Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/06

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

Portrait in public domain journal

I'd like to upload this portrait published on a public domain journal edited by the CDC. The person depicted died in 1912 but I don't know if I can use it since the author of the photo is unknown. Which license tag(s) should I use? --Leptospira (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be the same photo as this one (with some editing), published with a memoriam in 1912 in a British journal. It does not seem to have a photographer credit, though says it was taken in Pavia on February 12, 1910. I guess with an anonymous author, use {{PD-anon-expired}}. We already have File:Adelchi Negri.jpg, which looks like a different photo from the same session, and which also looks like it came from a published source, and should probably have the same license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Picanovalley.jpg

Hello fellows, is there any public domain license that could save this image on Commons? --Mosbatho (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mosbatho: Lawless Range is a 1935 film, so {{PD-US-no notice}} might apply. If there is no copyright notice anywhere on the poster, then it's public domain. I don't see one on the linked copy, but I know they're sometimes cropped out or exceedingly tiny. Compare File:The Lawless Range lobby card.jpg. Also, Republic Pictures stopped making films in 1958 and went out of business in 1967, so there's a possibility that some of their films and related material did not have their copyright renewed on time. Works from 1935 were due to be renewed in 1963. clpo13(talk) 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: Lawless Range did have its copyright renewed in 1963, but that covers only the film itself. I didn't see any renewals for prints or artworks by Republic during that year. clpo13(talk) 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the file information page to clarify the copyright status of the poster. clpo13(talk) 21:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: clpo13(talk) 21:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Music eligibility tags

Hyacinth (one of enwiki admins) and I were debating one music image File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png, which is nominated for deletion. Then I learned that the user created another image File:Radiohead 'Creep' ostinato chord progression.png using one of the templates that the user created.

Are these music tags suitable at Commons? If so, are they appropriate for very tiny portions of songs, like "Creep" by Radiohead? --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget Template:PD-music-ineligible. It should be your primary target because if {{PD-chord progression}} is removed from a file it can simply be replaced with {{PD-music-ineligible}}. Hyacinth (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Images mentioned as issued from the "Yorck project collection GNU-FDL" in their individual Wikimedia Commons page, but absent from the "Category PD-Art Yorck project" pages

Hi,

The Wikimedia Commons Category "PD-Art Yorck project" displays 10235 images (mainly paintings) licenced under GNU-FDL (the collection is quite uneasy to navigate as titles might be in different languages or substituted by numbers and index may by be according to author (painter) last name, first name, title, with or without the article).

Most of those paintings/images can also be found in their Wikimedia Commons individual page (by author/painter name for instance, then category : paintings). On these individual pages we may find in the description section : "Source/photographer" = "The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH".

However at several occasions from such an individual page, when we then browse the Yorck project collection in Wikimedia Commons "Category PD-Art (Yorck project)" we cannot find the corresponding image, even checking various possible classifications (by title in different languages GB, FR, IT, D..., by author name, author first name...). Why ?

As an example please check the following individual page (François Boucher painting): "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_The_Mill.jpg", which does not seem to appear in the Yorck Project pages (neither at Francois nor Boucher nor "Le" nor "Moulin" nor "The" nor "Mill" nor "Die" nor "Mühle ...There are some other similar cases. For instance "the life stages" of Caspar David Friedrich, here in Wikimedia Commons as individual page : "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caspar_David_Friedrich_013.jpg", with Source/photographer "The Yorck project" but absent from the Yorck Project list (the Caspar David Friedrich 013.jpg is missing and apparently the painting does not show up elsewhere in the collection)

Any idea about this apparent inconsistency ? Shall we then consider that these images are part or not of the Yorck project, and are or not licensed under GNU-FDL ?

Thank you for your assistance fA — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB08:75:F100:618C:4B46:E12E:4D34 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

They are both categorized as part of the Yorck Project, but the sorting is odd, per default according to the digital representation of the characters, which makes "François" (note the cedilla) appear after "Französischer". For Friedrich there is the code "{{DEFAULTSORT:Friedrich, Caspar David; Life stages; MdbK}}" which makes the painting be sorted between "Friedrich Wilhelm" and "Front" (you can see the code before the categories at the end if you click "edit wikicode" on the description page). The Yorck template in the source parameter indeed puts the files in that category. --LPfi (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
For the licensing, the information should be explicitly stated by standard templates after the description on the description page. For these two paintings there are templates saying they are out of copyright and thus is the public domain. No FDL licence is needed, and such a licence would be an illegal copyright claim (cf copyfraud) in many countries. --LPfi (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Licensing

Quick question. Is this the correct PD license for such artwork or does it require some other? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you didn't make the scan, you should wrap it in {{PD-scan}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

UNESCO infographics

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UNESCO published its disinfodemic section [1] which is licensed under Open License {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}}. --TheMuscovian (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded the first policy brief: File:Disinfodemic deciphering covid19 disinformation.pdf. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Image contributions to the National Heritage List for England

Hello, I am transferring this question from Wikipedia[2] (question has the same subject), and I note it was previously asked in 2017 here[3], though without a conclusion.

As a 'user' of the Historic England website and the NHLE, with permission to "copy, modify, edit, reproduce, display, publish or otherwise make use of all or part of [the] Contribution on a royalty free basis", can I upload the contributions here? Adam Kehrle (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Taken on their face value these conditions mean that you can indeed upload the images to Commons. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik: thank you for replying, I'll hold off a few more days and wait for this to be automatically archived, in case any other users want to add something. If no one does and it gets archived I'll upload an image from the NHLE and take it from there. Adam Kehrle (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Adam Kehrle: If I understand correctly, you're looking at the terms for uploaders at [4]? Are there terms for downloaders? The general website terms at [5] appear much more restrictive, including a prohibition on commerical use, which wouldn't be acceptable here. Also, when I right-click on images I get warned about copyrights, so it looks like they are taking active measure to prevent reuse; that doesn't seem to align with the very free permissions on the uploader terms. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Here is where my ignorance becomes a problem, and I'm grateful to you for looking into this. It may well be the case that the general Website Terms and Conditions have enough legal-ese to prevent us using any images, I hadn't looked into that. They make special provision to differentiate between User-submitted content and Historic England's, but as you point out they add that "You agree however to abide by Historic England's rules in relation to commercial photography at Historic England sites, namely that photographs taken at Historic England sites may not be exploited in any commercial context without the prior written consent of Historic England." That could be fine and dandy however, as I suspect the majority of the images are taken from the street of non-Historic England properties, so wouldn't be barred from commercial use and thus fall foul of our policies.
As an example, and in reference to your point about right-clicking on pictures, see here[6]. The image attached to the List entry for 'Swiss Cottage Library' is indeed protected, but the User-submitted images aren't.
I think the upshot here is that the answer is "maybe, not sure". In which case, on reflection, I don't think that's good enough. I will reach out to Historic England with a query about using User-submitted images but I'm not holding my breath. I think we should consider this matter closed unless I return with a positive outcome from Historic England's copyright team. Many thanks all. Adam Kehrle (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The prohibition on commercial use of photos taken at Historic England sites is just a non-copyright restriction. Commons generally ignores them. Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

URAA clarification

There is a painting made 1934 in Finland, shown at an exhibition in the 1980s or early 1990s, otherwise in a private collection. The painter died 1945.

In my understanding it is covered by the URAA (PD in Finland 2016, URAA date 1996). This means it is covered by US regulations, which I don't know well. The URAA page tells little about them and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States handles only (?) US works.

It seems to fall under the clause of

  • publication from 1978 to March 1, 1989: pre-1978 creation with notice, or without notice but registered within 5 years of first publication or
  • publication from March 2, 1989 to 2002: pre-1978 creation,

which would mean

If author is known, copyrighted until the later of either 70 years pma or Dec 31, 2047.

i.e. 2047.

(There were hardly any copyright notice, but as I understand, that is irrelevant in these cases.)

Am I correct? Does this mean I should not publish my photo on Commons or related sites? (I am not interested in fair use, as there are paintings from before 1925 in art museums.)

--Alpark (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if it was indeed first published between 1978 and 2003. If it was only exhibited, that did not count as publication. If it was printed in a catalog for the exhibition, then it probably was in fact published. If it technically remained unpublished until 2003, then the U.S. term also became 70pma, same as Finland. So the details around publication will be very important. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
So then the question is what the difference is between "exhibited" and "published". The owner showed me a newspaper article about it. I do not remember clearly (and might not have been told details), so I have to check the facts when I know what to check for. I think it was exhibited ad hoc, so not necessarily in the catalogue. It is another version of a more well-known painting, and the museum got to hear about it in connection with the exhibition and decided to include it; the owner probably told about it because of news coverage on the exhibition. In the newspaper the two versions might have been shown side by side. --Alpark (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
First use Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US to figure out publication date; if it was shown at a public exhibition prior to 1978 in which people were not prohibited from making copies of the work, then it counts as published as of the first such showing. Then look at the "Works First Published Outside the U.S." section in Commons:Hirtle chart to figure out its copyright status based on the publication date and copyright formality status. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There's some information on the distinction and the laws of various countries at Commons:Publication. Essentially, publication is when copies are made available to the public, such as in a exhibition catalog, as Carl mentioned, or when prints are sold. A picture of it in a newspaper would probably count, as long as the copyright holder consented to it. clpo13(talk) 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've understood formalities are irrelevant when URAA applies, which should be the case here. Thus I should probably look at the tables as if the work were published in the USA with all formalities fulfilled. I cannot decode the "Public art and copyrights in the US" page: it is about public statues in the USA, so it is not obvious how it should be applied to a European painting in a private collection. But it seems the crucial question is whether or not it was published before 2003, i.e. when shown at that one exhibition and printed in the paper.
Ah! The artist was dead and the heirs might not have been told about the exhibition. Is the requirement "legally" or "with the consent of"? It might be that copies for the catalogue may only be done if the work had been published with the consent of the rightsholder, while the press is allowed to make copies illustrating "current events", which would include the exhibition. I don't know whether this was different at the time (the law was amended significantly in the 1990s).
--Alpark (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Japanese military symbols

Hello, I wish to upload either a JPG image or SVG rendering of the JMSDF symbol seen here. However, I am unclear as to its copyright status even after checking the Commons guidelines, the official Japanese website regarding copyright law in Japan, and the JMSDF website. As the JMSDF website is a section of the MOD website, the terms of use on the latter state: 

   The Terms of Use herein does not apply to the following Content.
   a. Symbol mark, Logo, and Character Design which represent the organization or specific business.
   b. Content where other terms of use apply with rational and concrete reason.
   (Please refer to Notes. Content where other terms of use apply.)
   The Ministry of Defense Logo

The status of the Japanese MOD logo is outright stated to be copyrighted; "the MOD holds the copyright on the logo and any use without authorization is not allowed". It's nevertheless uploaded to Wikipedia under terms of fair use and nonfree media. However, the JASDF emblem on Commons does not have any copyright attached to it in the description, other than the user who vectorized it.

My question is, what is the status of the copyright on the JMSDF symbol? Should I upload a SVG file here under the same terms of the JASDF emblem, or on Wikipedia under a fairuse rationale? Thank you for assisting. Seloloving (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: It appears that all these logos are copyrighted and non-free. So I have nominated the JASDF logo at Commons for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:JASDF emblem.svg. Please feel free to upload them directly at a Wikipedia though that supports fair use. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@De728631 Thank you very much for your reply, may I request for your assistance to check its status on the English Wikipedia, and if I have left out anything in the copyright description? Seloloving (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Batch process?

Is there some kind of batch process for extremely obvious copyvios? This user had uploaded a number of worksheets etc. that are even marked copyright. Do we really have to go through them one by one, or is there some way to speed that up? --87.150.15.114 08:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why the link doesn't seem to work. The user I mean is the uploader for instance of this worksheet. --87.150.15.114 08:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
In the tools menu there is a link called "Peform batch task". Among other things, this lets you add a specific text string to various files in a category. If the files are not in the same category, I don't see any batch solution though. On another note, I have deleted some of KTretakov's uploads but kept another, so they may not all be copyvios. De728631 (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds a bit complicated... but good to know for the next time.
I thought we could get this done with speedy deletion but it might get slightly more complicated than that. KTretakov has added a note to some pictures that "Dieses Bild hat kein Copyright, ich habe dieses Dokument selbstständig in Word verfasst und das ©-Symbol in die Fußzeile eingefügt, weil die Anleitung vom Westdeutschen Rundfunk Köln übernommen ist." My approximation in English: "This picture is not copyrighted. I produced this document in Word and added the © symbol because I took the got the content from the Westdeutschen Rundfunk Köln". In plain language: The content is just as obviously copyrighted. --87.150.15.114 19:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Es lebe Deutschland poster

So, this poster Es lebe Deutschland was painted by Karl Stauber (probably 1935?) which had no specific date of death, but if had assumed in the public domain. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you assume it is in the public domain? If the artist lived beyond 1949, it's still protected by copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The artist, Karl Stauber has no specific date of death, which has created the Nazi propaganda painting in 1935, but it could be assumed for public domain, which would lasted 70 years after death of the author (with specific date). --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Per {{PD-old-assumed}}, we may only assume the death of an author when the creation of the work happened at least 120 years ago. This is not the case here, and there is a good chance that Stauber lived long enough for this poster to be copyrighted. Also don't forget the Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. The poster would have had to be out of copyright in Germany in 1996 to not be retroactively copyrighted in the US, but this is obviously impossible given the 70 years pma protection term. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

How can I get permission/license information for a file? How can I check file copyright status before upload to Wikimedia? And lastly, Can I have a draft of how written permission look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abiodun Ayobami (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Abiodun Ayobami (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your last question can easily be answered: Please see Commons:Email templates/Consent. As to the other questions, if there is no free licence where the file has been published and it is a relatively new work, you would have to contact the copyright holder and ask them to email a permission (see COM:OTRS). Please note that we do not accept forwarded permissions; the permission has to come directly from the copyright holder. This is typically the original photographer or painter, the distributing company of a film or the publisher of a book. Checking copyright status is more complicated though and depends on the individual file and the country of origin. If there is no specific free licence mentioned at the source of your file you'll have to assume that it is copyrighted and non-free. The next step would be checking if the work is out of copyright for some reason, e.g. is it old enough (published in the United States before 1925, the author died a long time ago), is it a government work from certain jurisdiction where such works are not copyrighted at all, etc. These copyright rules can be found at Commons:Copyright rules by territory. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Forests in Australia maps

Categorizing Australia-related files, I have come across the following three maps that I'm a little unsure about in regards to their copyright status:

Now, the statement that the uploader is the copyright holder is almost certainly incorrect. Rather, I believe these maps come from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, and are in the public domain. This is what the copied text below the Summary states. Just to clarify, would it be correct to tag them with Template:PD-UN-map and let them stand as such, with no need to nominate them for deletion as a copyright violation? Calistemon (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Third Man poster

This poster [7] is presumably anonymous work in the UK (without signature). But is still copyrighted, what will lasted 70 years from creation? Unlike the American version of this poster, considerably in the public domain. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The UK would be 70 years from publication (or "making available to the public"), which would have just expired, but unless the poster was simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the U.S., the U.S. protection would be 95 years from publication, in which case it will expire in 2045. If the same poster was used in the U.S., there might be a chance, but we'd need some evidence I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
So I am posting this image to Wikipedia, but it is public domain by the unknown British artist. But subsequently, this poster is still copyrighted in the US until 2045. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the "anonymous work"; that it is not signed, does not mean that the author's name was not revealed, and this seems very much the thing that certain fans or scholars would dig up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
True, so if you find the author name became known before 2020, it could be nominated for deletion if uploaded as anonymous. In most of the EU, the author had to *make themselves known* in order to get the 70pma (not simply being determined, or the name released by the company only after the initial publication), but the UK's law is worded differently. But unless it was simultaneously published in the U.S., it's still under copyright there so it's not eligible for upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

An old photo from Thailand

Hello, I found this photo of a tram in Thailand, which was taken between 1926 and 1955 (based on the service life of the vehicles depicted). There is no copyright statement and the author is unknown. Is this image in the public domain? Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The copyright term in Thailand for anonymous works is 50 years since the creation or first publication. So, it is likely to be in public domain. In USA it is in public domain if it was in public domain in Thailand by 1996. Ruslik (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ownership

Does ownership of an original work give me the right to upload to Commons? Two examples:

  • 1. Caricature made before the artist (still living) became notable, and freely given to me on request.
  • 2. Cartoon on flyleaf of book by the author (now dead) and purchased by me at secondhand bookshop. Doug butler (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Doug butler: Owning copies of a work does not automatically transfer copyright to you. Copyright rests with the original photographers, artists, etc. unless it has explicitely been transferred to you through a contract with the original author. So, no, I'm afraid you may not generally upload such images.
As to your second sample: When did the author die, and where was the book first published? There is a chance that the copyright for this cover image has expired. De728631 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The author, who was not known for his artistic abilities, died 1995; the book (a memoir) was a presentation copy to someone of his acquaintance and the artwork clearly original work in reference to a shared experience. Doug butler (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then I think there is no chance that this is out of copyright yet. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Resolved

Thanks. Doug butler (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Mural of Ahmaud Arbery, Brunswick, GA, US (02).jpg; @Bubba73: as uploader.

Murals are difficult for copyright in the USA, can anyone clarify whether this one which is a memorial to the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery has a rationale that can be added to the image page permissions? Fæ (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not that difficult; modern murals (since 1989) are copyrighted for life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Collaborative artworks

Category:Cadavre exquis has collaborative artworks by famous surrealists (for example File:Andrè breton, marcel duhamel, max morise e yves tanguy, cadavre exquis, 1928 (galerie 1900-2000 parigi) 02.jpg) templated as {{PD-old-auto}} with a note from the uploader in the description that overrules it, saying "NB: Collective artworks copyright expires 70 years after its production, NOT 70 years after each member's death". Assumed that the assertion is valid, is there a more appropriate PD template that could be used here? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is no general rule that "Collective artworks copyright expires 70 years after its production", but this depends on the country of origin. There are many jurisdictions where the copyright term of a collective work is in fact calculated by the lifetime of the last living contributor. De728631 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
A "collective work" is generally some sort of collection of other works -- it is given to the selection and arrangement of the collection itself. The contained works still have their own, independent protection and will expire under possibly different schedules.
A collaborative work, where two authors combine to create a single work where the expression of each author is not identifiable, will usually last for 70 years after the death of the author who lives longer (those would be the terms in the EU). So while the note on collective works is correct presuming the collective work author is anonymous, the image in question is not a collective work. I don't know if it's the work of a single or multiple artists though. If any of the named people are the artist (or one of the artists), that image is a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the named surrealists are all contributors to the works: the cadavre exquis process involves one person drawing the top section of the picture and folding the paper over, another artist drawing the second section, and so on. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If the section of each artist is identifiable that way, then each section would likely then expire based on the known author's death. As a whole, we would need to wait until 70 years after the last author's death to be able to show the whole thing. The collective vs collaborative distinction is irrelevant here, really. Even if it does technically qualify as a collective work, the authors are the same, and you still need licenses on all the contained works to distribute it anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at French law, they do define things a bit differently -- they use "composite work" for when someone arranges already-existing works, but define "collective work" as a work created at the initiative of a natural or legal person who edits it, publishes it and discloses it under his direction and name and in which the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created. In that last case, the contributions of the individual works are essentially anonymous, so it does get the 70 year term -- that is probably what the note is referring to. And unlike regular anonymous works, it is not possible to extend that term to 70pma by announcing the authors at a later date. However since the contributions are presumably identifiable by author, not sure that qualifies under that clause for French law. That is usually more for things like newspapers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I started crediting each file to its original artists, here, and when this consistently turned up death dates within the past 70 years I moved to a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cadavre exquis. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculously complicated file descriptions

I just came across this and thought it might make an interesting case study: File:Actress Anna Unterberger.jpg. This file, and two of its derivatives, are the only files in Category:Anna Unterberger, so if you are on Commons looking for a photo of this person, you might have little choice but to use this file.

But these files’ description pages are way too complicated. They each have a box saying:

This image is not public domain. Please respect the copyright protection.

But how, exactly, do we do that?

I haven’t seen a usability study in this area, but I’ve read about some in other areas. I’d love to see a usability study for these files. Get some people who aren’t familiar with copyright licences to try to reuse one of these files legally. Give them a time limit. Based on what I’ve seen in other fields, I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone in this study fails.

What’s the point in having fancy licences if people don’t actually comply with them? That’s why I just put everything I create into the public domain (CC0).

Oh, it gets worse: Just as I was about to publish this comment, I saw this:

Feel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author

Does that mean I don’t have to look at that freakish box that mentions three different licences after all?

Brianjd (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Moroder: Ping the user who added most of that stuff to the file description. Brianjd (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I should probably have quoted the whole line:
    Feel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message.
Brianjd (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Not everyone wants to release their files as CC0. Reusing a work properly involves reading the license, in this case https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode or one of two similar licenses, which are complex, but necessarily so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the notice about the photo not being public domain is unnecessary, but I know from experience that many reusers just see "free to use" and ignore all the conditions. The template {{Not public domain}} makes the situation a little clearer, IMO. It can also make use of {{Nofacebook}}, which links to the relevant legal analysis about social media use. While I agree these additions can make the page more cluttered and possibly confusing, they are meant to get reusers to pay attention to the actual license(s), which are legally binding. However, it's an unfortunate reality that you could release a photo under a simple attribution license and half of the reusers would credit it to "Wikipedia", if they bothered to add a credit at all. I don't know how best to fix that problem, but we could perhaps make a link to COM:REUSE more prominent on file pages. clpo13(talk) 22:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Licensing

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Attribution: Jonathan Kington
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.


</source> Clearly, this is a violation of license terms, so what's the procedure to follow? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 22:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Licences restricted to a certain resolution, but higher resolution uploaded

I came across File:Bluebells on the Cornish Coast line.jpg by Cyr~commonswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) today, and noticed it has the strange licence criteria from {{TomCorserCredit}}. This says that This photo may be reproduced at up to 1024 x 768 pixels resolution under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Licence, and includes the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. However the image is actually 6000*4000px. This means that one can read it as either

  1. The image > 1024px is not free and should be deleted
  2. The image > 1024px is actually CC-BY-SA by principle of having that licence on the page.

This was previously discussed at Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_24#File:Canary_Wharf_from_Greenwhich_Observatory.jpg, but no resolution came of it. Ping Prosfilaes, Clindberg, Bidgee, H-stt, Ww2censor as having been involved in the original discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears the author put the license on the uploaded resolution -- maybe it's dual licensed that way. But really, we should get some clarification of the intent of the author. I can understand restricting resolution to the uploaded resolution -- if it's CC-BY-SA that cannot prevent someone from expanding the uploaded version to a higher resolution, but could prevent someone from uploading a higher resolution version found elsewhere. That is more identifying the expression being licensed rather than a restriction on what you can do with it. Doing the latter makes it non-free; you cannot restrict the basic terms of CC-BY-SA -- if that is an additional restriction then it's no longer CC-BY-SA. Given the earlier discussion 10 years ago, we really should get some clarification. I may understand it if the limitation was to the uploaded resolution, but given varied uploaded resolutions it's used on, that template should not be allowed to remain. It looks like the author *just* edited that template; it used to be a cc-by-sa-2.0-uk license (which then would effectively be dual licensed that, plus the uploaded license). There is also a discussion on Commons:Village Pump/Proposals#Ban_certain_custom_licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that the uploaded, who is also the author, uploaded a high resolution version, then they probably had the intention of releasing that version and maybe did not even remember their own license restrictions. Ask the author which is correct, the license or the resolution. One of them need to be changed. Once this is resolved, such templates when finalised should be locked so they cannot be altered as was the case of this license template where the author made several changes to their restriction affecting many images. This should not be allowed to happen, once a license is given that remains with the file. Normally when we create custom license templates that's the routine. Ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an old restriction I used to use. Happy to remove the resolution restriction and leave pics as CC BY SA 3.0. It's been a while (10 years maybe!?) since I've edited or contributed to wikipedia so happy for someone else to make the change if that is ok? Cyr
  • It sounds as this is a modified licence: CC-BY-SA but with this resolution restriction as an additional requirement. Under the usual CC-BY-SA 3.0 terms, it's unclear what applies to copies in other resolution. It could depend on minor variations of the definition of a 'work' in national copyright law.
If this creates a modified licence, then I guess there's an issue with the share-alike restriction (you can only combine the image with other images with the same modified licence but not with standard CC-BY-SA images), but it would not necessarily make the image unfree. Still, there's the question what happens with resolution restrictions if you print a copy of the image on a paper. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It would make sense to put any files dubiously licensed this way being put up for deletion. There is no system on Commons to enforce such a license. --Fæ (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought that if we have CC BY SA 3.0 template on the page than all the other information related to licenses provided by the user is irrelevant, maybe with the exception of the requested credit line. Many users create elaborate personal templates with all kind of strange directions sometimes translated into dozen languages, but they are harmless flourishes as long as there is an actual proper license template there somewhere. It gets confusing when those direction contradict the license text, like "CC-BY for non-commercial uses only", but they can be ignored or removed. --Jarekt (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this depends on the context. If you list {{GFDL}}{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, then the intention is that the file should be licensed under both licences, so you can choose which licence you use. However, if you write CC-BY for non-commercial uses only, then I think you put extra restrictions upon the licence. It's like writing that you may use this work under the terms of CC-BY-SA during this year, but you may no longer use the work next year which creates a time-limited licence.
The elaborate personal templates which you are talking about are problematic in several ways. First, some of them may restrict the licence, making it unfree. Secondly, the templates may be considered to be 'disclaimers of warranties'. According to Article 4 a of CC-BY-SA 3.0, You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. Many GNU and Creative Commons licences have similar formulations. In other words, there's a risk that all reusers will have to quote those templates, or parts of them, whenever using the files. If the templates are translated into dozen languages, you risk having to quote the template in all of those languages. I'm not sure if you are keeping the disclaimer intact if you remove the Russian translation or if you translate the disclaimer to Chinese. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a dodgy argument, legally. If a user states CC-BY for Wikipedia only, we delete it, if a user states CC-BY but no derivaties allowed, that can be correctly intepreted as CC-BY-ND and we delete it. Cherry picking at a release statement and ignoring the rest to force it to fit COM:L, is not how the determination of the legally meaningful release should be done, and it seems far more logical to adopt COM:PRP and delete any media where the release remains obscure and debatable. Fæ (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyways, he responded so we can take the restrictions off his files. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
And indeed has made the edit so it is now resolution-agnostic. Thankyou Cyr~commonswiki. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Does File:Instacart-logo.png meet COM:TOO US? If not, then we can transfer File:Instacart logo and wordmark.svg over from Wikipedia where it is currently claimed as fair use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems that image is below ToO in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The license info for File:11742 SDO-Year 5 ProRes 1920x1080 2997.webm indicates that it was created by NASA. However, the video description page references the "Expanding Universe" and "Facing the Unknown" music tracks that are credited to "Killer Tracks". More information about these music tracks may be available here and here at the Universal Production Music site. It is not clear that the referenced music tracks are uncopyrighted or freely licensed; this FAQ seems to suggest that they are copyrighted and subject to licensing.

In addition to the mentioned music, the audio track for the video also includes some different audio from approximately 0:01 to 0:05. Nearer to the end of the video, there is also some different audio from approximately 4:24 to 4:30. This transcript from the video's source page may be of interest regarding the different contents of the video's audio track.

If all of the the visual portion of the video is uncopyrighted as having been created by NASA, it may be possible to upload a new copy of the video after removing any non-free content from the audio track.

(Incidentally, I did edit the video's description page to use HTTPS for certain links and to use hyperlinks for certain parts of the descriptive text. It appears that some or all of the descriptive text was copied from the video's source page at NASA; that might be OK if the text on the source page is PD in the US as having been created by NASA.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: This may be of interest. --Gazebo (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Gazebo: I would upload a no-audio version of this file and then have the original removed. NASA almost certainly licensed the use of the music, but that does not place those tracks into the public domain. Without evidence that the tracks are public domain, they have no place here. It honestly should never have made it through Featured Video or Media of the Day...that's pretty astonishing. Regarding the descriptive text, since that is NASA original there is no issue with it being copied. It's kind of messy though, so I'll tidy it a little. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and uploaded the replacement. If there are any concerns, the old file can of course be un-deleted. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: For the video, I added a note to the description mentioning that the original video's audio track incorporated copyright-restricted material and that the copy of the video on Commons does not include an audio track. I also adjusted the wording about the music tracks. (As a side note, there is the question as to whether the other audio content at the beginning and end of the original video (see this transcript) is PD as a NASA work. Even if that was the case, however, it might be easier to upload a video without any audio track than to upload a video with an edited audio track.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Gazebo, excellent change, thank you. As for the audio, I certainly have no capability (or skill) at selectively removing audio. The first and last bits you mention are probably NASA in origin, but it is simply easier to remove sound altogether during the conversion to WebM. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to upload this image on geograph.org.uk to add to category:widebeam Growbeautifully.

It is under CC BY-SA 2.0 with some restrictions. The restrictions are

You must give "appropriate credit", provide a link to the license, and "indicate if changes were made".

If it is allowed to upload the image what credit needs to be given in the licencing section (does the original author get mentioned)?

-- PBS (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: Geograph photos are most welcome on Commons. The easiest way to display the appropriate license and credit on such photos is by using the {{Geograph}} template. The template help page has information on how to use it. For instance, the template code for this photo is {{geograph|5130045|David Hawgood}}. If you upload files using the Upload Wizard, on the copyright info page, choose "This file is not my own work", put the full Geograph.org.uk link in the source field, the photographer's name in the author field, and then scroll down and click the "Another reason not mentioned above" link, which will show a text box where you can paste the template from above. clpo13(talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@PBS: Those restrictions are just standard parts of CC BY-SA 2.0, so they're quite acceptable on Commons. In addition to Clpo13's fine suggestions above, you will find on each Geograph photo page a link "Find out How to reuse this image", which links to a page at the bottom of which are a couple of other ways to copy Geograph photos to Commons (along with a link to search for them: most photos below number 1800000 are already here). I usually use geograph2commons, falling back to Special:Upload for the 5% of pictures where geograph2commons mysteriously doesn't work. --bjh21 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. -- PBS (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @PBS: The comments above are good. I’m just going to clarify one thing: you appear to have quoted from [8]. This page is actually on the Creative Commons site and everything it says is just a standard part of the licence. Brianjd (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Army at War

I wondered if someone could help me with copyright on this publication: The Army at War

It seems to me that this is a work of the US government, containing works created by employees of the US government as part of their official duties, and is therefore public domain in its entirety, including all the art within it. My particular interest, w:Rudolph von Ripper, says in his profile in the catalogue, "The things I am doing now will again belong to the War Department and some to the Division, with the exception of my small preliminary sketches".

Can anyone confirm or deny this? Have I missed a subtlety? TSP (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Was painting part of the official duties of the artists while they were soldiers or otherwise employed by the federal government? If not, then it depends. The text of this book is probably the work of federal employees done on taxpayer dollars, but if a U.S. senator, soldier, or park ranger at Yosemite takes a photograph, paints a portrait, or writes a poem on his or her own time, that's not {{PD-USGov}}. However, the works here may still be PD here for other reasons, e.g. {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Animalparty (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Reading a couple of the bios, looks like PD-USGov (and as mentioned, it's PD-US-no_notice anyways). The collection states the paintings were leant to the Treasury Department from the War Department, and a couple of the bios say the artists were employed by the Army (as artists, as it looks like they had careers before and after their Army assignments). Von Ripper looks like he was part of the Army Artist Unit for a while, until that program was terminated, and then was an Army intelligence officer given time to do artwork in certain periods, and his statement would seem to corroborate that the larger works were owned by the War Department. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Are screenshots of openstreetmap free to upload?

Hello, I am new to licensing and many technical issues, and my question is clumsy: can I upload to Commons and use on Wikipedia screenshots from the map with added relation layer because I failed to export the relation together with the map layer as an image file and got either only the map without the added relation line or the relation as an XML code? User:GregZak

@GregZak: Yes. The underlying data is licensed under {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}, and the rendered tiles on openstreetmap.org are licensed under {{CC-BY-SA-2.0}}. Map tiles from other websites may be under a different license. You can use {{OpenStreetMap}} to properly indicate the source and license. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks a million. I was puzzled by exporting, then thought of just making screenshots and decided to upload, then saw in the upload wizard a warning that screenshots of software are not free. And below this unspecified exceptions are mentioned. Osm itself is one entity, its contributor who put together the relation is another, and my making its screenshot is point three. So I was puzzled even more. GregZak (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)--

Henrietta Berkeley

Hiya, I want to upload a portrait from the National Portrait Gallery. The given creative commons licence is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ but for relevant 3.0 options, the upload wizard only allows me https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en or https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en. Does that mean I can't upload it? The picture is from 1807 so I would think it is otherwise OK to upload, I'm just confused by all the different creative commons licences. Thanks for any help. Mujinga (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

However, for future reference, if a work is indeed licenced under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, or any other CC licence that includes NC or ND, then it is not allowed on Commons. Commons requires that files are free to use for any purpose, including modifications and commerical purposes. Brianjd (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hiya thanks a lot for the comments, I had read into it and therefore was a bit confused, especially at Commons:Licensing#Forbidden_licenses. It is good to know that "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" goes above the NPG claim. I'll upload it then :) Mujinga (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Peter Mahringer - 20030227.jpg

This DR is based on personality rights rather than on copyright, and it has been open for approximately six months now. Could some admin close it one way or the other? SV1XV (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the situation if two copyright holders are named in a file? One of them apparently is the depicted person, so I am not sure how that would even work. They certainly didn't both hold the camera. Would both of them have to agree to the licensing? Can one of them upload the picture as "own work"? --217.239.14.185 09:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Just to put this in context, the EXIF data identifies the copyright holders as:
    Veruschka Bohn und Christian Graupner
My guess is that Christian Graupner is the person who took the photo and the sole copyright owner; the EXIF comment was probably written by someone who doesn’t understand copyright. If Christian Graupner uploaded it as their “own work”, it would probably be OK. But it was actually the other way around: Veruschka Bohn uploaded it as their “own work”. Unless these people have some agreement between them regarding the copyright, which we don’t know about, this file should be headed for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I beg your pardon...? I see a man in that picture. And it is used for the article Voov alias Christian Graupner on the German Wikipedia.
All that aside though, I would assume that there probably is some kind of agreement between those two people. She wrote that article on him. Not sure if this "probably" is sufficient for licensing though. --217.239.14.185 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, so that description isn’t saying that Veruschka Bohn is depicted; it’s saying that the photo was taken by Veruschka Bohn? I can’t read German; I don’t know that Veruschka is a female name or what “VOOV” means. Brianjd (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no offense meant. "Voov" doesn't mean anything. Apparently it's the stage name of the guy. Veruschka isn't exactly a German name either (Russian, I would guess) but definitely a female one. --217.239.14.185 14:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If two people are named as the copyright owner, then they each own a share of the copyright. Doesn't matter if only one of them is the apparent author -- sort of like how the copyright of most Beatles songs were "Lennon/McCartney" regardless of which one actually wrote it, per an agreement between them. And yes, it's possible for there to be co-owners of a photograph like that even if there was no agreement -- if they both participated in arranging the scene, things like that. Technically in U.S. law, any of the co-owners can agree to a non-exclusive license, while all owners must agree to an exclusive license. A CC-BY etc. license is technically non-exclusive, so by the letter of the law any of them can upload. It would be best to get the agreement of all co-owners, but we can perhaps assume good faith even if we don't have explicit confirmation from all of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, we probably can assume good faith and some sort of agreement between those two people.
Confusing thing, with the copyrights of different countries not even being the same. I wouldn't even know which one would apply. The one the picture was taken in? The one of the copyright holders' nationality or residence? The one Wikimedia is located in? The country of the Wikipedia in which they are being used? --217.239.14.185 14:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I think countries will try to agree on a copyright owner -- the U.S., for example, will accept copyright assignments or other ownership situations if valid per foreign law, if dealing with foreign authors, so that the owner of copyright will be the same in both countries. They will use U.S. law only to determine if infringement occurred, or if it's copyrightable at all, and that sort of thing. The Berne "country of origin" is the country of first publication, not necessarily where it was taken or even where the author lives. (And yes, "first publication" for an Internet-published images becomes even more confusing -- works can also be "simultaneously published" in multiple countries.). For a CC-licensed image, the country of origin is usually moot, since the license is for everywhere, but maybe it comes into play for situations like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User-made version of fictional in-game video game map a derivative work?

The image in question is File:H1Z1 Map.jpeg. It is a user made map from the video game H1Z1, and based on searching around, I honestly believe it is user generated based on the best in-game map a player can obtain (which in game is a folded-up map with more topological detail). That said, the world of the game is entirely fictional so the question becomes if a map of a fictional game world at this level of detail could be considered a copyright issue as a derivative work of the in-game map. --Masem (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's derivative of another fictional map, sure. If it's a map done based on the wording in say a novel, I don't think it can be derivative -- it would have to incorporate explicit expression from another work, and it's virtually impossible to copy graphical expression from a literary work. But if this reproduces specific outlines etc. from an in-game map, then probably. I'm sure the user added their own expression, but the derivative question is if they copied existing expression. In real-life maps pure outlines are are a gray area, since those are just copying from nature, but in a fictional map I would say the specific shapes of lakes etc. at a minimum would be copyrightable, so if those were copied then my guess would be it is derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello all.

Recently user Taivo mentioned here in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Defensoría.jpg that copyright documents from the Costa Rican government expires after 25 years once emmited. I was wondering if that includes ballots (papeletas). Because if it does then we will have an incredibly broad source of photographs from politicians since 1948 (the TSE has an archive with photos of the ballots from every election since). But I would like to confirm it as true before I upload them. Thank you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion election ballots are government works and copyright lasts 25 years from publication. But now I think about URAA. USA sometimes demands 95 years from publication. But URAA was not retroactive law. If something was in public domain in source country on URAA date (1996 in Costa Rica),then 95 years is not demanded. That means: election ballots from 1970 or earlier are safe, because they were in public domain in Costa Rica on URAA date. Taivo (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Taivo, in that case unless contrary opinion is given, as talk privately with User:Daioshin who requested me to ask the question, I think we can start uploading them from the TSE website. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dereck I will. --Daioshin (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Also note that the URAA does not apply equally to foreign citizens and foreign governments. In the first case, a foreign country has no right to strip its citizens of US copyright protection. In the second case, if the government writes into law that its works are public domain, then this may apply globally (the wording matters of course). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the handling of licenses issued by the government

The copyright holder, Japanese government, states that the use of images is "prohibition of use of anything that threatens the safety of citizens."(Template:GJSTU1‎). We are considering whether Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurokawa Hiromu 2019-01-29.jpg matches the free license. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation.--Araisyohei (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating image based on CC-NC image

I am considering creating an image using content from an academic article (a chart with 6 boxes of text). Ot would essentially contain the same info but look slightly different. Original article has a Creative Commons non-commercial license, and includes the image on about 1/3 or 1/4 of a single page (it's at least 10 pages of accompanying text). Would re-creating this image using the same or paraphrased text be a copyright violation? Or affect my choice of copyright license? I would attribute with a citation to the original. I usually do things as CC zero/public domain these days. Amousey (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amousey: can you link to the article you are referring to? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It does not affect the choice of copyright license. NC licenses are not permitted on Commons so it's no different from all rights reserved. Either your new image does not make use of any creative elements of the original and you can release it under any license desired, or it does and the image cannot be uploaded. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Just seen its CC-BY-NC-SA (far bottom left) so would use the same license. Creativity would be very little bit some intellectual property involved. - Amousey (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That's still not ok for Commons. We can't use NC licenses. De728631 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amousey: Just to clarify, if your new image does not use any copyrighted elements of the original, then it is OK for you to cite the original and upload your new image here, no matter what licence (or lack of) applies to the original. (Of course, you would have to apply a suitable licence to your new image, but you say that you usually do things as CC0 anyway. Also, if you do use any copyrighted elements of the original, then you cannot upload your new image here, as explained above.) Brianjd (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You might be able to create an entirely different chart that describes the same data. I guess it depends on where that data comes from. You still have not provided a link to the original article, so we can’t tell. (Also, your “far bottom left” note above is meaningless to us.) Brianjd (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Article here, figure 3 - no original artistic elements, it was repeating the text in the boxes I was concerned about. I would like to create a PD image. Amousey (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Amousey: Unfortunately the answer is likely no. You might make a fair use argument in some circumstances, but it is complex enough not to qualify as free under the threshold of originality, and likely also wouldn't qualify under the non-free content criteria of most projects, which is more stringent then the type of fair use you might claim if you were writing a book.
The arrangement of words to form complex sentences and paragraphs is itself a creative element. Normally, the kinds of textual arrangements that would not be copyrightable are very short sentences or fragments of sentences. For example, the Nike slogan en:Just Do It is trademarked, rather than copyrighted, because it is too simple to qualify as a creative work.
If you were to make a substantially similar copy of the chart from the article, including the essential substance of the complex text, then it would be derivative of the original, and would still be covered at least in part under the original non-commercial license. GMGtalk 11:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, it’s a flowchart. I can’t see the problem, as long as all the text is paraphrased (which the OP has already suggested in their original post). The arrangement of the boxes and arrows seems to represent a simple idea that can’t really be expressed any other way. Brianjd (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Derivative artwork made of Public Domain photograph originally uploaded to Commons, now artwork nominated for deletion

Hi everyone, this is going to be a bit of a strange one I'm afraid, but you might have come across this issue a few times before. A file I took and uploaded to Commons, File:Nathan Wyburn with Tom Moore Foot Painting MNT 0057.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nathan_Wyburn_with_Tom_Moore_Foot_Painting_MNT_0057.jpg) is nominated for deletion for being a "derivative work of a copyrighted artwork".

The original photograph, originally at File:Tom_Moore_(soldier).jpg, was uploaded as a public domain image, with a source link to (I believe) a UK Government-owned site. On the upload page, it said about copyright expiry and how the file was exempt from copyright due to its age and UK laws (or something along those lines). As I was the one who sourced the photo for the artist to use, I am 100% confident that it was marked as public domain, however the file has since been deleted for "copyright violation" but I cannot find any record stating why that is the case or how it was found to be infringing. Nor can I find any versions of the file on any UK Government website.

If the photo is under a public domain or other "usable" licence, then I'd like to know why it was removed. I can understand if it is just ripped from another source, but that then begs the question how was it on Commons for so long? Captain Tom Moore (subject of the photo) was receiving international media attention at that point so I can only imagine the traffic accessing his Wikipedia article.

Either way, it's understandable why Wikimedia has to take precautions but it just feels unfair considering I took precautions to make sure we followed all copyrights. But I guess that just shows how Creative Commons licences (and others) can be abused. Plus I don't understand why it's happening 2 months after the fact.

Any help would be gratefully appreciated, as I've never dealt with something like this before! Mthowells200130 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually when it's deleted without a comment like that, it means it was an obvious copyright violation in the admin's eyes. Either that, or a public domain rationale was not supplied. If this was a WWII service photo of Moore, it should be OK as {{PD-UKGov}}. If it was an old private portrait, it's murkier. I can't see the deleted page so I can't see what source was claimed. It's possible it may be worth undeleting for at least a regular deletion review. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Asked for the source photo to be undeleted for the DR, ref Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathan Wyburn with Tom Moore Foot Painting MNT 0057.jpg. Clindberg, your comment on the file if it is undeleted would be valued.
Suggest further comments are kept to the DR, rather than running in parallel here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for the help, @Clindberg and Fæ: ! Here is a hosted copy of the original image from an article, which does look like WW2-era (if not, at least before the dates in the licence template): https://www.celebrityangels.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Captain-Tom-Moore-uniform.jpg. I would suspect that it is a Government photograph and not a private portrait, as he is in uniform so would appear to be a service photo, but I obviously wouldn't be able to tell. Quite a few places have credited the photo as "courtesy Tom Moore", but I'm not sure if I should follow that because all instances of my photoset of the painting has been credited to the artist and not me, despite the licence instructions on https://matthewsnetmedia.co.uk/pb/2020-010 and my name embedded within each photo's metadata. And Carl, I do believe {{PD-UKGov}} was the template used with the original upload. Mthowells200130 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Will quickly add to that, I remember reading the "HMSO Crown copyright FOIA Request" email on https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022055.html about the licence, so I can confirm the upload was originally tagged with {{PD-UKGov}}. Mthowells200130 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Tabriz-0 Tabriz World Trade Center.jpg

Can Commons keep this file as licensed? It's sourced to a Pintrest account, but there's no indication there that it has been released as licensed and Pintrest seems to be attributing the file to some Instagram account. Furthermore, the same photo (non-cropped) can be seen on quite a number of other websites[9] which makes it seem unlikley to have originated on that Pintrest page. The number of image notifications already added to the uploader's user talk page is another reason to think that this file might not be correctly licensed or cannot be kept by Commons regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the file fails COM:FOP Iran. Gikü (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
No, not without evidence, and that looks like a clear copyvio (before even getting to FoP issues). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Common symbols in Taiwan

Point 3 of {{PD-ROC-exempt}} says, that "common symbols" are ineligible for copyright. What does "common symbols" mean? Aren't logos common symbols? It's on the same row with almanacs and terms (like terms of use?), which are pretty complex. If logos are considered common symbols, does it mean, that logos of Taiwan cannot be copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is due to a slight difference in connotations, which is unfortunately simply a feature of the respective languages. The Chinese version says "通用之符號", which literally translates to "commonly used symbols". "Symbol" is the best possible translation of "符號"; you can see that they are linked on Wikidata. Both terms prototypically refer to simple symbols like Unicode, emojis, traffic signs, etc. and can technically refer to something more complex, but in Chinese the word more strongly suggests something simple. It is telling that en:Category:Logos is a subcategory of en:Category:Symbols (via en:Category:Visual motifs), but zh:Category:标志 is not a subcategory of zh:Category:符號. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 12 image

There was a NASA handbook made named "Apollo 12 CDR Cuff Checklist," and it is found here: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/cuff12.html The handbook was made by NASA, and it is a NASA website. However the images of the original seem to be made by a third party. What's the status of these images? Also, as background:

  • 133:15:32 Al's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand. Note that he has re-attached the scoop. His cuff checklist can be seen on his left wrist and is open to one of the pages on which the backup crew has pasted a picture of a Playboy Playmate. Pete's watch is on his sleeve between his pressure gauge and his elbow. The LM is in the background, over Pete's left shoulder. A labeled detail shows the upper straps holding the Surveyor Parts Bag on the back of Pete's PLSS. Compare with a relevant pre-flight photo. [10]
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20060103102731/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-48-7071HR.jpg
  • [Al's tourist picture of Pete is AS12-48- 7071. Note that Pete's checklist is open to one of the pages on which the backup crew pasted a Playboy Playmate picture. Note, also, the LM in the background. Journal Contributor Ken Glover notes that the playmate pictures in both checklists were taken from the 1970 Playboy Playmate Calendar. Doug Bennett notes that the two Playmates in Pete's checklist are Angela Dorian (born Victoria Vetri), Miss September 1967, and Reagan Wilson, Miss October 1967, who is seen in Al's picture of Pete. The two Playmates in Al's checklist are Cynthia Myers, Miss December 1968, and Leslie Bianchini, Miss January 1969.][11]
  • https://www.vintageplayboymags.co.uk/PMOY/Angela_Dorian

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, if you're wondering if the Playmate pictures would be free to upload, then no, they would remain copyrighted even if NASA published a copy of it. I would additionally be cautious about the doodles, since they wouldn't be guaranteed copyright free. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The Xerox scans of the cuff checklist are OK (see {{PD-scan}}), even though they show the fingers of the person making the scan, other than the playmate pages (you'd have to argue fair use there; they are at least degraded from the originals). The photos of the cuff checklist sitting on the table do not appear to be OK -- those are photos of a 3-D object basically, and it does not appear that photographer is a NASA employee (though could be wrong on that). It does explicitly note that the image captions are copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Video is Creative Commons but contains possibly copyrighted material – keep, delete or censor?

I stumbled upon File:Celebrating Dissent - Women Against Gods.webm, a file marked with {{YouTube CC-BY}}. I checked the source and it is indeed licensed as such. However, the clip does contain material which is not own work of the Youtube channel. Examples: 4m48s, 6m36s, 29m25s. Given that the majority of the footage is channel's own work, is freely licensed and IMO has quite an informative value, how should we treat the file on Commons? In my optics, there are three options: either keep the file (the possibly copyrighted material would be deemed de minimis), delete the file because it contains possibly copyrighted material, or open a request to edit the video and censor out the problematic video segments. Gikü (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say that they are de minimis. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Commons currently has no explicit formal guidance on non-free video or audio snippets in otherwise freely licensed media: It has often been assumed to be de minimis, but on which specific legal grounds or case studies I do not know. See Commons_talk:De_minimis#De_minimis_in_video/audio?. Contrary to classic de minimis examples (e.g. Mickey Mouse on a t-shirt in a group photograph of tourists), non-free images and audio are often integral rather than incidental parts of the videos in which they appear: e.g. government reports or lectures often include non-free media that are the focal subject(s) of the report or lecture, and in this sense more comparable to fair use, which is not permitted on Commons. I think a consensus from the overview at Commons:De_minimis#Country-specific_laws is that de minimis must be incidental, not deliberate usage, and a close reading would probably find many audio-visual files to be violations on this principle and in fact copyright violations. If the non-free images can't be edited out, perhaps there could be a warning template stating something to the effect of "portions of this media include copyrighted material, that may violate the law if used in isolation," although this may in fact be a beacon that such media is violating copyright, as media requiring such a warning would probably rise above de minimis usage. Edit: the warning label {{De minimis}} exists, but it seems to apply only or largely to still imagery. --Animalparty (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg

Is this file licensed correctly? It's sourced to en:Flags of the World, but I don't think FOTW is claiming copyirght ownership per this; moreover, it's not really the same file shown on the source page. There's a similar file (en:File:Mohawk Warrior Society flag.jpg) uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content that's sourced to WarriorPublications, which is claiming copyright ownership. The Commons file could be an user-created vector version of that, but I think that would make it a derivative work which Commons cannot probably keep if the original image is not something free from copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio, IMO. The copyright of the basic design would be owned by whoever inherited the rights of Louis Hall (died 1993). The current version of "File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg" seems clearly plagiarized from the artwork at the source mentioned at "en:File:Mohawk Warrior Society flag.jpg". The copyright would be owned by the artist of this work. The information about FOTW refers to the first version (2013) of "File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg". There's no evidence that the artist of the FOTW image released it under the free license claimed by the uploader to Commons. This derivative work would be encumbered by the copyright on the original design anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
From Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82, Constantinople c. 1300

Hello, i'm a bit puzzled about historical images scan copyright.

I was looking at the image on the right, which is a scan of a unique manuscript currently located at the Vatican Library.

since the upload quality is not really good, i looked for a better version. I found it at this link, but the scan is watermarked with the sentence "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana". Furthermore, on the download button it states:

"Free use of this image is only for personal use or study purposes. Rights must be requested for any use in printed or online publications.The execution, the publication or the reproduction, in any form, of musical works contained in BAV materials is allowed only with the prior written agreement of the BAV (for further details please see here )."

From what I understood, a scan cannot be copyrighted. So my question is: would be possible to upload the high-quality scan, available on Vatican Library, on commons?

If not, should we delete the currently available image?

--Sette-quattro (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can upload those high quality scans. For your information, in the new European copyright directive it is explicitely stated that reproductions of public domain works stays in the public domain. --Hannolans (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Hannolans! I also found an article about the new European copyright directive, thanks for the hint! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sette-quattro (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Those would likely be photos, not a scan, but we also do have the {{PD-Art}} tag (and Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag guidance page) for those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I had the same reaction to the question calling it a scan. It's indeed a photograph by a project for the Bodleian and Vatican Libraries [12]. But the uploader used PD-Art, not PD-scan. However, it should have been uploaded under a different name, because it's not the same reproduction. And the information should be fixed, because there's no reason to attribute the new image to an en.wipipedia user, with a CC BY 3.0 license. I'm not sure why the overwritten image was credited that way. Does it mean that the uploader of the first version created the reproduction himself in the Vatican Library? The best solution may be to delete the first version. But if it is kept, the two images should have different filenames. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Portraits of the Imperial family

See also User talk:King of Hearts#File:Princess Aiko.jpg. There is a confusion on the copyright status of the portraits of the Imperial Family. While the copyright page doesn't state the they are being excluded from GJSTU 2.0, the link "別紙" at the bottom, redirected to this page, and it said "Images and videos showing the imperial family are subject to the Terms and Conditions of Use (1.2) of the Imperial Household Agency website. Therefore, if you wish to use it, please contact the Public Relations Section, Press Office, General Affairs Division, Secretary-General." --A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like some sort of personality rights - a non-copyright restriction. Ruslik (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Nigeria Professional Football League logo.png

Is this really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO Nigeria? The eagle element (at least it looks like an eagle) seems to be a little more than a simple shape. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Nigeria#Threshold_of_originality. Ruslik (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This answer certainly does not help: the shortcut COM:TOO Nigeria redirects to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Nigeria#Threshold_of_originality.
I think that the required efforts to give the work an independent character were made.
Similar examples are the following two files, which have already been marked for deletion because they contain more than simple geometric shapes.
File:Logo F.C. Hansa Rostock.svg, File:Gryf Wejherowo.png
MagentaGreen (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation of rights acquisition for all the YORCK project images

Hi,

The Yorck project page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:10,000_paintings_from_Directmedia) states intentions (not facts) : Directmedia intention to provide the 10000 paintings to Wikimedia Commons under GFDL license, Directmedia intention to "acquire the rights on the database from the producer "The Yorck Project Gesellschaft für Bildarchivierung GmbH" (German law: UrhG § 87) and release them as GFDL" (adding : "If this isn't possible with licensing rights, there should be another corresponding construct").

Although the 10000 paintings are now effectively on line, we cannot find the final transaction agreement or the final confirmation that, as mentioned above, Directmedia/Zenodot effectively acquired the corresponding rights or alternative equivalent options for ALL images. Would there be then such more "updated" page in Wikimedia Commons or could you confirm that all those images can be used (under GNU-FDL) even for commercial publications ?

Shall we also conclude that, as those paintings are presented as "scans (of public domain works)", the new EU 2019 Copyright Directive would anyway prevent the users (even for commercial publications) from being legally suited (by museums for instance) ?

Thanks in advance Frederic — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB08:75:F100:BDE5:C00:C39:952E (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

These 10,000 images are scans of public domain works and as such are in public domain themselves. The "acquisition" refers only to the database rights. Ruslik (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The YORCK project uploads happened before the introduction of OTRS, so even if there was a potential copyright or database right issue, they could be considered grandfathered old files. If there are any extant records of the donation, they would probably lie with either User:Eloquence or WMF Legal. Kaldari (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The Pacifist (film)

There is an Italian film titled The Pacifist. The film was released in Italy at first (1970), most of the staff was Italian, but the director was Miklós Jancsó from Hungary. Which country's laws apply to this film? Can I upload screenshots to Commons under PD-Italy? --Regasterios (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we know the production studio? Gikü (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The most important thing here is where the film was first published. If it was Italy, then we use Italian law. That said, it is possible that the film is subject to copyright protection in the United States and thus cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the film was published without a copyright notice and was first published in the United States within 30 days of said initial publication. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Italian law does treat movie screenshots as being under {{PD-Italy}}. I'm not sure if U.S. law would avoid the URAA because pre-1976 screenshots themselves were PD in Italy on the URAA date, or if the U.S. would treat them as part of the movie (which is still under copyright in both countries). It is an interesting question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
If I understand well, it might be better if I didn't upload screenshots. --Regasterios (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Files derived from PD files

I have just helped a new user to tag File:AbdurrahmanDudanginski.jpg correctly. It should now be safe from deletion, but I still have one question: The {{Cc-zero}} tag shown on this file only applies to the restoration and colouring contributions. The source image is {{PD-Russia-2008}}. Should this image indicate this somehow?

I have looked through the Commons:Copyright tags stuff but can’t find an answer there. Brianjd (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically no credit is required on PD files (or CC-Zero files for that matter), other than for moral rights reasons. It's generally good to identify the changes from the original though, so the scope of what is being licensed (or given away, with CC0) is clear. It seems pretty clear, now. I don't think any other tags are needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

“Author”

{{Information}} has a field labelled “Author” (in English). So the question is, what is an “author”? Does it include translators etc?

This question is based on the situation described in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siege of Cartagena 209 BC-hu.svg. @MagentaGreen uploaded File:Siege of Cartagena 209 BC.svg. Then @Szajci uploaded File:Siege of Cartagena 209 BC-hu.svg, a translated version. The latter file credits both uploaders. But @MagentaGreen insists this is not OK, because a translator (or editor, arranger etc) is not an “author”.

I have repeatedly insisted that this is not a valid reason for deletion and that the discussion needs to move to another forum. Let’s discuss here. Brianjd (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Translating is part of authorship, so the file has two authors and they both must be mentioned. For example, {{Artwork}} has separate fields for artist (the painter or sculptor) and author (photographer/scanner). Information template has no separate fields for map drawer and translator, so they both must be named on the same field, for example "author=MagentaGreen; Derivative work: Szajci". Taivo (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
In Brianjd's view, uploading a derived image with the uploader's name in the "Author-field" would generally shift authorship in favor of the uploader. No upload form, let alone the Upload Wizard, provides something else as a possibility.
Try to upload a file. First you will be asked for the author. If you are the author yourself, youre name will automatically be entered in the appropriate field,
but you can only be the author if the object is completely your own work.
Unfortunately, many users have similar problems and often don't distinguish between mine and yours. But the numerous violations do not count here to justify a new legal opinion. I had tried in vain to convince Brianjd of the absurdism of his attitude. I asked him the question, who should be named as author, if the discussed file should be edited (derived) a second time. Unfortunately, yesterday he was too tired to follow my argument. Why he is now starting this discussion here is not quite clear to me. I thought he had a good sleep in the meantime :) For me it's a senseless waste of time and I don't want to take part in it any further. MagentaGreen (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
p.s. I already pointed out the possibility of naming the translator as the author of the derived version yesterday.
It is not true that you can only be the author if the object is completely your own work. You need to explain your position, not simply claim that Brianjd was too tired to follow your argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I am always amazed at the reading skills of those who contribute here. My argument is not the sleepiness of user Brianjd but the question to him who should be named as author in case of further derivation of the file.
The following background was given: User Szajci had entered himself as creator of my file in the field "author" without naming me here. This was a deliberate action of user Szajci and was approved by user Brianjd. MagentaGreen (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@MagentaGreen: I object to how you spend time on personal attacks instead of clearly communicating the issue, and you chose to spend further time on personal attacks. Let me be blunt: "In Brianjd's view, uploading a derived image with the uploader's name in the "Author-field" would generally shift authorship in favor of the uploader. No upload form, let alone the Upload Wizard, provides something else as a possibility." has multiple interpretations, and it's hard to find a clear one. If you mean to say that "No upload form provides an option to upload a derived image without putting the uploader's name in the author field", that's false, because Special:Upload certainly does. If Brianjd truly believes the bizarre claim that who uploads the file and what is written in the author field changes who the author is, I'd prefer to hear that from him, because it feels like you've either misunderstood or miscommunicated what he believes. Perhaps you should worry about your writing skills instead of casting aspersions on other's reading skills.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly it is possible to upload a derived image without entering the name of the original author in the author field. It only presupposes that one does not stick to the truth in questions of authorship. But who would claim that this is only possible with the help of a lie? That would be a blatant violation of our principle of "Assume good faith" and would be much worse than a simple copyright infringement. MagentaGreen (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It can depend. Generally when you think of a movie, the director and writer of the screenplay are most commonly thought of as the authors, even if the movie was derivative of an earlier book. For a translated book, the original author typically gets the main credit, with translator second. In both cases, multiple people have contributed expression, so they are both authors of their own expression. I guess the main credit may be more of a convention -- if the basic form of the work is the same as the original, it does seem as though the original author gets the primary credit, but per licenses (and moral rights) both must be mentioned as both are "authors" in the eyes of copyright law. For translating the labels of a map, there may not be enough originality to qualify for copyright. It's still labor of course, and some people think that is what "own work" means. So in this case, I would probably leave the original author as the main one, and mention the translator separately. Whether that rises to copyright may be a country-by-country thing, but it still better identifies which elements each person has contributed. This map does have some sentences in addition to just place names and other labels, so there is more of a chance of those translations being copyrightable expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I insist on no more than the naming of / my mention as main author, i.e. original creator of this file. This is my proper right. But I think that the arguments of my opponents reflect a fundamental problem of the project. The position of the main author is to be systematically undermined. This necessarily entails strengthening the Wikimedia Foundation as a provider to the detriment of authors who have put their work under a supposedly free license. MagentaGreen (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
In copyright matters, success seems to be too much of a yardstick. Just for example, who knows Konrad Bayer? I am thinking of Peter Handke, who for his "Publikumsbeschimpfung" has clearly borrowed from Bayer's "Kasperl am Elektrischen Stuhl" and the "Idiot". Bayer died early, Handke never mentioned him and is therefore the more famous. I don't want to pillory Handke alone; at least in Bert Brecht he has a predecessor who is no less famous in these matters. It is therefore important to pay appropriate tribute to the original author. In any case, the WP is rather unsuitable for maintaining these principles. As author I draw the conclusion from this and as such I am no longer available for the project.
Well, a decision has been made on the matter by admin User:King of Hearts, but there is no doubt that this is a violation of the license. It is true that the necessary information was corrected afterwards (with defence), but this was only corrected after my intervention. Contrary to what my opponents argue, it is not me who has to enforce my copyright, but the Wikimedia Foundation, which has to protect it. It has not fulfilled this obligation and must bear the consequences. Our rules would run ad absurdum if it could be adapted as needed and in retrospect.
MagentaGreen (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Let’s try to get back to the topic at hand here: the definition of “author”. The CC BY-SA 4.0 legal code says that users must retain, amongst other things:
    identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated)
Suppose we said something like “Created by Szajci, based on a work by MagentaGreen”, or used some other phrase that fails to point out the role each user played. But we do state that the original was by MagentaGreen and the derivivative work was by Szajci. Would that satisfy the licence? Brianjd (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • On a slightly different subject, but also related to both this DR and this village pump: @MagentaGreen, in their final comment, has argued yet again that there is a licence violation here (and I think they are right, although they have done a terrible job of explaining why). When @Szajci first uploaded the file, they failed to attribute either of the source files correctly (that’s right, there was another source file besides the one created by MagentaGreen, and it was also CC BY-SA 4.0). Obviously, this was a licence violation. This would have terminated @Szajci’s licences to the source files. But now that the attribution has been fixed, partly by Szajci and partly by me, would Szajci get their licences back? And does any of this affect Commons itself or other Commons users? Brianjd (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Uh-huh, I did a bad job explaining the issue?
    1. I pointed out early on what a derivative work is. Difflink [13]
    2. Also at an early stage I demonstrated the possibility of marking Szajci's work as a derivative work. Difflink [14]
    3. Brianjd has named Szajci as the creator of the derived file, thus justifying the missing naming of me as author (initiator).
    Difflink [15]
    4. I tried to make clear the differences between an author and the editor of a derivative work. Difflink [16]
    5. I described the lack of logic and the resulting consequences in the case of a further processing of the derived work. Difflink [17]
    6. Anyone who has uploaded a derivative work himself can have knowledge what is important in terms of copyright. Whoever decides on the copyright here and elsewhere should also know this. Should I really explain something I was convinced that the people acting here have the necessary knowledge?
    7. Consequently, I had to assume that in our dissent it was not ignorance, but bad will that was the driving force.
    8. If gaps in knowledge were indeed responsible for the procedure here, persons who feel addressed should close these gaps as soon as possible and, until then, hold themselves back in judging copyright issues.
    MagentaGreen (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @MagentaGreen: There are two issues here:
      1. At the start, @Szajci did not name you at all.
      2. Later, @Szajci did name you, but also named themselves as an author.
    The deletion discussion was focused on the second issue. But the comment you replied to was focused on the first issue. I said you did a bad job of explaining the first issue. I made another comment above that covers the second issue. Brianjd (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I wrote: "The uploader User:Szajci doesn't name the underlying data nor me as author and claims ownership." Why is that so hard to understand?
I pointed you out a correct citation but you thought that doesn't matter.
I think you were simply barking up the wrong tree and can't admit it now.
Difflinks [18] [19]
MagentaGreen (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Brianjd: A terminated CC license is automatically restored if the violation is corrected within 30 days of the licensee's discovery of the violation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @King of Hearts: Yes, but does the correction I described count? (Note that the uploader’s corrections were insufficient; the file description was not in compliance with the Creative Commons licences until I edited it as well.)
    I also asked: If the license has been terminated and has not been restored, for any reason, does that affect Commons itself or other Commons users? Brianjd (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Nestle CEO public picture

Hi everyone,

In order to update some companies pages, I found a recent picture of Mark Ulf Schneider on FlickR that is free to use (according to the FlickR license).

So I uploaded the picture (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ulf_Mark_Schneider.jpg) but I received a message saying "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status" on the page.

I haven't been uploading much photos on Wikimedia and I don't really understand what I am supposed to do at this point. Can anyone guide me through the process of uploading a Free image from FlickR ? I couldn't find clear information on the next steps.

Thanks in advance to the community for the help ; I'll remain available to answer your questions

Have a nice day :)

JG --Jglanclaude (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Jglanclaude: According to the file description, it has a Public Domain Mark, which is not acceptable on Commons. Also see the links provided in the various tags on the file description. Brianjd (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I see two issues to discuss here. 1) Is this an official account of Nestlé? It looks very likely but I haven't found any proof. Assuming that it is an official account: 2) A proposal to accept the PDM when the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder is passing at the moment, but we haven't really thought about the exact criteria under which we would accept Flickr PDM if the proposal passes. We may want to include some guidance on how to handle official group accounts. (For individual accounts, we can simply apply the same level of scrutiny we do to photos uploaded as "own work" on Commons, using heuristics like consistency in EXIF, resolution, quality, etc.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Files on Wikis often end up being transferred to Commons. If the files are bad (copyvios) then it just means more work for users on Commons.

I think/hope that if wikis have a good policy and users actively checking files then we will have fewer problematic files transferred to Commons. So I try to help wikis starting a process of checking files and I'm sometimes asked what rules they have to follow. Ugh.

I could use a little help finding out what the rules/policies is for all the wiki projects. For example I wanted to find out if local wikis have to follow US law or if they can chose not to and I found this "the Wikimedia Foundation may request that the policy be rendered compliant with U.S. law.". (I made the word "may" bold).

So if anyone here have input it would be appreciated - see m:Talk:Copyright#Copyright_on_wiki_projects. --MGA73 (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

US Naval Postgraduate School - Thesis Submissions., & by extension other FEDLINK works..

(@Fæ: Bringing this here for a wider viewpoint)

https://archive.org/details/navalpostgraduateschoollibrary

Are these {{PD-USGov}}, or are they as individual thesis under normal copyright (possibly even unpublished works), meaning that they would need to be excluded from a mass upload?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I also have some concerns that amongst the FEDLINK collection, there maybe other PDF documents that cannot be considered PD-USGov (such as collections of press clippings from commercially published newspapers for example.). Sorry to seem paranoid. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

American-Mexican Cartoons

50 years old videogram.

Hi! today I uploaded a screenshot from a Mexican videogram. In the discussion page I point the reasons why I believe it is no longer protected.

I would like to debate with more people to see if my reasoning is right, in that cause I could upload the full collection of 12 movies. Otherwise, it would make no sense because they should be deleted.

In a nutshell:

According to Article 146 of the 1996-2018 Federal Law on Copyright, videogram rights end after 50 years since they were first produced.
According to US National Archives, the film falls into Public Law 101-246, giving 12 years of protection for works made by US nationals. (Title 2, part A, USIA).
Also, NARA considers the film to be in PD in the US.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a lot of stuff here. First {{PD-Mexico}} doesn't apply; it doesn't say anything about why a work from 1952 might be out of copyright. I don't know if we need a new tag, but that one doesn't fit.
Secondly, it's not 12 years for works made by US nationals. It's release after 12 years for works made by the United States Information Agency. I don't think that's relevant to us. I don't know. Is it PD-USGov, or is the other hands involved enough to preserve copyright and the Mexican connection enough to restore copyright under the URAA? The National Archives don't seem to have much to say on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Prosfilaes: . The 12 years might be relevant because was done by USIA personnel, as see in this NARA text. But I agree that in that case, PD-USGov applies. We wait for more people to say their opinion? thanks for your 5 cents.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"NASA image" was not created by NASA

I am wondering about the license provided for [20]. It is claimed to have been "created by NASA", and thus to be in the public domain. This does not seem to be the case. The source, [21], has been published via NASA's Astrophysics Data System ADSABS, but so has a large fraction of all papers that were ever published. I believe that the copyright still belongs to the Astronomy and Astrophysics journal and to the original authors. If that's the case then the image does not seem suitable for Wikipedia. Am I correct? If so, can someone please help me with the deletion process? Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks to be a problem. The terms of use say, Full-text articles and abstracts of papers available from the ADS databases are copyrighted by the respective publishers and are subject to all applicable copyright protection under the laws of the United States and other countries. The reproduction of full-text articles or abstracts requires express written permission from the publisher. The source article itself has an explicit copyright notice for the European Southern Observatory, and a note to contact one of the authors about reprint permission.
The deletion process is easiest by clicking "Nominate for deletion" from the lefthand menu while on the image page. You can then paste in the same information you gave above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Political party logo of Singapore

Hello,

I recently uploaded File:RDU logo.svg to represent the Red Dot United political party in Singapore, on the basis that simple geometric shapes cannot be copyrighted. However, I was made aware that Singapore as a former British colony follows commons law, which has a lower threshold of originality compared to the United States. May I check the copyright status of the symbol on Commons before I request for a speedy deletion? I have nominated it for the normal deletion process for now. Seloloving (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be too simple even for Singapore. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Should I withdraw the nomination for deletion? Or should I wait for a second/third opinion? Seloloving (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I will withdraw the nomination for deletion for now. Seloloving (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

GFDL and disclaimers

Just an info about Template talk:GFDL-ja. Would be easier if we could just remove them :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying text from the English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons

The template Template:Anon-check-links sometimes generates a number of RIR (regional Internet registry) links. I mentioned an issue in that most of these RIR links are broken. I am considering making an edit request on the page Template:Anon-check-links that would involve having someone copy certain RIR URLs from the English Wikipedia page Template:Anontools/ipv4 to the Commons page Template:Anon-check-links. (There is also an English Wikipedia page Template:Anontools/ipv6 which appears to contain the same RIR URLs as Template:Anontools/ipv4.)

Although I may not make an edit request any time soon, I do have a question about how one could provide suitable attribution and license and source information for the copied content. Given the English Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, my thought was to include a note in the Commons edit request indicating that the edit summary for the edit should include the text The new page content may be derived from the contents of the English Wikipedia page [[:w:Template:Anontools/ipv4|Template:Anontools/ipv4]]; see that page's history for attribution. which would render as The new page content may be derived from the contents of the English Wikipedia page Template:Anontools/ipv4; see that page's history for attribution. Would that work? --Gazebo (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

openstreetmap.org standard tiles license change

Starting on 1 July 2020, the standard OSM Carto tiles on openstreetmap.org will only be licensed as ODbL Produced Works, instead of double-licensing ODbL and CC-BY-SA 2.0. The other tiles are likely still CC-BY-SA 2.0, and old tiles will remain CC-BY-SA 2.0 + ODbL. {{Openstreetmap}} will have to be updated, and uploaders and license reviewers educated. You can read more at https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/25/new-licence-for-the-standard-style-tiles-from-openstreetmap-org/. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Imperva.png

If this file by Warnerthompson is their own work it seems somewhat inconpatible with being an Impreva (I assume regsitered) trademark. (I assume the small square under the a is that. Not my best area but somethings seems wrong. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark registration are two different things. They can have different owners. Moreover many registered trademarks are below ToO and are not protected by copyright at all. In this case they user could have simply reproduced the design of the trademark themselves. Ruslik (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark and Ruslik0: While that's true, these images appear to be directly derived from the company in question's website, including the probably-copyrighted background image, so I am marking them as copyvios. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary report into Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pakistan tells us:

The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely: ... the reproduction or publication of any matter which has been published in any official Gazette, or the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government unless the reproduction or publication of such matter or report is prohibited by the Government.[XXXIV/2000 Section 57(q)(i)] C

So where does that leave [22], the preliminary report into the w:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303, published by the w:Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Per this reply by Clindberg, it seems that even if local Pakistani public domain is established, the corresponding {{PD-EdictGov}} will not establish ((T)hose are for items with actual legal effect, like laws and court rulings), so no in my opinion, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The question was "where does that leave ...", so "no" is not a meaningful answer; nor does the content not being "with actual legal effect, like laws and court rulings" seem relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It would seem that reproduction/publication is allowed in Pakistan. That is different than being public domain or a free license though (derivative works, etc., not covered); that is closer in spirit to fair use. Their government copyright still lasts for 50 years after publication. It would not fall under PD-EdictGov in the U.S., though you would similarly expect fair use to cover a wide range of actual situations there too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

National Library of Wales - Martin Ridley Collection copyright tags

Just a heads-up that almost all of the 835 images in this collection have the wrong country of origin copyright tag (author's life + 100 years, when Ridley died in 1936) and no US tag.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

File:黒 3 (7076018431).jpg

The file is marked as CC-BY-SA-2.0 on Flickr, but the watermark of it shows that it is licensed under a CC-BY-SA-NC license. Is it OK to keep it, or should be deleted under COM:PCP? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

For additional information, we have around 60 images from this author and some of them have the same problem. The Flickr account looks legitimate to me, so this is not Flickrwashing. I sent the user a message. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: I communicated with the user, and it appears that they intended the files to have a Noncommercial license on Flickr, but they are willing to assign a normal CC-BY-SA on Commons and may be interested in contributing more images directly. So I think everything is fine as-is, unless we need to document this more formally somehow. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarifcation: re Category:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection and subcategories..

When is a work provided by a 'third party' actually PD-US-Gov, rather than being under normal copyright provisions?

I'm finding some items like research papers prepared by non US govt entities amongst items in this category and it's sub categories and would appreciate some expertise from Commons contributors, in ensuring that only material that is actually in the public domain or compatible with Commons licensing remains. Whilst the "upload the whole collection" approach does grab all the public domain material, it also grabs items that are not.

If the status is not clarified, I will have to assume that whilst this effort was undertaken in good faith, it is going too create too much of backlog for Commons contributors and admins to review and remove "in-copyright" material manually and should be halted, until the effort can RELIABLY detect what is and is not compatible with Commons licensing more accurately. I will also be considering nominating entire sections of it for deletion (something I really really want to avoid doing, and be unhappy about doing so), so that other Commons user can be sure that any (and I'm sure it's a minority of) in-copyright works incompatible with Commons are being removed swiftly.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Struck out a portion that I think was too strongly worded. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There's some semi-official information at https://cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#30 . Nemo 21:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Banister Fletcher

The 7th edition of A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method was published in both New York and London in 1924. Its author, Sir Banister Fletcher, died in 1953. It is available as a free ebook at Google Books, which presumably means that Google believes it is in the public domain. No later editions are available as free ebooks at Google Books. Do we agree that the 1924 edition is in the public domain for the purposes of Commons, and that no later editions are? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It is clearly public domain in the US. It is clearly not public domain in London. I don't know which Commons wants to use as the source nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What you see on Google Books depends on which IP address you use.
Swedish IP address: I see the title page in the top right part of the screen, but there is no PDF available and there is no way to read the book.
United States IP address (through a random web proxy): In addition to the title page, there are two other pages in the top right part of the screen. The book can also be read and downloaded as a PDF. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The title page has both New York (Charles Scribner's Sons) and London (B.T. Batsford) given as place of publication, over the year 1924. Can that be interpreted as meaning that publication is simultaneous and therefore that Commons treats it as public domain? How does one get authoritative answers to questions like this? Is there a Commons Copyright Authority of some kind? --Macrakis (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I believe in the case of simultaneous publication in multiple countries we can take the most permissive one. Since Commons requires all images to be PD in the US, the US is naturally the most permissive country since there are no additional requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is the photographer in case of a screenshot of video conference?

An issue come up in this DR, which made me realize that Commons:Screenshots does not seem to cover well the case of screenshots of the video conferences, like File:Screenshot BBB de basic2.png or File:Wikimedia Hackaton 2020 group photo.jpg. Usually it is the person pressing the button who is the photographer and the copyright holder, so the person who took the screenshot. Is that correct interpretation? --Jarekt (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I think a more accurate statement would be "the copyright holder is the person or persons who contributed creatively to the image". In the case of traditional photography this is generally the person pushing the button, but in this case I think the screenshotter has no creative control over the video image, which is actually composed by the person in the video. They might be creating a derivative work of that video with their screenshot, but I'd be inclined to argue not since they are just faithfully reproducing applications and images on their screen that were made by other people (unless they have rearranged their application windows in some extraordinarily unusual way). – BMacZero (🗩) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
BMacZero, In the US works that have copyright protection have to be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" (see en:Copyright#Fixing), and output of a webcam is not fixed until someone records it or take a screenshot. This is a bit similar to an issue of who holds the copyrights to a medical xray, it was not the doctor or a patient, so the only candidate would be the technician "pressing the button", but they in most cases did not have any creative input into the process. We now use {{PD-medical}} for such cases, but it was not clear for many years. It is possible that screenshot of a video conference is also ineligible. --Jarekt (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Hmm, that is interesting. I didn't consider fixing, so I guess you are probably right that the creativity of the owner of the camera is irrelevant because their contribution is not fixed. But I also still think that the screenshotter is usually not expressing sufficient creativity to acquire a copyright. They have no control over the composition of the video and only very limited, utilitarian control over the appearance of the program on their screen. I guess if that were true, this would be another case in which nobody is entitled to copyright protection (unless the creator of the program itself was entitled to it). – BMacZero (🗩) 04:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This previous VP/C discussion may be of interest. An issue that comes to mind in the case of a video conference is when the operator of a specific webcam is recording the video that is captured by that webcam. I seem to remember a topic on Commons, perhaps about video feeds at public events, that suggests that the act of recording by the webcam operator could mean that the video feed from that webcam would be copyrighted. In any case, when searching on VP/C, I found this archived discussion. Another possible issue with video conferences is if it is possible for the conference host to be recording the conference, including the video feeds from all the participants, even if none of the other conference participants are recording anything, and what that would mean for copyright on the video feeds in the case of that video conference. --Gazebo (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Isnt this the same situation as a capture of an security cam as there is no creativity involved? See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices --Hannolans (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There are some similarities, but also differences (for example, the webcam is more likely to have been set up for the specific purpose of recording that conversation). Also, the page you linked does not make the assertion you are attributing to it, rather saying 'this question remains untested in the United States'. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

J.R.R. Tolkien photograph from the 1940s

Hello,

I just need a photograph of J.R.R. Tolkien here from the 1940s, but is consequently a public domain in the UK with the unknown photographer. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZmeytheDragon16: Is the photographer really anonymous and never revealed, or do you simply not happen to know who the photographer was right now? See {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Could the photographer be identified by reasonable inquiry? The difference is important. --Animalparty (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

w:Copyright law of the Russian Federation links to [23] which says that Copyright in a work first disclosed after the author's death shall subsist for 70 years after its disclosure. Is this requirement also in the current version of the Russian copyright law? The requirement isn't mentioned in the Russian copyright tag or on COM:Russia. A requirement that photographs must have been published at least 70 years ago sounds really bad for us as most uploaders probably find ancient photos from modern sources such as modern books and modern websites and have no clue if the photo has been published somewhere else a long time ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is part of their current law. It's mentioned on {{PD-Russia}} (in the smaller text at the bottom). The "country of origin" for USSR-published works could be "interesting" per the Berne definition, if they were actually published in (or considered published in as a result of the USSR breakup) simultaneously in any of the other successor nations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason why I asked was because I happened to see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yakimova.jpg where someone nominated a photograph created in 1883 for deletion because there is no evidence that it has been published more than 70 years ago. The source given is a website which obviously is less than 70 years old. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, requiring proof of publication is usually a bit much. Most works were made to be published. If there was some evidence it remained unpublished that could change assumptions, but doubts like that are (to me) theoretical doubts, and not a reason for deletion. COM:PCP is for significant doubts, not stuff like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
According to the article 1281 the work must be published with 70 years from author's death for it to be protected otherwise it will lapse into public domain. Ruslik (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder about burden of proof if someone sues, though. If one party claims that a work was published during a certain timespan while the other party claims that it wasn't, wouldn't the party claiming that it was published have to show where it was published, or else the court would rule that it wasn't published? If you can't win in court if the heir of the author provides potentially fraudulent information, then the image seems unfree to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You can always lose if your opponent provides fraudulent information and the court believes them. For example, misidentifying the author to someone who lived longer. If anonymous terms are much shorter, you probably would need to show publication without attribution -- so we do usually want to see an actual publication (without naming the author) for those. If authors are simply unknown, i.e. we can't show beyond a significant doubt that something was published anonymously, we tend to wait until the pma term has likely passed (i.e. {{PD-old-assumed}}). That is probably the best license to use for this one, actually, since it's by an unknown author -- since while it certainly looks like a scan of an old published source, we have no idea if that happened anonymously or if there was an author named originally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Prometheus (1930) de José Clemente Orozco en Pomona College.jpg came up in a DYK on enwp. It's a mural from 1930, so whether it's ok to use should depend on whether it has a copyright notice. Such a notice isn't visible in the picture (that I can see), and it's not clear from some other pictures I looked at. How much effort is required to inspect the work to look for said notice? Even if one were there in the room, it would probably be hard to see all of it without a ladder, I think. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that so common to put a notice on a mural? Ruslik (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I've attempted to give some guidance in a new section called Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities. For this specific case, I consider File:Frary Dining Hall 360-degree view.jpg to be sufficient evidence of no notice. However, there is no evidence of permission by the photographer, as I explained at w:Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 168#Picture licence query, so we need to crop out any 3D elements present. w:File:Prometheus (Orozco), 1930.png should be acceptable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, the current image (1 July 2020) has no source. The source mentioned in the description page relates to the 8 April 2011 version of the file, a different photograph. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/06&oldid=432984879"