Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/04

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

Is there a way to question the license used on an image?

I am looking for a way, ideally a template, which marks the license a file is published under as questionable, so other editors can review my suspicions and perhaps nominate for deletion. The specific example that triggered this request is File:RAJA_Logo.PNG (I very much doubt it is not copyrightable), but I am looking for a general mechanism, rather than a ruling on this specific item. Thank you in advance.--Lommes (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There are {{Disputed}} and {{Wrong license}} templates, which will put up some warning text and put the image in a maintenance category. I'm not sure that the category gets processed much though. For that image... definitely copyrightable in the U.S., but it's an Iranian work and have no idea at all there. (U.S. has no copyright relations with Iran, so it's technically free in the U.S.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Images of Alejandra Campoverdi

Hi, in editing the related en-WP entry, I noticed that these three images were all uploaded by one user as "own work" but the photos' metadata indicates three different authors:

I don't have much experience at the Commons so I was hoping for some input on what this means for the copyright status. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The White House one is a Pete Souza photo, so that is OK (PD-USGov) -- I changed it. The others look like insufficient licensing and should be deleted. They are not own work, and I don't think they were transferred from en-wiki as claimed. They may be from the campaign (all the photos appear in lower resolution on the candidate's website) but we would need OTRS permission. They may be re-uploads as well, as it looks like previous uploads of them have been deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for looking into this--that all makes sense, much appreciated for the info and the follow-up. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Image within freely licensed article

I was unable to find any documentation specific to the license of images within mBio articles. The article itself is licensed under CC-BY 4.0, and the images included (such as thise one) are not marked with their own specific licensing. Should it be assumed that the CC-BY 4.0 license applies only to the text of the article, or would the figures be included? --Pbtflakes (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally there will be a separate credit for any illustrations that aren’t by the authors, which may say something like “used by permission” or “courtesy of”. Absent any such notations or any other evidence the content is extraneous, I think it’s safe to assume the iicence covers everything. I also note the box to the right of the article on the page linked above mentions “O[pen]A[ccess] Figures”.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Paintings by es:Guillermo Silveira (d. 1987)

See Category:Guillermo Silveira García and Special:ListFiles/Mperezreviriego. Why are those works free, even more free under CC by Mperezreviriego? That can't be right, or am I missing something? --King Rk (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a case of someone who thinks that "own work" means "I did the work of scanning and uploading", rather than "I created the copyrightable expression", which they did not. So, unless they are heirs of the painter they would have no right to give those licenses, and therefore they are not free and should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassurement. What should he do if he actually is authorized to publish this works under a free license? --King Rk (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Follow the process at COM:OTRS to get the licenses confirmed, which is what we need for previously-published works to be uploaded. Or, perhaps explicitly license images with a CC license on a source website affiliated with the copyright owners. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Let's see what he has to say. --King Rk (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert Hansen.jpg

Does "Alaskan Police Department" qualify as "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government" - I thought that was only FBI. Found as copy of non-free en-wiki file en:File:Robert Hansen.jpg. Can't find any copyright release on http://www.dps.state.ak.us/ast/ - just "© 2017" at bottom of page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Besides the fact that "Alaskan Police Department" is extremely vague, state troopers or local police are not employed by the federal government, so that license statement does not apply. clpo13(talk) 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

POTY leader copyright?

File:Solar Eclipse of November 3, 2013, Observed from Space.gif looks to be among those moving from POTY R1 to R2. It was uploaded as one of max_r_punkt's few edits, and looks to credit moments-from-space.com, which made it using content from EUMETSAT and NASA. NASA, as we know, would almost certainly be public domain, but I'm having trouble verifying the appropriateness of the license from the other two entities. Moments-from-space.com says (note: I'm relying on Google Translate):

All contents of the Moments from Space website are protected by copyright. Use without express consent is not permitted. The satellite images generated by Moments from Space are based on data from the geostationary satellites Meteosat Second Generation (MSG), which are provided by the European Agency for the Use of Meteorological Satellites EUMETSAT , As well as data from the Blue Marble Next Generation project of the US National Aerospace Agency NASA . The images produced by Moments from Space are subject to the shared copyright of EUMETSAT and Moments from Space.

EUMETSAT's website says:

All material published on the EUMETSAT website is protected by copyright/trademark and owned either by EUMETSAT or the party credited as the provider of the material.
EUMETSAT grants all users the right to use, download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website on the condition that each information, image, document and material taken from the website carries the EUMETSAT copyright credit "copyright {year} EUMETSAT" (where {year} is the current year).

Some important parts:

  • Moments-from-space does not permit use without permission.
  • EUMETSAT does not include text regarding modification. Both affirm copyright.
  • We have no OTRS ticket.
  • Unclear if we have any reason to assume the uploader is the copyright owner.

Hoping that I'm wrong about this, but I wouldn't want to see this come up after it wins Picture of the Year... — Rhododendrites talk |  22:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to note that the data itself can not be normally be copyrighted, only if they a part of a database (in EU). In addition, the cited copyright policy of EUMETSAT applies only to the materials found on their website where no data (catalog) are present. The EUMETSAT Data Policy appears to be more relevant although 'copyright' is not mentioned in it. However you may be right about the Moments' from Space copyright. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Part of the book cover.

I have uploaded part of a book cover under the license {{PD-textlogo}}: File:Etsako book cover.png. But I have a question: was the license chosen correctly, or this file should be deleted? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a logo. So, you should use {{Pd-text}} instead. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik, thanks. I changed the license. --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio image?

I'm concerned that File:MCCS_Map_sm_for_web.jpg may be a direct copy of the image at https://www.mccs.me.edu/our-colleges/locations-contact-info/ Naraht (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Naraht: Based on the fact that Google Images found the mccs.me.edu one after searching by image from File:MCCS_Map_sm_for_web.jpg, I'm going to say it is a direct copy. Elisfkc (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This was in use at the other website before it was uploaded to Commons [1] so chances are high that we got a copyvio. I've tagged our file for missing permission. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. You've answered my concern.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Home Run Apple

Is the Home Run Apple a sculpture? Sculptures in the US lack FOP. --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What else could it be? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if the one in center field is a scupture in the commonly thought of sense. Maybe it's more of a mechanism because the apple rises and falls when a homerun is hit by a en:New York Mets player.[2]. I guess a sculpture can be mechanical to some degree, but many MLB baseball stadiums have similar things that "activate" when the home team does something good on the field. Also, the one outside the stadium was originally installed at en:Shea Stadium and was only moved to en:Citi Field when the team got the new stadium, so not sure if that matters. This is an interesting question which kind of reminds me of Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/10#File:Kfc taco bell.jpg and en:File:Peachoid-gaffney.png. The photo itself can probably be licensed freely, but maybe not the apple or the team logo appearing on it except if COM:DM is being argued. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Bowling Green Massacre Survivor.jpg

Is the protest sign within this image copyrightable in the United Kingdom, where protests occurred? --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • is this protest sign copyrightable?
    is this protest sign copyrightable?

Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Images from Inferno & Paradiso

Copyrighted? De minimis? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably De minimis. Ruslik (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Soviet films, 1929-1942, and the URAA

I feel like I should comment here, since I am changing a bunch of copyright tags. This relates to point 5 of {{PD-Russia}} (which is not explained anywhere I can find) and the URAA. After way too much research, I figured out that this is because the copyright law passed in 1928 only gave a 10 year term to audiovisual works, and assigned the ownership of the copyright to the film studio. The 1993 law retroactively applied a 50 year term, but works from 1942 and before were not affected, and so were PD in Russia on the URAA date, and thus ineligible for a US copyright restoration. Based on this, I'm making certain that all the the films categorized as from the Soviet Union in that time window (1942-1929) are specifically marked as {{PD-Russia-1996}}... many currently lack a US copyright rationale. I 'think' this would also apply to films out to 1945 (as the new 50 year term might have expired before 1996) but could use someone who can actually read Russian to confirm that. What matters is that the law passed in the 1960s changed the copyright in films from being post-creation to being pma based on an explicitly defined list of authors... if the restored copyright was explicitly pma, then it would in most cases have not expired before the URAA date. - Reventtalk 07:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That point was edited in response to a discussion at Template_talk:PD-Russia/en, if that helps any. @Alex Spade: is probably the person to ask. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. First of all, the Soviet film is not equal to the Russian film. For example, the films of en:Mosfilm or en:Lenfilm from Soviet Era are subject of the Russian copyright law (and so they can be {{PD-Russia}}, if they are old enough)(Soviet Russia = RSFSR = Russian Federation ~= USSR), the films of en:Odessa Film Studio from same period are subject of the Ukranian copyright law (and so they can not be {{PD-Russia}} in any case).
  2. The {{PD-Russia-1996}} is fully compatible with URAA. In short (see also Template_talk:PD-Russia#URAA sentence): in 1993 it was 50 term for films with retroaction (this circumstance is important both for Russian and US law), in 2004 it was expanded to 70 term without retroaction for pre-2004 PD-works (important for Russian law only and unimportant for US), in 2008 (implementation year) the border for 70 term was shifted to 1993 (important for Russian law only and unimportant for US).
  3. The {{PD-Russia}} was fully compatible with URAA before Jan.1 2017, and it is not compatible with URAA now. So, many (or even the most of) images uploaded with {{PD-Russia}} before Jan.1 2017 can be retagged as {{PD-Russia-1996}}. For more information see Template talk:PD-Russia/en/sandbox (sorry, this discussion is available only in Russian). Alex Spade (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Spade: I'm sure that there are other such films that were ineligible for restoration, I'm just making sure that the ones from a 'specific window' that I could identify as being clearly not affected by the URAA (1929-1942) are marked that way (and not marked with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}). Files marked with just {{PD-Russia}} are breaking the rules (though that does not mean they are deletable) since they have no indication of the US copyright status. Essentially, I'm making sure that works that were too old for the 50-year retroactive term in 1993, and thus URAA-ineligible and PD in the US, are actually marked that way.
For most of the ones I have looked at, they are in the 'to be categorized by studio' category. Since I don't know Russian, I can't really help with that, other than maybe looking on IMDB. If I come across any that are not 'currently' marked as being under Russian law, I'll ask for a consult. - Reventtalk 02:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Specific window (URAA-ineligible) for films is not 1929-1942, it is 1929-1945 (see my comment 2, there was 50 term on Jan.1 1996). Retagging of {{PD-Russia}}-files by {{PD-Russia-1996}} (if it is possible) is on radar of the Russian community (and its bots). We are not in a hurry - it is far more simple task compared to retagging of {{PD}}(*) and {{PD-old}} files. Alex Spade (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
UPD:(*) Wow, I did not know that {{PD}}-problem was practically resolved. Alex Spade (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Spade: Thank you (as a Russian speaker) for making it clear that it goes out to 1945... I'm willing to trust you. I was not saying that 'URAA-ineligible' didn't apply to the 1943-1945 ones as well, I was simply unsure, since I can't actually read the 1993 law. It seemed possible that the copyright, if it was restored, would have changed to the kind of pma term that was applied to new films by that time period. Since you are undoubtably more familiar with Russian law, I'll add making the same change to those later years to my 'list'. Thanks. - Reventtalk 21:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Spade: Can you please look at File:Svinarka_i_pastuh_(screen_00h50m02s).jpg? The source and license claimed are obviously wrong, but it's categorized as from a 1941 film. - Reventtalk 21:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is Mosfilm's movie ru:Свинарка и пастух / en:They Met in Moscow (1941), so it is {{PD-Russia-1996}}. Alex Spade (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Charts

Is it ok to use statistical charts like Figure 3 (p. 17)? There is no originality involved in the creation of the chart. Is it possibly so detailed that the information contained in it is copyrighted? --Jonund (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The information is not copyrighted but you can not just copy a chart from that paper. You must re-create it using the same information. Ruslik (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll do that then. But the chart may become less exact, as it is a bit difficult to perceive the exact values in the chart. For my curiosity, why is it that I can't just copy it? If the information is free and a chart is a simple and not creative thing, it would seem to fall under Template:PD-ineligible.
It would be good to add a note about charts on Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. --Jonund (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The author made specific choices regarding how to better present that information. These choices are copyrightable. Ruslik (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Uploading photo from Flickr

Hi. For a Wikipedia page I'm developing, I have written permission from the World Economic Forum to use a photo on their Flickr page. However, when I tried to upload it to Wikimedia Commons using Flickr-to-Commons, the photo would not upload and I received the message "copyvio|reason=Licensed at the source as "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License", which is not a free license. How can I resolve this issue? Thank you.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the permission you got from the World Economic Forum? If it is also non-commercial, we cannot use the image. All content on Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial activities. Please note also that we would need a permission sent by email directly from the World Economic Forum if they granted a truly free licence that allows also the commercial use of their photo. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt reply. Initially I spoke by phone with Max Hall, Media Lead, Broadcast and Programming at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Geneva and he told me that anyone is free to use photos on Wikipedia from their Flickr site and then he sent me the following email to confirm it: "Dear Ian, Thank you for your call. You are free to use this photo under the creative commons licence. It is our photo taken by our official photographer. We just ask that you credit the World Economic Forum." Also, there are a number of WEF photos on Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum, and I believe all of these would have been taken by their official photographer; and there are WEF photos on other Wikipedia profile pages that by all appearances were taken by the WEF's official photographer, for instance here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Jianlin.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And there lies the problem. Their Creative Commons licence does not allow commercial re-use so it is worthless for Wikimedia Commons. Have you tried to find a suitable image in Category:World Economic Forum and its subcategories? These are all free to use. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and suggestions. One more question: In Creative Commons the photo that I want to use is flagged as "CC BY-NC-SA 2.0", whereas the WEF photos that are on Wikimedia Commons are flagged as "cc-by-sa-2.0". So do I have to ask my contact at the WEF to recategorize the photo in Flickr as "cc-by-sa-2.0"? (I checked the WEF sub-categories and the image I need is not there.)Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.fraser1 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.fraser1: From what I understand from the above conversation, yes you do need them to drop the "NC". From Flickr's available licenses, only "CC-BY 2.0", "CC-BY-SA-2.0", "CC-Zero", "No rights reserved", and "United States government work" are almost always accepted. "Public domain" (Public Domain Mark 1.0) is accepted on a case by case basis, but it is best to avoid it if possible. See Commons:Flickr files for more details. Elisfkc (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the flickr page does mention specifically in its description, and also in the EXIF, that the WEF offers this photo under CC by-sa, although the flickr tag mentions CC by-nc-sa. When a work is offered under two licenses, one of which is a free license and the other is not free, there could be an argument if it's ok to choose one or the other. In this situation, it is probably better to ask the WEF to either clarify the flickr page, or send a confirmation of the free license to OTRS. Oops looked at the wrong photo. I now see you didn't link to the photo that interests you. (As for the other photos you linked in your previous question, note that they were uploaded when the WEF flickr pages were tagged with CC by-sa only. You can see this past discussion for details.) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow up with the World Economic Forum to ask them to change the rights setting on the Flickr photo in question. As far as I can tell, that is my only option for getting this issue resolved. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Asclepias. That's good to know. I initially used Flickr-to-Commons to try to upload the image. Do you think I might get a different result if I tried uploading it using F2ComButton or Fliinfo?Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.fraser1: Nope. Flickr-to-Commons actually uses Fliinfo to check the licenses. Elisfkc (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I striked part of my previous message. I looked at the examples you linked. I can't check the photo that interests you because you did not mention it. But perhaps it is the same situation. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I see that F2ComButton isn't currently functioning, so I tried Fliinfo and it too would not download the photo because of the CC by-nc-sa Flickr tag, so I've asked the World Economic Forum to fix it. Cheers.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Asclepias. No problem. The photo is this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/8163796246/in/photolist-dPggi9-dPaDGT-7eEg4y-drzKXo-drppy6-drFJHh-aEANrA-drpAcG/. Anyway, I've asked the WEF to change the Flickr tag on it to "CC-BY-SA" and they've just acknowledged that they will try to do so. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

After some detective work through your en.wikipedia contributions, I was guessing you were probably looking for a photo of that person. The 2011, 2012 and 2013 WEF photos of her on flickr seem to be under CC by-nc-sa only. We'll see what they will do. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
you could also try com:OTRS with an email filling out the boilerplate, dropping the NC, regardless of the flickr license, but no admin would believe it, so better to change the flickr license. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Small portions of a text

I have uploaded several images, containing small portions of a text. Those text is explanatory and contains only common information. So, is such text copyrighted or not?

Here is a list of images: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Short texts are not but pages as a whole may well be. Ruslik (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Issues of copyright aside, I believe uploading plain text as image files is discouraged. A picture of text that cannot be searched, selected, or edited has less value than simply typing the words into Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, etc. See also Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. -Animalparty (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Safe harbor protections

There is an interesting recent opinion, regarding safe harbor protections of LiveJournal. It shows that WMF should probably stay away from editorial control, including paying editors or moderators, content moderation itself, or instructions for content moderation. If you want a bit easier accessible form of it, there is this analysis by Youtuber and lawyer Leanord French. I think we should be careful with those WMF Legal opinions we sometimes request. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikilegal will not advice the community. Jee 11:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi TheDJ. It's been interesting how the WMF have gradually moved from being completely and absolutely hands-off, to gradually interfering directly in content and user patrol. This is probably mostly driven by marketing, rather than legal, wanting to be seen to manage potential PR incidents, however I suspect those folks don't really get how constrained they have to be to avoid a future legal incident that might force them to become almost entirely responsible for content. It's a discussion we've had before, but each year the relationship between WMF and community shifts a little, and each year the external legal understanding grows.
I think we will have an incident, not too long in the future. I have no idea what the consequences might be. It could be pretty serious for the Commons ideal of not being censored. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like issues for Commons could be content patrol, and blacklisting certain external sites as sources. However, it's not a system like LiveJournal were apparently using where images were only published after moderation. I'm not sure that providing general descriptions and interpretation of copyright law for uploading users would be relevant. --ghouston (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
That's assuming that such descriptions and interpretation of copyright law are valid: if they give advice that a court later disagrees with, or they suggest that users can ignore certain aspects of US copyright law, I'm not sure if the safe harbor would still work. --ghouston (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

File:ABEY GEORGE.pdf

This looks like a pdf file of en:User:Abey.George, a Wikipedia user page which has been already deleted twice per en:WP:U5. It seems that the use in question is having a hard time grasping en:WP:NOTWEBHOST. The textual content might be OK, but the photo in the pdf was deleted from Wikipedia for not having proper permission . Is this pdf OK for Commons as is or does in need OTRS verification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Seems quite obviously not in scope. - Reventtalk 13:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found a book, which was published in Warsaw in 1867 (the author is unknown). I think that this book is in public domain. But pdf-file has a watermark with a copyright sign of the site, where this book is hosted. So, this book is in public domain or it is a property of a site (and pdf-file should be deleted)? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

See {{PD-scan}}. There's no new copyright adhering to a simple scan of a work, and even if there might be in some nation, Commons has agreed to ignore it; cf. Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, which deals with the more complex question of photographs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
it is public domain. some institutions reflexively put on (c) or NC on everything they do. but they do not have a legal precedent to sustain such claims. and watermarks are frowned on, but not a bar to upload. so it goes. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Kindly refer the DR and advice your valuable thoughts about the copyright and Freedom of Panorama --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Blue Angels Facebook Page

Does anyone know if the images from the U.S. Navy Blue Angels Facebook page count for {{PD-USNavy}}? Specifically, I'm looking at this image. I've tried emailing the Navy's media contact to find out, but I have not gotten a response in three days. Elisfkc (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Got a response. I'll be uploading it in a second (they published it elsewhere). Elisfkc (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Author credentials on the photo

The author of this Russian submarine photo requested deletion first but came OK then among other changes an info block with his credentials has been placed right in the new photo version. I am kind of uncomfortable with such way of satisfying authors, but I can be wrong. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Art from Sri Chinmoy

I do not agree with the decision "keep" for those pictures. Cf. Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Art from Sri Chinmoy and User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2017#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Art from Sri Chinmoy and Commons:Forum/Archiv/2017/February#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Art from Sri Chinmoy (in German). Any opinions on that topic? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License" (https://www.srichinmoy.org/copyright) So what exactly you do not agree with? --NeoLexx (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The line you quote links to CC by-nc-nd, which is not a free license. Anyway, the uploader of 6 of the 8 files does not source the images from this site. (Indeed, they do not seem to be in the gallery of this site). For 5 files, this uploader does not provide the source with the file descriptions, but in the DR discussion he seems to say that he made the photographic reproductions and that he has some "permission" from the New York Centre. What is needed is evidence of a free license from the copyright owner of Sri Chinmoy works. For the other file, this uploader sources it from his personal art collection, and he says he owns "all the rights" to this artwork. This needs at least a better explanation of the exact terms of the written contract by which the author of the artwork fully ceded the copyright to him. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
renominate, in a few months as the deletionists do, but you should expect to lose without evidence. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Artist permission

I uploaded a photo that the photographer told me it was OK to post and I believe I filled out the upload saying the same, but it was removed. Any suggestions?--HRTlive (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For works which are previously published, we need the copyright owner to follow the COM:OTRS process to confirm the license. Once that happens, the file can be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, will do.--HRTlive (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sharbat Gula

Are these derivative works?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are derivatives of the original photo. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: ✓ Done here.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disney Arches FOP

Are the arches at the entrance to Walt Disney World (USA) a FOP violation as artwork, or are they considered a building? Elisfkc (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think structures (like bridges) are copyrightable at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: But they are not bridges. They are arches that are not for any use, other than being a sign (best street view example. Elisfkc (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: They are not buildings under US law, as they are not habitable by human beings. Any claim for a copyright would have to be as works of art (sculpture). - Reventtalk 02:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: So, deletion request? Elisfkc (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: I have no idea how old they are... they might be old enough (or copies of an original that is old enough) to be PD even if you considered them as art. - Reventtalk 02:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Considering construction didn't start until 1967 on the resort as a whole, I think it's safe to say that they are younger than 50 years old. Elisfkc (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: It's not a matter of 50 years old, tho, in the US. If they are 'sculpture', and were installed in a public place before 1978, then they are PD unless they had an attached copyright notice. That there is a copyright notice somewhere on them seems rather unlikely. - Reventtalk 03:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Got it. I'll try and hunt down the date of when they went up. Elisfkc (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think those come anywhere near worrying about. Unless you find a court case about something similar being ruled a violation. Just because it's not a building, does not mean it's sculpture either. A structure has some utilitarian function -- it has to not fall down -- so it's only separable items which are a concern, and probably then only if a photo is focusing on those separable works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United States Air Force Memorial which was held not to be architecture. case law matters not to the wikilawyer. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Yes, I tried to be specific that the only way they could be copyrighted is if they were eligible as 'art', since they are not buildings.... it's quite likely they are not sufficiently original, but if they are pre-1978 without notice it makes the point moot anyhow. - Reventtalk 15:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to clarify the situation over this particular matter because, being that I m not briefed over copyrights law,, I recently have had more than one issue concerning this aspect.

I don't know how is it about other countries, but for what I can appreciate there are much more flexible laws about proprietary rights which widely coughs my hands when trying to depict on images particular aspects respect to Uruguay

Similar images of a brand from Argentina and a brand from Uruguay, right to left respectively, notice the blurring on the label of the image from the right.

Specific issues concerned propriety of Banco Comercial del Uruguay and CABA SA Alcoholes del Uruguay ANCAP. In both cases it was clear that the issue affected derivative rights usage, though on the first example it remained dubious whether the policy affected just the image or, also, the object itself, as they were all pictures depicting current and out of circulation bills of the national currency, being both (the pictures and the bills) propriety of the bank.

What I mean with the upper statement, is whether or not I can employ pictures with the images of those same bills, but being these this time taken by myself.

Respect to the second particular issue, being that is more proximal to commercial private copyright law, why do WM take so much care over it and not the same care as if affecting other Countries ? For this example I mean how is the situation over fair usage on Countries of the region relative to Uruguay that, bottles of brands registered on other Countries can be shown intact and not in Uruguay? Just to illustrate this just compare this image of an Argentinian brand with image of an Uruguayan brand depicting both products protected by laws that might not be so far away. --Neurorebel (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No idea on Uruguayan law (or Argintinean for that matter). For the U.S., the Ets-Hokin ruling specifically said that a photo of an entire bottle would not be derivative of the label, unless the photo was focusing on the label. More generally, that type of thing is "incidental", taking a photo of a larger subject, with the copyrightable element inherently there and unavoidable. If the photo trades off the specific expression of the label in some way, it could be different, but in general photos like that are OK, I think. However, it's not certain (and there have been deletions in the past over such items), so some people may blur the labels out of an abundance of caution, or less certainty over the laws in a particular country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Inherited Photos

I have some photos that were taken by my father and/or mother, both deceased for many years. I am their only heir, and have inherited all their worldly goods. What must I do to be able to upload these photos, if such a thing is possible. Lou Sander (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

you could upload them with a creative commons license, and send a confirming email via com:OTRS. or you could upload to flickr with a creative commons license, and use flickr2commons. however, people with copyright paperwork have had their images deleted regardless, so it may take some extended explaining. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lou Sander: I agree with Slowking4: As the sole heir, you own the copyright of your parent's photos (if they haven't transferred it explicitly to someone else) and therefore you are perfectly able to upload them here under an accepted free license of your choice (be it CC-BY-SA, FAL, or even CC0 if you wish to waive all rights). There are even specific "heirs" variants of our licensing templates, such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Still, a confirmation through com:OTRS would be a very good idea, as we're a rather mistrustful bunch of people (with good reason, people upload copyright violations all the time) and without such a confirmation, there is a risk of deletion. I would not recommend an upload via flickr, as it could be mistakenly perceived as "license laundering" or "flickr washing". Gestumblindi (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Upload them normally, credit your father and/or mother in the "author" field, choose a free license. You can use one of the templates in the Category:License tags for transferred copyright. (They are usual license templates with a note to specify that you are the heir.) That's all. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. I don't know anything about OTRS, and I don't want to invest even five seconds to learn. Uploading to Commons is just too difficult to deal with. I used to upload only photos I've taken myself. Then somebody questioned one because it looked too good and wasn't large enough. This fellow didn't understand why anybody would upload anything but a large-format, high-resolution photo. (I had made it smaller to put on my website). Then they wondered why I didn't put it in a lot of categories, to make it easier for everybody and his brother to use. I don't know why I would want to do that.
I may possibly upload my own work in the future, but I will remember the extreme frustration that I've experienced in the past. Sorry about the rant, but the Commons is just too difficult to deal with. And then they delete your pictures. Lou Sander (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
this is why i recommend flickr, since you can put the work on the web, and do not have to deal with commons "toxic culture" issues. drop me a note, and i will upload here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
But flickr is no solution if he wants to use his photos in Wikimedia projects. A transfer from flickr to Commons would be needed then. And sending a message to OTRS really isn't that difficult, by the way. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
apparently, it is too difficult for this editor. commons is so battleground, many people go to flickr, and then whisper to their friendly neighborhood wikimedian. it is a cultural hack. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We have the template {{PD-heirs}}... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The heirs templates are already mentioned in the above discussion, and {{PD-heirs}} (or, better, {{Cc-zero-heirs}}) should only be used if an heir really intends to release inherited material into the public domain, otherweise other templates such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} might be preferrable. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK for Commons?

Could an SVG rendition of this textlogo of Italian singer-comedian Fabio Rovazzi be OK for Commons?--Carnby (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No. But you can upload the SVG file on some Wikipedia languages, like English Wikipedia using w:en:Template:Non-free logo. AHeneen (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Text contradicting license

See File:Marseille - Le Napoléon Bonaparte (2).jpg. The license on this one is clear enough, but the text (description) for the picture contradicts the license. Do we really consider the license for this and possibly other images from the same photographer as valid? Blue Elf (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The text should be changed. The photo on Flickr is still licensed CC-BY-2.0 and the file page has the template indicating that it was verified by bot. The CC licenses are not revocable, so even if it was an error by the uploader, the file is forever licensed CC-BY-2.0. AHeneen (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The license is not magic; if it's clear that the uploader made an error, then a court might rule it a copyright violation. Moreover, it's bad form to try and exploit mistakes by photographers in this way; if they did not intend to release it under CC-BY-2.0, we shouldn't try and take it under that license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/people/23864491@N05?rb=1 says "Les photos publiées sont sous licence Creative Commons avec les mentions "partage suivant les conditions initiales", "paternité", "pas d'utilisation commerciale". Cela signifie que mes photos ne sont pas libre de droit! Vous n'avez pas le droit de les publier dans une brochure commerciale, une publicité, un magasine (sauf revue associative), ou un site web marchand, sans m'en demander la permission. Merci de citer "Laurent Gébeau - www.MToo.net "comme source si vous utilisez une de mes photos." Google Translate gives me "The published photos are licensed under Creative Commons with the terms "sharing according to the initial conditions", "paternity", "no commercial use". This means that my pictures are not free of rights! You do not have the right to publish them in commercial brochures, advertisements, magazines (except associative magazines), or merchant websites without asking permission. Please quote "Laurent Gébeau - www.MToo.net" as a source if you use one of my photos."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated this for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marseille - Le Napoléon Bonaparte (2).jpg. The rest of his files are all a concern, but not as sharply contradictory.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

File:DRONACHARYA LOGO.gif

I doubt this is "own work", but it might be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. The logo is for en:Dronacharya College of Engineering which is in India, but there's nothing really on India's TOO found in COM:TOO. If India treats such logos like the UK does, then this is probably fair use; on the other hand, if India is more like the United States, then this might be OK for Commons. Just for reference, there is en:File:Dronacharya logo.gif uploaded as non-free content to English Wikipedia which would not be needed if the Commons one is OK. Anyone have any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that may be simple enough even for UK. Ruslik (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Country of Origin, or Creation vs. Publication

Can anybody please give a better explanation for how to deal with these issues? Thanks, --Яй (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, you should probably ask at that page. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik: I would say - to keep the discussion in one place, you should probably reply at that page. If you have something relevant to say, of course. This topic is started exactly to attract attention to the issue. --Яй (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
what charming insouciant canvasing. and what a waste of time on low risk items. i see we have an admin who is openly flouting the URAA consensus. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
What does it have to do with URAA? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
tl;dr - if you clicked the link - " For the URAA though in this situation, and thus U.S. copyright status, the "source country" is the one with the "greatest contacts with the work", which is a more common-sense definition, and for a Moscow-based author that would certainly be Russia -- so if not published until 1923 or later, the URAA then most likely restored the works and they are still under U.S. copyright (as well as Russian copyright). " Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
He's not an administrator and is not in any way flouting any URAA consensus, unless we have one that says that we can't mention the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
yes, he is just a deletionist who knows just how to work around the "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." and commons reputation suffers, when it does not leave well enough alone. we have a memo from legal,[3] it would be nice to follow it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The reason for that policy is that we had insufficient history on many countries to figure out if a work was actually copyrighted on the URAA date -- if country subsequently increased their copyright terms, many just assumed those were the terms on the URAA date and thus the URAA applied, when that was not necessarily the case. So, we needed a more careful review in many cases. Russia though retroactively made their term 50pma in 1993, meaning works were restored to that term, and remained at that term in 1996. That is not in question. Their subsequent increase to 70pma does not affect the works. However, since the works in question were definitely copyrighted in Russia in 1996 (and today for that matter), that meant they were eligible for the URAA. So, that's more than a "mere allegation" -- that's a virtual certainty. Like it or not, that means it would be under copyright in the U.S., and that is the law. There is therefore significant doubt about the file in the U.S., which (per policy) means it should be deleted. There was a defeated policy (which some have in their heads) which said that the URAA can not be the sole reason for deletion -- but that was overturned, so if the URAA did in fact restore the U.S. copyright, it should be deleted. It would also seem likely that it is still copyrighted in the country of origin. It is likely not a free file, but you appear to want to keep it regardless. If it could be deemed published before 1923, that would solve the U.S. part, but not the country of origin part. If we can show the photos were also published in other countries at the same time or earlier, that could also change things. But the best documentation, as far as I see on that discussion, is that they were published starting in the mid 1920s in the Soviet Union. There are lots of deletions here I don't like, but when copyright is almost certain to exist, it is poor practice to keep them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
i have no opinion on whether they should stay or go. i like your reasoning better than most; i just object to the standard "this could be or this could be or this could be + precautionary principle = virtual certainty, so delete." this is the w:The One Percent Doctrine writ small. it is not a real risk assessment. it does not reflect well on commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Names of chapters

I have uploaded names of chapters from two books ([4], [5]) (Ngambay language primers). Those names in most cases contain only the word "tandoo" ("chapter") and specific letters of the Ngambay alphabet. In addition, 5 names of chapters also contain short sentences.

Is such text copyrighted or not? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not copyrighted, {{PD-text}} is fitting. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Interview

I made an interview with known artist. Can I upload the video file to commons? Should I ask him to sign on OTRS permission from the artist as he is apparently own the copyright for his words? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.64.27.148 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He does not own any copyright in this case. You can just upload the video. Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
yes, although it is good practice to get a model release, especially since we allow commercial reuse. put the {{consent|public}} {{personality rights}} on it but these protections are weak. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTube and CC-BY

Please advise me - can I trust Creative Commons license at this particular video fragment: [6], starts from 0:40? May this be considered as license laundering? --Яй (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything from a TV broadcast, where the uploader is not verified, is most likely laundered. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reuse of Nazi symbolism

I didn't really know where else to ask this question, but we recently encountered File:88th Discord Division of the 1776Regime.png in use on en.wiki. The article was deleted as a hoax, but the author appears to have created this logo incorporating File:3rd SS Division Logo.svg, which contains content that's banned in Germany and elsewhere. Is there any basis for deleting the derivative work (marked as cc-by-sa 4.0)? It's almost certainly not a good idea to have it around, but I'm not sure that's any kind of deletion rationale here on Commons. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

My intuition is "not realistically useful for an educational purpose". TimothyJosephWood 15:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
ping Spike Wilbury & Timothyjosephwood: Please feel free to discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:88th Discord Division of the 1776Regime.png. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this is out of project scope. As to banned Nazi symbolism, this is a non-copyright restriction which doesn't affect Commons and we have {{Nazi symbol}} as a disclaimer. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin the fun, but speedily deleted as obvious vandalism after reading the 'article'. - Reventtalk 23:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

UVARC logo usage

How do I go about getting our club logo, which is copyrighted, accepted by you for display on the Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club Wikipedia article?

I've read the FAQ, especially the Copyright section, and saw the rules. Yet I also see articles such as those for Amateur Radio Emergency Service and University of Michigan and see copyrighted logos on their pages, so I'm guessing there's a way to get ours accepted by you to display on our page.

After I uploaded our file (UVARC-Logo.jpg) it was deleted by you folks, and the reason given was copyright violation. Our logo was created by our club as original artwork, and is copyrighted, but we'd also like to see it displayed on the Wikipedia article page.

Thanks, Noji Ratzlaff, President Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojiratz (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The only way is to release it under a free license. This will not affect the trademark protection of the logo. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise, it can probably be uploaded to the English Wikipedia—but not here—if accompanied by a fair-use rationale. Note that enWP will only host non-free media that are used in articles. I haven’t checked but I assume that’s where the logos you mention above are hosted, unless they’ve been deemed too simple to be copyrightable in the USA.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of copyrighted images from site

All- I have recently completed - more or less - the page on Vasily Konovaleko w:Vasily_Konovalenko. I set out to use some images whose copyrights are held by the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (dmns.org, Denver, Colorado). I obtained permission to upload these to WikiMedia as "copyrighted but useable with attribution". I received a warning that the copyright information on Wikimedia was incomplete so, per direction, I had the Image Archivist at DMNS complete the form found at Commons email templates (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates). I have to assume that she completed the form correctly - I do know that she submitted it. The images were subsequently removed.

So question: How does one go about uploading images copyrighted but usable with attribution?

(Although I have experience editing and creating pages, this back stage stuff is confusing. Specifics would be greatly appreciated.)

Many thanks in advance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene McCullough (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK @Gene McCullough: , so if the archivist did send a consent to the OTRS team they should have received a ticket number and you can quote that to try and find out what is happening but please be warned the OTRS Team are rather backlogged (currently 51 days), so be patient. As soon as the license is verified the image will be restored. If you had known before the image was deleted you could have added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image and try to avoid its deletion while the permission was waiting for verification. However, I see that you have also uploaded an image to the enwiki at w:File:Portrait of Vasily Konovalenko (1984) with his gem sculpture "Grandmother".jpg claimed as a non-free image. Are you also trying to get permission for this image? If they are going to release one image with a license we accept they should do that for all of them because if they verify a free license for another image the current non-free one in the article will fail the enwiki's non-free policy once a free image is available. BTW, please sign your posts by adding 4 tildes to the end, so we can link to you more easily. Ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
i would wait 30 to 60 days for the OTRS team to get their act together. the community should expect perpetual questions from good faith uploaders who are surprised by the dysfunctional deletion and then restoration of images. is it perverse and a waste of time and effort.
the non-free is a distraction. this community would delete this image, since they would not believe the release of the sculptor, and treat it as a release of the photo only. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for the reminder of the four tildes convention. I don't do this very often. The image of Konovalenko I believe falls under an exception to the usual rules about copyright according to this:

The subject of the photograph has been deceased since: 27 January 1989. Per the licensing section: This photograph is copyrighted and is NOT under a free license. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Vasily Konovalenko": • to provide visual identification of one or more specific individual(s), or an identifiable gathering of them, • where the individual(s) concerned are deceased, or where access would for practical purposes be impossible, • and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license.

I will restart the process with the Denver Museum Archivist for the other images and we'll see what happens. Again thanks... Gene McCullough (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

PD works with official seals/stamps on them

I haven't been able to find anything relevant in the archives, so here's my question:

We have a plethora of PD works from the Ottoman Turkish era (pre-1923. pre-1900 even...), but the problem is they bear the seals and/or stamps of the public institution that has scanned and made them available online. See this for an example (may load slowly). What would be the copyright status of such works? Would they be considered as derivative works due to these markings or would they remain PD as well?

Vito Genovese 21:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that those stamps fall below the threshold of originality. DS (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Boards in Czech Republic

Hi, On similar issues, two admins have taken the opposite decisions. Daphne Lantier closed 4 DRs as kept, while Jcb closed 3 DRs as deleted. We need to be consistent. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Czech Republic, FoP in Czech Republic seems also to apply to 2D works. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Kept
Deleted

I added the source of the deleted files, so everybody can see them. Yann (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think I have clearly explained in my closure statements why the three files I deleted do not comply with Czech FoP, which was not the same for all the files. Two aspects played a role: FoP only applies in public places. When it's not known whether a place is 'public', we cannot rely on FoP. The other aspect is that it has to be located permantly in public space. If the paper poster contains phone numbers and email addresses, which are subject to change, and apparently it only takes a simple screwdriver to replace the paper poster by an updated one, you cannot credibly argue that the poster is permanently located in the sense of the FoP exception. Both aspects have to be taken into account when reviewing a file, so that the outcome of the DR will differ, based on the specific circumstances of the involved file. Admins should read the involved section of COM:FOP before concluding something in such a DR. If they do so, they will not need to come to this noticeboard to ask such questions. Jcb (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The four above that I withdrew and kept were nominated by me in ignorance of Czech FOP. I'm so used to the tougher FOP laws of countries like Russia, France, and the UAE that I didn't check first, as I should have. These images look to be maps/direction posts in a public park outdoors, so I withdrew my requests and kept the files because they seem to meet the requirements of Czech FOP. Daphne Lantier 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I think you were right on these four closures. When I closed the other three, I saw these four DRs and I was not immediately sure. I decided to leave them open for the moment. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see the deleted images, but I think the notion of "permanently located" is more based on the notion that there is a scheduled time that the work is to be removed, not that it *can* be removed / changed at an arbitrary, unknown, unscheduled time in the future. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pfarrwiese

Hy,

I am wondering if I can transfer these two pictures to Commons?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rudolfsheim.jpg

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Pfarrwiese_1912.jpg

And also like to know if it is allowed to upload these pictures?

http://www.weststadion.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1912_Pfarrwiese_Er%C3%B6ffnung_Anzeige_2.jpg (from 1912)

http://www.weststadion.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/k-1933_Pfarrwiese_Panorama.jpg (from 1933)

Thanks, --Fmvh (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Image deletion

This is regarding the deletion of the image File:Pink Zone Poster Final.jpg. The image was issued to me by the producers of the movie (The One Who Knocks Productions) to update on the Wikipedia page for their movie. It is their property and there is no copyright violation here. Please help in the un-deletion of the image. Regards, Alabhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alabhya Shrivastava (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alabhya Shrivastava: Hi,
There is a copyright on every work by default. The producer has to send a permission for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 08:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

US military crests and badges

Are images such as US Navy ship crests considered copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRibb (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@MRibb: Currently, the ship's crest is designed by the PCO (Prospective Commanding Officer) of the new ship... it could probably be considered an aspect of their job, and thus PD as a work of the US Navy. - Reventtalk 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 08:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Kompas-TV.png

File:Kompas-TV.png seems to have been incorrectly licensed as {{PD-text}}. It might be OK as {{PD-text logo}}, but there's no information about Indonesia's TOO in COM:TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-text}} is a more general template than {{PD-text logo}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK to trace a portion of a YouTube video and post the tracing on The Commons

Hello again. There are many great biology videos on YouTube with the standard YouTube license. Is it OK if I capture a frame from such a video, trace the structures I want to show to wp readers, upload that traced image to the commons, and in the caption of the image write "traced from this video" with a link to the YouTube URL? To emphasize, not a single pixel of the orginal captured frame would be on the image I would upload to the commons. Is this practice acceptable to the commons? Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that would still be a derivative work of someone else's non-free creation. Copyright isn't concerned with pixels, but with original expression. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ping JeanOhm ★ Poké95 08:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 08:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Several books from en:Codespa Foundation

Hi,

Can someone speaking a bit of Spanish can look at Special:Contributions/Argentina Padilla Maldonado? I don't know how to deal with this contributions. Ask for a permission when the pdf doesn't give its license? Ask for a speedy deletion because of copyvios like the textes or the official logos or the illustrations? Nominate for deletion because of using Commons for hosting?

Can someone continue the investigation, please?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 12:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Extent of Freedom of Panorama in Spain

On the website www.wikiportret.nl, a photo of a bust of (the famous) Robert Graves was uploaded. No portret of him is available on Commons. The photo was taken in the garden of the house of Robert Graves in Deia, Mallorca, island of Spain in the Mediteranian. Garden and house are open to the public. My question to copyright experts is, can we use this photo under the FOP of Spain? See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Spain. I can give you the link to the OTRS-ticket, ticket:2017041810022378 but only a limited number of persons can actually see the image on wikiportret. Below a gallery of images of the house/garden of Robert Graves. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictures from newspapers over 100 years old

I have searched this area for an answer, but please could someone confirm how I go about uploading an image from a newspaper which is over 100 years old? Attribution of the photograph in the newspaper is to a company name, although it appears the person for whom the company is named was already deceased before the picture was taken.

As creation of the image is not attributed to an individual and was published in 1903, I believe I am therefore right in concluding that that it is out of copyright, so is it OK to upload?

Thanks in anticipation. - Steve cov (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have added that the newspaper no longer exists and closed in 1970. - Steve cov (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Copyright rules by territory. It all depends on where the newspaper is from.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2005 10 09 1200 rgb 12-12-0.jpg

So this one is a little complex. Going through the data the default EUMETSAT copyright policy can be found here. Nowhere on there does it confirm that the material is modifiable or reusable by commercial entities. This would make default images by EUMETSAT copyrighted under a license we can't use. However, there are exceptions when the image is considered "Essential". These images are released under a complete unrestricted license in accordance with the WMO Resolution 40 (Cg-XII). So we have to take that into account.

The full data policy that describes what is and what isn't essential can be found here (Warning: Downloadable PDF that will activate on click). The only thing that is considered essential is the three-hourly and six-hourly data from the Meteosat (page 13 section 4) and the data from the Sentinel-6/Jason-CS satellite (page 43). The standard licensing of non-essential images (ergo not acceptable on Commons) is further confirmed on page 14 section 8.

So the question here is whether or not this image (and by extension those in Category:EUMETSAT) are considered "essential" images and are licensed freely or as considered "non-essential" and need to be removed. Thoughts? Opinions? --Majora (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

After being poked to look at this, I think the essential products are licensed as 'free beer' (as in, no cost) not 'freely licensed'... they make it clear that the material is copyrighted, and do not explicitly allow for derivative works. - Reventtalk 22:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have emailed them asking for clarification on this issue. We'll see what they say. --Majora (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's free as in speech... they say "free and unrestricted basis", which would encompass commercial use and derivative works. This particular file is a "six-hour Meteosat" data so it would fall under their "essential" data and that license. But if we have files which are not part of their "essential data" definitions, I don't think they are free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent and Clindberg: I have received a response back from the EUMETSAT legal team and they have confirmed that any images that are considered "essential" are considered free (by our definition of the word) and are not subject to any licensing conditions of use (their exact words). Not to just determine what is and what isn't essential. --Majora (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pages from the ABC-book

I have found an interesting ABC-book for the Tem language. It was published under the license Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND. Can I upload to Commons pages 6 to 11 from this book (these pages contain only examples of spelling words — I think that it can be {{PD-text}})? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you can't upload this book here. The -NC and -ND clauses in the Creative Commons licence prohibit the making of derivatives and any commercial re-use of the original. Media at Wikimedia Commons, however, need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. The whole book itself is original and creative enough to be copyrighted, so "PD-text" won't hold either. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
De728631, of course I'm not going to upload the whole book. But if I will cut out words from pages 6 to 11 (those words don't form sentences), would such material be copyrighted or not? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, the entire book is copyrighted and cutting out a few examples doesn't change that. This would be fair use like in a quotation, but Commons only accepts totally free media. Moreover, we don't keep images of text that could be written in Wiki syntax. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Now Commons is moving towards structured data I was wondering if there is already a discussion how to reference the copyright to Wikidata so that we can add copyright in wikidata items as well. The interesting part to me would be that in structured data we can for example add the date something will become public domain according to the copyright law of the source country (and probably even the US). Are there already thoughts here how to structure that data ? It would be even possible to calculate the public domain status for every country--Hannolans (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed the property 'public domain date' on wikidata, to store the date a work has entered or will enter into the public domain: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/public_domain_date --Hannolans (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It can enter the public domain at different times in different countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I propose to have a qualifier 'jurisdiction'. Would be nice to have at least the date it went into the public domain in the country of origin as most of the countries accept the rule of the shorter term, or probably it should be the public domein date of the country of origin unless otherwise qualified --Hannolans (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
A substantial number of country do not use that rule -- of the countries listed at w:Rule of the shorter term, 24 do and 21 do not. So yes "most", but not by much. Secondly, you can get weird situations -- Germany uses the rule of the shorter term, but because they signed a specific copyright agreement with the United States, they use the same term for U.S. authors as their own regardless of U.S. copyright status. The same is likely true of many countries the U.S. made unilateral agreements with. But yes, the country of origin is the most helpful one to have. If each date is attached to a jurisdiction, that could work. (Of course, retroactive copyright laws can change that stuff.). On the other hand, date of creation, date of publication, and date of death of author, may be easier to track and would determine the 'public domain' date for most jurisdictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Are images from publicdomainpictures.net safe to use?

I'd like to upload this picture: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/130000/velka/bmw-i8-luxury-car.jpg

However, I'm not the author, but the image is tagged as "Labeled for reuse with modification" in search engines. Given the website and its labels, can I be sure it is safe to upload it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarrotrkux (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were to provide the image's page, not just the image itself (for example, [7] instead of just [8]). That said, the first few pictures I've looked at on PDP have all been labeled as "CC 0" -- but I don't know if they all are. They probably are, but again, we'd need to see the page. DS (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the image: BMW i8 - Is there a way to see if an image is in the public domain if the page itself doesn't show it?

Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's still just the image instead of the page. Look at the difference between the two URLs that I provided above. And "is there a way to see if an image is in the public domain if the page itself doesn't show it" - no, so you have to assume that it's not. DS (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands Nationaal Archief

A number of years ago, maybe two, the Netherlands Nationaal Archief changed their license from cc-by-sa-3.0-nl to cc-by-4.0-nl and it was suggested the current template should be updated to reflect that change but that would have altered the license for all the currently uploaded images from this source. The current template {{Nationaal Archief-license}} that uses {{Cc-by-3.0-nl}} still remains in place and there has been no update, so no currently correct license for their images exists. I've checked several random files, some uploaded up to 5 years ago, and they now show the current cc-by-4.0-nl at the source. Please not that this uses a localised tag, so there is now no option but to add a {{Cc-by-4.0}} template which is not actually a totally accurate license. Reviewing Category:Templates using MediaWiki messages from translatewiki.net for internationalisation shows that we have very few 4.0 localised tags and for the Netherlands we only have some 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 tags available and no 4.0 tags neither sa nor by.

This issue arises from the fact that when reviewing such files it is now impossible to correctly tag them, so I suggest an admin update the current template to reflect the current status which will automatically update all images to the current source license. I see no problem with that as all images will reflect the current license. If this is not to be the suggested route, then someone needs to make an entirely new template {{Nationaal Archief-4.0 license}} with all its appropriate links plus a new {{Cc-by-4.0-nl}} template. We would also need to update the current template with a notice to not use it in future and in Category:Images from Nationaal Archief an update of the information on the current template will also be needed. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support We need a fix for this as soon as possible. The reality is that we're providing a license information that is not valid anymore. Although we could argue about the irrevocability of CC licenses, the fact is that we didn't verify (either manually or robotically) the old licenses and now we cannot claim the old license is valid. --Discasto talk 21:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support By using the simple method to change the current license template. Further, before we could ask @Timmietovenaar: at the Nationaal Archief to use the international license if that makes more sense. --Hannolans (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support The current licence template can quickly be adjusted, and re-licensing by the licensor is always possible afaik. See also CC's 4.0 upgrade guidelines. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Back in December 2015 User talk:Timmietovenaar#Nationaal Archief mentioned this was to be done but obviously nothing happened so maybe now it can be done. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, it is also possible not to use {{Nationaal Archief-license}} but {{Nationaal Archief}} and a manual license template. See, for instance, File:NL-HaNA 2.24.05.02 0 079-0753 1.jpg --Discasto talk 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Discasto, at best that is just a compromise and is not correct because {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is not the actual license under which these images are released. The image you mention is actually using the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} template when it is in fact licensed {{Cc-by-4.0}} but localised, so even Timmietovenaar, who uploaded the image has used a different license from the source linked copyright. If the Archief agrees to accept use of the international license instead of the localised one then that will be ok but as of now that has not been confirmed; we need to be using the currently correct license. Ww2censor (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't noticed that the actual license was wrong!!! I only meant to provide an alternative (using two templates). On the other hand, does it make any actual difference to use the international or the localized version of the license? --Discasto talk 08:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanx for the mentions. It is good to know that we are, at the moment, in the middle of downscaling the conditions (http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/actueel/nieuws/beleidsherziening-leidt-tot-minder-voorwaarden-open-datagebruik) We started in 2012 with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 NL. in january 2016 we downscaled it to CC-BY 4.0 NL. Now, with an update of our open data policy the Nationaal Archief is downscaling it from a license into a waiver CC0. This will be effectuated in the next two weeks. So if possible a change in template, immediately into CC0 would be great. Each individual record/image from the Nationaal Archief can be identified with the CC0 waiver logo. --Timmietovenaar (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So, De728631, you have the tools to do this and seeing as you are the only admin to support, or even comment, will you update the existing template so we don't have to resurrect this topic again? Until the source changes to an international license you will at least also have to make a {{Cc-by-4.0-nl}} template. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Creative Commons 3.0 and earlier licenses were "ported" for some countries so that the text of the license complied with local law. However, the 4.0 version of the licenses was written to be valid in almost every country and there is no "ported" (country-specific) 4.0 licenses for the Netherlands. The problem is not Commons, the problem is the Nationaal Archief is giving a fake license: there is "CC-BY-3.0-nl" or "CC-BY-4.0", but there is no "CC-BY-4.0-nl" license! Contact them, explain the issue, and ask them to change the license to "CC-BY-4.0". AHeneen (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The source pages simply link to the Dutch translation of the cc-by-4.0 international license -- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.nl . They are doing nothing wrong; {{Cc-by-4.0}} would be accurate. Unless we want to make language versions of the templates which point to the particular legal code translations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding to the change of license. Part of the files passed license review. The file reviewers confirmed that the license is cc-by-sa-3.0-nl (or cc-by-sa-3.0). In that context I believe that template like {{Flickr-change-of-license}} would be more appropriate her.-- Geagea (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting development, but I'm still unsure about the statements above. In practical terms, if the initial CC-BY-SA-whatever license is turned into a CC0 license, does it make sense to mark the files with something similar to {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. It's made for changes from a free to an unfree license. Even if the CC-BY-SA license is valid, CC0 is also valid. Do we care about the old license (in this specific case)? --Discasto talk 13:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Geagea, you made the same suggestion more than a year ago based on the same reasoning but nothing progressed since then. To me that seemed like the best way forward together with a new NL 4.0 licence template. One way or another, we need to come to a decision and not let this hang around again with nothing getting done. Ww2censor (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Discasto, I'm speaking about the general idea. Yes, Flickr-change-of-license is about changing from free license to unfree license. But some kind of explanation should be added to files about the change of license. It s also possible that re-users out of the project using our files as a source. some template of explanation would be needed to explain the change of license to files that uploaded before the change.
Ww2censor, I'm not opposing to any solution. Just raising up a point. I'm sure that any other user. better english knower than me, can made such a template.-- Geagea (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Geagea, I absolutely understand. Unfortunately only an admin can edit the existing template, if that is what we is going to happen. Ww2censor (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the files uploaded earlier would be licensed as both cc-by-sa-3.0-nl and cc-by-4.0. So we could simply change to cc-by-4.0, but mention that files uploaded before January 2016 are also cc-by-sa-3.0-nl, if that helps anyone (for derivative works, having the explicit 3.0 license could in theory help). If they relicense everything CC0, that pretty much wipes out any need to mention the earlier licenses, except possibly as an historical footnote. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So is anyone with editing rights going to deal with this template? This discussion was scheduled to be archived tomorrow and again, just like a similar discussions last year, nothing has been done. Please, will someone deal with this. Ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Tem (Kotokoli) Ajami.png

Is this image OK for Commons (it contains only letters of the alphabet; I have uploaded it from the ABC-book, which was published under the license Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND)? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it was not ok to upload this. I told you above that this book is non-free and you cannot take single pages claiming there was no copyright. Do not upload any more images from this book or your account will be blocked. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
De728631, OK. And what about other images, which I have uploaded (they contain only general information about alphabets, but many of them were uploaded from copyrighted sources)? They also should be deleted (if yes, I'll nominate them for speedy deletion)? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Each of these files will need individual review. Some of them may even be out of copyright and can be kept because the original book is old enough. 17:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
De728631, can you please review all my files on copyright violation? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
De728631, I nominated for deletion all files, taken from copyrighted sources. --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Then why did you include those that I had already nominated for deletion? De728631 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
De728631, it was done mistakenly (because number of those files is quite big) --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Windows 95 logo and wordmark.png

Is this file really OK as {{PD-textlogo}}? A non-free version of the same file exists on English Wikipedia (see en:WP:MCQ#File:Microsoft Windows 95 Logo.png for reference) and a non-free would not be needed if the Commons version is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think so. That logo is too complex to me. Pinging the uploader GXXF to see why they thought they are ineligible for copyright. ★ Poké95 02:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that's most likely above the TOO and should be deleted.... it probably has been before. - Reventtalk 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed -- the wordmark part is fine, but the logo is too complex for me. There would be an arrangement copyright on the small little squares off to the left at the very least, most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Pokéfan95, Revent and Clindberg for taking a look at this. If this file is above the TOO, then all of the other versions of the logo listed as "Other versions" and File:Windows 98 logo and wordmark.png must be as well too, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Yes. - Reventtalk 15:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. What is the next step? A COM:DR for all of these files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of variations of this logo, see Category:Microsoft Windows logos and its subcategories. I'm not sure exactly how you decide which ones are copyrightable and which not, or just delete the lot? --ghouston (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that many. Just the wavy four squares... borderline, but I think we have kept those fairly often. The less wavy four squares are likely OK. It's the ones with all of the small squares off to the left (windows 3.1 and windows 95) that are most problematic to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a license.

I am looking at creating a custom license for a series of images I am uploading. They are part of a multilateral agreement and licenses from several countries apply, so it was previously suggested I create some sort of consolidated license. I have no idea how to create one and can not seem to find simple instructions. Can someone please point me in the right direction? Fry1989 eh? 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way may be to use an existing license, but if you decide to create your own license, please have a look at COM:L to see our requirements for a license. Jcb (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
File:SADC road sign R3.svg is an example from the series of files. I have at least 5 licenses from different countries that apply to these files because the document in question becomes native legislation through the adoption process. Technically though, only the South African one is important, since the origin is from South Africa. But it was suggested to me by 2 users to create a consolidated license explaining the situation in a more simple way. I don't have to make one, it's just something I figured I might. Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd say File:SADC road sign R3.svg is simple enough to not be subject to copyright. Nobody owns the rights to a rectangle and a circle. {{PD-shape}} might be most appropriate and parsimonious to supercede all regional PD-tags. See Category:Road signs for more examples. -Animalparty (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is true, the example file would be PD-simple. In fact most of the SADC signs I am working on are fairly simple, though there are a few like File:SADC road sign TR581.svg that would be copyrightable and therefore regional licenses would still be required for these files. I would like to have a uniform license for all of them, not PD-simple on some and a different license on others. However 7 national licenses apply, those of Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. I think I figured out how to create a license, so I'll play around with it and ask for more help if needed. Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vesta software

Is it allowed to make images of crystal structures with Vesta-software and upload them. Their copyright statement says:

This software is distributed free of charge for academic, scientific, educational, and noncommercial users. Users belonging to commercial enterprises may also use this software at no cost until a license for business users is established. Permission to use this software is hereby granted under the following conditions:
1) Drawings produced by VESTA may be used in any publications provided that its use is explicitly acknowledged. A suitable reference for VESTA is:
K. Momma and F. Izumi, "VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data," J. Appl. Crystallogr., 44, 1272-1276 (2011).

Jcwf (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally using a tool, such as this software, does not transfer any rights to those who made the tool, so you would be the copyright owner regardless, with the freedom under copyright law to licence your work – unless it contains copyrightable elements of the software or its files.
The statement about your being free to use the drawings in any publication is not enough, as Commons users should be allowed to use them also for other purposes. It is not evident, however, whether there was an intention to restrict such other use. If you do allow any use of your drawings, on terms of a free licence you choose, they would probably be allowed on Commons.
If the creators of the software think your licence is too allowing, that would probably not be a question about copyright, but about following the terms of use, and thus a thing between you and them, not involving Commons or the copyright of your work. To keep them happy (and not purposefully breach the terms) you should include the demand for an attribution of the software.
--LPfi (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"permission" required when Author/Creator, Source, and License are all complete

On 3 February 2012, I asked Robert Picardo to perform for me. I recorded this performance and uploaded it here. I applied the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license as I took the media to be mine. A day ago or so, Microchip08 (talk · contribs) tagged the file with {{No permission since}} which says, "This media file is missing evidence of permission." Clicking on "permission" takes me to Commons:Permission. From there I clicked through to Commons:Licensing where I can find no requirements I have not met. Can I get a little help, please? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The no permission template is for files that appear to be created by someone other than the uploader (see also COM:OTRS). I don't see anything to suggest that's the case for this recording. I don't know if there might be any copyright issues with a voice recording like this that would make it unsuitable for Commons, but that sort of thing should be brought up at COM:DR. clpo13(talk) 22:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you could err on the side of caution and send an email to the permissions queue. See Commons:Email templates for more on that. clpo13(talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
typical misuse of "no permission" template, and no collaboration. warn the abusive editor for misuse of the template. it is good practice to get a release from performers, but that is not a permission or license. you could put {{consent|public}} {{personality rights}} on it. and we do have an initiative to get article subjects to record their names; what would become of it with this kind of challenging. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
See the proposal to make a provision to include a custom message in the "No permission" tag. In the current form, that template is quite useless and a deletion request is far better. Jee 02:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the input, everybody! I really appreciate it! — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Check this file for instance: File:Disco-d'oro.jpg. Who's the copyright holder? Philips (the publisher)? Roberto Michelucci (the performer)? Nobody (it's simple text)?

Thanks for your advice. --Ruthven (msg) 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say the label is not copyrightable at all. The Philips logo is too small to be of significance (de-minimis) and the rest is plain text. De728631 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine, thanks. I used {{PD-text}} --Ruthven (msg) 17:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Iraqi insurgents with guns, 2006.jpg

The source on this one is listed as simply 'Arabic Wikipedia', which isn't a real source; the image page there is deleted anyway. Is this legitimately a free picture? --grendel|khan 23:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grendelkhan and Meno25: No idea. Try asking why it has been deleted directly on ar.wiki or to the admin that deleted it. --Ruthven (msg) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I fixed the license tag according to arwiki. --Meno25 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Meno25: Thank you! We should adjust the source as well. Maybe {{Own}}? --Ruthven (msg) 15:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: ✓ Done Thank you as well. --Meno25 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 16:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobel peace prize medals

Hi,

I just wanted to double-check with those who are more knowledgable, on the copyright (and trademark) status of the Nobel Peace Prize medals.

Thanks for your help, --Dami (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The same question goes for the diplomas, e.g. EU Nobel Peace Prize 0.jpg. --Dami (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted at the top of Category:Nobel Prize, the Nobel Prize medal is a copyrighted artistic work by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg (1873–1966), so images of it should not be uploaded, and any images uploaded should be deleted. (Trademark rights are not an issue).
I'm guessing the artwork on the left in EU Nobel Peace Prize 0.jpg is eligible for copyright protection. (The basic idea may be simplistic, but there is a fair bit of originality in the execution.) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, though that seems to contradict what is on the peace prize category page. Should the diploma be deleted? Is there a difference between the various medals? --Dami (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Aren't there two different medals? I think you get a medal by Gustav Vigeland if you get the peace prize but a medal by by Erik Lindberg if you get one of the other prizes. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:HuffPost.png

Hi there. I tagged File:HuffPost.png for speedy deletion as a copyright violation but I'm wondering if {{PD-ineligible}} might apply to it, since it only contains geometrical shapes and letters. Could some more experienced editors take a look? Regards SoWhy 12:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I think that it is possible. Try opening an UNDEL request. --Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

USDA aerial imagery in academic paper

I uploaded File:Emerald triangle land use changes Carah 2015.png and just wanted a second opinion. The paper's author credits USDA via Google Earth for the images [9] and you can see the USDA credit in the images themselves. I think that makes them public domain, just wanted to make sure. - Bri (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. Trivial photographic corrections like merging and white balance are well below the threshold of originality for US works; they fall under compilation and computation rather than demonstrating real creativity. Google deliberately does not show a copyright notice when PD imagery is displayed in Google Earth. The Emerald Triangle image is PD and acceptable on Commons; as an admin, I would unquestionably close a DR as keep. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If the source is the US Government, the images are not copyrighted -- color correction etc. would not be copyrightable. It's just that Google slaps a copyright notice over everything, warranted or not. The main issue is that Google also makes use a of a lot of privately-owned image data as well, plus images from plane flyovers and that sort of thing, where it is impossible to guess the real copyright status. Some of it really is copyrighted. (Some USGS imagery also comes from plane flyovers, so it's possible that stuff is not copyrighted.) Anyways, we will tend to delete anything where the source is directly Google Earth, unless it is provable in some way that the image was from the US Government. It is best to obtain such images from a USGov site (such as earthexplorer.usgs.gov ), and even better if you can document the dataset being used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking into the copyright status of File:Abdulbaha knighting.jpg (published 1923) and File:Ruth Moffett in Puerto Rico.jpg (published 1950), which were both uploaded with a {{Cc-zero}} template. I don't think that's an accurate license as I can't find any evidence to suggest the copyright holders released these works into the public domain.

However, I have found the original source periodicals online at http://starofthewest.info/ and http://bahai-news.info/, respectively. The latter site has a copyright notice at the bottom of the main web page but the periodicals themselves don't appear to have any copyright notices (direct links to transcriptions/scans of the relevant issues: Star of the West 13 (11), Bahá'í News 231). Does that mean these can be licensed {{PD-US-no notice}}? clpo13(talk) 00:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as US works published without a copyright notice, they can be marked as PD-US-no notice. This may not include material (including photos) that were first published elsewhere, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that at least some later editions of Bahá'í News have a clear copyright notice at the bottom of contents page. clpo13(talk) 00:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New template: {{FoP-Nigeria}}

I just created {{FoP-Nigeria}}. Please improve or add translations. Also let me know if there are any concerns about it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine Jarekt. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice job; I modified following a more stardard rephrasing. --Ruthven (msg) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

images on NASA \ ISS tweets

Hi, are images used on the NASA or ISS Twitter free access? - for example this image? Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In general: it depends. {{PD-USGov-NASA}} has some advice and caveats. Images originally published by NASA are public domain (as are images created by other US government employees as part of their official duties) but NASA websites or publications may also host non-free, copyrighted images. -Animalparty (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
it is good practice to do a google image search to find the source for the twitter feed. i.e. [11] from [12] - Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted files belonging to Estate

Two files which were uploaded by the Jon Schueler Estate have been deleted because Schueler died in 1992. My understanding is that copyright remains with his estate and they have the right to post some images of his work. Am I wrong or do they need to fill out the permission email? And is it possible to undelete these? Thanks Heather HeatherBlack (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC) File:Oc57-52.tif https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Oc57-52.tif&wteswitched=1 File:Oc1275.tif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oc1275.tif

I don't think so. Check Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. --Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
UK copyright is inheritable like any other asset [13], therefore these works if uploaded and appropriately released by the person (or representative) who inherited the copyright are permissible uploads. Submitting a permissions email is a good idea to cut down on the "I don't believe this" deletion nominations made. Nthep (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Much appreciated.HeatherBlack (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

yeah - that was abrupt. should have been DR not speedy. warn disruptive editor on out of process and no notification deletions. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Pic from A Private, Public Place

Hello colleagues, I am trying to take some picture from our Public High School which is school district privacy, do you guys know if I want a special Permission from the school board, and upload it to commons, or just take them and license them as a public place? Also, I don't know even if I am able to take pictures in school or not. (School's located at Federal Way, Washington State)--Qian.Nivan (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily that's a matter between you and your school board, since it doesn't affect basic copyright (see Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#.22House_rules.22...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
it could be both. if you have an assembly or public meeting, open to public then presumption is public space. if you have private meeting among private persons, then permission would be good practice. see also Commons:Photographs of identifiable people & com:personality rights. acting like a journalist and giving copy to newspaper would be an idea. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

On http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/aktuelles/themen/d-ag.asp there are a number of network diagrams describing the interconnectedness of German companies. In general they are only nodes, edges, and labels (and thus far below threshold of originality), but I am unsure whether the actual shape of the network is something that can be copyrighted. I would like some advise if it is okay for me to redraw the diagrams in SVG and upload them to Commons. I would use a different artistic style, but I am not sure if this is enough. --Lommes (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In some cases it may be under en:Database copyright. Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. However, I am unsure as to how to proceed. What do you say? Can i redo them or rather not?--Lommes (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody will provide you with a definite answer. You can just proceed. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

An image that includes a toy

I've been knitting doll clothes for my granddaughters' 18" girl dolls. These dolls are cheap imitations of the expensive en:American Girl dolls. I'd like to take a picture of a doll looking into a small telescope to put on my user page on the English Wikipedia. The doll will be facing the telescope, so the viewer will not be able to tell which of the many brands of dolls under copyright she is. The clothes are created from my own patterns. How recognizable does an object in an image need to be before there is copyright infringement? StarryGrandma (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If the doll is unrecognizable, I do not see any problem. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: Under the situation you describe, the doll itself would be COM:De minimis... the doll is unrecognizable, and what specific brand it is is completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the image (any of a number of doll bodies would serve the same purpose). Gottlieb Development LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp. is relevant (even though it was about a movie, and a pinball machine) as the court gave a basic 'rule' for when DM applies... the particular quote from the decision that makes the point is "Indeed, an average observer would not recognize the Designs as anything other than generic designs in a pinball machine." - Reventtalk 23:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Iranian Wikimedians

Recently, I raised an issue over plenty of files uploaded by Mardetanha (the photos where he was depicted and he still claimed to be the author of those photos!). An admin DRed those problematic photos. He said that the photos were made in (a) user group session(s) but all the problems stemmed from the false assumption held by Mradetanha who thought to be the author of the photos just because the photos were done by his camera. He admitted that he was not the photographer.

Yann's improper speedy closure of the DR, extended the issue to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems which is attention worthy.

In whole, Mardetanha provided an inconsistent explanation (admitted by another user) for his improper uploads violating copy rights: At first he said that Darafsh did the photos then he tried to convince us that he was the co-author as the photographers had just pushed a button and the rest was set by him. He believed that asking the so-called author to update the author field was useless.

Finally, it was concluded that the photos were done by random participants of those sessions and Jkadavoor tried to devise a scheme to keep the photos (See Photos by Iranian Wikimedians User Group). He made a template, Mardetanha asked the members of the usergroup to verify it by signing it and the photos are attributed to the Wikimedia Usergroup. Considering those inconsistent comments by Mardetanha, this topic is aimed at shedding light on the legality of the template and gathering broader views on this. Please consider that we really don't know if all the photos are done by the user group because those sessions were semi-public and any non-member friends or participants could make those photos. Moreover, as they will keep on uploading the files on this basis, we'd better see if this prospective is healthy. So, we are discussing two different groups of the photos; some already uploaded photos with unknown identity and those which will be uploaded confidently because a template has made the uploads legal. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teles, Steinsplitter, Jameslwoodward, Jmabel, INeverCry, and Tuvalkin: pinging some admins and users for attention. --Mhhossein talk 02:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Green Giant's comments are welcomed, too. --Mhhossein talk 02:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be easy to say that if we don't know for certain who took the photos, then they cannot be freely licensed. However, this is a group of Wikipedians, dedicated to the idea of free licensing, so I think the risk of a problem is very low if we make a good faith effort to deal with the situation. If (a) each of the persons who might have taken one of the images on which the template is used sends a message with a free license to OTRS, or (b) all such persons sign a paper copy of a free license and a scan of the paper license is sent to OTRS, I think we can use the template if it includes the OTRS ticket number or numbers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - I want to agree with James's comments above. I think one ticket can cover all the images taken by the Wikimedians and anyone taken by non-Wikimedian whould requires a separate permission to OTRS. Wikicology (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology: Thanks for the comment. But, we have no way to separate the files taken by Wikimedians and those taken by non-Wikimedians. --Mhhossein talk 07:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It depends on weather we could trust the representatives of the user group since we can only act on information provided by them. Wikicology (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether Jim see the collapsed part of that template. I don't see the need for any additional mails to OTRS as permission is already granted by 14 people there. Moreover, it is very difficult to verify whether an email is associated to a user if it comes from gmail/yahoo etc. Scanned copy of a signed paper is OK; but I failed to see any advantage for it compared to the digital sign already on the template. Jee 08:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Our routine way of taking free licensed from people when the copyright is unclear is to take an e-mail via OTRS. That is, as Jee says, problematic in some ways, as some of them are from anonymous accounts, but that is policy. This is breaking new ground. In effect, the template is a claim of "own work" by a group of 14 people. If the images haven;t appeared elsewhere, I think it is probably OK -- but there is still the problem that we can;t be sure that the 14 took all of the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes Jim, its a new style as those people are Wikimedians and so I didn't see the need for a confidential permission. The permission may not be perfect; but those are just group photos of those people themselves. I think we should consider to spend more energy in permissions like this where the works are very precious. :) Jee 11:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward and Wikicology: You hit the nail on the head. "We can't be sure that the 14 took all of the images" and things "depends on weather we could trust the representatives of the user group." As far as I see, the inconsistency in Mardetanha's comments and the story which changed with every edit, makes us more cautious about those "wilfully incorrect information" and we may not assume good faith, in my opinion. We may face plenty of more unlawful photos in future if we don't resolve this issue here. --Mhhossein talk 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Where you see the inconsistency in his words? His first response to you is "It was may camera and asked someone to take photos". Did he change this anywhere later? He thought the oral permission (or lack of contesting copyright claim) from his colleagues is enough. We rejected that claim and asked the individuals to give a formal permission. And they did it. What more you need? Do you saying you can't trust that 14 people? Jee 17:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein, as a co-founder of a user group myself, I can tell you that representatives of user groups are trustworthy. That being said, I don't think Mardetanha acted in bad faith. Yes they misunderstood our policy on licensing, but that is not uncommon. Wikicology (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I just copied the words of users such as Wikicology and Colin. Wikicology: I think you are too optimistic here. However, you did not tell us why all "representatives of user groups are trustworthy"? Please consider that misunderstanding "our policy on licensing" is something and "inconsistent comments" is another. I have fresh cases at hand where where Mardetanha tried to mislead the system (in my opinion). --Mhhossein talk 17:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Hanlon's razor ? Wikicology (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"we may not assume good faith" - this is a recurring rationale to justify summary process. you will not increase quality of this group's uploads, by trashing a pillar. you want to elevate PRP over all else, then you will preside over a walled garden like wikinews. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Slowking4: Are you endorsing the uploaded photos with unknown authors? --Mhhossein talk 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
do not put words in my mouth. i am opposing the assumption of bad faith, as behavior that undermines the credibility of the commons. you want to be an asshole, go for it; it is all on you. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Slowking4: Watch your language please. --Mhhossein talk 11:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
guy kawasaki has a self-diagnostic - http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/ Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein: So far you are the only one here who think that there is an issue with the current solution. Since you are from the same language community, it looks like as you have a personal conflict with the group. This is obviously the wrong venue. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Assume good faith! I don't know him and his so-called usergroup. Read the previous comments by other users once again such as "the inconsistency in Mardetanha's comments" and "the story which changed with every edit","wilfully incorrect information". --Mhhossein talk 11:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no user problem any more, except may be your insistence with this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you the one reported at COM:ANU guilty of improper speedy closure of the DRed files? As you see in others' comments, there are still some obscure points. --Mhhossein talk 18:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/04&oldid=244368958"