure question is based on the legality of the w:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 but most of the world accepted it). That territory became two different countries... you could argue it was simultaneously published in both (and perhaps Japan as well), and in that case Berne says the country of origin is the country among those with the shortest term. It most likely expired a long time ago in all three; the question would be if any of the Korean laws would have retroactively restored it (I don't think so, but I haven't looked to be sure). The "source country" for the URAA would probably be South Korea (that would be the country with the "greatest contacts to the work", and the photo was most likely taken in Seoul). But, most any way you look at it, it should be PD -- so just pick a tag that makes sense. Nothing wrong with putting both North and South Korean PD tags on there, either, as they should both be true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've created this template (notice that it uses Autotranslate!). Is OK, or the copyright statuses in the Korea-1910-1945 is too complicated? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll propose the creation of the license tag in the COM:VPP. This thread may still be opened for copyright-related discussions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that a North Korean work would necessarily qualify for the tag, if they are purely 50pma. On the other hand, we wouldn't require all tags to be true either -- it is technically just one of the three, and probably both Japan and South Korea would qualify. (No idea what North Korean copyright rules were before the 2001 law... or if they cared at all. It might be a formality law which is ignored in practice.) It might be easiest to just use the South Korean tag for all such photos, really, but I could also see a special tag just to separate them out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I ran into this problem about 18 months ago when trying correctly to mark some missionary photographs taken in Korea over this period. It can be confusing to explain to others as it is a complex area of copyright law, hand-in-hand with a lack of legal cases. Thanks for looking at it and making a more explicit template. --Fæ (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Montage pictures, sources with different CC licenses

I found this file. I reviewed and passed the license, but I have a doubt, Is allowed the mixing of works licensed under the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses? and then, What license should we use for these kind of works? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, If it is the same version, no issue. The license of the montage should be the most restrictive, i.e. CC-BY-SA. Yann (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are designed to be adaptable to the situation of combining Creative Commons licensed works (where possible). A compilation can either be multi-licensed such that all licenses must be honored (if none are incompatible share-alike licenses),, or, in many cases it is possible to release the compilation under a single-license with the most restrictive license. CC has a chart and we have some notes at Commons:Collages#Combining_different_Creative_Commons_versions (which also discusses the rules about license version) and Commons:Multi-licensing. The collage File:London Montage E.jpg was correctly single-licensed, it wasn't necessary for you to add caveats to its license section. —RP88 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) /me misses COM:derivativeFX. Josve05a (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:-) —RP88 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110409 Josve05a (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

New copyright tag proposal

I think it would make sense to have a tag specific for advertisements in collective works 1923-1977, where there is no copyright notice for the advertisement. There are a lot of images like this on Commons, and it would be helpful to have a specific template that legitimizes them and tracks them. A suggestion is here: User:Calliopejen1/Ad no notice. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTE This tag would be specific to the United States (not Europe) -- it covers the case where there is a notice in the work as a whole, but the ad lacks notice. This would eliminate requests for deletion like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Buttram Billboard 2.jpg that are based on a misunderstanding of US copyright law. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose We already have too many similar license tags. I would merge {{Anonymous-EU}} with {{PD-anon-70}}. I don't see the point to have a specific tag for Europe. Anyway, which Europe? The Euro zone? The European Union? Why not other European countries which have similar laws (Serbia, etc.)? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

in favor of such tag Ad no notice as it cleans a whole area for discussion. Only if there are no other similar tags. --Hannolans (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is {{PD-US no notice}}, that's the point. Yann (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Could this be an additional parameter for PD-US no notice then? That would be another option. There is confusion created by the fact that such advertisements are taken from magazines (or similar works) with notice but the ads themselves lack notice. I think there are many users here that misunderstand the treatment of advertisements in collective works. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a specific case of PD-US-no_notice, one which not everyone may be aware of, where there is a copyright notice on the magazine but not one on the advertisement. It is a specific exception. It was based on a couple of court cases and then codified into 17 USC 404. A separate tag would point out that specific circumstance, as people may question the PD-US-no_notice tag when there is in fact a notice present on the collective work. On the other hand, yes, it does sort of duplicate the PD-US-no_notice and the PD-US-1978-89 tags. The tag should point out that advertisements where the author is the same as the collective work are covered by the notice; i.e. a magazine advertising itself or sister magazines or something like that are not PD. The wording in the law is advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copyright in the collective work, which we should make clear. Second, the tag explicitly stops at 1977, but it could cover up to 1989, with the extra caveat of registering within 5 years. If we have a tag for this specific purpose, I think it should go up to March 1, 1989. This may well be one of the biggest sources of material not under copyright for those years, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, either new custom license, or modification to PD-US-no_notice. but getting the europeans to stop deleting US public domain material (from lack of formalities), is a forlorn hope. maybe we need a notice board for some sustained undeletions. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous license tag

I would merge {{Anonymous-EU}} with {{PD-anon-70}}. I don't see the point to have a specific tag for Europe. Anyway, which Europe? The Euro zone? The European Union? Why not other European countries which have similar laws (Serbia, etc.)? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous-EU is based on European Law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0116:EN:HTML), and is implemented in national law in all countries who are member of the European Union. Eurozone are members with the Euro as valuta, I see no link with valuta systems to copyright. --Hannolans (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So what? {{PD-anon-70}} offers exactly the same functionality, so I don't see the point to have a separate tag. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand, but PD-EU-anonymous declares that it is at least according to the European law guaranteed PD, and PD-anon-70 is declaring that it is at least in the US law guaranteed PD. While it can have a 99% overlap, I m not sure if it is a 100%, and if the assumptions are the same about 'publication' and amount of research that should be done. --Hannolans (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I see that PD-anon-70 is not specific for any country, and PD-EU-anonymous is more specific. --Hannolans (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point to have a specific tag. If needed, we can add that PD-anon-70 apply in the EU, like we have for PD-old-70. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There are some specific issues like unpublished anonymous works in the EU-law. Note that there is also PD-EU-no_author_disclosure template. What you proposed on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-EU-no_author_disclosure does make sense, keep PD-anon-70 and combine the two EU-tags to one. --Hannolans (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. So we have 3 license tags which apply to the same kind of copyright situation. QED. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The EU directive does have a slightly different situation for countries where a corporation is the direct copyright owner -- in those cases, it matters if the author was named on the initial publication. If not, corporations are not supposed to be able to extend to 70pma by naming the author down the road, whereas that can happen with human-authored copyrights. That has been one possible distinction between the EU anon tags. There are often tiny differences in the laws -- what constitutes "publication", for example -- that can be hard to capture in a single PD-anon-70 tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the law is slightly different from one country to another. But practically, I don't think we can or should make than difference in the template. I think, we should have a page Commons:Copyright for anonymous works, which gives the details, and the template should refer to that. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's first try to merge {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and let's see if that is possible and what kind of specific EU-law is involved. I think it is important that tags refer to specific law for disputes. --Hannolans (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There is some discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. Currently, they are basically the same tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

PD-anon-70 is not US; US works published by 1978 follow those rules, and for recently published works, the US is PD-anon-120.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Indianapolis Museum of Art appears to be giving carte-blanche permission to download and freely use images marked as "public domain"

The Indianapolis Museum of Art has made a number of really beautiful images available via its website, marked as "Public Domain" where appropriate, and on their Image Resources page, they say "Many images of public domain works are available for free download from the IMA’s Collections page. Simply look for the download icon to access a high resolution JPG file and begin using the image for any purpose." Further down the page, it also says "Public domain collection images downloaded from the IMA collection pages should be credited: “Image courtesy of the Indianapolis Museum of Art.”" and also "There are no restrictions or conditions for the use of downloadable public domain images."

Many of the images are wonderful and I was wondering whether this permits appropriately marked PD images from their database to be uploaded, in a similar way that LACMA public domain images are permitted? Any thoughts? Mabalu (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Mabalu Public domain content, with or without anyone inviting others to redistribute it, can be hosted in Wikimedia Commons. A notice indicating public domain status from the expert staff at this museum meets Commons' requirement that diligent research be done to confirm that content uploaded here is actually compatible with Commons' copyright policy. Even much less than that is often permissible here.

Despite what they say, there is no requirement on Commons to credit the museum as owners of the art or as the providers of public domain images. However, there is a community tradition here to note these things in the file page on Commons when possible, even without being requested. Wikimedia Commons does not propagate notices that imply a requirement that users must give credit when reusing public domain content, so if the files are brought here, those notices should be weakened or omitted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

They should be credited. It is a matter of simple human decency to do so, and include the request to reusers. We even have a template {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, disproving your claim that the Commons does not propagate such notices.

Giving people credit for what they did is cheap and shouldn't be begrudged.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Prosfilaes It is good to give credit here on Commons. I am much less willing to copy a notice to Commons that says if these public domain images are reused off-Commons, then still the attribution is required. I want to give credit, but most museums and archives assert copyright or reuse restrictions over their public domain holdings and I am not eager to spread that idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with noting that the Museum would appreciate crediting, but as they do concede on their page, there are no restrictions - it's really just a request that if reusing, it "should be" rather than "must be." Mabalu (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree here. Blue Rasberry I just wanted to double-check, because these are modern photographs of 3D objects, and I know that can be tricky. So it's OK to use these images? Mabalu (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If we have the Museum's permission to treat the modern photographs as PD, and we seem to, then they're fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Those (pictures of 3-D works) would indeed need a license. It sounds like their terms are basically like {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, or maybe {{Attribution}}. We may want a specific tag if there are going to be lots of images. For images of PD 2-D works, then it's a PD-Art situation instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this something where a collaboration with the Museum might be possible? I don't know how the LACMA agreement worked out - one day, you were fine to upload individual pictures from their website as long as there was a certain note on the page; the next day suddenly EVERYTHING that had clearance had been uploaded with LACMA's blessing. Mabalu (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded 3 files: File:Woman's shirt from Kutch, Gujarat, India, IMA 55114.jpg, File:Woman's shirt from Kutch, Gujarat, India, IMA 55114, 2.jpg, File:Woman's trousers from Kutch, Gujarat, India, IMA 53793.jpg. Indeed, high quality pictures of interesting items. I think it would be good to have a category for files copied from their website. Suggestions? Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yann I also have wondered about this and would like for there to be a standard practice. Perhaps a hidden category called "media provided by the Indianpolis Museum of Art", which is a subcategory of Category:Indianapolis Museum of Art and Category:Media provided by museums. I do think that it is worthwhile to differentiate content provided by an institution versus other media relating to that institution, but I have not seen this kind of categorization consistently managed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will do that tomorrow unless there is any opposition. Better to be right the first time, rather that do it twice. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I created Category:Images from the Indianapolis Museum of Art, which is a subcategory of Category:Images from museums. BTW do we need license review for these images? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that in some cases (e.g. [4]), the whole item is only displayed in a medium resolution, and some parts in high resolution. It would be nice to have the whole item in HR. They also have high resolution TIFF files available on request. So I wrote them. We will see what comes out... Regards, Yann (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I got an answer. The Indianapolis Museum of Art confirms that the images are in the public domain, but they won't give any TIFF. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

UK coat of arms

Hi, What is the copyright status of the UK coat of arms, which is used on UK passports? See the following pages for related discussions. This page from the UK government says (section 2.2): Use of the Royal Arms without permission is a breach of Crown copyright which is a criminal offence. So? Yann (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Passports of the United Kingdom
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Passports of the United Kingdom
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Igor alexandrov
• Category:Coats of arms of the United Kingdom: many files
• Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Danzig passport.jpg

That sounds more like a trademark issue than copyright. I'm pretty sure our stance is still Commons:Coats of arms. The design is not really copyrighted, but individual representations can be. I'm sure the official representation is Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your message. So practically, what does it mean? Can the CoA (i.e. File:British biometric passport.jpg) be used for something unrelated to passports, say a T-shirt? If yes, then I think we are good. If no, then we have a problem. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The UK coat of arms are protected by §99 of the "Trade Marks Act 1994" (a non-copyright restriction). Images of the arms known to have been created by the UK Government prior to 1965 can be tagged with {{PD-UKGov}} and {{Insignia}}. Whether or not we can keep particular images in which the arms are not de minimis will presumably require determining if the particular rendition of the arms is pre-1965. I don't know if the rendition of the arms on a modern UK passport was created prior to 1965. It may well be (a note at File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg says the current style of the arms was adopted in 1953). Presumably a UK business couldn't use even a pre-1965 rendition of the arms without permission on a T-shirt without running afoul of §99, but a US business could (although even a US business could not trademark a logo prominently featuring the UK arms as the U.S. is a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883, which prohibits the trademark registration of State emblems of the signatories). —RP88 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current design of UK passport was made in 1953, see File:Stone royal coat of arms.JPG. Yann (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note, that similar rules should probably apply to such documents and even maybe to such photos:

Ankry (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The photo File:Buckingham Palace - Wappen am Gittertor.jpg is fine. In the UK it is not copyright infringement to take a photo of a sculpture permanently located in a public place. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom and {{FoP-UK}} for more information. —RP88 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Muddled. The T-shirt would likely violate insignia laws anyways. I don't think they have an issue copying the arms if they are an integral part of an official document being copied most of the time -- see their guidance on publishing birth, marriage, and death certificates. In that view, cropping out just the arms would not be OK, nor would adding them if they were not there already, but copying the document as a whole is OK (provided personal data is protected)... it would basically be analogous to a photo of the Louvre square which contains the copyrighted pyramid, which is OK, but photos focusing on the pyramid are not. The cover of the passport is much more dominated by the arms though (and might qualify as an official symbol itself)... their guidance for that is here. The primary concerns seem to be that 1) much of the data of an actual passport is personal, and thus is not covered by the {{OGL}}, 2) there are security features on the inside pages of the passport that they do not want disseminated, and 3) the arms are also outside the scope of the OGL and they are probably worried that some uses which just contain the cover of the passport might be reasonably assumed to be associated with the government (i.e. it would be a trademark or insignia violation). Their guidance on the cover specifically says:

3.3 Restrictions on reproduction

The image of the cover of the Passport including the Royal Arms, or the details pages of the Passport may not be used:

• as the main focus of the cover of a work, for example, the dust jacket or cover of a publication
• in advertising
• in facsimile form for use as a passport holder or cover

So it seems as though there are certain situations where it is not OK to copy, but they would probably also be situations which would be fraudulent uses of the arms per other insignia laws, and the UK may also be using Crown Copyright to additionally protect those same uses, but seem OK with many other reproductions (of the cover anyways) as long as it is obvious that it is not associated with the UK government in any way. Whether that amounts to "non-free" is a harder question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not the inside of the passport, just the cover. Recent passports have a complex inside design which is certainly under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped them an email about this to try to get it clarified. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Likely copy-vio

I have my suspicions about this image, there are a number of red flags. For a start, it looks incredibly professional and likely an image taken by a club photographer rather than a spectator. Also, there is no metadata. A reverse image search shows that it exists on other websites. It appears on this Uruguayan website in 2013, but with no details on its copyright status. The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite obviously not User:Sol2y's own work. You should nominate the image for deletion. You can follow Help:NDTL should you need help regarding that. -- Nirinsanity (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Right. Copyvio, deleted. Yann (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

De minimis?

The image shown on the left argues that the Batman poster in it is too small to be an issue of copyright infringement. However, doesn't the fact that the image is used both on the English and the Arabic articles of the film The Dark Knight contradict De minimis? - Nirinsanity (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be clearly de-minimis to me. The poster is not at all recognizable at the thumbnail size, for example. The focus is the car and the street scene. That said, the use of the image in said articles might be a copyright violation. --Sebari (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the English article. - Nirinsanity (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Louvre - FOP issue

Shouldn't Template:FoP-France be on File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg like it is on File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg?

It is quite possible that it should. Ruslik (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So, can I go ahead and add it? -- Nirinsanity (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can go ahead and add it. Ruslik (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

PD-Art, broken process

Hi, Looking at Category:PD-Art (PD-old default), which now contains 136,605 files, I have to say that our process is broken. This is to be compared with Category:PD Art, which contains approximately 610,000 files. It means that about 22% of PD-Art files have a incomplete license. Correcting that many files manually is a huge work. Any idea how to fix this? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I did about 20 for fun yesterday and at that rate, this could be finished somewhere around 2025. I did find that there are several large series which might be able to be handled by batching. The major problem that I see is there is no way to keep new ones from being allowed to be put with incomplete license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to an interpretation of "incomplete license" -- the uploader may have well intended PD-old since that is the default. If we don't want to allow a default, then probably convert all existing ones to have an explicit PD-old license (maybe in a special category to still be able to identify them) and then remove the default, instead marking it to be deleted unless a parameter is supplied. That might require some coordination with changing upload tools. I'm not really sure the ones without a parameter are really all that different from the ones that have one -- if the sub-license (PD-old if not explicitly supplied) is incorrect, then a DR should be started, regardless if a parameter was supplied or not, if a correct sub-license cannot be determined. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the first step is to fix the upload process, then we can discuss how to tackle the backlog. When choosing PD-Art, there should be a field where the artist's date of death needs to be provided, and a script computes the correct license. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We could add a parameter to {{PD-Art}} called suppressdelete. If the default license is used, and suppressdelete=1 is not set, then {{PD-Art}} will show add a {{Speedydelete|PD-Art template requires a license parameter specifying why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States}} notice. Before enabling the deletion notice, have a bot sweep Category:PD-Art (PD-old default) changing any existing bare {{PD-Art}} into {{PD-Art|suppressdelete=1}}. This would have the result that old uses of a bare {{PD-Art}} will continue to show the default PD-old and the red usage note saying that an explicit license parameter is required, while all future bare uploads of {{PD-Art}} will have a speedy delete notice.

However, I did a test and it appears that Special:UploadWizard uses a bare {{PD-Art}} tag as the license if you tell it you are uploading a non-self-taken photo of a public domain painting. So, before doing anything else, I think the first step would have to be adding improved PD-Art handling to mw:Extension:UploadWizard. —RP88 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are making a problem instead of a solution. I didn't mean that these images should be deleted, and certainly not speedy deleted. I think the majority of images tagged with the PD-Art default are not copyright violations, it is just that the license needs to be fixed. Some have been with an incomplete template for years, so there is also no urgency. But we need to 1. fix the upload process to have a complete license most of the time, 2. fix the backlog. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, I wasn't proposing deleting the existing bare uses of PD-Art. I was proposing that new files uploaded with bare {{PD-Art}} templates be speedied after the upload tools are fixed to not generate bare PD-Art. With regards to the backlog of bare PD-Art tags, I see them and fix them whenever I edit a file for some other reason. Commons volunteers have manually added {{Information}} to hundreds of thousands of files as part of the File metadata cleanup drive, so the number of files to be fixed manually is not beyond the reach of a coordinated campaign. —RP88 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look a project Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-Art review was started in 2012 to address the very thing we are discussing, including identifying the deficiencies in the upload tools and the need to address the backlog. —RP88 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, we didn't advance much. :( Yann (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Are all chemical structures public domain regardless of where they came from?

I uploaded a (2D) PNG of the chemical structure of a new anticancer drug - I did not render the image myself - I downloaded it off of ChemSpider - What lic do I set the file as? Public Domain? Mfernflower (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about File:Pacritinib-fixed.png, I don't think it comes within the threshold of originality. Therefore you can add Template:PD-ineligible, which automatically puts it in the public domain. - Nirinsanity (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There’s a more specific {{PD-chem}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Icpsymbol.svg

This was uploaded as "own work" and licensed as "CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication". Can this be licensed as such? Is OTRS verification needed or is the image fine as is? The reason I am asking is because the non-free en:File:Icpsymbol.PNG is being used in en: Iraqi Communist Party. Since the "free version" is being used in multiple articles to identify the same organization, this NFCR discussion is trying to determine if the non-free one can be replaced with the .svg one. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Enquiry about appropriate copyright tag

I have been uploading some images taken at the Fashion Museum, Bath. At the entrance of the Museum is a notice that reads "Photography is permitted throughout the Fashion Museum. Please do share your photographs and thoughts about your visit via Facebook and Twitter (with links to the Museum's handles on both sites)". My interpretation of this is that it pretty explicitly gives permission to take photographs and do what you like with them, and the conditions in the Museum do mean that it is pretty impossible to take a best-quality photograph (due to highly reflective glass cases, low light levels, etc - I had to throw away a lot of pictures or concede defeat with getting a decent enough image of some items due to these conditions.)

My question is, what kind of license should be appended to these files? I put Own work on, which was automatically added to all, but I wonder whether there is a better license to use for such files, as I have a number of similar files from other museum exhibitions (where photography was explicitly permitted). I certainly don't want people assuming I am claiming authorship of the dresses. Mabalu (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Own work would cover your photography, you'd still need the proper license for the object being photographed. Is this in the UK? Are the items on temporary or permanent display? any additional information you can provide will help the folks here with your answer. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that clothing is one of those things that cannot be easily copyrighted, particularly if it was originally designed to be mass-produced or manufactured in multiples. For example, with File:Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez 3.jpg, at least five duplicates of the dress are known to have been made (two for museums, three worn by celebrities), and it was made for Versace's ready-to-wear collection which indicates that others were made. Even a "couture" dress is not designed to be a one-off - it may be made for multiple individual clients on demand, unless it is explicitly stated to be a custom model for one specific client alone (say, a Royal wedding dress or ceremonial gown). I do not believe that a photograph of a garment constitutes copyright infringement of the designer's work, as clothing - designed to be worn, modified, customised, altered - is generally not considered to be in the same league as a sculpture or other work of art unless there is a particularly compelling reason to consider it as more work of art than functional garment. Mabalu (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also I'd note that if we declare clothing copyrightable, then taking this to its logical extent, we would need to hyper-cautiously delete every single image showing a person wearing a garment that might possibly be identifiable as a designer's work - wiping out literally hundreds of thousands of images of people on Wikipedia. Mabalu (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Under United States copyright law (have no idea about British law) in the great majority of cases clothing is "functional" or "utilitarian" and uncopyrightable as such. That's why ready-to-wear knockoffs of couture designs are allowed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Having been involved in book publishing, I've NEVER encountered an instance where we have been compelled to seek copyright permission from a designer in order to publish a photograph of their clothing - only the photographer's copyright has been an issue. Mabalu (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sperm whale weather vane image

what is the copyright status for File:Nantucket historical association whaling museum weather vane.jpg? Image is on the right. I appreciate your efforts. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends. How old is the weather vane? I assume(!) that the vane is pretty recent and therefore still protected under copyright. There's no FOP for 3D objects in the USA. I don't think one could argue that this is a utilitarian object w/o copyright protection. My best guess: Copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

According to NHA the museum was founded in 1929. It is probably not a free sculpture yet, because it is absolutely feasible that the creator is still alive, or lived way beyond 1929. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Odds are rather likely that it was published without notice. Not sure what a visible notice would have to be on something like that ;-) but if there was no copyright notice on it, and it was put there before 1978, then it is PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Carl! I sometimes forget about this loophole. :-) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've sent an inquiry to the Nantucket Historical Association to see if they can provide details about the weathervane over the entrance to their museum, in particular when it was installed and who created it. —RP88 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've heard back from a Research Associate at the NHA Research Library. The weathervane is of recent origin, not a historical work. It was commissioned for the museum's remodeling of 2003–05 by the project architect, Martin Sokoloff. Since the whale sculpture is a recent work by an artist who has not been dead for more than 70 years this photo is a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture and as the U.S. has no freedom of panorama for public sculpture this photo can not be freely licensed without the permission of the artist. —RP88 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)