Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/06

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

Copyright review - Denmark

Can someone please comment if this file is public domain and eligible to move to Commons?

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: That looks fine per COM:TOO Denmark.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
Thanks, I copied it to Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

56 years after publication with registration and renewal

I came across it in Wikidata - 56 years after publication with registration and renewal (Q61141194) when I was working on Toldoth anshe shem (Q64214326). Wikidata trying to add the copyright status for items of works (books etc.). In most cases it is same rational as in Commons, but "56 years after publication with registration and renewal"? If I understand correctly the book - Toldoth anshe shem (Q64214326) have copyright notice her in 1949 and renewal her in 1950. could this work is free with the rational of "56 years" mantioned above? -- Geagea (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

At one point in time, publication got you 28 years of protection, and renewal got you another 28 years of protection. The renewal length was extended (included retroactively) starting in the 1950s, so this wouldn't apply to any work published in the 20th century. It's purely a historical rule.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not agree with your statement that "this wouldn't apply to any work published in the 20th century". Ruslik (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, barely. The last works it would have applied to would be works first published before September, 1906. Starting in September 1962 the U.S. kept extending the renewal term, preventing any renewed works from expiring until the 1976 law went into effect (non-renewed works continued expiring after 28 years) which made the extension term effectively 47 years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

At https://armenianweekly.com/2019/05/15/population-data-about-armenians-in-ottoman-istanbul-now-online/?fbclid=IwAR3jWSeoviBhJjYoWSm2oTl08K4SIRc9Jvm1CnX7pk3f6a6-Tc3O1AmCFzk and https://www.houshamadyan.org/mapottomanempire/vilayet-of-istanbul/locale/demography.html I see multiple Ottoman-era postcards and maps dating up to the early 1920s. Since I don't see copyright notices and the empire is long dead, and that the people who made these are likely long dead, would this mean there are no likely copyright concerns? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Turkey offers no exception for Ottoman Empire-era works, and (the controversial) {{PD-old-assumed}} says 120 years, which means only 19th century works can be assumed to be PD. Life+70 can be a long time, and there are cases where works created in the 1920s are by authors who died in 1980s. Jean Piaget, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
As they were obviously published at that time, they would be OK if the photographer is unknown, but to be sure, you need to check the back side. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
We do have {{PD-Ottoman Empire}} but it is better to use the local templates. In Turkey for example the have change retroactively and the rule is Life+70 so you have to use {{PD-Turkey}} and in Israel you use {{PD-Israel}} - 50 years from creation as the followers of the Ottomans in Israel changed the low. -- Geagea (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, A photo I am interested in for a book cover is flagged as "Public Domain" in Wikimedia Commmons. Still... I have serious doubts about it, as the picture is quite famous, it is profesionnal quality, I have seen it multiple times before on different sites and the people portrayed are very famous people, with millions of fans in Asia. The name of the author is a pseudo and the link provided leads to nowhere. The picture is dated December 2007. How can I contact the author and be sure that (first of all, she really is the author and) the picture is really free of rights? How do you check the accuracy of someone asserting to be the author of a photograph? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.198.176.15 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2019‎ (UTC)212.198.176.15 18:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you should link the picture so we know what you're talking about. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Here it is. Thank you for looking at my question.212.198.176.15 18:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TVXQ_in_Paris_France.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.198.176.15 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2019‎ (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have assumed that was professional. It doesn't feel like a professional photoshoot, and it was taken on a cheap consumer point-and-shoot camera (note the EXIF data). I would be inclined to trust the uploader.
However, if you don't trust the uploader, I think you're stuck. The user has not edited since 2007, when they uploaded that photo to the English Wikipedia. They made no other edits. They do not have an email address set; it is very unlikely they would notice a talkpage message since there's no indication they've logged in for twelve years. I don't think you'll have any practical way to contact them. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right, the image quality is obviously not professional, but it is just so expressive and well-balanced, including colors. I guess this is why I have seen it so widely used. If it is really free, it means that the author made a gift to those interested when she could have made money with it. Thumbs up! And a big thank you for your help and quick reply. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.198.176.15 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2019‎ (UTC)212.198.176.15 18:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 09:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok to archiving

Does this really not meet the TOO?

Logo in question

File:FC Utrecht.png is marked as {{PD-textlogo}}. For those who have experience with the TOO, does this really not meet it? The logo seems to be more than just "simple geometric shapes or text". Thanks for the help. --MrClog (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: FC Utrecht is an association football club based in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Per COM:TOO Netherlands, simple shapes are ok. The long-since-expired shape of a sash on a long-since-expired shape of a shield is not so original.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
In the United States, there's a de facto Best Western standard, but of course things might be different in the Netherlands. The general Wikimedia Commons solution to soccer logo copyright problems is "Fantasy football flags"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Lenny Montana

Hi! What do you think of this photo. May it be uploading under {{PD-US-no notice}}? --Regasterios (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

When was it published? Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Would prefer to see the back to make sure there was no copyright notice there, but I do see a portion of it reproduced in a 1955 advertisement here, so at least that portion is PD-no-notice and it's almost certain the rest is as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Clindberg: You mean I may upload it? --Regasterios (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's OK to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 18:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Cécile Brunschvicg

I found an image of Brunschvicg [1] taken 29 May 1926 by Thérèse Bonney (1894-1978) which appears to have been cropped, flipped and published in the US on 23 July 1929 in The Dayton Herald.

  • There is no indication that Bonney's image was ever published in France. I have checked French newspapers at newspaperarchive.com, Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France)'s newspaper collection, Bibliothèques Municipales Spécialisées's newspaper collection and Les Archives nationales. None confirm publication of the image nor any other image of Brunschvicg except the 1936 image from Le Petit Journal[2], which does not appear to be in the PD in the US.
  • On the French site it says reproduction rights are reserved by "The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley / Thérèse Bonney / BHVP / Roger-Viollet" which indicates to me it is not in the PD in France.
  • Checking copyright.gov, I find no renewals for searches on Thérèse Bonney, Therese Bonney, or The Dayton Herald, nor for any articles/images on Cécile Brunschvicg or Cecile Brunschvicg as a title, name, or keyword. Which indicates to me that the image is in the PD in the US.

If this analysis is correct, how would the image be uploaded for only en.WP? SusunW (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@SusunW: Use PD-USonly when uploading to en.wp.--Vulphere 09:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Vulphere SusunW (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome.--Vulphere 15:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere, I have more questions, on File:Julie Siegfried.jpg I tried to use that template, but nothing happens, it just gives a red link. No idea what I am doing wrong. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks alright now.--Vulphere 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere the photo of Siegfried is on commons. It cannot be, as it is under copyright in France. It is ONLY in the PD in the US. Maybe the issue is for it, it needs a template to move it to en.WP with the template USonly? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: You should upload your image to en.WP and replace the Commons image there, it looks like that the image in Commons has wrong source so I need to check.--Vulphere 15:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Vulphere. I added the correct links in author, but yes, it is not eligible for commons and I did not know how to fix it. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide me with your uploaded image link on en.wp? I just want to check it.--Vulphere 16:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere haven't uploaded anything yet. Don't know how to upload an image to en.wp except as fair use. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW The Commons image is from a french website which sourced the image from http://www.ourstory.info/library/2-ww1/Watson/images/sentry14.jpg and your image is clearly different. The problem is that website (Our Story) doesn't have any proper copyright information and the Commons image is unchallenged since its upload in 2015.--Vulphere 16:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere exactly. The one on ourstory is clearly a derivative of the original image by Eugène Pirou, same everything (clothes, hair, chair), including the little roundish bead thing that appears on the left side of her chest. The article from which the commons image was taken is dated 24 October 2012 and provides no information on the photo origins. While working on images of other French feminists, I discovered it was not in the PD in France, thus the whole dilemma. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW Pirou was dead in 1909, that was before any wartime extensions so I think PD-France apply and the copyright for Siegfried's photograph is already expired so you do not need to upload new image and can simply add PD-France tag to the Commons image. As for Brunschvicg, it is still under copyright because Bonney was dead in 1978.--Vulphere 16:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere I do not see how that is an option. The information from the National Library of France says "Rights Reproduction: réservée à un usage strictement privé. Mention de la source [Bibliothèque Marguerite Durand] obligatoire. (Reserved strictly for private use. Mention of the source [Marguerite Durand Library] is obligatory). Not public use, not commercial use, not derivative use to my reading of that. (and yes, Brunschvicg is different). SusunW (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

and I truly, truly thank you for your patience in helping me review this. I want it to be right and the feedback is really appreciated. SusunW (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

As for Brunschvicg's photo by Bonney, you can upload it via Wikipedia:Special:Upload by using Template:Information in the Summary form. Use PD-US-not-renewed template in the Permission section.--Vulphere 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Vulphere. That link is very helpful. SusunW (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: I'm sorry, the correct copyright tag is PD-US-not renewed as it was published in 1926.--Vulphere 18:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere I think I got Brunschvicg done properly. Can you verify? SusunW (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW ✓ Done with some adjustment.--Vulphere 18:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Vulphere, totally fabulous! Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW You are welcome.--Vulphere 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
By the bye, I pinged the original uploader of Siegfried and he was able to provide proof of publishing in France. Woot! SusunW (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

File falsely identified as a US coin

I came across a file yesterday that, according to its copyright tag, depicts a unit of United States currency. The file, File:1811CometShawnee.jpg, claims to be a modern US commemorative coin. This coin is not listed on the US Mint's website and it lacks many of the features of modern US coins (a mint-mark, the inscriptions "United States of America", "In God We Trust", and "E pluribus unum"). This coin appears to be a fantasy coin, possibly struck by a member of the American Indian Shawnee tribe. The source of the image is [3]. I don't usually contribute to Wikimedia Commons (I do regularly upload files, but that's about it) and I don't know how to handle cases like this, does anyone know what to do? - ZLEA T\C 13:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Gokimines.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently one of a series of medals issued by the Sovereign Nation of the Shawnee Tribe - Coins Weekly. So, not a fantasy, but not United States currency. - Donald Albury (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Donald Albury As it features a (albeit fake) face value, it is not a medal. Now that I read more on Shawnee coinage, I wouldn't call it a fantasy either. As American Indian tribes have the right of self-governance, I might call the coin an "official coin of no monetary value". - ZLEA T\C 00:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Per an article here:
“The coins are not legal tender,” Gary Pitcher, the tribe’s director of economic development, told Indian Country Today. A value, in this case one dollar, was put on the coins “because they would be more collectable.” Certain media reports have described the coins as “legal tender on Shawnee lands,” which they are not.
So, they are meant as a "commemorative issue" per that article. May be closer to a medal, at least if "coin" means legal tender. Not a U.S. coin, and not PD-USGov, so I doubt we have a way to host it. The description is somewhat accurate though could be improved, but it should probably be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: ✓ Done, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1811CometShawnee.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Mynewsdesk

Proposal: ban all new uploads which have no other licence than Mynewsdesk, and delete all of them when we run across them. ----SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is based on previous discussions such as this one, the site's listing here and, as far as I can see, a total unresponsiveness to our queries from the site's administrators. It is my opinion that (1) such images are exactly the type that are not supposed to be allowed on Commons and (2) it makes it useless for users to create and donate free images of their own of celebrities and other notable people to Commons when up against (inappropriate) competition like this and (3) the habitual copyright infringement against the actual authors of the Mynewsdesk images, which often are of excellent quality, is practically horrifying. ----SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Do derivative works of files with OTRS permission also need an OTRS tag?

There are some raster logos with OTRS permission that have vector versions on the English Wikipedia. I've been transferring those to Commons when I find them and have been posting to the OTRS noticeboard with requests to copy the original OTRS tag to the new file. But my question is: do those SVG logos actually require a {{PermissionOTRS}} template, or is a link to the original image file with the permission good enough?

I know the OTRS team already has a huge backlog and would rather not give them unnecessary work. Thanks! Ixfd64 (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As the licence allows derivative works, the copyright holder has no say on vector versions of licensed raster logos (other than about quality and use, but those are usually no issue). So the copyright holder not sending OTRS letters does not influence our right to keep the derivatives. I do not see why OTRS correspondence or OTRS checking would be needed – and the OTRS ticket being linked via the original is hardly a problem. The original should however not be deleted (the template could be copied and an explication provided, but that is unnecessarily convoluted). --LPfi (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume linking to the original version and explaining that it has OTRS permission will be adequate. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 07:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Butterfly in plastic insect catcher

I have temporarily captured a butterfly in a device that exactly looks like this one (even with the same color, and from the same manufacturer):

I assume that my photos of the butterfly, taken from a distance a bit closer than in the second photo (without the red button visible), are considered to be derivative works of an "utilitarian object" that has no copyrightable features per COM:UA. Any objections before I upload the images? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: No objection.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: It is alright.--Vulphere 07:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the design non-trivial enough to consider a free-typeface analog a derived work?

Users of Russian Wikinews consider joining Russian journalists' solidarity action (please see [4], [5]) with an emblem similar to those used by the newspapers. We also want to illustrate related news articles and Golunov's Wikipedia article. If I replicate it with a free typeface, will it be a derived work? Thanks in advance. Ain92 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Government Open Data License - India

Hi, A DR with wide-ranging consequences is open at Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India. Potentially up to 100,000 files affected. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no real difference between files not yet reviewed, and files already reviewed (i.e. Category:GODL-India). So the title of the DR is a bit misleading. This discussion concerns all files currently on Commons under the GODL. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this logo allowed?

Hello. As I´m currently working on an article about a company, I was wondering if I can put the logo of the company in the infobox at the beginning of the entry. Thanks for your answers.Bianca Hartwig (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bianca,
likely are working at an article on Wikipedia, right? So, here is Commons, not Wikipedia. Anyway, there is likely no editorial problem to add a company logo to an article, provided, the logo has been released under a free license. The latter is usually a problem, as few companies will release their current logo under a free license, which would allow anybody to use it. See also Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bianca Hartwig: if the logo is sufficiently simple then it may be allowed on Commons under the Threshold of originality rule. The threshold varies between countries. Alternatively, you may be able to post the logo to Wikipedia as a non-free image, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Non-free files on Wikipedia require a non-free use rationale. You could model the rationale on another non-free image – I suggest looking at non-free logos already used in a high-profile article, such as File:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo.svg). Verbcatcher (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I received mails from Patrick Rigel on Wikimedia Commons regarding copyrights to Helen Paul’s pictures. I have her express instructions to put up her pictures (suffice to say that I am her husband).

Please retain the pictures as there are no issues with copyright or licensing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femi Bam (talk • contribs)

@Femi Bam: Hi, and welcome. Photos are generally copyrighted by photographers, not subjects. If you did not take the photos, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept them, and have the photographer(s) license them on their websites or social media or send the photos and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Femi Bam: Hi, if these are photographs of artworks then we need evidence of permission from the artist and from the photographer. They need to release the images under a suitable license (see Commons:Choosing a license). They should be aware that these licenses allow anyone to reproduce these images for any purpose, and to create derivative images. If they are willing to license the images in this way then they should email permission, see Commons:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! A capture of GeoGebra has been deleted (File:Triangelu baten erdibitzaileak nola egin konpasa eta erregelaz.webm) because it was a screenshot of a software. But we have a full category called Category:GeoGebra here, without any deletion request. I would like to know if User:EugeneZelenko is right and this file must be deleted or not. Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I've read on the GeoGebra article in en the licenses are CC-BY-NC-SA and GPL. Especially this bit: all other non-software components are under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. I do not think GPL and CC-BY-NC-SA are compatible with each other.--Vulphere 13:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Original uploader's claim of entirely own work was wrong. As well as absence of screenshot license tag. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Yes, but this was added after, and is the only one in the category to have it. The question is not about this file, is about the WHOLE category. -Theklan (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Vulphere: Their license gives this examples of commercial use:

Examples of commercial use might include:

  • use of GeoGebra (or any related materials or resources) to generate or develop educational materials or resources which will be sold in exchange for a fee (including course or tuition fees) or (if given away for free) which are used to gain a commercial advantage for the user;
  • the provision of training, support or editorial services that use or reference GeoGebra (or any related materials or resources) in exchange for a fee;
  • use of GeoGebra (or any related materials or resources) within a non-academic ebook, textbook or journal, whether or not the book or journal is distributed for a fee. Please note that academic papers and conferences do not require a License and Collaboration Agreement; and
  • use of GeoGebra (or any related materials or resources) to assist in securing advertising or sponsorship type revenues.
I think that this is very confusing. And, at the same time, they license all the software under GPL, which as far as I know is not compatible with a NC license.
At the same time, we have their logo published with a OTRS ticket, but in the license of the logo we claim that this is a {{PD-textlogo}} case, because they are only geometric shapes. They even have an user, and they uploaded the image that should be NC to Commons.
Let's ping them: @GeoGebra: -Theklan (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I will wait for GeoGebra clarification.--Vulphere 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Subtitle sample 
7
00:01:23,366 --> 00:01:24,366
[BONES CRACKING]

8
00:01:24,367 --> 00:01:26,368
[YAWNS LOUDLY]

9
00:01:26,369 --> 00:01:28,871
WELL, THIS ISN'T
GETTING ME BREAKFAST.

10
00:01:28,872 --> 00:01:29,872
[WHISTLES]

11
00:01:29,873 --> 00:01:31,874
HERE, FIDO.

12
00:01:31,875 --> 00:01:34,376
[WHERE, OH, WHERE HAS
MY LITTLE DOG GONE? PLAYS]

13
00:01:50,026 --> 00:01:51,527
WELL...THANKS.

14
00:01:53,029 --> 00:01:55,030
NOW, COME ON!
I'M FAMISHED!

So I've uploaded some cartoons in the PD and the subtitles for hearing impaired, made by National Captioning Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are also some closed captioning that I haven't uploaded yet. All the materials come from Looney Tunes Golden Collection The question is: are these subtitles copyrighted? If so, please immediately delete the "timed text" pages. Cheers Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The captioning is just a transcription of the audio. No creativity is involved so it can't be separately copyrighted. Kaldari (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To the original question: I do not know this case, but subtitles are generally not "just a transcription of the audio". Often the text has to be shorter, still conveying most of the same points, and there is significant creativity involved in the choice of timing. --LPfi (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I also hold this opinion. Especially these captions for the hearing impaired, the subtitles need to convey the background soundtrack and the noises which are essential to understand videos. Tomskyhaha (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletion request


However, the video includes Bugs Bunny and Warner Bros. still has a valid character copyright over Bugs Bunny (unless you can show that A Wild Hare did not have its copyright renewed). Thus the entire video needs to be deleted, unfortunately. See COM:CHARACTER and, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Donald Duck from Spirit 43. Kaldari (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case the entire Category: PD cartoons needs to be reviewed. For instance this file, File:All This and Rabbit Stew.webm also contains the said character. And even before my uploads, there are already some videos here contains Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck etc, which are in that category. As a side note, the character designs vary between different development stages. In the cartoon I posted above, Bugs differs greatly from earlier or later cartoons. Therefore I'd argue that the particular design of the character has fallen into PD. The videos are also available on YouTube from third party uploaders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs7YKujdDs File:Steamboat Willie.ogv And certainly Disney still has a vaild character copyright over Mickey Mouse. (Just noticed it's already nominated for deletion)Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Disney's copyright on the Mickey Mouse / Steamboat Willie character will expire 1 January 2024 per COM:PDD.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly. Only the portions of the character as defined in the movie Steamboat Willie will become public domain. Any additions to the character added by later movies or other works (such as the modern drawing style) are essentially each derivative works, and will expire on their own anniversaries. So the Mickey Mouse character will just *start* to expire, and any usage has to be very careful to not incorporate anything which was first added in a later work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to fight the Mouse over this, but I'm skeptical if Steamboat Willie + white gloves like Bugs Bunny would be copyrightable. Or Mickey Mouse in a more modern drawing style. I doubt that, say, every Betty Boop or Popeye cartoon is a derivative work of each and every one of its predecessors, and I think, if you could afford to have the battle, that copyright over later forms of Mickey would turn out to be pretty thin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Are there any legal restrictions preventing them buying extension for another time? Just curious. Tomskyhaha (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but lobbying the US Congress for yet another extension was legal but not attempted this time.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
In the case of Steamboat Willy, it was probably never protected by copyright to begin with. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct -- the Fleischer superman cartoons are widely considered to be out of copyright in the United States (and not just by Internet types -- multiple manufacturers make $1 DVDs of them which are sold at legitimate retail outlets, including WalMart). How do these other characters legally differ from Superman? AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the Warner v. Avela ruling, which gets into detail about character copyrights, not quite sure what would make them different. There may be less actual derivative material from the earlier comics, possibly. I know that TV episodes which were not renewed were ruled derivative of characters from earlier still-copyrighted characters, and movies that were not renewed were ruled derivative of earlier still-copyrighted books, plus that Avela ruling where publicity materials which pre-dated the character copyright were OK but not much after. It's possible the amount of material in those early episodes copied was less, since the character copyright was relatively young, or maybe there is a licensing right out of DC's hands such that they can't sue. Or maybe they simply haven't cared enough, but that doesn't protect anyone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Warner v. Avela was completely settled in 2016, and Fandom.com mentions VidTape releasing the Superman cartoons in 1989 on VHS. That's over 25 years of constructive public domain. Maybe it was worth it to wrestle It's a Wonderful Life back, but the main thing selling these Superman cartoons is that they're free; they're not classics of the form. When Digiview infringed on the copyright of the Animal Farm animated movie and lost the case, they went bankrupt; I suspect getting money to pay the lawyers would be blood from a stone for most of these companies. DC could make hell, but I suspect they've made a cost-value analysis and decided to ignore it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

So, what now?

I have been given thousands of aviation photos taken by a friend who has died. Most of the images are excellent quality. I'm not going to upload even one, if there is a risk someone will immediately delete it for some reason unknown to me. Will someone advise me definitively -- can I upload these images? What do I include under "author" etc ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Moriori: you are unlikely to be able to upload these photos, although your friend's heirs probably could. For you to upload them you would need to establish that your friend had transferred the copyright to you, not just the physical photographs. Otherwise, the assumption will be that the copyright is owned by your friend's estate. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh darn. My friend's widow gave the pics to me to dispose of as I see fit. Looks like they will be filed in the too hard basket. Tks for your response. moriori (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Incidentally, sorry for not signing my original paragraph.
If the wife is the heir, get her to sign a copyright assignment to you... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If the wife is an intermediate heir, as usually over here if there are children involved, she might not have the right to transfer the copyright. If she is the final heir, that assignment would be easy to write (an e-mail from her to OTRS would probably work as well). --LPfi (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

screenshots of open source software with non-free binaries

There are some programs that are open source but come with non-free binaries, such as Visual Studio Code. But if I compile the code myself, then could I publish a screenshot of the compiled program under the open-source license? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: I don't see why not, so long as the license terms are followed and any non-free elements are removed. In the case of VS Code, the following code would create an appropriate license notice: {{free screenshot|{{MIT|Microsoft Corporation|Expat|2015 - present}}}}. There's already one (old) screenshot in Category:Visual Studio Code. clpo13(talk) 18:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to make sure. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It should be fine.--Vulphere 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Kolkata Police Commissioner

Would {{GODL-India}} be suitable for http://www.kolkatapolice.gov.in/images/img1.jpg ?

I looked through Template talk:GODL-India and the linked discussions, and at the end of all that I still wasn't clear whether the scope of {{GODL-India}} applied to all images and to all .gov.in subdomains including subsidiaries like kolkatapolice.gov.in -- Begoon 06:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
The GODL applies to some images by the Central Government. But since police is in the state juridiction, the copyright of this seems to be owned by the State. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. So do you think there is a compatible license that can be used for this in that case? Since I posted this question the very impatient user for whom I was asking the question has uploaded it as File:Anuj Sharma IPS.jpg instead of waiting for an answer as I had asked them to do. -- Begoon 07:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know. Some Indian states have a free license policy, but I don't remember which ones.
We need some investigation about the author of this file. Is it the Central or Local government? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Seán Patrick O'Malley

I'm not sure what to do about a situation I've found, and hoped that someone here might be able to help:
• On 4 May 2005, User:Pitchka uploaded en:File:OMalley.jpg with no source information, just the {{PD}} license. Is that sufficient to assume {{Own}} as source? If it is, then I can transfer the file to Commons and I think I can solve everything else.
• On 7 November 2006, User:Dwain~commonswiki uploaded File:SeanOMalley.jpg with a Summary of "I created this photograph." It appears to be a crop of the first image, which still appeared on Seán Patrick O'Malley at the time. That summary and the license granted has come to be interpreted as "Own work assumed (based on copyright claims)."
• User:Pitchka blanked a subpage of User:Dwain's the next day which was a copy of an article that Pitchka had been editing. So maybe they were the same person, but that would be difficult to prove 12 years later. Dwain has 2 edits on en-wiki in March, but none others in the last year, so we can't ask and expect an answer. Pitchka's last two edits were in 2010 and those were blanking his talk page; No other edits since 2006. One of those 2010 edits occurred on a day when Dwain blanked a subpage of Pitchka's.
If they are the same person, then I don't have any problem at all - can we jump to that conclusion? BigrTex (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If these were uploaded today, we would request a formal permission, and/or to provide the original image. But since they were uploaded so long ago, they are probably OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of Hampton Roads, Virginia.svg is tagged with PD-shape, but it's not a simple geometric shape or even a simple tricolour, but a flag with a lot of creative features that would seem to make it not PD. Virginia holds copyright over its works unless specifically released, and this would seem to apply to subdivisions as well. It seems this tag should be removed, and if no other one is available, the image should be removed from Commons. Telso (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
This is too simple to have a copyright in the USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
it is below TOO in the USA.--Vulphere 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident

Almost every photo in Category:June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident is COPYVIO (not the ones from US gov't). Something should be done to preventmonitor uploading of media sourced from these Iranian news websites. The websites are under CC but they often use other peoples' work and users upload them to Wikipedia/Commons under the template/licenses attributed to the websites. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Majora: , who reviewed one of the file. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann and Coffeeandcrumbs: Just from past experience with Tasnim, when they take photos from elsewhere they generally state so. The credit line stated "Tasnim News" so I assumed that the photo was owned by them and therefore subject to the {{Tasnim}} license. Certainly possible I made a mistake here. I'll also reply on the DR for a watermarkless version of this image. --Majora (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: These Iranian news websites ({{Tasnim}}, {{Fars}}, {{Mehr}}, {{Moj}}, etc.) are great media sources which publish original content on a daily basis, and nothing should be done to prevent uploading from them to Commons. They sometimes act unprofessionally with regard to credits and attributions, but they are generally OK. Furthermore, we regularly patrol the images and if there is something fishy about their provenance, we can simply nominate them for deletion. Don't throw the baby away with the bath water. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
They are definitely a great source. I did't mean bar them altogether. Perhaps we can automatically place any photos upload with those templates in a category to be reviewed (similar to how Flickr-washing is monitored but not bot-assisted obviously). The photos are usually very timely. I am concerned one them is eventually going to end up on the en.wiki Main Page which would be really embarrassing. But I understand if that isn't a high priority for this project. Thanks for clearing out the category though. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
They already are categorized in "review needed" type categories. I was the one that reviewed such images and, again, if I made a bad assumption here I apologize. Mistakes do happen. --Majora (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Product images

Hello,

I have been involved in doing some work on the wiki article NYPD X-ray vans, and an image would be very useful. However, the NYPD is very secretive about this product and catching one in the wild has proven very difficult...

I have found that the website for the manufacturer has this image gallery available, and many publications have used these images in their reporting https://www.rapiscan-ase.com/resource-center/image-gallery

Are these images considered usable within wikimedia?

Thanks for answering my n00b question! Tecuixin (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the website has the All right reserved copyright notice so unless the company willing to freely-licensed their images by sending permission to COM:OTRS you can not upload them to Commons.--Vulphere 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Chief Mouser of the Foreign Office Twitter

Does the Official twitter account of Chief Mouser of the Foreign Office are parts of the FCO? And the files are under crown copyright {{OGL}}. --219.79.97.230 13:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Open Government Licence page on Wikipedia says The works must have been expressly released under the OGL terms by the relevant rights owner or authorised information provider. However, this Twitter page does not appear to come under any of the Exceptions to OGL listed on The National Archives website.[6] This issue appears to be more significant than which license to apply to cat photos – does OGL apply to UK Government publications that do not carry a copyright notice? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It is directly linked to the FCO website. I think OGL apply here. --223.197.139.47 06:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
A link to fco.gov.uk does not amount to a copyright release. The best argument may be that Official account of the @foreignoffice Chief Mouser indicates an official Foreign Office account. Would this justify OGL? Verbcatcher (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Official Foreign Office account is under OGL per {{FCO}}, please see the website. --B dash (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Could @Jeff G., Ruslik0, and Clindberg: also comment on this? --B dash (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@B dash, Ruslik0, and Clindberg: We have official FlickrMail from FCO that supports {{FCO}} via Ticket:2013061310007371, and should also support them for the Chief Mouser (who I doubt actually takes any photos). Not so for #10's Flickr.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't see the OTRS ticket of course, but unless its wording is very specific to the one Flickr stream, it seems reasonable to assume that it covers any employee of the Foreign Office. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Number 10 Flickr

Does files from Number 10 Flickr can be used despite tagging as non-commercial/no-derivatives. Since the website said all the content is available under {{OGL-3.0}}. --B dash (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Are the same images available on the website? Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Some are available, but some aren't. --B dash (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You can download those available from the website. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: How about File:Red in No. 10 Downing Street.jpg, this image doesn't appear on the website, but some admins believed that OGL still apply to here, and undelete it. --B dash (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@B dash: We can't host that, I tagged it accordingly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: also File:Trump and May in Blenheim Palace, July 2018.jpg, which is under DR. --B dash (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@B dash: So I see.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and Ruslik0: Lastly, Number 10's twitter and Facebook account also have some of the photos in Flickr marked as nc-nd or all rights reserved. Is that those images can't be uploaded? --B dash (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@B dash and Ruslik0: PM May and her web and social media staff need to get on the same page wrt licensing. Until then, we can't host files that can only be found on Number 10's flickr feed with cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 licenses. What does WMUK have to say about this?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Jcb, Clindberg. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red in No. 10 Downing Street.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump and May in Blenheim Palace, July 2018.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think PM and secretary of state of different department in UK are copyrighted, and they are not covered by OGL. --B dash (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably just a careless licensing on the Flickr site, but I'm not sure we can assume that. For PD-USGov works we can because that status is part of law, whereas each department in the UK can decide what is OGL and what is not -- so if only the main website has that license declared, then I would prefer only keep the photos which are on the website. Is there an email address that we can ask if the website licensing can also be assumed to apply to their Flickr site, so we would have at least some basis to apply the license? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: There's the form at https://www.gov.uk/contact/govuk and there's Flickrmail, plus public comments on those photos on Flickr.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Coins of Canada

There's a message box added to the top of this category page which provides some information on the copyright status of Canadian coins. It seems to basically say that Canidian coins published after December 31, 1945 cannot be hosted by Commons. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that date because I'm not sure if it's current; however, just going by that date alone and looking at some of the images shown in "Media in category "Coins of Canada", it appears that quite a number of the coins shown wouldn't make the cutoff date for PD status. Some of these are photos of coins taken from Flickr. There Flickr licensing has been verified, but nothing is mentioned about the copyright status of the coin itself. If coins are generally considered to be copyrightable 3D engraved objects per COM:Coins and Canadian coins are considered protected by copyright per COM:CUR Canada, then that would make these photos derivative works, wouldn't it? This would mean that they can't be kept unless both the photo and the photgraphed object would either PD or released under a free license Commons accepts, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The year mentioned there has been current since this edit 09:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You are welcome to ask on Category talk:Coins of Canada.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Kakao logo.jpg

PD-because "Logo is for public use".

I don't think that to be a sufficient reason to mark the file as PD, but it might lack the TOO so want a second opinion before resorting to DR. — regards, Revi 08:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not PD, it should be PD-textlogo but per COM:TOO South Korea: "Work" refers to a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings. I suggest that the TOO is extremely low.--Vulphere 08:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
-revi But, the South Korean TOO page doesn't mention relevant court cases regarding icons so I leaned towards keep.--Vulphere 14:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely PD-textlogo. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 Comment - "public use" does not mean the work is in public domain. However, South Korea is a civil law country and should have a similar threshold of originality to the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please advise on proper license tag for images uploaded from Frey Family Photos site

Frey Family Photos is a collection of images dating from the late 19th to early 20th century, generally undated and unattributed. The holder of the collection is gives this general permission for use of the images:

"Please feel free to download copies of these images for your personal files and enjoyment. If you use them in any publication, please credit the “Frey Family Collection.”[7]

Additionally, I have a June 11, 2019 email granting specific permission to upload the images of Rocky Ford Dam (#39);

"Feel free to use these pictures but please credit the blog. Thank you."

The #39 images have some general historic value, linked to the first aquisition of C. L. Brown's United Utilities, precursor to w:Sprint Corporation, as well as to the origins of w:Tuttle Creek Lake. The new construction (framing on right) suggests a date of 1917, the date of C. L. Brown's purchase of the mill and expansion of attached steam-power.

Please advise me of proper license tag; either created before 1924, no copyright ever claimed, or {{PD-author|}}, or otherwise. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 15:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Before 1924 if published before then would be {{PD-US-expired}}. You could also use {{PD-US}} or {{PD-old-assumed}} for the photographs created before 1899. Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. These were created before or close to 1924, but never published. Author is completely unknown. They were in a private collection that the inheritor recently placed in their gallery with the above permissions. How does that affect the license? Isn't one of the CCs free use conditional to attribution? IveGoneAway (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
In the US, unpublished photographs have a copyright term of 70 years after the death of the photographer (if death date is known) or 120 years from creation. Since author is completely unknown, we have to use the 120 year rule since we don't know who inherited the copyright to these photographs (if this archive were the photographer's heirs, a simple attribution license would appear to suffice). Pinging @Clindberg in case I missed something. Abzeronow (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Abzeronow If you are referring to {{Attribution}}, then, since the presume copyright holder wishes attribution go to the collection, I would think wording would go like this;
The copyright holder of this file, Bill Griffing, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the Frey Family Collection is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
IveGoneAway (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait?! Pinging @Abzeronow, are you saying we can't use {{Attribution}}? Also, I have just learned that the picture may date before 1908, I will keep looking deeper. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) This new concrete dam was built in 1908, but later replaced with the present standing dam. 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Heart Truth

Hi, From this file (which has also a bug right now), I went to The Heart Truth Flickr account, where I found some images with "Photo by Getty Images for Heart Truth" under a license "United States government work". This is obviously very unlikely. Bad account? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think these are ok. The Heart Truth is an initiative by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, a US Government agency.[8]. The background of this image indicates that The Heart Truth organized or sponsored an event with famous women dressed in red in what appears to be a catwalk show. The issue is whether this Flickr account is an official account of the Institute – the fact that all the images appear to be from this event supports this. My interpretation of 'Photo by Getty Images for Heart Truth' is that the Institute employed Getty to organize the photography, or that they cooperated in this event. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Have I correctly added a license to my file?

Hello, I'm just checking to make sure that I've properly licensed my file. It got a warning that it didn't have sufficient copyright information, so I'd like to check whether that's fixed, and if not, how I can resolve the issue. This is the link. Thanks! --Sebastian Hudak (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

GNU IceCat is free software and the licence looks alright.--Vulphere 14:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 04:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So, I was updating FedEx logos and noticed the :File:FedEx Office Logo.svg is uploaded as a fair use logo. Now, it was concluded that the FedEx logo itself is a 'Text Logo' and not eligible for copyright. Is the little asterisk thing enough for it to exceed threshold of originality and be under copyright? (This question was originally asked on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but went unanswered within six days (and will be archived on 26 June), thus I decided to post it here and see if I could get an answer here.)--The Navigators (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems comparable to File:Best Western logo.svg to me... AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to move it then, since if the File:Best Western logo.svg is suitable for the Commons, then the FedEx Office logo should also be suitable. Thanks for the assistance.--The Navigators (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 04:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

License for Indian postal stamps

By COM:India, I applied {{GODL-India}} for postage stamps photos like this one. Is this the right way? Because I want to upload more photos.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 08:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
Old Indian stamps (i.e. before 1958) can be uploaded with {{PD-India}}.
For the recent Indian stamps, the situation is not clear. See the talk page of {{GODL-India}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Works created in Belize between 1981 and 2000

Belize became an independent country in 1981, but did not enact copyright legislation until 2000 (and was not a party to the Berne Convention until 2000 or the WIPO Copyright Treaty until 2019). Belize's copyright laws do not appear to be retroactive, and prior to 2000, it was generally assumed that no copyright laws were in effect in Belize.[9] However, Belize is a Commonwealth country, and uses English Common Law (in addition to statutory legislation). Two questions:

  1. What is the copyright status of works created in Belize between 1981 and 2000?
  2. What about works created by the government of Belize such as currency and stamps (between 1981 and 2000)?

Thanks for the help. Kaldari (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The usual arrangements for British colonies' becoming independent was for laws (whether statutory or common law) in force at independence to stay in place. That seems to be provided for by article 5 of the Belize Independence Order 1981. It's supported by the fact that section 146 of the Copyright Act linked above includes a provision to repeal "The Copyright Act, and the Copyright Act 1956 of the United Kingdom in so far as it has effect as part of the law of Belize", which would be unnecessary if the Copyright Act 1956 didn't apply. Similarly, section 150 explicitly provides that works under copyright by virtue of the 1956 Act remain in copyright. I suppose one possibility is that despite this, the 1956 Act never actually applied to Belize: I'm not sure where I'd start looking to work that out. --bjh21 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The document you link to says
150.-(1) Where immediately prior to the appointed day, copyright subsists in Belize in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work by virtue of the Copyright Act 1956 of the United Kingdom, such copyright shall continue to subsist and the person entitled thereto by virtue of this Act shall be the owner thereof under and subject to this Act, and in particular -
(a) the duration of such copyright;
(b) the acts comprised within the exclusive rights attaching to such copyright; and
(c) the effect upon the ownership of such copyright of any event or transaction occurring or of any contract or agreement made after the appointed day,
shall be governed by this Act.
I'm sure there's a bunch of subtle changes here, but it seems that from 1981 on, Belize was a life+50 nation. The San Pedro Sun seems to talk not about copyright in general, but broadcasting rights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these files violate Wikimedia Commons policy

Hi! The following files link to a CC-NC-ND license:

  • ISS-59 Richat Structure (1).jpg
  • ISS-59 Richat Structure (2).jpg

But they're also a work from someone employed by the US government, meaning they should be released in the public domain. What's the correct license in this case? Thanks! Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 11:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tetizeraz. It looks like these would be public domain, given that they appear to be produced by NASA. US federal law mandates this, and individual employees or agencies cannot override that without the approval of Congress in the form of legislation. However, copyright law is fairly esoteric to the average person, and it's not uncommon for federal employees to upload images online under an incorrect license for this reason, which is what seems to have happened here. GMGtalk 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying GreenMeansGo! Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 15:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 16:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Mynewsdesk

Proposal: ban all new uploads which have no other licence than Mynewsdesk, and delete all of them when we run across them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is based on previous discussions such as this one, the site's listing here and, as far as I can see, a total unresponsiveness to our queries from the site's administrators. It is my opinion that (1) such images are exactly the type that are not supposed to be allowed on Commons and (2) it makes it useless for users to create and donate free images of their own of celebrities and other notable people to Commons when up against (inappropriate) competition like this and (3) the habitual copyright infringement against the actual authors of the Mynewsdesk images, which often are of excellent quality, is practically horrifying.
[Relisted in the hope that somebody else might care about these many images.] --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done (re:sig.) thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Question:Is there a need for a "checked" subcat?Jim.henderson (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
An "unchecked" subcat would be better, to segregate the questionable images. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jim.henderson and Verbcatcher: I think that would depend on how far this proposal wants to go. Are we just saying that the unreviewed images from mynewsdesk are hereby deemed unacceptable for hosting on Commons? Or are we saying that all mynewsdesk, including those that are already licensed reviewed, are deemed unacceptable? What are your thoughts on the matter, SergeWoodzing? --Majora (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I was simply responding to Jim.henderson's suggestion of a "checked" subcat. I have not looked at the history of this issue sufficiently to take a view, but the proposer's rationale seems sound. I agree with Majora's point that we should keep any images that are acceptable under other criteria, such as {{Pd-art}} or {{Textlogo}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Majora for asking! Any image of theirs which has been reviewed as acceptable only because it's theirs should be deleted. Images that are kept should have such clear additional license other than just Mynewsdesk that any license reference to Mynewsdesk could be erased. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I should add that there is no doubt in my mind that license reviewers in good faith have deemed many images acceptable due to what looked like a valid guardian, guarantor or agent of license on the part of Mynewsdesk per se. Time, however, has taken it's toll on our trust in this case, and we are no longer safe to assume good faith with these people and let them overrun Commons with more and more images where clarity of copyright actually is absent. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Are images in s:The Complete Lojban Language allowed to be uploaded here?

These images may be free according to [10]. (See also s:Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#The_Complete_Lojban_Language_(1997)/Chapter_1.)--神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

These terms are incompatible with our licensing requirements, except for chapter 21. Please stick to our established license templates. Self invented license templates won't by recognized by the software as a valid license anyway. Jcb (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: How does a license template get "recognized by the software as a valid license"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
What makes them incompatible?
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this book, either in electronic or in printed form, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this book, provided that the modifications are clearly marked as such, and provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this book into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation that has been approved by the Logical Language Group, rather than in English.
That sure seems to allow copying, commercial use, and derivative works. I don't see any restrictions which are incompatible with our guidelines. What makes it non-free in your opinion? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The first line (omitted by you) is problematic at least: "Copyright © 1997 by The Logical Language Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved." - apart from that, I see no mention of 'commercial use' and the way derivative works are allow is restricted. The first line shows that this is a limitted usage right rather than a release into a compatible free license. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The first line is boilerplate. "Copyright year, Name, All Rights Reserved" or some close variation thereof, was required for copyright, including free licenses, under the Buenos Aires Convention and US copyright law.
There is no need to mention commercial use for a free license. It just can't be restricted.
The CC-BY-SA says you must "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". Free licenses often require people to note modified changes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Basically going to repeat what Prosfilaes said above, but "all rights reserved" means the same thing as "copyright exists", and is the same thing as the copyright notice -- that was the way you did it under the w:Buenos Aires Convention, so you typically had both that and also a copyright notice for the U.S. (and later Universal Copyright Convention). They are meaningless under the Berne Convention, but old habits die hard, and they can still be useful as nobody can claim innocent infringement with them there. Creative Commons made a play on words with "some rights reserved", but that does not change anything about the basic phrase -- copyright has to exist to be licensed, which is all that line is saying. It's not problematic in the least. It's why I omitted it -- it has nothing to do with the "free" determination. See w:All rights reserved.
Second, you don't have to explicitly mention commercial use -- if you allow copying, that implies all copying, commercial or otherwise. We are often more careful with simple license statements since that is a restriction that people sometimes want but forget to mention, or did not think about, but in a well-considered license that is not an issue. If they restrict commercial use explicitly, then we have a problem, otherwise it's fine. They place no restriction on who can make copies, which means commercial users can copy it too.
Third, derivative works are not restricted too much -- simply that they be labeled as changed, and carry the same license. Those are acceptable "free" conditions, and are similar to CC-BY-SA. Labeling changes are often part of moral rights anyways and can be required even for public domain works (and are part of the CC licenses too). You can't translate the license itself without approval, but that is fine -- you have the option of just copying the English license as-is (which is generally required by other free licenses). So, it would appear stuff got deleted in error then ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work is definitely restricted too much. They give permission to copy the book as a whole, modify or unmodified, which is a small part of all thinkable derivative work. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Cropping is a modified version of the book. "Permission+is+granted+to+copy+and+distribute+modified+versions" Google shows that the language you object to is pretty standard in manuals for the Free Software community.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
"Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this book" is what it says -- that would mean removals as well. Nothing in there states that the entire work must be copied -- that is only in the "verbatim" section. I don't see that it restricts modifications in any way, just that there is a share alike provision on the resulting derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Flickr photos

Hello everyone. I have got a question. Are images in Flickr that are tagged as "some rights reversed" allowed to be uploaded to here? Such as this image File:Bait Baws, Yemen (11686160484).jpg see the source of it. It says "some rights reversed". I have found some good photos that is published in Flickr by the same author with the same licence, can I upload them? thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam. This depends on which rights have been reserved. The easiest method is to watch out for the symbol just next to the text "some rights" reserved. Here is a summary of licenses on Flickr that are suitable for upload at Commons. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the symbols I found next to the images I found: Creative Commons Attribution iconCreative Commons Share Alike icon
Can I upload them to commons with attribution? Is that acceptable? Thank you for your help.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
sorry I didn't see that you said "...suitable for upload at Commons." Thank you so much for your help.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The logos denote CC-BY-SA, which is one of the licence suitable for upload at Commons.--Vulphere 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

when i upload my images wiki can give me copyright but its my photo , so, how you can delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaybhargav.co (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Okaybhargav.co: Who is the photographer?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Youtube video (CC-BY-SA) for extracting part of it's audio

I was looking for a piece of audio of a national anthem. I found one with a CC-BY-SA license, it's in a video on Youtube. Am I allowed to use it on Commons and if so, how can I best go about doing this? --oSeveno (User talk) 10:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@OSeveno: link? I think not all national anthems are out of copyright yet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The Youtube link gets refused by the system as spam. But the anthem is old: The lyrics and the music are from the 16th/17th century. --oSeveno (User talk) 10:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ZyDCD0cLg --oSeveno (User talk) 10:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@OSeveno: ah, het Wilhelmus. Ja dat ken ik. The Creative Commons license on that YT video is worthless. They don't have the rights. As the music is already in the public domain, we only have to deal with performance rights. Which I'm not actually familiar with. Some certainly safe alternatives:
@Alexis Jazz: Too complicated, so I'll just leave it. Thanks for the help. Perhaps some day I'll stumble upon what I'm looking for. --oSeveno (User talk) 18:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Don Costa, PD-US-no notice?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/DON-COSTA-Conducting-His-15-Hits-LP-Sealed-Mono-tiny-corner-dings-sl-cw/352598822901

https://www.discogs.com/Don-Costa-Don-Costa-Conducting-His-15-Hits/release/5786142

Can't find a copyright notice.. Could the cover photo of Don Costa by Jules Alexander be uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}}? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It appears so.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
A copyright notice on the inside (and possibly even record itself) might have covered it. Per here though, looks like the inside was just ads for other records and I don't see a notice there either. Additionally, as a 1961 publication, there would have to be a renewal, and I don't see anything under a "Don Costa" title, nor anything by Viceroy (cover design) or Jules Alexander (photographer, probably the one who lived 1926 - 2016). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Don Costa has an image now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 01:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Mynewsdesk, again

What happened here? All the listed support was removed when the section was archived? In any case, I can't find it. Please help! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: please scroll to the bottom of that page.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
As I participated in the discussion I cannot be the one to delete the images outright. So I nominated all the unreviewed images for deletion. --Majora (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 01:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Compatibility between MIT and CCBYSA

User:AbstractionIsBeautiful has uploaded File:ChessFriend-Fire collage.png and provided a link showing that the software they've made the screen shot of is licensed unser Template:MIT (unless I'm missing something). However, they've licensed the screen shot itself under CCBYSA 4.0. Are these two licenses compatible? I'll confess I'm not super familiar with MIT, and don't really see it that often. GMGtalk 12:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MIT license is a permissive license and as such is compatible with cc-by-sa (but not the other way around). Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

HMS Warspite (03)

I came across a great photo of this ship which is declared on the original host site as a "family photo" "feel free to use it with my blessing" and "free to use", but I'm not sure if that is sufficient to meet our needs. Not looking for a defining legal statement, more a question of it's worth the time and effort of uploading. http://www.warspite.dk/photograph.html Mighty Antar (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Mighty Antar, unfortunately what Mr. Spear wrote in his note cannot be taken as a license, or even an indication that the image was released under a free license. Also, while the website indicates they are "copyleft" licensed, since they do not own the rights to the image, such a license could not be applied to it. You would need to contact the copyright holder and have them submit a release to OTRS. See COM:OTRS, and also see COM:Email templates. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

artwork in public space

Fotos of artwork in public space (in Germany) should be mentioned as allowed for Upload into wiki commons - isn't it?

In my case I want to improve the article August Gaul *1869 +1919 with pictures I made myself of a well in my town and other photos taken in the museum (taking photos is not forbidden there!)

Maybe the best wording would be: It is allowed to upload your own photos unless ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HH1946 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Freedom of Panorama. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 18:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Darthvader2

Darthvader2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I believe this user has engaged in flickrwashing or other forms of copyright evasion at least in recent years. I've nominated a few for deletion. Please help investigate his other uploads. (Try using VFC and check all the self photos with EXIF suggesting all sorts of cameras or without EXIF at all.)--Roy17 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

University of Illinois seal

While working on a short and definitely PD (US pre-1924) book for Wikisource I extracted and uploaded this seal for use there: File:University of illinois logo (1918).png. After looking into it further I noticed that this svg on Wikipedia is practically identical but is marked as non-free. I'm not really sure how copyright applies with old logos that are in use like this so would appreciate advice as to whether my upload is in the clear. Nizolan (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your upload is fine. Sometimes someone simply does not know the history of a graphic and will just mark it non-free to be safe. Or in that case, the vectorization could possibly carry a separate copyright. But as for copyright, for a U.S. work if it was published before 1924 it's fine. That is still trademarked though, so you could add the {{Trademarked}} template. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to add what Clindberg posted above, the file you uploaded is png, while the non-free one uploaded locally to English Wikipedia is svg. Sometimes, as explained in en:WP:FREER and COM:SVG#Copyright, an svg might be considered copyrightable due to way it's created. My guess is that whomever uploaded the svg was just being cautious as Clindberg suggests; however, copyright ownership over the svg might be being claimed as well by either the uploader or whomever created it. If that's the case, the local Wikipedia file cannot be kept per non-free content use criterion #1 because basically someone could create their own svg version of the file and release it under a free license, or the png version you've upload would be considered a free equivalent capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Corkythehornetfan, RaphaelQS, B16tran as the enwiki uploaders for comment.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded my version as a non-free image because I didn’t know when the seal was created, so just to be on the safe side like you’ve all mentioned. My version (not sure about the others) came from a pdf from the university website, so if it’s a free work, please feel free to change its license and move it to commons. I’d much rather use a SVG than a png. Corky 10:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I’ve gone ahead and changed the en:wiki file to PD-US. Corky 11:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dale Hodges Park, Calgary, Alberta stormwater panel

I have just uploaded a photograph I took of a pedagogical panel in a newly-opened urban public park for an article I just created. The article is Dale Hodges Park and the image is here: File:Dale Hodges Park, Calgary, Alberta stormwater panel.jpg I am assuming that because this panel is in a public park that there is no copyright limitations. Am I correct? Thank you.

I have already asked at the Commons and received this response:

"I do not know in this case but {{Fair use}} is not accepted in Commons. Better ask Commons:Village pump."

At the Commons, I received this response:

"Oceanflynn you ask, I am assuming that because this panel is in a public park that there is no copyright limitations. Am I correct? No, you are not correct. Being in a public park has no bearing on copyright."
"In some countries it might raise exceptions based on Freedom of panorama that would allow photographs despite the copyright of the underlying work. Canada makes such exceptions for architecture and for sculpture/artwork in public places. It's not clear to me whether this would be considered artwork. Freedom of Panorama is the only at all likely basis on which this might be OK for Commons. You might bring that question to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where you are more likely to get an informed opinion than here."

Can I use this image as is or do I need to seeks permission from the City of Calgary? Thank you. Oceanflynn (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)File:Dale Hodges Park, Calgary, Alberta stormwater panel.jpg

I uploaded File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg , but Im no sure, if is the Licensing is ok or delete file. I deleted chinese characters, following Commons:Threshold of originality, but LY company logo is very simple is has been ruled copyright.

I uploaded File:Windows 2000 logo.svg is a simple version from original logo. A lot of companies has a simple logo , from the original logo, for example : this is original logo, but this web site has a simple logo. File:Windows 2000 logo.svg is ok ? --EEIM (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Shanghai metro logo is probably ok as it includes only simple geometrical shapes and some short text. The Windows 2000 logo is too complex, my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
We have generally deleted anything with that Windows 3.1 style logo, if memory serves. Looking in that category, a few have come back in recent years. The surrounding boxes are borderline, but I think the core logo is well over the U.S. line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Three topics with respect to licencing.

1. I have uploaded to Commons the photo "Elisabeth_Amandi3.jpg" and have instructed the author of the picture, Mr. Manfred Amandi, to send an E-Mail to Wikimedia saying that he is the author. He did so (I believe, essentially in a correct way), but due to some misunderstanding, he inserted "_" between "Amandi" and "3". That may be the reason why his message could not be associated with the photo. It would be very nice if somebody among the administrators could rectify this issue.

2. I am the original author of the Wikipedia article "Friedrich Thuma". The pictures included are from sources which state that there is a legitimate licence. I would like to add a photo of a sculpture by Thuma which is in my possession. Since Thuma died in 1963 in Biberach an der Riß (Baden-Württemberg), I assumed that the heirs should be asked. So I wrote to the Standesamt (Civil registration office) at Biberach. I received an answer that they do not know who the heir is or the heirs --Der Kurt2 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)are, and if they knew they would not tell due to information privacy (Datenschutz). Now my question is: Does a practice exist in Wikimedia whereby a photo can be licenced in a case where the owner of the Copyright cannot be determined?

3. I would like to write a new Wiki on another artist, the painter Magdalena Klett (1901-1973). Klett was a foundling, and she had no children. So there are no natural heirs, also she had no will. What is the practice in such a case? Thanks in advance,--Der Kurt2 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this is Ticket:2016122310007951, in reference to File:Elisabeth Amandi2.jpg, but I don't speak French.
As to the remainder, unfortunately no, there is no process for freely licensing works where we cannot identify the owner of copyright. The most common alternative is to wait long enough that the copyright would expire, but this generally means more than a century needs to have passed since publication. GMGtalk 18:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:James A. Mills

Hi, Since these images were taken aboard a British ship, I initially assumed that James A. Mills was British, but then I discovered that he was American. Yes, I think these images were most probably first published in UK. But what is the copyright status in USA? Can we assume that they were also published in USA at the same time?

I am also looking for information about Len Putnam. It seems that Gandhi and Chaplin pictures are by him. I found [11], so his name is actually spelled "Puttnam", and he died in 1981: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Len Puttnam. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

For Mills, there is info here. Sounds like he was an AP employee, and was the Bombay bureau chief in 1931-1932 which is likely where those photos came from. So they were more likely first published in India, not the UK. But it would be a reasonable assumption that they were simultaneously (within 30 days) published in other countries too, since that was the AP's business. Unsure if he would count as a domiciliary of India when he was on the job like that, since that was just a job assignment -- and if not, the photos would not be URAA-eligible either. And 1931-published photos would have expired in India before the URAA date anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Is very simple recreation of complex materials violation of copyright?

Suppose I have a copyrighted sattelite image of an island, and I draw a doodle-style outline map from it. Would this be considered violation of copyright? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caledonides KM.png prompts me to ask this question.--Roy17 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not as the shape of the island is not copyrightable - it was created by the nature after all. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Copyright in a photograph is generally the angle, framing, and other factors controllable by the photographer. If the subject matter can be arranged by the photographer (say a studio photo) then the actual pictured content may also be part of the copyright, but simple snapshots do not confer any rights over the item being photographed. So a straight-on photo like a satellite shot would probably be limited to copying the photograph itself, but any drawing of the pictured elements would not be derivative I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Detlef Dauer (talk · contribs)

Hello.I created Category:Willy Knabe (1896-1967) Then I noticed that

  • All user images are old and have "own" license
  • Their description is links to an external site
  • Some images have been requested to be deleted by @Guanaco, JopkeB, and Thgoiter:

Please delete them if they are violate.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ferrari 250 GTO

According to recent news reports, the w:Ferrari 250 GTO is now considered a piece of art under Italian law. As the designer is still living, does that mean Category:Ferrari 250 GTO must all be deleted under Commons:FOP Italy? Silly ruling by the courts imo.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the text of the ruling, but it may be more a design right that just prevents reproduction of the actual cars (which is what the lawsuit was about), and not wide-ranging derivative works like photos. If Ferrari claims derivative rights over any and all photos, we can revisit then (but probably would not affect photos taken in other countries anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
According to quotes from decision in the press, the model concerned was found by the Court (Tribunale di Bologna) to be protected as a "work" under the Italian Copyright Act ("LDA", Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633). See e.g. Il Sole. A note on design protection in Italy: When Italy transposed the Design Directive in 2001, they also got rid of the separability requirement in the Copyright Act (which -- my speculation -- might have prevented this result) and expressly extended copyright protection to "industrial designs that possess in themselves creative character and artistic value" (Art. 2(10) LDA) <see Merzano, Paolo, ‘An Ill-Designed Protection for a Well-Designed Product: Italy and its Protection of Industrial Design’, RIDA 240 (2014): pp. 118–263, at 199 et seq.>. Under the same provision, the Tribunale di Torino held a few years ago that the 1945/46-style Vespa is protected by copyright. So as long as the reported facts are accurate, the latest decision is not really surprising, even more so since there seems to be heavy reliance by the courts on a "judgment of history" approach regarding the artistic value of a given design object, an approach confirmed by the Supreme Court a few years back <see Derclaye, Estelle, ‘The Copyright/Design Interface in Italy’, edited by Estelle Derclaye. In The Copyright/Design Interface. Past, Present and Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 269–296, at 290 et seq.>. A Ferrari or a Vespa are of course known to frequently attract design awards and are commonly regarded as "art" by museums and art experts, as also observed by the Bologna Court in its decision (see the quote from the decision reproduced in the Il Sole piece). It is also a rather unsurprising result from a comparative European perspective. See e.g. Regional Court of Stuttgart, Germany (Landgericht Stuttgart), judgement of 26 July 2018, 17 O 1324/17 = ZUM-RD 2019, 233, at 242 (holding that the Porsche 356 and the original Porsche 911 designs are protected by copyright) [currently under appeal for other reasons]. Since the reproduction right for works is harmonised across the EU and since a photograph of a work constitutes a reproduction of the photographed work under InfoSoc <see e.g. Bechtold in Dreier/Hugenholtz, Concise European Copyright Law, 2nd ed. 2016, p. 439>, it doesn't really make a difference whether you recreate the actual car or create a photo of it. If the Ferrari is indeed a protected work, you either need an applicable limitation/exception (such as FOP), or the permission from the copyright owner. [As a practical matter, it seems now pretty clear that photographing the Ferrari on a German street would be covered by the German freedom of panorama provision <see BGH, judgement of 27 April 2017, I ZR 247/15 = GRUR 2017, 798 - AIDA Kussmund (even though the decision only refers to works displayed at the outside of vehicles, such as ships and cars - in casu: a logo on a ship -, there's no obvious reason why it wouldn't equally apply to the vehicle itself)>. So something like that could be a way for Commons to continue hosting pictures of protected cars.] Best, — Pajz (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
German FOP may apply if you can find a car on permanent display. --ghouston (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, of course, but that's not really the point. The point is that a ship (or, for that matter, a car) is permanently situated in the public for purposes of German freedom of panorama by virtue of it moving in public waters / on public streets all the time. ("A work is located 'on public paths, streets or spaces' within the meaning of Sec. 59(1), first sentence, of the Copyright Act even when it changes its location and the different places at or on which the work is located are public places" <BGH, judgement of 27 April 2017, I ZR 247/15 = GRUR 2017, 798 - AIDA Kussmund, para. 32> <translation from IIC (2017) 48: 987>. — Pajz (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ghouston: no: "However, advertisements and applied art displayed on vehicles such as buses and tramways were found to have a permanent nature by the Federal Court of Justice." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You could also find a country where cars aren't copyrightable, so FOP isn't needed. However, the "country of origin" of the car will still be Italy, so photos taken elsewhere may get deleted anyway. That's what happened at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aboriginal_Flag_02.jpg to a photo of a flag made in Israel but supposedly copyrighted in Australia. --ghouston (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I was pondering the same thing. Quite some factors at play here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

German TOO

There's not much information given in c:COM:TOO Germany and it appears that German copyright law changed in 2013. Any opinions on whether File:Deutscher Fußball-Bund logo.svg and File:DFB-Logo 1945.svg are OK to keep on Commons as {{PD-logo}}? If they are, then it seems that en:File:DFBTriangles.svg and en:File:German Football Association logo (1995).svg should also be OK for Commons as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Gazebo due to this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, in 2013, the Federal High Court (BGH) changed its jurisprudence on copyright protection of works of applied art following changes to the Design Act, holding <BGH, judgement of 13 November 2013, I ZR 143/12 = BGHZ 199, 52 - Geburtstagszug> that "in principle, no other requirements are to be made for copyright protection of works of applied art [norms omitted] than for copyright protection of works of non-utilitarian fine art or of literary and musical creation. Therefore, it is sufficient that they achieve a level of creativity that allows a public that is open to art and relatively familiar with views on art justifiably to speak of 'artistic' creativity. They need not, however, clearly surpass the average design (departing from this Court’s decision of 22 June 1995 – Silberdistel)" <translation from IIC (2014) 45: 831> (underlining added). The consequences of this judgement are still subject to some debate, with some observers taking the emphasis on "'artistic' creativity" and the remark by the Court that "the aesthetic effect of the design can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not due to its intended use" as indication that while the Court initially lowered the threshold of originality for works of applied art, it effectively raised it again. I would submit that the jurisprudence by lower courts thus far has somewhat refuted the latter view, but, either way, I think it's probably safe to say that logos are, in some way, a special case anyway for - unlike cars, model trains, or similar items - they cannot really be considered, in the first place, as carrying elements that are there "due to the intended use" <see Schmidt, A., 2019. Wann ist Design Kunst im Sinne des Urheberrechts? Das Erfordernis der künstlerischen Leistung als Schutzvoraussetzung bei Produktgestaltungen nach der „Geburtstagszug“-Entscheidung. Berlin: Lang, p. 126; Mezger, L., 2017. Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht. Göttingen: V&R unipress, p. 143>. Therefore, it would seem sensible to assume that the applicable threshold of originality for logos is lower now than it used to be <see also Nordemann, W., and Nordemann, A., 2016. Der Geburtstagszug – Ein Geschenk für Designer? In: W. Büscher, et al., eds. Marktkommunikation zwischen Geistigem Eigentum und Verbraucherschutz. Festschrift für Karl-Heinz Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag. München: Beck, 777–788, at 786 (noting that the "Laufendes Lauge", the first picture in COM:TOO Germany, today would "for sure" be protected as a work of applied art, whereas the ARD-1, the third picture in COM:TOO Germany, would still not qualify); Hartmann, S., 2016. Geburtstagszug in voller Fahrt? Bisherige Auswirkungen der Entscheidung in der Praxis. Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 62 (11), 1327–1334, at 1334 (stating that it will likely be easier now for designers to make copyright claims "in particular in the area of logos, signets, and marks")>. In the aftermath of said decision, the Munich Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court in finding that the three characters "K1x" in a special kind of graffiti typeface (as seen here on a shoe), enjoy protection due to the "playful, sweeping aesthetic" <OLG München, judgement of 16 July 2014, 29 U 4823/13>. On the other hand, in a decision published just a few days ago, the Frankfurt Court of Appeals held that this logo design [hopefully I got the right one] falls short of the requirements for protection on the grounds that it uses a pre-existing font, more or less, while the double triangle is a well known symbol in the "audio" field <OLG Frankfurt, judgement of 12 June 2019, 11 U 51/18>. // My personal view on the specific files is that I see them as somewhat borderline cases, with the "modern" version of the logo considerably more problematic as the level of abstraction is higher and there are additional design elements, which may not be protected in themselves but are part of a more sophisticated end product. — Pajz (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Pajz for all of that information. It does seem like quite a complicated matter. My main concern is not so much getting a file deleted from Commons, but whether it would be accepted to convert some non-free files on English Wikipedia to the same licensing as the Commons files. If it is OK to do so, the licensing of each file can be changed and then the files can be moved to Commons. If, however, it's not, then there are two options: (1) keep the files licensed as is or (2) convert their licensing to en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly just for local use on English Wikipedia. Case (2) is often done when files would be PD per COM:TOO United States but not PD in their country of origin; Case (1) is more problematic because the way the files are currently being used might not comply with Wikipedia's not free content use policy and may need to be deleted as a result. FWIW, if the two Commons files were to end up being deleted from Commons, they could possibly be re-uploaded for local use on English Wikipedia as either Case (1) or (2). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, well, unless I'm misunderstanding you, this really is the same issue, isn't it? If the logos are not protected under German law, I can't think of a reason why the enwiki copyright tags would differ from those on Commons (I think both Wikis look at the US + the country of origin); if, on the other hand, the files are protected under German law, they cannot be kept on Commons, but it may be possible to keep them on enwiki under enwiki's exemption doctrine policy. — Pajz (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pajz: English Wikipedia sometimes uses en:PD-ineligible-USonly for files which seem to be too simple to be protected by copyright under United States copyright law, but aren't or might not be too simple for the same thing under the copyright law(s) of the country of origin. This is often done, in particular, to files originating in the UK, which has a much lower TOO than the United States, but it's also been applied to other files as well. Basically, it treats a file as PD only for local use on English Wikipedia, and specifically states the file shouldn't be moved to Commons. I guess it's sort of an inbetween license between non-free and PD-logo for English Wikipedia. So, if these two Commons files need to be deleted because they aren't really PD for Commons, they could (at least the main organizational logo) be uploaded as non-free content under the exemption doctrine; however, the former logos licensed as non-free would really then need to be re-assessed because the justifications for their non-free uses would be affected (see WP:NFCC#3a and en:WP:NFC#cite_note-4). Even if the Commons files are OK as licensed, the non-free files would till need to be re-assessed, but for a different reason (see en:WP:FREER). I hope this post didn't make things more confusing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue House licensing

It seems that starting in September 2018, the license of the Blue House changed to KOGL type IV, which disallowed commercial use and derivative works, please see here for further information. --B dash (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the tip-off. The last archived homepage with {{KOGL}} (Type I) was on 29 August 2018, so any media that could not be found on president.go.kr before 29 Aug cannot be licensed with KOGL Type I and therefore unfree. It seems that nothing needs to be modified though. I dont see a president.go.kr template.--Roy17 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Similar case happened at http://koreasummit.kr. --B dash (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A customary licence for The Stand News

Moved from Commons:Village pump: De728631 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to seek a broader community concensus on this customary licensing statement by The Stand News. They say 各機構及個人，可隨便使用《立場新聞》 facebook 專頁的直播片段，不用聯絡我們尋求授權，使用後亦不需要通知，唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪 (my translation: Every organisation and invidicual, may use live streams from The Stand News' facebook page at will, without contacting us and seeking authorisation, or notifying us after usage. We only hope that editing that distorts the facts can be avoided.) If the community agrees this can be accepted, then files such as File:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png can be licence-reviewed.--Roy17 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Use at will" sounds to me like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}}. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: the Chinese keyword is wikt:隨便, which I translated as at will. The statement could also be found at [12] (archives).--Roy17 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/06&oldid=374113666"