Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/10

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

I am creating an article about a sculptor, and he has sent me a portrait taken by a professional photographer. The photo has a TIFF section in the metadata stating: Copyright: ©2015, Nicole Katano. All rights reserved

The photo was commissioned with a contract which states: “Promotional use in catalogs, brochures, social media. No advertising usage. Courtesy rights for 5 years.”

Is this sufficient release of rights? If so which option should I use in the Upload Wizard under "Release rights"? -Carsley66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsley66 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 October 2020‎ (UTC)

Also, photographs of sculptures generally require permission from the sculptor as well as from the photographer, unless the sculptor has been dead for long enough for the work to be public domain. In some circumstances 'freedom of panorama' allows us to ignore the sculptor's copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Dalida 1984.jpg

I randomly had a look at this file. The uploader DalidaEditor declares it as "own work" although in the description he writes, that it is possibly from a TV program ("Dalida tv plateau Un vie d'homme peut-être") [if I translated correctly]. So own work doesn't apply.

I don't claim that this picture cannot be kept in commons because the uploader has other uploads with licences which may also be correct here, but I doubt it is possible with the current type of licence.

May anyone comment this?
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The image looks like a scan. Probably, the uploader scanned it themselves. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The image is in an article dated before its upload to Commons,[1] although it is possible that the image was added after the article after was published (it's not at archive.org). This casts more doubt on the 'own work' claim. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I scanned it from my family album of Dali's photos. I was not the one who inherited it so I was not able to chose which photos to scan except they gave me few. They are taken probaby by aunt or uncle and are several printed on hardpaper without gloss overlay. No negatives or positives found. If I ever find any, I am sure to publish them. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 02:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: photographs must be licensed by the copyright holder, which is normally the photographer or their heirs if they have died. You should not upload photographs from your family album unless you are the copyright owner. Owning a print of a photograph is not sufficient. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting volunteering support

Hi,

This link to book Chapter 8 - Magic, Marvel, and Miracle in Early Islamic Thought pp. 235-267 contains very very old images, which I am interested in using in English Wikipedia article en:w:Superstitions in Muslim societies.

I am requesting volunteer support in examining images in the linked book chapter for copyright issues, upload those which don't have copyright issues then include them in the article en:w:Superstitions in Muslim societies.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your link to the book/pdf doesn't work: "Access denied". --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Túrelio, Thanks for your support, the link opens for me with https. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not accessible.
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Access denied</Message>
</Error>
--Fæ (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

PD-USGov?

File:DOL Seal-K.png seems to be incorrectly licensed. The claim of “own work” is questionable and probably just a good-faith misunderstanding of what that entails, but just might be {{PD-USGov-DOL}} just based on the text element of the file, File:Seal of the United States Department of Labor.svg and dol.gov/agencies/wb. A simple conversion to a PD license should suffice here, right? — Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Clindberg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in the United States page and possible copied text

I recently edited some of the details on the page Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in the United States in the "Copyright notes" subsection. On that page, after the "Applicable templates:" text, there is information about specific licensing templates to use for photos of public art. The text was there before I edited the page. I edited the text about specific license templates to, among other things, refer to the year 1925 instead of 1923. However, I noticed that the same text about licensing templates and public art appears on the page Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama (do a search for "Applicable templates:" without quotes.) I do not know whether the text about license templates on the Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in the United States page (specifically, the text that was on the page before I edited it) was copied from the US FoP page or whether it came from someone else. From there, the thought comes up as to whether there may be a copyright issue. From what I understand, text on Wikimedia Commons is licensed at minimum under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which allows copying but requires attribution of the work's author(s) among other things. --Gazebo (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

In general it's enough to link the source page in the edit summary, per m:Terms_of_use#7c. I didn't check whether it was done in this case but that's the easy fix. Nemo 08:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Newspaper clippings from Norway

The category Newspaper clippings from Norway contains a number of reproductions of articles from Norwegian newspapers, mainly from the 1970s. Several of them also includes photos from the Star Wars movies. Are these really permissable on Commons? I have a fairly good grasp of the Norwegian copyright rules when it comes to photographs, but written works like newspapers and articles I'm less knowledgeable of. TommyG (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the Municipal Archives of Trondheim (source of many of the images) may be guilty of Flickr-washing the licenses, even if in good faith. And Star Wars images are still derivative works regardless of what country's periodicals re-published them. I don't see anything at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway that indicates why newspaper articles from the 1970s would be out of copyright. --Animalparty (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Also see Category:Images from The Municipal Archives of Trondheim. Archives and libraries sometimes acquire copyrights and release things that would normally be unfree with valid free licenses. However, this seems unlikely here as these come from multiple Norwegian newspapers that were published in recent decades. Could you contact the Trondheim archives to ask them to clarify the position, either by messaging on Flickr or though the contact information on their website? An email from them to COM:OTRS could be helpful. It is very unlikely that their licenses on Star Wars photos will be accepted, but we would like to keep what we can. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I myself have transferred a large amount of the images in Category:Images from The Municipal Archives of Trondheim but I left out among others the images mentioned above since I didn't think the licence could be accurate. TommyG (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We have several photographs from archived copies of the National Assembly for Wales website. The license asserts Crown copyright, with specific clauses.[2] The following sentences appear problematic:

  • Most of the material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated.
  • This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context.

The first sentence does not say "All of the material", so should we assume that the licence covered everything on the website that was not explicitly excluded? Does the second sentence unacceptably restrict the publication of derivative works?

I have nominated File:Pauline Jarman.jpg for deletion on this basis, but Littlemonday has uploaded several others, and I have also identified File:Theodore Huckle QC.jpeg.

If these files are allowed, how should we indicate the license? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. You seem to be the expert here, could you offer advice given your advanced knowledge? I'm saddened that you seem to be taken a vendetta againt my work here including photos I have taken myself. Littlemonday (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Littlemonday: I have replied on your user talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: You havn't mentioned this issue or any potential solutions etc on my talk page. I'd like a discussion about AMs from the 1999-2003 Assembly. It would in my opinion be disappointing if these former AMs were the only ones not to have photos on their articles. I'd like to discuss with you/others if there is a way around these restrictive rules.
I also fail to see why it should be for me to argue that the reproduction/use of these photos doesn't break the licence above, when you are unable to demonstrate that it does break the licence. You and I are clearly not going to agree on this so I'd like someone else (hopefully impartially) to step in. Littlemonday (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this image public domain?

I have been uploading a few campaign logos that I am positive do not cross the threshold of originality (e.g. File:Christine Rolfes for State Senator 2012.png, File:Drew Hansen for State Representative.jpg). I found this logo of Sherry Appleton, but I am not sure if it is ok to upload here (with the photo cropped out of course); the apple scribble is not that simple. Is this under the threshold of originality, or is it too unique? Thanks, DemonDays64 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: You can search the US Copyright Office's Appeals Decisions and see if there's a similar logo that was denied copyright protection: [3]. [4]. I skimmed through most of the letters in both links, but couldn't find one that has a similar style as the apple scribble. However, my gut feeling is that the scribble is below the American threshold of originality. FunnyMath (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi FunnyMath, pings do not work if you add them after already submitting your message. You need to actually write a second message for the ping. I'll do it for you now. @DemonDays64: ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't know that. FunnyMath (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: oh I didn't know that! Interesting. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyvios by Manitarski (talk · contribs)

User has uploaded several photos from random websites which I've already tagged for deletion (besides how it's possible for a new user to use urltocommons feature?). Among their remaining uploads [5] there are multiple low resolution photos of notable people lacking any metadata, all dubiously claimed as own work. I suggest deleting them per COM:PRP. ~Cybularny Speak? 10:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Checked and tagged. --Túrelio (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Logo uploading errors

Was trying to upload a logo of the company to the page, written about that company. I'm writing and editing that page at the moment. When I'm talking about the company, I mean page dedicated to College. Somehow, I faced the issue. Wiki didn't let me do that. I would appreciate it a lot if you could give me a hint on how to upload a logo of the college to the page about the College. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss MCM world (talk • contribs) 10:48, 6 October 2020‎ (UTC)

@Miss MCM world: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a png logo as a new user while leaving the summary intact. Such uploads of png logos are not allowed at all. You indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png logo, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it, including any metadata, but it may be judged too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin, so you may need to license it on your website or social media or send permission via OTRS. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, too. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Facebook copyvios

Hi. Dear deletion admins, I made a new Category:Facebook files. I hope it is OK? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the basis for putting files in there? EXIF, source, both or other aspects? Likely good to have it but it would be useful to know. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
EXIF shows it, "FBMD at MD". --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

License for including a CC-BY-SA video in another work?

Hi, Hear2heaL included my video (CC-BY-SA-4.0) in a montage (the final work on YouTube). Should the resulting work also be CC-BY-SA-4.0? It seems complicated as it is made from many documents. And there are a number of other works from Commons included. Thanks for your opinion. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It has to be under CC-BY-SA-4.0 or a compatible license. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Couldn't the author reject the license by claiming fair use? FunnyMath (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@FunnyMath: They could, but then we couldn't host it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Can this image from NARA be uploaded?

I found an image of Hillary Clinton that I want to upload to Commons: [6]. It says "Access Restriction(s): Unrestricted" and "Use Restriction(s): Unrestricted". If this image is free, then what copyright tag should I use? FunnyMath (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to use a copyright tag that is the same as {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}, but applied to NARA photos instead. I haven't found a tag similar to that. Can one be created? FunnyMath (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Fyi, {{PD-USGov-NARA}} was discussed and deprecated 13 years ago. @Alex Spade: Any reasons to remain that deprecated? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
LOC and NARA are sources, not (PD-)licenses. This photo was not created by USGov employee, so the general US copyright terms must be considered. Alex Spade (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If we apply general US copyright law, the photo would be copyrighted until 1950 + 121 = 2071. This contradicts the statement "Use Restriction(s): Unrestricted". I will contact the library and confirm whether there are copyright restrictions or not. FunnyMath (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
No reason not to trust NARA. Seems like material given to the White House Photograph Office during Clinton's presidency, and so is part of presidential records. The material was either already PD due to lack of notice, or released to the PD then. Wouldn't surprise me if it was also used during Clinton's governorship earlier. Could use {{PD-US}} as the tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg, you are correct. The Library said the image is in the worldwide public domain (not just American) because it was "produced by an employee or entity of the Federal Government". I have already uploaded the image (along with another one). FunnyMath (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Do not use, copy or edit any of my photographs without written permission."

We have 3 photos by Suus Wansink with such a statement in addition to a proper license. Would somebody mind contacting this person and clarifying the situation? --Palosirkka (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The license is correct & irrevocable. The statement is a standard text this photographer uses for all her photographs. The license and the statement are in conflict, and in these 3 cases the license wins. As a courtesy, I will send the photographer an e-mail alerting her about the issue. Vysotsky (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Since the text is included in the original upload, it stands to reason that the text was added when the image was uploaded to Flickr. As such, you can't pick and choose which parts of the license text you wish to adhere to when the license text, as in this case, is clearly contradictory. The license is clearly invalid, and the only correct course of action is to try to contact the photographer to get a clarification and a release. TommyG (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
They are in complete conflict. If it looks like an author was confused about licensing, we often play it safe and don't allow them, as the text usually indicates their real intent. On the other hand, it looks like it's been uploaded there for nine years. If it had that statement originally, and the author later changed the license to CC-BY, that would be fine too. If they have both been there for nine years, hrm. If the author is still responding to messages, that would be the best way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Question on an odd CC license

One of the Nobel prize winners today has an image we have traced to here : [7] The site has a copyright page for its members photos here [8] that had an odd license approach based on CC. That broadly all content falls under CC-BY-NC-NC (thus generally not appropriate for Commons), but says that for "media" organizations, they may uses photos and videos under a CC-BY-4.0 license which would be great... but does this impact how that file would be used by any potential redistributors that do not fall under their "media" definition? In other words, is this file (and other files) on their site considered fine for Commons or is this a unusable license approach for commons? --Masem (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not appropriate for commons. It comes with a conditional CC-BY-NC license so even though it could probably be used without any problems on wikipedias, we couldn't host and distribute it here from Wikimedia Commons. TommyG (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that was what my thought was but needed confirmation. --Masem (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Technically, you can't restrict CC-BY like that, so it sounds like it's a modified license (and thus can't use Creative Commons' trademark to describe it). Probably best to steer clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Unresolved deletion requests relating to IA mirroring efforts..

It would be much appreciated if the backlog here was reduced, by reaching a definitive decision on the DR's made. Category:IA_mirror_related_deletion_requests ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cannot upload CC2.0 images from Flickr

I would like to upload this image and other images by this photographer from the same event. It has a CC BY 2.0 license on Flickr, but when I upload using the wizard, it says "Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site." Is there a reason for this? Please ping me as I am much more active on en.wiki. Bait30 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30: Hi, and welcome. Please read Category:Images by Marco Verch and the links therein.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow I hate that guy. Thanks for letting me know. Bait30 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bait30: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Special:Contributions/Alhadramy_Alkendy has been uploading unofficial flags of various Middle Eastern countries/cities. I don't think every single one is a copyvio, but I thought I might post here to get better advice on how to proceed, since tagging a couple hundred images for deletion seems laborious. Please ping me in replies. Sincerely, Ovinus Real (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

NPS Thesis

As part of the efforts to Mirror IA material to Commons, a number of thesis sourced from the Naval Postgraduate School library were uploaded in good faith to Commons.

However, a number of these were found (via metadata) to potentially have copyright issues due to claims made in the meta-data provided, or sourced.

Hence a recent deletion disscussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:reserved by the copyright owner incategory:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection

On doing some further analysis of the files in that DR, it seems that there is no consistency about what may or not be in copyright (and thus unsuitable for Commons). I've found items that whilst clearly by US military personnel, or Federal civilian employees, have the "Copyright reserved by copyright owner' claim in the metdata. It doesn't help that in some cases the information in the PDF file on Commons, the PDF file at archive.org, the metadata at archive.org, and at the original NPS pages, give contradictory indications. In some cases the files also for some technical reason do not apparently show at archive.org currently.

I am therefore considering requesting that an administrator deletes every single NPS library sourced item on copyright grounds, unless someone is prepared to get ONE consistent and very clear indication on what items from this particular archive source are or are not compatible with Commons licensing.

Expecting a manual review of at least 1800 files individually (and potentially a lot more insource:navalpostgraduateschoollibrary gave around 34,000 files) simply isn't feasible.

Delete it ALL and start again when the metadata from the various archives and in the documents consistently agrees.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: , @De728631: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
"Delete it ALL and start again..." should exclude those files in Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library/reviewed that have already been reviewed and were found to have a valid PD status. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: , I'd moved all the files I could identify with the the problem phrase into their own category, Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library/reserved, About 2200 affected files. I don't think it's being applied discriminately but there are some seeming anomalies that are visible.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If the anomalies can be abstracted to in document searches, then the PDF search can help to test those with definitive copyright statements beyond the default and unreliable IA rights statement. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sokoban_logo.svg

The description of the image says: "English: The official flat logo for Sokoban, written in Japanese as 倉庫番 (rōmaji sōkoban), with the 田 radical of the final character stylized to look like a box. Boxes are a primary element of the game."

Used instead of the homepage logo to avoid possibly exceeding the threshold of originality.

Really, the image is a vectorization of a raster image, thus is a derivated work affected to copyright. The raster image source is: https://sokoban.jp/products/smart/images/smart_logo_s.png

Also about: "The official flat logo for Sokoban" tends to confusion because the image that is used as logo includes the words: "SINCE 1982": https://sokoban.jp/images/sokoban.png

@Carloseow: Don't forget to COM:SIGN your posts. Personally, the specific information at COM:TOO Japan makes it seem likely to me that this logo is under the threshold of originality there. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the license of the image should be changed from Public Domain to Fair use, similar to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_Pictures_Logo.svg Carloseow

@Carloseow: Fair use isn't allowed on Commons, only on Wikipedia. If we decided this image was above the Threshold of Originality, we would have to delete it from Commons and move it to Wikipedia to use it as Fair Use. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-10#Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/File:FC Arsenal-Kyivshchyna Bila Tserkva Logo.png I have seen a new argument raised by @Ankry, JGHowes, and Nat: that I have never seen before: works under Category:PD-Gov license tags are still copyrightable in the US and as such only works after 1989 can be on Commons.

In particular case of {{PD-UA-exempt}} this would mean that this template becomes useless, as Ukraine did not exist in 1989 and thus strictly zero works under this license became available in 1989.

@NickK: Are you sure that UKSSR didn't exist in that year? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: This provision was created in 1993. Soviet copyright law applied before this date — NickK (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I find this argument quite surprising, as these templates usually state that these works are not an object of copyright: they are not just available under a free license but they simply cannot be copyrighted.

In the case of {{PD-UA-exempt}}, among other State symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations; symbols of territorial communities; symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations are not copyrightable. Still, most of them have an author. For instance, the coat of arms of Kyiv File:COA of Kyiv Kurovskyi.svg has a known author (Kurovskyi) and was adopted in 1995. It is not an object of copyright according to the Ukrainian law. However, this and other symbols are potentially copyrightable in the US, as {{PD-USGov}} covers only US government works, but not the equivalent works from foreign countries.

In my opinion, the fact that a foreign government agency, organisation or a person would attempt to enforce a US copyright on a work that is not copyrightable at all in the home country, is purely theoretical. I did not find any real examples of this happening, but perhaps some people with better knowledge of the US copyright law can explain?

This potentially concerns ~150K files in Category:PD-exempt, and I don't think that all post-1989 files should be deleted. If the US copyright law indeed affects all these files, at the very list templates in Category:PD-Gov license tags should have a notice on it — NickK (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree this appears an overly hypothetical copyright interpretation.
At most a suitable action would be to categorize affected files and try to gain legal opinions. However let's try to avoid deletion discussions on this theoretical basis unless an real legal case is published that might set a precedent. --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The US government floated a question in the 1970s, among the members of the UCC, whether they would permit enforcement of US government copyrights on its works, copyrights that didn't exist in the US. The Soviet Union was strongly against the idea, but it shows that governments do think of the idea. I don't see this as so hypothetical; if there's no rule of the shorter term, there's no reason for their source nations laws to matter. Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. (1983) said that certain Japanese toys had copyright in the US even though they had no copyright in Japan. (And they were exclusively licensed to Hasbro Bradley, so it's clear Japanese parties were willing to claim US copyright to license.) Commons:PRP says that "The copyright owner will not bother to sue" is not a reason to keep a file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
These are not equivalent cases to the opening statement "foreign government agency". Further the Hasbro (Takara) v. Sparkle case did not appear to reach any conclusion as to who was right, and this was massively muddied by the debate of whether "proper copyright notice" was given by curative measures; definitely a 'fine point' (ref). Yes, "overly hypothetical" still appears on the money. --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
This would completely change the balance towards the US. US is notorious for not having the rule of shorter term, unless public domain on the restoration data (which is 1989 in most case). I am not sure there is any clear regulation of the status of foreign government works in the US, this probably is too niche to be clearly regulated. Wikimedia Commons is likely the biggest user of Category:PD-exempt works in the US, as I don't think who else would care that much about Ukrainian coins, Mongolian coats of arms or South African road signs?
I would understand restrictions on international works (like Japanese toys imported to the US, or in PD-exempt case logos of international organisations) but not on very local works that would have no real value outside their country of origin. I don't find the approach of deleting all post-1989 Category:PD-Gov license tags works (probably around 100K) reasonable, as we have no real proof that this copyright is enforceable. We don't enforce US provisions where they are not used, e.g. we do not delete all pictures of sculptures allowed by local FoP but not by the US FoP, only local FoP matters. Why can't we do the same here? — NickK (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
There is clear regulation on the status of foreign government works in the US; the US signed the Berne Convention, and with the exception of government edicts, they have copyright in the US, subject to any licenses the original country puts them under. The US is not notorious for not having the w:en:rule of the shorter term; take a look at that chart on that Wikipedia page. Out of the top five most populated countries, three--China (PRC), the US and Indonesia--don't have the rule of the shorter term. Of the top ten, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico join the list, with Bangladesh not being mentioned one way or the other, leaving India, Pakistan and Russia the odd countries out. To be fair, if India and Pakistan have the rule of the shorter term, so probably does Bangladesh, so it's 6-4 among the world's largest nations, and 2.5 billion people in just those nations without the rule of the shorter term.
The WMF has deleted pictures of sculptures allowed by local FoP; why do you think that's not used? Every time we do this, we step into a weirder legal situation, where "free" files on Commons may or may not be usable in any particular nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The FoP example is rather in line with what I am talking about. We reasonably rely on local FoP rules except very special cases. There were indeed a few very special cases where authors of works located outside the US have taken specific steps to claim copyright protection in the US and filed a DMCA request. Making an extra effort to show that a picture that cannot be copyrighted in its source country is illegal in the US is extremely rare but can happen in perhaps 0.01% of cases. Still COM:FOP shows dozens of countries in green; if US law applied there would have been no shade of green and at most yellow.
In general any license not explicitly granted by the author (like own work under a Creative Commons license) can be problematic in at least one country of the world. Pretty much the entire Category:Flags is technically unusable in Australia due to local TOO. The majority of Category:Legal documents is technically unusable in the UK (no rule of the shorter term plus Crown copyright). Almost entire Category:2000s architecture is technically unusable in Iceland (no rule of the shorter term and strictly no freedom of panorama). Category:Depictions of Muhammad is unusable in Pakistan for religious reasons, and so on. And of course all works whose authors died 99 years ago or less are not usable in Côte d'Ivoire. Still all these works are still available in Commons. If we wanted to delete all works that are not usable in at least one country, we would have to remove millions of photos — NickK (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
COM:PRP is very clear that we don't think they're going to sue is not a justification. And I can think of a lot of copyrighted works that we are much less likely to get sued over than modern sculpture in countries with FoP.
COM:L says that works must in the public domain in the US. It's really confusing to have policy say something and then it be flat out ignored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This goes one step forward than PRP and suggests imposing copyright that might not even be enforceable. There is next to no evidence that US copyright can be enforced on works that are not even copyrighted in their countries of origin. There is some limit between being a global project an being a US-centered project, and I think we are moving to the unreasonable side of this border — NickK (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@NickK, Fæ, and Prosfilaes: I'm afraid that {{PD-old-warning-text}} should be added to {{PD-UA-exempt/layout}}, and hence all files that are only having {{PD-UA-exempt}} should be re-checked (and if definely not free in the United States, delete with a bunch of back up files for uk/ru/be... Wikipedias to fair use upload em). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is it so specific to PD-UA-exempt? There is no difference between Ukraine and other PD-Gov templates from US copyright point of view — NickK (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It would be disturbing to take action for the Ukraine or Russia and not all counties/legislations, I'm sure most international readers would understand why.
If anything is to change here, this needs more of a solid consensus than an exploratory thread on VP/C. The basic and "neutral" evidence, legal cases especially the background in US law, would need to be presented in an easy to understand form, and the issues around it made clear for a consensus on a proposal to change to be credible.
Just to underline, I have yet to see anything here that would raise this above the too hypothetical level of copyright theory. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This picture of Gerald Klatskin - unknown copyright holder

Hi Folks, so I want to write an article about the american physician Gerald Klatskin, of whom a picture taken in 1949 exists. It was uploaded to the collection of the US National Library of Medicine [9] and it is used in other publications like this biography. The copyright holder ist unknown, according to the linked biography. The picture ist free to download on the web pages of the Library of Medicine. Question is... is it safe to upload it to Commons? Whom can I ask? Thanks in advance. --Jaax (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The first link you provided says the image was published in 1949, so it may be in the public domain per {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, without knowing what work the image was published in, there's no way to know for sure that its copyright wasn't renewed. You can check Yale University's newspaper archives, yearbook archives, or course catalogs to see where the photo was published. FunnyMath (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It says it was contributed by Yale University in 1955, with a publication date of 1949. It appears to be a signed print (the signature extends beyond the photographic portion). Most likely it was from a Yale publication, but without knowing which one, we can't search for a renewal. The NLM does not know the copyright status, so unless we can actually find an older publication with the photo in it, the only institution we could ask would be Yale, to see if they know the publication it came from or any other information they might have. They may or may not be the copyright holder, but they are at least the publisher. In reality it's probably fine, but we need it to be fine beyond a significant doubt per policy, and not sure this qualifies as-is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies! I just linked the NLM-page in the weblinks section of the article as a workaround and avoid the extra work of contacting Yale :) --Jaax (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I notice that several posters were uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}} without showing the back side of the poster:

Is showing only the front side of the poster sufficient to be considered {{PD-US-no notice}}?

I found some pre-1989 campaign posters of Bernie Sanders that I want to upload, one of which is this: [10] I am unable to find a scan of the back side. However, there's another Bernie poster that has its back side shown, with no copyright notices: [11] I couldn't find a proper scan of the second poster, so even though it is public domain, it's unusable without major retouching. FunnyMath (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say so, since the 'work' is not just one side of the poster but the poster itself (making a scan of any one side a derivative work I suppose). On the other hand finding scans or photos of the backs of posters from the relevant period seems unlikely in nearly all cases, so if that were a blocker for uploads we would have very few. It would be good to find some case law either way. Arlo James Barnes 00:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I think we should add a warning to the three images above, telling users that there is a small risk of copyright infringement when reusing them. FunnyMath (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I would base it off of how likely it is to have a back side. If the poster implies that there is a back side (e.g. File:1976 Presidential campaign flyer.jpg) or the medium generally tends to have a back side (e.g. postcards), then I would require proof that both sides have no notice. Otherwise it is safe to presume that the back side is blank. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable solution. FunnyMath (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the U.S. ruled that notices needed to be visible. If a poster is designed to be on a wall, there would be no way for a potential re-user to see a notice on the back. If someone hands you a photographic print or a postcard, a notice on the back is easy to look for, and easily visible. So it could matter based on the nature of the work, and its manner of distribution. The 1978 line can also be important -- after that, public display itself is not publication, but rather when the copies themselves were being distributed. For posters though, I would tend to think that a notice would have needed to be on the front. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I would say the Bernie posters may still be considered published even though public display no longer counted as publication. It's conceivable that during the campaign, anyone in the public can ask the Bernie campaign for copies of their posters. And if not then, when the campaign was over, the posters were likely given away to random people. FunnyMath (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Definitely were published -- they handed out copies. But the back may be more "visible" at that moment, which gets to a slightly gray area. But not sure it's worth debating that much. If there was any content on the back which was supposed to be visible, as King of Hearts mentions, then that would almost certainly count as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I'll keep those things in mind. FunnyMath (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Old image scanned from more recent book

I wish to upload a printed page image dated 1507 scanned from a book published more recently. Obviously the original image is public domain. The book was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (UK) in 1957, so subject to Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication, so also in the public domain. Is it sufficient to use a copyright tag for the original page, such as {{PD-old-70-expired}}, or should I also add {{PD-UKGov}} to cover the status of the book? The page is here: https://archive.org/details/printed-books-victoria-and-albert-images/page/n15. Thanks Kognos (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kognos: You could use {{PD-scan}}, with an appropriate PD-template, e.g. {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. The UK sometimes recognizes sweat-of-the-brow doctrine copyright claims for mechanical scans or curation of otherwise public domain works, but Commons does not. --Animalparty (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thanks this is helpful. But even if the sweat-of-the-brow doctrine applies to this image it will have expired with the Crown Copyright. Is it in order to use two copyright tags for the same item, the one you suggest and also {{PD-UKGov}}? Kognos (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You can use two or more license tags; I've done that before. However, since you said you made your own scan of the UKGov scan, you can release all rights to your own scan if you want to be perfectly rigorous by using the CC0 license:
Photograph
{{PD-old-100-expired}}
Scan (by the UK government)
{{PD-UKGov}}
My scan of the scan by the UK government
{{Cc-zero}}
FunnyMath (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Woops, didn't realize you said you are copying from the archive.org link. In that case, the scan is copyrighted and belongs to whoever made the scan. Commons doesn't care about the copyright of scans, so it doesn't matter. FunnyMath (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@FunnyMath: Actually it is my scan, I uploaded the book to Archive.com. But I obviously released any derivative rights when I uploaded, so I think the two tags are enough. Thanks for your help. Kognos (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that! FunnyMath (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

How do I map the license to the relevant part of the image? (structured data)

Then looking at the structured data e.g. of this screenshot all applicable licenses were added. However the license information does not state which part of the screenshot is licensed how. Does anybody have a tip on how to do it best? Basically what is the respective qualifier to be used? Currently it looks like one could choose any license for reuse which is obviously incorrect. Thanks and cheers --[[kgh]] (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Thanks a lot for helping me here! Property P518 is the solution. I was looking for something with "relevant" in it like is use it for people and not for "applicable". Great! Thanks a lot again! Cheers --[[kgh]] (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure that was correct, but it seemed to make the most sense. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently this logo's licensing is {{PD-US-no notice-UN]]. However WHO's Copyright, Licensing and Permissions says "WHO logo cannot be used without written authorization from WHO". How should we treat them?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The latter is more of a {{Trademarked}} or {{Insignia}} restriction, i.e. the restriction is not based on copyright (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). Their logo page basically states that -- it is a registered trademark in many country, and many countries have added special insignia laws for UN symbols. I would add both tags to the image pages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

copyrightability of faithful reproductions of individual solely biological forms

relating to https://antwiki.org/wiki/Special:CargoTables/Economolab3D Arlo James Barnes 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: What exactly is your question? Are you talking about 3D models like this? --Animalparty (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
That page refuses to load for me, but assuming it is one of the ones linked from the page I linked, then yes. My question is about the copyright (and non-copyright restriction) suitability of such models for Commons as part of the COM:3D effort. Arlo James Barnes 02:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It comes down to if there is any copyrightable expression possible. In other words, are there different ways something can be modeled in that way, or is there really only one way, or very few ways, to do it? For some examples, I think a vectorization of some county land maps was ruled copyrightable, even if the original map was PD, since there is wide variation in which exact control points etc. could be chosen, even if the visual result was the same or similar. On the other hand, there was also a case about a 3-D model made of a car, which was taken from laser measurements -- since there was little or no human involvement, that was ruled to be uncopyrightable. If there is really only a couple of ways to express the underling facts, probably not. But if there are many many ways the raw information could be expressed in the 3-D files, and it's a human making those decisions on their own (not following any algorithm or something), then they could be copyrightable.
These are just general principles; I really am not familiar with that project or that file type at all, so it's hard to answer any more specifically. Could you describe the underlying data, and how it's made into the 3D form? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. All I knew before was that it was micro-CT via xradiation of the specimens, but in trying to find out what post-processing happened I found https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.sk6s0, so at least part of the dataset is CC0 (per https://arilab.unit.oist.jp/tag/micro-ct). Arlo James Barnes 14:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Are works created by those working for NATO as part of their official duties considered to be PD in the same way the works created by members of the US Military would be considered to be PD? In some cases, US military personnel/employees may be for whatever reason assigned to NATO as part of their official duties. Of course, not all NATO personnel/employees are working for the US government, but may be representing their own governments in a similar way.

I'm asking about this because of images such as File:Coat of arms of Headquarters, Allied Forces Southern Europe.svg, File:Coat of arms of Allied Joint Force Command Naples.svg, Category:Coats of arms of Allied Air Command and Category:Coats of arms of Allied Command Transformation (there are quite a few others as well). All of these are licensed as {{PD-USGov}}, {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} or something similar which might not be the case. There might be other reasons that this are PD and only the license needs to be fixed, but the argument being made for their current licensing of such files seems to be that NATO is the same as the US government, which is not the case at all. There is also a discussion at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 6#File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png about a similar file which could further be clarified as well based pon how Commons should treat these files.

Finally, one possibility might be that these are svg versons created by an employee of the US government of the original crests/logos, but it seems unlikely that such a thing would be part of that person's official duties and it seems that would be either a case of COM:DR or COM:2D copying of a work created by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I find the statement that "not all NATO personnel/employees are working for the US government" strange. By definition any employee is working for their employer, which in case of NASA staff is USA government. Ruslik0 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, while mainly funded and staffed by the US and US personnel, is not exclusively so.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Confusion here! NASA is a US agency. NATO is an alliance of nations in North America and Europe plus Turkey, so NATO personell include Brits, Canadians, Greeks etc. Kognos (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, NATO isn't a part of US Federal Government department, hence @Ruslik0, Jeff G., and Kognos: NATO staff photographed images may be copyrightable e.g. in UK and France, or even in the headquarter country Belgium. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Two German files: can they be transfered to Commons?

Today I created Category:Ludwig Nick (German artist, 1873-1936) and I try now to collect some of his works in that category. German Wikipedia has an article, de:Schmied von Essen, on one of Nick's works that was destroyed in WWII. The article has two pictures, [12] & [13], and I wonder if they can be transferred to Commons. Does anybody here have sufficient knowledge on German copyright to tell whether they can be transferred? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC).

In Germany, they are presumed PD (this is not a legal rule, but a Wikipedia policy), because there is no known author and the images are more than 100 years old. The US copyright status depends on publication, which has been 1977 (release of that book) or earlier. PD in this case is 95 years from publication, which may or may not be the case. In summary, they are probably, but not certainly PD in Germany and they are probably not PD in the US. That's why they carry the notice that they should not be uploaded to Commons. Incidentally, where FOP does not apply, Nick's later works (after 1925) might not be PD US either. See COM:HIRTLE for the relevant US rules. --rimshottalk 22:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, rimshot. The book that is used as a source, consists of images from old postcards ("Ansichten"): couldn't it be said that the postcards likely, most likely have been published in 1915 (the year the work was erected, and also the date given in the description), and wouldn't that change the matter? As far as I can tell from HIRTLE the works would then certainly be PD-US-expired. Eissink (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
If they were published before 1925, they are fine for the U.S. If they were truly anonymous (i.e. the book would have mentioned any authors credited on the original postcards), they should be fine for German law as well ({{PD-anon-70-EU}}). If the author is simply unknown, it's more of a gray area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Carl Lindberg. I feel comfortable enough to transfer the images, and I will do so now. Eissink (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
P.S. I found the photographer: Anton Meinholz (1875-1949). Eissink (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
Ah great, that removes all doubt then. The best tag then would be {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1949}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Just saw the ping, and I agree with this assessment. If these really are postcards, they've most likely been published at the time. I saw them more as private snapshots, that's why I didn't find a very early publication probable. --rimshottalk 22:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I see cropped Vietnamese propaganda posters on Commons.

I think copyright there is dubious. I think you cannot take picture of propaganda poster, crop just the poster and then claim yourself as "author".

See




Another discussion is copyright status of the posters themselves; I am not an expert on Vietnamese copyright law, but I highly doubt they are free to use or US-style "public domain". The copyright might be owned by Vietnamese government, or the Party (which are basically synonymous in Vietnam).

Anyway. I am not sure, who has the copyright, but it should not be the author of the photo at Flickr and it should not be released under CC.

What do you think?

--Running (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I now saw this

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:FoP-Vietnam

According to article 25.1(h) of the Vietnamese copyright law, it is allowed to use (i.e. take and publish pictures, or televise) published works of the fine or applied arts or photographs, if the works have already been publicly displayed for "introduction purposes", without obtaining permission from and without paying royalties or other remuneration to the copyright owner.

(the link to the copyright law doesn't actually work)

This makes it kind-of-OK, I guess? I am not completely sure.

--Running (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Now reading through the actual law

Article 25.- Cases of use of published works where permission and payment of royalties and/or remunerations are not required 1. Cases of use of published works where permission or payment of royalties and/or remunerations is not required include:

a/ Duplication of works by authors for scientific research or teaching purpose;

b/ Reasonable recitation of works without misrepresenting the authors’ views for commentary or illustrative purpose;

c/ Recitation of works without misrepresenting the authors’ views in articles published in newspapers or periodicals, in radio or television broadcasts, or documentaries;

d/ Recitation of works in schools for lecturing purpose without misrepresenting the authors’ views and not for commercial purpose;

e/ Reprographic reproduction of works by libraries for archival and research purpose;

f/ Performance of dramatic works or other performing-art works in mass cultural, communication or mobilization activities without collecting any charges in any form;

g/ Audiovisual recording of performances for purpose of reporting current events or for teaching purpose;

h/ Photographing or televising of plastic art, architectural, photographic, applied-art works displayed at public places for purpose of presenting images of such works;

i/ Transcription of works into Braille or characters of other languages for the blind;

j/ Importation of copies of others’ works for personal use.

I don't think this gives anyone the right to make a photo of a poster, crop just the poster and slap a CC license on it.

--Running (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. Article 25(1)(h) that you posted above is a pretty wide-ranging FoP clause. However the relevant bit of the law is clause 2 of section 25, where it says that works may neither affect the normal utilization of these works nor prejudice the rights of the authors or copyright holders. Virtually every copyright law says the same thing, as that part is specified by the Berne Convention. That does mean that a photo of another 2-D work, cropped to just that work, is effectively a "copy" that could compete with the original, and would absolutely violate that part -- I think that situation is exactly what the Berne Convention clause is guarding against. So, works using the FoP provision really need to depict the work in its public context -- if you strip away the public context, it becomes a problem. So the first three above I think are absolutely problems, the fourth fairly dubious, and the fifth one I think is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I put that to deletion discussion. --Running (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I think there may be some related discussions here over whether File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg can make such exact copies. Personally, I doubt we could get away with this sort of freedom of panorama-meets-faithful reproduction of 2D art loophole. File:Asterix.jpg pushes this line, too, but there's enough of a background, angle, damage, and external content to make me less concerned about that one... possibly. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that despite outwardly same ruling ideology of Marxism and despite geographic closeness, laws of China and Vietnam are very different. Chinese FoP and Vietnamese FoP are different. Also, personally, I think even Mao's portrait is pushing FoP too far, as image is not a panorama :) but that is beside this discussion. --Running (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Dato’ Seri Mohamed Azmin bin Ali.jpg

I recently tag the image with speedy deletion tag as it is a blatant copyright violation, since government of Malaysia's work is always copyrighted. However, the uploader remove the tag and change the license to public domain, which is false. I don't know how to proceed here since the uploader will just remove the speedy tag if I just tag it again. Lulusword (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert. What should work - click in "Nominate for deletion" on the left panel. This will not be "speedy deletion" but go through the normal process. --Running (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
...and it seems it was already done, so, that's it :D --Running (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lulusword and Running: ... and it's gone.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Not allowed to upload an old image

I tried to upload scanned photos of my ancestors Geoarge Richard Mackarness and Charles Coleridge Mackarness, but this was blocked.

The photos are around 150 years old. I do not know the photographer. The only other place the images appear, to my knowledge, is on my own family history website.

I ran into a similar problem in 2014, and gave up as everything seemed too complicated. I'm now trying again, but with no success. In 2014 an advisor (or fellow contributor, I'm not sure which) suggested using {{PD-UK-unknown}}. I have just tried this with Upload Wizard, and I think succeeded in creating this file,

George Richard Mackarness 1823-1883, Bishop of Argyll and the Isles

But I can't see how to insert the file into the page. I keep being brought back to the copyright/licence page.

It's a pity, as both pages currently lack portraits of their subjects. Frustrating for me, and a loss to this community. I hope someone can advise, as I am ready to give up again.

Thanks.

Is this "Liberalism - the right way" poster public domain in the UK?

I'm trying to determine if this UK Liberal Party poster is in the public domain in the United Kingdom. It's PD in the US since it was published in 1924, but the UK apparently doesn't have a rule akin to America's "published before 1925" rule, so only the life + 70 rule applies in the UK. The author is Frederick Garnell; does anyone know when he died? Qzekrom (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Using https://www.freebmd.org.uk there is a Frederick George Garnell, born in 1896 (Essex), married in 1919 and died aged 61 in 1957 (Romford). Do you know your Frederick Garnell's middle name? - Aa77zz (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't. It looks like that's the only possible person who it could be.
I thought I found a loophole. From 1911 to 1995, the copyright term in the UK was life + 50 years. Then, it was extended to life + 70 in 1995. If this Frederick Garnell is the one who died in 1957 (I can't find any biographical information on him), then his works would have still been copyrighted in 1995 (the expiration date would have been 2007) and thus extended by the 1995 act. This means that the UK copyright will expire in 2027. Qzekrom (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • He is probably the Frederick Garnell who made engravings of Manchester Grammar School,[14][15] but I haven't found any biographical information. The name may be insufficiently unusual to be confident that you have identified the correct man. There may be more evidence when the 1921 UK census data is released in 2022, as the census included occupation information. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about Australian Greens licenses

The website of the Australian Greens says "This website, excluding trademarked logos and images or content noted otherwise, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence. Some rights reserved." Template:GreensAU says pretty much the same. People seem to be interpreting that statement as meaning images are included in the share alike license, when the statement explicitly excludes them. I think the problem is that some people may read it as "excluding trademarked logos and (trademarked) images" instead of "excluding images and trademarked logos". As far as I know, images photographs can't be trademarked, only copyrighted, so the first interpretation is invalid. Am I wrong about this? Mo Billings (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In the US, images certainly can be trademarked. Pinging @Neegzistuoja, Jon Kolbert, Canley as author and editors of that template.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. As far as I know, photographs can't be trademarked. Mo Billings (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I changed a link to the Creative Commons website from http to https using a script, I have nothing to do with this template 😂😂😂 Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I would read it as trademarked logos are excluded, as well as any images or content noted otherwise (i.e. marked with an overriding license). In other words, trademarked logos, images noted otherwise, and content noted otherwise are excluded. That is what would make the most sense to me, reading it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This was my first reading as well. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, you're suggesting a rather unlikely interpretation for a start. The interpretation that photos are included in the Greens' CC-BY-SA licence is not conflation with the trademark statement, i.e. "excluding trademarked logos and images" [then assuming "non-trademarked images" are OK]—the interpretation is that "content noted otherwise", whether is is text, video or photos, is excluded from the CC-BY-SA licence if it is noted otherwise, because the default licence of the website is CC-BY-SA. The wording is poor and ambiguous, and it is certainly not at all clear that photos are explicitly included, or explicitly excluded, from the licence. However, if they are excluded, and this statement was a list of excluded content, then why isn't a comma used instead of an 'and' (e.g. "excluding [trademarked] logos, images, and content noted otherwise")? Because trademarked logos are one thing that is excluded, and the other is "images or content noted otherwise". As the CC licence is default on the website (unless stated otherwise), it is quite reasonable to assume that photos taken or commissioned by the Greens are CC-BY-SA (such as photos of Greens MPs), but if they use a stock image that they licence, or show an extract from a newspaper, or screen grab from a news bulletin where they don't hold the rights to the image, this image would be noted with a copyright or other licensing statement which excludes it from the default licence for the website. --Canley (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the wording now. Photos are covered by the CC license unless noted otherwise. The reason I brought it up is because of File:Huong Truong profile.jpg which comes from the Greens site but the EXIF data identifies the copyright holder as "Julian Meehan Photography". Mo Billings (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded that image and it did indeed get tagged for deletion in 2018 over the ambiguous wording: discussion is here. Julian Meehan is a photographer for the Greens, and releases his photos as CC-BY on his Flickr account—the EXIF data still contains his copyright statement though (example). He still holds the copyright in his photos as shown in the EXIF data, but as there is no statement otherwise on the Greens website, almost all photos on the Greens website are by him, and he widely releases images as CC-BY I think it's reasonable to consider the Huong Truong is was released to the Greens to include on their website under a CC licence. --Canley (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Canley: I can't find that photo of Huong Truong on Julian Meehan's Flickr account. Your assumption that Meehan licensed them as CC-BY might be right, but shouldn't we confirm that? Mo Billings (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Quite likely that one is not on the Flickr account, my point is that almost all photos on the Greens website have that copyright statement in the EXIF data. My assumption is that as a photo on the Greens website it is covered under the CC-BY licence, because Meehan is their official photographer so as the Greens party has commissioned the photos (of Truong and other MPs), their website licence applies. The question is whether the EXIF data should be considered as a "note otherwise" that the licence does not apply—the reason I mentioned Meehan's Flickr account is that he has a variety of rights on his photos (some all rights reserved, some CC-BY-NC, and many just CC-BY) and all have the same EXIF copyright data, and he will always retain copyright of the photo regardless if it is released under a licence other than public domain. I'm sure I did this a few years ago, but I might write to the Greens and ask for clarification on this matter as it is a source of confusion which arises every so often. If I get a response, I will forward it to OTRS and include that in the template. --Canley (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have emailed the Australian Greens to clarify the status of the photos on their website. If I hear back I will forward to OTRS and mention here. --Canley (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. Mo Billings (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

CC-BY 4.0

In this academic article, I have found figures of 14 traditional houses in Sabzevar, which I would like to use in a fawiki article. The copyright status of the work is confusing to me. The copyright notice at the end of the PDF file reads "Copyrights for this article are retained by the author(s) with publishing rights granted to the SAUES Journal. The content of this article is distributed under SAUES open access policy and the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) License. For more information, please visit http://sauesjournal.net/journal/about", where it says "Authors transfer copyright to the journal after signing the copyright agreement, but they retain the rights to: Share their article for personal use, institutional use and self-archive their article for non-commercial scholarly purposes with the assigned DOI link to the article on our website with a compatible creative commons license".

Isn't this contradictory to CC-BY 4.0 terms and condition? First of all, who owns the copyright? At the end of the PDF file, it says "Copyrights for this article are retained by the author(s)", but at the website, it says that "Authors transfer copyright to the journal". Secondly, if the content is published under the CC-BY 4.0 license, why are the original authors permitted to use their own writings "for non-commercial scholarly purposes" only?

Considering these contradiction, do you think I can transfer the figures to Commons? Please ping me when responding. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: In the event of conflicting licenses, I would take the terms posted directly in the article as more correct, authoritative, and enforceable, since (while it might be confusing) the journal might choose to publish particular articles under specific terms different from their usual.
The About page even contradicts itself, saying first that authors merely "grant publisher rights to the journal" and second that "authors transfer copyright to the journal", so I don't know what to make of that. But the limited rights granted back to authors might be intended for articles that are not published under such a permissive license. They guarantee the authors those rights regardless even if the journal gives the article much more restrictive terms for the general public. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Stamps of Ecuador

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of Ecuador, 2015 all the stamps of Ecuador since Category:Stamps of Ecuador, 1957 until Category:Stamps of Ecuador, 2017. The mistake was of Materialscientist and Cekli829 (don't worry, and human mistake) but there a lot of files to delete, so I'll use the delete.py of pywikipedia to do the task. I'll wait 24 hours so if anyone has a concern about it. Regards --Ezarateesteban 20:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Himawari but {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}

Calling also @Hurricaneboy23: as the uploader. Is it correct to use the license for this image? Himawari imagery doesn't come from NOAA but from the Japanese Meteorological Agency. If they are in a special agreement with NOAA for the content on RAMMB (the source), the license may be appropriate. If not, it looks like JMA's term is about the same with CC BY 4.0 link 1, link 2.

The Terms of Use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (hereinafter referred to as the CC License). This means that Content based on the Terms of Use may be used under the CC License in lieu of the Terms of Use.

There is already a template for images created by the JMA, but I don't know if we have one already for something derived from JMA's content. Should we create one? RXerself (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

RXerself, which image are you referring to? It wasn't linked. To know which license to apply you have to know which satellite it comes from. For File:Delta 2020 rapid intensification.gif, as an example, it's GOES-16. GOES satellites are operated by NOAA, so use {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. If it is a Himawari satellite, use {{JMA}}. If it is a Meteosat satellite, well, don't upload those. EUMETSAT does not release satellite data under a compatible license. (So, an image like File:SS Alpha making landfall in Portugal on September 18.gif can't be uploaded here.) It doesn't matter which website an image comes from if it is "raw" satellite data. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I was typing this on the file discussion page but thought about posting this here. The file has been linked above. {{JMA}} is for files created by JMA though, not derived from their works. Is it okay to just use it? I was thinking about either making another template like {{Attribution-Copernicus}} for derived works or modifying the current {{JMA}} so it covers both images created by JMA and derived works. RXerself (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
RXerself, unless there's some evidence that the derivative files have been licensed differently from the originals, there's no need to create a new template or modify {{JMA}}. Generally the derivative file will inherit the parent's license unless specifically changed for some reason. Since the modifying agency is a division of NOAA/NESDIS, and since a public domain agency cannot change an attribution license into anything else, logically the existing CC-BY license can remain. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: The file is apparently created using the RAMMB site and users can customize their settings to generate an image. I don't know whether it meets threshold of originality to be called a derivative work. And also, say, I am making an image derived from Himawari data and I have to attribute them on file summary, {{JMA}} won't be appropriate will it? I found another file with such case and using {{JMA}} on the permission field looks incorrect as it says "This image was produced by the [JMA]" instead of derived from JMA data/imagery (the author says it's her work on its source). RXerself (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
RXerself: I would not consider merely cropping an existing image as meeting the ToO, it's too simplistic by U.S. standards. Regarding issue 2, using the {{JMA}} template for the derivative file is fine...you're simply releasing your modification under the same license as JMA did. Regarding the Yasi cyclone image, this is really odd. I cannot identify which data product it is derived from, or even that it *is* from Himawari-8. No details about the source of the data are provided by the Flickr user other than what is embedded on the file itself. While it seems likely that JMA is the original source, I'm not really comfortable declaring that. All we have is a random Flickr user's word that the image is properly licensed as CC-by-sa without really knowing its background. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: I don't think it's only cropping as there is a symbol classification involved but yeah I think it's still from the tools unless the uploader says otherwise. And I agree about that Yasi image which is rather unclear. I have searched for a good example in the category of images by JMA but couldn't find anything good. But in case if there was a file where it meets the ToO to be called a derivative work of JMA data, still I wouldn't feel comfortable using a template that says "This image was produced by the JMA". This is also because there are similar permission templates like {{Attribution-Copernicus}}, {{PD-USGov-NASA-SRTM}} and {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} which can be used for attribution of source of some contents in the described file. It would also make it less confusing when the derivative file is licensed in another license other than CC BY 4.0 JMA is using as you would have two license templates in the file summary and license. RXerself (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
RXerself: sorry for not responding for a few days, I've had some access difficulties. I do understand where you're coming from regarding the attribution template, and I certainly wouldn't want you stopped from creating a custom solution (after all, it's your prerogative, not mine). I just don't think it's necessary here. After all, the CC-by-4.0 license requires only that a work using such a licensed file simply provide attribution, a link to the license, and note whether the new usage modifies the original work. A new image adapted from that original work would be the same way...the new work can be licensed in any way the creator wishes (so long as it is not less restrictive than the original license) as long as those original CC-by requirements are adhered to. That's why using the original template ({{JMA}}) in addition to whatever new template is the easiest route to take. One existing solution would be something like:
{{copyright information |item1=derivative |item1-license={{insert license here}} |item2=original image |item2-license={{JMA}} }}
But again, you're free to create whatever you feel is necessary, and I'm happy to help if you need assistance.
I should mention that the SRTM template is totally redundant to the main NASA template...it does nothing special, unlike say {{PD-USGov-NASA-AP}} which is also redundant but at least provides special linking functionality. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload this Italian picture to Commons?

I would like to download this image, then upload it to Commons. I'm pretty sure the picture was taken in Pisa, Italy, in 1899. Is the operation acceptable? If so, what would be the correct copyright tag for this? Thank you so much. --Jeran Renz (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Taken by Raffaello Donnini, from Pisa. Could not find life dates. I think I found some of his stuff dated back to 1870. 1899 would be just beyond the 120 year line for {{PD-old-assumed}} though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair use on WP vs Wikiwand

Among all the careful efforts to avoid any hint that Wikipedia is violating the copyright of anyone else, I see nothing about what to do when it appears that the violation is going the other way. I viewed a page on Wikiwand for the first time only this week. I did not know that the CC license under which I have been contributing to WP all these years allowed for commercial re-use of the content. My question here is regarding fair use of copyrighted text and images. It is not unusual for sources to be quoted directly when paraphrasing does not convey the meaning of that source. Quotes are allowed under fair use if they are short and are used for non-profit educational (comment or critique) purposes, which is true on WP but is not true when copied to Wikiwand?

A more obvious issue is the use of non-free images. There is one, of a painting by Lucien Freud "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.jpg" which is used in three WP articles; for the artist, the painting itself, and the genre Nude (art). I am the major contributor to the last one, and added the fair use rationale to the image page here. Wikiwand avoids direct copyright issues by hotlinking to the Wikimedia image. It also has a link to the fair use rationale, but the wrong one; the painting not the genre. I would think that any non-free image appearing on Wikiwand would be questionable, but when there is an error in the licensing, it is clearly a copyright violation. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair use doesn't require an explicit justification; that is purely for our purposes. The only time a fair use justification would be needed is in court. Whether or not something is fair use is a complex decision--commercial use is not alone a disqualifier--and an issue between the copyright holder and the user, not us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@WriterArtistDC: Are you aware that Commons doesn't accept any fair use (i.e. non-free) content at all per COM:FAIR? The file's you referring to above aren't "Commons files", but rather local files uploaded to English Wikipedia under that particular project's application of the Exemption Doctrine Policy. In other words, non-free content files don't have pages on Commons; so, I think you're mixing things up a bit when you say added the fair use rationale to the image page here. Moreover, on English Wikipedia a distinction is made between fair use and non-free content, with English Wikipedia's policy being much more restrictive. This might not answer your question about Wikiwand per se when it comes to non-free files (I think that perhaps only the WMF can answer that for sure), but any files uploaded to Commons would need to meet COM:L and Commons doesn't accept licenses that place restrictions on commercial use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks, I did not notice that among all to images in that article, only one resides on en:WP not Commons, so I went to the wrong forum to ask my question. Yes, I am aware that infringement is between the owner and the user, but the user is ultimately the Wikimedia Foundation, so I made not distinction. English Wikipedia takes this seriously, policing both too close paraphrasing of sources and non-free images, a policy I agree with as a creator. That is the reason I am surprised to find that content mirrored on a commercial website, and find it problematical. If the NFC guideline asserts a goal of having the entire content of en:WP be truly free of copyright issues, then it should not allow commercial re-use until that goal is achieved.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair use is the limit of what you can do without getting permission. In the U.S., there are four major factors that judges weigh against each other, to determine if a use was "fair use". There are a couple of countries which use the U.S. definition, but most countries have their own flavor of it (sometimes called "fair dealing"), usually not as wide-ranging. Since Commons is an international project, used in many countries, we really don't accept files under that rationale at all -- we need the content licensed far beyond what fair use allows. That is what makes content "free", in that re-users can do pretty much anything they want with it, provided they follow the terms of the license -- which is usually attributing the author and license, and (for share-alike type licenses) further licensing any derivative works under the same license. And yes, "anything they want" does include commercial use. So, Wikiwand and others are not limited by fair use or any NFC type rules, so long as they conform to the copyright licenses given on Wikipedia. If they ignore the license requirements, only then would they be limited to fair use. If Wikiwand is copying the article, then they are likely using any non-free images in the same context as Wikipedia is, meaning if it qualifies for fair use on Wikipedia, it probably qualifies on Wikiwand too (though the fair use calculus could be different). In the end, if they are sued, they would have to justify "fair use" on their own -- whether or not a justification is "wrong" by Wikipedia rules is irrelevant. Wikipedia's policies try to stay well inside the "fair use" area, and avoid coming close to the edge -- but it's entirely possible someone else is willing to push the boundaries further, which is fine but would be their responsibility to justify. Some Wikipedias disallow non-free works altogether, but Wikipedia does allow limited use of them, in the interests of having a better encyclopedia where free images are difficult or impossible to come by. If anyone copies the content, it's up to them to follow the law in their own context when it comes to those non-free works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Large number of files needing Flickr-change-of-license tag adding

All files from Flickr by Michel Rathwell (first 500) have been changed to 'All Rights Reserved' at their Flickr sources and need {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag adding. I only know how to do this one file at a time - can anyone set up a robot to do the whole lot quickly, please? - MPF (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Doing… With COM:VFC. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
VFC threw a bunch of API errors on the run and didn't edit all the files. I'll have to write a better regex to run it again and not double up the tags. I won't be able to do that until this evening, unless someone else gets to it. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@MPF: ✓ Done I think I pushed all of them through VFC. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: excellent, many thanks! - MPF (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – BMacZero (🗩) 03:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Kept despite no FOP in South Africa

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I have renominated both.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Files on Vice President of the United States

Is the files come from the Vice President of the United States in the Public Domain? If yes, which license tags should be applied? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.189.220.7 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2020‎ (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Yes, see {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cc-by-3.0-pl on gov.pl

The website of the Polish government https://www.gov.pl/ has a footer that says Wszystkie treści publikowane w serwisie są udostępniane na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie Autorstwa 3.0 Polska, o ile nie jest to stwierdzone inaczej. Google translates this as: All content published on the website is made available under the Creative Commons Uznanie Autorstwa 3.0 Poland license, unless it is stated otherwise. So, we can use images of gov.pl under CC-BY 3.0 Poland unless stated otherwise. I wonder, wouldn't it maybe be an useful thing to create a specific tag for gov.pl sourced images (transcluding CC-BY 3.0 PL) to make this clear, or should we simply use {{Cc-by-3.0-pl}}? There are older Poland-specific templates, some of them deprecated, in Category:License tags of Poland, but none so far for gov.pl, as far as I can see (I also don't know when the Polish Government started licensing their website under CC-BY). Gestumblindi (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that it does not make sense to create a new tag just for one site. If this license applied to a broader set of Polish government made images then it would be more useful. Ruslik0 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Loewentheil Collection of African-American Photographs

I wonder if these images may be loaded and used on Commons. Maybe someone can help? Thanks in advance --Falten-Jura (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

These are very old images, which are highly likely in public domain now. Ruslik0 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
So I can upload this image from the university library to wiki commons and give the link to the library catalogue? That would be wonderful. Sorry, but I don't understand the license issue properly. --Falten-Jura (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC) P.S: I am sorry about this disturbing picture, but the article Lynching_of_Thomas_Shipp_and_Abram_Smith seems to have a license issue. --Falten-Jura (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi . Some of my images have category : Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 missing SDC copyright license. I do not know what to do with it ? TIA --Adam majewski (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam majewski: Please ignore it, bots are frantically working on cleaning up that category, only 38,272 files to go.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nepalese emblems

There are quite a number of non-free files which appear to be official emblems or logos of Nepalese provincial governments being used in en:Emblem of Nepal#Subnational emblems. If these files truly need to be licensed as non-free content, then the way that they are currently beinng used in that article is not really allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I realize that isn't a concern of Commmons since Commons doesn't accept any fair use content per COM:FAIR, but there are also quite a number of Commons files being used in the article as well. All of the Commons files are either licensed as {{PD-Nepal}} or {{PD-EdictGov}} so I'm wondering whether either of these two licenses might be applicable to the non-free files as well. If the files uploaded locally as non-free content to English Wikipedia can be re-licensed as PD files, there would be no problem with the way they are being used in that particular English Wikipedia article; if not, then most likely their usage in that article is going to need to be further discussed on English Wikipedia.

COM:Nepal provides some general information on Nepalese copyirght law, but it's not clear how the Nepal Copyright Right Act, 2002 would apply to such logos. US copyright law, for example, seems to make a clear distinction between works of the US federal government and works of state and other local government as explained in en:WP:PD#US government works, but it doesn't look as if Nepalese copyirght law makes the same distinction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Murals in Beijing subway

Do these murals inside Beijing subway stations or tunnels fall under {{FoP-China}}? Category:Murals in Beijing Subway stations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK the FoP only covers exterior artworks. 03:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

false copy license tag batch

all the pictures are falsely licensed https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mosadegh66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 07:22, 21 October 2020‎ (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Hi, and welcome. Please feel free to tag them as such, with evidence. Pinging @Mosadegh66 as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-author-FlickrPDM

Template:PDMark-owner is a template for images which use PDM mark as license. It is not a very good fit for flickr public domain files which link to PDM. Per discussion at Template talk:PDMark-owner, User:King of Hearts suggested that perhaps we should create new template for such cases. I created Template:PD-author-FlickrPDM borrowing language from Template:PD-author, which is another template used PD flickr files and made id specific to circumstances of flickr files. Please review and if it is acceptable I will mark it for translation and add it to matching files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Such tags should be understood by our tools, please see Commons talk:DerivativeFX#Problem with Flickr-no known copyright restrictions license.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The section heading I choose might seem a bit odd, but basically my question has to do with whether copyright laws, in general, cover organizations which are considered illegal for some reason or another; for example, terrorist groups, organized crime groups, drug cartels and the like. Do such organizations have any legal standing when it comes to copyright law? Is content created members of such organizations eligible for copyright question?

I'm asking about this because of a discussion at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Organizations' logos that asks about two particular logos (en:File:Ordine Nero 1974 logo.png and en:File:Terzaposizione.png), but also touches on the broader issue of copyright law and terrorist organizations. There have been some previous discussion about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/08#Files allegedly authored by rebel/terrorist groups and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/01#«Terrorist organisations» have no Copyright?, but not sure what if anything was resolved by them.

How does Commons currently treat such content? Does it simply treat such content the same way it would treat a corporate logo by assessing whether logo is below the TOO for both the US and the country of origin? Does it take into account some sort of moral rights? Would Commons be OK in accepting such content if the "creator" made it available under a license that meets COM:L? It would be interesting to hear what others think about this type of thing, particularly as to whether there've been any actual court rulings on this subject anywhere in the world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Free to use; not eligible for copyright. This is about images of the symbols & logos of organizations that have been universally and officially determined to be terrorist ones. This is not about organizations that belong to the file "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This much has been rather irrevocably established. Even former members of these organizations, people who have repented and regretted their participation in them, acknowledge that theirs were terrorist organizations.[1]
    We're also not talking about the rights of people who were in the past associated in any way with these organizations and have written their memoirs about that, composed a song, written a play, etc. Such copyrights are, of course, unassailable. What the law forbids, and in the United States this has been explicitly established by the 2010 Wikipedia:Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project Supreme Court case, is to provide “material support” of any kind, including money, of course, to foreign terrorist organizations. This means that even if a terrorist organization could ever lay claim to something as it being its intellectual property, e.g. its logo, that claim could never be enforced in a court of law, since accepting it as valid would imply that the organization is allowed to profit from it in a material way.
    The images of these organizations' logos & symbols essentially denote ideology, exactly as the swastika, symbol & logo of the Nazi ideology, or the hammer & sickle, symbol & logo of the communist ideology, do. To assign copyright or any kind of property rights on them, when rendered generically (and not as some kind of personal interpretation, e.g. within an art project), would be absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the copyright belongs not to the organization but to the one or more graphic artist(s) who designed the logo (unless the artist(s) formally transferred copyright to the organization). —teb728 t c 12:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
We're talking about a criminal organization. Someone claiming copyright over a symbol of such an organization would be akin to claiming copyright for a Mafia symbol. There have never been artists who claimed or acknowledged having designed any of these logos and symbols. Plus, there is no copyright where there is no intellectual property. Possessing a property means being able to make money out of it, if one wishes to. But criminal organizations and their members are, by law, not permited to profit from their terrorist activities. -The Gnome (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it the Wikimedia Foundation respects copyrights because they exist, irrespective of whether they could be enforced. —teb728 t c 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That is correct but only provided there is some kind of copyright issue! Here, we're discussing whether we can have images of, for example, the swastika or a 'Ndrangheta symbol without first getting authorization from someone. Even entertaining such a notion is sheer absurdity. In any case, if we were to decide that copyright exists for all symbols and logos of ideology or affiliation to an organization, we would have to follow this decision with a mass deletion of all such symbols and logos from all articles on ideologies, parties, organizations, etc. Methinks the erroneous initial entry of those images in Wikicommons is leading us onto a false path. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say don't put it here. By The Gnome's logic, even so much as giving these files a place to live would count as promoting the work of terrorists. Besides, wouldn't the "PD in source" policy apply to these files? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia presents information about all political ideologies. The articles about extreme ideologies, including terrrorism, offer detailed information about these belief systems. However, Wikipedia cannot be accused of "promoting" such ideologies in any sense of the term. Not as long as the typical rules about article content are applied, especially WP:NPOV, in such cases. We cannot seriously claim that by having in an article the logo or the symbol of an ideology or a terrorist organization Wikipedia "promotes" them. -The Gnome (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It just seems different when they're put on a website saying "do whatever you want with these files". -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
But that is exactly what they are! Who owns the copyright of the swastika image? Of the hammer & sickle? Or of the many symbols used by mobsters? To use an American example, would it ever be possible to attribute copyright to symbols, logos, terms, gestures, etc, used by gangs like the Bloods or the Crips? We resolve this, we resolve this issue. But it is actually a non-issue. Sources prove this every minute of the day by freely depicting all the above, and simply naming a photographer or an artist form image attribution. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • An image's association with a criminal organization has no bearing on its copyright status according to U.S. law (regardless of whether the creator belongs to the organization or not). Even convicted terrorists are legally allowed to own property and copyrights. Whether or not the creator of such an image could enforce such a copyright is another question entirely, and cannot be answered without knowing the specifics of the situation. It should be noted however, that images promoting terrorism may be covered under various national anti-terrorism laws, but that isn't what was asked about. Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Kaldari. Let me just say that the ownership of the logos and symbols has been, historically and explicitly, the organization itself in every case - and this a applies to terrorist or criminal organizations of both the right and the left, in Italy and elsewhere. I do not recall, having studied the issue of terrorism at some length, a specific person, member of said organization or not, ever claiming at any time the creation of or having any kind of intellectual property over a symbol/logo used by a terrorist organization. No fee has ever been paid to such a person either. Media around the world routinely use symbols of terrorist ideology or affiliation (the Red Brigades' flag, the Ordine Nero symbol, the NSDAP's swastika, etc) all the time, without attribution to any copyright - ever! (The only copyright attribution might be to certain artist's depiction of a aymbol. E.g. Andy Warhol's "Hammer and sickle" painting from 1976 is copyright protected.) The issue we're debating here has been resolved decades ago in all sources. There would not have been an issue to discuss if the original files had entered Wikicommons accompanied with the correct description. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
If we're talking about U.S. law here, the owner is the creator of the logo, not the organization. Please stop saying that they are owned by the organization unless you have some evidence for that (i.e. a copyright registration or contract), as it only confuses the conversation. Also, I don't understand why you are claiming that these logos are for organizations that "are universally and officially determined to be terrorist ones". Neither Ordine Nero nor Terza Posizione are legally designated as terrorist organizations by the United States or the United Nations, and Terza Posizione doesn't even exist any more. Both of these logos are copyrighted in the United States (thanks to the URAA) and the creators could easily enforce their copyrights in the United States. Thus they can't be hosted on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There is no individual who has ever claimed the creation of the swastika or any symbol of political ideology or organization (except as a work of art when it was intended a work of art). That is why we carry images of logos and symbols of political organizations in Wikipedia, attributing them only to the people who rendered them (photographed or designed them). And the organizations themselves have never credited an individual with copyrights. So, when I'm saying that such symbols are owned by the organization I'm simply presenting a historical, empirical fact.
The United States, at the time these organizations were active, did not have the kind of structured characterization we have today for organizations operating inside or outside US territory. Nonetheless, the US government did at the time characterize in the public statements of its official representatives the Italian armed groups of the far-left and far-right as terrorist organizations. Sources testifying to this are easy to find, though mostly offline. Online, one can look up pdf's with Rand Corp analyses, and so on.
As to the obsolesence of all or most them, this of course is an irrelevant argument. Once a terrorist organization, always a terrorist one! The only reason they would get off the list today is when they have been disbanded, destroyed by having all their members arested, etc. See here for more.
I must say that I find the reaction surprising, especially since a decision to remove these specific ones would result in a massive (and totally unnecessary) cull. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
What files are you specifically referring to when you say massive (and totally unnecessary}] cull? Has someone be advocating such a thing by starting a DR of lots of files related to this? The two files you started this discussion about on English Wikipedia were uploaded locally as non-free content and were removed from a list article where you added them because the use was seen as non-compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. That doesn't really have anything to do with Commons per se, unless you're asking whether those two particular files can be uploaded to Commons. My original post which started this discussion might not have best expressed what you seem to be trying to accomplish here; so, perhaps you could clarify things. Are you arguing that certain specific files previously uploaded to Commons shouldn't be deleted or were deleted by mistake? Are you arguing that files which up until not seem to have been deemed acceptable for Commons should now be OK to upload? Are you suggesting a new addition should be made to COM:CB or perhaps even a new guideline page be created that deals with these types of files? I've read all the posts here, but I'm still not clear on what you're exactly trying to achieve. Perhaps if you framed things like a quasi-COM:RFC which spells out exactly what should be changed, it might make things easier to resolve one way or the other (maybe in a new subsection below). COM:VPC might not be the best place for a full-fledged RFC perhaps, but COM:VPP is probably OK for one since I'm not sure which Commons policy or guideline you're suggesting needs to be changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Graffiti work has often been acknowledged as art and sometimes declared to be illegal - but the legality concerns the place where graffiti is placed; it is not about the work itself, about what any speficic graffiti depicts. What we have here are symbols and works of institutionally, universally acknowledged to be terrorist organizations. No issue of copyright has ever emerged in the realm of terrorist or criminal organizations. (As a matter of fact, this discussion here about copyright ownership of symbols of extremist, criminal organizations is the first I ever encountered. Possibly the first one ever!) -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The objective of the above mentioned law (the "International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 1977) is to stop any organization that poses "any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States" from benefitting economically in any way from works related or not to it, i.e. the organization. As far as the issue we are discussing is concerned, the law forbids an organization such as Isis/Daesh (or the Red Brigades, Ordine Nero, etc) from benefitting from an image on which copyright would be otherwise attributed to them. The legal term "blocked property" simply yet explicitly means that there is no copyright protection of terrorist & criminal organizations' work of any kind - and that, in the highly unrealistic scenario whereby copyright fees were ever to be claimed, such fees would be claimed by the United States government itself. Which is why we see in the media all the time photos or depictions of the flags & symbols of Isis/Daesh, Hezbollah, etc. They are materially free to use. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think the works are inherently "free", unless licensed. An illegal organization obviously would not be recognized (copyright law is limited to "legal entities"), so they could not hold a copyright. The individuals who created it would own the copyright, I would think. From a practical perspective, there would be no way to enforce the copyright, though that rationale for keeping here flies in the face of COM:PRP. It's theoretically possible that in a few decades, the individuals behind an "illegal organization" become known (perhaps once the organization has ceased to exist and is more part of history), and they might be able to enforce copyright at that point. Until then, they are essentially published anonymously. Per a couple posts above, en-wiki declares them non-free, but uses their fair use abilities to hold them there, as they are presumably being used in context in articles about the illegal organizations. Before 1989, this was not an issue in the U.S. -- such works would not have had copyright notices, and would have lost their copyright immediately. Since 1989, under Berne rules, it's murkier. They are easily "fair use" so widespread media use is to be expected, but less sure they are entirely "free". If a logo is below the normal threshold of originality, obviously there is no problem. If they are from a country the U.S. does not have copyright relations with, there would be no current protection in the U.S., though that also could change in the future (and the URAA would go into effect if that date ever comes). The UK and US both (to different degrees) extinguished enemy copyrights during World War II, though they both later restored non-government copyrights. If an organization or country is under sanctions, then they probably can't currently file suit at all, but that may also not be a permanent situation. I think our previous practice has been to apply COM:PRP and remove them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful input, Carl Lindberg. The problem with applying COM:PRP here is that there does not exist, nor has there ever existed, an issue of copyright in the logos and symbols of ideologies! And that's before specifying that we're talking here about terrorist (i.e. illegal) political organizations. We might attribute copyright only for the reporting of said symbols and logos: We see, for example, a photo of the Isis/Daesh flag or a painting depicting it and there's always an attribution to the photographer or the painter. The question of copyright concerns the specific in every case depiction and not the image itself. (Alternatively, we might see the image of, for example, the hammer & sickle with an attribution to in-house work.) Copying the image of the Red Brigades flag from their brochure and uploading it into a relevant Wikipedia article cannot seriously be considered as a breach of copyright policy. -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ (3 March 2015). "Strage 2 Agosto, il Governo convalida la libertà a Mambro e Fioravanti". Wikipedia:Il Resto del Carlino. Retrieved on 17 October 2020.

Can I upload this logo on Commons? (threshold of originality)

Hello, I'd like to upload an SVG version of this logo: [16]

However it's not clear to me if it's below the threshold of originality to be uploaded on commons.

It would be used in the en:Compasso d'Oro page and related ones.

Which is the best way to do this? should I upload it and then in case it will be removed, or is there a way to check this in advance?

EDIT

the logo is already present, in a raster version, on the english wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Compasso_d%27Oro_Logo.png) and on the italian one (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Compassodoro.jpg)

Many thanks!

--Sette-quattro (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In Italy ToO for logos is quite high: COM:TOO Italy. So, probably you can upload it. Ruslik0 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Ruslik0: ! Will upload it, let's see. best. Sette-quattro (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo Uploaded For Angelique Fawcette - No Copyright Issues - I have ownership

I uploaded a photo for the Angelique Fawcette page a few days ago. I am a new user and still learning my way around. I have spoken to a few users and am learning but today I received an email from @YToyoda stating that a photo I uploaded was a copyright violation. I and my Company owns the photo. I replied back to @YToyoda and have not heard back now the photo has been removed. Is there any way that someone can direct me as how to correct this error please? Thank you so much for your time. TryMe99 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)TryMe99

@TryMe99: follow the instructions at Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator to provide evidence that you own the photo, and it will be undeleted (though it may take a little while). Vahurzpu (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

White House recordings of 60 Minutes interviews

Does CBS have any copyright claim to the White House recordings of the 60 Minutes interviews with Donald Trump and Mike Pence? The White House made their own recordings of the interviews for archival purposes, but then Trump posted them to Facebook. I imagine that CBS would have some copyright claim to the audio since they laid out the questions and directed the interview, but the video without audio should be public domain, right? And maybe clips that include only Trump or Pence speaking? Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the White House made their own recordings using their own equipment for whatever reason, then those raw recordings (not the CBS version) would be PD. I think this would apply to both audio and video recordings. It seems that the White House and CBS reached an agreement about the interview before it happended, but that might be a non-copyright restriction related matter that's usually not a concern of Commons. Not sure though, but I believe CBS would respond more forcefully and more quickly (perhaps even a COM:DMCA) if it felt its copyright was being infringed upon. Moreover, Facebook might've removed the video if it truly believed it was a blatant copyright violation. Just guessing here, but it is an interesting question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

NASA images

Presuming I'm right and this image is out of copyright as a work of the US federal government, what's the copyright tag to use? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam Cuerden. Works created by NASA employess as part of their official duties are generally licensed as {{PD-USGov-NASA}}; however, US government websites sometimes host content provided by third parties as explained in en:WP:PD#US government works. If you look at the photo you've linked to above, you'll see "Image Credit: courtesy of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum/text by D. Cochrane and P. Ramirez". I think this means that NASA got the photo from the en:Smithsonian Air & Space Museum; so, technically NASA might not be where the photo originated. The Air & Space Museum seems to be under the control of the en:Smithsonian Institution and I'm quite sure whether Smithsonian itself is under the control of the US government since en:Smithsonian Institution#Administration describes it as a "trust" established the US Congress with more than 2/3 (but not all) of its employees considered to be US government employees. It also seems possible that this photo actually didn't originate with the Air & Space Museum, but rather from somewhere and was donated to the museum. According to en:Smithsonian Institution#Copyright restrictions, the institutation makes its image collections freely avaiable to the general public, but requires seperate permission for commerical uses; that sounds like a "non-commercial license" to me which is something Commons doesn't accept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, though, that image is taken within NASA, which makes the situation... weirder. Also, the Smithsonian is kind of... dodgy about copyright sometimes. They have images that are definitely free (Science Service images, mainly) that are still behind a paywall. I might search their archives and see what comes up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The SI source is https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/3950640jpg. The 'official' copyright holder is stated as "Smithsonian Institution". This makes the image public domain, no doubt about it, unless the SI have made a mistake by failing to name another copyright holder. The effective counter claim on the website is copyfraud and need not be respected. Should WMF legal ever be subjected to a take down notice, they would be delighted to publicly reject it under US law. --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

NoFacebook templates

 Info There is a discussion on "NoFacebook" templates at Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates; I'm posting this pointer to give it broader attention, as it affects hundreds of thousands of files and is a actually more of a fundamental question than a simple deletion discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help me with a file

I would like to ask for some information about the file which was here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Qjob_logo.webp&action=edit&redlink=1. , and the possibility of its undeletion.

I once had explained the issue on Commons:Undeletion requests

I'll repeat the issue briefly. There had been several misunderstandings about the file. I was waiting for the copyright owner to send the OTRS letter. The letter was slow, but the usual 7 days (patience for copyvio) have not expired yet. Despite it the file was deleted on the 5th day. The copyright owner had sent the letter at last, but not the kind Commons accept (Ticket#2020101210010767). Later the copyright owner sent the permission to use his file under the right (free) license. This second letter he had sent under the same ticket intending to avoid further mess.

But nothing happened since. Should I still wait or something went wrong? Could you please inform me what is the situation with the file? Thank you in advance. - Wikicim (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Grin as Agent on this ticket in the Hungarian Language.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I'll look into it. --grin ✎ 15:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Argh! I remember now. My general problem is that I am now confused about the Commons logo policy. The law says, technically, that "any trivial geometric shape is not protected by copyright"; which would be nice and dandy except I see that examples of definitely non-trivial artwork (like Atari logo, for example) were deemed "trivial" by US courts, which is (in my opinion) ridiculous, but be that or not it undermines my judgement of what seems to be trivial, since what seems NOT trivial to me does appear trivial by US law. Moreover I fear that triviality is judged extremely differently by European courts which may cause a clash with US court opinions; since Commons is an international project I cannot conjure what should be my guideline about triviality.
If I accept the US opinion probably no logo is copyrightable, since they contain "geometric forms and letters"; if that was the case we could use non-trademarked logos as we please, including derived works. However if I take them as copyrightable artworks then they are just that, and we cannot use them at all unless provided a proper free license.
I can't and do not want to decide. If it's non-copyrightable then it must not have been deleted on the first hand. If it's copyrightable then we need a proper license.
But in the meantime we just got that license (on 2020-10-22) so I go and undelete the image. But the original problem holds: either it's "trivial" and non-copyrightable and shouldn't have been deleted, or it is copyrighable but then I can't see how to differentiate for uploaded images. --grin ✎ 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Grin: Thanks for your reply. Since File:Qjob logo.webp is in Category:Logos of companies of Hungary and the company uses a ".hu" CCTLD, it would be fair to consider Hungary the country of origin and reference COM:TOO Hungary, which indicates that this Sulinet logo was unacceptable. I think the subject file is a little more complex than that Sulinet logo due to the shading, so we need permission from an authorized representative of Qjob, and fortunately Google Translate tells me we have that in Article 10, so I think you made the right decision to restore and approve.
@Wikicim: Thanks for bringing this to our attention.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: , @Grin: , thank you for your help! - Wikicim (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wikicim: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Finding if 500px photos have a good CC license

This file File:Montebello Lagoon (113957349).jpeg from 500px is uploaded with an accepted license. If possible I'd like to add this related file to Commons (same photographer & date), but I can't find where 500px have hidden the licensing info to see if it is OK or not. Anyone who knows if it is or not, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It was uploaded back when 500px allowed CC licencing. See Commons:500px licensing data. --ghouston (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds a bit complex for me :-) MPF (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Boundary Data and the Open Government Licence

Hello. I am currently trying to upload some spatial data in the Data: namespace in order to create interactive maps for Scottish elections at English Wikipedia. I came across some shapefiles of historic boundaries on the w:Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's website (here), and was a bit confused by the licencing terms. On this page there is a PDF containing the terms of use (here), which states:

  • Ordnance Survey and Scottish Ministers have entered into the One Scotland Mapping Agreement, intended to provide a framework for allowing use of Ordnance Survey data (and data derived therefrom) by licensed public sector bodies in Scotland. The Scottish Boundary Commissions are a licensed public sector body under that agreement.
  • The One Scotland Mapping Agreement allows licensed public sector bodies to make data available under 'Free to Use' terms. We have created this Historical Electoral Data, and Ordnance Survey has agreed that it constitutes Free to Use Data.

As far as I can tell, this means that the Boundary Commission has agreed with Ordnance Survey to make this data free to use.

However, further down the page it states:

  • We grant you a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual licence to use IPR in Historical Electoral Data.
  • The licence granted in Clause 3.1 shall not entitle you to re-create, reproduce or represent any Feature Attribution or any Feature in any Topographic Dataset (or any substitution of such Feature Attribution or Feature).
  • You must acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Historical Electoral Data by including the following attribution statement: ‘© Boundary Commission for Scotland, Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013’.

The top and bottom clauses seem simple enough, "you can have it as long as you attibute us properly". What is confusing me is the middle clause, where it says that you can't "re-create, reproduce or represent any Feature Attribution or any Feature in any Topographic Dataset...". Does this mean that you can't reproduce it at all, or does it mean that you can't reproduce parts of the OS Map that it is based on, but leaves you free to reproduce the actual boundaries?

If this is permissable, what licence would the boundary data fall under? I presume it would be the UK Open Government Licence, as the agreement here states that it applies to all public sector data, and boundary data isn't listed as one of the exceptions. However, the terms that I mentioned above say something about the "One Scotland Mapping Agreement". Is this compatible with the OGL (and therefore CC BY 4.0), or is it something different?

Thanks in advance, PinkPanda272 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of publicly posted non-free posters, signs, logos, etc.

I'm interested in the policies around photographing non-free material on objects in the real world.

For example, the Obama Logo is non-free: File:Obama_logomark.svg That non-free logo is present in many free photographs on wikipedia: Obama_Austin.jpg

It's also the main subject and only purpose of photographs of physical objects: File:Obama_Sign_Arlington_Virginia.jpg - File:3rd_Mercury_Sable_GS_wagon_rear.jpg

This would apply to many other situation: a photo of a huge logo advertised on the side of a building. A band logo poster taped to a telephone pole or their logo on a stage: File:Weezer 2005.jpg.

I believe there may be specific exemptions for buildings in Freedom of panorama, but I'm also more interested in advertising material, signs, posters, etc. The general case, not just "buildings".

De minimis may apply, but I'm especially interested in photographs where the non-free material is the "main subject" and objective of the photograph, but the photograph is intended to capture the real-life object rather than be a scan of the copyrighted work.

These photos are certainly morally and legally "fair use", but I do not want them wrapped up in WP:NFCCP criteria.

Is there any rule that expressly allows or disallows these types of photographs?

PKAMB (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you listed the only exemptions that apply to unlicensed copyrighted material: De minimis and Freedom of Panaroma. If neither of those apply, it probably shouldn't be on Commons. An alternative would be to edit the image to remove the offending material, I remember File:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg as an example, where a copyrighted frog was removed from a protester's placard, although that kind of editing may be questionable in some cases. --ghouston (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree the logo is the main reason for the photographs -- it would be the sign the logo is just a part of. I don't think they come all that close to being a derivative work of the logo. In some ways, that is the "incidental" part of the de minimis policy -- the logo was inherently there, as the photo is of the placement of the political sign, not really because of the artwork itself. The photo would really need to be focusing on the copyrightable expression in particular. The Ets-Hokin ruling said that a photograph of a bottle was not derivative of a label on the bottle, even if prominent and centered, since it was inherently there if the desire was to photograph the bottle -- the photo would have to be focusing on the label itself. The Obama logo is right around the threshold of originality, as well -- if it's over, it's barely over. The odds that such little expression would cause a photograph to become derivative seems fairly small. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The design of the sign itself is/could be under copyright, not just the "logo" on the sign. Imagine a photo of Barack Obama, poster designer Shepard Fairey, and photographer Mannie Garcia standing next to an original "Hope" poster. The poster is non-free and the copyright belongs to one of them, at least. Could that photo be posted freely to Commons under a CC license? PKAMB (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Pokemon_Jets.jpg is perhaps the best example I've found so far. All the Pokémon Jet images are licensed CC on Commons and claimed to be de minimis usages of the non-free Pokémon characters and not deleted. That's the preferable outcome... but based on my reading of de minimis I'd tend to disagree. PKAMB (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Files under Category:Del Monte Pineapple Juice

Do the two files under Category:Del Monte Pineapple Juice fine or have the potential COM:PACKAGING problem? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The second image mainly shows some non-original text, which may not be eligible for copyright protection. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1188Cuisine foods of Bulacan 04.jpg. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot of a graph

Hi there. I'm interested in adding a screenshot of this page to an article. I'm pretty sure I can get an OTRS email from the author. But:

1. Is a copyright email necessary in the first place? This is just a map of the United States with some shapes on it. (From past discussions, this looks murky)

2. Is an email from the author sufficient? I don't know what the details are, but it is always possible that whatever analytics software the author used might have some sort of copyright issues with generated graphics. Is there ever an issue?

I looked into it, and I think this was generated with QGIS2web, which has a GPL-2.0 license. I don't know what this means for graphics generated with the package.

Thanks for the help! Jlevi (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: The license for the program is not generally related to the license of media created with it. Copyright exists when a person makes a creative work; a sufficient amount of creativity is what creates a copyright. In this case there might have been creativity in the selection of the events to display, and in the choice of how to represent them (colors, etc.). It's unclear to me whether that amounts to sufficient creativity for a copyright to exist, though I would be inclined to think it doesn't. I would probably get permission from the author if possible just to be safe.
Another consideration is the copyright of the underlying image of the United States, since that was created by someone else entirely. It's hard to tell, but the map probably comes from QGIS. I had a lot of trouble tracing it exactly, but as QGIS is a free/open-source project I would imagine their images are free as well, and so that would not be a concern. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a Ministry of Defence of Serbia permission template?

I'm trying to Commons:License review files in User:EatchaBot/Files-requiring-license-review-gallery-uploaded-by/130309p. These are several photographs of the Serbian police from the Ministry of Defence website, http://www.mod.gov.rs/eng/photo/13524/ministar-vulin-dok-je-vucic-predsednik-srpska-ce-biti-cuvana-i-sacuvana-13524, which says on the bottom, "Reproduction is allowed in the whole and parts with specifying content source". Which looks pretty good for our purposes, but it isn't quite the same as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} which is what the uploader marked them as. Should I use {{PD-SerbiaGov}} (under the "Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;" clause) or is there a more specific template? --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

deletion of map of canals

i used public domain license for a map of canals in isfahan but it got deleted Baratiiman (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, are you refering to File:Map-min1.jpg? The source-site[17], from where you copied this map, says "All intellectual property rights of this site belong to the Municipal Information and Communication Technology Company" (transl. from Persian). --Túrelio (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
lmao and the conclusion is the map owned by this website? Iran is in the dark ages of copyright and the people on this website are fooled https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4759094/%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%DA%A9%D9%BE%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF there is not a translation for it Baratiiman (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded an infographic 4 years ago that got deleted recently the website isn't even online anymore but is somehow protected by copyright in Iran according to wiki commons.Baratiiman (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm quite new to Wikimedia Commons. I recently uploaded an image of the crest of a public educational institution (Royal College, Colombo) and got a "possible copyright violation" notice. The file is deleted now. The logo was made in 1911 and is now well over 100 years from creation. Any pointers on what I should do would be most appreciated. Thanks. --Dithmal (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you refering to File:Royal College Colombo - Crest.png? The problem has likely been that you didn't add any license-template. If the crest is really as old as the institution (proof?), it might indeed be in the public domain. However, even then you need to add the appropriate PD-license-tag, see Category:PD-old license tags. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Photograph of Ezra Pound

Can anyone help me to work out whether this image is free, and if so which tag to use? It's a studio photograph of Ezra Pound and his mother, taken in America in 1898. Author unknown. The first known publication was in 1985 in an Associated Press article that was published in the United States. We currently claim fair use on enwiki: w:File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg.

I've looked at the Hirtle chart, but I can't work out which part applies to it. Does it count as unpublished because it was published in 1985 without the copyright holder's consent? I have no idea how to approach it. Any help would be appreciated. SarahSV (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'd forgotten there was a discussion about this in 2014, which may have covered all the points, although I'm still confused about it. SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If it wasn't published with the copyright holder's consent, then it is unpublished and thus legally assumable to be out of copyright by the 120-year rule. If there were multiple copies made back in the day, it could have lost copyright long before 2002. I think it's reasonable to assume the 1985 publications were without permission, and thus the work is currently in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Prosfilaes, thanks for the response. Would {{PD-old-assumed}} be the right tag? Or {{PD-US-1978-89}}? SarahSV (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Another possibility is {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which captures what I think is the most likely case. --bjh21 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Bjh21, that's very helpful, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded as File:Ezra Pound and Isabel Pound.jpg. Thanks again to both of you. SarahSV (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

PD-self at upload, now GFDL-only. What to do?

I have a dilemma I could do with some others' opinions on. TD Lemmons1 uploaded these pictures in June, all marked {{PD-self}}:

In July (one file) and September (the rest) they replaced {{PD-self}} with {{GFDL-utente}} (an alias for {{GFDL-user}}). This is a problem because COM:L says that new GFDL-only photographs are not allowed. I've asked on User talk:TD Lemmons1 if they'd be willing to change the licence, but to no avail. As far as I can see there are two approaches here: either we reinstate {{PD-self}} on the assumption that it's irrevocable, or we delete the files for being inappropriately GFDL-only, but I'm not sure which to go for, and maybe I've missed a better option. --bjh21 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Perhaps someone fluent in Italian could write to them?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Проблема авторского статуса иллюстрации

File:Formula of Sorrow (4).jpg. Файл является фотографией архитектурной части памятника «Формула скорби»[18]. Авторами памятника, созданного по инициативе 1991 года, являются архитектор Борис Бейдер и скульптор Александр Позин. Центральной частью памятника является сгорбленная абстрактная статуя авторства умершего в 1986 году скульптура Вадима Сидура, которая была предоставлена для создания памятника его родственниками. На публикацию File:Formula of Sorrow (4).jpg агентами OTRS были получены разрешения Бейдера и Позина, подлинность их агентами OTRS признана. Однако Dogad75 настаивает, что должно быть ещё разрешение наследника Сидура, поскольку в АИ он заявлен как соавтор памятника. Но Сидур умер задолго до самой идеи мемориала. Он автор в той мере, что его скульптура была взята сторонними людьми центральной частью памятника. Таким образом к архитектурному решению мемориала (изображенному на фотографии) он отношения не имеет и даже физически не мог бы. Это также совершенно чётко отражено в АИ. Наследник, сын Сидура (а он видный юрист) также в личной переписке указывает, что File:Formula of Sorrow (4).jpg не затрагивает его прав. Я, администратор A.Savin и агент OTRS Krassotkin с этой позицией согласны. Агент OTRS Dogad75 не согласен. Прошу коллег разрешить данное разногласие. --Lilotel (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

А что из изображённого на фотографии относится к работе Сидура? Ruslik0 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ровно ничего. В том-то и дело. Скульптура Сидура изображена, например, на File:Formula of Sorrow (5).jpg, и на эту работу агентами OTRS получено и принято согласие наследников Сидура. --Lilotel (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Я думая, что Dogad75 просто не понял, что на фото нет работ Сидура. Ruslik0 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Я уже ни в чем не уверен --Lilotel (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The statue is not visible in File:Formula of Sorrow (4).jpg, so Sidur's permission shouldn't be relevant for that photo - it is relevant, however for other photos in Category:Formula of Sorrow which show the whole work. We need to be sure that we have sufficiently free licencing (not just permission) for all constituent parts of the overall work in photos like File:Formula of Sorrow (1).jpg.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
На все другие фотографии разрешения получены и приняты агентами OTRS --Lilotel (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Действительно, когда присылают несколько фотографий, где используются несвободные работы нескольких авторов, глаза начинаются "замыливаються", и уже не видишь очевидного. Здесь File:Formula of Sorrow (4).jpg действительно, нет авторских работ Вадима Сидура. Поправил, тикет проставлен. Надеюсь, более проблем нет. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of maps of Dieppe area

Maps created using Google images legally under their Fair Use and Attribution policies have been deleted and need to be reversed. Enderwigginau (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. Images need to be freely licenced or public domain.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Enderwigginau: Nigel Ish is correct. See Commons:Fair use and Commons:Licensing for policy and background. --Animalparty (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The image is not Fair Use. My use of it in modifying and placing arrows onto the map is under fair use. This it becomes my personal work and I have in no way infringed their copyrights in any way. So rejecting it as a Fair Use item is incorrect.Enderwigginau (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Enderwigginau: You are not considering the rights of Google in the underlying image, see COM:DW.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Relevant Terms of Service for Google Maps here. They don't seem to be compatible with commons licensing.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Nigel, please reference the exact section for which a single image, annotated and attributed, does not meet those terms of service? Of course it is within the terms of service, this use IS NOT using the dataset for another purpose and is not misrepresenting itself as not being a Google image. It is also not being used to make money, as per the general terms of service. Google specifically allows such use. See the Introduction here - https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/

Jeff, I have considered the owners underlying rights, which is why I have gone through the their terms of service, and applied them rigorously. If either of you are going to reject it, then at least show the exact clause that was broken, as I have used the original images well within the original owners guidelines and intent. Enderwigginau (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The prohibition against commercial use makes it incompatible with commons - all work uploaded here has to be available for use elsewhere including commercial work.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Colorization

Would the colorization of a monochrome (i.e. black and white) image that is PD be considered a COM:DW which is eligible for its own copyright? For example, File:Seal of the City of Providence Rhode Island.png is licensed as {{PD-US}}, but there are two files incoporating the same seal imagery uploaded as File:Flag of Providence.svg and File:Providence Flag.gif. I don't think the blue background (i.e. the flag) would be protected by copyright, but I'm wondering about the colorization of the seal itself. I guess if someone uses the PD file to create a vector version of the flag, and then colors in the seal as if its a coloring book, then perhaps they could release that under a free license Commons could use. I'm not so sure about the gif though since I think the "own claim" is probably not accurate at that the file might have come from somewhere else. FWIW, the flag can be seen here on en:Flags of the World (website) where there's a claim of copyright ownership being made, but that could just be a case of COM:LL. In addition, Rhode Island doesn't appear to be a state like California or Florida in which state, county or local government works are considered to be PD. Can these flag image be kept as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office has typically been reluctant to register pure color-only changes as works. Colorization of movies has been ruled to be copyrightable. Changing a couple colors of a graphic would not be. Colorizing a photograph is somewhere in between, though. It probably depends on if there is copyright on the selection and arrangement of the colors -- the more choices, the more likely it gets, but it might take quite a few. Vectorization, on the other hand, can be copyrightable. The SVG is different than the bitmap in many of its details, even if that was the tracing source. Either way, that one probably has a copyright. The gif seems copied from the source you state, and I would delete it. File:Seal of the City of Providence Rhode Island.png also seems copied from a state or city website. Per Commons:Coats of arms, each different representation can have its own copyright, even if the basic design is old. If the actual drawing (as opposed to a description) is part of law, PD-EdictGov might apply. Most of the time, there are older drawings where copyright has expired (or there was no notice, etc.). But a modern interpretation of an old design would be copyrightable, so a little nervous on that first one without knowing a bit more of its provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyrightability of word pronunciations

As simple word pronunciations (e.g. File:En-us-california.ogg) do not involve any creativity, I would assume they are not copyrightable as a general rule. Do we have any template similar to {{PD-textlogo}}, {{PD-chord}}, etc, but for word pronunciations? I couldn't find any. If not, we should probably create one. Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm skeptical; recordings, like photographs, would be copyrightable unless they are slavish copies. What is being recorded may not be copyrightable, but the recording itself will be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. It could be argued that the recording is an original fixation of a unique expression. Although it seems to stretch the boundaries of the creativity requirement. Kaldari (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The sound recording copyright is separate from any copyright in the sounds it records. I'm not sure there have been any "threshold" cases on that type of thing -- safest to assume that pretty much any recording has a copyright unless we have details on how it was recorded. Two people next to each other, each with sound recorders, recording the same sounds, would have an independent copyright in their recordings, most likely. A computer-generated recording probably has no copyright, but as long as a human was involved, there's a decent chance it does. The Copyright Compendium does mention that short recordings may not have copyright, but gut feel is that pronunciation recordings would be. The compendium guidance (which doesn't have real examples, as not sure there is case law in this area):
Elements that determine the sufficiency and creativity of a sound recording include the simultaneous or sequential number of sounds, the length of the recording, and the creativity perceptively expressed in creating, fixing, and manipulating the sounds.
Short sound recordings may lack a sufficient amount of authorship to be copyrightable (just as words and short textual phrases are not copyrightable).
To be registrable, a sound recording must result from human authorship through performance and/or production. A sound recording will not be registered where there is no human authorship, such as a recording that results from a purely mechanical or automated process. The registration of a sound recording that involves no human performance, such as a recording of nature sounds, is only possible if there is sufficient human production authorship present.
A pronunciation file would include a human performance, and probably human recording. I'm not exactly sure how to define "sufficient human production authorship" though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Commons has a clear guideline on sound recordings. The Wilhelm scream is labeled as {{PD-ineligible}}, but I disagree with that verdict. I would assume that even simple word pronunciations by a human speaker would be copyrightable. FunnyMath (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that the Wilhelm scream is here because so many movies and such have used it without liability. I wonder if and when the precautionary principle would kick in here... -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
There are at least two Copyright Office Review Board letters on the copyrightability of sound recordings: one for some Visa tones (affirmed refusal to register; no determination was made regarding the underlying musical compositions) and another for the Intel jingle (reversed refusal to register the sound recording, but affirmed that the jingle as a composition was below the TOO). I'm not sure how helpful this is, but I'd say that sound recordings, like photographs, are almost always protectable, but only thinly so. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of GFDL from my dual-licensed files

Back in the old days, I uploaded my photos as {{GFDL-1.2}} only, since that was the only effective licence at the time other than public domain. Later, cc-by-sa came along, and I changed all my photos to be dual licensed, a practice I carried out until GFDL-1.2 was deprecated in 2018, since when my uploads have been cc-by-sa only. I'd like to know if it's permissable for me to remove the GFDL licence from my dual-licensed images, as it's unlikely anyone will be using the GFDL licence. This means all my photos will be consistent. O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you a free to remove them from the page, but people can still use the old license I think as I presume it is not revocable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
how about marking the licence as "deprecated", and the new one as "favored"? --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I would say that you shouldn't do this, because the benefit is very small but the change has the potential to cause serious confusion. What I mean is that anyone who wants to use (or already has used) one of your works under GFDL now has to work out what your removal of GFDL means, and whether it affects their re-use. If you really want all your files to be consistent, you can always dual-license them all: the 2018 restriction is only on GFDL-only licensing, not on GFDL+CC. --bjh21 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Helmut newton billboards

zum 100. geburtstag von helmut newton hat das in berlin ansässige museum verschiedene der bekanntesten fotos von newton auf großplakate drucken lassen und diese zusammen mit bekannten zitaten von newton an verschiedenen stellen in berlin für 3 monate aufhängen lassen. eine ganze serie dieser plakate befindet sich am außenzaun eines vattenfallkraftwerks. newton ist vor weniger als 70 jahren verstorben, seine werke sind nicht gemeinfrei. die plakate sind von öffentlichem grund sichtbar, was unter panoramafreiheit fällt. ich habe eine reihe fotos dieser plakate gemacht, die newtonmotive stehen eindeutig im zentrum, sind definitiv kein beiwerk, sondern bildgegenstand (zusammen mit den zitaten). vergleichbare bilder finden sich in der aktuellen presse. ist ein hochladen auf commons möglich? --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No, IMO, as this is clearly a temporary installation, thereby not covered by FoP exception of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Auch Wahlplakate haben (geplant) nur eine begrenzte Lebenszeit, enthalten häufig Fotos mit Copyright, haben praktisch immer eine grafische Gestaltung mit Schöpfungshöhe, werden aber hier unter FoPgermany behalten. Wenn die Newton-Bilder nach dem Ende der Aktion nicht abgehängt werden, bleiben sie womöglich Jahre an dem Kraftwerkszaun. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Licence of a collage

Just to make sure I understand Commons:Collages correctly: if I take a CC-BY-SA licenced photo and a picture I took myself, and combine them into one file, the resulting collage must also be released as CC-BY-SA, since it's a derivative work of the first photo, right? I do not intend to upload the collage to Commons (outside of the project scope) by the way, but do plan to release them on my own website and social channels -- Spinal83 (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spinal83: Right.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
If it's considered a derivative work, then yes. If it's considered a collection of individual images, where the collage is simply selecting and arranging them, then there is a separate copyright on the selection and arrangement which is unaffected by the copyrights of the collected works (though obviously you would still need permission to copy those as part of the collection, which CC-BY-SA would give). Depending on the specific situation, it could go either way -- collages which really fuse photos together into one work probably would be derivative, but one where the individual works are essentially unchanged might be more of a collection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hm, tricky. It would be something like File:Anno_Smith_-_Handel_en_Industrie.jpg, with one image having a CC-BY-SA licence, and one image made by myself (previously unreleased). So the images are just placed next to each other, there is no fusing between them. -- Spinal83 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That would be an arrangement, though that selection and arrangement is so simple that there is likely no additional copyright there, so nothing additional to license ;-) The more elements you are selecting and arranging, the more likely there is a copyright in that -- but arranging just two items really isn't enough, almost certainly. Giving a license doesn't hurt, of course, as those details can differ by country and the license is more sure. I don't think that it would be subject to share-alike provisions, but the authors and the licenses of the underlying works need to be mentioned on the image page itself -- they are the primary "authors" here, really. Those licenses do require attribution and a mention of the license if they are copied, and at the moment, that file is a copy without doing those things. I guess one of those authors is you, and that does need a license, but the other author needs to be credited too. Might also be useful to have your photo uploaded standalone, but someone else can always extract it if needed -- provided it's clear which author is which. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria images

I'm a bit unsure about some images of the en:Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria (RBGV). These were uploaded by User:Billy Guilfoyle. A number of them, not all, (e.g. File:RBGV MG Ornamental Lake2017.jpg), state as Source Copyright Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria and Author Photographer: Adrian Vittorio. The official website of the RBGV doesn't seem all that clear on the copyright, see here, at least to me. Quite a few of the images are also used on the en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria page. Just wondering, is the copyright status of those images ok? Calistemon (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It would have been nice for the uploader to provide source links. After quite a while I tracked down their Instagram page, but I can't look at individual images without an account, so I don't know if there is any license provided there. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Billy Guilfoyle, Calistemon, and BMacZero: https://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/copyright prohibits commercial use. Their posts don't include any free licenses. Their profile references bitly code 3a08C2A , which redirects to https://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/opening-updates , which also doesn't include any free licenses. So, such images must be deleted from Commons. Are they in a particular category?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
They are either in Category:Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne or Category:Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne. There is 22 images in Special:Contributions/Billy Guilfoyle, but not all state the above. Some have Own work as source but state RBGV (I presume this means Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria) as Author. Calistemon (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and BMacZero: Thanks for the advice, I have nominated the above mentioned file for speedy deletion, but not yet the others. Would it be more appropriate to nominate each individual file for speedy deletion or would it be better to nominate them all under regular Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request? Calistemon (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Calistemon: One mass nom per cat and one mass cleanup nom for the rest of the user's contributions should be sufficient.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Billy Guilfoyle, thanks for all your help and advice. In regards to the categories, these contain other images that, at a quick glance, are from other users and don't seem to be problematic, no need to get rid of those. Calistemon (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Calistemon: You're welcome, that works too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been unable to find information on the copyright status of publications of land grant university agricultural extension services, which operate in partnership with the USDA.

The document I am interested in is an "extension circular" called "Fashion terms and styles for women's garments", published in 1991 by the Oregon State University extension service without a copyright notice. The relevant notice on the backcover is "Extension Service, Oregon State University, Corvallis, O.E. Smith, director. Produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties."

The Oregon State University database containing the circular has the Rights Statement "Copyright Not Evaluated".

Can this publication (and specifically, the line drawings in it) by used in Commons? - PKM (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For any material first published in the U.S. in 1991, the lack of notice doesn't mean anything, at least for Commons (that stopped mattering on March 1, 1989, when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention and the law changed). If it's a reprint of older material, there wouldn't be any new copyright, but the 1914 reference just seems to refer to the Smith–Lever Act of 1914 which created the program the works were part of. Unless that law has some mandate on the copyright status of works created under it, the work you mention is under U.S. copyright for the lifetime of the longest-lived named author then 70 more years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Deepikakarate.jpg

Can Commons kept this as licensed or should it be verified by OTRS? File's Exif date seems to indicate it comes from Facebook. I tried a Google Image search and a Tineye search, but neither showed the photo being used anywhere else. File's not being used in any articles or on any pages of any Wikipedia project; so, I'm not sure whether even it meets COM:SCOPE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It does not look like professional photo. So, it is plausible that the user made it themselves. Ruslik0 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik0. I guess it seems reasonable to assume good faith with respect to the file's licensing; however, I'm still not sure about COM:SCOPE. The file is currently unused and the uploader is someone who (I believe) has been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia for sock puppetry for continuous trying to create articles about some of people shown in the photo; so, it's unlikely ever going to be used on English Wikipedia; even on a user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
It shows some educational event, I think, and may be useful in the future. Ruslik0 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/10&oldid=869421399"