Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/02

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

Banknotes from eBay

I have had this idea to start importing PD-scans from eBay for a while now, as banknotes are 2D objects and scans don't create "copyrightable angles" I wanted to start importing them, only I am not sure if eBay has any special copyright provisions that makes it different from other websites as I saw that importing from eBay was discouraged on this same forum not too long ago. My motivation for this is that many extremely rare banknotes in the public domain can be found on eBay and that the scans are often of high quality. So would it be acceptable to import these? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most bank notes that we can permit on commons, are already there... Category:Banknotes_by_country. It's a popular subject, and there have been many deletions debates about various forms of currencies almost since the day that Commons started.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the discussion you are referring to? I see no reason why you could not do this. If you find a scan that has a higher quality than the one here or a banknote that is not on Commons yet, I would say upload it. A few things to watch out for:
  1. Counterfeit notes. Not because they are illegal, but because they are typically out of project scope. (could be useful for an article on counterfeit money though)
  2. Watermarks. They should be removed. Bring them to the photography workshop.
  3. Make sure the banknote is PD both in the US and the country of origin.
  4. If it's not just a scan but a photograph of some bills laid out on a table or something, bring them to the photography workshop. - Alexis Jazz 03:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/09#Ebay_as_a_source_of_publication_information ? "importing from eBay was discouraged on this same forum not too long ago" - i would not pay the slightest attention to what some people discourage here. they have an ideology without a standard of practice. if you have a practice of searching ebay and uploading PD items, go for it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I am familiar with when a banknote is PD or within scope, thank you Slowking4. 😁
@TheDJ I think that Recepis of the Netherlands (added in January 2018) would disagree with you, and as Wikimedia Commons is an ever growing project I highly doubt that we're “complete” in that area as of 2018. For years the Wikipedia articles on cash coins were merely stubs and many article subjects were missing until I “completed” it in early July 2017, a few years from now another person can come by and think that every Vietnamese Dynasty should have it's own article in English, Gronings, and/or Dutch like w:vi:Tiền tệ Việt Nam thời Bắc thuộc, w:vi:Tiền tệ Đàng Trong thời Lê trung hưng, and w:vi:Tiền tệ Việt Nam thời Nguyễn. Image categories on Wikimedia Commons are no different, someone can look at their work today and think “we're done now”, but until very recently there weren’t any categories for banknotes from the Republic of Venice. For this reason I wish 🌠 to know if eBay is on the table as sometimes some scans historical banknotes are only on eBay. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Openstreetmaps

I uploaded an image, the background of which has a screen grab of the USGS topoview web page (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview). The problem is, the basemap is copyrighted by open-source map sites, including openstreetmaps and I'm having second thoughts about it. Is this ok?

Mt. Saint Helens post-eruption hydrology alterations

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwfelder (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jwfelder: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright shows what to do. You need to credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors” and add the {{ODbL}} license. If you have altered or are building on Openstreetmap data you also need to use ODbL for your own work. (where applicable) - Alexis Jazz 03:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
OpenStreetMap is not a problem since their content is freely licensed (see {{OpenStreetMap}}). Leaflet is an open-source Java Script library which is licensed under BSD version 2 ({{BSD}}), so that's ok too.
Mapbox though seems to be a problem as there is no free option for commercial offline use. Neither do they offer derivative options for the output of their software. The Mapbox code as such is open source with a permissine licence but I'd be wary about the output. De728631 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Maps License

I wanted to upload a screenshot of map from Google Maps. I've read the permissions from google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html and google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html. But, I still don't know which license is the most suitable for the picture if I upload it to Commons. Can someone please help me? Thank you. --Elbert Ziv Hitipeuw (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the links mentions "Creative Commons". I'm afraid that Google Maps screenshots are non-free and unacceptable for Commons at the moments. If you like, you should ask Google permission, but please tell Google to send email statement to them; COM:OTRS has instructions. Alternatively, there are other sources using one of Creative Commons and/or GNU licenses, like OpenStreetMap and Sharemap ([1]). I found File:Third Army Erzincan.jpg (Google Maps screenshot), which I tagged for lacking proof of permission. George Ho (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Hände weg vom Ruhrgebiet (1923).jpg

Is this poster from 1923 in public domain in the USA? Does exception described in Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law apply? --jdx Re: 18:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the questions apply also to many other posters in Category:Poster by Theo Matejko. --jdx Re: 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jdx: not until 2019-01-01.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
They should be probably marked {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Ankry (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, please review this DR. --jdx Re: 21:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Portal Stories: Mel

Hi all. Just noticed that someone (ping User:Lofhi, User:4nn1l2) has received a permission from the developers to publish these screenshots under a free licence. This is really cool, but, as far as I understood, he/she contacts Prism Studio (developers of the mod), but not Valve (developers of the original Portal 2). There is a violation against Valve, isn't it?

Idk for screenshots with new models and textures (that still uses Valve's engine and, for example, shaders), but this one, for example, obviously uses original models and textures of button, door and some enviroment objects. Is it ok? Facenapalm (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"forced developers to " ? that's kinda rude. DarkoNeko 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Darkoneko: I'm sorry. I'm very bad at English and it sometimes hard for me to choose the correct words. Feel free to fix my messages, I don't want to hurt anybody. Facenapalm (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Tried to fix. Sorry again. Facenapalm (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Facenapalm: No problem. I was the one who contacted the developers to see if they could publish screenshots of their game. I don't know if the engine used for the game makes their authorization obsolete, some screenshots are kinematics made by the developers of the mod. I can understand that the elements created by Valve (elements of the maps) and reused by the mod team can be problematic, but if they were allowed to use the files as they wanted by Valve as long as they didn't sell the game, then their permission is valid? I can try to email Valve in the worst cases... Lofhi (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lofhi: I'm pretty sure there is no violations in mod (some Portal mods aren't even free — Aperture Tag, for example), but that doesn't mean that there is no Valve IP we should consider. If screenshot is distributed under Creative Commons, it means that I can modify (for instance, crop) screenshot and use it whenever I want. So I can use Valve's button image while not even mention Valve — the only thing I should do is to mention that the developer is Prism Studios. I can even illustrate the article about Portal 2 with this screenshot. I see some problems here.
I'm not sure about other screenshots as well, for example, this one probably uses re-textured original model.
P.S: if there is an opportunity to make screenshots free after all, is it possible to make free this one or another screenshot with Mel as well? I use it in my ruwiki article. This would be really cool. But, again, the problem is that the model of Mel was made by Valve. Facenapalm (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Facenapalm: The company also sent me a copy of the email, they did not give permission for specific files, but for Category:Portal Stories: Mel. Some of the files I uploaded are totally theirs, I think, because they're kinematics made by the game team. It is true that the point you raise seems to be problematic. But when you think of a video game point: all youtubers who played Portal 2 for example monetize their videos by playing the game, it is an implicit permission... Which is not enough for Commons. In any case, at least a third of the files are not targeted by these problems, they are images that I took of the kinematics, which are real videos. I'll try to send an email to Valve, if they don't reply, I won't look for an excuse to keep them: I'll ask for the files to be deleted. PS: Mel's model belongs to the company, they created it, they just replaced Chell's files to display her in game. The Mel created by Valve is blonde and has blue clothes [2] and not the same face. Lofhi (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lofhi: thank you. I do not really believe that Valve will reply you, but I hope so. You did awesome job anyway. Wow, I haven't heard about Mel's alteration. If you found this information in reliable source, can you please give me a link? I want to add this information to ruwiki article. Facenapalm (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Grigor Palikarov.jpg

I don't speak German. Can somebody look at this please. Doesn't look like Eigenes Werk. Grigor_Palikarovhas just been created (today). Image File:Grigor Palikarov.jpg used there has already been published many times before: [3], [4]. Looks to be from the same photo shoot as is [5], [6] etc. At the very least we need a German version of OTRS to be submited. P.g.champion (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Shopping cart (token) coins

After asking this question im the Pub (or De Kroeg) and not receiving an answer I'll post it here. I have a large collection of shopping cart 🛒 coins from the Kingdom of the Netherlands that often feature logo's of supermarkets and other businesses, sometimes these logo's are already on Wikimedia Commons such as File:Jumbo Logo.svg, and sometimes not. These coins look a bit like this, are they protected by copyright ©? I can't seem to find any definitive information so I just assume that they are, but as some are of historical business with no to almost no images on Wikimedia Commons it would be a shame if I couldn't upload them, so are these forms of exonumia acceptable? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the same rules as for logos would apply. They'd be {{PD-Text}} if simple enough, but I don't know what would be simple enough in the Netherlands. --ghouston (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚)  18:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Photex914.png

How do I categorize this? I take it to be the actress that appears in Meri Aashiqui Tum Se Hi (although I don't recognize her with her make-up on). The logo bit at the bottom simply denotes that the application Photex was used to add the text to image. Needless to say, this is another first time up-loader. Any ideas (and please no comments about the ill choice of pink lipstick). Probably didn't even take the photo herself -so is probably a copyvio. P.g.champion (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh. As I write, she is still uploading. This looks like a selfy File:F656.jpg but this one File:D73.jpg doesn't. P.g.champion (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:F656.jpg has a more pointy chin and her hair seems different compared to the Photex image.
These files were *just now* uploaded, but another version shows on Google images with some Google links. I don't see it there anymore so it's probably a profile picture that has been changed. [7] has a modification date of 12/27/2017 15:26. These dates cannot be trusted, but it agrees with my suspicion this image is not new. - Alexis Jazz 00:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I just wasted way too much time on the rubbish from just this one user. It took them 2 minutes or so to upload these images, I waste at least half an hour trying to find out where the fuck they came from. Next time I run into anything like this, I will do a deletion nomination stating just "Social media copyvio. Trust me.". I suggest you do the same, but only if you have some reason to believe this is the case. Celebrity, expired Google image hits, if you believe there is no way it is own work you report it. At the very least it will send a message to the uploader, depending on the admin who handles it the image actually may get deleted. If the image doesn't get deleted but the rights holder would sue Wikimedia for it later on, they will have a stronger case because the image had already been reported as copyvio, but not deleted. If that happens, the lawyers wake up. Don't expect this anytime soon, but if you nominate thousands of pictures it should happen at some point. - Alexis Jazz 01:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: For copyvios I find all over the web, I use Gadget Help:QuickDelete's custom buttons in User:Jeff G./common.js, one of which tags with "{{copyvio|1=[[COM:NETCOPYRIGHT|Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work]]: [https://www.google.com/searchbyimage?image_url={{filepath:{' '{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}} Google search]}}". I prefer this method to filing a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: that's really neat, I'm going to try that. I'm not sure speedy is allowed when you have no "real" proof, but I guess it is. In theory most of these could be legit, but nobody believes celebrities and models are all registering with Commons just to upload a selfie. - Alexis Jazz 02:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sinosauropteryx_with_Dalinghosaurus.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is a somewhat complicated case which ended in deletion[8], though I think the outcome needs wider discussion. An image uploaded here from a CC licenced journal PDF[9] (fig. 2 B, available in lower res here[10]) was nominated for deletion by the artist, who indicated he had not agreed to let the high res image be used in the PDF. He proposed to let us use a low res version of the image, which I then uploaded instead. Jameslwoodward subsequently deleted the low res image anyway, stating that the high res image would still be CC licensed if the low res version was, and that we would therefore be taking advantage of the naivete of the artist (presumably because people would start using the high res image instead of our low res version). I disagree with this decision, since Commons:licensing specifically allows for this practice, and because the full res image would be available for use in the PDF even if we deleted it here, and Colin also expressed disagreement on James' talk page.[11] So what to do? FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Jim’s ruling “a CC license applies to all resolutions” contradicts to IT practice and is, frankly speaking, nonsensical. Suppose I made a fairy complex vector greyscale drawing which, upon rasterization to 4×4, gives exactly «». Given each of 16 pixels in greyscale can have only 256 values, it isn’t difficult to achieve with trials and error. Would then Jim claim public domain for my work based on PD for the 4×4 PNG and his argument? These are lower-resolution or degraded images that are trivially derivable from higher-resolution or proper images, respectively. The reverse operation can’t produce unique result for mathematical reasons alone, ignoring all others. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, let's not sidetrack this discussion with amateur attempts to invent copyright law by rational or irrational logic. The law is what it is. Taking an image and merely downsizing it does not create a new "work of copyright" (Mediawiki's thumbnailer does it all the time) and "work of copyright" is the scope of a CC licence, not "file I just uploaded". We accept that. This does not mean that two random files found on the internet that appear to be the same image at different resolutions, can safely be both used provided one has a CC licence. Appearances can be deceptive. The Commons policy agreed by the community is that where two files exist, that are, or appear to be just two different resolutions or qualities, and a CC licence has only been reliably associated with the lower resolution image, Commons will not host the higher resolution image. This is partly due to the precautionary principle, and partly because CC and WMF actively promoted dual licensing on resolution/quality for years before somebody legal pointed out the problem. So we have a moral case for respecting the artists wishes, even if the law might permit us to grab, against their wishes, the larger image.
What we have here is Jim going against our policy and decided to not only refuse to host the high resolution image but also refuse to host the low resolution image, against the express wishes of the creator and copyright holder. He does this with good intentions but flawed thinking. The situation here is that the high resolution image is already CC licensed but hidden inside a PDF of a medical journal so not quite as accessible as a JPG on Commons. The artist did not appreciate that the PDF exposed a high resolution version of his work. In my experience with medical journals, they are quite inept when it comes to copyright and place pretty much the entire burden of ensuring the document is legitimate onto the authors(s) -- who are scientists and doctors, not copyright experts.
Jim is trying to protect the author from mistaken thinking that the small image can have a CC licence but the large one not. The large one does have a CC licence, but this is by mistake. I think the author would rather the large image was not available on line at all, but the cat is out of the bag and he can't fix that. It is only really available to nerds who know how to extract a JPG from a PDF. A bigger problem with Jim's view is that this makes the many thousand of low resolution files we host at risk from the big delete button, because many of them have file-description-pages advertising that a higher resolution image is available for purchase. A practice that has some potential legal flaws, but which in reality is unlikely to cause the artist any harm. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not a general problem -- my decision was based on the specifics of this particular case. In the DR, when it was suggested that the author might allow a low res image here to get around his concern about freely licensing the high res version, no one pointed out that the license here would apply to both the low and high res versions. I think it is plain wrong to use the author's lack of knowledge of the law to our advantage, hence my decision to delete. I have stated repeatedly that I would be happy to restore the low res version if the author simply states that he understands that the license here also applies to the high res version. Failing that, I do not see how we can in good conscience expose the author to a risk that we are aware of and he is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
But as has been pointed out three times already, it makes zero difference if we delete it here or not; there will still be a low res version of the image in the html version of the paper, and a high res version of it in the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've explained multiple times already but Jim isn't listening. This isn't just a difference of opinion but a difference of fact and Jim basing his, well meaning, opinion on an incorrect understanding of the facts. There is no "concern about freely licensing the high res version". He has freely licensed the high res version, albeit unintentionally. It's in a CC licensed journal PDF. So we are not "exposing the author to a risk", because he's already exposed. Jim thinks the author has a "lack of knowledge of the law" wrt dual licencsing but has no evidence of this. What the author wants, is that the high res version, extracted from the PDF, be not stuck on the worlds largest free repository of educational media for others to use. The thing the author didn't appear to appreciate is that it's use in the Cell journal article would release the full-resolution image for others to use, independently of the article. Perhaps he even thought the article was printed on paper and gathering dust in a library bookcase. He said "It [the high resolution copy] should not be available anywhere but from me and having it available online is potentially very damaging." Let me quote the current CC FAQ:
"Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?
You may license your copyright or distribute your work under more than one set of terms. For example, you may publish a photograph on your website, but only distribute high-resolution copies to people who have paid for access. This is a practice CC supports. However, if the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy."
I cannot repeat "This is a practice CC supports" enough. Jim should undelete the low resolution copy and accept the artists wishes. Our deletion policy is not conditional on the author fully understanding the implications of giving their work away for free, for anyone, for ever. We do not run training sessions and ask uploaders to sit an exam at the end. While concern for the artist is a welcome change from some on Commons, this is taking things too far. Obscurity (making the high resolution copy less visible/available) may not be a legally perfect way of preventing anyone using his high resolution image, but once it was published in Cell, obscurity is the only option he has, and he absolutely does want to give the image to Wikipedia. Let's follow those wishes. -- Colin (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we do not run training sessions. And no, we do not need to ascertain in every case that the author is fully familiar with the law. But equally, we should not deliberately take advantage of an author's misunderstanding of the law. In this DR, someone should have told the author that changing the Commons version to low res would not solve his licensing problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Will you please soon address the fact that whether the image is on Commons or not, it will still be in the PDF in high res and in the html version in low res? What difference does it make that we have it here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Has he freely licensed the high res version? I can only see the DR, so I don't know what journal, what article, who wrote the article, who drew the illustration, etc. But there are many ways the file could have ended up there, even with his permission, that did not involve him knowingly assenting to the CC license. I don't know that I necessarily agree with Jim here; it seems the cat is out of the bag, and if the artist will let us host it in a smaller version, we're not materially changing anything about what he's (effectively) licensed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The image is available from this PDF[12] in high res, which clearly says "This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)". The lower res version is available here[13], which says "open access", and links to the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have said several times in this long discussion, I firmly believe we should be completely straightforward with our contributors. In this case the only reason the author offered it to us is that we took advantage of the fact that he apparently does not understand the law. That is probably legally OK -- I don't think he has a cause of action against us -- but is certainly not morally OK.

You brought this here for a wider discussion, which is good. Why don't FunkMonk, Colin, and I all back off for a day or two and let others comment? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You are still ignoring the fact that the image is already available in both resolutions under a CC licence from the two links I posted above. Accusing us of misleading anyone doesn't help the case if you can't even address the fact that the images would be freely available regardless of whether they are hosted here or not. It is simply irrelevant to the fact. But yes, I'm all for waiting if the conversation is going to stall at that anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Jim, you keep assuming the guy does not understand the law. The law is that his high resolution copy, embedded in the PDF of the Cell journal, is licensed CC and anyone can use it, including us should we wish to. I think he realises that wasn't his intention, and perhaps he'll be a bit more cautious about what he gives to journals to use. What he's trying to do now is damage limitation. At present, this image is only usable by people who have read that journal and who are nerdy enough to extract it from the PDF. But he'd also like if Wikipedia and other educational websites could use a "for web resolution copy". So as a compromise, we can agree not to take advantage of his existing mistake, and morally choose to limit our usage to a low resolution version. That way, everybody wins. We get an educational image, and he has an opportunity to sell the high resolution copy. It isn't fool-proof, but he lost that option when he gave the image to Cell. Honestly, I think Commons has improved since the days when we screwed artists who made mistakes and told them to go learn what "irrevocable" means. The guy says "I support Wikipedia" and if his image gets used in some article, I'm sure he'll get a buzz from that. Ok, let's see what other's think... -- Colin (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
"The law is that his high resolution copy, embedded in the PDF of the Cell journal, is licensed CC". Okay, if you are indeed Kim Jong-il, you can declare that for North Korea, but most nations make determining stuff like that a tedious complicated task, where both sides have to make their cases to a judge before that decision can be made. If we're talking about the image labeled "© Bob Nicholls 2017", it's not a hill I'd be willing to die on. Maybe the CC-BY license extends to that picture by authority of the copyright holder of that picture, maybe the CC-BY license was added by people who, by law and custom, should have made it clear it didn't apply to the picture, and maybe nobody paid any attention to anything, and the lawyers and judge would repeatedly face-palm trying to deal with the half-assed shit that passes for a legal agreement among non-lawyers. The point of a deposition is so some of the facts that could lead to that answer could appear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, please do not compare any user here to a dictator. That's a quick way to earn a block. The cell journal is licensed CC. It says so on the journal article. There aren't exceptions where some images can be not-CC licensed. The journal doesn't work that way. If perhaps the article authors used an image that they did not have authority to release CC, then that is their problem. We can cite a professional publication as evidence of good-faith use. WMF would of course respond to any take-down request if one came. But that's not the case here, because the author of the images has already commented. But carefully reading the discussion is less fun than accusing colleagues of being dictators. I've lost interest in this discussion anyway. It is needlessly tedious. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I see you didn't reply to anything I said, preferring outrage and accusing editors of not carefully reading the discussion. I suggest if you find 4000 words of discussion needlessly tedious, you stop asserting the "the law is ...", because people who decide what the law is have to deal with way more than that. For a court of law to say whether or not a work is licensed under a CC license would take depositions and several hearings. In this case, Robert Nicolls wrote in the DR that "All the other images in the PDF are fine to use, there has just been a mix up regarding the high res version of my artwork -I thank you for bringing this to my attention!" Neither in that sentence, or anywhere else in the discussion, does he imply that he gave the right to publish the image to anyone under a CC license. Good faith doesn't mean much once we've been informed of a problem and have had a chance to rectify it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Are there any copyright law courses at Wikiversity?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I found v:en:Copyright, but it's too bare. Well, there's v:en:Wikiversity Law Reports. Wikibooks has textbooks about copyright, including b:en:US Copyright Law and b:en:Canadian Copyright Law and b:en:FOSS Licensing. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
If any author we do not contest wants us to host their image with educational value we do not contest, the quality is decent enough to be educational within a 200x200px thumbnail, it is not superseded, and no policy or guideline is violated, why would we deny them that opportunity?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there was a call for more opinions above, here's mine (TL;DR:  Keep). It seems clear to me that that author intended for the low-resolution version of the picture to appear in the paper. He says, “there has just been a mix up regarding the high res version of my artwork,” indicating that it's the resolution that's the problem, not the presence of that particular picture. Thus, the existing CC licence is valid and anyone who can find the high-res version can legally use it, whatever we do. Given that, I don't think there's a serious problem in our hosting the low-res version. Presumably the author is working on getting the version in the paper replaced, at which point the remaining problems will essentially go away.

Even if I'm wrong, I think deletion here is excessive. Our Upload Wizard invites users to upload their own pictures and release them under a free licence, and doesn't give any warning this will cover higher-resolution versions as well. If the lack of warning is acceptable for the Upload Wizard, then it's acceptable here. --bjh21 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I hate to say this, but do not undelete the PDF file that includes images. True, the whole article is released under the CC license. However, images have individual copyrights. Neither of both links say that the images are released under CC license. How about another PDF version without the images? Meanwhile, We can copy the whole text into Wikisource and use it; s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Scientific research allows such works released under free license. I wonder whether contacting the author about Wikisource is necessary. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC); partially unstruck, 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If the file is under CC license so are all images in it. It can not be in any other way. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Authors are credited for the article; reusing the whole article is okay as long as we follow the CC terms. However, images are a different story. Images are part of the CC-released journal article, no doubt. Under licensing terms, attribution is required for the images if we are going to reuse them, right? However, neither the illustrators were credited nor did the article say that the illustrations were anonymous works. Also, the image captions did not say that the images are CC-licensed, and the CC license for the article does not cover the illustrations. Also, the authors of the whole journal/scholarly article have not provided attribution for the individual illustrations. Without knowing who did the illustrations, without an attribution line saying that the illustrations are anonymous works per CC licensing terms, and without licensing notice, we can't use those images. Therefore, our CC license for the PDF file is revoked. Those links can be good reads for licensees. George Ho (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Above post partially unstruck and modified, George Ho (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If a file in its entirety is properly under a CC license, then so are all images in it. But clearly separable parts of a document are likely to be under different licenses, and we should be sensitive to the fact that when people mark a text with a CC license, they may not think about or have the power to offer that license on part of the document.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Let me just say this: I was involved in the original discussion before it was moved here, and I mentioned that I'd emailed the author of this particular work informing him of the issues of copyright in this specific case. He has recieved said email, so I think there isn't any moral reason to keep the image deleted anymore is there Jameslwoodward, since he is aware of the possibility of the full-res being used elsewhere ? IJReid (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Since this case is complicate, I suggest that the author(s) should email their statement(s) shown at COM:OTRS if the low-res images were to be reused and if they haven't done so already. George Ho (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be useful if he decided to give a reply that in any way formed a legally acceptable statement, which he really did not. I don't think we need to bother him any more than we already have, since he has made his position on this so clear. The image is CC-BY regardless of whatever resolution we use, that much is an unchanging fact. All images from the paper are under the same-commons accepted-license. The real issue we need to discuss here is whether we use the high-res version, or the low res version like the works author would like us to. We have no legal obligation to Bob Nicholls, but I think we should acknowledge his request as best we can, if simply to avoid alienating him. This discussion seemed to sidetrack over time into whether the image license is acceptable or not, which I suppose is an unintended consequence of moving the discussion here with very little summary of the past conversation. In short, for all future commenters, we are not discussing the license, but whether to keep the image as low-resolution or high-resolution. IJReid (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oops. I misread the author's post, which he didn't sign but said that "all other images" are fine. I realized that I shouldn't have sidetracked the discussion to shift from one image to all images themselves; I should have read the diffs of the discussion instead as I did moments ago. Therefore, I struck my previous vote and my replies and then change to  undelete the version with low-res image of the Sinosauropteryx illustration per the author wishes. George Ho (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Another oops. I didn't read "Author contributions" section, which credits authors for illustrations. George Ho (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The point was he didn't intend for the large image to be in the paper, only the smaller version. The main point is that he doesn't want people making money off it, and people are far more likely to use whatever version we have here on wikipedia than go searching through the paper for the original large image. IJReid (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me it was us who made him aware that it was available in high res to begin with? In any case, yes, we are actually doing the artist a favour by hosting the low res version here, unlike what Jameslwoodward claims, since this is probably the first place most people will find the image, and they probably won't even know it can be found in a higher res version anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Whether it make any sense in accepting an argument that the copyright holder didn't intend for the large image to be in the paper, only the smaller version while still they are available in a famous platform like ScienceDirect? I can consider such an argument if and only if the copyright holder is able to take down them from those sites first. Then we may also consider to take down them form our site too. Otherwise it will create a bad precedent that may affect a lot of files in Commons. For me, as an volunteer who upload a lot journals and extract images in them to Commons, it is not acceptable. Jim, what you think? Jee 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with Jim's determination on this matter, though I also disagree with the author's statements, that said low res is better than nothing. If the low res work is released with a CC licence (which it has been) then it is available and linked to the published work then that should be acceptable. If the author wishes to upload it and have an OTRS that is acceptable. We all can quibble about high res. separately and whether that can be an upgrade or not, different argument. If the argument isn't going to be accepted here, then it needs to be taken to Com:Undelete, in the end this should be a community consensus, not a single determination by a single admin. billinghurst sDrewth 03:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
why start now. the propensity to read minds and infer intent to gain a PRP fig leaf never ends. the admin who puts consensus above their personal opinion is rare; it is not a standard of practice. if you were to do it, people would be amazed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, yet again, there is absolutely no indication that the artist has a problem wit the low res version being used in the journal article either. Therefore, even if he does manage to get the high res image replaced in those article, it will have absolutely no effect on whether we could host the lor res image or not. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep low-res version: it's not completely clear, but at the end of the day he hasn't got the large version removed and we have explicit permission for the low-res version.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep low-res version: I have to say that with everything going on, I might not be the least-biased person, but i've also been involved enough to know what the best practice here is. IJReid (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Restored low-res version of the image as practical community consensus of an imperfect and problematic situation. Discussed with deleting admin acknowledging the primacy of community consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Synapsids of the Morrison Formation.png

Are these images copyrighted or "for use on wikipedia"? I don't see a clear license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see clear evidence, but maybe Falconfly can shed light on this. The posts at www.furaffinity.net do not appear to be the original artist's: Julio Lacerda's works can be found at DeviantArt and Paleoart.tumblr.com. For convenience I've created Category:Illustrations by Julio Lacerda: the status of those images should be double checked as well. Animalparty (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Followup: It appears that Falconfly has uploaded several works created by other artists "by commission", but provides incomplete proof of permission (see previous deletion discussions here and here for instance). Seems like a lot of trouble could be avoided simply by having the original artists submit a complete OTRS form, regardless of commissioned status or not. Animalparty (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I have explained to this user too many times that he needs to go through the OTRS process, but he is extremely stubborn. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Friendly reminder said user acted obtusely and refused to check the multiple permissions out of spite. You are also rather petty and egging on this conflict.Falconfly (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Finding social media copyvios

When people upload images they found on the web, it's often possible to find out they were on the web before Commons. But nowadays people are also uploading images they found on social media, and Tineye/Google images often misses those. A few times I was able to track those down (even wrote a guide on it, but it wasn't great) by guessing what social media account might have posted it (like the Twitter/Facebook account of a celebrity), try to guess when it was posted and then just search the photostream.

This doesn't always work though. Is there some way of dealing with this? I imagine for example maybe some social media have a way of reverse image searching on their own platform, like how YouTube "knows" when you are uploading Spongebob. - Alexis Jazz 02:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

For example, I just stumbled upon File:Erikm-© Isabel Meister.jpg and File:Poire Z.jpg. At least the uploader was nice enough to enter the actual author, but if they had just entered "own work" I would have probably left them alone. I can't find them anywhere else. Where do they come from? Did the uploader actually ask those photographers for some photo and did he actually get a photo with permission? Has the photo been released with a valid CC-license on a website that image search engines overlooked or that has been removed since the upload? Did the uploader simply take the image from social media? Maybe it was posted with a valid CC license to social media, who knows! But it doesn't seem likely. - Alexis Jazz 05:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:CC-AR-Presidency

Template:CC-AR-Presidency only mentions www.casarosada.gob.ar however this license applies to all websites managed by the national government of Argentina.

Las marcas, avisos, nombres comerciales, frases de propaganda, dibujos, diseños, logotipos, textos, etc. que aparecen en los Activos Digitales son propiedad del Gobierno Nacional, excepto cuando se declare lo contrario.

El Gobierno Nacional [de Argentina] licencia todos sus contenidos bajo la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 2.5 Argentina, cuyo texto legal puede encontrarse en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/legalcode.

— https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones

In short, any digital content (text, drawings, photographs, logos, etc.) that appears on a website managed by the government of Argentina must be assumed by default that copyright belongs to the National State, unless otherwise indicated otherwise, and in which case it is licensed under CC-BY 2.5 Argentina. One problem is that the template says: CC-BY-SA 2.5 Argentina, but here it says that the license is CC-BY 2.5 Argentina. It will be necessary to clarify that.

Explicitly they are cited:

The template must be updated to reflect that it aplied all the content published digitally by the national government of Argentina (without distinction of what type of content it is) and not just that of a single website. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 06:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain and its subpages

Is there activity in Commons:WikiProject Public Domain lately? Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review has not been updated for three years. Consequently, there are 8800 pages transcluding {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. What to do about it? George Ho (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

well since there is no "Agree on a method to get this working", there is no progress. maybe delete the category, since it is useless? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think {{Historical}} is more appropriate for inactive pages. If it's "inactive", let's use it then. Um... I could not find a tag saying it's "semi-active". George Ho (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Marking them as "Inactive" would probably be better, pages should not be treated as common utensils, and marking a page as "Historic" would serve future WikiHistoriams and just general people interested in the (former) workings of Wikimedia Commons more than simply deleting it. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Seals from Indonesian regencies

I see that File:Lambang Kabupaten Mesuji.png and File:Lambang Kabupaten Paser.tif are uploaded, one of them tagged as {{PD-IDGov}}. Do Indonesian regencies belong to the Government of Indonesia? Two official websites have copyright notices for their own websites, but I'm uncertain whether the regency seals qualify for copyright. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually subnational emblems are registered with the national government as they are still parts of it, but I'm not a copyright expert so don't quote me on that. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are PDFs created by the EPA uploadable?

Hi all! I have a student who has uploaded a PDF (File:Spicket rvr cleanup epa.pdf) that was created by the EPA, that details the work done to clean up the Spicket River in Lawrence, MA. They were concerned that the PDF would run afoul of copyright after they uploaded it, so I thought it would be a good idea to ask about this here. Offhand I think that work created by the EPA should be OK since they're part of the federal government as far as I know, but I'm slightly concerned about the images in the document. None of them have copyright info so I'm assuming that they were created by the EPA, but it's always better to ask about this sort of thing IMHO. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You are actually right that the file is very likely in PD but we can not provide more information. Only EPA can. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a bit unclear: EPA documents that include works by non-EPA employees are not wholly covered by {{PD-USGov-EPA}}. In this case the parent website of the hosting site, Groundworks USA, appears to have all rights reserved.[14] The text of the document is likely public domain. I would advise your students to scrutinize the contents as well as sources, and if they appear to be a mixture of US Government and local government/non-public domain work, err on the side of caution and not post. Animalparty (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Spanish paintings

Are these paintings too new to be in the public domain? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Picasso's are, you'd have to research the others, and the Flickr uploader didn't make that easy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I don't have the free time to go through them I will mark this section as "resolved". --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-Exclusive Licence

Do we need an OTRS permission for [[:|a file]] from this website? It's written in the footer:"Any non-exclusive use of the "Catapult" publication, even without mentioning the source, is free" SlowManifesto (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What website are you talking about? Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: manjanigh. [[:|This]] is the picture. SlowManifesto (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

SlowManifesto (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If they are copyright holders then not necessary. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Nab Scar.jpg

Is there anyone who wishes to mark this image? The archived permission statement exists from the defunct website but the picture is long gone I think, Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: site is not defunct, just moved: http://www.madaboutmountains.me.uk/ldp.htm. Having been uploaded in 2009 that license review is way overdue.. - Alexis Jazz 14:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

appropriate tag for software under the European Union Public Licence?

I recently uploaded a screenshot of a program that is available under the European Union Public Licence. However, there doesn't seem to be a tag for screenshots under the EUPL. Is there another tag that could be used instead? Or should I create a new template? --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... the EUPL v1.1 licence (other languages) doesn't explicitly mention allowing commercial and derivative use, required by COM:Licensing policy. However, it says "use the Work in any circumstance and for all usage," implying that commercial and derivative uses are allowed. If anyone else says that EUPL is okay and acceptable, then you may feel free to create and use Template:EUPL1.1 and Template:EUPL1.2. George Ho (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, the licence does mention "derivative". George Ho (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll wait a while to see if we could get consensus. Also tagging @Jcb: as he pointed out the licensing issue. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Please be aware that if the consensus is to create a new license template for this, then it should be added to the list of accepted licenses, to avoid files falling in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Jcb (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The lack of an explicit mention of commercial use isn't a problem: even CC BY 4.0 doesn't explicitly mention such use. I think EUPL 1.1 and 1.2 are both acceptable licences for Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we should also ask freedomdefined.org whether EUPL can be added as part of the Licenses list. George Ho (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

An update: I looked at the official site again, and it says the license is also compatible with the GPL version 2. However, I just noticed a new issue: the screenshot is from the Pro version, which is not available under a free license. So I'm afraid this is a moot point and that the screenshot will have to be deleted. :-(

That being the case, I can definitely try to create a screenshot from the free version. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a logo of a long-deceased company

I was binge-reading a bunch of Wikipedia articles about airlines and result that one of these (Sam Colombia), does not have a logo of an acceptable resolution, not here, nor anywhere. My question is that, in case of having a higher resolution logo, it is possible to upload it to change the previous one. Some dunce (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really because the copyright still exists despite demise of the company itself. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

{{OGDL}} compatibility with Commons

This is regarding a DR Commons:Deletion requests/Template:OGDL. In summary, this Taiwanese Open Government Data Licence, on one hand, suggests that this license is revocable, which Commons does not allow; on the other hand, it also says any further reuse is in compliance with CC-BY 4.0. What is the best way we should handle this is seemingly a conflicting license? --Wcam (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Crepis tectorum plant (02).jpg

There are two licenses at the source of this image. Is it CC BY NC 3.0 or CC BY SA 4.0--the license at the bottom of the source? Any views anyone? Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Faithful reproductions of thousand year old banknotes

I have found this illustration from here, and this modern and faithful reproduction from here of banknotes from the Southern Song Dynasty. Can these be considered to be PD-scans based on the fact that they're not original enough? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Under US law, yes. If you live in China while uploading and want zero risk, I suggest doing so in a way that keeps you anonymous, unless you are confident about IP law in China. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: well, Wikimedia Commons needs the copyright © to have been expired in both its country of origin and the United States of America, so I will try to research Chinese/Taiwanese copyright © laws more in the hopes of finding information regarding the threshold of originality. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The copyright in the original works has expired. The IP question to examine under local law is whether the company (website) claiming copyright for their images has sufficient added creativity in taking their "faithful reproductions" to justify the photograph or scan having its own, separate, IP rights.
If you end up with a solid rationale either way, with reliable sources or reference legal cases, it might be useful to add to COM:CRT. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I will search through Wikisource:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) and will link 🔗 my findings if they allow for me to upload them here. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: Well, I found this:

"(5) the right of reproduction, that is, the right to produce one or more copies of the work by means of printing, Xeroxing, rubbing, sound recording, video recording, duplicating, or re-shooting, etc.;" and from what I can tell the works I've linked to are reproductions based on either "rubbing" or "printing" which wouldn't be original. The question here could be based on the fact that they're reproduced through a printing plate as opposed from one of the 200.000.000 Guanzi banknotes themselves as no modern copy is known to exist, printing plates are 3D objects, but the banknotes themselves are 2D objects. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Briefly looking at the act and talking generically about the language used: The right of reproduction would only exist for an original work that is copyrighted.
A derivative would be different, if there was sufficient creativity in the derivative process. For example, a brass rubbing of a public domain copperplate etching, where the person doing the wax rubbing has choices about how far to go with rubbing, what to emphasise and what colours to use, would probably mean that the "reproduction" had potential copyright under IP for derivative works. However a simple mechanical process of inking the copperplate and making a new print, has too little creativity to be a derived work, so as the original work is public domain, must be public domain itself unless other creative elements are introduced. Similarly a simple mechanical "scan" or front-on photograph which is clearly intended to make a "faithful 2D reproduction" of the work, must be public domain as again, there is insufficient creativity (or choices) introduced in creating the new work. Other types of derivative of the copperplate, such as macro photography close-ups of the lines scored in 3D on the surface, would be copyright-able due to the choices of lighting, focus and framing that the photographer has.
I do not see any equivalent to a "sweat of the brow" rationale that could be created from the 2010 act. Unless there is some legal case where someone has tried and succeeded in claiming "sweat of the brow" for reproductions of 2D public domain works in a court in China, there seems virtually no risk in these uploads. Naturally our understanding of "virtually none" may change, if we discover case law creating a "sweat of the brow" interpretation not specifically mentioned in the act itself.
It probably is worth raising a thread on COM:CRT to gain a consensus to add a note for the entry for China, if this is likely to cause doubt for uploaders in the future. --Fæ (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: thank you for your detailed response, I will raise these issues in the near future 🔮 when I'll find the time to have this added. Take care. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Bank Negara Malaysia banknotes

According to this source banknotes issued by the BNM are copyrighted, free first BNM were issued in 1967, are banknotes produced before this in the public domain according to Nalaysian copyright © law? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This Flickr album states "© March 2011 | The creator of any original work owns the copyright of that work, which is the exclusive right to authorize copying and communication of their work." At the bottom of every description but has released them under a compatible license, further the items in this museum 🏛 are too old to be able to be copyrighted. Can these files 📁 be considered "copyrighted" in any reasonable sense? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I don't think so.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask, but the photos are clearly modern and of at least minimal creativity, so even if the objects depicted are out of copyright, the photographs are still subject to it. However, I don't immediately see any reason to doubt the Creative Commons licence applied to them on Flickr: the brief treatise on the nature of copyright attached to each picture is unusual but doesn't actually conflict with a free licence. --bjh21 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank y'all for the clarification. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Paulino Santos, First Chief of Staff of Philippine Army.jpg

Can it be reasonably assumed that this file is {{PD-PhilippineGov}} from the source website? The website seems to be selling photos and assering copyright ownership here. Of course, the website might just be a case of COM:LL.

The same also applies to File:Desiderio P Suson AFP Medal of Valor.jpg sourced to this website. This source appears to be some organization's page and not an official government website, so I'm not sure the file can be assumed to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In The Philippines photographic works are protected for 50 year since publication or creation. So, the first photo is likely to be in public domain anyway. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik. OK, that might be fine for the Santos image, but I'm not the Suson image is even a "photograph" per se. It looks like a photo superimposed onto some kind of background, at least to me. Would the choice of background and the other effects added to the photo make it a derivative work eligible for its own copyright seperate from the copyright of the original photo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Not if the color background can be zapped.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Santos photo also has an unnatural background. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Yes it does, but it's not colored like the other one; so, I am assuming that it has been the same since the "photo" was created, whereas the other "photo" looks like its backgraound might have been further altered afterwards. FWIW, I'm saying "photo" because these look like they might be drawings instead of photos: File:Francisco Camacho Sr.jpg is another one that looks like a drawing. I don't know a lot about photography, so maybe photos can be taken to look like this or maybe some kind of effects were added to the photo to maken them look like this. If none of the background stuff matters and the consesnus is that licensing on these is fine, then that's good enough for me -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I do think that in Santos case the background does not matter. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you so much for taking the time to read this note! I would like to upload the logo of the w:Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. I contacted the society, and obtained approval to use the logo on Wikimedia projects. The logo itself is in the process of being trademarked - I was told that it would take 6-9 months. How should I go about uploading this logo to Wikimedia, and which license tag should I be using??

Thanks to all for any advice in advance. If it's not too much effort, please ping me so that I am able to read any responses as soon as possible! Ongmianli (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ongmianli: Are you referring to this logo? - Animalparty (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Animalparty: : Yes, this is the logo! What might be helpful next steps to follow? I was thinking about following the convention of how the logo of the w:American Psychological Association was created. But I wasn't super clear how exactly to go about doing it, since it's not exactly public domain... Ongmianli (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Ongmianli: If by "obtained approval to use the logo on Wikimedia projects" you mean that for use only on Wikipedia, etc., then you will not be able to upload the file to Commons per COM:L. Commons basically requires that a file released under a free license be able to be used by anyone for any purpose, and it does not except any licenses which place any restrictions on commercial or derivative use. Commons also does not accept fair content. Having said that it might be possible to upload the file locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. You do not need the permission of the copyright holder to do that, but you will need to clearly show how each use of the file satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This can sometime be tricky because non-free use is not considered to be automatic, so you might also want to ask for help at en:WP:MCQ or en:WT:NFC.
Now all of the above is assuming that the logo you're referring to is something not considered to be within the public domain. Certain logos, etc. may be too old or too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. If you think this is the case with the logo you want to use, then you can probably upload it to Commons as {{PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FOP in Albania

these photographs from Albania are of ruins of Ancient Epirus, but in Albania there is no freedom of panorama, does Albanian copyright protect ancient ruins or only modern architecture? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The architects of those ruins died 2000 years ago. So, you can make some conclusions. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, just wanted to be 100% certain as I thought that maybe the excavators or something got the copyright ©. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚)  22:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a page on Commons that gives clear guidance on who owns copyright of a commissioned work? Commons:Licensing states A license can only be granted by the copyright holder, which is usually the author (photographer, painter or similar). Well, what about cases when the copyright holder is not the author? US Copyright law states "If a work is made for hire, an employer is considered the author even if an employee actually created the work," but also notes "the concept of "work made for hire" can be complicated," and "If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary." Other guidance on works made for hire can be found here and here, and Work for hire at Wikipedia. So it appears that under US law, if I pay someone to paint a dragon for me (independent contractors are considered employees), I own the copyrights to that painting, and can release it under a free license. Assuming that is settled, the issue remains of how do I demonstrate that I actually commissioned the work? Without documentation, it is too easy to simply lie and say "I commissioned this. Trust me." Should we require OTRS permission from both the artist and commissioner? Evidence of a written agreement? And importantly, does work for hire copyright status vary between countries? I note this topic has been discussed in the past, but I don't see clear, explicit guidance on the topic. If we can agree on the policy of commissioned works, there should be a dedicated page or section discussing how to proceed. -Animalparty (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Independent contractors are considered employees? That is exactly what an independent contractor is not. See https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-definition-of-an-employee-398246 , for a fairly random link, but they provide links to the IRS. Note for example "Taxes for an Employee: By law, an employee must have federal and state income taxes withheld from his or her pay. In addition, FICA taxes must be withheld from the employee's pay and the employer must also contribute to those taxes, on behalf of the employee."
If you want a commissioned work for use on Commons, have them send a message to OTRS. That hopefully should be clear to everyone.
And yes, work for hire status varies between countries. It's pretty rarely a problem for us, and is probably not nearly as consistent as the parts of copyright law we do worry about. Again, get them send a message to OTRS and you will get around most of the problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, and do not care to define the legal definition of employee. The relevant sources I linked seem to largely equate the two for the purpose of work for hire. Let's address the laws at hand, not go into tangents on tax law. By "get them send a message to OTRS", are you referring to original artist? -Animalparty (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The USCO requires a written agreement for transfer of copyright. Copies of such agreements are helpful.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Depends on your goals. I think having the artist license it via OTRS directly to Commons is a simpler approach; if all you want is a free license, no need buying the copyright. Negotiating an email and license is probably easier than a written contract and copyright transfer, and letting the artist resell the work under different licenses may save you a buck or two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The US Copyright Office circular you linked to says "An “independent contractor” is someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency." Your links do not call an independent contractor an employee. The tax law may not be quite relevant for copyright law, but the point remains, if you aren't withholding taxes and what not, you're probably not an employer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


Ok, it appears I misread the original documents (again, I am not a lawyer, for Wikimedia or anyone, and would appreciate anyone more familiar to step in and evaluate). I'm not here to define employee, but to establish/clarify guidelines on whether we can accept Commissions. The U.S. Copyright circular states:

Section 101 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U.S. Code) defines a "work made for hire" in two parts:
a. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment

or

b. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use

1. as a contribution to a collective work,
2. as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
3. as a translation,
4. as a supplementary work,
5. as a compilation,
6. as an instructional text,
7. as a test,
8. as answer material for a test, or
9. as an atlas,

if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

So now we have defined work for hire. It must meet the criteria of a or any of the 9 cases of b. If it doesn't, even if money changes hands for the creation of a work, it's not legally a work for hire. Thus, I would say that most, if not all commissioned work uploaded to Commons fails to meet the legal definition of of work for hire under b. (but please tell me if you have other opinions).

Findlaw.com gives an example: Even if the hiring party and independent contractor agree in writing to consider the independent contractor's work a work made for hire, the work is not a work made for hire unless it falls into one of the eight special categories listed in the first paragraph of this subsection.

Example: Sarah commissioned John, a freelance painter, to do an oil painting of Sarah's home. Although Sarah and John agreed in writing that the painting would be considered a work made for hire, the written agreement does not make the painting a work made for hire because the painting is not in one of the eight categories of works that can be specially commissioned works made for hire.

Thus, it appears my hypothetical example of owning copyright of a dragon painting I commissioned is incorrect. If we can clarify this, and codify it somewhere on Commons for the enlightenment of all users, we should do so, even if it simply says "no, you don't own copyrights to a commission (excepting the rare conditions of b. 1-9). Regardless of any payment or agreements you have with the artist, have the artist give permission to OTRS." And I brought up this whole discussion not out of mere curiosity, but because at present there are ongoing deletion discussions about a user who has uploaded many works he has "commissioned" from other artists. A question at hand is does this bestow copyright to the user, and if not, how best to proceed. I agree that having the artist submit OTRS permission is the best way. But being clear and explicit right off the the bat can avoid a lot of confusion. Animalparty (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

One possible discussion/clarification we could have would be whether Commons meets the legal definition of a "A contribution to a collective work." Animalparty (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if Commons is a collective work, since Commons permits partial reuse for any purpose, a reuser in most cases will only take a single piece of work from Commons, then such reused work in itself is definitely not a part of any collective work. This is similar to the situation with a non-commercial license -- even though Commons is a non-commercial site but it permits commercial reuse of the contents, thus we don't accept non-commercial licenses. --Wcam (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Copyrights varies between countries but one of the ways you could demonstrate that you actually commissioned the work is to present a signed documents stating an agreement on the term of use of that work. In general, such document is a strong evidence of an agreement, but even it may not be enforceable if you can convince a judge or jury that you appended your signature under duress or your signature was forged. Yes, without document, it is easy to lie but if someone can testify to it that you agreed to a verbal agreement, you can be bound by it in a court of law. Here on Commons, I don't think we need permission from both the artist and the commissioner. Permission from either of them should be enough, preferably permission from the creator of the work. If the author or creator of the work is not available, a written document from the commissioner stating a transfer has taken place should be okay. I'll like to point out that independent contractors are not considered employees of an organization if they are not originally in the organization's payroll and its nominal roll. There is a clear legal differences between contractors and employees. Prosfilaes has clarify the differences above. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether to write drafts of permission statements on their behalves

I've been asked by some copyright holders to write draft statements on their behalves, which they themselves can send to OTRS. For some reason, they said they couldn't write or didn't feel like writing the statements themselves. However, I wasn't sure whether that's acceptable or not, even when they would send OTRS the statements that would have been written and drafted by me. Indeed, I haven't written the statements for them; instead, I told them that they can use a tool generator or an email template, which they have. Never I have written a draft statement for them (yet). I wonder whether writing a draft for them is okay or not as long as they can send the statements to OTRS. If not, maybe I can ask them to draft their own statement to word document files, which they can copy or attach into their emails to the OTRS. George Ho (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: there is a sample letter at COM:ET (with a link at the bottom to more examples on enWP); if writing your own, be sure to cover all the same points.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I know that; I've been asking them to use either the template or the generator. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be a bad idea. They will probably take your draft and directly send it to OTRS without even reading it. You could tell them exactly what they should enter in the release generator, but at least let them press the buttons. - Alexis Jazz 08:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Likewise. The email template is a carefully drafted legal document that should come from them. Not passed on from you with your email header included. You'll be making yourself a third party. Ask your self why do they feel disinclined to do it themselves. May be they hope you will relax the conditions and restrictions in someway. That will be a waist of your time as the OTRS team will just reject it. Direct them here to Village pump/Copyright to ask questions. P.g.champion (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment If they can read and write in any language, there is no excuse not to write it themselves. However, There are instances where you could help copyright holders to write a draft. If they cannot read and write in any language, you can help them to write a draft. My late grandmother for example was born in Owo, a town in Ondo State, Nigeria where she grew up and died last year at age 95. She was not educated and can neither read nor write in any language including her native Owo language. In fact she couldn't speak the common Yoruba language but verify fluent in her native Owo language . So, in the case of people like that, I think it may be acceptable to write for them. Wikicology (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Crepis setosa chromosomes.jpg * File:Crepis vesicaria chromosomes.jpg

Are these images PD? The book source was published in 1930. The problem is the 70 pma license statement I think. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • It appears to be a case of {{PD-US-no notice}} {{PD-US-defective notice}}: Source does not have a complete copyright notice, placing this in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. Copyright notice must include: 1) "Copyright" (or © symbol), 2) correct year, and 3) copyright owner to be valid. Animalparty (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. you are right. It was published at Berkley University in California....but no copyright notice. A pma of 70 yrs is risky if there are 2 authors and one was born in 1900 since one would have to assume both authors died in or before 1947. Thanks. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
See also:
This image was taken from Flickr's The Commons. The uploading organization may have various reasons for determining that no known copyright restrictions exist, such as:
  1. The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired;
  2. The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions;
  3. The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control; or
  4. The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions.

More information can be found at https://flickr.com/commons/usage/.

Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

Rasbak (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this photo of Hitler from 1935 under copyright protection? I note that the USHMM claim they hold the copyright and note that their governors are appointed by the President so wouldn't that technically make it US government property and thus PD? The C of E (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Admittedly, the USA copyright of the photo is unclear. However, the German copyright is also important and still intact. The source credits "Heinrich Hoffmann" as its photographer, and Hoffmann died in 1957. The German copyright lasts 70 years after that; id est it will expire on 1 January 2028. Therefore, the photo wouldn't be acceptable here at this time. George Ho (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC); (now I'm unsure. George Ho (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC))
In addition to George Ho's comments, more info on copyright is at Category:Heinrich Hoffmann. Animalparty (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As he was Hitler's 'personal photographer' these where 'documentary' photos taken mostly at politically arranged photo opportunities by a government employed photographer, that had his salary and his expenses paid for him. Hitler would then censor anything he did not approve of by striking through with a blue chino-graph pencil (this is also on record). So what ever his heirs claim, the copyright of these images expired 50 years after being exposed. The Berne Convention did not extend such copyrights. All they can ask for is reproduction rights' derived and copied from images that they have in their 'physical' possession – not more. Just because he was Hitler's most favored photographer, does not give his heirs any special rights. So we should not let his heirs fob us off with their claims of some sort of extend copyright just because it financially profits them to do so. We respect copyright here but not false claims.--P.g.champion (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: The photo page won't load for me, but I understand this is one of those censored photos? If that's the case, I suppose they haven't been published until recently. Commons:Hirtle chart. I guess they could expire in 2055? - Alexis Jazz 21:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
For the Berne Convention, that's... Well, I can't interpret the late 19th-century international agreement well.

I'm more concentrated on w:en:copyright law of Germany (Act on Copyright and Related Rights). After skimming through the Act, I would doubt that the copyright expired in 2008 1986 as you claim, but then I'm unsure. This link (de) says that the Act applies to photographic works that were still copyrighted on 1 July 1985; the German copyright was still intact on that date. Another link (de) says that photographs receive the 50-year mutatis mutandis protection, but I'm unsure whether that means 50-p.m.a. for photographic works. It also says to read this section about copyright duration (de), which also says to calculate in accordance with the chapter holding that section (de). Does the law mean 50-p.m.a. for photographs by identified authors and 50 years after either creation or first publication (before the end of the 50th year) for anonymous photographic works? Or what else does it mean? Regardless, can Template:PD-German Photo be created?

For US copyright, the URAA wouldn't restore US copyright for works seized by Alien Property Custodian. However, I couldn't find sources verifying the photo being seized.

For reference, the w:de:Bildrechte#Bildrechte in Deutschland (German) is more detailed and (somewhat) more reliable to read, while w:en:Photograph copyright (Germany) is okay. George Ho (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC); corrected, 00:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Good points. As I read it. The copyright in Germany when read in black & white, is that back then, the copyright of 'Documentary' photographs starts at the very moment they are in tangible form. I.E. Processed and printed, rather than offered for sale. For after all, they are shot for documentary purposes mainly. The copyright laws back then took this into account, as the purpose was to record events rather than create artful creative images. Further, the Berne Convention reads that the copyright extension applied only to those photographs in which the photographer owned copyright to the photographs which s/he took as a freelance independent agent who also paid for his own film and materials. Also, p.m.a. doesn't apply to an organization. As the German State did not get an extension, they appear to be PD now, from all angles. Notice too, that the website you linked to hasn't come back up again (may have been down for weekend maintenance) or maybe, they too have been reading this post and are holding off whilst pondering the implications they may be indeed be, inappropriately claiming copyright.--P.g.champion (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The term was probably 25 years from publication originally. Germany extended the term to 50 years from publication for documentary photos like this, I think in the 1970s or 1980s, though they may have been PD in Germany by then. The problem is not the Berne Convention, but rather the retroactive copyright restorations in the EU in the 1990s, which would have restored this to a 70pma term regardless of who actually owns the copyright. Germany's "simple photo" terms have now been ruled to only apply to a very limited set of works (like X-rays I think); photos like this I believe are now considered full "works" there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK Heinrich Hoffmann's photos are protected by (restored) copyright in Germany and can't be used, with the exception of the specific photos released by the German Federal Archive under CC-BY-SA. Also, Hoffmann's photos are often carefully staged propaganda photography, not really "documentary". Gestumblindi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ea2026.jpg

Is this image All Rights Reserved or free? Its in Russian which I can't read. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Translate says “© Railway Photo Gallery TrainPhoto and authors of materials, 2012 - 2018 / Use of photographs and other materials published on the site is allowed only with the permission of their authors and the obligatory indication of the link to the site.” Clearly not free IMO, even allowing for an imperfect translation. (The “All Rights Reserved” appears to refer to the software driving the website.) Note also the EXIF claims copyright without including any terms of permission.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect file

File:Opened up a Pandora's box.jpg was the creation of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet and probably should not be there. The suspect file claims to be an etching based on a work by the Victorian F. S. Church - File:Pandora FSChurch.jpg - which it plainly is not. There is no evidence in the Wikimedia summary that it is even in copyright. My guess is that it is a photoshop version of a derivative work and maybe should be removed. I thought it was policy, anyway, to remove images provided by suspect contributors. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This image is used. So unless there is a reasonable doubt concerning its copyright, it should not be removed. Ankry (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The only files we would remove are ones with copyright violations, and maybe uploads by a sock user which were uploaded after they are banned. Prior uploads, most certainly not, if the copyright and other policy matters are OK. There is a source link which goes to a discussion where this image was labeled as by Church, but not sure if the conclusion was that they were in fact the author. But if this is not Church, yes that could be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

logos of free software?

It's my understanding that the logos of free software also available under a free license. However, I've noticed that many free software logos on the English Wikipedia are marked as fair use. The one for ACL2 is such an example. The logos may be trademarked, but that doesn't mean they're unfree. In most of those cases, I could find nothing in the license that says the logo is an exception. Am I missing something? --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends on whether the logo has been released with a free license. It doesn't happen automatically just because it's a logo for free software. --ghouston (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
For ACL2, it seems like it has been released, since it's on the front page of the manual [15] which has been released with a free license [16]. --ghouston (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I was always under the impression that free software logos are automatically available under a free license. I'm glad I asked! --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I think in many cases they will be, if they are released along with the software or documentation. --ghouston (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/ makes it pretty clear you can't modify their logos, even if it never explicitly invokes copyright. ([17] makes the headache inducing choice to offer the logos under the CC-BY 3.0 and require you not to use them freely; Wikimedia certainly can't say we don't "contain[...] content associated with hate speech, pornography, gambling or illegal activities" and won't "use [these] logos to, or in connection with, content that disparages [Mozilla] or sullies our reputation.") I don't know what it all means, but they're clearly not treating their logos as part of the whole Free Software package.
gcc.gnu.org says "Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation, Inc. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.", and I think that's how the FSF suggests handling its webpages, so logos from the FSF might be restricted. The FSF doesn't hesitate to use ND licenses on its non-code material.
If I were part of a Free Software organization with a trademarked logo, I might not put the logo under the general free license; it can be easier to deal with trademark infringement when you also have the cudgel of copyright infringement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In this case, along with what ghouston says, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/current/HTML/LICENSE says "It applies to all files distributed from http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/current/ except as otherwise noted." It's not entirely helpful, but given that LICENSE is a free license, the logo is found on http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/current/ , and (ick) I don't see an "otherwise noted", the logo should be under that free license. (Various images, like the door icon, have no explicit note but don't seem to be original with U-Texas.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/M Waner

Could a copyright law guru look at contributions of this new user, especially at {{PD-US-renewed}} which they created? --jdx Re: 09:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:1950 LDS Hymnbook.jpg

Would this book cover be considered to be below c:COM:TOO#United States? The book was published in the 1950s, so it's not old enough to be PD; however, I'm wondering if the imagery in the center would be considered COM:DM or COM:FAIR. If the latter might be the case, then I don't think this can be kept per COM:PCP even if the photographer release the photo of the cover under a free license.

The same also applies to File:1948 edition hymn book of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the picture is de minimis. It's small, but it's a critical feature of the cover as a whole. One possibility, though, is that the picture itself is in the public domain. Can you find any pre-1923 versions of it? --bjh21 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Same image is on the cover of File:1948 edition hymn book of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.jpg but before that they used a different picture.
What you are looking at is this pipe organ. The case was enlarged in 1915, it's highly unlikely nobody drew a picture of it between 1915 and 1923. - Alexis Jazz 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. - Alexis Jazz 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This 1938 postcard predates the Hymn book but I don't know if its copyright was renewed. This card looks similar but has no copyright notice. (probably slightly older print) - Alexis Jazz 14:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

FoP in Indonesia

I am assuming per COM:FOP#Indonesia that there is no FoP for buildings in Indonesia, which means that en:File:New GBK Main Stadium from Drone Jan 2018.jpg cannot be moved to Commons, right? If that's the case, then I am wondering about the copyright status of the stadium photos in en:List of stadiums in Indonesia. They are all from Commons and all uploaded as "own work". Are these acceptable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Like many other countries, most stadiums in Indonesia are publicly owned properties. That is, they are owned by the government and may be considered public domain works. Wikicology (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Unsure about that. Here is Template:PD-IDGov (which has an inactive link). The law says that it protects copyright of architecture. However, I don't know what article 14(b) means; does it allow photographs of Government-owned buildings to be used in the project? George Ho (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Works by the government and works whose creator died more than 50 years ago are PD and are compatible with our license here on Commons. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

CC license, but which one?

I just uploaded File:Screenshot Everipedia 2018-2-16.png. CC is the license according to the website (see here), but which one? At the moment there are two red banners at my upload that state that the license should be specified better. Of video's of YouTube apparently it is sufficient to use the Template:YouTube CC-BY. Could be important to make a special template for Everipedia as well, because it will contain a growing amount of material (photo's) that we could use well as well. Can someone help/advise? Ymnes (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Everipedia TOU says:
For more information on the terms of reuse of content found on Everipedia please reference the Creative Commons documentation:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
So it's {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. --bjh21 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No it isn't.
"Commercial Use: Unless otherwise expressly authorized herein or by Everipedia express written consent, you agree not to display, distribute, license, perform, publish, reproduce, duplicate, copy, create derivative works from, modify, sell, resell, exploit, transfer or transmit for any commercial purposes, any portion of the Service, use of the Service, or access to the Service aside from User Content owned by their respective authors. The Service is for your personal use and may not be used for direct commercial endeavors without the express written consent of Everipedia. This does not apply to User Content created under Creative Commons Licensure.
Intellectual Property Rights
Everipedia Content: Except for your User Content, the Service and all materials therein or transferred thereby, including, without limitation, software, images, text, graphics, illustrations, logos, patents, trademarks, service marks, copyrights, photographs, audio, videos, music, and User Content belonging to other Users (the "Everipedia Content"), and all Intellectual Property Rights related thereto, are the exclusive property of Everipedia and its licensors (including other Users who post User Content to the Service)."
So it's copyrighted. And the Tesla ad certainly would be, although for the screenshot that would probably be DM. @Ymnes: , will you nominate the screenshot for deletion? - Alexis Jazz 17:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's confusing. In what cases is CC-BY-SA-4.0 valid and in what cases not? Ymnes (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ymnes: Never, really. A flashing image on their homepage took me to [18]. The flashing image is clearly taken from a music video of Cardi which is unlikely not to be copyrighted. (I refuse to look up the music video. I'm old.) [19] is copyvio. It's ©complex.com. (see watermark here)
User content on Everipedia possibly is CC, but there's no way to tell what is user content and what is copyvio. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Your screenshot is obviously not user content, so if you don't nominate it for deletion I will. - Alexis Jazz 17:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As soon as it is sure, I will. But trust me please. I came here to the village pump to have a discussion first.
One of the board members of Everipedia is Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and founder of Citizendium. So he is very experienced with CC licenses and I can imagine that a first view on the licence may be different from the real background of the images. Through block chain technology artists are identified personally and I can imagine that this - in combination with the background/experience of Larry Sanger - may give an answer to the reason why an apparent copyright claim elsewhere is no longer valid. What I'm saying is that your example may not be valid for the whole website.
So please let's answer first why the claim of CC-BY-SA-4.0 is made and when it is valid. Does someone has that answer first? Ymnes (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Everipedia seems to be very careless regarding licensing. I don't think that Sanger is particularly involved in what Everipedia does in that regard. According to an article linked in a recent discussion a bit further up this page, Sanger became Everipedia's "Chief Information Officer" just last year. Also, Sanger has, to the best of my knowledge, never much dealt with licensing issues in the past (he's not a lawyer or a copyright expert, after all - and he left Wikipedia very early, and Citizendium was never much more than a small pet project). In the Wired article, he is quoted as being "drawn to the philosophical, epistemological benefits". Doesn't look like Everipedia's new licensing expert to me. As Everipedia doesn't even manage to attribute content from Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia correctly, I wouldn't re-use any of their content. It seems they just don't care about licensing. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The ToS is quite clear and I already cited it. If it confuses you, read it again. First part:
"you agree not to (do anything) for any commercial purposes, any portion of the Service .. aside from User Content owned by their respective authors."
Even if content that isn't User Content were CC, this means it would be a CC-NC variant which is not allowed on Commons. There is no mention of CC-NC though so it's copyrighted. We do agree that what we see on the homepage is not User Content, right?
"This does not apply to User Content created under Creative Commons Licensure."
Makes the clear distinction between User Content with CC license and other content.
To further clarify what Gestumblindi said.. I have some basic understanding of blockchain technology. It's a great tool to throw dust in someone's eyes. You say "well maybe Cardi B is an exception". I found her too easily. I made a list of various licensing errors, please see the Everipedia discussion above. - Alexis Jazz 19:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
How about File:Everipedia logo.svg? Same story or different? Ymnes (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Not Creative Commons. This is PD-textlogo in the US, copyrighted in some other countries. For example, probably protected by copyright in the UK where TOO is very low. Please nominate the screenshot. - Alexis Jazz 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw a convincing talk here and above. I just have nominated them, speedily. Thanks for the good arguments!! [20][21][22][23] Ymnes (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I converted one "speedy delete" request into Deletion Request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everipedia logo.svg. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As did I: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everipedia.png. -Animalparty (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Me three: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Everipedia - Alexis Jazz 23:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I was initially assuming good faith (even though it was a bit of stretch), but now I noticed the double exclamation marks. @Ymnes: , if you are frustrated with me I'm sorry, I didn't even ask you to speedy the screenshot. I preferred to allow you to nominate it yourself. It doesn't matter if you make a mistake, especially when you fix it yourself and I wanted to give you that opportunity. And just in case you thought there still would be some argument for keeping it, you would have been able to state that directly in the nomination. Too bad this ended with your sarcasm and three pointless DR's. - Alexis Jazz 04:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I am of good faith, so there's no sarcasm with me. Your reaction is quite incomprehensible to me. I don't see that I make a mistake either. I think it's a mistake to not delete the other two: 1) Everipedia doesn't allow them for commercial use and 2) there are many examples on their main page that they are not interested in tagging material correctly. This is where these two discussions are all about. And the double exclamation is because I sincerely thanked all of you for the good arguments. Ymnes (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
If I'm reading your words again, Chinese must be easier to understand than your answer on my question "How about File:Everipedia logo.svg?". Please understand that someone doesn't ask a question when he knows the answer. You did't anwser: "The copyright is all right there" or alike, but you answered: "Not Creative Commons .... copyrighted in some other countries ... probably protected by copyright in the UK". Don't blame me that I can't figure out on my own that the answer was hidden in the remarks "PD-textlogo in the US and "TOO". This is jargon, not normal language. Ymnes (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ymnes: it is jargon, but fairly common around here and also found on many logos you find here on Commons, including the Everipedia logo. {{PD-textlogo}} and COM:TOO is what I was talking about, but I don't always link it. As you clearly had some knowledge of CC licenses and knew there is a specific YT template for it, I assumed you would be familiar with some terms. But I would have been happy to explain/link any that you didn't understand. I mentioned the UK to make it clear what the lack of CC means in this case. Even though it means nothing for the US (or Commons), a CC license not being available can still have some impact for people who don't live in the US. As for the sarcasm I spoke of, I'm sorry - just goes to show how hard it is to understand someone's intentions when you communicate through text. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Don't be afraid to ask, 6 weeks ago I would have been just as confused as you. - Alexis Jazz 09:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's better to never lose faith in someone else, unless it's clear vandalism. I don't know how to untag the two other files and the category (if I'am allowed). If possible, I approve the tags to be removed. Ymnes (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ymnes: I never lost faith in you, it just looked like you got upset and did some things while being angry. That was a misunderstanding. You are not allowed to remove the tags. An administrator will come by at some point, make a decision and remove the tag or the image. Probably the tag. - Alexis Jazz 09:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And, just as I feared, there are already some questionable images being potentially licensed-laundered through Everipedia. File:Lee Hnetinka.jpg is sourced to https://everipedia.org/wiki/lee-hnetinka/ Animalparty (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I only see the one you linked. (and added copyvio to it) - Alexis Jazz 23:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I guess by some I meant just that one. :) Animalparty (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictures at Category:OGL v1.0

Years passed, and now is the time to re-evaluate the sources and licensing. I have replaced dead links with newer ones, and I changed the licensing to reflect the current sources. George Ho (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

FOP and bridges

A close look

Tabiat Bridge in Tehran, Iran is not an ordinary and mundane bridge; it has won several international awards. This huge pedestrian bridge connects two major parks over a highway. Considering the fact that the Iranian copyright law does not recognize the FOP exception, I think we cannot host images of the bridge unless we receive the necessary permissions from the rights holders. I nominated one of its pictures for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tabiat bridge in a beautiful day - panoramio.jpg), but I was told that the bridge is not subject to copyright in most countries. I wish to seek a third opinion. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The bridge is an utilitarian object. It is not a work of art. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
But it is an architectural work. It seems that some pictures of bridges have been deleted before: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peace Bridge, Tbilisi or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cobblers' Bridge. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pont de Recouvrance. The design of that one seems purely utilitarian, yet the law of France apparently says bridges are copyright and there's no FoP exception. To be copyrightable I think it would at least need to differ in some way from earlier bridges, i.e., have some originality. --ghouston (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It is an architectural work and won prestigious Aga Khan awards in 2016. I checked another bridge designed by Norman Foster and I saw Copyright warning in the category. SlowManifesto (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
In the U.S., bridges are considered utilitarian works and are not subject to copyright. They must be "buildings" and intended for human habitation to qualify for copyright in the U.S. Other countries may be different, as has been shown. I don't think it has been shown either way in Iran, and the text of the law is not clear on the matter. I'm not sure we should assume deletion until we see an actual court case in Iran on the matter, though that has been done in the past as you note. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It depends on the copyright in Iran. Commons requires that the file be free in both the US and source country (the Viaduc de Millau is in France, which does not have Freedom of Panorama, so most images of it can't be uploaded to Commons). What Carl Lindberg said is not entirely correct about US copyright. First, I think the sentence about human habitation is confusing what types of buildings are subject to freedom of panorama (FoP applies to buildings, and buildings are defined in part by whether they can be occupied by people). A structure that people can cross/walk on can be copyrighted. Also, there was a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about what "utilitarian" means in the context of the exception to copyright protection, w:Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (read the "Majority opinion" section). I think the bridge is ok because it doesn't have any art embedded in the design outside of utilitarian aspects; however, there may be some bridges that include elements that could be considered art under the Star Athletica case. AHeneen (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tabiat Bridge SlowManifesto (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

URAA and bilateral agreements

Hi, Fæ made a comment here which would considerably change the situation, as the USA has bilateral copyright agreements with most of the world. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's my logic, stricting having old works in mind. Hopefully @Clindberg: will be available in time to comment, they have a great brain for these things:
  1. Any pre-1996 work which in 1996 was PD in the source country is PD in the USA.
  2. Any pre-1996 work which in 1996 is not PD in the source country and was PD in the USA, has copyright "restored [which] will last for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have enjoyed if the work had never entered the public domain in the United States". Per circular 38b (highlights of URAA), link at https://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html.
Point 2 means that though the next part of the text talks about "generally" copyright then lasts for 95 years from publication, if there was a prior reciprocal agreement on copyright between the USA and the source country, the copyright term in the source country applies (as if the work had never entered the public domain in the US).
As a corollary, the URAA is irrelevant if the work was never in the public domain in the USA, because the reciprocal/bilateral agreement is in place and runs uninterrupted. For example a photograph published in Hungary in 1930, with an unknown photographer, should have a PD date of 2001 (70 year rule), both in Hungary and the USA, rather than use a 95 year rule (i.e. 2026) that the URAA does not specifically require.
--Fæ (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No, don't think the bilateral agreements worked that way at all. The bilateral agreements basically said that the U.S. would treat the other country's works the same as it did for their own citizens, as long as the other country did the same for U.S. works. That did sort of mean that the other countries could not use the rule of the shorter term for U.S. works (there was one case in Germany which ruled that way), but it also subjected foreign works to all the same formalities, etc. that U.S. authors had, but still got U.S. terms of protection if followed. When the U.S. joined the Berne Convention which disallowed formalities, the U.S. tried to avoid restoring works which had lost copyright to formalities. The Berne Convention technically requires retroactive restoration of older works at least for foreign works, though many countries do not, and if nobody complains that ends up being OK. However, given the U.S. market that was not OK with most other countries, so during the w:Uruguay Round of trade agreements, the U.S. hammered out the agreement to restore works from other countries along Berne Convention lines (including those which had had bilateral agreements and/or were part of the Universal Copyright Convention, which came later but also allowed formalities). That agreement became the URAA law. So, the existence of a bilateral agreement or not would not affect the URAA treatment. That was about rights the other countries gained over and above previous agreements due to the Berne Convention.
Correct that the URAA is not relevant if a work was never public domain in the USA. The USA has never used the rule of the shorter term, rather only their own terms, and the term in a foreign country has never affected the term in the U.S. The only way a foreign term affects the U.S. term is through the URAA, and then only on the URAA date (1996 usually). A photograph published in Hungary in 1930 with an anonymous photographer, but which followed copyright notice and renewal rules, would have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. If it was unpublished today (or as of 2003), it would have a term of 120 years from creation. If first published between 1978 and 2002, it would have a U.S. copyright until at least 2047, but the 120 years from creation would be a bit longer so that would apply. That is the same term as U.S. works, which has always been the way the U.S. treats foreign works. It is not relevant if a work becomes PD in another country after 1996, nor if a country later increases their terms and restores works. If that Hungarian work did *not* follow formalities though and became PD in the U.S. that way, i.e. being published without a copyright notice in 1930, it would be subject to the URAA. But because it would have been PD in Hungary in 1996 (they had 50 year from publication terms at the time), it would not have been restored by the URAA, and it would remain PD in the U.S. as well. Hungary increased terms to 70 years in 1994, but not retroactively; they then retroactively restored works to EU levels in 1999. This is the {{PD-HU-unknown}} tag, which would be true (today) in both Hungary and the U.S. A 1942 work may have been restored to 70 years in Hungary in 1999, but would have become PD again in 2013, and would have been PD in the U.S. all along (presuming lack of formalities). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, this is why I was pinging you. I was struggling with the logic and whether the parts about not accepting the rule of the shorter term was the overriding thesis or not; neither was it clear how the URAA interacted with previous assumptions about long term bilateral agreements.
Not good news, but in practice we all have a choice to make. When trying to apply the URAA to dusty academic archives, we are under no personal or individual obligation to ignore existing claims of archived media being public domain, nor are we obliged to reinterpret the reasonable presumptions of uploaders. After all we are not paid lawyers or IP analysts... Thanks
PS, the word "generally" in 38b looks like a deliberate hole to me. It's the sort of thing I would expect a smart lawyer to exploit to create more allowable exceptions, though perhaps the way it reads in plain English, is not the way a lawyer should read it. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
38b is an explanatory circular, not legal text. They say "generally" 95 years from publication, as they leave out the complications of being published well after being created (the term is really the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation). It also leaves out the special case of works created before 1978, and first published between 1978 and the end of 2002, which have a special term. Works created by a known author before 1978 but not published until after 2002 have a 70pma term. Most works were published soon after being created, so generally, 95 years from publication is the term for pre-1978 works. It's only ones which remained unpublished for a while and were published later that get more complicated. That is all explicit in the law, without loopholes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
While I don't have the time to figure out exactly how to solve the issue, I do want to quickly point out a couple of thing you should know about US copyright law. The US Congress is very averse to treaties (especially trade treaties/agreements) having any legal effect in US courts; basically, the US government agrees to trade treaties/agreements and handles disputes with the other countries, but makes clear that they shouldn't have effect for private parties in US courts. Again, that's especially true for trade/commercial agreements, but other types of treaties/agreements may be citable in US courts. As relevant to this discussion, are:
  • 17 U.S. Code § 104(c) Effect of Berne Convention (emphasis added): "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." Basically, the Berne Convention is irrelevant to copyright claims in US courts.
  • 19 U.S. Code § 3512(c) Effect of Agreement with Respect to Private Remedies:
(1) Limitations No person other than the United States—
(A) shall have any cause of action or defense under any of the Uruguay Round Agreements or by virtue of congressional approval of such an agreement, or
(B) may challenge, in any action brought under any provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any State, or any political subdivision of a State on the ground that such action or inaction is inconsistent with such agreement.
(2) Intent of Congress It is the intention of the Congress through paragraph (1) to occupy the field with respect to any cause of action or defense under or in connection with any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, including by precluding any person other than the United States from bringing any action against any State or political subdivision thereof or raising any defense to the application of State law under or in connection with any of the Uruguay Round Agreements [on any basis].
"URAA" is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in which the US Congress ratified a cluster of agreements including, as relevant to copyright, the TRIPS Agreement, which is largely a copy of the Berne Convention. The US joined the Berne Convention in 1989 and the TRIPS Agreement in 1995 and so both apply to the US government (and other nations can pursue claims against the US for violating them with the World Trade Organization, which may allow harmed countries to level tariffs on US goods), but as the quoted law above makes clear, is irrelevant to private parties.
As far as URAA restored copyright. If the work was copyrighted in the source country on 1 January 1996, then in the US it is copyrighted under normal copyright duration as if it was a US-origin work. The only issue with restored copyrights is some formalities about derivative works and legal proceedings (17 U.S. Code § 104A - Copyright in restored works) that aren't relevant to copyright duration. Page 7 of Circular 38A says that there are the following copyright treaties between the US & Hungary, which I've included the duration text:
  • a 1912 bilateral copyright treaty between the US & Hungary, in which Article 2 (Wikisource here) says: "The term of copyright protection granted by the present Convention shall be regulated by the law of the country wither protection is claimed."
  • UCC Geneva (1952) & UCC Paris (1971), which contain the identical Article IV Sect. 1: "The duration of protection of a work shall be governed, in accordance with the provisions of Article II and this article, by the law of the Contracting State in which protection is claimed. "
  • the Berne Convention & Uruguay Round Agreements that are addressed above.
So the simple conclusion is: if it was copyrighted in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it is copyrighted in the US and the length of copyright in the US is the same as if the work was published in the US (without regard to any of the formalities that were required in the 1970s and earlier, like registration and copyright notice). AHeneen (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I read the 19th century bilateral agreement between the US and Germany, and basically put no obligations on the US; the President would post a notice that Germany had made such an agreement with us. If we changed the rules about how we treated German or foreign works, well, the treaty put no obligation on us not to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fars

I think we need to discuss this template before it gets too late. "A stitch in time saves nine." I suggest to enforce license review just like Template:Tasnim. The news agency is not as professional as they should be. Here are some files that need attention:

and more.... 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SlowManifesto (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

SlowManifesto (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Czar: As the person who suggested license review for Tasnim's works, could you please take a look at this discussion and tell us your opinion about Fars' works. Much obliged. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I made the Tasnim template based on a discussion another editor had with the source. The conclusion was that the news site hosted its own photographs (freely licensed) but showed licensed images as well, and the distinction wasn't always clear. (As a news agency, they likely use other sources' images as illustrations in individual articles, and their stated free license would not relicense works that do not belong to Fars.) Of course, the best action in this scenario is to contact the firm directly and ask which images apply for their stated Creative Commons license. But until then, I'd look for watermarked photos and image galleries that clearly show the images to be indeed taken/owned by Fars. For instance, [24] appears to credit Fars for the gallery ("Photo: Fars") while [25] credits "Photo: Karami - Desert". But it'll take more scrutiny to determine which of Fars images actually apply under the license. (not watching, please {{Ping}}) czar 13:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

One piece luffy y sabo

Hi! I noticed that some of the uploads of the user One piece luffy y sabo have unclear metadata, but I'm not sure if they're copyright violations. Many thanks beforehand! --Jamez42 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I nominated all the images for speedy deletion. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this painting out of copyright?

"Jinling Twelve Beauties: Lin Daiyu Burying Flowers" by Fei Danxu (1801–1850), published in 1998, but painted before 1850. Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@DanielTom: Are you sure the painting has never been in an exhibition or something before 1998? COM:Hirtle isn't entirely clear here. If I go with the 1998 publication date, it says "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry" and the previous entry says:
  • Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author.
  • Other works: 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first
Author death was more than 70 years ago, 120 years from creation has expired, but are we supposed to pick the greater out of these two options or out of all three options? - Alexis Jazz 18:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The painting will have been exhibited in the Palace Museum previously, and no doubt was well known at least by the 1880s. Someone can dig out old catalogues to check more background after upload if anyone has minor concerns. The 95 year rules are irrelevant as the work was PD in the USA and China before 1995. This is safe to upload without any significant doubt and {{PD-old-70-1923}} is probably sufficient. --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, great. Thanks Alexis Jazz and Fæ. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: Why not {{PD-old-100-1923}}? - Alexis Jazz 20:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, bump it to 100. Upload the TIFF rather than a compressed jpeg derivative. --Fæ (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Albanian FOP?

Given the recent positive change at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania (see this discussion as well), can we undelete a great number of files from Category:Albanian_FOP_cases/deleted ? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, There is a request at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#Files under Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Moderntalking7.jpg

I'm a bit confused about the copyright status of this file. It's listed as "own work", and the Photoshop job might be the uploader's work. However, it clearly is based on a professional photograph of Modern Talking that I very much doubt is a free document. My question is: is this file a copyright violation and does it warrant deletion? (I'm new so I looked for information on various help pages and got redirected here. I hope I asked this question in the right place, but I apologise if not.) Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 20:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, you are in the right place. I nominated the file for deletion . The image was lifted from facebook and there is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the work. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help! Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 20:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Country of origin

According to Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, "the 'country of origin' of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." The Article 5 of the Berne convention defines the country of origin as the country of first publication.

On that basis, and on the basis of the wording of {{PD-Italy}}, I nominated File:David Seymour - Caramelle.jpg for deletion.

Ruthven closed that discussion and changed the wording of {{PD-Italy}} to suit the closing rationale and added a claim to the file description that the photo was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) (which is probably false).

The edit comment for the template references an article of the Italian copyright law which states that works are automatically copyrighted upon creation. This is a standard principle in the copyright law of most countries. It is designed to protect unpublished works, but it has nothing to do with the principles of international copyright law in determining the applicable jurisdiction of published works.

Second opinions? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This article in Italian law has nothing to do with unpublished works: it relates to all works. Thus, we have to consider that works created in Italy fall (also) under Italian law wrt copyright. @LX: I think that you lack a little bit of COM:GOODFAITH: I didn't changed the rationale of the template to fit the DR and it just sounds ridiculous to consider that possibility. If it was the case, thus have I also changed the Italian law to fit the DR? More simply, they made me notice that the wording in several languages of this template was wrong. One of those languages was English. --Ruthven (msg) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
For a usage of a simple photo in Italy itself, correct, it does not matter where a work was created or published -- the term would be 20 years from creation, no matter where it was created or published. However, use of the PD-Italy tag *does* require that the work was first published in Italy, or at least that Italy qualifies as the "country of origin" by the Berne definition, since that is Commons policy. If another country is the country of origin, we can't use PD-Italy -- and that definition *is* based on the country of publication, whereas the country of creation is usually meaningless. For any country using the "rule of the shorter term" to calculate the term in its country, if a work was created in Italy but published in a second country, the "country of origin" would be that second country and not Italy, and the copyright term would have nothing to do with Italy's laws. Since for Commons we use the Berne country of origin, the fact that the photo is PD in Italy is not relevant if the country of first publication is somewhere other than Italy. And if not published, the nationality of the author is the country of origin, again not the country of creation. So... your edit to the template was somewhat correct in that country of publication has no bearing to the copyright status in Italy, the subject of the sentence, but then country of creation doesn't either, so it's just as incorrect now. However, I think that clause was there because first publication in Italy is required for the template to be usable on Commons, and I think that is now dangerously changed. I think LX has a point that PD-Italy may not be an appropriate tag for the image. (One possibility is that if it was simultaneously published in Italy along with other countries, and Italy has the shortest term, which is possible.)
There are other possibilities. It sounded like the photo was part of a UNICEF-commissioned trip to take photos of WWII child refugees, so it's possible that UNESCO owned copyright. While an American citizen by that point, he was living in Paris in 1947, where he founded Magnum Photos. It sounds like the initial photos from the UNESCO work were published there, per this page. That links to two 1949 publications which had some of the photos (not this one though). One does not seem to have a copyright notice; the other says copyright 1949 UNESCO. The web page though credits the photos there as being copyright Seymour himself, or Magnum Photos, so maybe he retained copyright while UNESCO had the right to publish. It does sound like many different magazines published different portions of the photo set, so finding history on one particular photo may be hard. UNESCO publications were probably simultaneously published in many countries, including the U.S., which may take the URAA out of the equation and makes "country of origin" very difficult to determine, though copyright could possibly still exist. No idea if Magnum or Seymour filed any renewals in the U.S., but I did not find anything under Seymour's name with a quick search. Does not sound like they were published before 1949, so renewals in 1977 or later may have been necessary. Any of those photos unpublished through 1989 would still be under copyright in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't fully agree. If the law doesn't speak/care about "country of first publication", we shouldn't be the ones to change it. In other words, from Italian point of view, the country of origin is the creation country (at least in the 1941 copyright law). --Ruthven (msg) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The only time that "country of origin" matters is if a country uses the rule of the shorter term. In general, all terms will be governed by the laws of the country where a use of copyright occurs. You are correct that the law does not care about "country of first publication" for the most part (unless the term is even shorter in the country of origin), and neither does it care about the "country of creation". In Italy, the term for simple photos is at most 20 years from creation no matter where it was created or published. *However*, for Berne Convention purposes, and therefore Commons purposes, "country of origin" is the country of first publication and we would use that country's laws for our policy. If taken in Italy but published elsewhere, we cannot use PD-Italy, because that would not be the country of origin for COM:LICENSING. So country of first publication is of paramount importance for Commons, and if the PD-Italy tag is usable in the first place. I mean, we could place PD-Italy on such photos taken in say Germany as well, since those photos are also PD in Italy, but that tag would not help satisfy the "PD in the country of origin" part of Commons policy. "Country of origin" for policy purposes is determined by Berne Convention rules. If, and only if, that country turns out to be Italy, can we then use PD-Italy to satisfy that part of policy. But a photo taken in Italy and published elsewhere cannot use that tag. In this particular case, determining the country of origin may be extremely messy, but really could only be Italy if it happened to be simultaneously (within 30 days) published there. The photos were taken by a Polish-American author, who was living in Paris at the time it seemed. Other photos in the series were then published in France, but by UNESCO, which means they could have been distributed all over the place. It's also possible that some of those photos remained unpublished. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't seem possible to know whether a work is public domain in the US without knowing its publication history, including details like country and year of publication, subsequent US publication, whether it was published with a copyright notice, and also whether copyright in the US was renewed. --ghouston (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, but we hadn't even gotten to the U.S. part of policy -- the question was about country of origin only. For PD-Italy to apply in the first place, you would need to show that Italy was the country of origin, which also usually needs some publication info. The claim seemed to be it was due to the photo being taken there, which I (and LX) was disagreeing with. As for U.S. renewal, it would have needed to be in 1977 or later, since it sounds like 1949 was the earliest publication possible. 1978 and later is at www.copyright.gov, and I found no relevant renewals under either Seymour's name or Magnum Photos. I only lightly searched the 1977 renewal records, but found nothing in the photos section (we would need to search others as well though). But it's possible some of the photos were unpublished -- publication could be "interesting" due to the UNESCO part of the equation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "the law"? There's the Italian law, the Ethiopian law, the French law, the Iranian law, the US law, etc. Since the WMF is established in the US, it has to follow the US law. COM:L prioritizes the "country of first publication" because that matters in many countries due to the rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ghouston: , I think you're over-complicating things. It's impossible to prove a work is not under a free license; J.K. Rowling could have written in one copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone "I, Joanne K. Rowling, hereby release this work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.", and there's no way we can prove she didn't. But we don't have to; we assume it's copyrighted and non-free until evidence is shown. If you can show that a work was published more than 95 years ago, then that's it; it's public domain in the US. For a long time, Project Gutenberg didn't accept any other form of falling into the public domain, and nothing forces us to either. (That certain other rules put works into the public domain is an advantage, not a complication.) Any country with the rule of the shorter term is at least as challenging to prove, because they basically include US law as well as all other country's law by reference.
In a lot of cases, US is much easier. I've got a book called something like British Fantasy Illustrators, and is it PD-US? Title page says 1914, so ✔. Is it PD-UK as a whole? Almost certainly not, and it would be a great deal of work to chase down every single author, so it goes straight to the bottom of my scanning pile. Half a dozen of one, six of the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment And practically, if a work is first published in Italy and PD-Italy applies, it is in the public domain in all countries which use the rule of the shorter term (list: en:Rule of the shorter term). If it is first published elsewhere, it may still be in the public domain in Italy, but it would be under a copyright almost everywhere else. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, if it was published more than 95 years ago it's easier in the US than some other countries, but you still need to know the publication date, not just the date it was created. --ghouston (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    We don't care if a work is under copyright almost everywhere else. On Commons we consider PD a file that is PD in its country of origin (a not creative photo shot in Italy more than 20 years is PD in Italy - check) AND in the US (here, the URAA date prevails - so now we consider PD only Italian photos shot in Italy before 1976). If Chinese or Swedish copyright law says something different, we shouldn't care for such Italian examples. --Ruthven (msg) 10:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    COM:L says "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." It said that in 2007, and I don't believe there's been an appreciable period in between where it's changed. That a photo was shot in Italy does not matter any more than if it was shot on US film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    Where does the date of creation matter? If all you have in a life 70 nation is the date of creation, you can't tell whether a work is PD either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that in this debate we want to make sure that non-demonstrable and unverifiable aspects prevail. What are we talking about? Of the photo of a child on the street in Naples, taken in 1948. This is the only certain thing. Then that the photographer is American, but he lived in Paris, and maybe he did the photo shoot for UNESCO, and maybe he published the photo the first time in France, or first time in Italy, or the first time in US, but nobody can say neither where nor when, nor if the copyright is his or someone else's ... But what is concrete and real in all this matter? The only real thing is that the photo was taken in Italy 70 years ago, on the street, and portrays the life of every day. Here the Italian law, {{PD-Italy}}, should be applied. Nothing else. Everything else is fantasy, imagination, suppositions, hypotheses. Let's go back to talking about concrete things!---DenghiùComm (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's some information at [26]: it says the photo was published in Life Magazine in 1948. That may help work out the US copyright status. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Although that was already mentioned in the previous deletion discussion and considered irrelevant. --ghouston (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
In this debate, we want to make aspects that matter to the law prevail. Why should we worry about Italian law if we're not going to worry about the law?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

PD-Italy wording

Leaving aside the specific deletion discussion for the moment, I'd like to focus on the biggest issue first, namely the template.

As Carl Lindberg confirms above, what Commons' licensing policy is concerned with is the country of origin as defined by the Berne convention.

I therefore suggest replacing the first sentence:

This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired.

with the following:

The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired.

If there is no consensus for this, I'd ask for the previous wording to be restored until we can agree on an appropriate wording, since there is clearly no consensus for the change made in Special:Diff/278655204. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems good to me. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 Comment The issue is not really the template wording, but how we use it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, but the wording should be corrected, and the change to the template was the original question behind this discussion. In the end, we use the Berne Convention definition of "country of origin" (since that is the one that will matter legally), and in that definition, the country of creation has no bearing on the result. It's unfortunate that the country should be hard to determine in this case, but the only way it could be Italy is if it was simultaneously published there. There is nothing that makes Italy "most likely" otherwise. We may often assume the nationality of the author is the country where it was created (and thus the most likely country of publication), both of which can matter for the Berne Convention, but in this case we know that the author was not Italian, so those assumptions would not hold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Right. IMO, the easy way is to keep the current wording (which is not wrong), and add a big red warning "Do not use this template unless the image is also published in Italy". Regards, Yann (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It is wrong (or, at best, non sequitur). Under Article 185 and the ones that follow, the law covers works by Italian citizens regardless of first publication (or, implicitly, place of creation), works by Italian residents first published in Italy, and works covered by international agreements or reciprocity. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I had the impression that Commons doesn't use the Berne Convention definition of "country of origin" when applying its policy that files be free in the source country of the work. The "country of origin" rules may help determine the copyright status in some cases. For example, there are a lot of photos on Commons that are first published on Commons, yet they still have to be free in the country where the photo was created. The wording of the template should be "This photograph was created in Italy"... without linking to Berne. --ghouston (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law defines country of origin in accordance with the Berne convention, and I've already explained why place of creation is irrelevant in general as well as for Italy in particular. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that section makes the policy somewhat different to what I thought it was. Where are the templates that specify the copyright status in the country of residence of the author and the country of upload? Now I'm wondering if I can ask for some of my French bridge photos to be undeleted, because a) I never published them in France b) I've never been a resident of France c) I didn't upload them from France, therefore there's no need for them to be free in France. --ghouston (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama is a separate matter. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Choice of law. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Correct, the bridge was published in France and it has a copyright (in France at least), so derivative works can still be messy. Those photos would be fine on en-wiki though, which uses U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but I uploaded a photo of the bridge, not the bridge itself. The photo is permitted under the law of the countries of origin and publication, which are the UK, the USA, and Australia (apparently I don't have to bring my citizenship into it.) I'm amused that I was accused above of overcomplicating things, since the complications seem never-ending. --ghouston (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You uploaded a derivative work of the bridge. In those cases, distribution may be controllable by the copyright owner of the underlying object, and we try to respect that copyright as well. But yes, copyright has endless complications, and the choice of law for freedom of panorama stuff is its own lovely topic. In general, policy is to respect the law in the country of the underlying public object in that case, in addition to the photo's copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: -- Pretty sure we use Berne "country of origin", since that is what has legal effect in many other countries (a work PD there is also PD in all countries which use the rule of the shorter term, thus the use in the policy). "Source country" is a URAA term, related to country of origin (and also based on country of first publication), but has some technical differences. Country of upload could subject the uploader to copyright infringement, but that is the uploader's risk, so we don't have tags for that. (We could simply have someone else upload a work if it is PD in the country of origin). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
LX: I am not really opposed to your wording. I thought that an easy consensus could be reached with my proposal. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the matter is a little more complicated. I just discovered that the Italian Copyright Law has been improved in 2016 (DLgs 15 gennaio 2016, n. 8). Artt. 185, 189 say that the copyright law shall apply to

  • All Italian citizens, wherever the work has been published for the first time.
  • All foreign citizens resident in Italy and who published the work in Italy for the first time.
  • All works created in Italy or considered Italian for the abovementioned reasons.

This applies to cinema, photography, music, theatre, and engineering works only. For other works, the reciprocity international agreements hold.
Besides that, the new rewriting of the law and the creation of new dedicated institutions introduces some novelties (like rules for architectural works, that would help us greatly in solving some FOP in Italy cases). This we shall discuss another time. --Ruthven (msg) 11:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, that does not affect which country is the "country of origin". Italy will also protect works from citizens of other countries if they are part of the Berne Convention. The above rule sounds like it will also protect works created there, even if the photographer is not part of the Berne Convention, and also it may mean that the rule of the shorter term may not apply if a photo was taken there. But not much else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as we're talking about translating the Italian law, let's translate it and not the Berne convention! @Carl Lindberg: The rule of the shorter term still applies (Art. 188). --Ruthven (msg) 14:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If Article 189 applies, then 188 does not, per its wording. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@LX, @Ruthven, @Clindberg, @Ghouston, @Prosfilaes, @Yann : Does photographs from Italian photographers are always covered by PD-Italy, even if the country of creation or publication is not Italy, as said by @Materialscientist ? - Groupir ! (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by PD-Italy? As I've said, if the country of publication was not Italy, Italian law is irrelevant for the purposes of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
COM:L says "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." Here we have a "generally" that indicates that this phrasing doesn't apply here, because clearly, for PD-Italy the country of origin is not (only) where the work was first published. I reckon that the case is complex, because we can have 2 countries of origin (e.g. for photos shot by Italian photographers but published elsewhere: country of origin would be Italy another country with the "first publication" rule and no bilateral agreement with Italy). In any case, we need the work to be PD in the US, either by bilateral agreements or by URAA or other rules. --Ruthven (msg) 08:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes and Ruthven : I meant " Does photographs from Italian photographers are always under the Italian laws about copyright ... ?" Sorry for my English. By asking this question, I had one example in mind : photographs from Giancarlo Botti, an Italian photographer who worked for Gamma-Rapho, a French agency. - Groupir ! (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As per the Berne convention's definition of country of origin, there are cases where the country of origin is not the country of first publication. This involves cases of unpublished works and works published outside the Union of Berne convention signatories. The word "generally" doesn't change the fact that it's the Berne convention that determines whether protections (or lack thereof) under a given jurisdiction are relevant to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
If you are actually in Italy and want to make use of a photograph, yes Italian law (including PD-Italy) applies. For the "country of origin" for Commons purposes, we use the Berne Convention definition, Article 5(4), where the country of creation does not matter (other than for architecture). Obviously there are exceptions for unpublished works (since there is no country of first publication), but most of the time it is the country of publication. If a foreign author takes a photo while visiting Italy, Italy is not the country of origin, unless it is actually published there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest which copyright tag for the US would be most appropriate for File:Eliza Acton 1799-1859.png? Acton was an English cookery writer, died 1859, earliest publication date and location not known. The first publication I'm aware of was online at https://mypoeticside.com/poets/eliza-acton-poems#block-bio. The Internet Archive has archived that once only, on 19 October 2017. So as things stand right now, that's the earliest known publication date. I've looked at every US tag and can't find one that doesn't exclude it somehow. SarahSV (talk) 16:40, 17 Februar8y 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if that online publication was prior to 1 January 2003. I think {{PD-US-unpublished}} is more appropriate since the death date of its author is not known, and the work was created before 1898. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wikicology, thanks. That tag says "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions: its author died before 1948; the death date of its author is not known, and it was created before 1898; it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1898."
We can say yes to all, except "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003". That's unlikely. Every tag I've looked at makes a claim that's unlikely. Do we not have a simple PD tag for old photographs? SarahSV (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: , could you please, comment on this? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Most photographs back then were published, I would guess. If it was a U.S. photograph I would just say PD-1923. If it was a work for hire of a family, it could be unpublished (but would still be PD), but that would be very unlikely. There is always {{PD-US}} if the precise reason isn't completely apparent. On the other hand though, the photo shows up on this page, a bit larger, but identifies it as being a completely different person (and a UK image as well). That could in theory be unpublished and is more likely than the US to have that status, but again, it would be PD in the UK other than the possible 25-year publication right. How sure are we that the photo was identified correctly? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Carl, interesting find that it might be someone else. en:Eliza Acton has been nominated for FA status, and a question was raised about the image, which is why I thought I'd try to be helpful and find the right tag. Pinging SchroCat, the nominator. SchroCat, this page says that's a photograph of Julia Eliza Northey Hopkins/Shum. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this not an image of Isabella Beeton? Mrs Beeton's image was misidentified as Eliza Acton here. Wikicology (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Its certainly not Beeton – she died at 28. I'll have a chat with Chiswick Chap about it - he's been stewarding the Acton article for a while and is a font of knowledge regarding cookery literature. He also uploaded this image, so I think would be good,to,get his thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I would combine {{PD-old-assumed}} with {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Even though it is probably not correct to say that it was not published before 2003, it would be best to err on the side of caution. If it was published earlier, it would either be in the public domain (a) because it was published before 1923, without a copyright notice, or copyright wasn't renewed or (b) the author has reasonably been dead more than 70 years (before December 31, 1947). AHeneen (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, this image (or a suitable substitution) might be found by running a text name search at Internet Archive e.g. "Miss Eliza Acton" bring up 108 results, predominantly from historic sources. This involves a good deal of trial and error (and luck), but old books are a trove of previously unsorted/unlabeled images. Animalparty (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Shockingly, File:Eliza Acton 1799-1859.png may still be in copyright. I'll assume it really is Eliza Acton and the picture was taken in the UK. For the US copyright you can refer to COM:Hirtle, for the UK Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United Kingdom. Questions are:

  • Has it been published and if so, when? The photo may have been made just for the family. Or for a book cover. We just don't know. So we should probably* assume it was published a few years ago on the web.
  • Who is the author? We don't know, but that doesn't make them unknown. We just don't know how to figure that out at this point. Because of this, 120 years from publication doesn't apply.
  • When did the author die? Since we don't know who it is, we have to assume the worst case. Worst case is this picture was taken the day she died by a kid that was just 5 five years old and lived to be 115 years. (if you find that silly you can assume a 15 year old, still copyrighted) That means 1859-5 115=1969. 70 years after that is 2039.
  • For the UK it's also 2039: If the work was not published before 30 August 1989 and the author died after 1968 then copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.

* Probably. If the first publication was done without consent of the copyright holder, it is not "lawfully made available to the public". What if we do deem the author to be unknown? (we shouldn't but anyway)

  • US: 120 years from creation (expired 1859 120=1979)
  • UK: "If the work is unpublished and was first made available to the public after 1968 then copyright expires 70 years after the work was first made available to the public."
  • If the publications were not lawful it will expire at the end of 2039.

So unless we can figure out who the author is and they died more than 70 years ago or we can figure out if this photo was perhaps made in the US by anonymous author or we can confirm it was published a long time ago, it's a goner. - Alexis Jazz 08:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We really can't assume the photographer was 5 at the time. Cameras were extremely expensive in 1859, and it's more likely that this was a studio shot - a five year old wouldn't be allowed to play round with one! - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz: Sorry, but most of what you say above doesn't make sense. People didn't live 115 years old, and 5-years-old were not allowed to touch a camera. That's not the right way to find the copyright status of a file, and that's not how courts decide about copyright issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I did make an edit to that statement (before you posted this) that if you assume the photographer was 15 it would still be in copyright. Which would be possible for an apprentice. And if the photographer had a son/daughter it's possible they could allow their child at a pretty young age to operate the shutter. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Inflation-1923.jpg is an interesting read. - Alexis Jazz 10:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
UK photos before 1957 had a term of 50 years from creation, period. The EU restorations would give it a term of 70 years from publication, but if not published within 70 years, then 70 years from creation. That term has also passed. That 2039 date you cite is true for many types of works, but photographs are not among them (or at least, only photographs taken June 1957 and later could have that term). But if this photo was commissioned by the family (which in the UK would have given them first copyright), and pulled from a family archive in 2012, meaning it really is still unpublished (versus the transaction between the photographer and family constituting publication) they may still have the 25 year publication right. That is not relevant in the US (so uploading to en-wiki may be fine), but could still be an issue in the EU). You can see a more detailed UK chart here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bronze Offerings Table.jpg

As the Description of the picture, it was a photo of Two pages (pp. 56–57) from the book The Search for Ancient China by Corinne Debaine-Francfort, ‘New Horizons’ series, Thames & Hudson, 1999. but is this book a non-fiction book?--Baomi (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "non-fiction book"? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And other big screens showing live footage. Triggered by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opening ceremony of 33th Fajr International Film Festival-13.jpg. Other example: File:Two Jiggas (2011-11-29 by Ian T. McFarland).jpg. (I could crop that one so no speedy please..)

What do we do with these? The screens in such cases are used as a magnifying glass or to show something to people who can't fit in the venue. They may not be set up with creative intent. On the other hand, it is an image taken by a camera that wasn't set up by whoever took the photograph. If we deny these we got a lot of deleting to do. (not saying we shouldn't.. just saying) - Alexis Jazz 20:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The video photographer (or their employee) is just as entitled to their copyright as the still photographer (or their employee) is to theirs. The only possible exception would be if the image shown on the screen is not recorded; in some jurisdictions, such displays would be ineligible for copyright protection unless "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". Since things like this are routinely recorded, and proving otherwise is hardly ever possible, files like this are typically deleted as derivative works. There are plenty of precedents. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There's almost certainly a cameraman there who was sat in position to grab the best picture. It's clearly copyrightable. In the current environment, the default is going to be recording that, because it's trivial to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright. I'll take care of it. (everything I can find anyway) - Alexis Jazz 05:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Montanabw: and @Masem: were discussing pretty much the same thing not too long ago over at w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/July#Jumbotron images. I nominated the horses along with 25 other images for deletion. A few were nominated for reasons other than jumbotron because I also ran into some other cases.
The strangest (but completely unrelated, but I found it so strange I can't help but share) case I ran into was File:Dr. Donna J. Nelson Times Square photo.jpg vs. File:Dr. Donna J Nelson Times Square photo.jpg. See if you can spot the differences. Hint: don't look for any differences in the photo itself other than being cropped.
Some of the jumbotron images could be saved with some cropping/blanking. For some images I did that. If anyone wants it for some of the nominated pictures as well, drop me a note on my talk page or ping me. - Alexis Jazz 06:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Recently, I had the opportunity to take photos of a number of notable persons. The photos were taken in the US at an event that was open to the public. At the same time, the photos were taken in an area of a hotel that was like a roofed atrium indoors and that may not be normally open to the public. (While the event was going on, this area was open to members of the public who were attending the event.) The question is whether the photos can be uploaded to Commons, given that there are copyrighted works visible in the photos. (The copyrighted works are not the main subjects of the photos, so there is the possibility that some of the depicted copyrighted or possibly-copyrighted works may be incidental and/or de minimis.)

  • The first photo is one of Brent Anderson. A low-resolution sample can be downloaded here. The main subject is Mr. Anderson himself, but there are also pins/buttons on his hat band, a light-brown object of some sort that that appears to be strung on a necklace, and a wall with windows behind him. In addition, there are some plants in the background that are likely part of a garden arrangement. COM:IC#Gardens seems to indicate that gardens in the US are not copyrightable. Some works of art are visible near the bottom of the photo but they are cut off and so they may not be an issue. (As persons go, it appears that there is a bystander visible near the lower-right portion of the photo, to the left of the black pole, but they are not the subject of the photo.)
  • The second photo is one of Marta Kristen. A low-resolution sample can be downloaded here. The main subject is Ms. Kristen. She is wearing jewelry and at the bottom of the photo there are some artistic works or other photos that are visible on the table, though they are not intended to be the main subject. Behind Ms. Kristen, there are some plants and rocks that are likely part of a garden arrangement, in addition to a wall.

--Gazebo (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think they are both fine, and the elements are all DM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have uploaded high-resolution versions of the photos as File:Brent-Anderson-in-2018.jpg and File:Marta-Kristen-actress-in-2018.jpg. --Gazebo (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Another photo that I took at the described event is one of Ramon Villalobos. A low-resolution sample can be downloaded here. In the photo, there is a Cal logo (for the University of California, Berkeley) on Mr. Villalobos' cap, but this logo (from what I understand) is of US origin and there is the question as to whether it would be a case of {{PD-textlogo}} even though it has shading and raised lettering. I am guessing that any logos on the orange lanyard (if they are copyrightable) are incidental and/or de minimis. Would this photo be all right for uploading to Commons? --Gazebo (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gazebo: This should also be fine, as the base logo is File:California Golden Bears logo.svg, which is {{PD-textlogo}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have uploaded a high-resolution version of the photo as File:Ramon-Villalobos-in-2018.jpg.
Note: When uploading the photo, I described Mr. Villalobos as a "comic book artist". The English Wikipedia article on Mr. Villalobos also uses that term. From what I remember, doing a Web search indicated other works that also describe Mr. Villalobos as a "comic book artist" and my understanding is that a single fact by itself is not copyrightable, so I did not do anything to attribute the English Wikipedia article at that point. Subsequently, I added a category that relates to comics and artists to the description page for the photo, and at that point, in the edit summary, I did attempt to attribute the English Wikipedia article. Hopefully, this should not be too much of an issue. --Gazebo (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gazebo: I don't see any issues. And the guy in the background doesn't stand out enough for me to remove like I did on File:Brent-Anderson-in-2018.jpg. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. --Gazebo (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictures at Category:African Union Conference Center in Addis Ababa

I'm confused. Is the building located in Ethiopia covered by China law or Ethiopia law? Ethiopia doesn't allow FOP, but China does. George Ho (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why it should be covered by the Chinese copyright law? Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
According to w:AU Conference Center and Office Complex, the Chinese company China Architecture and Design Research Group and Tongji University designed the building. Also, the China State Construction Engineering contracted it. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It would matter only if the design had first been published in China before the building was built. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-Finland50

There is an edit request at Template talk:PD-Finland50/en. Can people review it, as I do not like to change language of licenses without broader discussion. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Uploading and using WW2 photos from national archives and libraries but also Flickr and Pinterest and Google Images, blogs, etc.

Hi,

I would really like to know definitely if I am able to upload onto Wikipedia, photos taken in WW2 by the Italians, Germans, British and Americans. Many of these images can be found on the internet, on Flickr, Pinterest, blogs and other sites, as well as the national archives of these countries. Many are also anonymous.

I am really confused by it all and need some real advice on what I can or cannot upload to WW2 Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praxiphane (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Praxiphane: For each photo, you will need to know where (in what country) and when it was taken and published, whether the photographer took it in the course of their official duties, and if so which service they were in. Good luck.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Praxiphane: In some cases you do not need all that exercise. If the photographer took the photo as part of his official duties in the US army and the image was first published in USA, then other circumstances are irrelevant for us (but not necessarily for you, if you e.g. live where the photo was taken). Likewise, if the photo was first published in Finland (before 1996) and is not regarded a work of art (these photos hardly), the copyright has expired regardless of other factors. And so on. What factors are relevant depends on why you think the photo is PD, and usually one reason is enough. If the image is one of a copyrighted object, that is a different question. And then, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, on wp-en satisfying US copyright law is enough.--LPfi (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
yeah - there are a lot of WWII images floating around such as File:Fordney Settle Navy.jpg. most are from Government archives and digitized by past researchers, whose provenance and metadata needs improvement. more rare, are personal photos which tend to have clear copyright claimed on them. i would presume PD-USgov, you can do an image search by "similar image" and look for the largest resolution, earliest upload to find the parent. but be prepared to be challenged by deletionists: i have had scans from the National Archives nominated which had Army Signal Corps watermarked in the image. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia using multimedia content from this project

I emailed the Wikipedia-mirror site Everipedia about using content from Wikimedia Commons, like File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg used for Mars and File:Sun white.jpg used for Sun. They haven't responded for weeks after Everipedia and I discussed their copying Wikipedia articles. Moreover, I could not find any licensing notice and credit on multimedia content, required by individual licensing terms. Furthermore, an article about one deceased person uses a video, which the Wikipedia article doesn't use. What can be done about this? George Ho (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I had never heard of this site before, but it is a true work of art (of the crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine variety). There appears to be virtually no attribution or sourcing for images (save for a few clickable ones that link to static jpgs on Commons), no attribution for clearly mirroring Wikipedia articles, and a blanket (and blatantly false) copyright statement that everything on the site is under CC-BY-SA license. Articles on celebrities have clearly professional model shoots and TV clips attached. This looks like a license-launderer's wet dream (step 1: post to Everipedia. Step 2: it's on Everipedia, it must be CC! Step 3: Profit.) I'd like to see a team of copyright vigilantes bring the hammer down hard on this site. Animalparty (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for notation sake, Everipedia is Larry Sanger's new pet project. Founded as a "more inclusive Wikipedia" that has no inclusionary standards which apparently includes dabbling in hosting issues as well. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, it's for profit, and thrives in fake news after disasters (they're already making articles of the shooting victims in Florida). Sorry Larry, you've hitched your apple wagon to a sick horse. Animalparty (talk)
According to that article, respectively "according to Everipedia, the site was founded in 2015 by UCLA graduates Sam Kazemian, 24, and Travis Moore, who is 27 or 28, along with a Swedish designer, Theodor Forselius, 22 ..." - Larry Sanger isn't mentioned. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
He is their chief information officer and has an everipedia email address. --Majora (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Sanger joined late last year. Oh and here's one of the founders: "I got really excited because I had always wanted to have a Wikipedia page about me, but when someone made one, Wikipedia had deleted it because I’m not important enough. I felt like if I have been denied a Wikipedia page, and I’m so upset about it, then there are probably millions who feel the same way I do".[27] Typical millennial: let's capitalize on me and others not feeling important enough and undercut notions of notability/encyclopedic knowledge Because YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, MySpace, and every other blogging and social network site are clearly not providing enough attention to these snowflakes. Also, money. Animalparty (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And jeez, they're blowing any semblance of neutrality out of the water with their "article" on Criticisms of Everipedia, which is 100% PR, written in the first person. Compare to Wikipedia's Criticism of Wikipedia to see an example of why you shouldn't trust for-profit websites to be honest and open about themselves. Animalparty (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we not bash on a large group of people who make up many of our fellow editors? Millennials are moderately tired of being slammed for doing the exact same thing their parents and their parents before them did. The people who invented MySpace and who used MySpace were too old to be millennials by most definitions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To try to bring this back to the "copyright" aspect of the website. If you are an "invested contributor" of something on that site and it is violating your copyright you can send in a takedown notice up to, and including, a DMCA takdown. Enwiki has a list of form letters that you can send that can be easily modified for images here: en:WP:Takedown. Please note, that you must be the actual contributor of that work in order to file a legal takedown. So images that are from third-party sources, like that Mars photo, we probably can't do much about. --Majora (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For the DMCA, must the sender reveal one's own postal home (if not business) address to the service provider? George Ho (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure George Ho. A true DMCA is a legally binding document. You have to put your real name and real information. That is why when the WMF posts them they redact information out of them. From what I can gather from the ones that the WMF have posted, such as wmf:DMCA St. Michael (Löffingen) interior there does appear to be an address block redacted (three lines one after the next). So I'm guessing that you do have to put it in. This may be because if they want to file a counter-suit they have to know where to send the papers. But I could be wrong and I'm not a lawyer so any information I have is just a guess. --Majora (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I made this list to make a point in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#CC license, but which one?, it's amazing. Everything that follows are articles linked (featured?) on their homepage:

  1. https://everipedia.org/wiki/6-dogs-rapper/ image caption: "6 Dogs "frozen tears" Music Video"
  2. Same article: image predated by http://www.themaskedgorilla.com/6-dogs-rapper-flossing-interview/ which also shows another photo from the same series, attribution is nowhere to be found, may be original from themaskedgorilla or originate from social media. Okay, so I found two more copyvios. Blockchain will save us! Oh, snap.
  3. https://everipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy/19209505/ Wait, that's actually CC-BY-SA 2.0! Too bad they fail attribution forever, CC license does not apply, copyvio.
  4. https://everipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman/ embeds https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/WonderWoman1970s.jpg. Hey, it's embedding something from Wikimedia servers so that's alright isn't it? Well, no. I am unlucky four times in a row, what does that prove?
  5. https://everipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Fuji/ shows https://everipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Fuji/31222058/ which is File:Mount Fuji - Switchbacks and Retaining Walls, May 2004.jpg. It's GFDL CC-BY-SA. Now tell me, where exactly is the required attribution?
  6. https://everipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley/5607257/ is w:en:File:Elvis Presley LPM-1254 Album Cover.jpg. More fair use!

Remember, I only clicked articles I could find directly on their homepage. Pretty much every single page has copyvios, it's far worse than I thought. And you know what is the worst of all this? Any users genuinely adding their own content in any form to Everipedia is wasted. It can never be reused. - - Alexis Jazz 19:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope rightsholders sue them into bankruptcy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I emailed the site's registrar company about this. I've not yet filed a DMCA request. George Ho (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC); done so probably. Registrar company doesn't own it. George Ho (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I found this article through their forum (I'm not joking. This is where the "Visit our forum" button goes!!) saying they just secured a $30M investment. If they spend as much money on lawyers as they do on copyright experts, that $30M will last forever! I picture it as Larry Sanger without any lawyer picking up the microphone in court to become Larry Singer only to copyvio Shaggy in his defense. - Alexis Jazz 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
tsk, tsk, all you want, the cavalier attitude toward images is widespread. i'm just waiting to edit for the bitcoin, especially for the contemporary art. but alas not unlocked for mere volunteers, perhaps they are vapor-wiki. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to look in to this website and get my copyright enforcers over at Pixsy to throw down a hammer if I find any of my images. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My DMCA request ended as "no action taken" (unless I fulfilled its requirements). I'm not planning another request any time soon. Oh... BTW, I found out that this bot has imported pages and images from Wikipedia. Also, there is the recent activity page with filters to choose. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they grab original versions of all pages from English Wikipedia and then try to build upon it. The first link in "references" points to the English Wikipedia page. Saw my two images there. :) Jee 08:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: They probably don't grab individual pages. Enjoy. - Alexis Jazz 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Asking for attention to DR of coffin photo

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohsen Hojaji funeral in Isfahan.jpg

I normally wouldn't bring it up here, but the "dw no source" is about to expire so something needs to be done quickly.

The problem seems to be the photo of the man in front of the coffin. This photo is clearly not the main subject of this image and I believe it to be de minis. It is technically possible to remove the coffin photo from this image (and the image would still be useful), however I feel that this would in general be disrespectful. Especially in this case because the man has already been beheaded. I am not comfortable removing his head from this photo if you know what I mean. - Alexis Jazz 08:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You're not gonna beahead the person once more. You can blur his picture. I want to add this picture to the discussion. Is it de minimis? SlowManifesto (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@SlowManifesto: Still seems pretty disrespectful. In the image you added the photo is a larger part of the image, but tell me: is that a photo of a coffin with people behind it or a photo of a photo? The main subject of the image is not the photo on the coffin. If the photo had never been on the coffin, it would have made no difference to how the photo would have been taken or could be used. It just so happens that the photo was placed on the coffin and blurring or removing it seems rather disrespectful.
"The law does not concern itself with trifles." Do you honestly believe Associated Press would consider even for one second to blur all the signs in this photo? - Alexis Jazz 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@SlowManifesto: You may not have intended this joke to be offensive, but it is very much inappropriate and completely irrelevant to your argument. Would you redact? — Rhododendrites talk |  22:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think that it could be offensive. Sorry. SlowManifesto (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Back on the subject, Alexis Jazz the post here doesn't really seem neutrally worded (see Commons:Canvassing), but I tend to agree with the idea that it is not a valid de minimis claim, sorry to say. It does seem fixable, though. I'm working on adding an opinion to the DR page, and also looking for alternative images. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that - however, that that concerns vote and consensus based discussions. A deletion request is neither. If it actually would have been a vote, I think I possibly would have worded the message more neutral. But we'll never know. Thanks again for the link. - Alexis Jazz 00:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I may be carrying some assumptions over from Wikipedia, but to my understanding canvassing issues come up in relation to deletion discussions more often than anywhere else. It is certainly a "vote and consensus" discussion. It's based on consensus regarding application of policies and guidelines, commonly expressed in a vote-like format (or a "not a vote"/!vote). Some of the folks more up on the differences between Wikipedia and Commons may correct me, but a non-neutral cross-posting of a deletion discussion is, IMO, textbook canvassing. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: If a file is copyvio and 100 users post  Keep it will still be deleted. I tried to provide a summary of the discussion because if I had just dumped a link that would not be very helpful either. If there had been any arguments against I probably would have included them. I don't think it makes any difference though. Someone could be campaigning (this form of canvassing would be the campaigning variant) all they want, it's not going to keep those who disagree from clicking my link. I can see the problems that arise with spamming, votestacking and stealth canvassing but I personally don't have big issues with campaigning. It's probably better if someone in such a case doesn't try to hide they are biased.
I will keep the canvassing link in mind next time, but I don't think what I did was really wrong. I'm biased and I don't hide it. Writing "a concise neutrally worded notification" is a work of art. Very few are capable of it. Anyone who merely tries ends up writing a notification that isn't neutrally worded but succeeds in hiding their bias. But this is probably offtopic, maybe I'll make it into an essay. - Alexis Jazz 14:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

National sides of Austrian Euro coins

A little over a year ago, I started a deletion discussion regarding an Austrian Euro coin (see discussion). At the time, Commons:Currency stated that the status of Austrian coins was unknown [28]. It was my assertion at the time that since we didn't know the copyright status of Austrian Euro coins, they should be deleted. The DR was closed as keep, on the assertion that since we didn't know we shouldn't delete it.

In September of this past year, Commons:Currency#Austria was updated to indicate that coins are most likely not PD [29][30]. This was done by editors @Wdwd: and @Pajz: .

Before undertaking a group deletion of all files in Category:Commemorative 2 euro coins (Austria), I thought it should be brought to discussion here, per @Jcb: 's comments in the closure of the deletion request. Input? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the new information, a mass DR on all the involved files seems inevitable. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The question is, do we apply Austrian copyright on Euro coins which by definition should not be owned by the EU member nation. It is a common currency not Austrian currency. I want to think that the issue is murky and needs more investigation. For all we know the design involved no Austrians. Perhaps we can ask EU itself to clarify. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@とある白い猫: I think you may be missing something important: a Euro coin has one side that is common across the whole EU, and one side that is specific to the country that issued it. This question is solely about the Austrian national side, which only appears on Austrian Euro coins. It was almost certainly designed in Austria by Austrians and first published in Austria, and therefore subject to Austrian copyright laws. --bjh21 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy - Government of India

I had noticed that copyright notice of most of the Govt. of India sites are recently changed from "all rights reserved" to "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission". Though I failed to find a supporting order till now. Now I found it.

"Government Open Data License - India - National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy - Government of India":

"Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, and subject to the conditions listed under section 4 and 7 of this document, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information."

Ref:

https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf

https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP Implementation Guidelines 2.4.pdf

https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/Gazette_Notification_OGDL.pdf

https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf

(Not sure whether we noticed or discussed this earlier.)

Jee 06:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: This looks like great news, please discuss it at Template talk:PD-India-Gov.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff; I added a notification there. I think discussion is better here than in a template talk. Jee 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Tried to summarized all information at en:National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy – Government of India. Jee 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I think we could use a new {{PD-India-Gov}} without reference to edicts, but the rudimentary old one got redirected to {{EdictGov-India}}, with the redirect fully protected, so a Commons Admin would need to implement.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes Jeff; we need a separate template. Further this license ("Government Open Data License - India") need attribution; so something similar to CC BY 4.0, not PD. The judgments and similar edicts will still remain as PD. Some tuning in both {{EdictGov-India}} and {{PD-India}} may required. Jee 04:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
A license tag is created and some discussion moved to Template talk:GODL-India for convenience. Jee 05:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Are license changes retroactive?

There currently is a discussion over at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:KOGL where it is claimed that if the South-Korean government would want to change their license for KOGL1 in the future that this would affect the files 📁 presently on Wikimedia Commons but I was under the impression that licenses are irrevocably granted, can licenses be changes retroactively? Maybe an expert in South-Korean law can comment. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes licences may be changed and licences may be withdrawn. The CC ones explicitly state they are irrevocable, and this is a requirement for any licence to be acceptable on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
well some governments do not retroactively change their copyright law, like australia, and some do like the united states and URAA. so it has happened. and commons "migrates" GFDL to CC. the license purists, waste no opportunity to rationalize deleting low risk items. so it goes. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Satellite images

Satellite colour images are composed by merging different greyscale photos (one for each colour channel). The merging requires an accurate white balance and image manipulation (hue, contrast, etc.). My question is, if the sources are in the public domain (typically with {{PD-USGov-USGS}}), will the resulting image be under the same license or the author of the composite image can use a different license?

NB: You can find an example at Tigray - Ethiopia - Landsat 7 ETM (2003-03-08).tif, where I specified a "derivative work license" just in case. --Ruthven (msg) 09:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What wasn't immediately clear to me (but is now) is who merged the images. The answer is you. This is important for the answer. In general the merging will probably not grant you new copyright. But there's always always but. In some countries your modifications possibly do grant some new copyright. Just to be safe, you can add that CC0 license. It won't hurt in countries where you didn't get copyright anyway and allows users in countries where you did to reuse the work. I recommend you indicate more clearly it is you who did the merging. Consider for example {{Retouched picture}}. (maybe there are more suitable templates, I'm not sure) {{PD-retouched-user}} can take care of the license of your modifications. - Alexis Jazz 09:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, there's always a template for everything! Like you, I do not think that these modifications grant me a new copyright. However, I wouldn't like to see the file requested for deletion because someone considers it without a valid license. --Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, better be safe than sorry. But (if you already know this or already completely got it from my previous message ignore the rest of this) you get copyright in every country for creative works, according to the laws of all the countries. So if, for example, the law in Belgium would say (just an example, I have no idea) that your merging is a creative process that deserves copyright it would mean that people in Belgium could not legally use your work without some license. (it does not matter you live in France/Italy) Individuals may not care about this, but it would be a shame if a university would not use it because they are not sure about the copyright status. Someone explained to me a while ago that you always get copyright individually for each country where copyright is automatically granted. (most of them) It was quite an eye-opener for me. - Alexis Jazz 10:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Henri Falcón (cropped).png

The image has unclear metadata and seems to be unlikely to be own work, specially considering similar previous uploads.--Jamez42 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This uploader ignores copyright for weeks and should be already blocked several hour ago, if not yesterday. Unsure where sysops are looking at. All uploads will be IMHO directed to the recycle bin due to this copyvio spray. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Miss World 1968 (Penny Plumer).jpg

I'm not sure this is technically "own work". I believe the physical photo is itself someone's property (perhaps the uploader's) and was likely given out to fans (or a particular fan) for publicity purposes, but I don't believe that is the same as a transfer of copyright. It's possible that this PD for one reason or another, maybe {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I think more needs to be known about the actual photo for that to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, the license has to be fixed, as well as the source, the author, and the date. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Yann. Jameslwoodward started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss World 1968 (Penny Plumer).jpg so perhaps that will sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:MERCEDES.LAMBRE.IMG.jpg

In this photoshopped image, what is the up-loader claiming copyright to? The derivative or the face or both? --P.g.champion (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Vincent Hložník's paintings

Most of the images in Category:Vincent Hložník have a {{PD-1923}} attached, others are released under Creative Commons licenses, but that appears to be wrong as none seem to have been published in the US. The artist Vincent Hložník died in 1997, so most of his work would appear to still be in copyright and therefore could only be used as non-free locally if the Slovakian wiki allows non-free images. Is it possible some could get by with a freedom of panorama exception as mentioned in the entry at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovakia? In that case they should have {{FoP-Slovakia}} added but I don't see many sources indicating where the painting are/were located and how do we differentiate between ""public place" but are in a "place to which the public has access". Am I missing something here? Ww2censor (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually do not understand why they marked by {{PD-1923}} when Hložník was born in 1919? Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of them do not fall under PD-old or PD-1923, obviously. Does {{FoP-Slovakia}} applies to museums and galleries as well? --Ruthven (msg) 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe some are {{PD-1996}}. If Slovakia had a fixed number of years from creation/publishing before 1996 and didn't retroactively grant 70 pma maybe. I don't know Slovak law so I can't say. - Alexis Jazz 15:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Not likely. Best I can tell, Czechoslovak law in the 1980s was 50pma, though 50pd for films, and 10pma for photos. Slovakia non-retroactively extended to 70pma in 1997, with 70pd only for collective and anonymous works, then made that retroactive in 2000. It's possible there were some changes in there before 1997, but paintings were at least 50pma always. The retroactive restorations, though not affecting the URAA, would change the country of origin status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Uploaded 1936 picture from South Africa which is in public domain but has been challenged - how do I document this?

I found the picture "File:Walter Lenck self portrait.jpg" in a South African newspaper, "The Zionist Record", on the September 16th, 1936 issue, page 21. A PDF of this issue of the newspaper was provided by Stellenbosch University Library Art Information Service at https://digital.lib.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.2/8719, which shows it is in the public domain. How do I document this to avoid the image being deleted? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleSmil (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I made changes to "File:Walter Lenck self portrait.jpg". As confirmed, it's in the PD in South Africa, and South Africa didn't have 50 (if not 70) p.m.a. back then. Pinging JuTa (talk · contribs), who added the npd tag. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
South African photographs are 50 years from publication per their current law (it may have been 50 years from creation in the past), so that should be PD in South Africa now and in 1996, meaning no URAA either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Wonder Woman 1976.jpg

The up-loader claims this is PD because it was published without without a copyright notice. Yet, even Gettyimages says it is from the ABC pho archives which would have been copyrighted before release. [31] So ABC would have copyrighted this image upon release but looks to me as some Licence laundering has taken place. So Commons:Hirtle chart is not applicable for this particular licensing consideration. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If it was distributed without a copyright notice, it would have become public domain, regardless if earlier versions did have a copyright notice (or if copyright was registered). Not sure why you would think the Hirtle chart would not apply -- that is stating U.S. law. It appears it was so published (this is a B&W version at least). I would prefer to have better evidence of actual distribution in 1976, such as a date on that eBay photo indicating distribution before 1978, but Getty often takes PD publicity photos and marks then "rights managed" on its site and sells them so that may almost be additional evidence of PD status. If Getty actually bought the photo archives, such that there could be unpublished works in there, it gets cloudier -- but this photo was seemingly distributed at the time. Given this it would appear that Getty either bought or have licensed ABC's images, but it probably has no idea which ones were published without notice and which ones weren't. It is still preferable to limit the uploaded works to scans of the actual publicity items, but even publishing the B&W version probably published all of the U.S. copyrightable expression. I think we do have a B&W version with better evidence at File:Lynda Carter Wonder Woman.JPG. I can't seem to find the direct source on eBay anymore, but it would seem as though that particular photo is in fact public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: the B&W photo is not the same photo. Look above the bracelet. - Alexis Jazz 19:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Not that I'm Clindberg, but I am looking above bracelet, and not seeing a difference. The B&W photo is larger, covers more area, but the color photo is clearly cropped from it; even the actress's hair strands are the same. Also the B&W is less clear, so the 5 or so dots above the star on the bracelet don't stand out as much, but some are clearly there, and others are likely there. Is there something else? --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: Enjoy: https://imgur.com/a/ivkUs - Alexis Jazz 20:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Boy, I'd almost be tempted to say that may have been some retouching of the image, since so many small tiny details are the same between the two. But there is also a small difference under her left arm. That could mean it was two different snaps taken almost at the same time, which in turn would mean this photo may not have been published before 1978 and would still be under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
All I can say it's two different photos. Same shoot and the camera may have just gone click-click-click but it's not a reproduction of the same photo. - Alexis Jazz 20:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Well done Alexis Jazz. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. There are a few differences in the left arm positioning but little else. I think it is a different image in a click-click-click sequence, and we should delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Downloads

Somebody please check these my downloads — File:Baosteel logo.gif, File:Baowu Steel Group logo.png, File:Shagang Group logo.png, File:Shougang Group logo.jpg. Is everything normal in terms of copyright? I'm going to upload some more logos of this kind. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blast furnace chip worker: I don't know what the threshhold for originality regarding copyright is in China and strictly the logos have to be free of copyright both in the country of origin and the US. In practice we usually just don't care as long as it's free in the US. Somebody added some warnings about backgrounds and file formats, they have a point but don't let this stop you from uploading. You can make those changes later, or ask Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, or.. just ignore it. It's nice to have better files, but in most cases not really much of an issue. - Alexis Jazz 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: So, I may continue to upload company logos from different countries of this kind, may I? Did I understand you right? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker: The official answer is: no, the logo must be free of/ineligble for copyright in both the source country and the US. In practice: nobody here cares, including most if not all administrators. Besides, for many countries we do not actually know what the threshold for copyright is.
Please do add {{Trademarked}} to your logo uploads in the license section. You already had! - Alexis Jazz 17:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Zener medal images

While I believe the photograph part of File:Zener Gold Medal HR.jpg and File:Zener Gold Medal.png can be considered the "own work" of the uploader, I don't believe the same caan be said for the medal itself and that its copyright status also needs to be resolved. Medals seem similar to COM:CB#Jewelry in a that they are 3D items with a element of creativity and I believe this aspect is eligible for copyright protection in some cases. Perhaps there's a way for the medal itself to be in the public domain, but the en:Zener Prize prize was first awarded in 1965 which probably means its not old enough to be PD based upon age alone. Anyone have any suggestions on how to sort this out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:David Douglas Bunker

This user has uploaded some interesting and potentially useful images: Special:Contributions/David_Douglas_Bunker. Yet, one has a promotional watermark and the copyright on all others are suspect. I don't want to put them up for deletion just yet, without giving the up-loader a fair chance to send in OTRS's. I've got the feeling though, that he is of that certain age where a comment on his talk page about OTRS will be ignored, simply because he (and I say this kindly) too old to understand our geeky world. Would this be a case where I should email him directly? For those that don't know or can not remember what a Touch Guitar is, here is the article (which has problems): Duo'Lectar. Any suggestion? --P.g.champion (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You, of course, can e-mail this user but why do you think that they are very old? Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It is possible the user is or is affiliated with the user self identifies as Dave Bunker, and may in some cases be the subject of the image. If so, it's possible that they may be able to shed light on the origin and copyright status of the images. Assume good faith when corresponding with the user. -Animalparty (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Being born 1935, that places him in his 80's (which in geek terms is old). Therefore, I suspect he is getting a younger relative to upload for him. That's OK by me, as long as the up-loader makes this clear. Reading between the lines, I think, that this is one individual that is trying to get the record straight ! He patented the first electric Touch guitar and that article should be merged on WP. It is in that light I will email for more information. Should I receive no reply, then regrettably these images will all have to be deleted. Which would be a shame. --P.g.champion (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Scans of old piano rolls?

Some years back, Mike Hawley took part in a project to scan in several thousand player-piano rolls and convert them to .mid; they're currently stored on his webspace at MIT. Many (though by no means all) of them have filenames indicating that the original rolls were published prior to 1923, which I believe means that the original rolls are PD. Is the act of converting the rolls to .mid enough to make these derivative works, or are they good for upload to Commons? DS (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think it depends more on who is the composer. If this is the list, most of the rolls are in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but assuming that a given roll is PD, is the .mid also PD? DS (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that there's enough creative in a mid version of a manually converted player-piano roll to make it copyrightable. I'm not terribly firm with that, but why don't you ask Mike Hawley?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am on the opposite opinion. Converting to midi if faithfully done is no different than reproduction of an old PD work. PD-Art essentially. This is assuming of course the piano roll itself is based on a work that itself is in the public domain. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with とある白い猫/18 on this, I think a PD-Art argument is the way forward. There's no creativity in scanning the document, and if you are using a MIDI player to convert it to sound I don't think there's any creativity there either. I would say that if someone played it manually on a piano, that would be copyrightable as there will be creativity. But a MIDI player is basically a 20th century version of the original piano - sure you have to do some conversion, but moving from analogue to digital does not inherently introduce copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
you are in unprecedented territory - consider the midi output of the PD sheet music. we do not treat that as a new copyright either. i.e. s:Oregon, My Oregon Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually no, it is not unprecedented territory. In 1908 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in White-Smith Publishing v. Apollo that player-piano roll was a mere mechanical device, not an unauthorized copy of sheet music. So, your argument is moot. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the PD-Art argument fits this as well. Particularly with this statement from mattbuck "moving from analogue to digital does not inherently introduce copyright." Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I too would have to agree with the PD-art argument. As long as it is a "faithful representation" of otherwise PD work you cannot reattach a copyright to it simply because of a file extension change. .MID files are supported on Commons as well. So I would say that provided that it can be shown that the music itself is in the public domain there isn't any issues here. --Majora (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp and Meshworks v. Toyota, which ruled that ideally perfect conversions of creative works to digital formats are not sufficiently original (not above COM:TOO) for their own copyright. MID-files only contain the sheet music, and is not a recording of the song, so it follows that conventions of PD-scrolls to .midi are PD as well. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2018

I want to leave this comment I've found while researching.

Midi files are not recordings, so they aren't protected like musical performance audio recordings. Midi files are essentially music score: musical notation in digital format. The music they contain may be protected by copyright (most music is), but if the music has entered public domain, so is the midi file describing that music.

— Tarmo Toikkanen
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are many photos of the 2018 Winter Olympics on Commons, but copyright in many of them may not actually belong to the person that took the photo because the terms for tickets to events assigns all copyright to images/video taken in the venues to the International Olympic Committee (scroll all the way to near end of the terms URL; emphasis added):

5.3 Ticket Holders may take or record still and moving images and/or sounds within Venues and agree that the IOC shall be sole owner of any intellectual property rights (including copyright) in such content without further authorization from, or compensation to, the Ticket Holder or anyone acting on his/her behalf, and hereby assign any rights he/she may have in respect of such content to the IOC, including without limitation the right to make derivative works, waiving all moral rights in the same.
5.4 Pursuant to the above, the IOC hereby grants to Ticket Holders with a limited and revocable licence to use the still and moving images and/or sounds taken or recorded within Venues provided that such use is personal, private, non-commercial and non-promotional. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Ticket Holders shall not transmit any moving images and/or sounds taken or recorded within Venues over the internet, radio, television or any other media now known or hereafter invented (with such prohibition including, without limitation, not posting such content on social media platforms or live-streaming such content through any website or application), without the IOC’s prior consent.

Files like this one and this one were almost certainly taken by a ticket holder and so the IOC owns the copyright and it can't be licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0 by anyone but the IOC. Some of the files from the Opening Ceremony were from US government accounts (Vice President Pence's twitter and website). Under US law "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" and "[a] “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." I don't know if foreign officials like Pence were ticket holders (in which case the copyright in the US would be unclear, but under RoK law the IOC would almost certainly own the copyright), or if they were just invited to the event (in which case the US copyright law would apply and there would be no copyright; RoK copyright law wouldn't be relevant because the place of publication would be Twitter or US government servers in the US). I would imagine that journalists and professional photographers would need special accreditation/passes to enter the Olympic venues and may have had to give the IOC copyright in their photos and paid to license photos taken. The licensing of intellectual property is the main source of revenue for the IOC, which is why they are so restrictive about copyright...it's all about the money to pamper the IOC executives support the Olympic movement.

While I don't feel like tagging every 2018 Olympic photo for deletion, someone should go through and tag ones that should be deleted. We should consider the implications for re-users of content found on Commons and for files that were quite likely taken by ticket holders, we should err on the side of caution (see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle) and delete the images. I'm not sure if the photos from Pence should be deleted since there is a stronger possibility that the photos were not subject to the ticket holder terms. AHeneen (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Sander.v.Ginkel as uploader of one of the images mentioned above. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
IANAL but this shit ain't gonna fly. I assume that visitors click a checkbox "I agree to the ToS" and hit "next". That ToS could be stating they are giving up their firstborn, but nobody reads it anyway. And when the ToS has unreasonable terms, they are automatically invalid. Which seems to be the case here. Unless the visitor was presented this fact in a very clear way (not hidden away somewhere deep in the ToS) and they explicitly agreed to it (a pre-checked checkbox will never do) this is not going to happen.
Seriously. If you sneak in with a fake ticket or just take out all the guards and walk through the gate, you get the copyright but if you buy a ticket it's gone? This is a case for the WMF lawyers, not for us. And I suspect that what they will say (in a very nice way) about those terms to the IOC is they can shove it. - Alexis Jazz 10:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
U.S. copyright transfers do need to be in writing. This could be a gray area if the user has deemed to have signed a contract with similar terms, but text on the back of a ticket cannot transfer copyright itself. A copyright grab like that is pretty disgusting, really. That may be a question for the WMF lawyers, but for now, if the uploaders feel like they own copyright and can license it, let them take that risk. Who knows what was on the back of their ticket in particular, etc. -- that is not our job to police. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, We already have had this discussion about images of the Summer Olympic Games, and the decision was to ignore the (silly) IOC claims. (e.g; Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Usain Bolt Olympics Celebration.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This confuses contract law with copyright law. A ticket is a contract, and the IOC could try to take people to court for damages if they banned photography, however they actually allow photography. There is no legal precedent that anyone can point to, where an event ticket was a successful passive (i.e. the photographer never signed a contract) way to officially waive and transfer all future rights of the photographer, so that the IP of the photograph or video would legally become the IOC's property. So long as the subject of the photo or video is not itself separately copyrighted, such as a billboard, the work is entirely the IP of the photographer.
Agreed it is legal flimflam. Anyone worried by these threatening terms, should simply release their photographs under a pseudonym. Until the IOC starts successfully taking people to court for publishing their own photography, they are overreaching and guilty of copyfraud. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: Just to see what would happen, I went to https://www.cosport.com/, created an account and put a bunch of Pyeongchang 2018 tickets in my shopping cart. I started the checkout process, got informed where I could pick up my tickets. I had to enter the number of distinct guests that will use the tickets to which I answered there would be 7. Then I was presented with a ToS. Not the one we are talking about! If you go to their homepage and scroll a bit you see a window with some tabs, one of them has the ToS. Sorry but there is no direct link. The word "copyright" does not occur in this ToS. You have to confirm you read it and understand it, but only I have to do that. My 6 completely ignorant and imaginary friends who will accompany me on my fantasy trip to Pyeongchang haven't been asked anything. The next step is entering your credit card number.
As for the tickets, I can't actually find what the back of a ticket looks like. I'm not so sure it would say anything about copyright. But does it matter? From what I understand, I won't be getting my tickets until I am somewhere in Korea at the Cosport pickup point. That's a bit late to inform me about some silly ToS and kick me out because I won't sign it. - Alexis Jazz 14:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at the standard terms, apart from "Use of Promotional Material" there are no restrictions. I read these website published terms as the official ones, rather than odd microprint stuff on the back of tickets. As said, it's flimflam. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You both apparently missed what I've bolded here from the very first paragraph of the Cosport terms:
"Purchase: The purchase of products from “THE COMPANY” constitutes the Customer’s verifiable acceptance of these Terms and Conditions as well as POCOG’s Terms and Conditions/Spectator Policy. You will be required to accept these Terms and Conditions prior to submitting a product order. The explanations for Expression of Interest (EOI), payment instruction for each sales phase of the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games and all policies, regulations, spectator guidelines published in the future regarding ticketing of the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games are integral parts of this document. POCOG’s Terms and Conditions and Spectator Policy are accessible via the POCOG’s website (www.pyeongchang2018.com )."
The POCOG’s Terms and Conditions/Spectator Policy is what I quoted in my original comment in this section. "And when the ToS has unreasonable terms, they are automatically invalid." Under US law, some contract terms can be determined by courts to unconscionable and thus unenforceable, but that is a very high bar. In this case, the IOC (like most professional sports leagues/events) relies heavily on revenue from licensing photos/videos/broadcasts of the events, so while it may be excessive to you and I, it would be hard to convince a court to find it invalid as unconscionable. Some other sporting events have similar clauses in ticket terms, for example:
  • PGA Tour is similar to the Olympics in that copyright is assigned to the PGA but they allow ticket holders to take images and use them for personal/private use: "TOUR is the sole owner of, and you hereby assign to TOUR, all right, title and interest in and to all Reproductions, including all copyrights and rights to use all Reproductions, subject to your permission from TOUR to capture and distribute certain Reproductions on the limited terms set forth in this license. You may capture video, audio and photographs at the Tournament on any day of the Tournament throughout the Tournament site (including, for clarity, competition areas on competition days), consistent with all posted rules and instructions of TOUR and/or Tournament staff. However, you may only use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes (e.g., for your personal social media accounts), and you may not distribute such content on a live or near-live basis (no live streaming) or use such content to create a real-time, stoke-by-stroke or hole-by-hole account of a Tournament. Further, you shall not use or authorize others to use any such content or other Reproduction for any commercial or promotional purpose, or for or in connection with a media outlet (directly or indirectly) unless you and the media outlet have received an official media credential for the Tournament from the TOUR. Upon reasonable request by TOUR, at TOUR’s cost and expense, you will sign any documents necessary to effect TOUR’s ownership of all Reproductions."
  • Premier League, from Section 2.6 the Arsenal terms: "[Y]ou shall not capture, log, record, transmit, play, issue, show or otherwise communicate (by digital or other means) any Material in relation to the Match, any players or other persons present in the Ground and/or the Ground" or bring anything, except mobile phones, into the stadium capable of capturing, logging, recording [etc.] "Any person acting in breach of this provision may have such equipment or technology confiscated and/or will be required to deliver up any tapes, films, disks, memory cards, memory sticks or other recordings of the Material (and all copies thereof) in whatever form, to the PL and/or the Club and the copyright, database right and all other rights, title and interest in and to all Material is hereby assigned to the [Premier League] and the Club, including by way of present assignment of future copyright pursuant to section 91 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You further agree (if and whenever required to do so by the PL and/or the Club) to promptly execute all instruments and do all things necessary to vest the right, title and interest in such rights to the PL and the Club absolutely and with full title guarantee."
  • Cricket Australia: "20. I acknowledge that Cricket Australia is the sole owner of the copyright and any other intellectual property rights of any nature whatsoever in and to any recordings of sound made or images taken within a Venue, including future rights to such recordings or to any works derived from such recordings that is not a video or sound recording or photograph taken for only private, non-commercial and non-promotional purposes. I unconditionally and irrevocably assign to Cricket Australia all rights, including copyright and other intellectual property rights, in any recordings of sound made or images taken by me within a Venue that is not a video or sound recording or photograph taken for only private, non-commercial and non-promotional purposes."
  • For NFL tickets (Buccaneers), the ticket holders give the NFL an exclusive license to photos from the game rather than assign the NFL their copyright, so this is more of the museum terms we don't consider: "Ticket holder may not transmit or aid in transmitting any photographs, images, videos, or other accounts or descriptions (whether text, data or visual) in any media of all or any part of the football game or related events (the “Works”). ... Ticket holder agrees that by causing this ticket to be scanned upon entry to the stadium, ticket holder shall be understood to have signed this document and granted the NFL an exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to all copyrights associated with the Works."
But the POCOG’s Terms (included by reference in Cosport's terms) specify that the governing law for the contract is the Republic of Korea. I don't know how South Korean contract law treats the issues of unconscionability and whether the terms are passive, but the terms should be considered valid. Furthermore, I am not confusing contract and copyright law, because contract law can be used to assign copyright rights in whole or part and it happens all the time in business deals, such as works for hire and in the entertainment industry. It is one thing for Commons to ignore whether uploaders of files violated the terms of entry to a sporting event that prohibits spectators from distributing content for commercial use (which they do when licensing their images CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) since that is a contractual matter between them and the league/organizer, but it is completely different scenario when the terms & conditions transfer the copyright to the league/organizer, because that means that the uploader did not have the right to license the content under a Creative Commons license as they are not the legal copyright holder to the images.
While the league/organizer might not be bothered to track down all copyright violations, they are much more likely to go after commercial reuse, particularly of videos. Of course, people who reuse content from Commons must accept some risk that the files aren't actually available under the correct license or in the public domain and some copyright violations manage to be uploaded here, I don't think that we should knowingly host content (Winter Olympics photos) where it is reasonably clear the copyright owner is not the uploader that licensed the file under a Creative Commons license because that violates the Commons:Licensing policy. For sporting events in general, I think there it would be a very good idea to create a template that warns that the terms of entry to some sporting events assigns copyright in all images/videos/recordings taken by spectators, that in such cases the uploader could not license the content under a Creative Commons license, but that it is a very difficult task to determine this as terms and conditions of entry may not be easily tracked down so Commons policy is to host this content unless it can be shown that the terms/conditions applicable to the particular game/event assigned copyright to the league/team/organizer.
I think the half PD-half red copyright symbol in {{Not-free-US-FOP}} would be a good symbol to use in the template (perhaps along with either a sporting-related symbol or the yellow caution triangle from {{Personality rights}}?). A Commons topic page (Commons:Sporting events? Commons:Sporting events and spectator copyrights?) should be created and prominently linked in the template. That page would explain what I've explained above about copyright assignment in ticket terms/conditions and have separate sections for different events/leagues, with Xs or checkmarks to indicate whether the current terms pose a problem for Commons (copyright assigned to league/organizer) or are not relevant to Commons but could be to the ticketholder-photographer/videographer (terms granted league/organizer an exclusive license; terms prohibit commercial use by tickerholder). (P.S. I'm busy and may not be back to this discussion for a few days.) AHeneen (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the Premier League example above would have the desired effect of transferring copyright. UK copyright law requires that prospective assignments of copyright be signed by the assignor, so the Premier League would have to get a signature from each spectator to make this work. Unless we have evidence that they do this, I think we can assume the photographer retains their copyrights. Of course, this will differ in different jurisdictions, so a page collecting the rules is probably a good plan. --bjh21 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice catch! That would affect (for the better!) some copyright claims to spectators' photographs/videos. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@AHeneen: Oh my god, they link to another ToS (or actually: they link to a website, not to the actual ToS) and when you accept the first ToS you are also expected to agree to the referred ToS! I can't believe it! This is a whole new level of stupid.
"Any person acting in breach of this provision may have such equipment or technology confiscated" Another example of such an organisation placing themselves above the law. They just made stealing shit legal for themselves! "I sure hope somebody brings a nice DSLR to the stadium today. I need a birthday present for my brother-in-law!"
Now, the PGA requirement "you may not distribute such content on a live or near-live basis (no live streaming)" is reasonable and likely to be valid. This has little to do with copyright though and typically not an issue on Commons. Everything else they say bull.
NFL: "Ticket holder agrees that by causing this ticket to be scanned upon entry to the stadium" Oh yeah, that's totally a legally binding contract. "BEEP"
"and granted the NFL an exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to all copyrights associated with the Works" Idiots. They should have asked for a non-exclusive non-sub-licensable license. There would have been a good chance that would have been valid.
I asked an actual jurist about this. In The Netherlands (where Sander.v.Ginkel comes from) you need a signed contract to transfer copyright. "I agree, next" and "BEEP, ticket scanned" are not examples of signed contracts. I refer all these organisations you cited to my previous message as to what to do with their ToS: shove it. - Alexis Jazz 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the Winter Olympics photos, the only two countries whose laws matter are the US (where Commons' servers are located and the country of origin (which is the place the images were first published, not taken) if Commons is the first place they are published or for the White House and Twitter images) and South Korea (because the POCOG’s Terms for the tickets have a w:forum selection clause that says the "Terms and Conditions are governed by the Law of the Republic Of Korea" [Section 15.5]). The law in the Netherlands is irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case over the terms of a cruise ship ticket that a forum selection clause is valid for the following reason:
"Including a reasonable forum clause in a form contract of this kind well may be permissible for several reasons: first, a cruise line has a special interest in limiting the fora in which it potentially could be subject to suit. Because a cruise ship typically carries passengers from many locales, it is not unlikely that a mishap on a cruise could subject the cruise line to litigation in several different fora. Additionally, a clause establishing ex ante the forum for dispute resolution has the salutary effect of dispelling any confusion about where suits arising from the contract must be brought and defended, sparing litigants the time and expense of pretrial motions to determine the correct forum, and conserving judicial resources that otherwise would be devoted to deciding those motions. Finally, it stands to reason that passengers who purchase tickets containing a forum clause like that at issue in this case benefit in the form of reduced fares reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be sued." (see pages 593-863)
So if the IOC sued for copyright infringement in the US over the images, the terms of the contract would be interpreted under South Korean law to establish that the IOC holds the copyright. Also, theft is when property is taken without permission. If you agreed to the terms of entry, then confiscating contraband is not theft. It is very common for terms of entry to stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, and theaters to say that contraband can be confiscated. Also, assigning copyright to the sports league/event organizer is not unreasonable because most rely significantly on revenue from selling broadcast rights to the game (not only distributing video at the time of the game, but for months or even years later) and from licensing photos and video of games (both present and historical). For the Olympics, broadcasting rights (47%) and licensing (3%, includes photos but also use of logos/trademarks on merchandise) account for half of the International Olympic Committee's revenue! If spectators could bring cameras and record the events themselves, using it for commercial purposes, it would significantly hurt their revenue. The back of the ticket (I couldn't find any images online) almost certainly has a statement that use of the ticket to enter a venue agrees to the terms and conditions. You can say what you want about fairness, but if the terms give the IOC copyright, then the images cannot be licensed CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/CC-0 by the uploader. Like I said in my first post, we should consider Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@AHeneen: Nice try, but it doesn't work like that. Terms and conditions can't transfer copyright, not in The Netherlands, not in the US and not in Korea. (this is the jurist telling them to shove it, but in a nice way) - Alexis Jazz 04:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I explained how US law works above. The blog author cited this webpage, but question 3.1 says "There are no formalities required when transferring or assigning copyright", except if the transfer is not registered perfection is not achieved (ie. in a copyright enforcement claim, the transfer of copyright needs to be registed...in the case of the Olympics, the IOC has probably registered copyright for all content at the games based on the terms of the tickets), and I do not see any other statement on that page that says an agreement must be in writing. Because of the Precautionary principle rule, we should assume the IOC has a valid copyright for the Olympics images. AHeneen (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I emailed [email protected] and pointed out this discussion and asked them to add this topic (copyright transfers in terms of admission for sporting events) to the m:Wikilegal page. Also, I found a US case that Metropolitan Regional Information System that agreeing to a website's terms of service was a valid copyright transfer. AHeneen (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

See also the discusion for a same kind of conversation Commons:Deletion requests/IPC Images. All were kept there. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Will my photo be deleted?

I uploaded a photo to wiki commons, and I got a warning from a user (User:Patrick Rogel) that it would be deleted if I didn't show the photo was rights free. The photo can be seen here [32]. I asked the person who had the rights to the photo to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and release the rights to the photo so it could be used . The person bcc: me on the email, so I know they sent it in with all the proper information required. The person who held the rights to the photo has not yet received a response back acknowledging the the rights have been released for use on wiki commons. Can you confirm that the photo will not be deleted?

Please let me know if you need any additional information regarding this issue.

Thank you,

--Hardindr (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image page in question to signify that the permissions have been sent. The OTRS backlog is currently 39 days. Please be patient as everyone there is a volunteer. If there are further issues please ask at the OTRS noticeboard. --Majora (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: You've not done that!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Huh. Well that's embarrassing. The tab is still open on my computer. The edit window is still open. I had the template typed in, the edit summary filled out. But I didn't hit save. Could have sworn I did that, obviously. Thanks Jeff G. for fixing my mistake. Prime example of why you shouldn't edit while very very tired I guess. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: You're welcome. When you are very very tired, please heed the call of your pillow, or take some action to increase your alertness.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the response, however, the tag that was applied to the photo says that it will be automatically deleted in 30 days if permission to use it is not recognized. You mentioned that there is a 39 day backlog for permission requests. Will this extra delay be taken into account? Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hardindr: Yes. If there is anything you would like to add to the ticket, you are welcome to do so by putting [Ticket#2018022610007667] in the subject line and CCing the person.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but how do I contact the person, what email address should I use to bring this to someone's attention? I am not the person who emailed about the picture in question having its rights released, since I am not the owner of it. I am only trying to help them use it on WikiCommons. Do I send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ? Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hardindr: Yes. By "the person", I meant "the person who had the rights to the photo" from your original post above. I'm sorry for being obtuse, but we have a privacy policy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Italian State PD works

In this discussion arose the problem of how licensing PD files from the Italian Government (the same applies to regions, townships, and no profit organisations). The copyright for works executed for the Italian State lasts 20 years after the date of first publication. See Art. 29 of Italian Copyright Law. Actually we do not have a template for such files (on Wikimedia projects, it applies generally to photos from camera.it and senato.it, but can also applies on architectural works and other stuff). It is worth creating a new one? --Ruthven (msg) 11:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is an official English translation of the 1997 version of the law. Apparently the only change made to articles 11 and 29 after that was that works created for the fascist state party of Italy are now explicitely included in the 2016 Italian version. I think it wouldn't hurt to have a new template like {{PD-Italy-WorkforhireGov}} or something similar. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
We used to have it -- see Template talk:PD-ItalyGov and Commons:Deletion requests/Category:PD Italy. It looks though that it was deleted in the wake of the PD-Italy tag being deleted, which has since been restored. There may be some merit that the scope of Article 11 may have been reduced by the EU copyright directive, in that it may not be valid for private copyrights being commandeered by the state anymore, but it sure seems like the term should still be valid where something was done as a work for hire of the state. There was legal commentary that the EU copyright directive should have forced that term higher, but really a copyright owner should be able to do whatever they like with their own works. UK Crown Copyright is the exact same situation and they still have a shorter term even after the EU directives; seems like Italy should be able to do the same, and anyways that clause is still in their law after they incorporated the changes mandated by the EU. I guess one question is if rights obtained by Article 11 are different than works obtained by the other work-for-hire provisions, in which cases the works for hire may have a longer term, but... those other provisions look like later additions to the law. Article 11 requires that works be "created and published" by the state, so unpublished works for hire would seem to have a longer term. I guess a big question would be works commissioned by the state; by EU rules the private author should normally retain the rights, but it's possible that Article 11 serves as a special contract in such cases. I may be leery about using such a tag for anything outside of works for hire though. But the fact they added mention of the fascist government to Article 11 would seem to mean that they definitely consider that to still apply after the EU directive, so we probably should too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that deletion discussion created a lot of damage to the project. So, yeas, we have the old template {{PD-ItalyGov}} that could be simply undeleted. In the more recent phrasing of the Italian law from 2016, the Fascist party obviously isn't mentioned :) Like you said Carl Lindberg, this article covers only the works for hire for the Government (and the other mentioned institutes), so that copyright belongs to it. The exceptions are the essays and bulletins from Academic institutes, and other cultural institutes, which hold copyright for 2 years, before restoring it comes to the authors. --Ruthven (msg) 18:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 Support restoration of {{PD-ItalyGov}} and modification per above to support work-for-hire provisions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 Support undeletion, if the files are in fact in the public domain then a more fitting template should accompany them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support undeletion of template and files (if they can be found) --Jaqen (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support I think {{PD-ItalyGov}} is very useful. I suggest also to get another template about the "open by default" of Italian Public Administration. --Holapaco77 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

As there is consensus for restoring {{PD-ItalyGov}}, I suggest we undelete it and change the text as follows:

This work was created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or a non-profit organisation of Italy. It was published prior to 1976, and has no known US copyright registration associated with it. It is now in the public domain in Italy and the United States and possibly elsewhere.

This is because according to law of 22 April 1941 No. 633, revised by the law of 6 February 2016, article 11, copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of national, provincial and communal governments shall belong to the relevant administration. According to article 29, the duration of the rights belonging to the government, the former national Fascist Party, academies and non-profit organisations shall be twenty years from first publication, whatever the form in which publication was effected.

De728631 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is why 1976 is mentioned there: 1996 (URAA) - 20 years. More recent national government edicts would additionally be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. De728631 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, and rephrased the template. Thanks to all. --Ruthven (msg) 09:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Associated Press did not renew copyrights for articles published before January 1, 1964, the cost appears to be prohibitive and there was no aftermarket for their old news. For instance as an aftermarket, the New York Times would republish yearly and decade news summaries and recompile movie and play reviews, and publish indexes, and almanacs, and style guides. So what does that mean for the status of an Associated Press article in a publication that did renew copyrights for 1923 to 1963? Are all copies in the public domain if one newspaper renewed a copyright for its copy of the article? This argument assumes all copies in all newspapers are identical. Are all copies renewed, or are all copies public domain? Versions of AP articles are usually edited down to use up what space is available on a newspaper page. RAN (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

i would upload images credited AP, as PD-not renewed. start with the DRV for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iwo Jima Flag Raising - LoC copyright notice.pdf then [33] -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Renewals would need to be done by a person with standing (i.e. owning a part of the copyright). So a newspaper renewal likely does not affect an AP copyright. On the other hand, saying the AP did not renew anything before 1964 is not correct, either. For the Iwo Jima photo, I believe there was an annual publication of their best stuff of the year that they renewed for 1945 -- we don't know for sure if the Iwo Jima photo is in there, but it well could be. As long as that renewal was in the correct window, then it would serve to renew the work 28 years later even if that was not the first publication in 1945. You need to search for multiple types of works often when searching for renewals -- the renewals can be in sections other than that for pure photographs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This was concerning articles more than images. I agree that one copy renewed, does not renew all, and that the actual copyright holder must perform the renewal. So that say, an Associated Press article published in the New York times in 1925 would be in the public domain, even though the New York Times renewed copyrights for their own material. Back to images: For an image the distribution copy would have to have been marked with a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977. For instance in the Bain collection, Bain marked certain images with a copyright mark that was distributed to newspapers. They recognized that certain images had an aftermarket, such as images of A-list celebrities. See Category:Bain copyright notice. RAN (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The volume in question was "The Associated Press news annual: 1945" . Unsure if they reproduced full articles, or just had summaries, but anything they reproduced in there got renewed. Still unsure of what the actual contents of that book looks like. I'm sure a lot of their material became PD though. As for images, yes distribution copies needed copyright notices. However, proving a copy was actually distributed can be hard, plus wire photos were not (physically) distributed so once those became common it may have been harder to become PD by that avenue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
here is the catalog record https://lccn.loc.gov/sn77020554 if i go to Library of Congress and report back are you prepared to undelete?
for articles, i would view any text credited AP to be a derivative of the AP copy, and therefore PD for the unrenewed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
If they reproduce articles word-for-word, they would count as renewed. If that volume has summary text, then correct I don't think that would serve to renew the originals, just the new matter contained in that derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
AP credited articles tend to be word for word edited for length. reliable sources tend to credit multiple contributors in the rare case they supplement AP copy. normally see separate articles for those cases. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/02&oldid=299403093"