Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/08

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Deletion request to CC Indonesia Public Domain Awareness Postcard

Hi, I'm Hilman Fathoni.

I'm on the process of uploading derivatives work which is postcard mock ups from PD Indonesia works that we found in Wikimedia Commons. Last night, [User:Patrick_Rogel] submitted those files for deletion request and just now I've done some edits to make it abide with the community protocol which you can see here.

Can anyone also help to address this issue?

Thanks Hilman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilmanasdf (talk • contribs) 06:26, 31 July 2019‎ (UTC)

Pinging @Patrick Rogel. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

De minimis on File:Space Invader @ Paris Réaumur.jpg

Does de minimis apply to File:Space Invader @ Paris Réaumur.jpg? The poster of John Hamon on a Metro station is easily seen at hi-res. George Ho (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes, it's DM. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always had a rather strict interpretation of de minimis but yes it does. To meet the requirements for me it has to A) not be the reason a photo was taken and B) not be noticed if it was missing by someone who didn't already know it was there. There are obviously exceptions to this and every instance can have nuance but for the most part those two rules seem to work for most of the DM questions. That image meets both A and B and is fine. --Majora (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, except the image is used on wiki articles about the pictured artist, so it's often the reason it's included there. De minimis is generally for trivial stuff, where the portion copied is relatively trivial to either the new work (or maybe the old one, if just a small portion of the original was copied). This one is a bit borderline on that score, as the main reason for having it is the poster. On the other hand, we also throw "indcidental" uses in the de minimis rule, which are a bit different -- that is where the work is of a wider scene, and the elements are unavoidably there, i.e. "incidental" to the main subject. A French court called it the "theory of the accessory" -- a copyrighted element, even if prominent, is not derivative if it is just an accessory to a wider work. I think that was about a photo of a copyrighted building, but the photo was of a wider street scene with the building at the far end -- so while prominent, and potentially part of a reason for taking the photo, it was still just an accessory to the wider scene. This one probably meets that definition more than pure de minimis. In either case, cropping to just the poster would be a problem -- it would not be trivial, and would not be an accessory. Another possible consideration is that the photo in question was originally a passport photo -- not sure that meets the threshold of originality in France. Granted it's possible the artist added other copyrightable elements to create posters out of that photo, but it's much more arguable those additions are indeed de minimis in a photo like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we can't control what the projects use an image for. The fact that it is used for the poster is an unfortunate side effect but doesn't really undo the de minimis nature of the poster itself on the whole photo. Of course, as you said, if someone were to crop the image to focus on the poster just to use it on an article that would be a problem but they are not doing that. --Majora (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Since we are talking about John Hamon photos, this photo is much more a problem since it is being used on enwiki's home page and likely has a DW problem. --Majora (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, agreed -- it would only be an issue for the wiki page. The "incidental" argument is reasonably strong though, even for the wiki articles. The second photo you mention is harder, since it's hard to argue incidental there -- it was intentionally including the poster plus a New York landmark. The poster sort of creates the scene there. However, the nature of the original photo (passport photo) muddies the water quite a bit -- it could be copyrightable in the U.S., but it's not clear who took the photo. Something from an automated photo booth, not sure there would be a U.S. copyright, and if it was a government worker taking it... it becomes on the deletionist edge. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

We'd have to know it was a federal photo and not some driver's license photo of a state that protects its copyrights. And if it was a passport photo we'd have to know that it was a photo taken by a federal employee and not a photo taken at the local CVS pharmacy and sent in as a passport photo (I did that for my passport). There would have to be some semblance of proof there. I'm all for ignoring the "copyright panic" of some people who use PCP for everything but in this case I did nominate the other image for DR and had it removed from the main page of enwiki. It would be quite bad if it is copyrighted in some form and it was on a main page somewhere. --Majora (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading up on the artist, it was a "passport photo" taken in 2000, converted to a poster -- he just keeps putting up copies of the original poster, for the last 18-19 years. But yep, it could be a photomat photo, or something taken at a CVS, etc. Pretty sure it is not copyrightable in France, but copyrightable in the U.S. technically, but for perfunctory photos like that it's a bit edgy. You could argue that every copy put up over the last 20 years is also a violation, if that's an issue. On the other hand, he could have done some processing on the photo present on the poster, which could be expression attributable to him. But it's a bit different than a straight-up copyrighted photo, which is usually what we think in derivative works like that. It's a reasonable nomination certainly, but has many murky areas. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Images from this site

For example

https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/digital/collection/cchm_photo/id/10437/

was taken in 1918 or 1919, is it copyright free?Crook1 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, knowing when something is created isn't always enough to answer that question :-) See Commons:Hirtle chart for U.S. rules. There, the date of publication is the most important, but defining that can be torturous itself for some types of works -- for books it's easy, but harder for others. There is almost always some gray area. If this was a print distributed at the time, it was probably published. If this was a private photo taken by someone, and only published as part of an archive of their works many decades later, it can get more problematic. For some other countries like Canada, date of creation matters greatly for photographs. For lots of countries, date of creation and publication don't matter much, but when the photographer died is more important. Can't find much about Stuart -- may have been born 1886, and may have published some books. I think this photo was dated December 31, 1918, the launching date for the ship.[1] To know for sure, would help to know more of the provenance -- did it come from a family archive (less likely to have been published) or a photo collector (most likely published) or what. They do have other photos by Stuart, some of which are labeled "published by Gordon Stuart, 313 Main St. Vancouver, Wash". That sort of indicates him being a photographer, and would pretty strongly lean towards being published at the time. So... it's probably {{PD-US-expired}}, by virtue of being published before 1924. Not a ton of evidence for it, but seems most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. So based on that I will add all these pictures for that vessel here.Crook1 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Boy Pablo Turin Italy 31 March 2018.png

With reference to User talk:廣九直通車#File:Boy Pablo Turin Italy 31 March 2018.png, the uploader stated that the permission statement was included in the YouTube video webpage. Is that enough for a permission?
Permission Text: "milowent 1 day ago hey, I'm a wikipedia editor, could you reply to confirm if you are willing to allow me to take a screenshot from this video to use on the boy pablo wikipedia page? confirm, in responding, that you agree this screenshot will be public domain (and you reserved all other copyright to the video, which is fine). Thanks! Milo
Andy Cale 3 hours ago Agree, you can proceed!"

廣九直通車 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If we interpret "public domain" as equivalent to a CC0 release, then yes. Some folks might dispute that interpretation, but it is a fine argument. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: And forgot to mention that the permission is actually in the comment section.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

PD-USGov for academic articles

Please provide your opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf. Nemo 11:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Images by John LLoyd

Hi, There many images in this category which are not the Flickr account's own works (mostly advertisments). Some may be PD for some reasons (age, lack of notice or copyright renewals, etc.). I don't have the time to do that now, as I will be travelling for the next 2 weeks. There are also pictures of car models. If anyone wants to help, welcome. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please visit my deletion discussion at [[2]]

Please visit my deletion discussion at [[3]].--Broter (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

audeeyah.de

Music of File:HH Hamburg City Slide.webm is from https://audeeyah.com/song/wide-land . I cant be sure whether it's CC-BY-4.0. Could someone please help? If it isnt, please DR. If it is, please review. Thanks!--Roy17 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What's the status of this?

Over on Wikipedia a user made this edit. On his talk page I queried the lack of attribution which is called for in the file summary. He replied by saying "The photographs are attributed if you click on them. My understanding is that on Wikipedia we don't generally include such soirce information. If others disagree they are welcome to add note of the holding institution but my experience on Wikipedia is that the consensus is such attribution on the photo itself is adequate and is not required within encyclopedia entries.". Is that correct, or should the caption accompanying an image actually contain the attribution.moriori (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Attribution only on the image page is generally considered sufficient, and is standard practice on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mind you, this is for attribution to Wikimedia contributors: m:Terms_of_use#7g. Files imported from elsewhere could in theory have stricter attribution requirements, but then it's unlikely we'd keep them. Nemo 07:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for helping

Although the source of File:Zé Dantas.jpg is marked as Own work,this is obviously wrong. But I could not find the author of the painting, and the character in the painting died in 1962. How can I judge the copyright? --Catherine Laurence 02:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Martin Luther (1953 film)

I'd like to double-check that w:Martin Luther (1953 film) is definitely public domain in the USA, as suggested by this source. Specifically, I would like to use a screenshot of w:Annette Carell for her biography. I note that Commons already has a screenshot of another actor from that film, Niall MacGinnis, with a claim of public domain. Muzilon (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I see it was registered in 1956, LP5988, with a publication date of May 4, 1953. I don't see a renewal on copyright.gov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded a screenshot of Annette Carell accordingly. Muzilon (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Unknown photographer, published pre-1923, but in Wittemann/Alrbertype LOC collection.

I wish to upload a scan of this image Rocky Ford Dam, Big Blue River, Rocky Ford Power Company, Riley County, Manhattan, Kansas under the basis that copyright has expired in the US, having been published before 1923. I want to be sure of the justification before I upload it. I have obtained a print of the LOC image from a third source and have scanned it at higher resolution.

Sure, I might be free and clear by using the 1866 creation date the LOC presently displays; however, in good faith, I must state that that date is in error. While the original wooden dam was started in 1866, the concrete dam in the picture and the electrical wires from the power plant out of view to the right were built in 1908 and 1910, respectively, and that dam washed out in 1919,^[1] placing the publication date before 1923, but well after 1866.

The actual photographer is unknown, but the name Fleming Pharmacy (1900s-1920s, Manhattan, Kansas) is on the print and the item’s publication date can be placed with certainty before 1923 (the object of the image was destroyed by flooding in 1919). While Wittemann/Alrbertype are safely assumed to be the printers, my interpretation is that the publisher is Fleming Pharmacy of Manhattan, Kansas, known to have published postcards and almanacs in the 1910s:

The particular object is about twice the size of a postcard so is probably from/for and almanac, calendar, or separate print.

Where I am uncertain is whether the pre-1923 publication date by a business frees the image even it if the scans are ultimately sourced from the Wittemann/Alrbertype collection containing the sample of the Fleming Pharmacy publication the LOC has? However, it is known that Fleming Pharmacy (extinct since 1920s?) was the publisher, does that free the image? Wittemann/Alrbertype were the printers, does that collection hold the copyright?

Is this safe to upload here? IveGoneAway (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If it was published in the U.S. before 1923 (or 1924 now, i.e. more than 95 years ago), then yes it's fine regardless of who the author is (business or individual) or when they died (though that information is always helpful to provide if available, so copyright can be better determined in other countries). Use {{PD-US-expired}}. It's a little odd that the LOC has not done a rights evaluation on it, but it's probably due to them knowing the year they have is wrong, and not going through the analysis that you did above. I suppose it's possible that the photo was not published in the almanac until years after the photo was taken, but that seems highly unlikely (and they would have needed a renewal to be filed as well, if there was a copyright notice in the first place, which is even less likely). You can use Commons:Hirtle chart for determine the tags for U.S. works. For copyright in other countries based on the author's death, it's always the human author's death, and if never named those countries generally have anonymous-author terms based on year of publication as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. From the lighter gauge of the wire in the image, the photograph was made before these pictures, which could not be made after either the dam collapse or fire of late 1919 (over 100 years ago). LOC had no reason to question the donor's (erroneous) date of 1866. Newspapers do not mention the publisher, Fleming Pharmacy, after 1921, but the picture would not really be notable to the locals except around 1915, give or take. Given that publication must have preceded 1924, is my reputation safe to upload under {{PD-US-expired}}? IveGoneAway (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

↑ Manhattan/Riley County, 1911-1920. Riley County/Manhattan Timeline 1811-2009. Retrieved on 2019-08-03. "1919 (September) A section of the dam went out at Rocky Ford. An entirely new dam will be built below the old one. Electric production continues through work [through the agency of both the steam plant and a coffer dam above the breach]."

FOP Latvia

According to this Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Latvia#Freedom_of_panorama there is no Freedom of Panorama in Latvia. However, there are several images of modern buildings, such as Category:National Library of Latvia, Category:Saules Akmens and Category:Vanšu tilts. Am I missing something? (I don't understand the second point in the law.) -kyykaarme (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you give specific examples of images? Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about deletion request for File:Kaart haven Spijkenisse 2019.png

I have received a deletion request for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaart_haven_Spijkenisse_2019.png, but I don't know what is wrong. I have asked Magog the Ogre (who placed the deletion request), but I did not get any answer yet. I thougt it would be enough to mention in the file (1) the link to the page with permession to publish the map (https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright) and (2) the licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). But apparently it is not. Could you tell me what else I should do? JopkeB (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

JopkeB: The file description page doesn't have a licensing template. Just writing "CC BY-SA 2.0" in plain text won't suffice. {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} would do. Using {{OpenStreetMap}} instead of the {{Information}} template would also include the correct licensing template. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed —LX (talk, contribs) 08:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

LXː Thanks a lotǃ I could not have come up with this myself. I made the same change in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaart_haven_Spijkenisse_en_omstreken_2019.png. Could you please remove the No licence tag here as well? JopkeB (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've removed the problem tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks againǃ JopkeB (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

copyright waiver

Hello, is this a correct way to waive my rights as photographer for all photo's on commons : Category:Photographs by Henk van Gaal#Permission CC0 ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Phonetic symbol charts

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) has uploaded ExtIPA chart (2015).pdf and VOQS chart (2016).pdf under CC-BY-SA. The former, especially the first revision, is nearly identical to this file (source), except it credits ICPLA as the copyright holder. The latter is clearly derivative of this file (source), which credits Martin J. Ball, John Esling and Craig Dickson as the copyright holder, which again the derivative file doesn't. The metadata of these files say "Author: Martin J. Ball", as do Kwamikagami's. The "Source" field in the information box for both files says "Own work, copied from published chart", and the "Author" field says just "Kwamikagami". In the Licensing section, {{Self}} is used, which renders "I, the copyright holder of this work, ...", above the CC license notice.

So I asked Kwamikagami about the files, and their response was: Since the basic charts are not copyrightable, how much modification is required to use them?, which I found odd. To the best of my knowledge, if a work is not copyrightable, no modification is required because it's in the public domain (but one cannot claim its authorship except for derivation); if a work is copyrightable, and the author has not released it under the public domain or a compatible license, it cannot be uploaded to Commons, no matter how much modification is made. So whether the files are permissible on Commons is, I believe, dependent not on whether sufficient modification has been made but on whether the original files meet the threshold of originality in the first place. Is this summation accurate? And do the original files meet the threshold of originality? Nardog (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the attribution was sloppy, just using the auto-upload, like the many maps here that are copied off each other but labeled 'own work' (something of my involvement in the published charts emailed to Nardog). As for 'how modified', an alphabet is not copyrightable, neither is the layout of a simple chart (e.g. replicating it in html), and we have versions of the regular IPA chart that are not marked as copyright to the IPA and that haven't been a problem on Commons. But the actual, to-the-bit official IPA chart was only allowed here after the IPA released it. In these new cases, are the original charts allowable despite the authors sticking a (c) on them? Is a manual copy of them allowable, much as a manual copy of a font would be allowable? Would we need to change the example words? Kwamikagami (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? Nardog (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I had a customization of a generic Commons map spuriously deleted as copy-vio. You'd think someone would respond here. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

He Walked by Night (1948 film)

@Clindberg: similar question to above: is the 1948 film He Walked by Night definitely public domain in the U.S. as per this source?[4] It would be useful for screengrabs of actors like James Cardwell, et al. Copyright number LP2291, if that's of any help.[5] Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It needed a renewal in its 28th year of copyright, so at some point in 1976. Sometimes renewals at the very end of the year get put in the volumes for the following year. For 1978 records and later, they are online at copyright.gov. For older ones, UPenn has an index pointing to all the online volumes. You should look in the two 1976 volumes, and maybe the last 1975 and the first 1977 to be safe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. No record of copyright renewal found in the 1975-1977 volumes. Have uploaded screenshot of James Cardwell accordingly. Have just noticed Commons already has a category with screenshots from that film, actually. Muzilon (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Understanding of Turkish Currency Copyright

File:1000TRLira.jpg is an image of a Turkish banknote issued from the 1950s-1970s, hosted on English Wikipedia. According to Commons:Currency#Turkey, I thought it was PD and that the {{PD-TR-currency}} license should be applicable. I posted a question on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Turkish Banknote, and they corrected my understanding and sent me here for clarity on the copyright status of the image. The image was also discussed in 2013 at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 32#File:1000TRLira.jpg, but the English editors reached no conclusion. Can someone here help me determine whether I need to revert my changes there because it is a non-free image or whether I can proceed to work on having the image moved here because it is free? Thanks in advance for your assistance. BigrTex (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Hayley Atwell - TWiFF (SarahBoaman-Original).jpg

File:Hayley Atwell - TWiFF (SarahBoaman-Original).jpg was nominated for speedy deletion because it's supposedly in violation of copyright. This is completely invalid since the file was uploaded by its original creator Sarah Boaman. The only thing that prompted this deletion request was that I uploaded a new cropped version of the file, which was entirely allowed since the file was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.--SilverBullitt (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be Flickr-washing. The image appeared here and here in December 2018, well before the May 2019 Flickr upload, and in a more complete (less bottom cropping) version. Image also appeared here in a much higher resolution with no resizing distortion (i.e., it did not come from the Flickr source cited.) All of original uploader's (Sarahboa0) other files have been deleted for such questionable provenance as well, and, indeed, their Flickr stream is rife with unambiguous license laundering (e.g. this even has an explicit "© Getty Images" watermark. (!!!)) Эlcobbola _talk 16:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Secretary of Defense - Flickr account

The Flickr account for the U.S. Secretary of Defense (https://www.flickr.com/people/68842444@N03) is set for {{CC-BY-2.0}}, however, I checked scores of photos in at least a dozen different albums and each and every one of them had "DoD photo by Army Sgt So-and-So" or similar, which should make them all {{PD-USGov-DOD}}. Are we supposed manually change the license after UploadWizard tags them with the Flickr license? Is there an easier way forward? Is this happening with other US Gov Flickr accounts? I first noticed this with File:Paul Ryan 181128-D-BN624-246 (46044652232).jpg. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That does happen with many government Flickr accounts; not all of them bother to get the "U.S. Government work" Flickr license. No problem adding the PD-USGov-DOD (or PD-USGov-Military-Army etc.) tags after upload. The CC license would technically still be valid in the unlikely case someone tries to assert theoretical copyright in other countries, so may as well leave that too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, but it is a pain if one is uploading an entire album. Or is there a tool for that? Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: If you categorize by album while uploading, you can easily go back with VFC, AWB, or JWB to add PD-USGov* license tags. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Shakespeare's Life and Stage by S. H. Burton.jpg

I'm concerned about this book cover. True, the cover is derived from a very old portrait of Shakespeare, and other elements would be too simple for US copyright protection. However, I wonder whether forming the simple elements together would make the image copyrightable. George Ho (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What is exactly creative about this particular arrangement? It looks pretty standard. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The only thing maybe non-standard would be the area at the top right. I don't think that section in itself has anything original, so it would just be the combination of that area and the portrait (centered titles are not an original arrangement). I don't think that is enough elements to really support a selection and arrangement copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I found out that the artwork was published by a UK publisher. Would COM:TOO#United Kingdom apply? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Doubt it. That looks like the publisher name in a standard font, with Shakespeare's signature perpendicularly. Not much there even for the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding File:Talking moose.png

Earlier this month, File:Talking moose.png was uploaded by the Commons user Steven Halls. The image appears to relate to the Talking Moose software and there is an English Wikipedia article about the software. There is also a Wired article about the history of the Talking Moose, which was developed by Steve Halls and first released in 1986, many years before Wikimedia Commons. The Wired article (which dates back to 2001) also mentions the release of multiple Talking Moose versions over time. (In particular, there is an incarnation of the Moose from Uli Kusterer.)

A Google Images search for File:Talking moose.png (specifically this image) found matching images in the English Wikipedia article about the Talking Moose and also in the WikiVividly article about the Talking Moose. (I am not sure, but the WikiVividly article may have been copied from the English Wikipedia article.)

The question is, is the image alright with regard to copyright and permission, or should additional verification (such as via OTRS) be required? I am not Steven Halls, and there is the question as to whether the image was ever published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. (Steven Halls does have a Web site, and he also has a site specifically about the Talking Moose.) --Gazebo (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the uploader, Steven Halls is the same person as Steven Halls. Thus, evidence of permission or evidence that they are the same person should be sent to our support team. T Cells^Talk 10:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Using image for thesis

Hello,

My question is whether I may use File:MCC-31231 Mozes toont de wetstafelen (1).tif for the front page of my thesis.

Kind Regards, Frans Hazeleger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FransHaze (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@FransHaze: For future reference, please create a new subheading for your question (rather than adding it onto the end of my separate question), please "sign" your posts using four tildes (~~~~), and please link to the image in question: [6]. I have taken the liberty of amending those things for you, but will leave it to a senior Wikipedian to answer your actual query. Muzilon (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@FransHaze: Yes, you may use File:MCC-31231 Mozes toont de wetstafelen (1).tif; credit "Foto: Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, foto Ruben de Heer" is optional. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Images from Florida public school websites

Images created by state and local governments (excluding state universities, I think) in Florida are in the public domain. With that in mind, is it safe to upload images from public school and public school district websites that are not associated with state universities? PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We would need to verify if 1) this is actually applicable to public schools; and 2) which images, if any, would be considered works for hire of the Florida government. For example, if a student takes photos and posts them on the school website, the student is still the copyright holder of the images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Komeito logo.svg

While I think the svg was created by the uploader, I don't think the logo imagery itself was based upon komei.or.jp. en:Komeito is claiming copyright ownership over the content on its website, but this probably extends to its choice of branding regardless of where it's used. COM:TOO Japan is a bit unclear on this, but if the logo imagery is considered protected by copyright (i.e. too complex to be PD in Japan), then the svg would be a derivative work which I don't think can be kept per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

The copyrights of the images of Hearst Castle vary, and while some photographers have released all rights to their pictures, (i.e. File:Mars Resting with Cupid (copy of Ludovisi Mars) by Umberto Marcellini - Hearst Castle - DSC06664.JPG), this conflicts with Hearst Castle's copyright. This seems to also be true for all museums, such as the Hermitage, where only images available on their website can be shared publicly compared to those taken by visitors. How do we navigate this? Are both true, or does one conflict with the other, thus overruling the other?[7] Thanks in advance. It appears I need my links corrected, page created, or something. Davidlwinkler (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle is not claiming a copyright, but a power to tell you what not to do with your photographs. See Commons:Casebook#Museum and interior photography. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

{{FoP-Bangladesh/en}} law link

In trying to figure out whether Bangladeshi FOP covers File:Map_of_Lauachara_National_Park.jpg, I've stumbled across a link that I think needs updating. The original link isn't dead, but links to a commentary on the law by Mohammad Monirul Azam, which glosses over FOP very briefly. WIPO appears to have only the original and an auto-generated google translate link that seems to be attempting to translate from a language that isn't Bengali. The law does appear to be available in English translation online at http://www.clcbd.org/document/577.html ... so two questions: how authoritative should we consider clcbd.org, and should our link point there? and does the photograph of the sign fall under FOP (I think likely not, the law appears to refer only to buildings, sculptures, and works of "artistic craftsmanship")? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is copyrightable in this sign? The design appears to be very simple. Ruslik (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The map. Storkk (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The language of the translation seems pretty close to the wording in the older law, which was in English I think (inherited from Pakistan, which has the same wording). The translation and original law says all "artistic works", not just "works of artistic craftsmanship". The definition of "artistic work" is also basically the same wording between the translation and the older law, and includes maps and diagrams. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl... though I think I'm reading the CLCBD translation differently. FOP appears to be dealt with in sections 19 (buildings) and 20 of page 52, the latter of which refers to "[photographs, etc.] of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36 (c) if such work is permanently situated in a public place ...", and 36(c) (p. 7) refers to "any other work of artistic craftsmanship". Maps are specifically enumerated as falling under 36(a). The 1962 law you found does indeed appear to refer to artistic works in general. In any case, where would you think the link on our template should point? Storkk (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That is interesting. Hrm. That does seem to make sense, and would return their law to the UK origins which prevents FoP for 2-D works, but technically that is section 2, subsection 36c. Section 36 (c) would be something entirely different, and is talking about broadcast rights, and refers back to that same section 72, which may be a bit of a circular reference. That may just be an issue in the translation, and your interpretation may well be correct. Photos taken before 2000 may use the older law though. The detailed text we have on Commons:CRT/Bangladesh#Freedom of panorama appears to come from a government English translation here. The CLCBD translation seems about identical except for a couple typos, but I would rather just reference the government version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, Carl. I don't know how I missed the link on COM:CRT/Bangladesh. I've updated the template with that URL and nominated the file for deletion. Storkk (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ursula von der Leyen signature.jpg

I'm not sure if this is licensed correctly per COM:SIG. The signature is probably PD per COM:SIG#Germany, but don't think {{PD-ineligible}} should be used here. Also, I don't understand why an svg version like File:Ursula von der Leyen signature.svg for a signature such as this, but maybe there's some benefit to having it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Pd-signature}} should be used instead as a more specific template. Ruslik (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Strategy Working Group recommendation to change licensing rules

Hi all,

The Diversity Working Group has recommended for certain changes to our licensing rules to foster diversity and address systemic biases, in pursuit of Strategy2030. This includes hosting (and using) ND and NC media. Opinions on the recommendation are welcome, (until September 15), over the corresponding t/p.

Other recommendations are located over here and feedback is appreciated on the individual t/p(s).

Regards, Winged Blades^Godric 05:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Minnesota state mugshots - public domain?

Are Minnesota police mugshots public domain? Specifically, I was wondering if we could use the mugshot of Richard Pervo (deceased) for his WP biography. There is a watermarked copy on this website, but I imagine it should be possible to obtain a non-watermarked copy. Muzilon (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muzilon: No, why would you think so? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Because in some U.S. states, e.g. California and Florida, mugshots are (apparently) public domain. You will note that the WP biographies of w:Victor Salva and w:Charles Manson include their mugshots. I have no idea about Minnesota state law, however, hence my question. Muzilon (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Please note the lack of "Minnesota" or "MN" at Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, no harm in asking. Can we go with "Fair Use" on WP then, as the subject is deceased? Muzilon (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Yes, if you mean English WP. YMMV with other languages. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muzilon. English Wikipedia does allow non-free images of deceased persons to be uploaded per item 10 of en:WP:NFCI, but generally only when en:WP:FREER is met and the image is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question. In addition, there are also considerations that go beyond the files copyright licensing; for example, as explained in en:WP:MUG. Even though WP:MUG technically applies to persons still living, the reasoning given also can be applied to deceased persons as well. In other words, in cases where the individual in question is not primarily Wikipedia notable for their crime(s), using a mugshot might be seen as sort of image-related undue and you may have to establish a consensus on the relevant article's talk page if other editors feel it shouldn't be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. But in the case of w:Victor Salva and w:Jeremy Lemont Saunders, it's not immediately obvious that their infobox photos are mugshots until you check the source. Muzilon (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It might not be obvious they are mug shots, but they still are mug shots and the use of such photos for primary identification purposes at the top of an article or in the main infobox of an article can be contentious. Anyway, I decided to ask about this at en:WP:BLPN#Application of WP:MUG, so far the only answer I've gotten has been bascially what I've posted above. There may be no issues with from a copyright standpoint with respect to a mug shot image which means there's no reason for it to be deleted from Commons; Wikipedia, however, is not only concerned with copyright images and there are other policies and guidelines that come into play and need to be considered. If you're going to use a non-free image for the Pervo article, then it might be better to choose another one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No. You can see w:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United_States#Minnesota, and http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/minnesota/ . That latter page is part of Havard's site on state government copyright, which gives references by state, and gives each an openness score. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination), though I think most of the discussion surrounding that was on the deleted Template talk:PD-MNGov, which may have been preserved elsewhere but I can't find it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Taliban/Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Can the current coat of arms of the Taliban/Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (image 1 or 2 from its official websites) be uploaded to Commons? Taliban calls itself a state, so, I think, such coat of arms is out of copyright. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Many governments release their works under permissive licenses or into the public domain, but it is not true that any work by any government is automatically public domain by virtue of being produced by a state or government. I don't think we can host this work in the absence of evidence that the Taliban releases its work under an appropriate license. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Logo of Brit Air & KLM Cityhopper

Can en:File:BritAirlogo.png & en:File:KLM Cityhopper.png be on commons? I believe that this is below TOO (subsidary of Air France/ KLM, whose logo is commons under TOO). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: BritAir is certainly below the TOO. The Cityhopper simply adds text to the KLM logo, which isn't sufficient for copyright, so if the KLM logo is than this one is, too. I believe it would be because it is only composed of a few common shapes. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@BMacZero: I’ve already imported the Brit Air logo into commons. So, can the Cityhopper be here too? I’ll import it later under the same licensing as KLM logo. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 01:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Yes – BMacZero (🗩) 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t archive for the time being. KLM logo under DR, linking back to this section. Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 23:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

News in Argentina

Hi all, an administrator in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tte.Grl Cristino Nicolaides.jpg has claimed that this paragraph in the article 28 of Law 11723: "News of general interest may be used, transmitted or retransmitted; but where it is published in its original version its source shall be expressed" (Las noticias de interés general podrán ser utilizadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas; pero cuando se publiquen en su versión original será necesario expresar la fuente de ellas) supports a claim of generic free, compatible license for anything that could be regarded as "news of general interest". I don't really thing so, and possibly, other opinions would be useful. Thanks --Discasto _talk 10:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Are photos on UK govt. sites PD?

Hi. I am specifically inquiring about this image of a Holloway brooch. In US this would be considered PD. Thanking you in advance for taking the time to respond. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The info presented on the site is unclear to me Parliamentary Copyright WAU

No. UK government works are subject to various different kinds of copyright depending on which part of the government produced them. Many (but not all) are released under free licences, though. Works made by Parliament are subject to Parliamentary copyright, which is unusual in that it lasts for fifty years from creation rather than seventy from the death of the author. The page that you mention above explicitly excludes photographs from the Open Parliament Licence, and links to this one, which claims to apply to almost all photographs on the site and releases them under what is effectively an NC-ND licence, which is not free enough for Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Bjh21, Thanks for your prompt and clear response! Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright to uploader OK?

Uh, can we copyright an unknown image to ourselves on Flickr, then upload it to Commons & then proceed to spread it to Wikipedia articles in several languages? Perhaps that isn't as serious a problem as I thought? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: No, that's flickrwashing. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: see Commons:License laundering. --Animalparty (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Image bank of World Obesity Federation

The World Obesity Federation offers an image repository, and I'm curious if we are allowed to use these images on Wikipedia? The text accompanying this image, for example, says: "Images are free to use but must credit the World Obesity Federation upon use. Agree to the Terms of Use." Thanks in advance, Laurier (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is quite possible but I would prefer an explicit free license. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Their Terms of use are somewhat ambiguous: "This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout, look, appearance and graphics. Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms and conditions." No other mention of copyright occurs on the page, but all pages have at the bottom the boilerplate "© 2019 by World Obesity Federation. All Rights Reserved." (Also, I have apparently violated the Terms of use by linking to the website without World Obesity Federation's prior written consent.) --Animalparty (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@--Animalparty: Technically, you made critical commentary of their text consistent with Fair Use, whereas your link was fine. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Landform of Formosa.png

Hi, The uploader claims that the source allows using its data to create this map. But discussion on my talk gives me some doubt. This user was previously reported on ANU, so I am not sure they understand properly how copyright works. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I raised a DR per reasons given in the DR here. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: The two events are NOT causally connected. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 10:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Strike 1918 Zurich.jpg

Hi, Let me preface this by saying that I have very little understanding of copyright rules. This image is tagged as {{PD-old}}. My understanding is that per COM:SWITZERLAND a picture with an unknown author from Switzerland is in the public domain if it was published at least 70 years ago. However, there is no indication that this image was published before 1991. Is this image in the public domain? What is the proper copyright tag?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Manoillon: What attribution was in the book? What led you to conclude this photo was {{PD-old}}? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no indication, but most photos were taken to be published, so unless there is some indication that it was an unpublished private photo, we do often have to assume it was published near when it was taken. How did the book author obtain the photo, if it was still private? And if it was still unpublished in 1991, it would have been PD then, because if something is not published within 70 years of creation it becomes PD that way, which would have been 1989. You would need to document first publication being not before 1949 and before 1990 for it to still be under copyright in Switzerland, which is theoretically possible but not really a reasonable doubt. If it's even copyrightable at all; this is probably not a "work" there. PD-old is not the correct license though, since the author is not known (and it's no so old that we can know for sure the author died more than 70 years ago). I would say either {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (since this may well not be copyrightable in Switzerland at all as more of a point-and-click photo) and/or {{PD-anon-70}} would be the templates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I do see other copies on the net, all credited to Keystone (de:Keystone (Bildagentur)). I did find their copy here, where they don't credit an individual author, but do claim it is rights-managed. I don't think that company was founded until 1948 or maybe 1953, so not sure where they obtained it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. My thinking was that a lot of historical photos just end in archives somewhere and then are discovered by academics decades later. I've gone ahead and added both {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} and {{PD-1996}} (my understanding is that a US PD tag is also generally necessary, I hope that's the correct one). That would get us around the question of when the photo was published.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Casanova1927 imperatrice.jpg

Screenshot of a 1927 movie. Director was dead in 1942 so due URAA I think it is not acceptable. Any other licenses we can retain it? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, What is the country of first publication? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

France 1927 Yann--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pierpao: OK, then it may be affected by the URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pierpao and Yann: For films/movies, the producers generally retain copyright. The last surviving producer, Gregor Rabinovitch, died in 1953, per COM:CRT/France his French copyright lasts through 2033, and his US copyright lasts through 2022. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, the copyright is owned by the director in France, and the producer gets a exploitation license according to a contract. So this is in the public domain in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was a French film (The Loves of Casanova), but given the IMDb release dates, may have been simultaneously published in France, Germany, and Denmark. It was released in the U.S. in 1929. It was registered under the title "Loves of Casanova" with a copyright date of April 1, 1929, registration L264, story/director Alexandre Volkoff, "scenario" by Norbert Falk and Ivan Mosjoukine, distributed by MGM. No mention of previous foreign publication there. I do not see a renewal under the titles of either "Casanova", "Loves of Casanova", or "The Prince of Adventurers" (the IMDb title). But if it was published in 1927 in France, it should have been restored by the URAA (due to the 8 year WWII wartime extensions). Falk died in 1932, Mosjoukine in 1939, and Volkoff in 1942. It is PD in France today. The only way I see is if it was not considered technically "published" in France in 1927 (or the UK/Finland/Portugal, where it was released during 1928), meaning the first technical "publication" was the U.S. one. For that to be true, usually that means the showings were done by the main production company, instead of copies being sent to distributors, but the IMDb page lists distributors for France, Germany and the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Stream from Wikimania on CC attribution

Started now: wikimania:2019:Partnerships/Attribution: Laws and Norms within Open Communities and Communicating to the Public

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4OWlprgyk

Nemo 08:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961) - Restoration.jpg

Can any help me determine the US copyright status of this photograph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this logic work?

Photo was created in 1964 and published in 1964 in Finland and there is no evidence it was simultaneous published in the U.S.
According to Template:PD-Finland50, before 1991, "the protection period [in Finland] was 25 years from the year of first publication according to the §16 of the law of protection of photographs of 1961."
Therefore, the photograph became PD in Finland in 1989, before date of URAA (January 1, 1996).
QED: The photograph is PD in U.S. because it was already PD in its home country in January 1996 and therefore not restored by URAA.

Can I then add Template:PD-1996 ? -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your conclusion appears to be correct. Ruslik (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Group of Textbook Authors File Breach of Contract Lawsuit Against Cengage

Interesting news about the prospects of redistribution of textbooks etc. https://www.infodocket.com/2019/08/13/group-of-textbook-authors-file-breach-of-contract-lawsuit-against-cengage/

Nemo 11:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Cengage has been selling a bulk package of its textbooks without getting permission from its authors or making sure it had the contractual right to. I'm not sure I see the relevance to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being too concise: the relevance for us is that 1) we can show how authors' rights are abused by publishers more easily than by online projects such as Wikimedia (we should be allies rather than enemies as sometimes it seems in copyright law discussions), 2) this is about the future of distribution of books and the transition from printed copies you can buy vs. digital renting with DRM and all sorts of proprietary restrictions. When it comes to Digital Restrictions Management we usually focus on the loss of rights for users, but the lack of transparency causes problems for authors too (especially as many contracts were focused on the number of copies sold). Nemo 08:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Trans-en-Provence Case

Hi, Do you think plausible that the uploader is the photographer, as claimed? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

These relate to UFO sightings in the 1981 Affaire de Trans-en-Provence. The file pages indicate "PHOTO OFFICIELLE". The images appear in this blog, with the comment "Ces photos exceptionnelles et uniques prisent par les gendarmes (visibles également sur WIKIPEDIA) proviennent toutes du CRUN", meaning that these are police photographs, and this seems likely. They are high-resolution and appear to be scans of photographic prints, which suggests that the uploader may have had access to the actual photos. User:Dereckson asked about these at User talk:PHILCK06 in 2015 and got no response. They should be deleted following the precautionary principle. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Request regarding the copyright of some of the postal blanks of Soviet Union

I probably should have brought it up for a discussion before filing a DR, not immediately realising the scope. But I have. The discussion is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Почтовая открытка СССР "С Новым годом", фото Е. Савалова, 1986, лицевая сторона.png and it probably needs to be looked at by several people, to ensure that different perspectives are concidered. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

License for a photo

How can I get a license for a photo of my own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alihasanasyari (talk • contribs) 06:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need a license for your own work? Ruslik (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Being tagged as an original author

First off, I don't know if any of this matters, but I figured it can't hurt anything to post this. Recently I read a notification that I was mentioned on File:Barnstar of Integrity Hires.svg. I checked it out, and discovered that I was named as the original author of that file. I contacted user MJL regarding the file and that I am 99% sure I am not the original author of the file. I have nowhere near the amount of talent that I assume is required to make something like that. User MJL then replied regarding a second file. That second file states that the original design concept was by me. I'm pretty sure it wasn't. I don't want credit for something I'm pretty sure I didn't design. Any suggestions? Rockfang (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rockfang: You were originally mentioned in this edit, possibly based on your transfer work at File:Mensch5.png. @Antonu: Is that why? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah. So it might be Shirulashem at the English Wikipedia that is the original author. Rockfang (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rockfang: It seems Shirulashem claimed to create the first composite image by himself, but neither the underlying scales of justice nor the underlying barnstar were his original work. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Family Photo of my Grandfather

My Grandfather was a Cuban politician, and Constitutional author. When I came across his name in a Wiki article about the Constitution of 1940, I decided to gather all the articles about him that I had collected over the years, and publish a short wiki page about his historical contributions to the Cuban political life in the 1930-60s. I have a family photo of him that has been hanging in my house since 1950. He has passed, as have all of his children and I am the holder of the original photo taken in Havana in 1950. Almost every Wiki article about a historical person includes a photo. How can I include this image of him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmen Dorta-Duque (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carmen Dorta-Duque: What can you tell us about the lifetime of the photographer and the dates and countries of photography and publication? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up on File:Talking moose.png

Based on this discussion, would it be useful to tag File:Talking moose.png with something like {{Npd}}?

Also, if anyone wants to contact Steven Halls (who developed the Talking Moose software) about contributing content to Commons, that would be appreciated. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I e-mailed him. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

He says that is not his account and we're talking to OTRS about it. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@BMacZero: Thanks for following up on this. --Gazebo (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Zoso.svg

I'm concerned about how UK law applies to this collaborative logo of four symbols used for Led Zeppelin IV, especially after the Edge logo decision. The rightmost logo, the leafy Mu symbol looks original enough, but it was asserted to be originated from some public domain source. Would the UK law protect the logo(s)? George Ho (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No idea. The Edge logo was a lower-level court, and you can get some more variant rulings at those levels that get better harmonized on appeals (the U.S. is no different), so I'm not sure I would use that to delete a work which has been uploaded since 2006. The sources are fairly well sourced, so at this point we should really prove the assertion wrong. Given the other four symbols, it seems likely the fourth was also chosen from existing sources and not created then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Flickr public domain mark with own work

Hi all, according to the {{Flickr-public domain mark}} template, for an image with such "license" to be free, a specific reason why this image is in the public domain is required. Next, some examples are provided. However, all of them refer to cases where the image comes from a third-party. However, I've found an increasing amount of material with such a "license" not from third parties but from the creator themselves. That is, a Flickr account that has "licensed" their work as "Public Domain Mark 1.0". If I, as creator of a picture and owner of its rights, declare that the work can be "cop[ied], modif[ied], distribute[d] and perform[ed], even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission" I can't understand why it's not valid in Commons. Example. Opinions? Best regards --Discasto _talk 21:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC) PS: In particular, I'm talking about individuals, not about companies, governments and the like.

@Discasto: , it was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. --ghouston (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't understand it either, but since CC0 is the more appropriate license for that situation, is available to Flickr users, and is a better license with more certainty, people want to see that and have repeatedly rejected allowing works where people mistakenly use PD-Mark (even though the intent is pretty obvious). The naming of the two licenses is really unfortunate, since someone want to make their work public domain will naturally find that one first, without investigating what "CC Zero" is. In some countries, it is supposedly not possible to place your own works into the public domain, and if true you technically do need the fallback license such as CC0 does -- but it is possible in the U.S., which generally takes an affirmative action, and my guess is something like that (putting PDMark on your own works) would qualify to do it. We accept works were people say "I place this in the public domain" (i.e. {{PD-author}}) and I don't see that as any different. But as mentioned, it has been discussed a number of times, and the result is generally the same. CC0 is much better though, so we can get Flickr users to change to that, it is highly preferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ancient documents

I would like to uploade this reproductions of an old document. Are there any copyright reservations?

[gallery6754/1] --Koppchen (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, this is OK. Please use {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} for the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!--Koppchen (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Flickr "All rights reserved" image is out of copyright

I found an interesting image on Flickr that was copied from a magazine dated 1899. The engraver concerned, John Swain, died in 1909. The image is clearly out of copyright, yet the Flickr webpage states that "All rights are reserved". How should I ensure that once I upload ity into Commons, anybody who follows up the source of the image is not fooled into thinking that the image is still protected by copyright? Flickr gives full details of the original date of publication. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A similar problem: can there be a tool to import such files? Some historical photos are labeled as ARR/non commercial/no derivatives/whatever nonsense it is. Also in 80 years' time quite many photos would start to fall into public domain when their creators would have passed away for 70 years. I want to import these photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/wangjingweitrust/ for example. They are PD in China and PD-1996.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The provenance of the copyright and the rationale need to be correct on Commons irrespective of mistakes on Flickr or elsewhere. If you import, keep the ULR as your source then manually correct the other details. There is great evidence here in the source of the file being from 1899 and probably in public domain. It is common for Flickr uploaders to not correctly operate Flickr's machine readable license tagging options.

For the Wang Jingwei Trust it seems they would come under Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China but some of these seem produced in other countries. The typical way to migrate these photos would be with Commons:Flickr2Commons. This photo credits its source as Wikipedia; other photos credit other sources. Maybe these need individual review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks - very much what I thought. Martinvl (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Own work on all low quality images with no exif

All of these contributions look like they were lifted from the web. // sikander { talk } 🦖 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Half are from Facebook, admin should speedy delete them and block account.

Chomiak1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Last warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sikander: Please report serious copyright violation at COM:ANB, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Minecraft creeper

I think Category:Minecraft creeper is protected?--Roy17 (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

off-topic

No, it is not protected. Ruslik (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: could you please explain why?--Roy17 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Pages are protected only for specific reasons, which do not apply here. Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: It has only had one incident of vandalism. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: this is the Village pump/Copyright.--Roy17 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is no more protected than Category:Mickey Mouse. --SVTCobra 15:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse was created in 1928, but Minecraft in 2011.--Roy17 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, Category:SpongeBob SquarePants, then. --SVTCobra 21:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So it is protected.--Roy17 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Files in Category:Wilbert Awdry

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wilbert Awdry was closed as kept by User:Rodhullandemu. His brief reasoning does not seem to clarify how these files could be exempted but contradict many similar DRs found by sitewide search (plaque FOP UK ceramic FOP UK), for example:

No one else apart from the uploader of one of the files and me commented on this DR. I'd expect input from more users and a clearer explanation given to justify closure of a controversial case.--Roy17 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong venue, see Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not wrong venue, since I, unlike Rodhullandemu, prefer more consultation before action and wanna seek more meaningful opinions before having to nominate files again merely for clarification.--Roy17 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

How to correctly attribute authors when posting a derivative?

Hello,

File:Lausanne Wiki.jpg is made from 4 pictures from Commons, all under different CC BY SA licences versions.

What is the best way to attribute the author properly? In which field and with which template?

Also, since there is 3 different versions of CC BY SA used, can this be published under CC BY SA 4.0? Or which license could be used (due to the "Share Alike")?

Thank you for your help

--AntonierCH ^(d) 09:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For instance, "Comptatible Licenses" on CreativeCommons.org indicates that for 1.0, a 1.0 license has to be used. But, for the others we need to use the same version or a more recent version. Does that mean we can't publish this since there is no license that can respond to both criterias? --AntonierCH ^(d) 09:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You could argue that is a "collective work" per the licenses, and not a "derivative work", since it is just selecting and arranging four other photos -- which would mean each photo still has its respective license, and the selection/arrangement is a separate work with its own license, without needing to create a single derived work with a compatible license. For a derivative work though, you are correct -- it is not technically possible to mix a CC-BY-SA 1.0 license with one from a later version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For the technical issue we do have Commons:derivativeFX tool. -- Geagea (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. Always learning more here. :-) --AntonierCH ^(d) 07:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Copy of a painting

This painting has been created in the 1630s, that's fine. Per this essay (Polish language, see page 9) the Polish painter Wacław Piotrowski (pl:wp, web site) created two copies of that painting in 1917. The first one was a 1:1 copy which got lost during the war. The second one was not a 1:1 copy but he (IMO intentionally) altered a few things: File:Elbfas Portrait of a lady with a fan (detail).jpg. Piotrowski died in 1967. Can we ignore the differences and keep it or do we have to delete it until 2038? --Achim (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The copy is too different from the original for it to qualify for {{Pd-art}}. For example, Piotrowski has added armorial symbols and removed the drapery, and the painting of the face and hands is cruder. Moreover, if it were an exact copy we would prefer our image of the original painting. We should assume that Piotrowski's heirs own the copyright, and delete this. Presumably the Wikipedia articles could use a crop of the Okänd kvinna kallad Anna prinsessa av Sverige - Nationalmuseum - 15094.tif. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This could be uploaded to en.WP, as it was published before 1924 and is PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama

There are many OTRS blanket acceptance templates on Commons, many of which deal with complex or specific releases. {{BollywoodHungama}} is one of the more common ones and was created from ticket:2008030310010794 for certain images from https://www.bollywoodhungama.com. In a discussion on IRC, two problems were brought up about this template:

The OTRS ticket is below current standards. The original email was forewarded to us after a discussion between BH and the forewarder. Forewarded permissions are generally not accepted anymore because they could have been changed by the forewarder. In 2018, BH sent an email that implied that the permission is valid but did not contain an explicit release under a free license. They did not respond to a follow up email asking for a more specific response. BH's terms and conditions aren't linked in the footer and still refer to them as IndiaFM (a name they haven't used for a decade). That page does not mention copyright, and no other page on the website mentions copyright except for the generic all rights reserved message in the footer.
The criteria in the template are difficult to interpret, leading to likely invalid license reviews. For an image to be acceptable under the template, it must be: from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page), of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India, and taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. BH definitely publishes photos that they did not take and I can't find clear authorship information for any of the photos I've looked at. Many photos have the BH watermark on them and some do not, and I'm not sure if they are a reliable indicator of who took the picture. For example, this film screenshot is watermarked, but this film poster is not. Paparazzi photos are usually watermarked, but some posed or archive photos are not. As for the location and context restriction, Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama has plenty of examples of photos not in India and not at events, leaving out the question of what is and isn't a Bollywood event entirely (Those are just the ones that I checked, with almost 12,000 photos in the category there's bound to be more problematic ones that passed LR).

If many experienced license reviewers and administrators over a broad length of time are accepting images that shouldn't be, there's a problem, and I don't think it's with the LRs. So, should new images still be accepted under the template as it stands now, and what should we do with the old images? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about the old images but I think that any and all new images must have the standard permission from the photographer - Bollywood Hungama appears to be flickr (or rather, gettywashing) a lot of their photos by slapping their logo on them with no proof of ownership and in some cases, proof of the opposite. The second issue is that their website contradicts the 10 year old ticket, so we really shouldn't be accepting any blanket permissions like this. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Any image taken outside India clearly does not meet the permission criteria. I nominated for deletion the 2 you mention above.

"Events" has to be taken in a very broad sense: it means not a studio or a staged picture.

Bollywood Hungama employs photographers only in India, and they can licenses only pictures for which they own the right. So far, it seems they agree to publish under a free license all images for which they own the right, that's why the permission is defined in negative terms: everything which is on their website, except some special cases (posters, studio images, film screenshots, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we sure that all images on Bollywood Hungama taken in India were taken by their own photographers? If yes, why? If not, how can we tell which ones were and which ones weren't? I also share the concerns about what constitutes a "Bollywood event"; I rather don't think "going to the gym" does, and I definitely don't think we should be the ones to interpret this phrase broadly. Huon (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You have to understand how BH business works. They buy images of Bollywood people from photographers and paparazzi. They sell high resolution versions. Small versions with a watermark do not have any money value, so releasing them for free make them look good and help them being propagate their brand. People would copy the small versions to blogs and social medias anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This understanding tells me that they buy photos which are not taken by Bollywood Hungama photographers and which thus are not covered by the release. It doesn't tell me how we can tell the released ones and the others apart. Unless we can tell that a specific image is indeed covered by the license, we have to assume that it isn't. Huon (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg

I recently nominated File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg (at here), an image showing a certain board game, believing that both the figurines and the game board are copyrighted by the game producer, making the file as an unfree derivative work. However, the uploader argues that the figurines are actually COM:DM, and the game board itself is not a copyrighted work. May any colleagues give some suggestion regarding this? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

De minimis does not apply, see my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!廣九直通車 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The True Glory, 1945 (restored)

Hi everyone,

I just uploaded this film, The True Glory, 1945 (restored), and I thought it was in the public domain, but now am unsure. I definitely don't want to upload copyrighted content. Can anyone help? Here are a few links:

https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2014/05/29/restoring-the-true-glory/

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/35912

Thanks!

Is this film public domain?

Victorgrigas (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: Could you explain what caused your second thoughts? It seems to me pretty clear that the base material is {{PD-USGov-Military}}. The restorations would likely have their own copyright, were they not also carried out by NARA (itself I think {{PD-USGov}}). I could easily have missed what caused you concern, though. Storkk (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The film appears that it might be a co-production of the US and other governments, that's what caused my concern. I'm curious what others think? The restoration is beautiful. I hope it can stay. It would be nice to have an Oscar-winning documentary on Commons. Victorgrigas (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The NARA source has "Undetermined" in the rights access, which might be part of it. It sounds like it was a joint US / UK production, with the two directors being U.S. Army and British Army personnel, respectively. It would seem that any original material is PD-USGov and/or {{PD-UKGov}}, no problems. Restoration is PD-USGov, if there is anything copyrightable. They may have included old footage from other places though, which could have a range of different copyrights. It would all have been published though, so if anonymous all of that would be PD-anon-70 today. Unsure on the music. Unless something specific is brought up, such as a clip from a copyrighted film, it's probably OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Erwinqwe

these seem like official pictures, so I assume ORTSs are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKKNL1488 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes OTRS is needed, and not likely to get it. Seems like they were copied from the assembly.nl.ca website, such as https://assembly.nl.ca/Members/YourMember/DinnPaul.aspx , and their copyright statement is pretty emphatically non-free. Usage here may be within their license, but they need to be deleted as they do not meet policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Microscope slides

Modern photographs of microscope slides produced in the 1870s-80s by Jacob Dolson Cox (died 1900). A) Are the slides themselves PD? B) Are photographs of them PD? DS (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The original ones are obviously in the public domain. If they are 2D works, modern copies can be uploaded to Commons. Otherwise we need the permission from the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

One important question is, does a microscope slide count as a 2d work? Paintings and photographs and drawings aren't really 2d works, because 'flat surfaces' are only really flat at a macroscopic level — at the microscopic level (which is what's being discussed), tiny variations can become much more important. DS (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The photos on that page are PD IMO; there are no choices being made by the photographer. The 3d aspects aren't relevant when they're flattened by the slides. Paintings aren't flat at the macroscopic level; look at any old painting on Commons with a high enough resolution, and you can see the paint cracking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of the linked images have a raised ring around the microscopic sample; this should be treated in the same way as a 3D picture frame, which is not allowed to be included in {{PD-art}} images. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A similar discussion on copyright for microscopic slides was recently in the scholcomm list. Kevin L. Smith, in particular, stressed one factor: whether "artistic element that is conceptually separate from the utilitarian function" (w:Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.). Nemo 11:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Shaurya Chakra India.jpg

This file is a drawing of en:File:Shaurya Chakra.jpg, which seems to make it a c:COM:DW. Is the image of the en:Shaurya Chakra medal is really eligible for copyright protection? A military medal would seem to fall under COM:CSM#Jewelry, but I'm not sure if the imagery on the medal is complex enough per COM:TOO India. It kind of looks like the same image found on File:Flag of India.svg. If the Commons file is OK because the medal itself is not eligible for copyright protection, then there's really no need for a local non-free file on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I do not think this passes TOO. The wheel is the en:Ashoka Chakra which is ubiquitous in design of India. The English Wikipedia page says that the other part of the design is "lotus wreath", which is a routine part of en:Hindu_iconography#Lotus. I cannot quickly find another example of lotus which looks like this, but the design is not complicated and there is nothing original about leaf design to this low level of detail. The photo of the metal is ineligible for Commons because we lack a copyright for the photo, not because the metal itself or its design passes TOO.

I do not think Commons allows any exceptions for 3D works to get photographed and be in public domain. The metal, clasp, and ridge are nearly flat and we gain very little by the inclusion of the shadows in the photo, but it is still 3D. It would be nice to have a photo rather than this drawing but I think the drawing is PD, the work in the photo is PD, but the photo has whatever copyright works of that government office have. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:יעקב יהודה עם דגם המקדש שבנה.jpg

The File:יעקב יהודה עם דגם המקדש שבנה.jpg taken during 1939 New York World's Fair. It can be also seen her (Photo by David E. Scherman/The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images)). I tried to check if it's qualify as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. According to this: Catalog of copyright entries. n.s. pt.1 group.2 v.36 1939 Pamphlet, Catalog of Copyright Entries 1939 Periodicals New Series Vol 34 Pt 2 and Catalog of Copyright Entries 1939 Pamphlets, Leaflets, Etc. New Series Vol 36 Pt. 1 but couldn't find anything. Any suggestions? (See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SH89). -- Geagea (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for renewals for works copyrighted in 1939, you have to look in catalogs circa 1967, not 1939. You have to look for a copyright renewal on the sculpture by Jacob Jehuda, because it has a visible copyright notice affixed to it. Also, you must find when the photograph was first published. For example, if it was published in Life in 1939, then you have to look for a copyright renewal for the photo. That last part was already done by other users. The only issues of Life without renewals were from January 1944 to March 1945. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Not that I hate Jews or Hebrew, but could this file be renamed using Latin characters? Kurzon (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Per COM:LP and COM:FN, provided that the file name is descriptive, it can be named in any languages, so there is no need to rename it in Latin characters.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Could it at least get something like an alias in Latin script so that I don't have to struggle with Hebrew characters? Kurzon (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kurzon: You could make a redirect to it. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Trophies

Can someone please take a look at the following deletion discussions and hazard a guess as to why those images haven't been deleted yet: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? To my eye, all of these are obvious copyright violations. The creator(s) have put in minor changes to the designs (e.g. using the flags of Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Canada on the UEFA Cup instead of European flags), which they seem to think changes the design enough to avoid copyright concerns, but I very much doubt a copyright lawyer would see it that way. These nominations have been up for more than two months now, so it would probably be a good idea for an admin to take a look! PeeJay2K3 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that these nominations haven't been resolved because you have not provided a links to confirm that these are copyright violations. Our admins are from all over the world, so do not expect them to know what a particular sports trophy looks like. For these nominations it would help to add a link to an image of the thing whose copyright is being violated (but don't link to copyright violations elsewhere), for example a reference image for the UEFA cup is here. You could add these links now. Without this kind of help the admins have a hard job to confirm that a copyright violation has occurred. There is a substantial backlog: there are still outstanding deletion requests from March and the admins need all the help we can give them. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: I've added reference images to those deletion discussion pages. Would you mind taking a look at them and let me know if you think I've got the right idea when it comes to the copyright status of those images? Thanks. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Thank you for adding the links. I am not a Commons admin, just an experienced editor who is trying to help here. I agree that these are derivative works of the trophy designs, and that minor changes to the designs do not change this. I think these are unacceptable on Commons, but others may have a valid rationale for keeping them. Several images in Category:Trophies probably have the same issue. If the trophy is old enough it could be out of copyright, possibly including the FA Cup (designed in 1911). Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

delete These appear to be photographs of 3D works eligible for copyright and uploaded by someone who is not the copyright holder. As such we delete by default, until and unless someone provides a rationale for keeping. I do not see any attempt at providing a rationale for keeping these. Even if these are eligible, we delete by default without that rationale. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Dolly Haas - 1955.jpg

This file can be found on en.WP as being in public domain in the United States. Could it be uploaded here?--SirEdimon (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The issues are similar to those discussed above in 1967 press kit photo. This is a photo of an actress without a copyright declaration, and the text on the reverse includes "Detroit Times" and "Nov 21, 1955" with a note from "Bill Doll and Company" of NYC. The Bill Doll Co website says "Bill founded the firm in 1988 (an earlier version of the firm existed in New York as a theatrical public relations agency for 30 years)."[8] Thirty years before 1988 is after the date given, but it is reasonable to conclude that this note is from a PR agency. The discussion above indicates that this is public domain in the US, which makes it allowable here. If it is not public domain then it should not be in English Wikipedia without a fair-use claim. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Verbcatcher Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it. So uploading it here would be not copyvio?--SirEdimon (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In my view this is ok to upload, but please wait a day or so to give others a chance to chip in. Verbcatcher (talk)

That looks fine to me. That has the markings of the copyright owner (Bill Doll agency), and that copy was obviously distributed to a newspaper, with no notice. Additionally, by virtue of being published before 1964, a renewal would have been necessary even if there was a notice, which for 1955 publications should be searchable on copyright.gov. Not sure I find anything with Bill Doll in it. Stuff published 1964 or later can only rely on lack of notice, so the no-notice evidence becomes very critical with those (such as the case with the 1967 press kit photo discussed recently). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, Clindberg, sorry to bother. I was trying to upload the image, but I can't find its original source.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I found an archive of the declared source page here. However, you do not need access to the original eBay page as the information needed to establish public domain status is on the reverse of the photo, in the first image uploaded to Wikipedia. You should initially transfer the first image, and then replace it with the final image, so that the image of the reverse is in the image history of the Commons file. I hope this helps, Verbcatcher (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher. Thanks for your help. I finally got time to publish it, here: [9]. If you got time, could you, please, check it? Thanks.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The licensing looks ok. I have made adjustments to the description, including a link to the Wikipedia file. I wasn't sure whether to use Template:English Wikipedia to Commons Transfer Documentation. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, thank you very much for your great help. I really apreciate it.--SirEdimon (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Signs

Are municipal welcome signs in Canadian cities copyrighted or are they considered public domain for pictures to be taken of? - KKKNL1488 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKKNL1488 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@KKKNL1488: Are those welcome signs 2D, 3D, or you have examples of both of them?廣九直通車 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada. The main issue to consider is whether the design is simple enough to come under the threshold of originality; COM:TOO Canada says that most logos are ok. However, sufficiently complex designs and signs that incorporate a photograph are not public domain. 3-D signs may be allowable under COM:FOP Canada, but presumably this is not applicable to 3-D signs that incorporate a copyrightable 2-D component. In all cases we need the permission of the photographer.

On this basis, signs that use text and simple logos are ok, including:

But these signs incorporating photographs or complex logos are probably not ok:

File:Chapleau CGP 2.jpg is an interesting case: the arrangement of poles is potentially-copyrightable, but as this is 3-D it is allowed under COM:FOP Canada. However, the inclusion of a non-free map is unacceptable, unless this is judged to be de minimis, see COM:DM Canada. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Public domain or YouTube

Hello, I want to ask something.

There is a verified YouTube channel owned by the Indonesian Presidential Secretariat Office. Point B of the Indonesian Government public domain template states that "Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and / or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication , Distribution, Communication, and / or Reproduction to such Works are made".

YouTube allows videos to be uploaded with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY) license, which is compatible with Commons. But most videos uploaded by the channel doesn't use this kind of license (One particular example).

Is it possible for one to upload file from the channel (owned by the Indonesian Presidential Secretariat Office, so I assume the video they uploaded is in the public domain) that doesn't use Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licenses? Most YouTube videos are not eligible for upload to Commons but then again, i just want to ask.

My question is, which one takes precedence? The government's public domain or YouTube's terms of service/CC-BY license? -- Bagas Chrisara (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bagas Chrisara: A copyright holder can distribute the exact same file in multiple channels and circumstances, each with different licenses. To import a file to Commons, the uploader only needs to verify that the copyright holder is offering a file with an appropriate license through any distribution channel which they access legitimately. This could get more complicated but if you want to check this out then talk it through with one particular file and your license rationale. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bagas Chrisara: I recently looked into these provisions of Indonesian copyright law and concluded that {{PD-IDGov}} is misleading. Article 43 doesn't actually exempt any government works from copyright, it lists things the government itself may do to otherwise copyrighted material without the government's own actions being considered an infringement of that copyright. Article 42 ({{PD-IDNoCopyright}}) is the only {{PD-USGov}}-like copyright exemption, and it is much more narrowly defined: it corresponds most closely to what would fall under {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US. In other words, so far as I can determine, these videos cannot be hosted on Commons unless they can somehow be shoehorned into an EdictGov-style category.

Note that there's a big huge caveat that I'm not an expert and I haven't been able to do further research after I initially looked into this, so I could absolutely be wrong about this. --Xover (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

File:G.fast standard.svg is no own work

What is the source of the data you plot here? Did you measure the bandwidth yourself? You did not invent the shape of the curve. Was it copied without giving the reference? Jstein (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Whom does pronoun "you" refer to? Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jstein: Raw data cannot be copyrighted, only the creative expression of that data can be. Because of this, it's not automatically legally necessary (at least in the United States) to reference where the data for a graph came from, and "Own work" is the correct source for this image. That said, it would be nice to have the source referenced for completeness. CC: @MjolnirPants: – BMacZero (🗩) 20:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Can the Official Recordings of Chinese National Anthem be Uploaded Here?

The official version has been uploaded before, replacing the US Navy Band Version, only to be reverted for violating MOS.

The official version can be obtained on Chinese government website. There doesn't seem to be a copyright notice on the website. However, the Chinese National Anthem Law prescribes that the "official" version to be released on said website; therefore, the recordings MIGHT fall under template:PD-PRC-exempt's exemption "other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature". The keys are whether this is of legislative nature, and whether the recordings count as "documents". --Vakrieger (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

1967 press kit photo

I have an original press photo of a (deceased) U.S. actor. There are no copyright notices on the front or back of the print, just rubber-stamps with the date (Sep-18-1967) and the words "Return to: Chronicle Files" (the name of the news agency, I presume). Actor's name is written in pencil. I have seen this photo published in various U.S. newspapers from 1967. Would this print qualify under {{PD-Pre1978}}? Muzilon (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. COM:HIRTLE is a useful guide for US copyright issues, the issue we need to explore is the publication history of the photo. The existence of the photo does not amount to publication, so the absence of a copyright notice on the photo is not decisive. We need details of publication in a newspaper (or elsewhere), and details of the copyright notice (if any) with which it was published. Without this we should use the Hirtle category 'Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known', for which the copyright term is 120 years. If it has only been published with a copyright notice then the copyright term is 95 years from the publication date. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, even if this has been published in a newspaper without a copyright message, it is unclear whether this would make the original photo public domain. Photographs reproduced in newspapers are usually lower quality than photographic prints; a public domain rationale based on a newspaper publication would not necessarily apply to a higher quality copy of the image. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The photograph in question was likely distributed to the media by CBS Television to promote a new TV series. Here is an example of a newspaper that published the photo in 1967.[10] (Here is group photo probably taken during the same session, as the actress is wearing the same outfit.[11]) There are other uploads on Commons of similar CBS presskit photos, e.g. [12]. Muzilon (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Sebastian Cabot, Nancy Walker, Brian Keith (Family Affair - 1970, CBS Television) (1).jpg appears to base a claim of public domain on the absence of a copyright marking and the claim that:

"Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."[sourced]

This strikes me as too flimsy. We need evidence of publication as defined in Commons:Publication#United States, and the mere existence of these photos probably doesn't indicate their publication. Others may have different and more authoritative opinions. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The US law says "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of people for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." So the existence of the photo in the hands of a news agency is indeed evidence of publication. This does not have a copyright notice, thus it's publication without copyright notice. Therefore it's fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, the marking "Return to: Chronicle Files" is more likely to indicate a newspaper than a news agency, possibly the San Francisco Chronicle. Can we assume that if this was in the possession of a newspaper then they would have received it from an news agency (or a film studio)? Or would its presence in a newspaper's files be sufficient in itself? Verbcatcher (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are markings from anyone other than the copyright holder, it was distributed. Well... if this was a copy of a wire photo, I'm not so sure about that -- a newspaper could make a local copy of a wire photo, so lack of notice on those particular copies may not have been evidence of a lost copyright, since those copies were not distributed by the copyright owner. But if this was a publicity photo distributed by a TV network, and there are markings from another entity, then that particular copy was distributed and should have had a notice in order to preserve copyright. Publication happened when the TV network gave those copies to newspapers, not when the newspapers actually printed them (though that is further evidence that publication happened). Are there markings from CBS on the photo? The main thing, for PD-no-notice, is that we are pretty sure that particular copy started out with the copyright owner, and ended up in someone else's hands (before 1989). There seems to be no doubt that this photo was published, but the question is whether it was published without notice. If there are markings from both CBS and "Chronicle", then that would seem to make the case. If this was just a wire photo print, or if it was a newspaper photo to begin with (not likely if many newspapers used it), it may be different. It certainly has the look of a publicity photo. It is generally good to upload scans of the full item (both front and back) to show all the markings, then overwrite with the final preferred version (cropped or whatever). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Here's the back of the photo. No obvious authorship markings, unless there's something hidden under the eBay reseller's sticker or the newspaper clipping. I've ordered the print, so I guess I'll find out when I receive it. The eBay seller tells me the "Chronicle Files" rubber-stamp refers to the Houston Chronicle. Muzilon (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Clearly it's an old copy, and it looks like it came from a newspaper archive, as someone clipped a bit of the actual newspaper article when it was published there in 1967. The question then, was that copy actually distributed from CBS or was it a wire photo of some kind. It does not have any other company markings on it. If that was just a copy printed at the Chronicle's offices which was never distributed, then the lack of notice doesn't mean anything with respect to the copyright. I'm not too good at determining what was a wirephoto print versus an original publicity print. Some info here and here. Based on those... not sure there are distinguishing characteristics of wirephotos. The really solid ones are the ones with the originating company's marks though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Muzilon -- User:We hope has uploaded hundreds of images which are in the same situation as yours. As long as the photo was taken in the United States and the copy you're scanning (without a copyright notice) was distributed in the United States, I think you're on pretty safe ground... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Having had one of my uploaded images challenged twice (unsuccessfully on both occasions), I like to have a paper trail before uploading anything potentially problematical. :) I've emailed CBS and the Houston Chronicle to see if either of them claims copyright over this photo. Muzilon (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have now had rather unfruitful correspondence with CBS and the Houston Chronicle. CBS says they are "unable to comment" on the photo due to the lack of any clear authorship markings. The Chronicle says they "don't normally do [copyright] research for the public" due to limited staff resources. So, I'm wondering if we should just go with "Fair Use" on WP to be on the safe side. (I have not been able to locate a freely-licensed image of Nancy Hsueh.) Muzilon (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If multiple newspapers showed the photo (which you have shown), then it was not a newspaper original (so they wouldn't know anything about the copyright) but was distributed by someone to them. If that was the copy distributed to them, then there was no copyright notice and the image should be fine, regardless of who the copyright owner was. My only hesitation was if it was a local wire copy printed at the newspaper, in which case that particular copy was not really distributed so not sure that the lack of notice would mean anything. (Many wirephotos had captions and stuff printed on them before sending; unsure if a lack of notice on the wirephoto itself would constitute lack of copyright notice or not.) If we think that was printed elsewhere and sent to the Chronicle (be that Houston or SF Chronicle or some other one), it seems fine. The other concern is if this was a reproduction photo but that is clearly not the case here. I did see a Judson Laire photo with a similar lack of markings. Another newspaper had this photo here. Another photo from that session here. Sure seems like it was part of the CBS publicity campaign. Not sure there is a reasonable doubt here, unless this is a wire copy. And hm... here is one of those other photos you mentioned from that session, where it appears the CBS stuff was on an accompanying sheet of paper, and not printed on the photo itself. I'd guess this is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, here are two more copies of the same head shot,[13][14] again with no apparent copyright markings. But what if the accompanying CBS cover sheet had a copyright notice saying "all contents of this press kit copyrighted" or some such? Muzilon (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be about the last chance, but I'm not sure I've found a CBS cover sheet from that era with a notice. For example there are a couple here and here, and while there is small print it's pretty much just their address. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

PD-US-Goverment includes official contract-photographers?

Just to be sure:
if an image from NASA's official Flickr-account is credited to "NASA/Bill Ingalls"[15] and if said photographer states on his own website "Bill has been a professional photographer for three decades and has served as the Senior Contract Photographer for NASA Headquarters since 1989."[16], can this image (File:Children Interview Kathy Pham Megan Smith at SOSTEM 2015.jpg) without doubt be considered to fall under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}? --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure sounds like he has been a NASA employee since 1989, or close enough to that even if on a contract basis now. Sounds like they hired him, and needed a new photographer, so gave him that job. Seems to be plenty of his stuff on nasa.gov where they don't mention a separate copyright status from the usual. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If he is an independent contractor, we would need evidence of the transfer of intellectual property rights as a part of his business relationship with NASA, and NASA would need to actively release the images under a free license. If he is a direct employee of NASA, then none of this is necessary. A similar issue came up recently on OTRS with regard to en:Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The facility is owned by the federal government, but nearly everyone who works there is an independent contractor, and their works are not public domain. GMG ^talk 15:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I wish I could find the statement, but at one point I had words direct from Ingalls that NASA contract photography, including his, was public domain as a stipulation of the contract. I'll keep looking, but someone could reach out to NASA Legal and probably get a copy of the contract. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A film poster released by alleged designer

This is the image of the film poster. On the wikipedia page the uploader's summary says he designed the image. Although I am skeptic if he actually did. Assuming good faith here, that he did, can he still release it as a free license. I guess the production house actually owns this and it should be considered non free failing COM:FAIRUSE. Would like to hear opinion from others on this, if the images are acceptable or not. regards. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Like for all recent documents previously published elsewhere, we need a confirmation via COM:OTRS. Tagged as "no permission". Regards, Yann (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The above is correct with regard to Commons. For the local file on the English Wikipedia, you can add a fair use rationale using en:Template:Non-free use rationale 2, and then tag the file for a bot to reduce the size using Twinkle. GMG ^talk 15:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yann Thanks for doing the needful. User:GreenMeansGo appreciate for clarifying the needful for the wikifile. Please review w:en:File:Daali_Film_Poster.jpg and clean up if necessary. regards DBig Xrayᗙ 06:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The license in w:en:File:Daali Film Poster.jpg is incorrect, and should use w:en:Template:Non-free poster. In my view we should delete the claim to authorship by Online Grabber, as this is unreliable. Your non-free use rationale is much more sparse than others on Wikipedia. The guidelines are in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline; you should explain the purpose of using the media, why the media is not replaceable and why the entire image is needed. Most editors appear to do this by adapting the rationales used in other images. I suggest you look at for the rationales for non-free posters for high-profile films, such as File:Star Wars The Last Jedi.jpg or File:KahaaniPoster.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Verbcatcher for the links and example. I have added the poster specific template. regarding the authorship, someone has tagged the image for permission, if we dont get a response, the claims should be removed. regards.DBig Xrayᗙ 17:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Attribution 2.0 Chile (CC BY 2.0 CL) VERSUS Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

hi, right now I uploaded marvellous images of a old railroad bridge over the Combarbala river taken from https://urbatorium.blogspot.com/2017/03/la-metalica-soledad-del-puente.html

The author published them under Attribution 2.0 Chile (CC BY 2.0 CL) license. (see 3. column of the blog.)

Commons accept Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

Are they that same?.

Please review the upload of 10 images. It seems to be a treasure an images there .

thanks in advance, --Juan Villalobos (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Juan Villalobos. For these files you can add Template:Cc-by-2.0-cl rather than Template:cc-by-2.0. Although I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which direction one is compatible with the other, or what the specific differences are. GMG ^talk 15:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As there is a category for, I suppose that the license is compatible with commons. Is it? --Juan Villalobos (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Juan Villalobos: I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be looking at the English language summary. The full text of the license itself is in Spanish, so I couldn't really tell you what the individual difference might be in the fine print. Perfectly possible that the only meaningful change is translating the license into a regional form of Chilean Spanish. GMG ^talk 16:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Juan Villalobos: Yes, it is allowed on Commons. {{Cc-by-2.0-cl}} appears on Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags, which is the list of CC licences allowed on Commons. The general rule is that Commons will accept any CC licence (including localised ones) that doesn't include "NC" or "ND" components. --bjh21 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Great!. There is a lot of really good works, valuable for commons. Thanks again. --Juan Villalobos (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Juan Villalobos: Please note that if you copy the files as they are, without creating derivatives, you must use the license CC BY 2.0 Chile, not another license. Also, please do not place the template "Flickrreview" on those files, because the source is not flickr. You can place the template "LicenseReview". -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I didn't placed "Flickrreview". As I uploaded the image, I chose the only offered option associated with CC 2.0 , which is associated by commons with "flickr". I guess this is the reason why now a flickr tag has been inserted.

There should be a CC 2.0 upload option without flickr or better a menu with, among others, CC 2.0-CL option.

Next time I will upload images from that site without license and later add the license.

Kind regards, --Juan Villalobos (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively (and I think this is how the designers of the Upload Wizard think it should work), you can choose "Another reason not mentioned above" and enter "{{Cc-by-2.0-cl}}" in the box. --bjh21 (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

PxHere.com

Hi, There are some copyright issues with images from this site, but it is better to keep the whole discussion together: COM:VP#PxHere.com. I'd like other opinions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of a Flickr file

Greetings,

does someone know whether the license given for this file is OK? I am wondering because some bathymetric maps of that volcano were created by the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research which claims copyright on its works such as these ones but the differences in style and orientation makes me wonder if the Flickr map is from a different source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Click for the full story, they say, but I would expect to read the full text of the study. I hate those press releases which don't even reference the study they're supposedly talking about. Nemo 21:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I am guessing it is these two publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Non-free screenshots

There's a very old outstanding discussion of Category:Non-free screenshots at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Non-free screenshots. I don't think I fully understand the legal purpose of this category or if it needs to be kept. Note that we do have a separate Category:Wikipedia screenshots as well. Any help or thoughts either here or at the CFD would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion revolves around different ideas on what constitutes a derivative work (is the screenshot a derivative of a logo in a corner?) and whether "free" should be used to mean something more than copyright status. The debate might be interesting in theory but it's hard to see a concrete usefulness right now. Someone could be inclined to suggest emptying and deleting the category, or renaming it to something that more accurately describes its expected content. Nemo 20:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Could you suggest a more accurate category name, if we were going to keep it? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of a 3-D model

What sort of licences are needed to load a photograph of a 3-D model that was on temporary exhibition in the UK? As the photographer, I am happy to use the current Creative Commons licence, but what about the modeller? I understand that he also has certain rights. How are these handled in Commons and what wording should be used? Martinvl (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

See COM:FOP UK for some guidance about whether the modeller has any licensing control. I think the artist would have to grant a license in this case (not just the photograper), due to the "temporary" aspect you note (in keeping with footnote 12 of that commons page. DMacks (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The permission of the modeller is required unless we can establish that the model itself is public domain or is covered by an acceptable license. Possible examples are:

A simple geometric shape that is below the threshold of originality (See COM:TOO UK).
A exact copy of a public domain object, such as an antiquity. (See Commons:Derivative works)
A 3-D printed object made using a definition file that has been released with an acceptable licence.

Verbcatcher (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks and Verbcatcher: In my particular case, I met the modeller when I took the photo of the model. He was unaware that he actually had rights pertaining to publication of photos of his model but verbally agreed to me publishing photos of it (photos of his model have already appeared in a number of magazines related to his hobby). My question was "What exactly do we need to ask the modeller to agree to". The terms for Creative Commons as they relate to the photographer are quite clear, but I cannot find any corresponding guidance as to what the modeller is required to agree to, let alone a template to be used when getting their permission to use their copyright. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The modeller must make an explicit release comparable to CC or other sufficiently-open license to the extent of your photograph of it. Essentially they have to know and accept you will be releasing your specific COM:DW of it with open-license; they don't need to open-license their work itself (allowing anyone else to photograph-and-release). I don't know what specific extra tag you would include other than stating the original creator data and then that both you and they give [whatever license] for this image of that work. Commons:OTRS has a sample letter for an original creator (not a file that reproduces it) to release permission. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Category for checking if PD

I talked with User_talk:Alexis_Jazz#check_for_PD about Category:Media_should_be_checked_if_it_is_below_the_threshold_of_originality. Therefore I created a first draft: {{MaybeBelowTOO}}.

CON=If someone thinks that's clearly a copyrightviolation, it schould be changed to a deletion-request (or simmilar like no source).

This image should be deleted This is copyrightviolation, please start a Deletionrequest.Category:Copyright_violations Category:PD_files_for_review

PRO=If an experienced license reviewer, takes the responsibility to be below COM:TOO

This image is checked to by an experienced license reviewer (here please add your username e.g. ~~~~) to be below COM:TOO. {{PD-shape}}

pro= and con= are opinions from user who assume the media to be below (pro) or above (con) the threshold of originality

This image is might be (still has to be checked since 18:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)): Category:Media should be checked if it is below the threshold of originality {{PD-textlogo}} Follwoing users assume to be below COM:TOO:

first pro-username (optional Reason)
second pro-username

Follwoing users assume to be above COM:TOO:

first con-username
second con-username (optional Reason)

This is just a first draft and should help uploaders to be save. I am an admin, and still I uploaded pictures which I do not shure if they are really below TOO, and I would use an optional four-eyes principle for the gray area.

— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Determining TOO is much more difficult than checking if a license exists on a source site. License reviewers may be the best group to do it, but it's often not at all the same thing. Something would have to be well over the line to be speedy deleted; if there is any question (as the template name itself says) I think it should usually be a DR and not speedy. Or is this an attempt to create a separate process so that we cut down on regular DRs? I would also try to avoid the use of "copyright violation"; we usually mean "does not conform to our licensing requirements", rather than the upload actually being illegal, because there are many situations where an upload is legal but still against policy. In this area in particular, it could be legal in one country but not the country of origin. So I would probably more word it closer to a no-license situation, saying that if determined to be above the TOO, then another license is needed or the file will be deleted. Also, using "pro=" and "con=" parameters means that only one person's argument each way can be visible; there could be multiple opinions no? Not sure we want to speedy-delete based off a single opinion in many of these cases. And what if there are two people with differing opinions, i.e. there is both a pro= and a con= ? License review is a much more binary situation than this -- usually it's obvious one way or the other if the source has the claimed license; these situations usually involve much more subtlety and personal opinion, and I'm not sure are as suited to a review process other than DRs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Clindberg: If I upload a image, like File:Pikachu_Pillows.jpg, I should upload it with a deletionrequest?

I would like to have a category with examples of images just below the treshold (e.g. with subcategories of teritories).

A DR is about 1)wrong-own-clames 2)missing sources 3)missing permission , ... Thats something even a newbie can decide if they check with Google-Image-Reverse-search and TinEye and check sources,... . But TOO is in my opinion something different, which is depending on the teritority and you need experience (but not so time). Different people like different tasks, so a TOO-expert likes to check/discuss if TOO, then they can make it easily, without being disturbed about out-of-scope, missing anything, whatever discussions.

Starting a DR is a formal process, but somethimes I just want to hear a second opinion (cause maybe I'm wrong), before starting an official DR.

If I upload a picture, and I want that someone double-checks it. I would not start a DR, because I assume it is below TOO (but I can be wrong).

— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

[1] Manhattan/Riley County, 1911-1920. Riley County/Manhattan Timeline 1811-2009. Retrieved on 2019-08-03. "1919 (September) A section of the dam went out at Rocky Ford. An entirely new dam will be built below the old one. Electric production continues through work [through the agency of both the steam plant and a coffer dam above the breach]."

[1]