Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/11

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

en:File:LS DYNA geo metro.png

I would like to upload similar pictures I created, with CC-BY-SA, and want to know if it is ok.

But I don't understand the free-use-copyright of the image en:File:LS DYNA geo metro.png (picture of this video). The Finte-Element-model[NCAC 1] is created by the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC)[NCAC 2], the models were moved to https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-simulation-vehicle-models and therefore are en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No. The National Crash Analysis Center is operated by the George Washington University[1], and thus their works are not PD US government works. Only if the US government itself created a work is the work PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) was[NCAC 3] operated by the George Washington University, now it moved to the Center for Collision Safety and Analysis (CCSA) at George Mason University.
But anyway I noticed in the source-file the original author (CM/E-Group of Politecnico di Milano), also written in [NCAC 2][NCAC 4]. NCAC, (now CCSA) just collected those models and published them.
I will ask the authors/e-mail-adresses written in the source-files.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ another Video of this model
  2. ↑ a b https://homepage.boku.ac.at/jokalliauer/Internet/UNI/Bachelorarbeit/Bachelorarbeit%20Johannes%20Kalliauer.pdf (in German)
  3. ↑ https://www.colliseum.net/wiki/NCAC (in German)
  4. ↑ https://books.google.at/books?id=ts3LBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=politecnico+di+Milano+En+1317&source=bl&ots=AePr59U9Ea&sig=RHuLEZj2f_U-wRJFk4Q-AM4yKYw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixnZGzxqXXAĥD_qQKHROtA-QQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=politecnico%20di%20Milano%20En%201317&f=false
This section was archived on a request by:  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:ALRA - The Academy of Live and Recorded Arts - logo.png

They flagged this logo with "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." and I want to fix that but am not able to understand how. To be honest I've been talking with both logo owner and designer and none of them is able to address this issue.

Therefore given that I have the authorization to upload that logo, what do I have to do to add the missing info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppanico (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that a non-government organisation would have published content under the Open Government Licence. On what basis have you made that claim?
The UK has a notoriously low threshold of originality required for copyright protection, and this logo probably exceeds that threshold. Therefore, in order to comply with Commons' licensing requirements, the copyright holder would have to agree to publish the logo under a free license (a copyright license that allows anyone to use, modify and distribute the logo for any purpose, including commercial purposes). Trademark restrictions would still apply, but most organisations are still reluctant to publish their logos under such permissive licenses, which means we cannot host them here on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I need help with how to proceed with the image I uploaded for BLP article for Alan Schoen. The JPG file was given to me (as email attachment on Oct 21, 2017) for use on Wikimedia by its author Alan H. Schoen (the subject of the article). Alan Schoen uses it on his website at http://schoengeometry.com/e-tpms.html with a caption: Side view of lfd1(G)stereo image. On November 1, 2017, Dr. Alan Schoen informed me (by email) that he created the image of gyroid unit cell himself on February 1, 2014 on his computer with Mathematica program. I am not sure of my next step. Should I ask him to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons by himself? Or should I ask him to modify the caption under the image on his website indicating that it is in Public Domain? Sincerely,DziegielewskiBA (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Convenience links: File:Gyroid unit cell(1).jpg; en:Alan Schoen. @Elisfkc: Is this satisfactory?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure, send it through OTRS to make sure. Elisfkc (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@DziegielewskiBA: Media on Commons needs to be released with a free license, rather than just with permission. If the author is willing to change the license on his website, be sure it's a license with a legal foundation like Creative Commons licenses. The most common here is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA). This page on the CC website simplifies adding the license to one's own work. If he would like to release it to the public domain, simply saying as much doesn't quite work because the legal meaning of "public domain" varies in different countries. Use CC0 instead. Alternatively, you could reupload it, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file page, and direct him to the Attribution Generator, which creates some text he can copy/paste into an email to send to our team of people who can connect his emailed license with the image. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

File:BNP Flag.jpg

This might be possible to convert to some other license, but it seems very unlikely to be the uploader's own work. A png version of the same flag was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia en:File:Flag of Bangladesh Nationalist Party.png and this would not be needed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if the Commons' file is OK to keep. The falg does appear to be being used by the party on its official website, but there is another version used at the top in the banner which is slightly different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by a new user

A new user massively upload possibly copyrights violation image to common, most of them were fix and tagged for deletion, but this two File:Angelo Moratti.jpg and File:Giovanniparamithiotti.jpg seem stolen from Italian wiki (it:File:Angelo Moratti.jpg and it:File:Giovanni Paramithiotti.jpg), i am not familiar with Italian language, is it in the (US) public domain according to the tag in it.wiki (so that the tag should transfer to wiki common), or should be nominate for deletion ? Matthew hk (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The first photo is possibly in the public domain and the second photo almost certainly is. The problem is that the uploaders provided no information about the publication history. The Commons file for the second photo had a source link but the file was speedy deleted before I could click it or note what the link was. If someone has the motivation to do a research, they can possibly find evidence for public domain per Template:PD-Italy. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Asclepias: I should open my peepers, 1908 not 1980. The quality of the photographs should have given it away. I'll take care of it. The first one is totally unclear, no date, no author, nothing. The person depicted died 1981, could have been taken a few years earlier, but that doesn't really matter. It's not covered by PD-Italy, => 70 years p.m.a. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that it's not covered by PD-Italy, as in 20 years after creation, if created before 1976 and first published in Italy. The photo looks quite ordinary. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks more like a staged photograph, not a snapshot. I won't fight over it, tho. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Transferred photograph here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Joel.Hayward.Prof.jpg

Hi every body, I'd like to reassure if this image is published under a free license! Regards. --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We need more than a reassurance. The image is not at the URL identified as the source, nor at an archive of this page. The image is available on Prof Hayward's website,[2] but I cannot find any associated copyright statement. Unfortunately the image was not tagged with {{LicenseReview}} to document the license when the file was uploaded. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also an issue with "Author: Unknown". It is not credible to claim a copyright release by an unknown author. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Thanks, I'll start a DR! --Mhhossein talk 16:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we use images which are "free of rights"?

Several images have been uploaded by @User:1Veertje in this category from the website of the Dutch "House of Commons" (Tweede Kamer). On this website it is stated that: The House of Commons of the Netherlands makes these photographs available for publication. The subject is the making of the new government. The pictures can be used freely and can be reused. Please add as the source 'Tweede Kamer van de Staten-Generaal' (translation by Ellywa).

I personally think this is not in accordance with the Template:Attribution which is added to the images, because the text on the website does not say derivative works may be made. Please let me know your comments on this. I think the images should be deleted, but rather hear your comments before I nominate them for deletion.

Note: I asked question to the parliament, ticket:2017102710004547 but got no reaction up to now.

Kind regards, Elly (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There appear to be two issues:
  1. Does "can be reused" allow derivative works? The license text has two relevant phrases: "can be used freely" and "can be reused", presumably the first phrase covers the use of the original images and the second phrase covers their use in other ways.
  2. If the licence does not mention derivative works can we interpret it as allowing them?
In my view the licence is probably acceptable. However I am not a lawyer and any detailed analysis of the wording should be made in the original Dutch. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It is fine to put them up for deletion if you have significant doubts. The DR will be a useful record of any further evidence you can find over the coming week. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that the copyright to each photo on the website "www.tweedekamer.nl" is owned by its photographer and that the statement made on behalf of the Tweede Kamer at the top of the page "/rechtenvrije-fotos-kabinetsformatie" is not a license but it is a statement about the status of the photographs in the Netherlands. For better understanding, this must be placed in the context of articles 13 and 15 of the copyright act of the Netherlands and in the context of the general copyright notices of the website on the pages "/disclaimer" and "/legal-notice". Assuming that the Tweede Kamer as a legislative body is understood as being included in the notion of "public authorities", the statement on "/rechtenvrije-fotos-kabinetsformatie" would have the effect of stating an exception to the general notice of the website, which itself stated an exception to the general legal permission given to the public directly by article 15 of the copyright act, which, unless stated otherwise, allows free reproduction of works published by public authorities, and including making derivative works per article 13. However, the statement by Tweede Kamer would be about the status of these photographs in the Netherlands only. Because it is not a license, it can be assumed that the copyright owners retain full exclusivity outside the Netherlands, and the photographs are not freely reusable in the United States as required by Commons. If the Tweede Kamer had been the copyright owner of the photographs, the situation might have been different because then its statement could have been interpreted as being a license and it would have been reasonable to assume that the Tweede Kamer was understanding the words "used" and "reused" in a meaning at least as large as the meaning given to the word "reproduction" in the copyright act of the Netherlands, which includes derivative works. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all, I will nominate the images for deletion, alas. Elly (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
25 recent uploads by User:ATX-NL are a related issue. I think nominating all images for deletion is a too hasty move. User:Woodcutterty seems to have asked Dutch parliament more or less the same question. (The outcome seems yet unclear). If Dutch parliament promotes these images as "freely usable", they might be willing to upgrade that to a CC-BY-SA license -if you ask the right (and authorative) person. I personally doubt if the images are still copyrighted by the photographer(s). The names of the photographers are not visible, and the copyright sign indicates: ©Rijksoverheid, which seems to indicate that the contracts included handing over of copyright. Vysotsky (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

looking for another opinion on current FPC

File:The Miller Blues Band San Francisco - Jan. 10, Tues.-Jan. 15, Sun. - Matrix - Fillmore near Lombard.jpg is currently at FPC. The file has been tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-1996}}. The image has a dated copyright tag in the bottom-left of the image itself and I see no evidence it was published outside the US (given it's a San Francisco concert poster, that would be odd). Its Library of Congress page that it came from says "Rights status not evaluated". If I came across this and it weren't uploaded by an experienced user and already at FPC, I'd probably just send it to DR. What am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk |  05:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems pretty obviously copyrighted; I've opened Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Miller_Blues_Band_San_Francisco_-_Jan._10,_Tues.-Jan._15,_Sun._-_Matrix_-_Fillmore_near_Lombard.jpg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

File:A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.jpg

Image take from Flickr and its license was verified by FlickreviewR, but I'm wondering if it can be automatically assumed that the underlying work itself was created by the Flickr account holder and this is not an (unintentional perhaps) case of Flickr washing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I processed an OTRS ticket related to this Flickr account, and I'm confident the account isn't Flickr washing. However, I did notice that many of their creations are derivative works. I'll start a DR. Guanaco (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it may not be a derivative work. It appears to have taken some inspiration, but there's no copying here that I can see. Guanaco (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Presumably the issue is whether this is a copyright violation of the non-free book cover w:en:File:Clockwork orange.jpg. I feel this could go ether way. Is it relevant that several Wikipedias use the image as a stand-in for a non-free book cover, e.g. w:es:La naranja mecánica, which claims that it is a book cover? Verbcatcher (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The file on Commons is not a derivative of w:en:File:Clockwork orange.jpg. The idea is the same, but the copyright of them are not related. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

File:National Actionm.png

File is licensed as "own work" which seems unlikely because the file is apparently the symbol being used by en:National Action (UK). The file might be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-shape}}, but the organization is based in the UK and the UK has a really low threshold of originality per COM:TOO#United Kingdom. The logo is said to be based upon File:SA-Logo.svg which is licensed as {{PD-ineligible}}. Even if that file's licensing is correct, however, a derivative of a PD image may be in some cases eligible for copyright protection, Can Commons accept this file as licensed, or convert it to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The difference with the SA-Logo logo is small. So, if the latter is in public domain so is National Actionm logo. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Antipodeanm Resistance.png

File is licensed as "own work", but that seems unlikely because this is the logo used by en:Antipodean Resistance. I'm not sure whether a basic Swastika is considered to be copyrightable, and this appears to be nothing more than a simple derivative of one. Australia, however, appears to have a pretty low TOO similar to the UK's, so maybe this would be considered to be eligible for copyright protection based upon some of the examples given as unacceptable in per COM:TOO#Australia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I upload photos copyrighted by my late husband

Hello
I noticed the photo contest, and wondered if I might be able to submit a photo my husband took in 1997. He passed away in 2013. He was a former professional photographer, but had not worked in that profession since before 1976. I believe the photo I have in mind would fall under the science category. It is a very unique photo and I have never seen another one like it. He did sell copies of it, and others like it to his co workers and mine as well. But as far as I know he never published any of them. I do remember at one time, an industry rival of where he worked, somehow got a copy of one that he copyrighted, and used it in one of their brochures without his permission or giving him credit for it. The company removed it from their brochures when confronted with a probable lawsuit. There are actually several different photos of the same subject taken at different times and angles, but all were taken at the same time.
So, I suppose my question is did I inherit the copyright to his photos. They most definitely have the "WOW factor" going. And I would want to give him credit as the author, whether it is a requirement or not. Can anyone help me with this question? Because if it is permissible to submit the photo, then I have a lot of reading and researching how to upload and submit my husband's beautiful work.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clueless56 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clueless56! First of all: I'm sorry for your loss, and thank you for considering sharing your late husbands work.
It's likely that you did inherit the copyright to his photographs, unless something else was specified in his testament. The exceptions would be photographs created as works made for hire (under an employment contract or other written contract) and photographs for which the copyright was transferred to someone else in writing. It sounds like none of the potential issues apply to the photos that you have in mind.
You should be able to upload the files using the Upload Wizard and doing the following:
  • Select "This file is not my own work"
  • Enter something like "Inherited from the uploader's husband" (or whatever you feel best describes the situation)
  • Name your husband as the author
  • For the "why you are sure you have the right to publish this work" question, select "Another reason not mentioned above", "The license is described by the following wikitext"
  • Enter "{{PD-heirs}}" if you want to waive all copyright or {{Heirs-license|{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}}} if you would like to publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (which requires anyone reusing the photo to preserve the attribution and license)
—LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfie court decision

The case of the infamous monkey selfie here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg) was settled, http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/asia/monkey-selfie-settlement/index.html.

Does that affect the copyright status of the image? I am not a lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum photographs

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inhabitants of Arzeu.jpg nominates File:Inhabitants of Arzeu.jpg for deletion, presumably on because it is a lower quality duplicate of File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War- Operation Torch, North Africa, November 1942 A12662.jpg. However, the second file uses the IWM Non-Commercial Licence, which is presumably not allowed here. The first file claims {{PD-UKGov}}. Is it acceptable to delete the IWM Non-Commercial Licence and replace it with {{PD-UKGov}}? Verbcatcher (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

tell IWM to get stuffed, just like National Portrait Gallery, London. cannot put NC on PD - this is the reason for the template:PD-art. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the IWM can get stuffed based on their lack of interest in correcting even the most egregiously blatant false copyright claims over images, in order to greedily demand payment from academics, such as for works created more than 120 years ago.
However it is also fine for images to be hosted on Commons with multiple licenses on the images. For all my uploads of IWM images, I add the IWM's license as a courtesy. It's up to the IWM if they believe in their copyfraud or not. At the same time Commons relies on the more accurate assessment of copyright visible in the public domain license chosen, and there are a couple of variations that apply depending on context.
Legally speaking, continuing to quote the IWM's license is a good thing for reusers, they can contact the IWM if they wish to, and the IWM has no reason to create take-down notices which claim that their copyright statement has been ignored.
With regard to the specific DR, I would only keep different scans or prints of a photograph. If one hosted image is simply a reduced resolution version of the other, then there seems no long term benefit in hosting it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
btw, user:79.182.13.137, nominated a duplicate file, rather than one user:Ducksoup overwrote. are those users related? does it quack enough for you? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not as simple as that. Whilst these copyrights have expired, IWM has reproduction rights over their archival material – which is the source of these images. So they would be acceptable on WP (under fair use) but not WC. Where as for instance, the image currently under question at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Iraq_and_Afghanistan_Memorial_unveiling_-_02.jpg has been released via OGL and is OK. Yet, the latter image still needs MOD attribution to be added in order strictly comply with its OGL release . It is no different from what Corrbis and Getty do. They have many old and certain PD images but if one's only source is the PD image from their web site, they have the power in law to take you to court. This is because the law is an ass and they have the only redly available images since they have got the owners of the physical image (even if the image itself is out of copyright) to sign a one-way clause for reproduction rights. Err and also... If any one asks as to when these images were published – it was the moment IWM received them, so became available (legally) to whom ever wished to view them – so they are well out of copyright. All they have is reproduction rights of the images supplied by them and them alone but not the image's copyright. P.g.champion (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
No, the Crown didn't "sign a one-way clause for reproduction rights". Not only is that meaningless, the IWM have never claimed such a thing. --Fæ (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
? Didn't say the the Crown did. P.g.champion (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the EU-derived Publication Right, which is implemented in the UK via the CPDA 1988, s16. This effectively gives a 25 year copyright protection to anyone who, after the expiry of copyright protection, publishes for the first time a previously unpublished work. The major exception is that it does not apply to Crown Copyright works. Although there is no equivalent under US law, we do have to take note of it since our policy is that works hosted here must be free not only in the US but also in the originating country. MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The IWM have never claimed publication rights, and after five years of using their archives, I have yet to find anything that has never previously been published or made public. --Fæ (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
They normally claim it using the word 'copyright'. Of course, where we can demonstrate that any particular out of copyright image was not first published by them, we are OK. MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
You seem intent on creating obstacles where none exists. In my correspondence with the IWM lawyer, this was never claimed. They are not an archive of unpublished works. Provide a case study if you are serious about this tangent, it is a long hypothetical path away from the 1942 Royal Navy photo that started this thread. --Fæ (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not so much publication rights (as it is Crown copyright). It rather more 'reproduction' rights as the IWM has a special delegation from HMSO so that they can license at a cost, most Crown Copyright item in its possession. This is to support the preservation of the official imagery in its care. So it is not the copyright (as it is out of copyright) but the case of the supplier of the image, copied from its own archive and made available for viewing at it its own expense, being entitled to a fee for its commercial use – which is not acceptable on WC but OK on WP as fair use. Don't think this is splitting hairs. P.g.champion (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were drawing attention to publication right. If not - for example because a particular image was Crown copyright or has already been published by a third party - there is no rule of law in the UK that would allow the IWM or any other repository that puts an out of copyright image publicly online to enforce any request for payment nor to restrict re-use of the image. They don't have any rights under UK law to demand a fee as you suggest merely as the supplier of a publicly-accessible image taken from their own archive. The image is free for anyone to use, and should not be flagged to the contrary. That is sometimes called 'copyfraud'. It's notorious that many repositories do claim copyright in this situation, and demand fees, but that could never be enforced in a court of law.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'reproduction right' or 'delegation from HMSO' as that would be relevant only to Crown copyright works that are still within the copyright period. There's no general power to demand payment for Crown copyright expired images. You may be thinking of a different situation where a repository supplies an individual copy to a specific third party under the terms of an enforceable contract that might include payment of a fee. But putting up an image on a public website does not under UK law create a contract which could be enforced against a member of the public who copies that image from the site.
Where publication right does not apply, and where an image is otherwise out of copyright, we can and do host it on Commons, even where there is an illegitimate claim to copyright protection by the archive that made it publicly available online. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not a copyright issue. It is an agreement which the downloader accepts if s/he uses the information or images from a website that provides the images which includes reservations to its use. You may already know of a depository call Wikimedia Commons, they too have a policy about how images sourced from WC can be used Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. What is s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Personally, can imagine that it may cost more to collect theses fees than the the fees bring in. However, during the reign of Margaret Thatcher, she had this brilliant idea, that the Met Office, Ordnance Survey and Uncle Tom Cobleyand all, had to charge for their content. This is different from the slavish copies download from the NPG. IANAL but think this is UK statute law. Also, 'am too old to suggest that editors should just -do-it- and force the issue. P.g.champion (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems irrelevant to assessment of copyright. How does it affect PD photos we host on Commons? --Fæ (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't but.. Getty can and does charge reproduction fees for PD images . Although they failed to collect in this case: Firm demanded £90 from Carol Highsmith for alleged copyright violation of her own photo. Anyway. This is going off tangent. P.g.champion (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The IWM hosts few unique images. The exact same licence claims are made by the IWM about photos they copied from American archives, making it obvious that their claims are speculative and lazy. The IWM copyright license is a broad net to harvest as much cash as possible from unsuspecting writers and academics that will take claims at face value. Their use of copyfraud to force indefinite high reproduction payments for images, even those PD by age, or available from other archives for free, is not something the open knowledge movement should ever support or encourage. --Fæ (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Slight correction, I have crossed out 'reproduction', as the IWM's charging scheme is entirely based on their claims of copyright and is not a fixed fee for reproduction. Their scale of charges increase dramatically as soon as you want commercial reuse, such as would be required for an academic wanting to include a photograph in an article or a book. Nobody believes that it costs over £100 to email someone a pdf of a scan that already exists on their database. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
"This is not a copyright issue." exactly; "being entitled to a fee for its commercial use, which is not acceptable on WC but OK on WP as fair use." no, the community explicitly rejected this. if you want to change the long standing consensus on commons that rejects "reproduction rights" of the public domain, then you need to submit a proposal. until then we can abide by PD-art. and IWM is not the worst offender, compared with Louvre and Pitti: we need to oppose these false pretensions, in solidarity with wikimedia france and la quadrature Wikimedia France and La Quadrature du Net defend the public domain before the Constitutional Council Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Gel image

I'm wondering if the image from here would be considered PD-simple? It is an image of a type of DNA analysis run on a gel. It is just a series of lines. I'm just not sure if the actual picture would be enough to grant copyright status in the US as it isn't really "original" per se. So TOO would come into play. I've also already considered the PD-USGov aspects of it but I can't be sure that the image was actually created by those working on the program and not just taken from somewhere else. Any ideas would be appreciated. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The image is of low resolution. So, it is impossible to say whether it is original enough. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That's too bad. I guess I'll have to fall back on the precautionary principle and not upload it. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a bunch of files with copyright issues uploaded by Hosmich (talk · contribs). They uploaded a bunch of SVGs of government symbols and flags under CC-BY-SA (for the most part) but included no information about the copyright status of the symbols relevant to their country of origin. A list of affected files is here. These files are of value, but we need to make sure they're properly licensed. I'd suggest having a list where we could cross off "solved" files one-by-one so there's no duplication of efforts, but I'm not too sure on how to generate that list. Thoughts? Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In general, the basic design of such symbols is separate from the actual representation. See Commons:Coats of arms. If the uploader drew the SVGs themselves, they would own the copyright on that representation and the licenses would make sense. If you think they are derivative of another graphical representation, those could be individual issues. Most of the time though, there is no copyright on the general design of state symbols or flags -- they are usually an idea, not copyrightable expression. A graphic work cannot be derivative of a written description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

City of Orlando License

I am just making sure, since I recently uploaded five videos and may upload a bunch of images, files from the City of Orlando (such as ones from their Flickr or YouTube) fall under {{PD-FLGov}}, correct? I am 98% sure, but I want to double check before uploading a lot of files from those sources. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The author specified is Matthew_Kaiser. I am not sure if he was employed by City of Orlando when he made those photos. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Thanks. I guess I'll just email someone from the city to find out. Elisfkc (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

president.az

Dear Gents,

There is following information in the official web-cite of the President of Azerbaijan:

The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers.

Does it mean that we can upload the photos from that webcite to Commons? If yes, which licsence can we use. Could it be the similar with kremlin.ru?

Regards, --Interfase (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The licence may impose restrictions on commercial use of the images in some circomstances.
  • The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers. This also applies to television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias).
For example, would this allow the images to be used in advertising posters? Also, the site does not credit the photographers of each image. Can we rely on them to have obtained permission from the photographers? If these photographs are uploaded to Commons then please tag them with {{LicenseReview}}, in case the permission text is changed or removed from the site. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
No, the photos can't be hosted on Commons on the basis of this text because they are not freely reusable by anyone. The permission restricted to certain categories of reusers is not a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher and @Asclepias, which sentence should be recorded? Really, is not it?

"The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers. This also applies to television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias).

The official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan must be indicated as a primary source when using information and multimedia material featured on the website."

Maybe we can find a suitable license? For example, as it is here.

Best regards, --►Cekli829 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cekli829: this licence restricts the use of the images to "media outlets, internet resources and information carriers [...] television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias)". The licence is not acceptable because it does not allow anyone who is not in one of these categories to use the image. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

State of Washington official photos

This a discussion currently taking place on English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 4#File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg about the licensing of en:File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg. The file is licensed as en:Template:PD-author (Commons equivalent {{PD-author}}) based upon the Public Domain & Copyright Information. Would this type of licensing be acceptable for Commons, or is there perhaps another acceptable PD license which could be used instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a public domain web site. Most of the information on this site is not copyrighted. You may use, share or copy such information appearing on this site. Of course, it would be appropriate to give credit to the Office of the Secretary of State as the source of this information. Our site may contain text, artwork, photos or other content that is copyrighted by others and is being used with the express permission of the copyright holder. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact our Webmaster or Communications Director for permission to use information contained on this site.

— https://www.sos.wa.gov/office/privacy.aspx
Sounds like another one of these (except that it is not released into PD, but an assertion that things may already be PD), however, without a clear release that all images made by them on that website become PD, or an assertion by them which images are PD and which are not, I think it is against COM:PRP to assume anything there is PD without actual evidence. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This template, and its linked OTRS ticket from the Washington Secretary of State's office may be of interest Template:PD-WSRC. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That template only has to do with the Redistricting Committee of the State of Washington. There is no case law that indicates that all material is actually in the public domain. Per Harvard there was some material back in 2001 that may give some weight to the public domain nature of Washington documents but that was never actually proven. Without concrete case law (such as California has), or a statement from someone of authority in the state government, we must assume that the material is copyrighted. So yeah, PRP and all that. --Majora (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Something else to take notice of is that the potentially-PD statement comes from the website of the WA Secretary of State, but the file is actually sourced to the website of the Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus which only says "All Rights Reserved". Furthermore, the EXIF metadata from the file en:File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg says the file has a copyright holder, and said copyright holder is the Washington State Legislative Support Services Photo Department. WA Legislative Support Services (LSS) Photography department says:

Legislative photographs, including digital images, are provided as a courtesy or, where applicable, pursuant to Washington’s Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17). Where attribution is appropriate, credit may be given as, “Photo courtesy of Washington State Legislative Support Services.” The legislature maintains photographs as historical records and, as such, has a policy prohibiting their alteration or manipulation. Also the assigned name, number, and IPTC of legislative photographs may not be altered or changed.

— LSS (click Photography Services, then Photo Usage and Integrity)

This license prohibits derivative works, and as such is not a free license. The Washington State Public Disclosure Act does not appear to place works in the public domain. Much like some other states we've discussed previously, this is a "public records" act that makes WA state records available to the public, not a free copyright license. Even if the WA Secretary of State has elected to place the contents of their web site in the public domain, other WA State departments and sites are free to choose not to do so. —RP88 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a little complicated, but I could really use some help here from someone stronger than I am in the area of copyright.

I created Template:Attribution-Yale-University-Art-Gallery based on discussions now archived at Commons:Help desk/Archive/2017/08#Yale Art Gallery and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/08#Yale Art Gallery. User:Jcb apparently objects to the line of reasoning in these discussions and after not having Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Objects from Dura Europos in the Yale University Art Gallery go the way he wanted he edited the template in ways that amount to saying it isn't a valid licensing template. (FWIW, he and I are both admins.) He says at User_talk:Jcb#Not sure which if two opposite things you meant, "I am not spending more time on this. There are too many bad closures. If I would follow up on all of them, it would suck away all my time." I would like to revert his changes to the template, but I don't want to do so unilaterally without some reasonably broad level of agreement about the copyright situation here. Is this template useful (in which case I believe his edits should be reverted) or not (in which case I believe the template should not exist)? - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The edits to the license are clearly inappropriate. I have no opinion right now on the validity of the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Objects from Dura Europos in the Yale University Art Gallery, which shows a near unanimous keep. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
warn and block the disruptive editor. this editor apparently feels the need to dictate permission terms to institutions. this editor seems to be unable to abide by consensus. he should do that on another website. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The edits are not appropriate. I would hesitate to say the license itself equates to public domain, unless it's a PD-Art type of photo -- they say the *subjects* are public domain, but not the photos themselves necessarily. They do say that "Open access digital images may be used by anyone for any purpose", and they also say "Users are asked to attribute the work in the manner specified by the applicable museum, library, or archive guidelines, without suggestion of endorsement." That latter part sounds more like a request and not requirement, so not sure it's an attribution license exactly either. More like {{Copyrighted free use}}, with a strong attribution request, though attribution may be close enough. I think that is clearly a free license -- I see no way of interpreting that to restrict by commercial use, or type of use. We don't require explicit mention of commercial use or derivative works; it's just that those can be common things that users with custom licenses or website permissions don't think about and did not mean to imply. A careful institution like Yale would have absolutely mentioned them if they wanted to restrict by those aspects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Carl, I agree with you. I'm going to take the liberty of editing it accordingly, removing User:Prosfilaes assertion that it amounts to public domain; Prosfilaes already removed Jcb's verbiage. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: The edits were inappropriate given the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Objects from Dura Europos in the Yale University Art Gallery. That DR decided that the gallery's "for any purpose" language was sufficient to authorize derivative and commercial works under the US Copyright Act of 1976, so that we may host the files and mark them as licensed with the template. What is your basis for determining that it was not sufficient?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The answer is right in top of the DR. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I don't see anywhere where COM:L says that derivative works must be mentioned by name (nor should it). It just says that, by the wording of the license, that derivative works are allowed. More specifically, it requires that a license allows anyone to use the material for any purpose, then goes on to say that derivative works is one of those purposes. The Yale license absolutely conforms to that statement (in fact, repeats it nearly word for word). Derivative works and commercial use is covered by "any purpose". There are informal licenses which are too vague, which is what we are guarding against, but the Yale one is not vague at all. Carl Lindberg (talk)
The creation of derivatives is not a "purpose", but I am convinced that you know that. Jcb (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It is absolutely a purpose, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Camila Sodi in 2016

Can any one check the license of this file, please? --Mhhossein talk 11:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone did; it passed license review. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein and Clindberg: Thanks, @Puramyun31.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a public place?

I hope to upload a 1969 photo of a person whose Wikipedia article was just published. The photo was taken by me, the theater photographer, during a rehearsal of a musical. The venue was a community theater building (owned and run by a non-profit) and there was no restriction on who could enter and watch. Someone from the neighborhood could walk in, sit down, and observe the rehearsal.

There are three people in the shot. The subject and two actors, whose names I do not remember. The subject's widow wrote me to say it is ok to publish the photo to Wikipedia.

TWO QUESTIONS.

1. Does this constitute a public place?

2. Is it ok to include the actors in the photo?

If no and no, I can crop the actors out of the photo.

Any thoughts on this are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that yes, it is fine, because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy at such a theater. Guanaco (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Larry11565: What country is the theater in? Based on that spelling, I'll assume the US. If so, the architectural elements of the building are not something to worry about. You'll want to look for creative works inside the theater, though. For example, a set created for this production, if a major part of the image, may be a problem as it would have separate copyright from the building. If it's open to the public, it's unlikely there's a problem that it includes people. You'd want to include {{Personality}} on the image page, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Park Bo-gum and Kim Yuna for LG Aura.png

This file is licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but it looks like COM:FU. It appears to be a screenshot taken from a YouTube video, and YouTube does have a general license that is compatible with Commons, but YouTube videos are often uploaded by people other than the original copyright holders and COM:LL seems to happen quite alot. The file's description is not in English so I cannot tell for sure if this is an official channel or not. Can Commons accept this license as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: No. This appears (via Google Translate from Korean) to be a still from an ad for AURA fabric softener by LG Household & Health Care (LG Care). We would need them to send permission via OTRS. I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking on this Jeff G. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Best way to tag what are most likely derivative works?

I'm looking at a series of recently-uploaded images that depict a company's previous logos. The uploader claimed "own work" for each but they are all clearly derivative, if not straight copies, of the old logos. Nor is there any indication that the old logo may be freely used.

Do I report them here? Tag them with {{subst:dw-nsd}}? Or something else? I think it's the dw-nsd tag, but... Jeh (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For clear copyright violations, please use 'report copyright violation' from the left menu. For anything else, especially in case of files where there is an issue "most likely" rather than "obviously", please use the 'nominate for deletion' link from the left menu to start a deletion nomination. Jcb (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Jeh (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Raj Amit Kumar During a Film Production.jpg

Listed as 'own work' but it looks like an image taken from a film. I'm not sure how to check if this editor @Kumaranurag97: has the right to upload this picture. Leschnei (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a crop from a photo on Raj Amit Kumar's Facebook page. Also here. It is unlikely that the uploader has the copyright, partly because a crop has been uploaded. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Speedy this image. A one-purpose-account has taken this from 'Dark Frames' which is company that Raj Amit Kumar founded. Looks like a paid editor because he brings up 'His next two film projects' on WP article. We don't comment on what hasn't happened yet because there can not be any RS of what hasn't happened yet (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). P.g.champion (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: I tagged it as such.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your second opinion and action. Jcb saw it the same way too and thenceforth deleted it. P.g.champion (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

1895 Photo / Painting in a Museum - how to upload a picture of this 1895 photo / painting

Hello,

I want to upload a picture I took of an 1895 Photo / Painting in a Museum. The family of the man in the photo / painting donated this item to this museum many decades ago.

What is the proper description and tag that I need to use to get my picture successfully uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-J (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Carregamentos

Todos os tipos de ficheiros podem ser carregados. Caso seja mp3,ogg,webm,etc tudo entra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardo Musik (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • E sua pergunta é...?
The OP has been indefblocked, case closed.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If an image has been previously published on the internet, but I own the copyright, can I upload it to Wikipedia?

VenomousConcept (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@VenomousConcept: you can upload your image to Wikipedia, or here to Wikimedia Commons, providing that you release it under an acceptable licence and that it meets the other necessary requirements, see Commons:Project scope. Many images are unacceptable because they are not useful for an educational purpose, see COM:EDUSE. If your ownership is likely to be challenged then you may need to supply evidence to Commons:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help VenomousConcept (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, if it has previously been uploaded without indicating a free license appropriate for Commons, and you don't have access to the relevant page to indicate the free license there, you probably need to go through the COM:OTRS process to make it clear you are not just some random person uploading a readily available image.. - Jmabel ! talk 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Flickr

Hi everyone. I found this picture on Flickr, and I just want to make sure that it's free. It's been published under the right license, and it seems that the account that has published it is the main copyright holder. Is it OK to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Keivan.fTalk 04:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)" licence is fine, providing that the Flickr uploader has properly assigned the licence. This image is credited to "Carl Court/PA Wire". This is presumably the Press Association, a major news agency, which I don't think makes a practice of using free licenses. Carl Court is a leading news photographer.[3] Although this is the Flickr account of a reputable organisation (The Co-op Group), I would not take this license at face value.
The Co-op Group have assigned problematic licences to other Flickr images. They license several images with "Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)", without naming the creator of the image who should be attributed (example).
Any comments? Verbcatcher (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't upload that without first contacting the photographer to make sure the license is correct. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:NumidiaWiki.png

I doubt this is the uploader's "own work", but it might be acceptable per {{PD-logo}} if not eligible for copyright protection under Algerian law. I'm not sure if Arabic script is considered simple text or a form of calligraphy which might be artistic enough to be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a standard typeface. So, it is unlikely to be copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Sabina Babaeva.png & File:Sabina Babaeva full.png

Resolved

User:Master Eddy has only uploaded these two images. Nice images to have on WC but copyright notice seems implausible. Can't find the full image on Tineye or anywhere else but my guess is that both are unauthorised. How does one nominate 'deletion' based on my guess-work? Also, on the back of my mind, I would think Babaeva could get the photographer to send in an OTRS- which the unloader should have seen to, if he had read our policies. Do we delete first, because the unloader is a rubie-doobie-newbie and should be allowed some slack on his first attempts? P.g.champion (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You can use {{Speedydeletion}} under "5. Missing essential information" criterion. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Reverse image search worked for me e.g.. Tagged both for speedy. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Jcgonzalez15.jpg

Can someone cast their eyes over: File:Jcgonzalez15.jpg , probably taken from https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjExMjEyNjM3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzUwNzY3NjE@._V1_SY1000_SX800_AL_.jpg]. File:JC Gonzalez-Child-Houston.jpg Taken 1999 and File:JC Gonzalez-Singing-Houston Texan-Latina.jpg taken 9 August 2015. Looks like the up-loader has a one purpose account for images of this celebrate. Thinking on the lines of a temporary block. P.g.champion (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The uploader Siddfatima claimed to be a voice teacher / coach of JC Gonzalez per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
And who needs a voice coach for 18 years and who gets their English WP article for JC Gonalez deleted for promotion? P.g.champion (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Review requested - company logos

These are tagged with {{Trademarked}} and either {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-logo}}. Can I get additional opinions from anyone here about which of these, if any, pass Commons:Threshold of originality and are likely to be copyrighted art? Thanks.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tan Sri Sahol Hamid.jpg

This file has EXIF data, but there's no indication given regarding the author of the article. Tried checking the source url , but it's dead and the only archived version I could find also says "Account suspended". The subject seems to be Sahol Hamid Abu Bakar, a former vice-chancellor of en:Universiti Teknologi MARA people#Engineering and given the pose and the background it appears to have been taken to be an official photo of some kind. Can Commons accept this as is or does it need OTRS verification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Image definitely existed on the source website (see here), but we would need either an indication of CC0 at the source passing license review, or COM:OTRS verification. I don't see any indication of a free license at the archived link above, though not all pages there got archived. But, it seems unlikely there was such a license there, given the copyright boilerplate at the bottom and the lack of anything else on the "Press Images" page linked above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This blog posting has an image that is probably from the same studio session. This is assigned the 'CC BY 2.5 MY' license, but we should not automatically accept licenses in blog postings. In a brief search I have found no images on the university's current website with free licenses, so there is reasonable doubt about the CC0 licence. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Verbcatcher: Thanks to both of you for taking a closer look at this. Do either of you think further discussion at COM:DRV is needed or would it be more appropriate to simply tag the file with {{Npd}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The tag would be appropriate, or DR if you prefer. I tend to prefer DRs for files in use since that provides a better record of why it was deleted, but it certainly qualifies for speedy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the resply Carl. I've nominated the file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tan Sri Sahol Hamid.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I can purchase the license for an image and would like to upload it

Hello. I am in contact with the license holder of an Image and could purchase the rights to publish it on wikipedia. How do I prove to wikimedia commons that I am allowed to do this? And is this even possible? The Image was previously published in various newspapers and online. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softbonk (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this type of thing, but I would personally be quite careful about something such as this. It could be a scam with the other person just claiming to be the copyright holder when they really are not. This is probably not as uncommon as it may seem because people, companies, and organizations sometimes claim copyright over files that they do not own the rights to at all.(See Commons:License laundering for some examples of this)
Anyway, Commons' licensing policy basically requires that any file uploaped to it be licensed in such a way that allows the file to be downloaded by anyone anywhere in the world to use in any manner (including commercially) they want, so you cannot try and limit the file's use to Wikipedia only. So, even if the person offering to sell you the rights is the original copyright holder (and that's a big if), uploading the file to Commons would basically mean giving away the image for free to anyone who wants it to use in anyway they want without needing your permission to do so. I'm pretty sure you would still retain the copyright on the image, but you would lose a fair amount of control over how it can be used and who can use it, which in turn may affect the value of the copyright to you. If, however, you are serious about doing something such as this, you probably should take a look at en:Copyright transfer agreement and Commons:Transfer of copyright for some general information and also COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? because you would likely be asked to provided proof of your ownership of the image's rights to OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Premier Kristina Keneally.jpg

No EXIF data and only file uploaded by account. File is claimed to be "own work", but I'm wondering if this should be OTRS verified. I couldn't find the file being used online anywhere, but it has the look of something taken at an official public appearance of some kind, perhaps by a member of her staff or the school she visited. Moreover, file was just uploaded which is more than ten years after it was supposed to have been taken. Note that there's a similar type of photo to this taken at a different school event held earlier the same year as can be seem here. Anyway, just wondering if assuming good faith is good enough for something such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hrm. It is also now the profile picture on the candidate's Facebook page (KristinaKeneallyLabor). This is a wider crop however, so the Facebook page is not the source (and given the size and upload date, they could have taken it from Commons, though that seems rather unlikely). Couldn't find it anywhere else on the net. Seems pretty likely it has been uploaded by her campaign. Not sure there are grounds for requiring OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Conydodo上傳的諸多圖片

Special:Contributions/Conydodo上傳的諸多圖片皆標示來源出自名人的Facebook和Twitter，或來自某新聞網站，應該全部都有版權上的疑慮，請審視，謝謝。 This person took a lot of pictures from Facebook and Twitter, most of them without authorization, please handle, thank you. Kerolf666 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A {{No permission}} tag is added to these photos. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Combining a Wikipedia screenshot with own photograph

As I want to show a comparison of German Wikipedia's main page in the desktop browser version and in the Wikipedia App, I created this image: File:Hauptseite 01 november 2017 desktop und app vergleich.jpg. It contains a screenshot of the desktop version and a photograph of my smartphone displaying the app. Not very good quality, granted, but it will do its job for the comparison. However, it took me much more time to think through and apply the correct licensing (I hope) than creating and uploading this image. The browser and phone screenshots contain a total of five embedded pictures (two of them are the same one), two of them are not PD and require separate attribution in derivative works, e.g. File:A selection of cucurbits from Alkmaar, The Netherlands 05.jpg. I found {{Pictures in Wikimedia screenshots}} and tried to use that for attribution; however, the template is not very sophisticated and doesn't allow actual inclusion of individual licensing templates (I would have liked to use the full {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1925}} from File:Illustration Bryonia alba0.jpg, but the template only allows for simple text in the "license" parameter). I also added {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} as well as {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} for the part containing my photograph of a mobile phone resp. my derivative work as a whole (I would have no problem with licensing my contribution to this "work" as PD, as there is very little creativity on my side involved, but I think this could lead to confusion). Well, what do you think of the result? Sufficient? Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

All those photos are Commons:De Minimis - they are small and unimportant as any photos can used instead of them. So, I think that you do not need attribute specifically all photos. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not quite sure - after all, part of the point of the comparison (in German Wikipedia's Kurier) is to show which exact photos were used (the manually selected pumpkin photo in the desktop version vs. the automatically selected first image from the article in the app version), so they're actually not replaceable for the purpose of this image. They're quite important. Therefore, I think it's better to attribute the photos. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at an example shown in Commons:De Minimis (a photo of an airliner cabin with some images on screens), you will find that your situations is practically the same. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No, those d minimis photos were not the intended focus, and not included intentionally and had no way to be excleuded from the photos. In screeshots (and simialar photos), de minimis does not applly. De minimis is not a messurment of percentage of the overall image, but weiter o not they were intentionally included or not, and if the photo would be the same without them. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
That's how I see it, yes. The photo of the airliner cabin wouldn't be substantially different with other (or no) images on the screens, they're not what the photo "is about", so the screen images are de minimis. In my Wikipedia screenshot, however, the images are part of what the screenshot "is about" (they're part of the very reason I took the screenshot), so they can't be de minimis. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This does not make any sense. The photo in the screenshot is random and replaceable with any other image. And what this photo shows is irrelevant. Ruslik (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't (in this case). As soon as you specifically want to show a particular part of an image (with a photo or a screenshot), that part can no longer be de minimis. The pumpkin photo in the screnshot is relevant in a discussion about differences of the main page layout in desktop view (with the manually chosen photo for the featured article) and in app view (with the automatically chosen first image from the article). So, the photo isn't "random and replaceable with any other image" at all for this purpose of discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Images From Flickr

What images from Flickr can be added to Wikipedia. As I understand, Non-commercial no-derivatives copyright restrictions don't suffice. Despite it being released under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. To replace the file, would this image be appropriate Bob Collymore ICT authority The image was shared by ICT authority Kenya which is a governmental body in Kenya. It's licensed under Creative Commons by 2.0. The image marked for deletion due to the Non-commercial no-derivatives copyright is Bob Collymore Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelost byte (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Thelost byte (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Flickr license for "Bob Collymore ICT authority" appears to be {{Cc-by-2.0}} which is acceptable for Commons per COM:CC#by (Attribution), so it should be OK to upload as long as you are sure that the Flickr account holder and the person who holds the copyright on the photo are one and the same. Some Flickr users upload images whose copyright is actually held by someone else, so you need to be careful of Flickr washing. I've seen some instances where a Commons bot verifies a Flickr license as being OK, only for the file to be deleted per COM:DR because of Fickr washing. So, this is one thing you need to be aware of when it comes to Flickr. The Flickr account is under the name ICT Authority, but typically it is the person who actually takes the photo who holds the copyright on it. So, I'm not sure if that makes a difference when it comes to this particular photo. It might be sufficient to assume that someone working for ICT Authority took the photo, but further verification might also be needed per COM:OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Social Media Phone.jpg

Is File:Social Media Phone.jpg acceptable as de minimis? Or can we host it at all? (note that the Facebook logo is too simple for copyright). -Animalparty (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, both the Instagram and the Twitter logo are above the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US and are not de minimis as showing these social media apps (including Facebook, which, as you mentioned, is below TOO) are the central focus of the photo and primary purpose of this file (as can be readily determined from the file name and description "Social Media"). I've nominated the file for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Top 10 designer dresses at Miss World 2015.jpg

This image (with the Beauty Crown LVKA water mark in bottom right) looks as suspect as all the other images that User:Sarangsarangsarang11 has uploaded this month: File:Duuchin Otgonjargal.jpg, File:Miss Tourism Queen International 2016 winner.jpg & File:Otgonjargal Davaasuren.jpg . With Beauty Crown LVKA being such a prolific publisher of Miss World images I can't find a match of previously published images there are just too many to search through. Any ideas, as this uploader's history of copyvios suggests a permanent ban this time around. For the curious... Sarangsarangsarang appears to be the English pronunciation of 사랑사랑사랑 ( Love, Love, Love) and a popular pseudonym, so we must be careful not to get him confused with anyone else. P.g.champion (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yes, certainly not OK. User blocked: no useful edit, only copyvios. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Here we have an upload of the Twitterbird. Does this image pass Commons:Threshold of originality, making it copyrighted art? Alternatively, does it meet {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-logo}}, making it public domain and eligible for upload into Wikimedia Commons along with the {{Trademark}} template?

I know that this bird has been deleted 100+ times, and maybe 1000+ times. Just the same, I would like to question its copyright status and how the Wikimedia Commons community determined it.

Previous discussions

Guidance from Twitter

Twitter publishes usage guidelines for their trademarks on their website. They also present a text work which they call the "terms of use". I looked this over. In this text, I see some trademark guidelines but no mention of the copyright of the logo. There is a mention that Twitter has copyrighted works in the ToS, but that could be anything. In various Wikimedia Commons copyright discussions many people link to this trademark guidance from Twitter, but so far as I can tell, no one has pointed to anything in this text about copyright. Anyone could write them at trademarks‎@twitter‎.com for clarity. To date I am not aware that anyone has.

Summary of previous deletion rationales

  • Some users claim that the twitterbird image is beyond the the Commons:Threshold of originality and is therefore eligible for copyright. Wikimedia Commons cannot host this image until and unless Twitter grants a free copyright license.
  • Some users claim that the twitterbird image is not beyond the Commons:Threshold of originality and is therefore ineligible for copyright. Wikimedia Commons can host this image without permission from Twitter or anyone else because it is in the public domain.
  • Some users claim that Twitter's trademark guidelines prohibit misuse as a trademark. They go on to argue that Wikimedia Commons requires trademark release so we have to delete this. This is flatly incorrect - Wikimedia Commons judges copyright and not trademark. Commons will host content which is copyright compliant, regardless of trademark status.

Discussion

The Apple logo is of similar complexity to the Twitter bird. The US Copyright Office has said that the Apple logo is too simple to qualify for copyright protection.
  • Keep, public domain, ineligible for copyright The bird is a simple geometric shape which conforms to {{PD-shape}}. The twitterbird is measured and designed like any logo would be, but copyright in the United States is a system for protecting creative works beyond a threshhold of originality and does not protect en:sweat of the brow for arrangements of simple geometric shapes. In 2016 the United States Copyright Office denied a copyright registration by Apple which sought to assert copyright over a variant of their "Apple" logo. In fact, the Apple "Apple" is too simple to qualify for copyright, and the Twitter bird is no more complicated than the apple is. Both Apple and Twitter made their logo by measuring shapes in about the same number of steps and I have the opinion that a copyright office ruling for the one is sufficient evidence to justify a Commons upload for the other, until and unless someone raises a justification to distinguish them as art.
Like all the online communication platforms, Twitter itself encourages anyone and everyone to republish and reuse their logo, and in all of their published guidance, they make no assertion of copyright for the twitterbird. It does not make sense to me that Twitter could simultaneously assert and defend copyright claims on this bird, while also aggressively encouraging the distribution and dissemination of the art on every website, while also not granting any copyright permission or license for reuse, while also making every organization in the world comfortable to republish the logo if anyone felt legally vulnerable about a copyright violation. I am unable to find proof anywhere that Twitter grants copyright permission to anyone to use this art. Twitter's active distribution of the art is not proof of public domain status but all this republishing is consistent with universal treatment of the logo being ineligible for copyright and all the users' presumption that they are not infringing copyright by using it without copyright permission or a copyright license from twitter.
I could be mistaken about any or all of this. Can anyone point to any evidence of a copyright claim from Twitter, like a US Copyright Office registration or Twitter's claim for the same? Is anyone aware of Twitter ever doing a DCMA or other takedown request for the copyright of its art? Is there some historic conversation in Wikimedia Commons which already went over this and established the copyright? Is there some reason why it is clear that the twitterbird passes threshhold of originality, or is this a matter of Wikimedia Commons amateur opinion? Commons amateurs are usually right, but just the same, I want to check in for opinions here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a good case study. My literal reading of {{PD-shape}} is that the Twitter logo and the Apple icon are more than a couple of simple geometric shapes, and a copyrightable creative work. However the Apple icon ruling does put a dent in our simplistic interpretation, so there is doubt over whether there is "significant doubt". However, this is a liminal case and there would have to be a set of good legal examples to shift the definition of PD-shape to include any silhouette style logo made of a series of non-simple geometric shapes or curves. Comparing the Apple icon to the Twitter logo, the only creative part of the Apple icon is the curves that are the top and bottom of the apple, those curves are not a regular polygon or simple cropped ellipses. However the Twitter logo is more complex, with a series cropped and intersected ellipses needed to reproduce the bird. Consequently precautionary principle leads us to stay on the side of caution and  Delete as the two cases are sufficiently different in nature to introduce doubt, and in the light of how recognizable the logo is, we have to consider it significant doubt. BTW, this thread is too long, and it would be a morning's hard work to read through the DRs listed as prior discussion. There's enough here to create a summary essay to inform the templates, even a very specific essay would be a good way of having one maintained place to keep the Commons cases and legal precedent together. It's not realistic to expect unpaid volunteers to keep going around this loop. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delete I think Fæ says it well. I might argue from a human perspective, the apple is a simple "geometric" shape, much like the fleur-de-lis, but however you cut it, it's easy to argue that Apple's logo is on one side of the line and Twitter's the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delete IMHO the bird is over the line, I can draw the apple logo without giant problems using MS Paint ;-) or even as a pencil sketch by hand. The Twitter bird takes a lot more effort. In addition, the apple logo is a logo made of two generic shapes, an apple and a segment of a circle. Twitter has many more shapes, more difficult shapes. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delete The Apple logo has a clear TOO-status since we have been given "words about it" from the USCO, the Twitter logo however is still open for interpretations, and my interpretation is that it is above that threshold. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delete The apple is not an inherently simple shape, however, a basic silhouette of an apple has been used for a long time, and the corporate version really isn't all that different other than the bite. So, you could argue that it is a minor variation on a basically standard shape. If you search on Google images, you will see a lot of results of the corporate logo, but you will also see regular common icons of an apple which are of a very similar style. The specific shape is obviously its own trademark, but copyright is harder. There is also a high probability it was published without a copyright notice before 1989. While bird silhouettes are common, they vary a lot more -- a similar search shows a lot different results, and you really can't call Twitter's a small variation a bunch of existing ones -- it pretty much stands on its own as a separate work to me. Much more complex, and many more lines unique to that specific drawing. Secondly, Twitter has four copyrights on "Twitter Bird Logo 1" through "Twitter Bird Logo 4". VA0001939828 (2009), VA0001950612 (2010), VA0001939830 (2010), and VA0001950611 (2012). Per this article, the logo here dates from 2012, and they had earlier variations. I would assume this is the Twitter Bird 4 and that the Copyright Office agreed that it is above the threshold, and accepted a registration for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Resolved

I appreciate all the responses and am satisfied by the outcome of this discussion. There is agreement that twitter has a copyright for the twitterbird. Here are some points that stood out to me in the feedback:

  • Carl identified a US Copyright office registration for the art. To me, this is the most persuasive supporting evidence, because so far as I know, Commons has never argued against their judgement.
  • I like Carl's argument about the silhouette of an apple being more like other apple icons than the twitter bird is like other bird silhouettes. I find that argument persuasive. That argument seems to not be in the US Copyright office evaluation, even though it seems to me like a good argument for them to make.
  • Fae said that this could be a case study. I agree and perhaps someday this conversation can be part of that.
  • Prosfilaes and Hedwig both seem to say that the apple is obviously simpler and the twitter bird is obviously more complicated. I acknowledge that but based on the drawing procedures in the link that Carl and I both shared, I disagree, because the digital drawings of each appear to take about the same number of algorithmic steps. If threshold of originality could be measured by counting lines of code or steps in a procedure, I think these are the same. I can agree that by the standards of a human tracing an approximation, the apple seems simpler. I am not sure how I feel about making judgements based on steps versus human ability to describe.
  • Jonatan has been great to work on both this and the related project at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png.

Thanks everyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not that the apple is obviously simpler; note that I compared it to the fleur-de-lis (e.g. File:Azulejos Portugueses - 123 (6970734985).jpg), which is not a simple shape, but one so standard that it's hard to sustain copyright based on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The Copyright Office says, among other things, that common symbols and shapes, such as a spade, club, heart, diamond, star, yin yang, or fleur de lys are not protectable. I would say the basic apple silhouette is at this point a "common symbol" even though it's not exactly a *simple* shape. The New Orleans Saints tried to copyright their logo -- a fleur de lys -- and that was rejected. My Google searches were to show how similar many different representations of an apple are, and if a particular graphic is just a "minor variation" of one of those, it may not be eligible for copyright. The Twitter bird though is much further from any common ground of a bird depiction, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Spain license

The owner of this site clearly wants to make the pictures on the site widely available for non-commercial use on most liberal terms explained on the link. At the bottom of the page we read "This work is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Spain license." Is there any way that one can take advantage of this liberal permission and place a photo from this website into Wikipedia? What tag would I use? Jzsj (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons does not accept non-commercial or non-derivative CC licenses such as the one on that website per COM:CC. All files have to be uploaded under a license which allows unrestrictive use for any purpose, including commercial or for derivatives. It might be possible to upload the file locally to one of the various Wikipedias per COM:FAIR#"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects, but not all Wikipedias accept non-free content and those that do tend to have quite restrictive policies on how such content may be used. Information on English Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use can be found at en:WP:NFC and en:WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Carleton Ravens logo.svg

Can this be accepted as {{PD-textlogo}}? It kinda looks like it might be either really close or above COM:TOO#Canada and it doesn't really look like a pure text logo at all with the raven imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably yes as it is in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Ruslik0, but en:Carleton University is a Canadian university; it's not located in the USA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
In terms of Canadian law, the logo does seem "non-obvious" and not "so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise".
Our TOO section on Canada looks like it was out of date. In 2014 it was defined explicitly in terms of "an exercise of skill and judgment. By skill, I mean the use of one’s knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work. By judgment, I mean the use of one’s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work." IMO this would pass that threshold. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this file Rhododendrites. Do you think this should be further discussed at COM:DR or is it a candidate for speedy deletion per COM:FU? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: IMO probably DR, since it doesn't seem like an "obvious" judgment. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Openreach.svg

Is it safe to assume this is below c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom? The UK has a much lower TOO than the US which is why en:File:New Openreach Logo.jpg is only being treated as PD in the US for English Wikipedia. If the Commons version is OK, I can convert the licensing for the local file and tag it for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be surprised to see an argument that this meets even the low threshold of originality set in the UK -- just some text in a basic font. Assuming, however, that it does meet the threshold in the UK, but does in the US, I was under the impression that Commons would still host it with the obligatory tags/warnings. I hope someone better versed in TOO than I will clarify. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe Commons only accepts files which a clearly "free" in both their country of origin and the United States, which is probably why Wikipedia uses en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for some files uploaded locally. Again, I'm not sure whether the logo is PD in the UK, mainly because of the en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg example given in COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but there's no need for Wikipedia not to treat essentially the same logo the same way if it is. I'll also try asking about this at en:WP:MCQ or en:WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure a word mark in a standard font would not be copyrightable in the UK -- there was some online guidance to that effect at one point, but can't find it at the moment. The EDGE logo case specifically called out that the two Es had been specially modified for the logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

2 dimensional image of a flag from the 1700s / PD-art?

This section was archived on a request by: Offnfopt(talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bedford library has a flag from the 1700s, a image of the flag can be seen here. I've edited that image to make it as 2 dimensional as I can (though someone else may be able to do a better job). You can see the edited image here File:Bedford Flag at Bedford Library.png. I've uploaded the image under the assertion of the expired copyright of the flags design and based on the statements of {{PD-art}}.

I know this works for images of 2 dimensional art like paintings, my question is if this assertion will hold up for a flag and more specifically the way this image of the flag was edited. Should this file be in the clear regarding copyright or should I request the file get deleted? - Offnfopt(talk) 19:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is okay. This flag is inherently a 2D work and any 3D elements, that remain after cropping, like rough edges or tears are de minimis in this context. Ruslik (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik0 thanks for your insight, much appreciated. - Offnfopt(talk) 22:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Lord Edmund Davies.jpg

I suspect that File:Lord Edmund Davies.jpg is a copyright violation and that claimed author is not the photographer of the original image. This is a photograph of Lord Edmund Davies (1906-1992) that was probably taken in the 1960s. It has the look of a press photograph, although it is a photograph of a photographic print, not of a picture in a newspaper. It is the first upload of a new contributor and I cannot find the image online. Should we give the uploader the benefit of the doubt or nominate this for deletion? Or should this be handled in another way? (Alerting Rainich, the uploader) Verbcatcher (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is under the crown copyright, it may be in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no indication that this is Crown Copyright, and this would contradict the uploader's claim. I am seeking guidance from the community on the threshold to be reached before a suspicious file should be nominated for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
As a photo of an existing picture, I tend to agree that the stated license is invalid, and even if it is technically valid, it would only cover the photographer's part of a PD-Art situation in the UK. We need to know something about the underlying work. Where is it located, etc. I can't find anything online for it. Crown Copyright is a distinct possibility (probably the only one where we could keep it), but we need something concrete to base that on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Captain George "Cap" Wellington Streeter.JPG

Can Commons can keep this as licensed even though there is no freedom of panorama for 3D works in the United States per c:COM:FOP#United States? There is no information provided about the copyright status of the statue in en:George Streeter. Streeter may have died in 1921, but might have been created/installed at a much later date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it was installed in 2010. So, it is a new work and therefore can not be hosted by Commons without a permission from the sculptor. Ruslik (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that link Ruslik. I have started a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Captain George "Cap" Wellington Streeter.JPG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Amphiprion chrysopterus1.jpg

Hi every body! I've started a DR for the file which I believe to be non-free. I meant to gather a broader view on this issue. Thanks, --Mhhossein talk 11:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A messy one. I emailed the author. We'll see if he replies. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  18:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Flickr PD photograph

I transferred File:Keaton Jennings batting for Durham CCC.jpg with flickr2commons as it was the only free image I could find anywhere to crop and help with this request: [4] at the en Graphics lab. I assumed it would be ok, since it appears to me to be the work of the Flickr user, and was marked PD. However, the review bot doesn't like that, and I'm not sure how to proceed.
Can an appropriate tag be applied, and if so, what (perhaps {{pd-author}} because on his Flickr user page he says "I love taking photos of varied subjects with my Nikon D3200m" which matches the EXIF, and he has tagged the image PD)? I have asked the Flickr user via Flickr mail if he would be prepared to add a CC license, but don't know when or if he will respond, so I'm looking for guidance on the assumption he may not respond. -- Begoon 23:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The text you are seeing in the license section is from {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, the result of past discussions on Commons regarding how deal to deal with images at Flickr that are identified with the Creative Commons "Public Domain Mark". Unlike CC0 or the other Creative Commons licenses, the Public Domain Mark is not a legal instrument; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement, and in of itself is not sufficient to release a modern work into the public domain (and in some jurisdictions this isn't actually possible). CC says of the PDM "It should only be used to label a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world, typically very old works. It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work." In the situation where a Flickr user has erroneously indicated via Public Domain Mark that the copyright to their own modern work has expired, I've seen good success with asking them (either via mail or comment) to relicense the image with CC0 or some other CC license. It may help to point them to Flickr's "Manage your photos' licenses" page that explains how to change the license on a photo. —RP88 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, well as I mentioned, I've already asked them if they would be prepared to do that, so I'll wait for a response. -- Begoon 01:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Asking them to fix the license is probably the best you can do. Generally Commons has treated obviously modern Flickr files with a PDM as non-free if their license on Flickr isn't updated (and it wasn't PD for some other reason) although, if I recall correctly, exceptions have been made in the past. For example, Commons might keep such a file if the Flickr user was from a country that permitted authors to release works into the public domain (e.g, there is legal precent for this in the US, but may not be possible for authors in Germany, etc.) and there was evidence that the choice of PDM instead of CC0 was a misunderstanding on the part of the Flickr user (i.e. there was other evidence that the uploader intended to waive their copyright, perhaps by virtue of a public domain statement in their profile or file description). —RP88 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
the dictatorial reign continues. outsiders are astonished that a claim of "public domain" should be disparaged here. let the wiki'splaining continue. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't personally put it quite that way, but I will confess that it does seem a little silly to me that we deny ourselves the use of content such as this, where the author's intent is so clear. I haven't received a response to my request yet, so it looks like the file may be deleted and I'll be unable to help the editor looking for an article image, which is a shame. Never mind. -- Begoon 23:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
To me, if we are fairly sure the Flickr user is the author, a public domain mark is good enough. If someone puts on their website, "I place these in the public domain", we accept that -- so a statement like that must have legal effect. I don't see this as being all that different. Using CC-Zero is of course better, if they can be convinced to change to that, but I think the PD mark should be enough. It is basically {{PD-author}} to me. That tag should not be auto-transferrable by Flickr bots, as additional research should be done on anything marked that way, but PD-author should be a reasonable result of that research, to me. That Flickr author has several more shots taken with the same camera from the same angle in the stands, so I think it's fairly obvious they are the author and have rights to license it (or place in the public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, it would be a far better practice to put in a maintenance category, and council the flickr uploader. there is a lot of ignorance of licenses, and naive people think "public domain" says it all. we should not delete good faith mistakes, but such is the culture of exclusion - "why waste time wiki'splaining when you can delete". it is a failure of empathy, and a lost opportunity to reach out to potential good faith contributors. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Lily Afshar.jpg

I've sought for the origin of this file and the result showed that it was first published in 2008 with the oldest being here. Is there any views on this? --Mhhossein talk 11:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The 2008 results there were a much smaller resolution than what is here, so they were not the source. With Google Images, the earliest I could find this file size elsewhere is 2010, which is after upload here. The uploader also knew the photographer's name. Seems pretty likely the upload details are accurate, and no reason to think it was copied from elsewhere. The main question is if their license included the right to further license it to others (i.e. was their license an exclusive license, which would effectively have been a copyright transfer). It's been here for eight years without complaint it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploading a photo.

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/1805000/1805147.grid-4x2.jpg I'm not sure if I can upload this photo or not on the commons. This picture was taken at a parole hearing that the person had had in 1987. It was taken by a photographer from the LA Times who's dead now. Help! JerrySa1 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

if a work for hire, NBC would still have copyright. you could try a google image search for the incarcerated, and upload a "fair use" on english, subject to the whims there. welcome to the world that deletes photos of living people. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I can't find many other pictures of said person, except this, taken from an LA Times Article. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3357349576_e26de64859_o.gif JerrySa1 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
for living people, you are going to have to farm flickr for the right license, or upload your own photo with a CC license. there is a reason, we do not have photos of north koreans or macarthur fellows. even dead people "fair use" images get deleted. so it goes. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Romanian People's Salvation Cathedral

With no freedom of panorama for buildings in Romania, I suspect a lot of Category:Romanian People's Salvation Cathedral is problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Since it's been over a day with no comment, let me clarify. I'm looking for comment from someone who is more knowledgeable than I am about the copyright status of these. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Rocht 1.jpg & File:Teol.jpg

Both images don't appear to have been taken by this uploader, so they need an OTRS. They are only used on Lrocht's vanity Draft page, which he created, about himself. Here: Lrocht/Testes. P.g.champion (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

They may be selfies taken with the camera mounted on a monopod. They do not look professional. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Elle Me Dit Mika.jpg

The single cover of "Elle Me Dit" by Mika is tagged as ineligible for copyright in the US. However, the release was digital, and it was physically released in France. Also, it was not charted in the US. However, the distributor is the US multinational company, Universal Music Group. Is the image subject to the US jurisdiction or the EU one? George Ho (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The cover art itself (as opposed to the music) is what's ineligible for copyright because it doesn't pass a "threshold of originality" (or so it has been argued by whoever put that tag there -- and I would be inclined to agree). Same reason many companies' wordmark/logos are able to be hosted here. See COM:TOO. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Election posters of the Netherlands

Hello 👋🏻 everyone,

Are election posters of the Netherlands protected by copyright © or not? If the photograph is from a certain distance would it then fall under de minimis or are they always protected by copyright ©? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern posters are always protected by copyright unless released by the creator (explicitly, with the exception of US Government posters and a few others). Anything can be de minimis, but not if you're photographing it, as opposed to just happening to capture it in the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I got a more detailed answer in Commons:De Kroeg so this section is resolved. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Maxresdefault.png - simple logo?

Is this logo File:Maxresdefault.png simple enough to be tagged as PD? Otherwise it would probably need to be removed (the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright owner). It also needs a better filename, but I wanted to check the copyright first. GermanJoe (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is stylized 'VTV8'. It is simple enough and is probably not copyrightable in USA. In Vietnam I do not know. Although the copyright law there should be similar to that of France. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I agree (Vietnam/France looks OK too in my opinion), and have retagged the file as "PD-Trademark-Text-Logo" accordingly. Rename pending. GermanJoe (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Fernandes Burny BG-125X.jpg

I'm not sure how a file like this should be licensed, but "own work" seems inappropriate unless the uploader actually designed/created the guitar. There's no EXIF data provided so it's not clear whether this a is photo taken by the uploader, perhaps the guitar was displayed somewhere, or if it's something found online. Can Commons keep this file as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"own work" is an entirely appropriate license for a photo of a guitar (a 3D object). I am more worried about a copyright over the guitar design. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, but that was what I was getting at about "own work" being possibly inappropriate. If the uploader took the photo, then sure they can claim it as own work; just not sure about the copyright status of the guitar or its design. Could they be possibly treated as COM:TOYS or even COM:PACKAGING? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Given the Ets Hokin decision, where a photograph of a bottle with a copyrightable label was ruled not derivative of the label unless focused on it particularly (and a similar Latimer v Roaring Toyz case, which was a photo of a motorcycle with a painted graphic on it), I don't think the photo is derivative of the painted design. I'm more concerned that looks like a product photo (similar guitars for sale here here and here among many others). But I can't find a source on the web, and it's certainly possible for someone to take such a photo and white out the background. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks for taking a look. Do you feel we can just assume good faith here that uploader did take the photo, or would it be better to DR the file to get more feedback? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't like starting a DR without any concrete evidence, or at least a pattern of problems. In looking more closely, the same uploader did File:Tama H-YKB.JPG, which they clearly took (uploaded same day as taken) which had a whited-out background, so they have done similar things before. They look like a fairly consistent contributor over a long period of time. So yes, I would assume good faith. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for the added clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Better looking Super Nintendo Entertainment System logo?

I have recreated the Super Nintendo Entertainment System logo SVG in better visual quality than the one currently on Commons, available on request. Is it allowed to be uploaded to replace the existing SNES logo? If not, may we replace it with one cropped from the one on Nintendo's Super NES Classic Edition site? Apollolux (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You can upload your svg image under a different name and then replace the logo that is currently used with it (consulting the local communities first). Ruslik (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That sounds groovy, but I want to double-check the legality of putting the recreation of the work onto Commons or simply Wikipedia. During its original usages a ® accompanied it as well and Nintendo has historically been a litigious company, so I'm more than a little concerned that a logo recreation with this much accuracy (either my own or the SNES Classic version) may or may not even be allowed on WP or Commons. Apollolux (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
® means trademark. However Commons is not concerned with trademarks but only with copyright. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded it here. I hope it's allowed and once approved I'll ask each of the pages using the original logo if it can be replaced with this one. If any changes to license or whatever are needed I'll be happy to do them. Apollolux (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Photography in Positano

Press reports indicate that the Italian town of Positano is introducing a €1,000 charge for photography for commercial purposes. Reported in La Repubblica (in Italian), The Times (paywall), secondary reports at [5] and [6]. It seems likely that that photographers will be unable to release photographs under Commons-compatible licenses without paying this charge. This looks like a tourist resort shooting itself in the foot. Will we be able to ignore these rules? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We at Commons will ignorere these COM:HOUSERULES. However, photographers “beware”. (Regular non-FOP rules still applies though). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
From the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, it seems more that they want to tax the crews filming movies or adverts. In any case, it changes nothing, as Josve05 said. --Ruthven (msg) 08:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"tourist resort shooting itself in the foot." on the contrary, a tax on commercial reuse, while allowing NC sharing, seems not to have affected Sweden at all. think of it like all the SA, that everyone ignores. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:AMDA Logo.png

The file was uploaded as "own work" by someone who appears to be connected to the school based upon en:Talk:American Musical and Dramatic Academy. The file is most likely simple enough for {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO#United States, and is being used at amda.edu. Is there any reason why the licensing should not be converted to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably change it. We would need OTRS evidence for the license, though for the U.S. at least there is nothing to license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Files's licensing was changed to PD by a Wikipedia admin, so this appears to have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Animated structural formula

An image of a standard chemical structural formula is not copyrightable ({{PD-chem}}), but what about a basic animation of the same? See e.g. File:Bisphenol A Animation.ogg. Is there sufficient originality in the creation of the movement/display? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

An animated image is probably copyrightable, because the animated movements are creative contributions by the animator. There is a parallel with photographs of public domain works of art: accurate reproductions of 2D works of art do not create new copyright (see {{PD-Art}}), but photographs of sculpture are copyrightable, presumably because of the greater creative contribution of the photographer.
However, File:Bisphenol A Animation.ogg does not appear to be a problem, and the {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} licence looks ok. The source flickr page mentions 'ezgif.com-video-to-gif', but this is a file conversion tool[7] and not the source of the animation. My only cause for concern is the flickr user could have copied the animation from a non-free source. This possibility is slightly increased by this being the only upload of this user to flickr. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Just to be clear, I don't think there's a problem with that example image. The question just occurred to me as I was looking at it. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Marked as 'own work'

User Shahmirani has uploaded some photos probably taken from a photo album marking them as PD. Some one please check if the file can be marked as own work. I've already one of them. --Mhhossein talk 17:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Edward chef.jpg & File:Edward sonal.jpg

Despite warnings, this editor keeps uploading copyvios. Suggest it is time for a block. P.g.champion (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @P.g.champion and Jeff G.: this board is for advice on copyright issues not for taking action on files or users. If you believe the files should be deleted you need to make a file deletion request, if you believe admin action needs to be taken against the user, post at the administrator noticeboard (link at the top of this page). - Offnfopt(talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
09:30, 30 November 2017 Taivo (talk | contribs) blocked Rashkeqamar (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:GobiernoEspaña

Hi all, I'd like to restart a discussion on the template mentioned in the subject. There has been previous discussions on the topic in here (@Sgconlaw and Pere prlpz: ) and here (@Martin H.: ). Just to refresh its status, there was a change in the wording in the licensing conditions and it was decided that only images uploaded between 2007 May 26 and 2012 November 26 can be uploaded to commons. Nothing has changed in the meantime, but I'd like to provide again the current legal conditions in the site the template refers to (from here):

The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. Images marked "Pool Moncloa" are freely accessible.
The reproduction of any content must take place under the following terms:
  • It is not permitted to distort the content of the information.
  • The user must cite the source and the date of the documents subject to reproduction.

These conditions were deemed as not compatible with Commons licensing policies. However, there are similar conditions that are being currently considered as valid. For instance, see {{Attribution-gencat}}. In there, the conditions are pretty much the same:

The legal notice permits the reproduction, distribution and public communication of the work and, furthermore, the transformation of the work in order to make derived works, for everyone and without time limits, and provided that it does not contradict any license or notice that a work may hold. The following conditions must be followed:
  • Not distort the meaning of the information. (see moral rights)
  • Always quote the source of the information.
  • State the date of the latest update of the information

This template has been requested to be deleted (see here) and the result was, as you can see, Keep (on the ground that the "distortion" clause refers to moral rights).

Therefore, I'd like to get a new community opinion on the status of {{GobiernoEspaña}} as, to my understanding, the current licensing conditions are perfectly valid and therefore any image from the site, provided that it's been created by the Government of Spain, can be uploaded to commons under an attribution license. Thanks --Discasto talk 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that is a free license. The "distort" clause is, as usual, referring to moral rights -- made clear in this case by the preceding clause which explicitly allows derivative works, so there can be no doubt here. It sounds like the 2012 decision was purely because commercial use was not explicitly mentioned, which I think is too high a standard. To be "free", commercial use must be allowed, of course. But there is nothing that says a license much mention that by name -- but rather, simply that the terms of the license allows it. They explicitly say "for everyone", which encompasses all users, anyways. Technically, a license that does not explicitly restrict by commercial use (or other user-based restriction) basically does allow commercial use, since they are not limiting the license. It's just that many informal license statements become problematic, because not everyone really thinks through the implications when they make such statements, and may not have really meant to allow such use (leading to problems). However, careful institutions where such language has been passed by lawyers would not make mistakes like that -- so in those cases, to me, if it appears like an unfettered license with no restrictions on commercial use or derivative works, then they are allowed. In this case, derivative works are explicitly allowed, and the license is also given to "everyone", which is more explicit than many, so I think it should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, if both governmental templates have the same conditions there is no reason to keep one as invalid. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cookie and Clindberg: Discussion hasn't been massive but, in fact, no opposition has been raised. I'll let the topic open for some days and, if no further discussion takes place, I'll refurbish the template and ask for restoration of images deleted on the grounds of no proper permission. As far as I understand, the template must be a variation of {{Attribution}}, musn't it? --Discasto talk 09:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Template should have the exact language they give at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Right @Clindberg: and since the wording of the Spanish Government is the same as the Generalitat, the template should be an exact (or almost exact) copy of the {{Attribution-gencat}}. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
One week seems to be enough. I'll rework the template and ask for undeletion. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cookie: ¿Puedes desproteger todas las páginas que cuelgan de {{PD-La Moncloa}} para que pueda moverlas. Gracias --Discasto talk 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done @Discasto: Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Cookie: Faltan dos: Template:PD-La Moncloa/lang y Template:PD-La Moncloa/layout --Discasto talk 19:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done @Discasto: Se me pasaron, sorry. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/11&oldid=557561651"