Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/03

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

US publishers were often not terribly careful with regard to copyright notices, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. I have been wondering whether the cover images for paperback books reprinting previously published texts would be free of copyright / public domain in these situations (assuming publication in the US during the time when a notice was required, and assuming that the reprint does not carry the original cover, which may be covered under the original publication copyrights.):

  1. The text is public domain, and there is no copyright notice. I assume this is an easy case, and that lack of notice places the cover in the public domain.
  2. The text is public domain, and while there is a copyright notice for other content (eg, Introduction Copyright 195x by Arthur Academic), there is no copyright notice for the cover.
  3. The text is not public domain, and the book includes only a copyright notice for the original author, carrying the original publication date.
  4. The text is not public domain; the book includes a copyright notice for the original author, carrying the original publication date; and while there is a copyright notice for other content (eg, Introduction Copyright 195x by Arthur Academic), there is no copyright notice for the cover.

My thoughts are that in all four of these cases, the publisher's failure to attach a proper copyright notice means that the cover is irrevocably in the public domain. I understand that it's necessary to inspect the book itself carefully, to assure that there is no notice on the cover itself, as opposed to an internal page. What thoughts do others have? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Only case #1 could be hosted on Commons. In case #2, copyright notice for other content is sufficient to have that edition carry copyright (copyright notice usually is on title page or page after as required by law). 3 and 4 are covered as derivative works of copyrighted material. @Clindberg: to check though. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the copyright notice can be for the collective work containing the text, illustrations, front/back matter, covers, etc. A copyright notice on a collective work covers all contained works (even if the named copyright owner is wrong for a particular contained work). It would only be a straight-up missing copyright notice (which I would think would be very rare for books) which would lose copyright. Any contained work can have its own copyright notice, but it's not required. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"public domain mark 1.0" images

What's the current status of these, are they acceptable on Commons? I found a whole lot of stuff from a while back and (a) find it incomprehensible, and (b) not sure if it is up to date. If they are acceptable here, I'd like to add this photo from Flickr. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: No, they are not acceptable per COM:PDM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @MPF: maybe, maybe not. In itself the PDM is not a licence; it basically says somebody thinks the content is PD. There may well be good reason, or it may have been the creator’s intent to use the mark as a release, but it’s still the uploader’s responsibility to provide the rationale or evidence and tag the file accordingly.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy between license and photo description on Flickr?

We have a lot of pictures that were transferred from the Otterbein University Theatre & Dance on Flickr that are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. However, the description for many of the photos says that "Photos are for personal use - may not be published without permission of the photographer." See File:Spitfire Grill (15610351164).jpg, for example. What should we do in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Flickrmail the Flickr uploader and ask.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've contacted the user and am awaiting their response. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Babar

Hello. Histoire de Babar is a children's book published in France in 1931. Its author, Jean de Brunhoff, died in 1937. In France, it is in the PD since 1st January 2008. I wonder if it is still protected in the US and, if yes, until when. In 1933, an English translation was published in the US by Harrison Smith and Robert Haas and it had a copyright notice. On January 1, 1996 (URAA date for France), I think the book was not in the PD yet in France. At that time, the copyright term in France was only 50 years pma, but there was also a wartime extension of 8 years and 120 days for works published before January 1, 1948. So the works of an author who died in 1937 were protected until approximately 29 April 1996, so just a bit after the URAA date. So I think the copyright of the 1931 book was restored. Is it correct? If yes, until when the protection will last in the US? 2027 (95 years after 1931) or 2029 (95 years after 1933)? I think that the only copyright tag that we can use for the moment on the pages of images from this book is {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1937}}. Am I right? Thank you for your help. BrightRaven (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

1937 death is close to the URAA date as you say. @Yann: URAA protection for the French version would last until January 1, 2027. (English translated version would have its own copyright and would not be affected by URAA, that would be until 2029 as you say). Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
So, as the images are identical in both versions, the images will be in the PD in the US in 2027, even if the English version is protected until 2029. BrightRaven (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the 120 days of the extension are added -- but it looks like de Brunhoff died in October 1937, so even if you start adding the days from that date, it would still push over into early 1996. Additionally, works which were scheduled to become PD on January 1 1996 itself are a bit ambiguous in France -- their 1997 law may have allowed penalties for people who started using such works in 1996, since it was known at that point that the works would shortly be re-copyrighted. Works which expired in 1995 or before were explicitly fine per that law. Either way, yes, I would think that they were still copyrighted in France on January 1, 1996, meaning its U.S. copyright would have been restored. The copyright on the original book would last in the U.S. until 2027 (95 years after publication). The English translation is a derivative work, and it was renewed in 1960, so the translation's copyright (or any expression added in 1933) would last until 2029. If the illustrations in the 1933 book were identical to the ones in 1931, there is no additional copyright on them. The 9th circuit may have a different take on that, due to their Twin Books ruling, but Commons does not follow that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. So I will place {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1937}} on all the images from this book. No PD-US tag can be added before 2027. BrightRaven (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictures of artworks in French museums (database: art.rmngp.fr): is it possible to use them on wikipedia?

I'm gathering historical pictures for the category https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Musketeers_of_the_Guard. Many important artworks are in the database art.rmngp.fr, but not on public display in museums.

I read the terms of use but I'm not really sure if it's possible to use these images on wiki commons, for instance: https://art.rmngp.fr/fr/library/artworks/pierre-lenfant_campement-de-mousquetaires-en-vue-du-siege-de-la-ville-et-de-la-citadelle-d-anvers-le-1er-juin-1746_huile-sur-toile

according to the legal notices non-commercial use is allowed ...:

  • „Non-commercial Use: means the uses authorised by these T&C of the Website, its Functionalities and the Images that might be made by the User and from which they do not derive any profit or commercial benefit. The User is therefore authorised to use the Images free of charge for personal use, for information purposes or educational use, to the exclusion of any commercial use or intention to derive any commercial benefit or financial reward.“
  • https://art.rmngp.fr/en/legal-notices-and-general-terms-and-conditions-of-use-of-the-images-d-art-website

... but there are some restrictions: “The Website allows Users to view the RmnGP Content accessible at the time of connection, free of charge. In addition, via the Functionalities provided on the Website, Users are authorised by RmnGP, worldwide and non-exclusively, to use the Images in the Web definition offered, free of charge for Non-commercial Uses, as follows:”

  • “publish on the User's personal website an Image via the Functionality "Integrate on your website." To make use of this Functionality, Users must have a User account.”
  • “use the Images for the purposes of illustration, in the context of teaching and research.”

Free usage for teaching and research sound like it's allowed, but I'm not really sure about it. Is it only allowed with when the User utilises the functionality integrate on your website? I would like to hear your opinion on this subject and would be really gratefull for advice. Clemens August von Bayern (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-Commercial use only is not compatible with Commons. However, that Pierre L'Enfant painting is allowed here under PD-Art since the painter died in 1787 and Commons follows Bridgeman so we'd ignore their claimed copyright on a mere reproduction of the painting. Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Read copyfraud --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Je vous remercie, Messieurs! I added several of these paintings Clemens August von Bayern (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

COM:SCOPE

Please check the contribution of Sildream1. COM:SCOPE, {{Personality rights}}, Copyright (ex: File:Bercovich 1.jpg, File:Figures_Of_Vadim_Levanov_1.jpg, File:Mikhail_Durnenkov.jpg, File:Vadim Levanov 5.jpg etc.) — Niklitov (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding COM:SCOPE, many of these are photos of people with biographical articles on Russian Wikipedia. This makes them meet the 'educational purpose' criterion (unless the images are totally trivial, or the Wikipedia articles are hoaxes). The following people are included:
I have not checked all the images, but I would give the others the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding copyright, most of the images either have OTRS approval or have been submitted for this. All the non-OTRS images that I have inspected declare 'Author - Valera N. Trubin', and it is reasonable to assume that this is the uploader.
There may be an issue with File:Levanov's monogram.jpg and File:Levanov's monogram 1.jpg, which probably need permission from Vadim Levanov, whose monogram is shown. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
See COM:SIG. We have nothing on Russian law, but US copyright law would not protect that monogram in the least.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry, I ask about: File:Bercovich 1.jpg, File:Mikhail_Durnenkov.jpg ({{Personality rights}}), File:Vadim Levanov 5.jpg (duplicate, COM:SCOPE), File:Figures_Of_Vadim_Levanov_1.jpg, File:Figures Of Vadim Levanov 6.jpg (Copyright, wthout OTRS). — Niklitov (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
You may also be asking about personality rights for File:Bercovich 1.jpg. The presence of posed photographs taken at the same time (e.g. File:Levanov Bercovich Durnenkov 1.jpg) suggest that she was not an unwilling subject. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Illustration from a 1890 journal volume

There's an illustration [1] from an 1890 volume of the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society that I'd like to upload and use in a WP article. Do I understand correctly that despite the pronounciations on copyright of "modern" material on that site, this image would be in the public domain based on its age? Cheers --Elmidae (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire volume is public domain in the United States because it was published before 1924 ({{PD-US-expired}}). However, as a work of the United Kingdom, the rules at COM:CRT/UK also apply. Generally speaking, copyright in the UK lasts for the life of the author + 70 ({{PD-old-70}}), so you'd need to determine who the illustrator was and when they died. For this illustration, the artist appears to be "M. Smith" (marked with "del." for wikt:delineavit). If Smith's death date can't be found, you could still upload the image with {{PD-old-assumed}}, since it's such an old work. clpo13(talk) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess at 129-70=59, plus artist presumably not being much below 20 at the time so 79, it's probably safe to use that tag. --Elmidae (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Would appear to be Creator:Matilda Smith, so can use {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1926}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You beat me to it! Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! :) --Elmidae (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Jinnah and Gandhi.jpg

Hi, What's the copyright status of this file? Some of the questions are

  1. Is the information about the author by Getty reliable?
  2. This was taken in Bombay, and apparently published in Lahore (and probably many other places). Should we use the copyright law of Pakistan or India?
  3. If we use the Indian law, what's the copyrght term?

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahatma Gandhi and Jinnah having a difference of opinion.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kulwant Roy. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The law of the place where an image was first published is controlling. In this case this is Pakistan. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Indian law would have been 60 years from publication at most. Pakistan 50 years. Author's death did not matter for photographs (and I think still does not). If simultaneously published, country of origin would be the country with the shorter terms. The usual question is where was the first publication? Looks like we have a Pakistani publication from 1945. Since it was published in British India, it probably would be simultaneously published in both countries either way (and Bangladesh for that matter). So Pakistan probably Berne country of origin. U.S. URAA "source country" is a bit harder, it may be the one with "greatest contacts with the work". But if that is Pakistan, it would have expired before the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(The licence template concerned is {{OPL}}.)

[2] sums up British Parliamentary Copyright. Materials can be hosted here if they fall under Open Parliament Licence (OPL). However, I think this community is not fully aware of the exceptions to OPL: OPL "does not cover: the Crowned Portcullis, images featured on Art in Parliament, Parliamentary Archives, parliamentary photographic images, and live and archive video or audio broadcasts". After reading through the pages, I come to the conclusion that parliamentary broadcasts are not free.

Take File:Paul Flynn, speaking in parliament.jpg for instance. On its immediate source it is credited as Image: PC. This image is either a photographic work by the House, which is not free per [3], or a screencap of broadcasts.

I suggest {{OPL}} be edited to include the exceptions.--Roy17 (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Balthazar Korab

Hi, A question about Balthazar Korab's pictures in the Library of Congress came in the French language forum. Are these images OK for Commons with {{PD-Korab}}? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Most if not all are probably ok. Per the Library of Congress rights statement, copyright restrictions on photographs in the Balthazar Korab Archive at the Library of Congress ended with Korab's death in 2013, and per the French discussion, the only potential exceptions might be images of architecture or sculpture taken in countries without FOP. This important qualifier might be added to {{PD-Korab}}. However, it's case by case basis: this image from Italy (which lacks FOP for buildings and sculptures) seems unlikely to violate copyright, as all architecture/sculpture is de minimis. The majority of images in the LOC Korab Archive appear to be buildings from the United States or from countries with FOP for buildings. I think on the whole the collection can be imported, with the odd non-compliant image being removed as needed. --Animalparty (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Good. A bot upload would be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Flamingo Calder.jpg

This is a photo of en:Flamingo (sculpture) that is from Flickr. The photo is licensed as {{Cc-by-2.0}}, while the sculpture itself is licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. It's the licensing of the latter that I'm wondering about since I'm not sure how common it is (was?) for works of art (3D or otherwise) to have physical copyright notices attached to them. The file's description links to this webpage for the en:Smithsonian American Art Museum, but I'm not sure where on that page it states that the statue is "PD-US-no-notice". The statue was installed in 1973-74, so it would seem to be covered by COM:FOP United States and COM:PACUSA#Before 1978. Can Commons keep this file as licensed?

I'm asking about this because if sculpture is actually PD, then it seems that anyone could photograph it and then release their photo under a free license that Commons accepts. That would mean that the local non-free file en:File:Calder Flamingo.jpg also being used in the sculpture's Wikipedia would not comply with en:WP:FREER and would either need to be deleted or converted to a license similar to the Commons file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The signature can be seen at [4]. It only has the artist's initials and the date, which I don't think counts as a proper copyright notice under the US rules of the time. So the sculpture is presumably public domain. The file was already deleted once and restored, so at this point it's probably safe. If the "fair use" image on Wikipedia is deleted, it can always be restored later if necessary. --ghouston (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
That Smithsonian website typically will document copyright notices in their "inscription" section. If there is no copyright notice mentioned, we generally take that to mean there is no notice. The only inscription mentioned is the one in the photo ghouston shows above, which is not a notice (no copyright symbol or word or abbreviation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ghouston and Clindberg: Thanks to the both of you for the extra info and clarification. Since the sculpture does appear to no longer be protected by copyright, the licensing on the local non-free Wikipedia file has be revised accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't realize the local file has already been moved to Commons and that Ghouston was aware of the change in licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
we typically use the SIRIS database of Save Outdoor Sculpture circa 1999 for marks. rare to have marks on artwork. but there is a DMCA here [5]. - Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Kandinsky "Thirty"

I design clothing (in the US) with public domain images. I've found a super image file of Kandinsky's "Thirty" at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trente_Kandinsky_1937.jpg that I'd like to use. The image is identified as public domain: "The author died in 1944, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less." However, my own research tells me that this was painted in 1937, and that therefore it won't be released into the public domain until 95 years after that date, or 2032.

Can anyone help me clear up this confusion? Many, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiagang (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it may be still copyrighted in USA due to Commons:URAA. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Would depend on where it was first published. If Russia, it would have expired in 1995 (before th URAA). If France, it would have expired since, but would still have U.S> copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If 1937 is the date, then it would have been France. Abzeronow (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Any possibility it was published in the USA before 1989 without the then-required registrations or renewals?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
What does 'published' mean for a painting? Does inclusion in a public exhibition qualify? Verbcatcher (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
"artworks created prior to 1978 have a copyright term that depends on their publication history, i.e. when images of the artworks appeared in books, periodicals, prints, or other publicly-available copies. " [6] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
First published (or within 30 days) is what matters for the URAA, not ever published in the US before 1989. Establishing first publication for paintings tends to be terribly hard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik Be careful to use paintings of Kandinsky commercially as he is mentioned as represented by the Artists Rights Society in the US. You might want to double check with them if a particular painting can be used in which jurisdiction https://www.arsny.com/mostwanted/ --Hannolans (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hannolans I was not one who asked the original question. Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Also see this page, with the same image with title misspelled and the same "PD in the US" claim: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vassily_Kandinsky,_1937_-_Trirty.jpg. Gaiagang (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

File:The Settlers - Heritage of Kings logo.png

Hi, Is this OK for {{PD-textlogo}}? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Similar issues with

File:The Settlers - Heritage of Kings logo.png: OK to me.
File:Cragar_Logo.png: Probably OK, waiting for comment.
Others: I would treat them as designed art work or calligraphy work, which reaches the threshold of originality. --WQL (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Assuming L’Élite de Brooklyn is American, I doubt that one passes the relevant TOO; I bet the smudged lettering is just a ‘distressed’ font, and the USA has refused to register even hand-made calligraphy before. I agree that the others not mentioned are copyrightable.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Kendrew Myoglobin Model

[directed here from VP]

File:Kendrew Myoglobin Model.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation. It's a molecular model - is that correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The deleted file is indeed a photo of a molecular model, this photo is a derivative work of this model and I agree with the deletion, see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Models. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The examples discussed on the page you link to are models of objects whose design is in copyright. Molecules (at least those occurring naturally) are not copyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
      • If molecules were copyrightabke then a third copyright will enter the equation... a copyright for the molecule ...a copyright for the model that would be a derivative work of the molecule... and a copyright for the photo that would be a derivative work of the model and of the molecule... hopefully for us mother Nature does not require that we ask a permission when we take a photo, or when we make a sculpure or a model of a tree, a rock, a molecule, ect.... When a painter paint a tree, that is not the tree that is copyrightable, but the painting of this tree. When a sculptor sculpte a tree, that is not the tree that is copyrightable, but the sculpure of this tree. When someone make a model of a tree, that is not the tree that is copyrightable but the model of this tree. No matter that the creator is a scientist, Picasso himself, or me in my DIY workshop. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Illustrations, sculptures and models of uncopyrightable things are frequently copyrightable. It's possible that this isn't copyrightable; I can't see it. But a model of a molecule usually looks nothing like the quantum object that a molecule is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • [8] Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Jan Claudius de Cock - African Boy BK-1972-134.jpg

Does anyone know if this image is PD or not? It is not 2D art, that's for sure...and I don't know where the Dutch museum license is. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

On the Rijksmuseum page at https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-1972-134, if you click on "Meer objectgegevens" the page includes "Copyright Publiek domein". I guess this means they've released any rights they have in the photo, although I suppose they could just be meaning the the object itself is in the public domain. The page title is "Objectgegevens", or object details, but then they are only offering a photo, not the object itself. --ghouston (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Flamengo-RJ (BRA).png

Seems like this might be licensed incorrectly based upon File:Flamengo braz logo.svg. It seems highly unlikely that this has been released under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license by the en:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, but it might OK as {{PD-textlogo}}. Any reason why this cannot be converted to a PD license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ihmo has something original in the woven letters--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been asked for advice about uploading images from this collection. Primarily one from 1887.

If it were just me uploading it, I wouldn't hesitate because (a) if it was published, it's definitely out of copyright, (b) if it was unpublished, it's from before 1899.

However, with the various claims of copyright, required permission, etc. I want a second opinion before telling someone it's fine. Are there any other considerations I could be missing here? — Rhododendrites talk |  21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Archives do this kind of thing quite a bit: "You must have our permission to publish these public domain things in our archives." But that's not how public domain works. The one thing that give me pause is the circa 1850s-1963 bit. If some items in the collection are really from mid-20th century, then they may not be fair game. Other than that, copyright term in the US is 70 year p.m.a. even if the work is unpublished, unless I'm missing something, and these folks have been dead 120+ years. So ignore the warnings and upload away as far as I'm aware. If they file a takedown notice, then legal should tell them where they can put it for public domain content. GMGtalk 21:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is all my impression, too. There's no shortage of people dictating this or that must happen in order to use public domain pictures (Getty comes to mind), but someone asking me for advice triggers caution, so I wanted to make sure there's not some other factor... — Rhododendrites talk |  22:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It’s more clear-cut in the USA than most other jurisdictions. Commons policy is to ignore such conditions, except to acknowledge that they might apply to some reusers; see COM:PDARTREUSE and COM:SCAN. So, @Rhododendrites, if you’re giving advice only on what can be uploaded, you’re fine, but if it’s about republication outside the USA, it might call for a lawyer.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The second DR under : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:European_Court_of_Human_Rights being the cause of the enquiry.

I would like someone experienced in copyright policy, to provide a guidance essay as I wasn't sure there was one.

Commons should of course be hosting the rulings and submissions it can because knowledge of the law is in the public interest. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion on www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk files

There's a few requests at w:en:WP:FFU requesting that files ([9] [10]) from https://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk be uploaded. At the bottom of the page there is a copyright notice without ARR or any license specified. The disclaimer link at the bottom of the page leads to a statement saying You can copy the content from Pakistan Army Web site and use it any where until you give credit to the source or provide a back link to the copied data. I'm not sure that this is enough to claim {{Attribution}}, but I figured I'd ask here before declining the request. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a typical case of {{Attribution}}, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to ask about licensing of pictures of Apple computers, i.e. iMac. I've just received ticket in OTRS with permission including File:Hynek Martinec, Every Generation Has Its Own Revolution, 2014.jpg (it is a painting, not a photo) and I have thought it violates COM:DW. But then I found that we actually keep File:IMac vector.svg. Are these pictures OK? --Mates (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Would a computer not be considered a utilitarian object the same as a car? GMGtalk 22:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I should think so: protected by patents &c. but not copyright, with the possible exception of any branding that’s not de minimis in a given image.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Logos and threshold of originality

Do the logos in the under-18 championships teams section on this website meet the threshold of originality in Australia? If so, do they also meet the US threshold? Teratix (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that everything except for possibly the Western Australia swan logo would certainly be below COM:TOO#United States, and but it might be a close call for all of them per COM:TOO#Australia because Australia's TOO seems to be pretty low like COM:TOO#United Kingdom. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It’s my impression that Australia’s TOO is exceptionally low, en:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg being a notable example.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Help fixing my mistake

I, by mistake, upload a CC0 image as cc-by-2.0 and now I don't know how to fix it. I appreciate any help resolving this issue.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: You can simply Edit the page and change {{Cc-by-2.0}} to {{Cc-zero}}. In the case of File:Dominique Bloodworth in 2018.jpg, it appears the Flickr review bot has already come by and done this for you. BMacZero (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. But the bot seems confuse because I uploaded it under the wrong licence. I'll try to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unidentified artist

I uploaded a work from Gallica here, File:Cavalleria Rusticana - Alfio and Turiddu embrace.jpg et al., which Gallica treated as anonymous, from between 1890 and 1900. I have just discovered that Getty, identifies it as an Oleograph by Rauzzini, 1891. The trouble is: Who the heck is Rauzzini? Without knowing that, I don't know if it should be on Commons. Anyone able to give assistance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Offhand, sounds like something got mixed up by Getty or their source; I notice their page is tagged with a couple of 18th-century keywords despite showing the late-19th date (the opera certainly is from then, first produced 1890), and there was an 18th-century singer called Venanzio Rauzzini. Maybe coincidence, or maybe a couple of different opera-themed records got confused or mingled? (Sheer speculation, no particular subject knowledge here.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
An oleograph is a form of lithograph, and the left edge of our image has the text "PRINTED IN GERMANY". It is unclear whether Getty is claiming that Rauzzini is the publisher of the oleograph, or the artist of the painting on which it is based, or both. A related oleograph is also attributed to Rauzzini by Getty.[11] A web search shows multiple websites name Rauzzini for these images, but these might all originate from a single mistaken attribution. The fact that Gallica do not name the artist or publisher suggests that they cannot readily be identified. There does not appear to be a copyright problem as it seems clear that this was published in the 19th century. I suggest putting "Attributed to Rauzzini" as the author. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it sufficiently old that we can presume it's out of copyright in the EU? Since the EU is Life+70, if this was published in 1891, then we're basically presuming that the creator died within 58 years of creating it. Given it's an accomplished work, that's not unreasonable, but it's not guaranteed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It appears reasonable to say that the author is unknown as we have an incomplete suggested name. Getty's attribution to a surname does not identify an individual author. Moreover, we should give priority to Gallica as it is a branch of the National Library of France. They say "Rights : public domain" ([12] under the 'i' tab). The BNF catalogue lists this as "Publication : [s.l.] : [s.n.], [Entre 1890 et 1900]".[13]. Does this stand for sans license, sans notice? Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany says:
  • Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed his/her authorship – for works created prior to July 1, 1995: if the author never became known anywhere). Not applicable to some non-photographic works of art.
Is it reasonable to treat this as anonymous on the basis that the name suggested by a non-definitive source is insufficient to identify an individual author? Perhaps we should put Author: unknown, attributed to 'Rauzzini' Verbcatcher (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
[S.l.] stands for "sine loco" (no place of publication [mentioned on title page]), [s.n.] for "sine nomine" (without name [of the publisher]). Vysotsky (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Right. Let me see if I can get the page sorted. If you could make any desired changes at File:Cavalleria Rusticana - Alfio and Turiddu embrace.jpg, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course, this bypasses the main issue: Is it certain enough? As it stands, we can't even really be certain which country's licensing applies: The Getty image is subtly different, after all (note the seat of the trousers of the man with his ear being bitten in the hug - there's less detail in this copy) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 Comment The BnF is definitely a more reliable source that Getty. Getty often gets things wrong, IMHO, not even talking about the regular copyfraud. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yann, Vystotsky, and Verbcatcher: I presume, until we've made a decision, en:File:Cavalleria Rusticana - Santuzza and Turiddu outside the church.jpg should remain there? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
As you wish. For me, this is OK on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any decision on the Commons file is pending: it is unlikely to be reviewed further unless somebody tags it or a Commons administrator makes a unilateral decision. The copyright situation of the two images appears to be identical. There's no urgency to move files from Wikipedia to Commons, but these appear to be ok for Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Who the hell :) is the author?
Who the hell :) is the author?

[[File:Logo ATRAL scrl.png|right|link=|200px|Who the hell :) is the author?]]

We knows what the Commons Licensing "by" clause requires. When we reuse a work we must cite the author. If do not we want to cite the author then a link it's acceptable. It is the minimum. No link no clause. Am I wrong?

So what? This is: I see always more often using the "Link=" parameter in our wikis. It's is correct? Don't we have to discuss about it? Ask WMF to say "yes or not"? I do no think that people, even projects could make a free decision. Ihmo of course--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pierpao: No, a working link is required for CC licenses and other licenses which require attribution. Deliberately using "Link=|" in case of such licenses is obfuscatory and could be considered infringement. I would consider it vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It is obvious of course but I ask: it is written somewhere? We have a guideline like Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for using contents in Wikimedia projects where to add this specification? Jeff G.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pierpao: Nothing needs to change there. However, we may want to modify the "Disables the link so that clicking on the image does nothing." language at en:WP:EIS#Link and the "A purely decorative image, which conveys no information and does nothing when it is clicked on, can be specified with an empty alt attribute. For example [[File:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] generates a flag that is purely decorative." language at en:H:PIC#Links.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes It's a very good idea Jeff G.. Could you do it please? Otherwise with a little help from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language I think I can write something good myself--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pierpao: we could add "However, purely decorative files are only legally usable in this way if they are in the Public Domain." after each sentence.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Very very good. I think moreover that since we are discussing about en Wikipedia, where fair use is allowed, due their enforceability we could write "However, purely decorative files are only legally usable in this way if they are in the Public Domain or are a registered brand with its trademark symbol" or better written. Do you agree? talk to me--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pierpao: I am adapting to your double indenting. How about "However, purely decorative files are only legally usable in this way if they are in the Public Domain or comply with WP:NFCC."?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes perfect User:Jeff G.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC
Ping again :) User:Jeff G.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pierpao: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that's completely wrong. [14] EEng (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng: Why are you of the opinion that "in the case of nonfree images the reader still needs to get to the description page"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Every use of a nonfree file must carry an explicit rationale on the description page. While there's no explicit statement I can find in NFCC saying "You must be able to link from the use of a nonfree file to the rationale for that use", coding the use of a file (nonfree or not) such that there's no way to click through to the description page is very rare, and I doubt that possibility occurred to anyone writing NFCC. Being able to reach the rationale in order to verify it seems fundamental, especially since a copyright owner might wander in wondering what the file is doing there. EEng (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. I probably should have said "probably a bad idea" instead of "completely wrong".
the rationale is a policy requirement, not a legal requirement. copyright owners do not care about the rationale, only in the fair use claim, which might impact their DMCA. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Art therapy artwork by US marines

These are photographs of artwork made by US marines during therapy for mental health conditions. They are tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military}} – this looks ok for the photographers, but does it apply to the artworks? Is it feasible to claim that these were made as part of the official duties of their creators? Do US Marines have a duty to undergo medical treatment? (Alerting uploaders Slick-o-bot and Fæ.) Verbcatcher (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we'd need OTRS permission for the art to be on Commons. @Majora: . Abzeronow (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
When VIRIN numbers are allocated, there is a military standard copyright release from the photographers. WRT to therapy, I would presume that this therapy (which may not be specifically medical treatment, in fact "art therapy" would rarely be a prescription) is done during time as paid military employees. It is fair to presume that were there any issue with photographs being intrusive, they would never have been released as public images, and any complaint would have resulted in a take down at DVIDS.
Technical point - having just checked the source of 120503-M-9426J-002, the photograph location has moved but there is no evidence of a take down, despite the photograph being 7 years old; in fact this particular photograph is also public on DVIDS link. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • U.S. law states: A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. Thus not all works created by federal employees are inherently public domain merely because of their creator. I wonder if there is relevant legal precedent challenging or clarifying the scope of "official duties". I'd doubt that creating art is part of a soldier's "official duty", even if therapy is prescribed (are marines "on duty" when they're in any therapy, be it physical, mental?) But it can get murky. Let's say I'm employed as a technician for the U.S. Geological Survey, and my official duty is to collect and process soil samples. Any photographs I take before or after my shift, on my own time, are not public domain. The photographs of soil and geological conditions I take in conducting my work are in the public domain. Then, on my 15 minute paid rest break in the field (to which I'm allowed, as opposed to an unpaid 30 minute lunch break), I take a photo of a squirrel with my iPhone, completely unrelated to my duty. Is that photograph public domain? I'd say no, but some may argue otherwise. --Animalparty (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fæ: does the "military standard copyright release" cover everything that is depicted in a photograph, or only the copyright that would normally belong to the photographer? Three of the images are here. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The release puts the onus on the photographer. Naturally that means that mistakes get made all the time. However these photographs are not intrusive and, over a period of several years, nobody has asked they be taken down on DVIDS (we have seen many cases where complainants have had DVIDS hosted images taken down). I have no strong opinions about these photographs, if anyone is genuinely concerned they should raise a DR for doubts about copyright of the original artworks, but not the photographs. The issue of what is "private" while on military duty is complex. Photographs of a Navy officer out of uniform, taking an off duty break in a San Francisco bar with their mates, is entirely different from taking a photograph of a tortoise crossing the road, while on lunch break, in the middle of several months long programme of defusing IEDs in a hostile foreign territory. --Fæ (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The copyright for the photographs would be public domain. The copyright for the art would likely not be. You would be hard pressed to make a case that the production of these art works is in any way outlined in the official duty descriptions of these Marines. Being a Soldier or a Marine does not disenfranchise you from any rights intellectual property you create; it only does so for works created that are explicitly part of your duty, explicitly created for the government as part of that duty. GMGtalk 19:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not what the law says; as Animalparty quotes above, A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. Not explicitly part of their duty, just part of their duty. I could certainly make the argument that this art was created as part of these Marines paid duty positions at the time. It's a questionable argument, but we're probably literally the only people who care, so there's not going to be case-law on this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Not so Prosfilaes. Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, SCOTUS ruled that speeches written by an admiral were personally copyrighted, despite being produced on government time, using government equipment, in government facilities, and presented while he was on official travel. Sherrill v. Grieves, SCOTUS ruled that an Army Captain retained the copyright for materials he wrote in order to teach a military course because his duties were to provide instruction, and this duty did not oblige him to write the material for the course. This was despite the fact that the Army later requested and was granted permission to publish the work in an official Army publication. Making works for official Army publication was not the official duty of the author.
Note also that the fact that you are on a pay status with the federal government does not mean that everything you do is part of your official duties. The standard is not whether they were being paid (both the individuals above were full time employees of the federal government) but whether the production of the work was clearly delineated as part of the duties they were obligated to perform. GMGtalk 19:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's still not what the law says; "explicitly" is your interpolation. In the Rickover case, the page you link to says they were written in the evenings. The Sherrill case commented that the book was written "in his leisure time, not as an incident to his work as instructor." The fact that the actual creation was done with government supplies on government time with the governmental goal of making them fit for service leans toward making them public domain.
I would not lay strong odds on which way a court would rule on this issue, but I tend to think that a court would feel it more just to leave the soldiers in this case with their copyright. I do not, however, think it's a clear issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, Prosfilaes, no, the word "explitly" is short hand for the court's wording of being part of the "legal contract duty to the government". Specifically, the court rejected the notion that "by entering the employment of the Government a person sells all his energies, physical and mental, to the government if they relate to any subject matter dealt with by him in performing his duties," which is to say that just because it relates in some way to your duties, does not mean it is part of your legally contractual duties. GMGtalk 21:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If the copyright release means that the military photographer should have obtained permission from the artists to release these images then it is reasonable for us to assume that they did this. But "nobody has complained" does not justify keeping an image. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Correct, but this can be part of assessing if we are above or below 'significant doubt. --Fæ (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Scans of newspaper/magazine cuttings

A long-term vandal on the English Wikipedia has uploaded some cuttings to Commmons to prove his/her claims for use as sources. As far as I can see, they have given no attribution at all to the cuttings, and I have no idea where they come from. Presumably uploading cuttings from print media are copyright violations? If so, do they qualify for speedy deletion, or would I have to go through the regular deletion process? Richard3120 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to File:Bros Promo article.jpg and File:Bros down Under 88.jpg. These appear to qualify for speedy deletion:
  • Content is apparently a copyright violation, with no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work. (From Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#File)
However, I would tag these with {{No license since}} by adding {{subst:nld}}. This gives the uploader seven days to resolve the problem, and may appear less intimidating to new users.
I am uncomfortable with you characterisation of the uploader as 'a long-term vandal'. This is not the place to make such allegations, particularly as no edits to English Wikipedia have been made from this uploader's account. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Apologies for the use of language, but it is very, very obvious to editors who watch these articles exactly who the editor is... the fact that these are the first edits they have made using this account is unsurprising, as they have already over 70 sockpuppet accounts blocked on the English Wikipedia. I will make no further accusations, but let's just say I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if these files were almost immediately re-uploaded by another "new" editor. Thank you for your advice – I will put the files up for speedy deletion, and let's see what happens. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am also trying to find three other files in order to tag them, but they don't seem to come up on the search – they are "BROS CBS Public announcment 1988" (yes, "announcement" is spelt incorrectly), "Bros band related article", and "BROS IN JAPAN". Richard3120 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I've found the first one now – it was uploaded by an editor who has indeed already been blocked as a sock of the editor mentioned above. Richard3120 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: and other admins – see, this is what we're up against... an IP (I wonder who that could be?) has simply removed all the {{No license since}} templates without addressing any of the issues, stated that they don't need a license and are free to use [15] (which is untrue), and said that I have multiple accounts (also untrue) and that I am under investigation (also untrue) [16], [17], [18]. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: , I'm not an admin, just an experienced editor who is trying to help here. I suggest you report the recent edits from this IP editor on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, or one of its sub-boards. However, several admins contribute here and one of them may take the appropriate action. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do that... apologies, this is my first time in Commons and I don't know my way around here. Thank you for your help. Richard3120 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done All accounts blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Letter from the President

Hello, I've uploaded a scan of a letter: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ברכת_נשיא_המדינה.jpg This is a public letter, written by the president of Israel, addressing all the participants of a conference. The letter was sent to Mr. Yilma, who organized the conference. I scanned the letter myself, and I have Mr Yilma's permission to publish it. Is Mr. Yilma considered the copyright holder? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Yoav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoavlin (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 March 2019‎ (UTC)

Copyright on letters normally belongs to the writer of the letter, in this case the President of Israel. In some countries there might be a special rule for the president, but this is not mentioned in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel. {{PD-IsraelGov}} does not apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Approaching the president for such a matter might be a problem. Is there another way for me to publish this public letter in Wikipedia, maybe under fair use? yoavlin —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:39, 20 March 2019‎ (UTC)

The fair-use guidelines are different for each language edition of Wikipedia. English Wikipedia's guidelines are at w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. I think that Hebrew Wikipedia's guidelines are at w:he:ויקיפדיה:רישוי תמונות/שימוש הוגן. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoavlin: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

Is a work by the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives in the public domain? (If yes, File:G.K. Butterfield 116th Congress.jpg can be passed.)--Roy17 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: Information on the Office of the Clerk website is in the public domain. GMGtalk 12:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How to post archive photo from 1936 Berlin Olympics?

Hello, My uncle George Crompton (cyclist) has a page on wikipedia.org that I would like to add a photo from that event that is from his family. The photo is of the Canadian Olympic Cyclist team from the Berlin Olympics in which my uncle was a cyclist. How do I upload the photo with all the restrictions that want some kind of copywrite validation? It seems silly to have this whole system and not be able to add a archival photo from a significant event from 83 years in the past. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcrompton (talk • contribs) 20:50 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Info If the photographer was Canadian, Canadian photographs taken before January 1, 1949 are public domain per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Canada. 1936 photograph would be PD-1996. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It may be silly, but the law in the US says that works generally get 95 years of copyright protection, and the law in the EU says 70 years from the death of the author, so a photo from 83 years in the past is not clearly out of copyright, and still needs i's dotted and t's crossed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bcrompton: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Photo taken on a borrowed camera

Alice hands her digital camera to Bob, who takes a photo and hands it back. Later, Alice sends a perfect copy to Bob. Nobody mentions copyright. Does it belong to Bob the artist or Alice the camera owner? i.e. who should I ask for permission? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright always belongs to the artist. Camera ownership has nothing to do with it. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. The camera is just a tool. If I write a book in a borrowed typewriter. I'll still hold the books' copyright.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Things are more complex if all the creative decisions are Alice's and Bob is effectively a human tripod. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Or if Bob is an employee of Alice and the creation is considered a work made for hire in the United States. --Animalparty (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Schlakman President Logo.jpg may have wrong license

This file is licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but it's not OTRS verified. The licensing seems OK based upon schlakman.com (scroll down to the bottom of the page) so maybe OTRS checking is not needed. However, the website's Terms and conditions page seems to contradict the CC licensing on the site's homepage. Is this file OK as licensed or should it be OTRS verified? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:  CommentIn my opinion, the website's terms and conditions are a violation to COM:PCP. However, another similar image, File:Ian Schlakman.jpg, from the same website, was reviewed by User:Krd as a pass. It would be better for more discussion here therefore.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have approved one image per their statement on the main page, and I didn't notice different terms and conditions. I think both images should go though OTRS then. --Krd 13:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a boilerplate terms and conditions page, and they went to some trouble to have a giant Creative Commons logo on their home page. Probably OK, but legally is vague, so probably best to double-check via OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Clindberg, Krd and 廣九直通車 for taking a look at this. This is just a guess, but maybe the "Terms and conditions" page was added after the website had already been up and running for awhile as part of some type of update/upgrade. This December 23, 2018 archived version of the website shows the CC license, but doesn't seem to have a "Terms and conditions" page. They might have had someone to redo their website, and that person added the the new page without fully understanding the terms of the CC license. Anyway, I think it might be OK for at least the logo file to be sourced to the archive page since that CC license should be OK for Commons purposes, even though the file wasn't uploaded until January 2019. If you look at this March 1, 2019 archived version, you'll see the "Terms and conditions" page; so, it was added sometime after December 23, 2018. If the "Ian Schlakman" file cannot be kept, then perhaps this photo from the December 2018 archived version could be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

File:The Flag of Erie County, New York.png

This file may be PD for some reason, but it seems doubtful that it’s 100% “own work”. Perhaps it’s a COM:DW, but in that case there should be some info provided about the original source for the image, right? — Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a graphic of the seal (more than just the description of the design) in their law, which would I think be {{PD-EdictGov}}, and this representation does look very close to that. It's possible there is not enough additional expression added over the version in the law to support an additional copyright. But yes, should credit where the seal graphic came from at least, or if drawn by the uploader, then there *might* be a case for it being "own work" if they added any additional expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to upload several pictures under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license where I am the copyright owner but not the author. How can I credit the author apropriately so that this is covered by the above license that is make sure this is respected by anyone making use of the picture. Where goes the name of the copyright owner and where the name of the author if I upload as "own work"? is that the right procedure in this case? --Schmila (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Schmila, if you are not the author, why did you think you are the copyright holder? Is the license transferred to you by the author or their heir? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
T Cells, these pictures were commissioned by our family in 1959 and I was informed that according to the copyright rules in Australia which apply in this case for pictures taken between 1955 and 1998 the copyright is owned by us. Based on this ownership I already gave the permission to publish one of the pictures in a book with a credit to the photographer which was accepted. You can finden the pictures I am talking about under Schmidt-Lademann House at the Cambridge library where my copyright is documented. But in any case under the assumption that I own the copyright how can I make sure that crediting the author is covered by the license.--Schmila (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
SchmilaYou probably want to:
  • Use the "permissions" parameter of {{Information}} to explain the copyright situation.
  • Use the "author" parameter of {{Information}} to indicate the author.
  • I'm not sure {{Self}} is the best way of handling licensing here, but if it is then it has both "author" and "attribution" parameters, which you can use as appropriate.
Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Jmabel I followed your advice: File:Schmidt-lademann-house_south_day_1959.jpg. I think that is what you proposed. --Schmila (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
source={{own}} still needs to change. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Jmabel Replaced source={{own}} with source=commissioned work. Couldn't figure out the exact function of the template {{own}} and if this is a valid replacement. --Schmila (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That's reasonable; this is enough of an outlying case that I'm not sure what I'd say. {{Own}} asserts that the account owner is the creator of the work, and that's clearly not the case here. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Old photo, source unknown

I want to use an image in a new article at en:Hermann Herlitz. The image is de:File:Hermann Herlitz-2.jpg which is used in de:Hermann Herlitz. The photo was uploaded in 2005 by a user who was last active in 2007. Google Translate gives the following for the description:

  • Description: Hermann Herlitz (1834-1914) around 1860 at the Basel Mission
  • Source: unknown
  • Author or Copyright holder: unknown

Background:

  • Hermann Herlitz was born in 1834 and died in 1920 (the description mentions 1914—that was when he retired).
  • He studied at the en:Basel Mission in Basel, Switzerland from 1859 to 1862.
  • He emigrated to Melbourne, Australia, in January 1863.

The image shows a young man which confirms the description's claim of "around 1860". Would it be acceptable to upload a copy of the image to Commons? If so, what template should be used? Perhaps {{PD-old-assumed}}? Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, this is OK on Commons with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A more meaningful release is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Switzerland is not a member of the EU. --Rosenzweig τ 11:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Well observed! In which case the even more specific {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} applies. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how I can use {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} because "this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known". While it is extremely likely that the photo was taken around 1860 at the Basel Mission, the only source for that is an inactive dewiki editor and opinion based on common sense. How about {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-US-expired}}? Johnuniq (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I uploaded the dewiki image to File:Hermann Herlitz at the Basel Mission.jpeg (why did it change "jpg" to "jpeg"?). Please fix or advise regarding any blunders. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. (In about ten years, you could just switch to PD-old-70-expired). Fæ would probably argue you could do that now since it probably is public domain in Switzerland and the chances of someone appearing to claim copyright and being able to assert it after all this time is extremely low, but that's what PD-old-assumed functions for. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

pictures from assemblee-nationale.fr

Hello,
Is it allowed to upload the following pictures from the official france administration to commons and use them in the article of german and france wikipedia?

Regards WikiFreibeuter (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Abzeronow:
Thanks for the quick answer. Some of the pictures are also on the german parliament website: https://www.bundestag.de/dfv#url=L2Rva3VtZW50ZS90ZXh0YXJjaGl2LzIwMTkva3cxMy1kZXV0c2NoLWZyYW56b2VzaXNjaGUtdmVyc2FtbWx1bmctNjMwMTE0&mod=mod630188
I read the copyright (https://www.bundestag.de/bildnutz) but I am still not sure about.
Regards WikiFreibeuter (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ran this through Google Translate since I don't speak German, but Bundestag has a noncommercial use only license. Commercial use has to be allowed for files to be on Commons "Dies gilt ebenso für private nichtgewerbliche Zwecke sowie für nichtgewerbliche Zwecke im Bereich der politischen Bildung. Eine darüber hinausgehende Nutzung für kommerzielle Zwecke, insbesondere für Werbezwecke, ist nicht zulässig." Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
You are right, they are copyrighted. "Les graphismes, photographies et ressources multimédias ne peuvent être reproduits sans accord préalable. Pour les créations graphiques et les illustrations, les demandes doivent être adressées aux détenteurs des droits. En cas de doute sur l’identité desdits détenteurs, une demande d’information peut être adressée au service de la communication et de l’information multimédia de l’Assemblée nationale, à l’adresse suivante : communication@assemblee-nationale.fr" [19]. — Racconish 💬 16:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all! Regards WikiFreibeuter (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

File:臺灣戒嚴時期各種短命的黨外雜誌 Short-life pro-democracy magazines during martial-law period in Taiwan.jpg

I'm planning to nominate it for deletion, but then I'm unsure. This image is a collage of short-lived pro-democracy magazines published in Taiwan. I previously tagged the image as "de minimis" but then reversed the tagging. I wonder whether "de minimis" applies. If so, is the image small enough to make Chinese text less readable? What about COM:TOO#Taiwan, which says that calligraphic works are still copyrightable? George Ho (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

BASA ShockD

BASA ShockD uploaded several files from archives.government.bg but website declared that All Rights Reserved. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Those that I have looked at, for example File:Varna - cultural and national fair 4.jpg, declare the source as a page on the Europeana Collections website,[20] where they seem to be declared as public domain "Can I use it: Yes ∅". The Europeana Collections pages link to a page at http://digitallibrary.libvar.bg/, where there is no public domain indication. These are mostly 20th century photographs which cannot be assumed to be public domain. How reliable is Europeana Collections, can we depend on its licensing? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The original poster is obviously not aware of the collaboration with the State Archives which has been ongoing for about 7 years now. There are currently more than 12.5 thousand images that have been uploaded to Commons from the aforementioned website - see category Images from the Bulgarian Archives State Agency. Therefore I'd like to kindly ask you to withdraw your accusations and remove the copyvio templates. If you have any concerns about individual images I'm open for discussion. Thanks! --ShockD (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
ShockD, I think 'accusations' is too strong a word for what appear to be good-faith nominations. As indicated in the template, the way to challenge a speedy deletion nomination is to open a regular deletion request and remove the speedy template. However, File:BASA-2068B-1-325-1.jpg looks ok, and is one of the files so-nominated. The files from Europeana Collections do not appear to be from the Bulgarian State Archives. Can you comment on File:Varna - cultural and national fair 4.jpg, which you uploaded? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The Europeana site explicitly indicates a CC0 license which puts the files in the public domain for free use - if you open the image there's a link to their website and the license is visible. How credible is Europeana? Well, given the fact that Wikimedia Foundation is working on projects together with Europeana for several years now I'd say credible enough. See category Europeana. --ShockD (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

File:MountainMikes-FullColor.jpg

I think it's above the threshold of originality. What do the others think?

Either way, it's not the user's "own work." Ixfd64 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is above the ToO even in USA. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll nominate it for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

File:5 Brutos EP rear.jpg

I'm wondering about the licensing of this file. The text is probably not an issue, but the logo in the upper right corner seems to go beyond {{PD-ineligible}} and may need to be considered or removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This logo is less complex than the two acceptable examples at COM:TOO Italy. I suggest {{subst:tmlogo}} for the text logo trademark. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

“Government of Rhodesia”

Is an aerial photograph whose source is given as “Government of Rhodesia” (in a paper published in 2004) in the public domain? --Gretarsson (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like the current Zimbabwe term for photographs (include State-owned) is fifty years from making available to the public. Presumably that happened earlier than the 2004 publication you have, but if not it may still be under copyright there. Before 1981 I think they mostly used the UK 1911 act, which would have been fifty years from creation, unless that was modified in a 1963 law which I cannot find. When was it taken? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Basically, what Carl said. If the photo was taken before 1969, you should be able to use it. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Zimbabwe. If during or after 1969, it's still in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot tell when it was taken. In the paper it only says “Government of Rhodesia”, no date (cf. Twidale (2004): River patterns and their meaning, fig. 8b). Since Zimbabwe became independent only in 1980, i.e. not even 40 years ago, it seems I better should refrain from uploading that photograph, even though it well might be from the sixites or even earlier... --Gretarsson (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

File:AR CD Selection.jpg

This looks like it might be a COM:DW with the individual CDalbum covers still protected by copyright. Since the primary focus of the photo appears to be to show the CDsalbum covers themselves, I'm not sure if this would be considered COM:DM, incidental or otherwise; it sort of has a Commons:Collages feel to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "CD"/"CDs" to "album"/"album covers". -- 23:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)]

I do not think that it shows any actual CDs, only covers. Ruslik (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
CD cover artwork is subject to copyright. The CD covers are not de minimis because they are not incidental but are the subject of the photo. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik0 and Verbcatcher for taking a look. They are album covers not CD covers; I got focused on the file's name instead of the actual image. Anyway, sorry if my error made things my OP a bit confusing. Should this file be CSD'd or DR'd since I don't think it can be kept as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't affect the copyright status, but I think these are CD covers of recordings originally issued on LP. See these links.[21][22] As to CSD or DR, I'm not an expert. This appears to meet the Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. The same issue applies to File:VH CD Selection.jpg and File:Van Cliburn RCA recordings.jpg, from the same uploader. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata screenshot

I got a warning because my file File:Wikidata-issue-Q62519569.png did not have enough copyright information. It's a part of a screenshot from Wikidata. The problem is that I don't even know whose copyright I should give - the copyright for Mediawiki? the one for Firefox? my own? the one for the font that is being used? No copyright at all, since it's really just a few lines of text and basic shapes put together in a way that did not have that specific text in mind? I'm at a loss. - Andre Engels (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andre Engels: The bottom of every page on Wikidata states "All structured data from the main, property and lexeme namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License; text in the other namespaces is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". This screenshot is thus {{CC-0}} (it would also likely be {{PD-ineligible}} if taken from anywhere else). The most restrictive license imaginable for this situation would be the Attribution Share-Alike: see {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} --Animalparty (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
CC-0 does not apply, as there is no actual content of Wikidata on the screenshot. I guess I'll go for GPL + PD-ineligible. - Andre Engels (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Summer Youth Olympic Games Buenos Aires 2018

Template:Summer Youth Olympic Games Buenos Aires 2018 states "Pictures may only be used for editorial publications. Each use for commercial and/or promotional purposes needs a prior written approval by IOC and/or if applicable other rightholders (e.g. the national association or the pictured sports people)". I don't see how this conforms to COM:SCOPE and Commons:Licensing. If an image cannot be commercially used without permission, it is not allowed here. Can someone explain? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#"House rules". But I suppose it depends on what the actual accreditation agreement, if one is signed, says. If it specifically mentions transfer of copyright to the organizers, then they can set copyright restrictions. Finnusertop (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
No, this is a "press license". It is clear that unrestricted commercial use is not allowed, so not OK for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Then all 61,592 files which transclude {{2018 Summer Youth Olympics}} should be deleted because that template precludes commercial use. {{2018 Summer Youth Olympics}} should also be deleted, along with dependents {{Summer Youth Olympic Games Buenos Aires 2018}} and Category:Proyecto fotográfico Juegos Olímpicos de la Juventud 2018 en Buenos Aires.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The license appears to be unacceptable, but we should not be too hasty in triggering a mass deletion, particularly as this relates to a Wikimedia-sponsored project. The license could be the result of a misunderstanding or a mistranslation, and it may be possible to change it. I have left a note at User talk:Sandro Halank, who created the template. Perhaps we should also inform the users named in Category:Proyecto fotográfico Juegos Olímpicos de la Juventud 2018 en Buenos Aires, leave notes at w:en:Talk:2018 Summer Youth Olympics, w:es:Discusión:Juegos Olímpicos de la Juventud de Buenos Aires 2018 and w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, and add some form of tag to the problematic template. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

First, the IOC has given the accreditation to Wikimedia organizations with knowledge about its licenses. Second, Wikimedia Deutschland had let their lawyers check and approved CC template and publication on Commons. Third, personality rights and copyrights are two different things, the CC license only deals with the latter; hence we are allowed to add personality rights warning as hundreds of thousands of photos here on Commons have. Fourth, dozens of projects have similar templates because they are valid. Fifth, give some thank-yous to the volunteers who did this project which is important for Commons and it's sportsphotography section in general. Sixth, speedy close as incorrect. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

+1. Copyright and personality rights are two different things. --Sandro Halank (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, in case you want us to make it clearer for you in the template, we are open for suggestions and happy to clarify. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a concern about the personality rights notice in the template. The issue is the requirement to obtain permission from the IOC for commercial or promotional use, which does not appear to relate only to personality rights. This requirement looks incompatible with the Commons:Licensing policy, which says 'Commercial use of the work must be allowed.' If the Wikimedia Deutschland lawyers' opinion is correct then Commons:Licensing and related pages may need to be changed. Is it possible for the lawyers' opinion to be made available so that we can understand its rationale? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
"The photographer is allowed to provide the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license which allows commercial reuse. When personality rights need to be respected for commercial and/or promotional purposes, the user himself is responsible for obtaining the permissions from the IOC and and/or if applicable other rightholders (e.g. the national association or the pictured sports people)."
the concern is that deletionists persist in conflating a clear assertion of personality rights and a model release, as opposed to NC. the license appears acceptable on its face. perhaps you could clarify your concerns. and please consider the impact on good relations with german wikipedia. i guess all projects need a pre-clearance with commons rather than lawyers; perhaps you could create a model license. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The wording you quote is new as of this edit by DerHexer. It previously said what I quoted. And what I quoted, was itself in quotation marks, so I assume came from somewhere. It was not about personality rights. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@DerHexer: can you tell us where that original quote came from? What were the full accreditation conditions given to photographers? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi to all, I think this template is based on templates like this one. It's just a modification of Template:Personality rights with the clear declarion, who is to be asked.
I've stated the explanation of this on a subpage in my userspace: User:Stepro/Missverständnisse (point 1, maybe you want to translate it by Google or something). The main conclusion is, that there is a big difference between license and personality rights. All of this pics can be used without restrictions on the part of the license. But (as on all pics with living people) a user have to consider the personal rights of the depicted person. It's regardless if the depicted person is a politician, a sportsman or a wikipedian.
When I have created this football templates, there were questions by WMDE about it. They have asked a lawyer about this topic, and got the response, that such templates are definitely not violating the CC licenses. As I wrote: the license has nothing in common with the question of personality rights. This YOG template states a limitation of personality rights (which are existing, if there is this template or not), but is not restricting the copyright/license. --Stepro (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, WMDE pointed us on such template because they consider them to be clearer for re-use than Template:Personality rights. They confirmed that their lawyers had approved them to fit to both, uploads to Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons licensing. We simply quoted it from there and adjusted it for our IOC-related template. Sorry for the confusion around that when we just wanted to be clearer on the personality rights side. As you have noticed, I tried to make it clearer now with my adjustments; I was waiting for the Spanish translation of our partners from Wikimedia Argentina. In case you still find that confusing, we are very open to adjust it further. When you think it would be sufficient to use Template:Personality rights, we can also have these phrases removed. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, User:Stepro/UEFA is not OK either. It says works from officially accredited photographers may only be used for editorial online publications, which is not sufficient for Commons. Now all these files have a Creative Commons license, and these restrictions are in contradiction with a free license. So either the wording of these templates need to be changed, or these files have to be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Yann, with full respect for your opinion: I don't know you, and I don't know your profession. But please accept, that I trust the assessment of the lawyers, who investigated exactly this template and stated that this is absolute OK for CC and for Commons a little bit more than the opinion of a Wikipedian. (as I said: This is definitely not meaned as any disregard.)
Please try to understand what I wrote on my subpage about it: Those templates are no restrictions, they are explanations/specifications about the personality rights. Yes, you can not use this pictures for any purposes: You may not put them on t-shirts or coffee mugs and sell them. BUT: This is the same as with *any* pictures of living people. You may also not put this wonderfull picture made by you on t-shirts or coffee mugs and sell them without permission.
If you really believe pictures with our templates are not OK for Commons, so you have to delete nearly all photos with living people on it. --Stepro (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: these restrictions are contractual not copyright, so they don't affect the CC license --MB-one (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stepro and MB-one: Well, the wording does seem restrictions on copyright, not on personality rights. And I disagree about what you said about pictures of people. It should be perfectly OK to make t-shirts or coffee mugs and sell them with pictures of personalities taken in a public place. The picture of Karima Delli may be a borderline case, as it was not taken in a public place (it was a private meeting). But you can certainly use File:Lady Gaga BTW Ball Antwerp 02.jpg or File:President Barack Obama.jpg, as long as you don't use the image to endorse something else. But making this or this with a free license image from Commons should be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Since the YOG template has this adjustment for personality rights implemented, can we close this discussion on this template now and proceed with our uploads, categorization, and transclusions without any further questioning? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but no again. This wording is a clear restriction on copyright, and contradictory with a free license, and not acceptable on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a when-clause, in case you haven't noticed, which gives additional information to the personality rights who needs to be contacted. But as you like, we can also remove this additional helpful information for re-users and only use Commons standard personality rights template. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, without any further help who could be contacted if personality rights would matter for publication. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we need an opinion here from a WMF lawyer or the WMF board, as WMDE lawyers do not speak for the WMF.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

And WMF lawyers cannot speak for Creative Commons licensing. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@DerHexer: What we can and cannot accept here on Commons is ruled by a variety of different entities, laws, customs, treaties, resolutions, licenses, policies, and procedures. Chief among the things we cannot accept for the purposes of this discussion is the restriction on commercial use in the English version of that template; such restrictions are prohibited for our files on WMF projects by the WikiMedia Foundation Licensing Policy Resolution of 23 March 2007 because such files are not free enough for any WMF project, including this one. If the IOC can't live without that restriction, we certainly can live without their files, retroactively. See also the classification of "Non Commercial" as one of the "Restrictions which are not permissible" at https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions#Non_Commercial. Any further claims that files can stay here (or on any WMF project) with that restriction will be considered disruptive, and dealt with accordingly. Is that clear enough for you?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, I am a Commons administrator myself and know pretty well the difference between copyright and personality rights. The template in question had additional information on personality rights copied from another template as stated above. That was absolutely no requirement by IOC. Hence, we removed it from the template as stated above. There is absolutely nothing obwithstanding with this template anymore which only mentions the accredition giver and the personality rights. Both of these are very valid for any Wikimedia project. Otherwise, we should have a discussion about whether or not we should allow photos of human beings at all, be it alive or not (post-mortal personality rights). But that would be a very different discussion, and should not be related to this one template. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@DerHexer: Thank you. The current version works for me. What was that other template it was copied from? @Yann: Does it work for you?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @World's Lamest Critic, Verbcatcher too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I had no objection to the personality rights reminder on the template. My concern here is the copyright issue. While the text has been removed, I am not sure why and how it could have been there in the first place. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Now the template is nearly empty. I would agree with a wording explaining that the images have to respect personality rights. Something like These images cannot be used to sell a product or endorse an event. The use should not defamatory... Regards, Yann (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Question: The use of an image in an article in Wikipedia is a commercial use, as every article of Wikipedia can be reused commercially and also changed. If every commercial use of such a file needs approval of the IOC, only articles conforming to the POV of the IOC can actually use such an image. But POV articles in Wikipedia need to be changed or deleted, therefore no such image can be used in a Wikipedia article? --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No, the use on Wikipedia or Commons is not a commercial use. The site policy requires that uploaded images be available for commercial uses, but that is different than the actual use we make of them, which is more educational (Commons itself is a bit more gray, as we are a repository to enable further unknown uses, but Wikimedia projects themselves are educational). The question is more if the license template violates site policy, not any law or contract. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What was the agreement with the IOC?

@DerHexer: After I raised the question here, you changed the text of the template. The original text in English was

This picture was taken holding an accreditation for the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires. While the photographer is providing the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license which allows commercial reuse, the accreditation rules contain the obligation to point out the following: Pictures may only be used for editorial publications. Each use for commercial and/or promotional purposes needs a prior written approval by IOC and/or if applicable other rightholders (e.g. the national association or the pictured sports people).
In case of reuse the user himself is responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions.

The bolding present in the template implies that this was quoting the accreditation agreement with the IOC. If it was, the licensing of these images is in question. You have ignored my earlier ping, so I will ask again if you can provide us with the accreditation terms agreed to by photographers. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to know that, as well as if there have been any court cases about the IOC's heavy-handed restrictions on "use for commercial and/or promotional purposes".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Please read the section above: that was not a quote from the IOC but from a personality rights template of another user with the intention to clarify re-use under certain circumstances. I thought at least that there shouldn't be any doubt that the IOC has given accreditations to Wikimedia volunteers, like other users at previous Olympics, which was also stated in this template. But if it's necessary, we can check whether we are allowed to send the accreditation confirmation by the IOC to OTRS in order to have that confirmed. Of course, there is also other evidence that we were holding accreditations for Wikimedia. I don't know of any IOC court cases and I never had assumed that this would have been a requirement. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The wording in User:Stepro/UEFA is not at all like the very specific wording in question. Is that the one you mean? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
For reference here is a copy of what photographers agreed to at the PyeongChong 2018 Olympics. These are not secret agreements and there is no reason why they cannot be shared here to clear this up. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO, this agreement is not compatible with release under a free license. However this is an agreement between a photographer and the IOC, and Commons is not part of the agreement. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: Thank you. I'm going to use a stronger word now: unconscionable.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The original wording sounds not too good, but I don't see it anymore. If the IOC was knowingly accrediting Wikimedia photographers though, they should have been aware of the licensing needs when it comes to commercial use. If the photographers' copyright is being used to further enforce non-commercial terms of the original contract, that would make them non-free in my opinion. If the photographers simply want to request people use them non-commercially, but still (legally) make them available under a free license and take the risk themselves that someone else uses them in a way which violates the IOC contract, which presumably would then be an issue between the IOC and the photographer/uploader, that should be up to them. The template seems to have been changed to remove the problematic-sounding wording, which would make it OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
quoted facts

This is a common misconception: when you upload photos to Commons, they must be under a free license also for commercial use. But if we want them to be released from all personal rights for any commercial/advertising use, we probably would have to delete > 90% of all photos with living people on it. Of course you must not use a CC0 photo for detergent advertising, as long as the consent of the person depicted is not given. And this - of course - will not be available on almost all person photos on Commons. The template Personality rights is very well known. There is saying in the English version: "Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses."
Therefore, similar restrictive templates that require the obtaining of personal rights approval from certain organizations are fully compatible with Commons. They only limit the legal personality, and are not in conflict with the free licenses, which only affect the copyright. Also comments in the IPTC fields of the photos, such as "Useable for editorial use only, no model release available" are therefore only hints to the subsequent users, what is already allowed and what is not; and are in no contradiction to the free licenses or rules on Commons.

So it is even worded in the deed of the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license: "The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material." (deed)

That's why such templates are no further restrictions, but helpful hints to subsequent re-users and should be placed on our file pages.

This is all from my side until there will be sourced factual matters here, and not only opinions of some Wikipedians. --Stepro (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but all these references to the personality-rights portion of the template seem to me to be like raising a straw man—I haven’t seen anyone objecting to that part, any more than to use of the usual {{Personality rights}} template elsewhere on this project. Saying that the images are for editorial use only without prior written approval goes a very long way beyond reminding reusers that the subjects’ personality rights are to be respected—if that’s all the statement was meant to imply, it’s in drastic need of rewording. As a layman I can only read it as a direct contradiction to COM:LIC; were I a potential reuser of an image so marked I would certainly take away the message that it’s unavailable for any commercial purpose.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stepro: To quote what was written in the template when I encountered it: "Each use for commercial and/or promotional purposes needs a prior written approval by IOC and/or if applicable other rightholders (e.g. the national association or the pictured sports people)". This clearly has nothing to with personality rights. When I raised the issue here I was only expecting an explanation of how the terms laid out in the template could be compatible with COM:SCOPE. I assumed that if they were not, someone would have brought it up before this. To be frank, both you and DeHexer are acting in a way that makes me wonder why you are trying so hard to make the discussion about personality rights and dodge questions about the IOC agreement. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"dodge questions about the IOC agreement": Sorry, but that's not true. DerHexer wrote more than one time above, that there is no agreement. Nobody can write something about an agreement which don't exist.
"This clearly has nothing to with personality rights." - That's simply wrong. It only has to do with personal rights. Everyone can use this pics for any editorial purpose - in Wikipeda, in newspapers, in magazines, on editorial webpages, on blogs, ... without asking anybody. That's why the pics are clearly in COM:SCOPE.
What is (due to personal rights of the depicted people!) not allowed without permission is to use this pics for commercial advertising and promotion. BUT: I wrote it again and again and again: That's so with every pic with living people on it. If there is a template or not. If the person is a politician, a sportsman, or a Wikipedian. You may not use a CC-pic of my person and put it on coffee mugs to sell them. It's simply not allowed due my personal rights, even when the picture was taken on an open wiki event and is under a free license. There was a judgement for Panini football pictures in Germany, where the copyright was no question - but the personal rights of the soccer players who took part on World Championships. The decision was that's not allowed by Panini without asking the players and the FIFA, although they took the pics by themselves and had full copyright permissions.
Please understand the difference between copyright and personal rights! On all this pics the copyright (and hence the license) is absolutely no question. The license is given for all purposes. But the personal rights are by the depicted persons, if there are agreements, templates or whatever or not. The templates are only helpfull hints for re-users, stating the facts, and no giving restrictions by themself.
But - with full respect - I don't want to write the same explanations again and again. --Stepro (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what you write above means that you do not understand what is a free license, and what are personality rights. Therefore I nominated this for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/User:Stepro/UEFA. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, too, but the opposite is the case: You don't understand it. I citated templates, I citated the deed of CC 4.0, but you write only your personal opinion. And you state, that just your opinion - completely unsourced - is the only truth. That's no basis for a reasonable discussion.
And your behavior - at least with the DR - is in my opinion very disruptive. Nothing more from my side here. --Stepro (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stepro: The template said "the accreditation rules contain the obligation to point out the following...". I have given a link to what the IOC called a "photographer's undertaking" for the 2018 Pyeonchng Olympics. It has similar wording to what was originally in the template. Did you sign something like that in order to be accredited by the IOC? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we please cool it, and focus on the issues in hand. The original issue was whether the old version of Template:2018 Summer Youth Olympics was acceptable. The challenged text has been removed from the template (current version). There is now an issue of whether the new text is compatible with the accreditation agreement between the IOC and the photographer, and whether this matters. In my view it would matter: I am not aware of a policy on this, but I feel that we should not knowingly accept anything that breaks a valid contract between an uploader and a third party. This would be morally questionable, would introduce doubt about the free status of the content, and might conceivably lead to legal charges for conspiracy. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The policy on this is that we aren't concerned about such things. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography and Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#"House_rules" have been in place for a long time. I'd point out that we have enough trouble with copyright law without getting into contract law, and we can't be expected to know or follow the terms of a contract we aren't a party to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes. The contract is a matter between the photographer and the organization -- only they know the details. It should be up to the photographers whether they want them here, as they would be the ones taking the contractual risk if there is any. The only thing they cannot do is to add any contractual restrictions imposed on them to the copyright license given here. So long as any additional restrictions are not part of the copyright license, and are purely based on other inherent non-copyright legal rights such as publicity/personality rights, they are fine. In re-reading the original clause which was removed, it actually does sound more OK to me -- "editorial use" is usually anything not involving advertising, and the clause correctly noted that many publicity rights would be outside the IOC scope and would require getting permission from the player themselves or a players' association (which can collectively bargain such rights) instead, so it makes it sounds like any such restrictions really are just publicity rights (or trademark or special IOC symbol rights) and we can replace that clause with the template. Perhaps much of the original wording can be retained, though wording of "can be used only" is what can set people off -- if it's phrased more that use in promotional contexts could involve rights owned by the IOC, player, or players association, it should be fine. The other trigger is that "commercial use" means something very different in a copyright context versus a trademark/publicity context. We are predisposed to looking at that in a copyright context, but a close reading of the original clause seems to indicate more of a publicity rights context, which is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes and Clindberg, "House Rules" applies here and is a old policy. Maybe would be better to add not only Template:Personality rights but also Template:Insignia and Template:Trademarked which are already well established templates. I can take a selfie with w:Lionel Messi but neither the FIFA who owns the publicity rights or me who owns the copyright can use it to sell mugs without each other authorization. Cheers. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I got sick today and couldn't continue the conversation, I hope to be back tomorrow. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@DerHexer: I see you have been active on German Wikipedia and I hope you are feeling better. It would be very helpful if you and @Stepro: could provide the the text of accreditation agreement you signed with the IOC. It is probably similar to this one. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement

There was a lot of discussions happening, this is the joint statement of the participants of the YOG photography project (BugWarp, DerHexer, Gastón Cuello, Marcus Cyron, Mauricio V. Genta, Sandro Halank):

  • We asked for an accreditation for Wikimedians from the IOC for the 2018 YOG with files to be published under CC BY-SA 4.0, pointing to previous projects from Olympics where photos were published under a free license (or even CC0).
  • We got accreditations from the IOC without any limitations or requirements to sign some kind of contracts.
  • We took photographs at the 2018 YOG as accredited media and published them under a free license like others did before with similar Olympic events. Everything copyright-related is resolved by that even if we had such contract (as pointed out by other users here).
  • We used a template in good faith which was approved by a WMDE CC-specialist lawyer to point users on personality rights at sports events beyond the common template.
  • That wording of the template was heavily challenged here, so we tried to explain what we intended with our template.
  • We already changed the template for clarification and added a proposal to include some further templates like Template:Insignia and Template:Trademarked.

When there is nothing opposing, we will adjust the template accordingly now. We hope you find this statement acceptable. Thanks in advance.

For the YOG team, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DerHexer. I have located a copy of the "photographer's undertaking" which photographers were required to sign for the Buenos Aires 2018 Youth Olympic Games. You will notice that the very first sentence is "These terms shall apply to any Accredited photographer (the “Photographer”) for the Youth Olympic Games Buenos Aires 2018 (“Buenos Aires 2018")". The IOC is known for taking its copyright very seriously (i.e., protecting its revenue). I find it hard to imagine that the IOC would grant accreditation without a such agreement. If the IOC negotiated a special accreditation for the WMDE, I would expect them to clearly set out the terms and communicate that understanding.
Point 6 of the undertaking states "That failing to provide this signed Photographers’ Undertaking will lead to the photographer not being granted a Photographers’ Armband or Photographers’Bib, without which they will not be permitted entry into any photo position in any Games venues". Is it possible that you have just forgotten receiving and signing something like this at the site? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible that you have just forgotten AGF? I find the relentless cross examination has crossed a civility line. - Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I am assuming nothing but good faith on the part of everyone involved here. I am certain that this was done with good intentions. To quote COM:AGF "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either". I don't mean to cross-examine anyone, just to understand the situation fully so that we can determine what to do with these images. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no law being broken. A contract violation is just that, between two parties -- it is not a law, and nothing that Wikimedia is bound to follow. The restrictions on the original template pretty much implied there were publicity rights involved in the photos -- of course -- but that does not affect copyright. The normal accreditation contract you found does not transfer any copyright to the IOC -- just puts some contractual restrictions on them. It's not a stretch to think that they could give something different for Wikimedia. If the IOC has a problem, they can complain here (and to the photographer) and we can deal with it then. It's not up to us to enforce the IOC's contracts, or worse, what we *think* are the contracts when they may well in fact not be (and we were just point-blank told their situation was different). I don't see any copyright issue here, and no reason to not apply AGF. Media companies do not stand for transferring their copyrights to other organizations, so it's not like the IOC could get away with forcing that for accredited photographers. (The LPGA tried that once, and no reporters signed it, so they got no press coverage and gave in shortly afterwards.) Anything left is purely a contractual matter and not our concern (unless the photographer wants them removed, to avoid such problems). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Point 3 of the photographer's undertaking states "That the use of Photographs for advertising or any other commercial or promotional purpose, in any manner, format, media or technology, whether now existing or created in the future, is strictly prohibited, unless with the IOC’s prior consent". If this was agreed to by the WMDE photographers (and it isn't clear that it was), that means the images are not free for commercial use. Suggesting that it is up to the IOC to complain if this is the case is not in keeping with the mission of Commons or COM:PRP. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a contract. The images are free for commercial use, and the IOC can't stop anyone who didn't sign a contract with them from so using them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That is a contract, not a law, and it's not up to us to enforce. And we have an affirmative statement that the photographers didn't sign a contract like that anyways, just that the photos would be released under CC-BY-SA. So if any of them are CC-BY, they should probably be changed, but that's about it as far as I can tell. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@BugWarp: @DerHexer: @Gastón Cuello: @Marcus Cyron: @Mauricio V. Genta: @Sandro Halank: Have you looked at the "photographer's undertaking" link I posted above? It seems like this is what every other photographer signed, possibly when they were issued the physical indicators that they were accredited. Does it look at all familiar? Does anyone have a copy of the communications with the IOC where they agreed the terms of your accreditation? If not, how was it communicated to you that you were accredited? Was there an online registration for accreditation? Sorry for all the questions, but it is difficult to understand how an organisation like the IOC could set up this unusual arrangement without it being properly documented and without them asking each photographer to sign something indicating the special terms and/or restrictions agreed. I can't think of any reason why any of this would be secret or non-public. 22:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the situation unreasonable at all. The IOC claiming copyright over someone else's photographs, I find much more unreasonable. Their power is mostly limited to not allowing the photographers in, and here they obviously were allowed in, so their credentials obviously were good enough for the IOC. The IOC may well not be as concerned about not-for-profit organizations, and the CC-BY-SA license may have been enough for their normal concerns. At least for the youth games, which are not their real profit area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand your position. I am waiting to hear from the photographers themselves. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all, thank you a lot DerHexer & co. for the impressive work with sport photos. These are events and athletes which normally have very poor coverage. Editors often waste a lot of time looking for photos of them when creating articles. It takes a focused effort on the events' days, and then a painstaking editing work, to upload such an amount of photos in a systematic fashion, even without considering the bureaucratic complications. I hope to see more of this, also for other neglected disciplines such as IAAF's.
On the matter at hand, I see the language of the template is being clarified and I'm confident that it will keep improving, given the photographers' and WMDE's experience with Creative Commons Germany and all the nuances of licenses in the real world, in one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the world. The photographers have stated that they didn't sign their copyright away and this ends the matter: there is no reason to doubt it except mere speculation. Non-copyright restrictions are something we are often forced to navigate.
Nevertheless, for our own personal curiosity it's fine to try to learn more on our own, even if it doesn't affect the project. I checked the photographers undertaking mentioned above and its first article says it expands on the media guide, where the restrictions are clearly of a trademark-like nature (see the page where they say not to place ads next to a photo of the event with the name of the event). They don't need a copyright transfer to achieve their purpose and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided they didn't need other contractual restrictions either for Wikimedia photographers, after considering the nature of their work (including the delayed publication). Nemo 06:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This photograph File:Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2018 Second Day 27.jpg is of a table full of copyrighted toys. There is no reasonable de minimis rationale that could apply, considering that the toys fill the center of the photograph.

This was subject to a deletion request raised on 24 March, and was closed early on 27 March by our sysop blackcat as a "keep" with the rationale "no valid reason for deletion". This seems bizarre as COM:TOYS was given in the DR nomination, and this photograph is a very good example of a photograph of copyrighted toys.

I am hesitant to open another DR within days of the last one, so raising for discussion here, to ask for views as to whether this justifies a second DR under copyright grounds, in particular as this example "keep" has been raised in a multiple photograph DR as a reason to keep all photographs of toys taken at Wikimania 2017. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply I don't find them original enough. None prevents you from opening another DR if you're not convinced. Wouldn't be the first time that a Commoner doesn't accept a sysop's judgment, and I won't tear my own clothes because of that. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you clarify against policy please? As a trusted administrator, you routinely exercise judgement about copyright issues on behalf of our community. Are you stating that toys of this type, a frog, sunflower with a face, a comic stag and a comic penguin, are ineligible for copyright and this ruling should apply to all Commons uploads of copyrighted toys? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Not at all, @Fæ: . There's not two equal cases. This is Commons, not Common Law. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if there are a lot of toys, if each one of them is de minimis individually, it's still fine since it would not be materially derivative of any individual copyright. I'm not sure this qualifies, especially the flower one, but it's not a slam dunk either. Focusing on a particular toy would be more problematic than this. If the toys being around were a particular aspect of the meeting, you could argue incidental since it's just documenting the scene. It's a somewhat edgy deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thats a rationale to keep any photograph of six copyrighted artworks, where the artworks are clearly the focus and intent of the photograph. Remember... this was a speedy keep. --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It can be a bit more nuanced than that -- if the toys were arranged for the photograph, likely a problem. If the photograph was there to portray what the scene was set up like, it's a bit more gray. For one example I can think of, there was a photographer who was making fashion photos. He had a model put on a pair of fancy glasses, because it made the photo look better, even though the focus was the clothing. However, since the photographer intentionally added the glasses to enhance the photo's expression, it was ruled derivative. If someone just happened to be walking down the street and a photo was made, the glasses were inherently there, and it probably would not be derivative. For here, if someone put the toys together for the photo, almost certainly a problem. If the toys were set up for other reasons, and the photographer just wanted to document the scene (regardless of which specific toys happened to be there), it's not as clear. For another court example, an artist made a work of nothing but cut-out legs of other fashion photographs, but arranged in a completely different work. One of the photographers sued, but since each leg was de minimis (and not the true focus of the original work), the artist's result was not derivative. This is not exactly in line with either case, but it's not a slam dunk problem either. It probably goes into somewhat of the photographer's intent and how the photo was made. It's not simply any photograph which contains toys, it is photographs which are legally derivative of them. This one is right on the borderline at best, so I would not argue too hard either way. I don't really agree with the rationale on the speedy keep, but I probably would not nominate it for deletion myself either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
A key problem we have with the photographs from Wikimania and other Wiki meetups, is that every year we see a large number of these similar photographs of copyrighted toys being uploaded to Commons. Despite this being discussed several times, over several years, conference attendees are taking these toys with them in order to be photographed. The toys are not "found" at the conference, they are intentionally placed to be seen, photographed, even perched on lecterns so that almost every photograph and video of lectures intentionally has a copyrighted toy featured in it.
These are a problematic issue for Commons, and each year these uploads chip away at our interpretation and understanding of de minimis, with administrators and general users being put off by repeated argumentative discussion about the copyright violations being created.
We should be consistent, if we are going to repeatedly turn a blind eye to Wikimania contributors going out of their way to create likely copyright violations, the same principle should apply to all other uploaded likely copyright violations. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
yeah, and you should expect to see continued uploads by veteran editors who do not share your license ideology. maybe you should escalate your battleground, since you have a failure to communicate. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Really dodgy decision. No valid basis for speedy closure in Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Related:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:TTT 2018
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minions
--Fæ (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this closure was ok, although possibly bold, because it's true: no complete rationale for deletion was provided. It's not enough to say "COM:TOY", we need something more than 6 letters to understand what kind of copyright is supposedly infringed. You cannot just assume any toy (and toy photo) is automatically copyrighted. Is a sunflower plush toy shape just a functional/utilitarian feature, is the separability test passed? Whoever proposes deletion should show some effort in figuring it out. Nemo 07:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Those toys are slam-dunk copyrighted, pretty much. They are not utilitarian at all, and many many toys like that have registered copyrights -- they do count as sculpture. A utilitarian argument of "being a toy" does not fly. Per the compendium -- Similarly, children’s toys – such as model airplanes – are not themselves typically considered useful articles, because they merely portray the item that the toy represents. See Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L. Corp., 703 F.2d 970, 973 (6th Cir. 1983). Because they are not useful articles, models and toys are not subject to the separability test described in Section 924.3. The fair use scope on the photo is pretty wide, which is what makes it seem instinctively OK, but if someone creates a postcard with it -- thinking it's just a nice-looking photo -- it may well be a derivative work of at least a couple of the toys, i.e. they are individually more than de minimis, and part of what makes the photo nice (to them) is the expression present in the toys themselves -- they are more than incidental. As an illustration of a wiki conference, it's likely fair use, but as a standalone photo, may well not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      • The copyright on the toys themselves is relatively easy to establish, sure, but not so much whether a photo is a derivative work. The utilitarian argument I was thinking of is something like "to be called a rubber duck, you have to have a certain shape", so what copyright can the "author" of a rubber duck have in a photo of the toy where the shape is indistinguishable from any other's? I'm not sure such an argument was ever explored and it's probably going to be hard to save a photo this way, but a deletion request should be framed in a way which allows any serious argument to emerge. Nemo 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
        • This was explored, in painful detail over several DRs. As a result the TOYS essay, along with its legal sources was created and refined. I hope you are not planning to reopen the faux 'toys can be utilitarian' debate, which for the most part was based on one legal case, later overturned by a superior court. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • What is a complete rationale for deletion, and how is that demand consistent with COM:PRP? Toys are generally going to be copyrighted, just like photos are generally copyrighted, even if they're as boring and rote as can be. The toys are copyrighted for the same reason the photo is; because they're original creative works, even if they're not deeply creative works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Precisely because of PRP: "significant doubt" means I cannot just slap 6 letters on a DR and be done with it. It's pretty easy to get photos of toys deleted, for good reasons, but that doesn't mean it should be automatic. Nemo 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Please, that "six letters" is an extensive essay, analysis, and excellent legal sources. Please read the essay before throwing it away because a shortcut to it exists. If you insist we can transclude it and cut and paste 2,000 words in to every DR that is toys related, but by that rationale we could never use any shortcuts in DRs; PRP, SCOPE, TOO, FOP...
        Created COM:PLUSHIES to the Stuffed Animals essay, which has an even better summary of the legal issue for soft toys, so we should probably use it more. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
        • If a DR is opened with a clear reason, it shouldn't be automatic for a work to be deleted, but the clear reasons for deletion should be analyzed. COM:TOY means just as much as "It should be deleted because it's a picture of toy animals which are copyrighted under US and international law.", and needs as much of an answer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • We need consistency. If, to use Carl's language, these photographs from several years of Wikimania conferences establish that Wikimedia Commons does accept "fair use" collections of cute toys, even where the toys are clearly the focus of the photograph, where the toys are posed to be photographed and even where the photograph has a title, categories and description which demonstrate that the only reason for the photograph existing is the toy(s), then precisely the same "fair use" option must be available to all our contributors not just those privileged to attend Wikimedia funded events or happen to be employees/members of the WMF and its Affiliates. As we are now routinely keeping photographs like this, the community should agree a Fair Use proposal and establish a release template that spells out exactly what that means, as Carl highlights, that means that photographs hosted under Fair User cannot be reused on t-shirts, book covers, conference posters, without significant risk for the user being subject to claims of damages from companies like Fisher-Price, Barbie, Hasbro, et al. As a corollary, this means that licenses like the one being used above of CC-BY-SA, should be replaced with a clear, unambiguous, licence that does not give a misleading impression of free and unrestricted reuse. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      • It's definitely not ok to host photos on Commons with a "fair use" rationale. It's irrelevant whether these photos are fair use. Nemo 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
        • You appear to be saying that we do not need any definition of "fair use", even though these photographs are "fair use". How does that work then? --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      All of these files should be deleted per COM:PLUSHIES. Copyright law trumps "photos of Wikimedia events are inherently in scope", and we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing date for public domain in the UploadWizard

As you may be aware, by United States law material published prior to 1924 entered the public domain on 1 January, 2019. While most templates and messages on Commons make reference to time spans for copyright instead of years, "1923" is hard-coded into the UploadWizard and will need to be patched to update the year to 1924. The Multimedia team at the Wikimedia Foundation is giving notice that they intend to update the UploadWizard to match Commons policy on works from the United States, unless there are any reasons not to from the community. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The patch is merged, the change should be live next week. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can imagine why it was created this way, however there are many benefits to making these parts of the UploadWizard reconfigurable based on, say, sysop editable templates of wikitext. This way minor copyright law changes mentioned in the wizard help text can be updated by the user community as soon as they happen. --Fæ (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/03&oldid=567279480"