User talk:Clindberg/archives 1

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


Flickr

Hello. Want to thank you for your message pointing out the 'no-commercial' requirement on some of the Flickr photos that I uploaded. This was a genuine error on my part because of my ignorance of the intricacies of the cc licences. I have gone thru my recent uploads and flagged the offending ones for copyvio. I just don't have the time to chase up the copyright holders for permissions for these particular images. Thanks again for your vigilance. Kahuroa 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for taking the effort to deal with it... easy mistake to make. Shame about the photos though. I now wish I'd taken more pictures while I was there... could have sworn I took at least a couple of other Maori-related pictures but I can't find them. Carl Lindberg 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Never mind - the photos can be replaced. I must remember to take my camera with me more often. Kahuroa 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flickreview

Thanks for noticing this. This is a bug that was introduced during my latest tweaks of the software, in which I had hoped to solve a same kind of bug. I will fix this bug before doing the next run. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tagged all wrongly reconized images. (Which was a hell of a job) Actually, the problem was that I has already made a fix to this bug, but I forgot to upload it to the server where the bot runs ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have revised the description so the 1990 Copyright Law of Red China has restored copyright in Article 55 and the 2001 Law has the same thing in Article 59.--Jusjih 14:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rule of the shorter term

Thank you for your comment. you said, "That may be a more effective way of putting it; not sure." However, what does "that" mean, my proposed petition?--Jusjih 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF information on Flickr uploads

Unfortunately, the number of pictures you are allowed to upload to Flickr is restricted with respect to the file size. You can choose to only have low resolution versions available to the public. It is possible to retrieve EXIF values from Flickr through its api. However, I currently do not know a way to write this information to the file. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota state seal

I tagged it as PD-US not because the image is pre-1923 but because the tag also applies in other general cases where an image is PD in the US. The other tag asserts state seals are PD, so that was the basis. But the change is also good. -Nard 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl. I've noticed your insightful comments related to logos comprised solely of a general typeface (a "word mark"). Would you consider commenting at Commons:Help desk#Is this scalable (svg) wordmark copyrighted?, and offer guidance related to that specific image and to the {{PD-textlogo}} template in general? If my question is not clear, I can try to restate it or clarify it.

If you would comment there or here, I would be very appreciative. Thank you, Iamunknown 12:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Simple logos like that would not be a copyright violation of the company creating the logo (which is often the case with logo artwork), as there is no creative work by that company. I guess the question then is it a copyright violation of the original font. In the U.S., the general design of typefaces is not copyrightable (unless they have substantial ornamentation separate from the shape of the letters). However, the vector font files themselves are, under the "computer program" protection. The protection is more for the precise placement of the points, bezier control points, etc -- you cannot create a new font with just some simple modification or systematic transformation of an existing (copyrighted) vector font. However, bitmap representations have none of the actual point information embedded anymore and are therefore not copyrightable (no matter how big the bitmap). The situation is different in Europe -- typefaces can be copyrighted to an extent. I guess the question is whether the use of a few characters is a derivative work. I would lean towards no, just on a "feels right" basis, but I could easily be wrong.
If the SVG is just made with text of the Helvetica Ultra Condensed font (i.e. no actual outline information is in the SVG), then it's definitely OK. If the Wikimedia servers have that font (legally), then they can render bitmaps for web pages, which are not protected. The potential problem would only occur if you converted the characters to outlines in the SVG itself (which I assume is the situation here). The UK law referenced in w:WP:PD#Fonts explicitly says that the usage of fonts is not a copyright violation... you would think the situation is de facto the same in the U.S., otherwise things like embedded fonts in EPS/PDF files would be violations (even if just partially embedded). However, you may have to argue it on a "fair use" basis since the U.S. has the "computer program" aspect to it, and parts of it are copied. I'm not really sure.
It seems to me as though the protection is mainly to prevent direct competitors from selling identical or derivative font files. For example, pulling outline characters out of several SVG/EPS/PDF files to cobble together a font would be a violation, as may be pulling out individual characters to combine into a different logo just to avoid having to pay the font vendor so they can render it directly. But, as long as the original SVG was rendered by someone with legal access to the fonts, it seems to me usage of that image would be OK. There may be fine print in the original font purchase agreement when it comes to logos though, who knows. If you want to be safer, you could create a big bitmap and upload that instead. Carl Lindberg 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Carl, for the specific advice and for helping me to understand that quirk in copyright law! I uploaded the rasterised image to Image:Bushnell wordmark.png.  :-) Cheers, --Iamunknown 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD-MNGov

Thank you for calling attention to the opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General. As discussed on the template talk page, the safer course of action may be to deprecate use of the template, or delete it entirely, in the absence of an uncontested opinion allowing free use. While there seems to be little question that the only image which now uses it is free use by the public, having been reproduced in numerous news media, that image is not now being used in any en:WP article, so its loss would not cause any present harm. Thanks again, Kablammo 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarked

The U.S. has a common-law trademark system. An insignia like that is trademarked regardless of whether it's registered. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Search005 . Superm401 - Talk 05:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the template's still useful. If you want, you can create a registered trademark template, with an associated subcategory of Category:With trademark, and have both. But most content on Commons is not trademarked (not even common law), and thus it's important to provide a way to identify the content that is trademarked for both computers (e.g. commercial mirrors may want to automatically avoid trademarked content) and people. Superm401 - Talk 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needing work

Do you think you can take a crack at cleaning up Image:OFCCP-Seal.png? Thanks. Evrik 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US-MarineCorps-Seal-Bronzed.svg

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above?

This message was added automatically by sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed. Carl Lindberg 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gandhi Downing Street.jpg

Hello Clindberg :) Would you be kind enough to check and give your point of vue on this particular image. Best regards. -- Perky (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag

Could you look at this proposal and comment please? Do you know of any cases or legal opinions which specifically say that signatures are copyright-ineligible in the US? I am a little concerned that the current US text relies too heavily on an assumption that a signature falls within the scope of "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; and mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." I would be happier if we could cite a legal commentator, at the very least, who specifically says so. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. sculptures

Some more things to consider:

  1. Sculptures commissioned by the U.S. federal government. For pre-1978 commissions, we may presume that the copyright was transferred to the commissioning party, i.e. the government. See Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 490 U.S. 730 (1989), where the Supreme Court states that under the 1909 Act "the courts generally presumed that the commissioned party had impliedly agreed to convey the copyright, along with the work itself, to the hiring party." (Section II(A), paragraph starting with "In 1955...") For current commissions, there is evidence that the U.S. government insists that the copyright be transferred to them. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boy Scout Memorial-27527.jpg. What now? Can we simply assume that since the U.S. government would not object to freely licensed images of sculptures (and other commisssioned works), we may keep such images; kind of an "implied free license"? Whom would one have to contact to get an official statement? (On the Boy Scout Memorial, I'm not even sure it was commissioned by the government. Looks like it was commissioned by Boy Scouts America and then donated to the government...?)
  2. What shall we do for sculptures erected 1923-1977? We may perhaps treat them as published, but we have no way of determining their copyright status. If we strictly delete them all, we'll delete way too many, since many will indeed not have had a copyright notice or will not have had their copyrights properly renewed. Maybe treating them as unpublished and applying 70 years p.m.a. would be a workable pseudo-solution. It may not be strictly correct if the sculptures were indeed published, but it'd be a best-effort approach. Either way it looks as if we're going to empty Brookgreen Gardens... If we just keep these 1923-1977 sculptures, we may actually keep many non-free images claiming them to be free. Brookgreen Gardens themselves state one had to attribute the sculptors for copyright reasons...

Thoughts? Lupo 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh? :-)
  1. Interesting; agreed that there does seem to be an implied transfer on older works (needing to be explicit, post 1978 -- according to en:Copyright Act of 1976#Transfer_of_copyright it was rather conflicting before that). en: Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid also says that afterwards the lower court ruled that both the artist and commissioning party own "joint rights" on "two-dimensional reproductions"; not sure how to interpret that. It may be best to assume an implied license in these older cases... the idea of the federal government actually suing over something like that is rather far-fetched (it is rare enough -- and somewhat controversial -- when regular sculptors do for folks taking snapshots). Maybe they still hold copyright just in order to prevent sculptural copies, and otherwise it is like the LoC who does not restrict anything in collections which it purchases, but who knows. I would think the NPS would administer anything in national parks; getting a statement from them would be helpful of course... but judging by pages like this, not sure they want to take a position one way or another. Some statues may still be copyrighted by others -- here they mention a statue's copyright (but say nothing of the photo), while here they give a slightly different indication. Sounds like that statue was commissioned (but after 1978), but en:The Three Soldiers indicates that the sculptor successfully sued someone (which included 3-D reproductions though); maybe that is why the NPS is careful to note this. The NPS does seem to allow photography in general, but charges for commercial photography which needs special props, special access, etc.[1] apparently to recover administrative costs.
  2. I think we should treat them as published... so the question would be if there is any way to determine if there is a copyright notice on any of them. I am tempted again to think if the Art Inventory Catalog thoroughly documents a sculpture but does not mention a copyright, then that may be enough to consider it as PD-US-no_notice. Or, maybe if an uploader goes back to look over a statue specifically for it. I noticed the Brookgreen site (and Art Inventory Catalog) mentioned that a couple of statues were "unsigned"... that would be clear indication of no notice, I would think. The 1909 Act was pretty specific in the need for a notice, and copyright was lost without it (even things like being ambiguous as to who the author was invalidated the notice and thus the copyright). I think statues did not need the year, but did need the author (or at least initials, with the author spelled out somewhere nearby). The 1909 Act did allow for one or two accidental missing notices, but in those cases there were apparently no penalties for infringement for existing copies of the works lacking a notice. As for renewals... hard as ever. Have any fine art renewal listings come online yet? As for the required attribution, I think that is due to VARA (17 U.S.C. 106A), which while technically separate from copyright (they are moral rights) is still part of Title 17. Those still exist even if copyright has expired.
Messy stuff, to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, renewals may not be that hard. The 1950-1977 renewals are here. It would appear that sculptures should be in there somewhere if they were renewed, or for 1978-1991 renewals, they should be in the LoC's catalog. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back... the Gutenberg listing may not include art renewals other than for 1950-51. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. We'll have to work out something. In any case, I disagree to treat the Smithsonian catalog as a copyright listing. While their descriptions of e.g. the sculptures at Gettysburg are very detailed, others, such as the Brookgreen listsings, are not. Absence of a copyright mention in the Smithsonian catalog cannot be treated as evidence that the sculpture was uncopyrighted. (Unless we get a statement of the Smithsonian to that effect.) Lupo 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that many statues are not documented too well, but even for the Brookgreen ones, they are mentioning copyright in several cases. I do feel if they say it is "unsigned", that is clear evidence of no copyright notice (since that is a required part of a valid notice). For entries which do not seem to be well documented, agree with that. Definitely a hard problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also see here. We'll need to work this out in one place. Lupo 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Yes, The Three Soldiers is copyrighted. Anyway, for sculptures erected 1978 or later, 70 years p.m.a. applies. But you're right, it's a prime example against an "implicit free license". Glenda Goodacre's Vietnam Women's Memorial Statue also is copyrighted, and it appears there was also a lawsuit about images of this one.[2] Lupo 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More on The Three Soldiers: indeed Hart and the VVMF successfully sued someone who was selling t-shirts that had an image of the sculpture printed on them. It looks as if the Wall and the Three Soldiers are not owned by the U.S. government at all but by the private non-profit corporation VVMF.[3] Ditto for the Vietnam Women's Memorial Foundation.[4] Lupo 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Not sure if you noticed this, but I agree; excellent research! Well done. Giggy (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

You've got great knowledge, doing deletion requests, and even Lupo asks for help :) What do you think? --Kanonkas(talk) 12:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you replying back? --Kanonkas(talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just did :-) Didn't edit much the last day or so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that you've had half a year to "keep this in mind" - I really think Commons (and you) would benefit from you having those extra buttons... :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to chime in (I understand this thread is somewhat old, but I didn't wanna create a whole new thread on the same topic) that I believe you should be an admin. I read your response to Kanonkas when he initially asked you over a year ago, and I understand your reasoning. However, every little bit helps. Some days you might feel like working in admin-related areas on Commons, which the tools could help with, and other days you might wish to work in non-admin related areas. I think that you being a sysop would be a complete gain for the project, and I would be willing to nominate you should you be interested in that. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. :-) Killiondude (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's beyond time to raise this question again. It doesn't take much to be an Admin, but every little bit helps and you clearly have the skills.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Your contributions to deletion discussions are irreplaceable, and admin bit would be useful for you at least for viewing deleted pictures on COM:UDEL. Trycatch (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Leyo 08:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floats

Could you take a look at Commons talk:Licensing#Floats, and perhaps comment on the separability issue? Many thanks, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress

I just want to thank you for your answer to my question about the Library of Congress. I think I have all ready the definitive answer of the Wiki administrator that deleted the two files because Commons doesn't accept Fair Use. Thank you very much and good luck.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Arilang1234 asking for help

Hi, I saw your name on Commons talk:Licensing and I thought I drop by and ask you for help. I am new on Commons, somehow I learned how to upload images onto Commons so one things lead to next I have upload quite a few images from Google images. I know there will be copy-right problems, but if I use Photo-shop software to digitally alter them, would I still have copy-right problems? Thank youArilang1234 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is me again. I have used template(PD-Art) on some of the images I have uploaded, and user How do you turn this on mentions the copy right issue is unclear because information on author is missing. Could you help me out in this aspect?Arilang1234 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisisted deletion debate

I have taken a second look at two old deletion debates and proposed a solution. You participated in the earlier discussion, and I thought you would like to comment on my proposal.--HoboJones (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communists from the United States

Hi Clindberg, there are probably some more pics with communists from the US. I have found only one till now (but we are expecting 95000 more - not all are communists :-)): Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-Z0414-148, Berlin, David Silberstein, Franz Loeser.jpg. I'm expecting some pics of Paul Robeson and Dean Reed and of some deserted US soldiers. Are American communists relevant? How you would categorize them? Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just point you to the {{PD-Afghan}} tag for future use, hopefully save you a few headaches. Sherurcij (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old DR needs closing

Would you like to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Movie Trailer Screenshot (34).jpg ? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building interiors

Thanks. Assuming there is a solid consensus, is there any place we can get this codified more clearly, so I don't keep having to fight with an admin over it? - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for decategorizing File:View of the Yosemite Valley 1865 Thomas Hill.jpg

I didn't fully read the description. --BrokenSphere 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Published/not published

Hi Carl, Lupo and I have a little discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Sanders-Debra Paget-Movie Still.jpg. There are some problems, for example Kanonkas, who tried to revert my contributions. So I called for some arguments on Jimbo's talk page. No reaction. This question seems to be hairy stuff. But a decision whether this film still/promo pic/lobby card is in PD or not might concern some more pics? So I beg you for a little statement on this DR. Regards Mutter Erde (more alive as ever) 78.48.221.157 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Carl, I have found a proof, that this film still was normally published - even on the Italian poster as here: http://www.j-verne.de/verne6_f5.html. The problem is: I can't present it on the DR page, because User:MBisanz has locked it and has manipulated my contributions without a note that he was the manipulator. (Here a second manipulation by MBisanz). But I gave Jimbo a note, what kind of admins of shame are around here on commons. If he thinks that this is not his business, then he gets a second, a third note, period and so on. Regards Mutter Erde 78.52.218.178 11:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. On the topic at hand: OK, publishing a derivative work (the painting on that Italian film poster) is also a publication of the underlying base work (the photo), see Harris Custom Builders, Inc. v. Hoffmeyer, 92 F.3d 517 at paragraph 22 (7th Cir. 1996), quoting Nimmer § 4.12[A]. So, what's the effect of the publication of the derivative in Italy (where at least the derivative, if not the photo, is still copyrighted to 70 years p.m.a.) on the status of the U.S. photo in the U.S.?
    2. Mutter Erde, you're technically blocked indefinitely here. (Though you know anyway where to post such that interested parties see your comments :-). Admins are well within their rights if they enforce that block and/or revert your contributions. And bugging Jimbo about it won't change anything. Neither will crusading against admins.
    1. On the topic at hand: I think, that's good news. So we can concentrate now, who had to renew the copyright. RKO or Warner Brothers?
    2. No No no, Lupo, I do not allow that boys with bad manners or simple fakers are manipulating my contributions without a note. Jimbo seems to have no problem with such people currently, but they will be his problem some day. See also little ABF, abused by Jimbo, only to get rid of Mutter Erde. Whom's reputation do you think will be damaged more on the long run with such dirty stories? Jimbo's or mine? No answer needed. I will take care that Jimbo in future will have a sharper look on what's happening on commons. Commons, a file repository for currently 649 projects, is not Jimbo's Kindergarten. Regards Mutter Erde 78.52.218.178 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Visitor Center

I wanted to thank you for this. The new SVG logo looks great, and I appreciate you upgrading an article that I spent a lot of time on. If you feel the need to reply, please do so on my Wikipedia talk page. Thanks again! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LJDickinson.jpg

Thanks for getting to the bottom of whether this photo could be undeleted.Wikijsmak (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dali image

Would you like to comment on the de minimis policy? See Commons talk:De minimis/Public scenes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to relax the rules on fan art

Hi Carl. I have made a proposal to replace the current policy page on fan art with something more legally correct and I hope useful. Of course the whole area is pretty murky from a copyright point of view, and it's not really possible to do much more than waffle and set out some general principles. I'd really appreciate it if you could help improve the wording. It's at Commons:Fan art/Proposal. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A talkback of sorts

I replied to your reply here. Thanks for the help! —Ed 17 (Talk) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all of the help you have provided! :) —Ed 17 (Talk) 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

usembassy.de state seals

As per our conversation at Commons:Deletion requests/U.S. State seals, I reviewed all uses of Template:US state seal and tagged all images from usembassy.de as Template:US state seal from usembassy.de. A note has been placed on Template:US state seal telling people not to use the template. Images where the usembassy was overwritten have not been modified.--Svgalbertian (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

URAA litigation

Greetings. Do you know how I can find out more about litigation against the URAA in the U.S.? I saw you mention it on the admin noticeboard, and I'm keen to know more. Quadell (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See URAA and Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA. Also see Tyler Ochoa's comments. Lupo 06:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: restored copyrights

Re Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Apr#Pre-1923 US-Copyright of foreign works: see [5] and [6]: he now agrees with us. Lupo 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excellent; thanks for following that up. Good to have confirmation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hi, I have a question on what country of origin should we assume for a photo when a foreigner goes on tour. Could you advise at Commons:Village pump#British photographer takes photo in Australia—which is the country of origin?? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country of origin is the country of first publication (per the Berne Convention). Lupo has that DR covered it looks like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD review for LORAN coverage charts

Hi Carl,

I had to submit these two for the reasons I stated at Commons talk:PD files. I am afraid you are the only regular participant in discussions about copyright who follows the principle of common sense and assumes good faith. For whatever reason, Wikimedia Commons is infested by a number of copyright extremists who file a deletion request for any file there is a real or imaginary suspicion. Therefore a PD review, if properly documented, may protect an image in the future, especially if there are no proper source and date notices on it. Regards, Sv1xv (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-out discussion

Hello Clindberg, I am trying to develop a larger consensus around the opt-out issue. Consistent with that, I have started a new section on the talk page and plan to advertise it widely. Your previous comments are linked from that page, but I am mentioning it here in case you want to address the issue directly in the new thread. Apologies, for the duplication of effort, but I think restarting this is more likely to gain participation rather than trying to draw new voices into an thread that had already grown stale. Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on a discussion

Hi, I have mentioned your opinions at Commons talk:Licensing#Foreign government works and URAA. I am seeking clarification on whether the Treaty does restore/extend the copyrights of foreign government works. Could you weigh in and perhaps clarify your views? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy change?

Hi Carl, I have asked Lupo, whether commons policy has changed in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lupo&oldid=22213769#Habt_Ihr_eure_policy_ge.C3.A4ndert.3F . But this question was probably to difficult :-)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(40).jpg

might be interesting for you. Regards Mutter Erde 78.51.199.130 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a thank-you note at here

--Kiam-shim (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I just wanted to thank you for your constant helpfulness on so many aspects of this project. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you both for the note of thanks ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of the shorter term

As a matter of public policy, I think the rule of the shorter term is a bad thing; the copyright holders keep putting pressure on each side to increase their terms so no works from country A are out of copyright in country B just because they're out of copyright in country A. Decoupling the copyright systems helps stop some of the pressure to increase copyright terms. Perhaps this would have been better put on COM:L, but I figured it'd add more noise to a discussion which could little afford it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is an interesting take -- that was partly behind the increase from 75 to 95 years, to increase protections in Europe. So, a short-term solution could be a long-term problem. It also takes a lot of interpretation of foreign law out of it, which is probably why the U.S. has never done it. On the other hand, it was effectively the rule of the shorter term on the URAA date :-) And, there are folks who want copyright to be perpetual, and will keep fighting to make it longer no matter what. The public domain has no lobby who can write campaign donations :-/ Anyways, I've not seen any realistic chance that a change like that would happen (and even if it would, it would *only* apply to URAA restored works, not works created after 1978 -- the U.S. has 70pma terms for those like many other countries.) Maybe for the restored works, they could use the shorter of the old (95 years from publication) or new (70 pma) U.S. copyright styles. But, the law is complicated enough as it is, and that could just make things worse, and I don't think anyone wants to deal with it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Standard Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg

Do you know what colors are supposed to be used on the shield? I think the blue we have on there is a tad too light. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 10860 says "light blue". That was actually a 1945 change from the previous presidential flag. So it's pretty close, I think, but could be a bit darker. File:US-President-Seal.svg is another version, with more faithful outlines I think (but weird stroke widths in that version), and that does have a somewhat darker blue. Though, the colors on this in general seem less vibrant than that one. There is a pretty wide latitude allowed I think. Here is a photo of an actual flag, and it doesn't seem too far off actually. But darker could also be OK. I hadn't actually looked at that aspect much... just kept the same as the original seal version (which is from U.S. Government PDFs). The misspelling of "United" irks me more than anything else ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the flag image looks fine now with thanks to your links. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and darkened it a bit (and also changed the talons to better match the spec). And the file has finally been renamed ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Look

Hi, I noticed the discussion was archived. I made some changes in the text of the template. I hope you agree. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:US-BorderPatrol-Logo.svg

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. fixed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question (Australian Historical Mission)

Thanks for the advice you gave at the Village Pump here. It seems that the David Barker you found is the same at the one who drew the picture I wanted to upload (though I am still not 100% that they are the same, it does appear probable). What I wanted to ask is what happens when you can't find out the year of death of the photographer? The picture I want to upload is this one. It says "One of a series of photographs taken on the Gallipoli Peninsula under the direction of Captain C E W Bean of the Australian Historical Mission, during the months of February and March, 1919." Does that count as a work-for-hire? Was it for the Australian Government? It dates from 1919 and also says "Donated by J Knight". I'm planning to write an article about the Australian Historical Mission (AHM). More information on that can be found here. Another question concerns the photographs taken by the official photographer, Hubert Wilkins. Article on him is here. Any idea what rules apply for his official war photos and his later photos for the AHM? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Sure seems like that would qualify for Commonwealth Copyright... Per §177, the Commonwealth or a State is the owner of the copyright in an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work first published in Australia if first published by, or under the direction or control of, the Commonwealth or the State, as the case may be. The description of the mission says Australian governments have commissioned four separate series of official war histories over this period, including the WWI one under discussion. On the other hand the War Memorial explicitly claims copyright in the WWI histories, even though those were published more than 50 years ago and would seem to be PD in Australia now. Maybe they are only claiming copyright to the 1980 editions, which seem to be the ones published on their site -- if there were changes made to the text, that would be reasonable. As for that photograph, it lists as a "Maker" the Australian War Records Section, which was a military unit. Per §180(2), Commonwealth Copyright in photographs made prior to 1969 lasts 50 years from when the photograph was made (§180(c), which changes it to 50 years from publication for photographs, is only for photographs made in 1969 or later per §233). So yes, given that the photo was made in 1919 I think {{PD-Australia}} applies to that photograph as a government work. It is marked as PD on their site as well, and that seems to be the most likely way they would determine that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't want to consider Turkish or Ottoman copyright law, if that existed? :-) I'm only half-joking there! But many thanks, once again. I'll wait a bit and when the article is ready I'll check back and then go ahead with uploading the picture. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Just to respond to the half-serious part of the above: country of origin, per the Berne Convention, is the country where a work was first published regardless of where it was taken or what the nationality of the author is (provided, of course, that that country is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which the Ottoman Empire was not). Someone actually has looked up Ottoman Empire stuff; see Commons:Licensing#Ottoman Empire.

Edits

I undid several of your edits because they didn't make sense. Removing the Standards of the US Vice-president and the Governors of the States from the Category Presidential Standards, idk why you did it, but they belong there. Two your your created categories I have makred for deletion because they are superfluous, there is no need for them. I don't see the point in there being a Category called personal flags of the United States, if it only has on flag in it. That flag better belongs in the Category Military Flags of the United states, where all of other Standards of Military Officials are. Your edits in Norway were also pointless, why have Personal Flags of Norway, when that's not what they are. The Rank flags are generic flags used for many men within the Norweigan Forces. The True personal flags are the Royal Standards, and the flags of the Inspectors General of the Forces. They have their own Categories. Fry1989 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry by the way, I didn't mean to sound harsh with using Speedy, but I like to be prompt Fry1989 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of what you're saying. Surely we can come to a concensus. How about we take the Standards of the Vice President and the State Governors out of the Presidential Standards category, but leave them as subcategories inside Standard of the President of the United States. I'll put the Standards for Prime Ministers and Defence Ministers in the Personal Flags Category alongside Heads of State Standards. After that is done, we can add over time other personal flags, such as those of the US military, Norwegian Inspectors General, and other such flags. How does that sound? Fry1989 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done some of it as you can see here:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Personal_flags and I can work on the personal flags of the US Military shortly if you like what I have done so far. I guess I misunderstood your original intentions, and I apologize for that. I hope we can work together on this in the future :) Fry1989 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your ideas, though I am a bit worried about over-categorization, and making it too complicated. Perhaps for the United States, since they have the most and it would make a good example for others, is to have the category Personal Flags of the United States, then have within it the subcategories for the Air Force, Navy, and Army, as well as the President, VP and Governors Fry1989 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean about the difference in language between US English and the rest of the world regarding the word "Standard", but in proper vexillogical language, they are standards, and I think we should use that term, for lack of a better one. I would have to debate with you regarding the Naval Jack of Norway, it's not a personal flag or standard, but an additional flag for military vessels, so I don't feel it would also belong in the category Standards of the Norwegian Military. I agree we should set a good rythem for the US ones before we move on to any other countries though. Fry1989 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty good actually. I have to go to bed pretty soon as I got things to do tomorrow morning, but tomorrow afternoon I have plenty of time and can get right to sorting the personal flags of the US. I'll do subcategories for the different forces, and that sort, should turn out all right. I'll forego the use of the term "standard" for now and use "personal flags", as it seems the most neutral. Thanks mate :D Fry1989 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound recordings

Hi! Regarding our discussion at the Village Pump in January, I've made a proposal here to add a section for US sound recordings to the licensing policy. Any input on the proposal would be welcome. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youuuuuuu! You explained what I wasn't able to. Thanks a lot for clarifying :) --Sailko (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Clindberg. You have new messages at Commons talk:Licensing#US sound recordings.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Request for you to weigh in on one

Since I know you tend to be pretty knowledgable on rights issues, and since I may be biased because the photo in question is mine, can I ask you to please weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seattle - University Heights School 03.jpg? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limited publication again

Hi Carl. The "limited publication" thing has re-surfaced. We once went into this at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal, now it comes up again at File talk:Mae West LAT.jpg. I'd very much appreciate your opinion there on the issue of "publicity stills" (which are not single frames from a movie or trailer, but separately shot photos).

Open points for me currently:

  • Do we have more court cases on that issue?
  • What were the © notice requirements for photos included in newspapers under the 1909 Copyright Act? Did they need a separate notice, or was a global notice for the whole newspaper as a collective work sufficient, as it is since the 1976 Copyright Act?
  • Can we just presume that photos coming from some newspaper archive that don't bear a visible © notice on the front did not have such a notice when they were given to the newspaper by the film studio? Truly checking for a notice would imply physical access to the newspaper's archive, I guess, since such a notice might also have been on the back, or the version published might have been a crop of a larger image (possibly the case with File:Mae West LAT.jpg; I was able to find a larger, more complete version).
  • If we have a crop like that file and decide it was OK to use, can we extend the reasoning to the larger version from which the crop was made?

Lupo 11:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to insert comments in that talk page, so I'll reply here :-) Publicity shots would not be covered by a film's copyright; they would have needed their own. Simply distributing those photos to newspapers (regardless of whether they were actually used in the newspapers) would I think constitute general publication; I can't fathom any way that could be claimed limited publication. Only if photos were made and never distributed (certainly possible). The actual copies sent to newspapers would have needed notices I would think -- and if actually put in the newspaper with permission, that should most definitely be general publication.
  • I don't know of any specific court cases on these, unfortunately. s:Gaiman v. McFarlane has a couple of paragraphs which discuss the newspaper's overall copyright, and cite some older court cases which may be relevant, not sure. Basically says that a user should assume a collective copyright covers elements, even if authored by someone else.
  • I don't think the 1976 Copyright Act changed much in this area (collective copyrights) -- I think it was pretty much the same under the 1909 Act. (Though the description of this case may indicate otherwise.) The copyright notice on the newspaper should be assumed to cover everything without a separate notice in the paper itself, other than specifically advertisements (which needed their own notice or were immediately PD). A question came up on letters-to-the-editor type things, and this was pointed out. Without evidence that the original photo print itself was missing a copyright notice, I'm not sure a lack of notice in a newspaper is solely enough to go by. But... there are complications. Circular 3 covers most of this I think; it does say: If the owner of the collective work is not the same as the owner of an individual contribution that does not bear its own notice, the contribution is considered to bear an erroneous notice. I don't think an "erroneous" notice eliminated copyright the way a "defective" notice did; someone just having a copy of the newspaper should probably assume items are copyrighted. On the other hand, that situation is probably very dicy once it comes to renewal -- I'm not sure someone could claim that a renewal of the collective copyright (which has an explicit copyright owner named) can cover items authored by someone else. And if there was no renewal of the collective copyright, I'm not sure at all where that leaves individual works without their own notice. And as noted, lots and lots of newspapers never renewed their copyrights, particularly outside New York. I'm pretty sure the actual copyright owner would have at least had to properly register the separate work on their own at some point -- if that never happened, I would think copyright would lapse 28 years after publication. I believe artwork renewals are now online (not sure how easily searchable they are though), so perhaps soon we can actually start investigating visual arts renewals rather than just assuming copyrighted.
  • Not sure we can, but from reading some internet links (say here), apparently most of them did not have such a notice. Some did though. But maybe for old (i.e. pre-1964) ones, we can look for renewals -- if nothing is found, they are probably fine.
  • A crop would follow the copyright of the original I would think. Either both are copyrighted or neither are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that such publicity photos are separate works and do not fall under the copyright of the film. I think that was clear to anybody. Anyway, thanks for your answers, which seem to coincide with my thinking. And thanks for this link, looks very useful. Lupo 07:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaiman vs. McFarlane references Abend vs. MCA, where indeed a copyright notice for the whole collection was deemed sufficient for a single contribution to be considered properly copyrighted. Some follow-up thoughts on File talk:Mae West LAT.jpg. Lupo 08:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg

Commons:Deletion requests/Star wars logos

You have usefully participated in the old discussion, could you participate in the new one? Honestly I'm quite afraid that the text only logo (ultra heavily in use) will be deleted without analysis by some admin, who can be impressed by all these delete votes. Trycatch (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis use of book covers

Carl, I am writing an article on the 6800 microprocessor (1975) and want to show the amount of documentation Motorola provided. Their manuals are copyrighted so I couldn't just stack them up and take a picture showing a front cover. I found a Motorola 6800 document that was public domain so I placed it on top. The edge of the two thick manuals has the title text on the edge. Is File:Mototola M6800 Manuals.jpg OK? It shows less "copyrighted" material than File:Bookcase.jpg. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it contains *any* copyrightable material at all (if that front sheet is indeed PD; that little graphic background bit at the top would normally be copyrightable I'd think). But basic titles on solid colors wouldn't pass the threshold of originality. If that was all the front cover was, that is fine too. The copyrighted part of the manual would be the text inside, but that's not shown obviously, and that has no relation on the copyrightability of the cover itself (which is a separate graphic work). Carl Lindberg (talk)
Thanks, I didn't think there was a problem. My first interaction with the Commons (July 2007) was when one of my images that was transferred to the Commons got a speedy delete. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tips on mechanics and kosherness of snagging photos of old book plates

I don't understand [7] at all; it made more sense to me the first way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yep, fixed. Thanks. Somehow when I re-read my comment it registered the other way in my mind. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

User_talk:Martin_H.#.27stupid_wikilawerying.27...have a look.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FBI SVG seal

nice work, very nice work. Decora (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't my work at all. Just converted from a government PDF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy off rights transation to US?

If it's off CR in Italy, will that make it off rights in US, or do we use our 1923 standard? Also, what if it were published in London. (God, I hope not in the U.S.) TCO (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would be two ways for it to be copyrighted in the U.S. First, if it was published with a copyright notice, and was renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office (i.e. followed all U.S. copyright formalities). In that case, it would still be under copyright regardless of anything else. Obviously, most foreign works did not do this, so most became public domain in the U.S. A few did however so it would be good to see if there was a notice on the copies you got (and if there was, many of the renewals are now online, so we could look. The second way is for copyright to have been restored by the URAA. For something first published 1923 or later in the UK and nowhere else, it would have had its full 95-year U.S. copyright restored, yes. If the song was first published in Italy, then their copyright terms would seem to have made this public domain well before 1996, so the URAA would not have applied to it. If it was simultaneously published (within 30 days of each other) in both the UK and Italy, it gets slightly more interesting, but the URAA in that case specifies the country with the "greatest contacts" to the work (which should definitely be Italy), and as for the country of origin the Berne Convention specifies the country with the shorter copyright term in that case, which would also be Italy. And, if the song was considered published before 1923, the URAA is completely irrelevant anyways. For uploading the actual 1932 sheet music, I would use the 1932 date, but if it looks to have been simultaneously published in Italy then even that publication should be OK in the U.S., by my reckoning. If something was simultaneously published in the U.S. as well, the URAA cannot apply, and we need to look for notice and renewals only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.TCO (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the related discussion on the village pump and wanted to ask you: How did you know that Italy used 50 pma as of the URAA date? Is that information hiding around here somewhere that's easy to reference? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly by looking at laws you can find online :-) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ has a huge collection of them... not always everything you need, but it has a lot, including many of the pre-1996 laws. w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights (referenced in that discussion) pulls together a lot of it, but it's not complete -- many countries only have current licensing terms. But the Italy and France stuff is there, along with a bunch of others. A lot of the wipo.int links are now dead, though easily fixable -- if they are to a "text_html.jsp" page, it just needs to be changed to "details.jsp" with the rest of the URL the same. I'll get around to fixing them at some point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I knew it should've been online somewhere, it's finding it in the first place and then remembering it for later that's trick. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Toros de Osborne

Reopening Commons:Deletion requests/Toros de Osborne. Salud. --Javier ME (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your excellent contribution of State SVG seals, and for trying to help explain copyright to other users. Svgalbertian (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

free speech flag

thank you for your work on Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg Decora (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of North Dakota

You wrongly consented to that file's deletion. While I got it from Vector Images, i altered the file greatly (and I can prove it!), and therefore I hold the rights. The file is now being requested for undeletion here. I don't appreciate this at all, and I will re-upload the file if I have to. I hold the rights and released it as PD. Fry1989 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the undeletion request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of Texas?

You wouldn't happen to have a PD-USGov version of the Seal of Texas would you? The current version just got deleted due to being a copyvio from vector-images.com. Thanks.--Svgalbertian (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found one -- one of the three missing states. Ugh. Category:State seals of Texas has several derivative works of that deleted one. The original upload of File:Texasstateseal.jpg is OK but not the overwrites. It should be possible to make one though -- that is not a complex seal; we mainly need oak and olive branches. I could also upload a graphic from a 1909 book, which at least would be a PD version, even if bitmap. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the Texas PDF from the USGov source (archived here) does at least have a color bitmap. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded that one at File:Texas-StateSeal.png. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1909 one is now at File:Texas-StateSeal-1909Book.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a quick and dirty version of the seal based on the 1909 drawing. See: File:Seal of Texas.svg. Thanks for your help!--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. In reading more this morning, apparently in the 1950s the usual artwork was corrected to use live oak leaves, not post oak like the 1909 image sort of uses. There is also now "official" artwork dating from 1992 or so. I'm not sure what that means for copyright status of that "official" version. There is a USGov version of a Texas National Guard symbol here which does resemble the official version pretty closely (still a bitmap though). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make a version that I know would be safe. Trying to replicate the 1992 version might cause issues as the official version most likely carries copyright.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. We may want a version with leaves closer to the current design, at least. But the graphic you made looks rather good, and should at the very least be kept as a historical version (as I think that was basically the actual seal in use for a long time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, look here. I think that may well be {{PD-EdictGov}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, although somewhat dubious, I wouldn't contest it (though I am sure others will).--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal template

Can you help me make, or just create, a new template {{PD-NepalGov}} based on this discussion and the links I provided there? I looked at some other similar templates but could not figure out how to make it and saw that you had created some I viewed. The base period is 50 years. I have already added a redlink to Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates which is where we need it, though it will be good to to add Nepal to COM:L with full details too. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That seems like a 50 pma country... I do not see separate terms for government works in the law, so I'm not sure there should be a separate tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been archived but the copyright law is on WIPO here and you are correct that it is a 50 year pma country though there is an exception for "work relating to applied art and photographic work" in Chapter 3, Section 14 #5. So what template should we be using? Thanks

Ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like they use the Berne minimum protection for photographs. I'm not sure we have a template for that situation, so a new one can make sense -- my point was it should probably just be named PD-Nepal, not PD-NepalGov, as the terms apply to all works there, not just governmental. One thorny little twist is that Nepal uses the Vikram Samvat calendar -- so "year created" etc. goes by those, and copyrights expire at the beginning of those years (mid-April in the Gregorian calendar, though the actual date can shift around by a couple days from year to year). That will make the template more of a challenge. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, can you help make this template as I am completely lost when I look at the file structure of such templates? Perhaps using end-of-April, or latest ever day, would get past any objections and who is really going to object for a few days when there are much worse things going on re serious copyvios. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

I'd appreciate it if you took a look at this -- I'm inclined to "delete" -- but it hasn't had a lot of solid thinking. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One where you may want to weigh in

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Judgment Bus New Orleans 2011.jpg. I suspect you will have thoughts on this, and that they will be sounder than mine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD-ineligible ?

Hi, if you've got time, could you comment on this, thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that checking, and your comments. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run for Admin

I've raised this before, as have four of our colleagues. Given your knowledge, experience, and ability to stay cool, I think you'd make a perfect Admin.

It need not take much time -- five or ten actions every six months would take five or ten minutes. How many times have you wished you could see an image that was under discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests -- you almost certainly did at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Photographs_of_R._E._by_Dontworry?

I'd be happy to nominate you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Кашинская_писцовая_книга_л.61.jpg

I'd be interested in your thoughts here. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License?

We don't always agree, but I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. Am I off base here? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Hi, because of your very helpful and knowledgeable comments over at [8] I've decided to be a bit bold here and ask for a bit of help. Basically I want to upload the first image (maybe the subsequent ones too) from this website [9] under the ({PD-Poland}) license ([10]). It appears to satisfy all three criteria; it is a photograph, the author was Leonard Jabrzemski (this took some searching, particularly since there was another Polish wartime photographer named Jabrzemski), a Pole, and the photo was published in Poland before 1994 (in a 1970 Album - there might have been prior publication in Poland). However, going through the uploading procedures I don't know how to properly indicate the PD-Poland license since that is not one of the options. Do I just add the template after the image has been uploaded, and if so, which option do I choose?

Thanks ahead of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pennsylvania-StateSeal.svg

User:Fry1989 seems to be obsessed with a "clean" display of categories, and sometimes resorts to dubious measures to obtain this. No matter how many times he is told that categories are comprehensive while galleries are selective, it never changes his behavior... AnonMoos (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried; we'll see how it goes. He seemed receptive to today's message. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

URI or URL

Hi Carl, I remember from the long & hot disputed DR over Wolfgang Pehlemanns credit requirements and now from this comment, that you are convinced that use of CC-BY-SA-licensed images/works requires only to provide the URI (instead of the URL) to/of the license. However, this opinion has been contested here (in German) by Gnu1742, quite convincingly in my opinion. As I value your expertise in licensing matters as well as Gnu1742's, I would welcome if you could talk to each other some day over this issue. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CC license explicitly says URI. But yes, if you define URI as being either a URN or URL, and there is no defined namespace for a license URN (given that those do have an explicit syntax), it may effectively mean a URL. You may be able to argue something like "license:cc-by-sa-3.0" could qualify, as being an invented URI scheme, not sure -- there is no explicit requirement that the URI be a commonly-used scheme. Obviously a URL should be used if possible, but I'm not sure the technical definition (as updated by the various RFCs) is necessarily the same as the legal definition -- I'd find it hard to believe another form would violate the license depending on the medium of use. Even a Creative Commons page gives an example of "Some Other Song” by fourstones, available under a Creative Commons Attribution license as a valid way to credit a song as part of a video, and the FAQ for proper attribution just says Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting

By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further question on FoP

You might remember our discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Can some explain "no FOP?". In that discussion we agreed that it was the policy of Commons that an image had to be free both in the country of origin and in the United States, but only the latter applied on the English Wikipedia, so images from countries without FoP such as the UAE were okay to be uploaded there as they would be free in the United States. You reached this conclusion by arguing that the US would apply its own FoP standards even for architecture/artistic works from other countries, which makes sense. However, I am completing a presentation on FoP for Wikimania 2011 and there is one issue with this I have noticed with this - only buildings are covered by FoP in the United States. So if this argument is correct, how can images of sculptures from countries with a near comprehensive FoP such as Germany be free in the United States? Even if they are free in the country of origin (e.g. Germany), they still need to be free in the US too for Commons? Could you clarify this for me please? CT Cooper · talk 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are so determined to disregard everything I say as well as disregard the very point of my main argument. Fine. Do as you please. Delete all existing logos ranging from the UN logo to NATO and prevent upload of international organizations whom would have no way to pursue copyright in any way. You are doing commons a great service. Commons as always finds new lows to disappoint me. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be international organizations cannot own copyright because they are not conceptually located in any particular country -- I tried to show you (not ignoring you) that that logic does not hold up; most countries explicitly grant copyright to those organizations (even in the absence of the Berne Convention) and anyways, protection for Berne countries is based on country of publication -- and those organizations typically do make the actual publications in a particular country. Additionally, Berne by default grants copyright automatically; any special loophole for international organizations would have to be explicit if it exists, as otherwise they are a legal entity just as any other corporation. If I am misunderstanding that argument, please explain it again. There are indeed many ways though that such logos can be kept, and I was arguing why the UN flag/logo should be kept, but instead using my understanding of what copyright law should apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International organizations unless explicitly stated cannot own copyright. That is why United Nations is in the copyright law as being an exception. Otherwise the mere mention wouldn't be necessary in US Copyright Law. UN is given this privilege to allow it to publish works like post cards or other publications to collect donations for sub-UN bodies like UNESCO by selling such items for profit. The copyright might extend to the UN logo - though I doubt it. International organizations typically are exempt from copyright primarily not to give any single country advantage of another. This is a direct result of extraterritoriality.
Also the copyright of countries do not necessarily match so if we take NATO for example, just the individual main headquarters and agencies are distributed to 5+ countries. Functioning would be difficult if people had copyright issues all the time. Majority of the people working for NATO for instance aren't contract blinded employees but instead citizens of member states who work on a specific office for a limited duration of time tasked by their respective governments. Multiple people of multiple countries work on practically all documents. The work itself often is never "published" outside of the extraterritorial headquarters. Also copyright would prevent member nations from copying the material such as official recordings/transcripts of sessions, logos, flags.
In the case of UN, they have a very special status and really complicates the discussion on "copyright of logos and flags of international organizations in general" unnecessarily. Even so, they specifically requested exception from the US copyright law to allow stuff like works by US federal government employees to remain copyrighted. Likewise they have a less restrictive equivalent for US fair-use (educational use). Their special status may even exempt them from other clauses of fair-use. Since fair-use isn't welcome on commons that is a moot point.
Publication of works (like books postcard and etc) are often neither made for or by international organizations itself. They are instead outsourced outside of the headquarters buildings themselves by registered companies (with some extraterritorial privileges if at all) on behalf of the International Organizations. This is done to circumvent the "loophole" I mentioned. How copyright applies in such cases is beyond what I want to do here on commons so it is also a moot point as far as I care. I am not seeking to find a way to bring official publications to commons through a loophole.
So for logos and flags for organizations like Interpol, African Union, World Trade Organization you'd find that they will be unable to pursue a "copyright" to limit or prevent the use of these logos as a side effect of extraterritoriality which is necessary to allow member states to use such logos and flags.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen it stated that international organizations cannot own copyright. Can you provide some references on that? The UN is probably special as that is closer to a "world government" type of thing, rather than a normal organization. In general, international organizations are treated like legal entities I would think (they are entitled to bring lawsuits, etc., I'm pretty sure), and it would stand to reason they can own copyright just like any other legal entity, particularly under Berne. These organizations certainly all claim copyright. The mention of the UN and OAS is because those are explicit treaty requirements of the respective charters when the U.S. joined them -- I don't think that implies anything for other organizations. On the other hand, I think that does make those organizations subject to the normal notice and renewal laws, and I doubt the URAA helped them, though it might have if a publication can be shown to have been first published elsewhere, though those are probably rare. Also, the U.S. gives protection to *all* unpublished works, regardless of the nationality of the author. So, works are either protected because they are unpublished, or they are published in some country and gets protection based on that. And while the UN HQ has some measure of extraterritoriality, it is still in general subject to U.S. law (any crimes committed on the grounds will go through U.S. courts using U.S. law). I also doubt that many other organizations' HQs have similar status. The US Government employee thing is interesting -- I don't recall a special exemption in US law for that, like there is for the Post Office, but in general I would think at least for the UN works would be deemed works for hire given the explicit bit in U.S. law. That may have implications for USGov employees working for NATO, I guess. But in general, the U.S. will give corporate entities a 95-years-from-publication-or-120-years-from-creation-whichever-is-shorter term, and other countries without an explicit term would give it the anonymous works term (unless an author is identified). But my guess, particularly after Berne, is that international organizations are treated like any other foreign organization, and able to hold copyright. There are good arguments for PD status on the UN logo within the above limits, and NATO too. But many international organizations are closer to private entities in nature, and it feels (to me) as though we need to treat their logos under normal copyright rules -- I really can't see grounds otherwise, unfortunately. It may be difficult to determine a "country of origin" for Commons policy, agreed, but failing that we should probably just follow U.S. law on the matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what extraterritoriality entails? Yes UN has an EXCEPTION because it explicitly agreed (and perhaps requested since adding it to the law required congress to pass it probably) for it. That is by no means the standard. International organizations cannot function without extraterritoriality. Even so, even if someone is murdered in UN HQ it would require permission for US police to even try to investigate it. You are confusing international organizations is with NGOs.
I have not heard an international organization filing a lawsuit (except UN maybe because of their special agreement). I do not believe such a thing is possible at all unless explicit copyright agreements were reached with a Berne signatory (yes like what UN has with US I know...). Can you cite a single example? I cannot cite something that cannot be done. At best I would find a news article of such an attempt getting rejected but I doubt any international organization tried such a thing because they too know the problems of attempting such a thing.
The legal argument is getting us nowhere. You will never agree to my point unless I cite you a legal document or law explicitly giving exemption to copyright - I cannot provide that since my argument is that such a thing isn't even needed. And I will not agree with your standpoint where you are essentially downgrading international organizations to NGOs.
Why are we able to host flags and coat of arms of countries on Commons? Do we have evidence that these are freely licensed? How is this any different from International Organizations.
Also on an unrelated note, why do you not have a userpage?
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I just don't think that this type of extraterritoriality, to the extent it exists, has any real effect on copyrightability. In the UN case, that is more for the physical headquarters anyways. You'd think that fact (automatic ineligibility for copyright for international organizations) would be mentioned somewhere. Part of the original UN treaty was to make sure they were allowed copyright (remember they predated the UCC, and the US was not a member of Berne then, so it was probably necessary). So yes, every UN country has to allow them copyright. From what I have seen, every single one of these international organizations claim copyright, and I fail to see how U.S. law exempts them -- really, under Berne, everything is copyrighted unless there is an explicit exception from what I see. The EU has specific copyright claims (including the design of the euro), as does NATO, etc., etc. Organizations like the Olympics, Doctors Without Frontiers, etc. are NGOs really as well. While many of these organizations are typically exempt from criminal law (mentioned e.g. in this article) I don't think they are exempt from civil law, which is usually where copyright lies anyways. I guess this isn't going anywhere, if you believe their status means they can't copyright anything (wouldn't that also mean that nobody could sue them, because there would be no country to sue them in?). I most certainly do not, and have never seen any indication for that to be true. All of these organizations clearly own U.S. trademarks on a great many logos (e.g. here); I can't fathom how they would be allowed to own a trademark but not a copyright. Several of them do have per-country organizations (such as the USOC or the American Red Cross) which makes that kind of thing easier, but those administer material really owned by the international organizations as far as I can tell. There is nothing in the wording of U.S. copyright law which would indicate to me that these organizations cannot claim copyright -- merely simultaneously publishing a work in at least one Berne or UCC country would do it, so far as I can tell. 17 U.S.C. 104 doesn't leave much room for other interpretations, to me.
As far as countries go, the U.S. does not recognize copyright in the content of law or other legal edicts (be it in the U.S. or elsewhere) -- that has been the subject of several court cases, and does not apply to most works of governments. That may apply in some cases for EU directives, or WTO decisions, or that kind of thing where there is a real legal effect, but definitely not all works, and it is a very specific exemption to copyright law. Flags and coats of arms are typically defined in such laws however. The UN does disclaim copyright in certain types of its documents, and arguments can definitely be made that they lost copyright control over the symbol a long time ago. Also, read Commons:Coats of Arms -- there is generally not a copyright in the idea of the design, only in the actual artistic representation, so individual artists (whether they are employed by a government or not) can hold copyright over specific representations. The same often goes for flags; the general design is not a subject for copyright when it comes to arms and flags. For example, the contributors to Flags of the World should own the copyright on the bitmap images they submit, unless they are too simple for copyright to exist. We therefore do not allow people to just take images of arms or flags off of external websites -- the ones we have are generally actually drawn by wikipedia contributors, or are from other open source art collections. Sometimes similar logic can apply for international organizations, absolutely. It gets dicier in the case of logos, without any written description or specification. There are also cases like the WTO logo, which was made by a Singaporean and the copyright was later transferred to the organization... it can get difficult. But I try to limit arguments to well-known concepts of copyright law... your claim of extraterritoriality essentially defeating copyright claims simply does not ring true to me at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we should agree to disagree on the entire debate. I will say something and you will find it insufficient and likewise it is the same for me.
So why is it that African Union logo/flag isn't allowed on commons then?
Also please carry the conversation to both talk pages.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I know nothing of the subject (good way to start any contribution ;-), and I don't really understand the ways in which organisations or other 'legal people' (who are not actual people) own copyright, other than it being transfered from the people who actually (creatively) create it. But my point is (I got here eventually), if a body (super-national or not) was deemed to not be able to hold copyright, then that just means that the creator(s) of the item still does? No? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons presentation

Since your advice was very helpful for producing it, I thought I should let you know I have uploaded my presentation at File:Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons.pdf after presenting it at Wikimania 2011 a week ago. The presentation itself was video recorded, but that is not yet available. CT Cooper · talk 21:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License change

You might add your expertise/opinion here. --Túrelio (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov

Carl:

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guidance Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
... for your help others to locate valuable resources, information such as [11]. --Snek01 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query on Wikiwatcher1's Stanley Kubrick photoes

For non-free images on Wikipedia, the deadline for resolving deletion disputes is 7 days. When (more or less) will we resolve the Stanley Kubrick photos that User:Wikiwatcher1 uploaded here to commons. As one of the chief custodians (on a de facto basis) of the Kubrick article, I would like to know.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also, can you give a succinct summary of the copyright status of a book that has a collection of photos of which some lack individual copyright status? Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests should usually go for at least seven days, but there is no deadline. Once admins think there is no new information coming, they will make their best judgement. That often happens after seven days but if there is continued debate, or a decision is hard, it could stay open for a long while.
As for the general question, being in a book changes nothing about their copyright status (unless the book itself has no copyright notice). It's not evidence for anything by itself, though of course the book could contain provenance information which can help. To be public domain, a work needed to have been published without a copyright notice -- we'd need at least a solid indication that both publishing happened, and that no copyright notice was present when it did. Publishing in a book guarantees the first one, but also means the latter part is hardly ever the case (and even more than that, the book would normally get registered with the Copyright Office, which triggers a couple more things, including much higher penalties for infringement and also meaning it's a lot more likely to survive a PD-US-no_notice claim -- the 1976 Act allowed a registration to counteract a publication without notice in some circumstances).
For File:Kubrick-Shining-Nicholson.jpg, I personally think there should be no hope, as while it was published in a book, there is no evidence of publication without copyright notice, and being a 1980 photo it would not need to be renewed (and also got the more lenient rules of the 1976 Copyright Act -- it was harder to prove PD status after that). There is no indication whatsoever it was published separately from what I see. It seems like a photo the studio had on hand, and made available to the book author, and that would be that -- it's copyrighted until 2076 or so. Back in the 40s and 50s, it was apparently common for movie studios to distribute head shots of actors and actresses by themselves, which would be publication and if there was no notice on them, copyright was lost, so some of the other photos seem like they have a better chance of staying. But that does not mean that every photo owned by a movie studio can use the same logic for public domain status. File:Kubrick-Lyndon.jpg looks to be in a similar situation. File:Kubrick-Fear-LoBrutto.jpg... not as sure, but no evidence for separate distribution outside the book has been offered up. If the only evidence is being in a book with no copyright notice, that is not evidence at all unfortunately. If some of those photos have no other source information, that may mean you could contact the book authors and try to get permission that way... but failing something like that, it looks to me as though most of the images in the Kubrick article are in jeopardy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is very useful. Thank you.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind chiming in, since although the logic and conclusions by CL are reasonable, some of the premises they're based on are less so. But this subject has now been discussed in a number of places in the Commons during the past few weeks, so I'm not sure where to comment. Should this topic be discussed in a more open forum, rather than the more private user talk? There are clearly some facts not mentioned that imply opposite conclusions than the ones CL arrives at.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to get a succinct summary of the discussion so far based on what was mentioned in other places, so best to take new points elsewhere, IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr

Hello. Want to thank you for your message pointing out the 'no-commercial' requirement on some of the Flickr photos that I uploaded. This was a genuine error on my part because of my ignorance of the intricacies of the cc licences. I have gone thru my recent uploads and flagged the offending ones for copyvio. I just don't have the time to chase up the copyright holders for permissions for these particular images. Thanks again for your vigilance. Kahuroa 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for taking the effort to deal with it... easy mistake to make. Shame about the photos though. I now wish I'd taken more pictures while I was there... could have sworn I took at least a couple of other Maori-related pictures but I can't find them. Carl Lindberg 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Never mind - the photos can be replaced. I must remember to take my camera with me more often. Kahuroa 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr

Hello. Want to thank you for your message pointing out the 'no-commercial' requirement on some of the Flickr photos that I uploaded. This was a genuine error on my part because of my ignorance of the intricacies of the cc licences. I have gone thru my recent uploads and flagged the offending ones for copyvio. I just don't have the time to chase up the copyright holders for permissions for these particular images. Thanks again for your vigilance. Kahuroa 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for taking the effort to deal with it... easy mistake to make. Shame about the photos though. I now wish I'd taken more pictures while I was there... could have sworn I took at least a couple of other Maori-related pictures but I can't find them. Carl Lindberg 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Never mind - the photos can be replaced. I must remember to take my camera with me more often. Kahuroa 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clindberg/archives_1&oldid=298730910"