Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07

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

Here is an image definitely taken before 1923 in the United States, but marked with a copyright symbol. Should that be honored? Thank you for your help. [1] Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If the image was published in USA before 1923, it is in public domain now regardless of any copyright symbols. Ruslik (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it was published in the USA before 1923; I only know it was taken in the USA before 1923. Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
There is another copy here, sourced to MTA archives. Since there are two different sources like that, and since the one you link to has pretty clear indications of being a postcard, I think it's most probable it was a postcard collected by different people and therefore published. Corbis is not shy about putting a copyright notice on anything they have, and while many of those are valid some are scans of collected postcards where they have no ownership of the copyright whatsoever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture of a dress

Could somebody please check if this picture is indeed CC00? I downloaded it from the Rijksmuseum. At the relevant page, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-16406 it is stated "copyright Public Domain". If this is the case, I will know in future what to do. There is a wealth of pictures in the most precious museum of the Netherlands (tomorrow you can visit the newly acquired large Rembrandt paintings for free). Thanks, Elly (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ellywa: I can't seem to find where it says "copyright Public Domain", but I did add the License review template to the file, which is what you should do in all future cases like this. Elisfkc (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
They have a link to the CC0 license, when you click on the "Objectgegevens" button at the bottom to expand the page. Seems pretty clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, indeed, I should have explained the Dutch website more clearly. Elly (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have now reviewed and confirmed the CC-0 licence. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

File:AhmedElBayed2.jpg

File was uploaded under Template:FAL, but I'm not sure if "copyleft" applies to such files. The file's description lists File:Ahmed El Bayed1.JPG as another version, but that file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmed El Bayed1.JPG. Can FAL tags be added to photographs such as this with out any indication that the copyright holder has agreed to do so? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The subject can not be the photographer and therefore can not license this file. Ruslik (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ruslik0. A Google search shows the file being used quite a lot, especially on non-English websites, but I can't seem to find the exact photo from a date prior to its upload to Wikipedia. Do you think that tagging it with Template:No permission since is OK or would you advise COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it will be ok. Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Waiting for OTRS permission. ★ Poké95 02:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Labor official photograph

Am I allowed to upload this image from Flickr under a free license as an official U.S. Department of Labor photograph? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm about 97.5% sure that you can, provided you tag it with PD-USGov-DOL. Elisfkc (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 02:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

License

Hi. A question to you license-experts. File:Netherbird 2016 1.jpg and File:Netherbird 2016 2.jpg is according to the uploader taken from this page that states "These photos are free to use in any way you see fit, but please include credits to the photographer". Is this enough to meet the current license that the images is placed under (CC BY-SA 4.0), or should I ask for a permission through OTRS? The uploader is not the photographer. -- Tegel (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't use a CC license unless the source explicitly says it is using that license. The statement on the source page probably qualifies for {{Attribution}} though. I do note that no credits to the photographer are included on our page -- that needs to be fixed at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done: I've added the source, proper author and changed the licence per Carl's suggestion. Ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 02:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Copy Vio

Hello,

I recently observed a copy right violation of an image used in the article Adi Parashakti. Though i reverted the edits to a previous version, the image file, File:16192 kameswara kaameswari.jpg remains still in the commons page. The picture originally belonged to www.manblunder.com and the owner of the website holds the copy right. Please remove the image from the commons page. Thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavanai45 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 08 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavanai45 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 08 July 2016 (UTC)

The file has been deleted. Ruslik (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 02:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Which license to use for a derivative work

I created File:WikiConference North America logo.jpg which is derived from File:Location North America.svg, which is derived from File:United States (orthographic projection).svg. Given that one of the predecessors has a CC 3.0 license and another has a GNU license, am I allowed to use a CC 4 license for my derivative? If not, which license should I use? I am also wondering if File:Location North America.svg should use the GNU license since it derives from a work that was created under a GNU license. Thanks. --Pine✉

Pine Use all previous licenses. They never go away. There is no need to use any license twice, so when collecting licenses, just add additional copyright holders to the list for duplicated licenses.
CC 4 is compatible with CC 3 but not vice versa. Yes you can use CC 4 for the new file, but the file will still have CC 3 restrictions and effectively be CC 3. I recommend CC 3, because it means one fewer license, simplicity, and no practical change to final state of licensing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done thank you. --Pine✉ 21:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 02:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

File:LegacyHS (5).jpg

File is licensed as "own work". File was uploaded on May 27, 2016, but it's EXIF data and description says it was taken on March 7, 2007. The same photo looks like it is being used here and as far back as September 2011 which was before it was uploaded to Commons. This might be a photo taken by the uploader, but since it appears to have been used on a third-party website prior to being uploaded to Commons, I am wondering if at least OTRS verification is required per item 2 of COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the photo in your first link. The image of the school in the top left is a different photo (leaves on trees). The second one... hrm, yeah, probably -- but much smaller and after some photoshopping. OTRS is generally required if the *exact photo* (or larger) is available on the internet -- if a larger resolution than otherwise available is uploaded, then obviously the uploader did not take it from the website, but had some other access to the original. In this case the full image has not been previously published -- just a smaller, cropped, and photoshopped version. OTRS is still helpful of course, but I'm not sure it's required. The same uploader did upload a copy of the school logo, which has since been deleted. Of course, it's possible a student has access to photos on a private school website and uploaded one of those, but that is hard to tell. Not much activity from the uploader, so could also be someone associated with the school who had permission to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Clindberg for taking a look. I didn't notice the trees in the first photo, and your point about the second one is well taken. I guess good faith should be assumed unless it can clearly be shown to not be "own work". Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. Regular deletion would be a judgement call -- if you think there are enough circumstances where it might mean the uploader did not have rights for the upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have been unable to find the "exact photo (or larger)" version of this anywhere online, so I cannot say with certainty that it was uploaded by someone who lacked permission to do so and I'm not sure if COM:PCP should be applied here. I believe the school logo was the reason why Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#High school logo was started. Perhaps more information about the uploader and their possible connection to the school will come out in that discussion which will help clarify the licensing on this particular file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Hardy Güssau.jpg

The uploader's name suggests that he is the person depicted on the photo, but according to the EXIF the author is Rayk Weber. I suspect that Mr. Güssau just paid a professional photographer, Mr. Weber, for his services. Additionally there is no clear information on the source page that the photo is licenced under CC-BY-SA. Anyway, the copyright status is unclear to me and I was not able to decide what to do – leave it or fill DR. What do you think about it? Source page with high resolution photo: http://www.hardy-guessau.de/index.php?ka=4&ska=13. --jdx Re: 15:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your link looks like it predated the upload here by a few days. I don't see a license there either; just labeled a press photo. This photo would need OTRS permission I think... the photographer does have a website and an email address. It's possible the photographer's contract allows the license, but I think we need OTRS permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

May I use a picture from online shopping in an article?

Does that count as plagirism? Or can i use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electroplasmic (talk • contribs) 17:29, 06 July 2016 (UTC)

  • You don't say what country, or the nature of the image, but in most circumstances such an image would be copyrighted, so we cannot accept it on Commons: commercial reuse, at least, would be a copyright violation, and we require that commercial use be allowed.
  • "Plagiarism" isn't exactly the issue: that would be a false claim that you'd made the image yourself. You can have a copyright violation without plagiarizing, if you use an image without having the right to do so, but acknowledge who created it. Or you can plagiarize without violating copyright, if you claim a public domain work as your own. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Christo installation art

This was brought up by Artmax on my discussion page in German-language Wikipedia: There are currently quite a lot of photos of Christo's work "The Floating Piers", a temporary art installation. Now, Christo is actually a quite famous example of an artist protecting his copyright fervently. His "Wrapped Reichstag" installation led to a long legal dispute in Germany; the Federal Court of Justice finally agreed with the artist that freedom of panorama isn't applicable for such a temporary installation (see German Wikipedia's article). As I see it, the Floating Piers are a protected work of art as well, and as the "exhibition" was in Italy, there is no freedom of panorama anyway. So, I come to the conclusion that we have to delete these pictures. The same for other images in Category:Christo and subcategories, if showing temporary art installations by the artist. There are even two photos of the Wrapped Reichstag, clearly a copyright breach in Germany (some other photos showing the beginning of the wrapping process can be kept, I think?). Also, I suppose that neither can we keep the images in Category:Curtain by Christo - although they're marked as PDUSGov, I think this only applies to the photos themselves, not the work of art shown. But before starting actual deletion requests, I'd like to know whether there might be a chance to keep some images (but how? AFAIK the U.S. also doesn't have FoP for temporary art installations). Opinions, disagreements...? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office rejected a U.S. copyright on the wrapped Reichstag.[2] So such things may not not copyrightable in the U.S., if they are a picture of a U.S. installation. And each work might need to be evaluated by itself -- some of them could be real sculpture. These could all probably be moved to the English Wikipedia at worst. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thank you, thanks especially for the link - as I see there, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected copyright protection "on the grounds that the Wrapped Reichstag does not embody sufficient original authorship to support a copyright registration", that's interesting. Also this sentence from the conclusion: "Even aesthetically pleasing and artistically interesting works may not be registrable if they lack the sufficient modicum of expression and original authorship." However, for Commons this changes nothing regarding the Wrapped Reichstag, as it was an installation in Germany, where it is protected by copyright (German Federal Court of Justice decision). As Commons hosts only files that are in the public domain in the U.S. and in the source country of the work, I think we have to delete the few Wrapped Reichstag photos. Also the files in Category:Big Air Package, as this was also in Germany. Now, back to the Italian case: An interesting question could be whether Italy would see an installation such as these Floating Piers as copyrightable at all. If yes, then the case is clear: delete as there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. I think they're most likely copyrightable und would probably even be deemed as such in the U.S., as unlike the Wrapped Reichstag, they don't depend upon a pre-existing work. After all, the Copyright Office argued against copyright protection for the Wrapped Reichstag because its appearence depended on the shape of the existing Reichstag building. So, this leaves also open the question of Category:Curtain by Christo and Category:The Gates (installation) (both in the U.S.) - obviously, the "pre-exisiting shape" argument wouldn't be applicable, so these might be copyrighted? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Correct, the U.S. determination is not based on visual impact at all -- it is about expression in a fixed medium. The actual lines, contours, etc. which result directly from a human (and not effects achieved via interaction with nature). Christo's work is more about that (amazing) visual impact than anything else, so most of what I've seen from him probably would not qualify for U.S. copyright. Which is why I said the photos could be moved to en-wiki, for the most part. There is little question about the wrapped Reichstag in Germany and thus for Commons, as you say. The Italian display would likewise not get a U.S. copyright... I have no idea in Italy. It might show the personality of the author. It's a distinctive color, but aside from that, it's a flat pier on water. If they were made of wood, would they get a copyright? Does the covering *material* make all the difference? It would not in the U.S. Likewise, no way in the U.S. for the curtain. Its setting is what makes it neat, but there is no actual expression there -- it's hanging a cloth from a line. The Gates I'm less sure of... there could conceivably be an arrangement copyright there (I don't think an individual gate would be copyrightable). On the other hand, I don't see any copyright registrations for it on copyright.gov... and he may well have tried. There are several instances of photographs and drawings of his displays being registered, but I don't see anything for any of his displays directly. The copyright office can do that -- for the wrapped Reichstag, the photos of the display submitted with the application were themselves copyrightable of course, so they registered those while rejecting the display itself. Similarly, there are several photos of the wrapped Pont Neuf registered, but I don't see anything actually for that display either. There is a drawing of his Surrounded Islands project plus some photos. I see a human impact study for The Gates registered (textual material), but I don't see a registration for the visual display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: For now, I have only started deletion requests for Christo works in Germany: The two photos clearly showing the finished "Wrapped Reichstag" installation (but not those just showing the preparations), and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Big Air Package. I think I leave the U.S. installations (Curtain, The Gates) for those who are more familiar with U.S. copyright. Still unsure about Italy... would be great if we had a comparable example of a work deemed copyrightable or not, such as the Wrapped Reichstag in Germany and in the U.S. ... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Embassy in South Korea

Here is a fun FOP case. In South Korea, there is no FOP (at least as far as Commons images are concerned). In Canada, there is FOP. So, which one (or both) does this image fall under? It is an image taken in South Korea, but the building itself is under Canadian jurisdiction. There are at least two other images that will be affected by this decision. Elisfkc (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the image is copyright protected. Copyright protects the author of the artistic work, in this case it would be the photographer. The photographer took the image in Korea, because of that the image is protected in South Korea. And because of the Berne Convention it would also be protected in Canada.
It can be argued that in this case the copyrighted work - the building - is located in a territory where there is Freedom of Panorama. And in cases of photographs of outdoor images, it is the law of the location of the images that applies, not the location of where the image is made. Consequently, because the building is in FOP territory its outdoor images are not copyrighted, even if they are made on non-FOP territory. So the image would not be protected in South Korea.
I can think of one serious problem with this. If the above FOP reasoning is applied then high altitude airplane and satellite (territories where South Korean law does not apply) pictures of buildings in South Korea (a country without FOP) would infringe on the copyright of the authors of those buildings. Thus the pictures would be violating copyright in South Korea and in all other countries under the Berne Convention. Rybkovich (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Cover art

File:Therese.delisieux.jpg and File:Marthe.robin.jpg seem to be cover art uploaded as "own work" and licensed using various CC licenses. No source is provided and the description for each file states "Own work assumed". I'm not sure what the "assumed" is supposed to mean. Does it mean "seems like own work, but not sure" or "clearly without a doubt own work"? User talk:Alexandermen (the uploader) shows some notifications for previous copyvios which seem to have been posted prior to these two files being uploaded, so I'm not sure the files are just re-uploads of previously deleted ones like File:Martherobin.jpg and File:Theresedelisieux.jpg. Is OTRS verification is required is cases like this involving cover art claimed as "own work"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless we can identify a way they have become PD (rather unlikely), then yes we need OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Review request for Marilyn Monroe publicity photo

I came across this image which is an obvious publicity photo for her only, with no film mentioned. Since it shows the margins with the publisher studio's name w/o a copyright notice, it would apparently be PD. I ran a copyright image search for any renewals and nothing came up, for any image renewals of any year. One site says it's from 1953. With some support, I can upload it. --Light show (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What about the back side? Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
See talk, which notes that even if it was amazingly stamped with a notice on the back, it was never renewed. --Light show (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If you know it was published in 1953, and there was no renewal on copyright.gov, then it should be PD-US-not_renewed. But without seeing the back, and without evidence (which could come from other sources) that this photo was actually published in 1953 (or before 1978 anyways), I'm not sure we can rely on the no-notice part. The photo was obviously created back then, but it's possible that this copy was never distributed thus the lack of notice may not mean anything -- we need to find a copy which was actually distributed. Relying on the "not renewed" part is a lot safer. Be sure to credit the photographer, since we know him. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Whitehall (15420756838).jpg

Could someone verify the licensing of this image as well as of File:Jeremy Thorpe.jpg and File:Jeremy Thorpe cropped.jpg A bot has already verified the licensing of the Whitehall photo, but I would like to make sure that a mistake was not made because it could affect whether the non-free en:File:1965 Jeremy Thorpe.jpg is needed on English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Boy that looks like a scanned postcard. The Flickr user has tons of them on the his account (and someone added this photo to a "UK postcards" flickr group). I suppose it could be an old print, and the user does appear to collect vintage cameras. But the printing process looks more like a magazine or cheap postcard rather than a photographic print when you zoom in on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a closer look Clindberg. Concerns about the licensing of the file were raised at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 2#File:1965 Jeremy Thorpe.jpg, but since the file was uploaded to Commons, I figured it would be best to seek clarification about its licensing here. The quality of the image does make it seem like a scan of some kind, perhaps of a post card as you suggest or of something which appeared in a newspaper or magazine. I'm assuming that Flickr licenses are only valid when the photo, etc. is clearly the own work of the concerned Flickr account holder, right? Do you have a suggestion, based upon your experience at Commons, on what should be done in a case like this where there seems to be some doubt about the accuracy of the Flickr licensing: COM:DR, COM:SD, or (in this particular case a second) COM:LR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A postcard for sale on eBay: [3]. --ghouston (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Not very conclusive though, since it's "new". --ghouston (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Text "Unused Some bumps and scrapes. For condition see scan." suggests that it is an old unused postcard. --ghouston (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems more and more that the Flickr account holder was not the original copyright holder of the image, but simply uploaded the file and then re-licensed it as CC-by-sa 2.0. However, I'm not sure if that means this is a candidate for speedy deletion per COM:LL or a regular deletion request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. That is a pretty cut-and-dried copyvio. You can see the postcard edges just a little bit in the uploaded image. The Flickr user has since changed the license to "all rights reserved" so hopefully no more uploads from their copied postcards. Speedy deletion is warranted. I sometimes prefer regular deletion in order to leave a better record of why things were deleted, but for a mistaken-upload Flickrwash not sure there's much benefit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
OK Clindberg. Should all three files be speedied by adding Template:Copyvio? Should the ebay link found by Ghouston beused as for the |source=? I'm also wondering if the files in Category:Photographs by Leonard Bentley (Flickr) should be reviewed because quite a few of them seem similar to this post card. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, use the ebay link. The category is a mix of original photos which seem to be licensed OK, old PD photos with a bogus cc-by-sa flickr license, and a number of likely copyvios. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Just one last question Clindberg. Would it be possible to try and resolve all of the problematic Flckr images of this category in one all inclusive DR? How would that be done if possible? The three we've discussed here can be speedied, but that would still leave others left to be resolved. This would also have the benefit of leaving a record of why all of these images were deleted for others to reference later on as needed. Just thinking out loud. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if the deletion reasons are basically the same. See Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. That is a mostly-manual procedure, though there is a tool linked from there which may help, but it may also be hard to identify individual photos (since not all in the category are bad). I'm not too familiar with it though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: please consider using COM:VFC if the files are in one category, it will save you an enormous amount of time, and prevent many potential errors. Once enabled, go to the Category: page, and click the link to "Perform batch task". Select "nominate for deletion" as the task and then select those files you wish to nominate. Uploaders will be automatically notified. Storkk (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Storkk: Thank you for your information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg, Ghouston, and Storkk: I wasn't sure about doing an entire category at once, so I just nominated the three discussed here for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect Flickr licensing. Perhaps once these three are resolved, the others can be taken care of in another mass deletion request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Stamps of Libya

11 Libyan stamps were uploaded today and even though they are freely licensed on Flickr they would appear to be still in copyright for a 30 year period per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Libya specifically the statement: Works by other legal entities. The copyright in a work by a public or private legal entity expires 30 years from the date of first publication of the work: Article 20. There are an additional 25 more in the category: Category:Stamps of Libya and I suspect only the last two 1968 stamps have a valid licence though they don't have an additional US tag. Maybe File:Libyaourcountry.jpg this one is ok too. Before I nominate any for deletion, can we determine if the current licensing is accurate. WIPO does not show anything newer despite the recent turmoil in the country? TIA Ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Logo issues

Moved from Commons:Upload help#Logo issues ★ Poké95 02:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that the Commons says not to upload a logo not created by yourself. I am attempting to upload a logo for a school district and halted when I read that. One of the high schools has their logo uploaded, so I came here. Should I upload this logo, or should I not and take down the other logo? Thanks. JTP (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@NotTheFakeJTP: Hello, you may upload a logo not created by yourself, as long as it is too simple to be copyrighted. Can you provide a link to the logo you are saying? Thanks, ★ Poké95 01:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Here you go. JTP (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP: I am afraid that the logo seems to be above the threshold of originality, meaning, copyrighted. I am not 100% sure, so I am asking for a third opinion. ★ Poké95 01:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Definitely copyrightable - Too many shapes - fruit, stems, leaves, they all have a particular look (at least fruit and bell). Also the 3d effects - shine on apple and the background shade around the image. Rybkovich (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Review requested for Max Baer publicity photo

A 1935, or approximate, of Max Baer. Shows front and back w/o copyright notice. It has crop marks on the front and various dates and media where published on the reverse, indicating that it was published. Does it seem OK? --Light show (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be ok. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. --Light show (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

w:File:Easy Lover by Philip Bailey and Phil Collins US 12-inch dance remix front cover.jpg

Is this image fair use? --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It may be {{Pd-text}} but I am not sure. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
While much of the text is simple, personally I think the main title font, which is not a regular one, is way too stylised to be freely licensed, so non-free on enwiki, as it is now, seems the right way. Ww2censor (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Only because I guided George here, I have to ask about the font aspect because there are a LOT of images at commons and en.wiki that use a "stylized" font (for example File:Blizzard Entertainment Logo.svg that I would classify in the same manner, if that is the line that is to be drawn. I have been under the impression that even such heavily stylized typefaces, under PD-text, would no qualify for copyright when used in images. (I do note that the font on the image above in question is clearly a typeface since the same letters have the same patterns) --Masem (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)?

I've found a picture on flickr that is under an Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) license, and when I went to upload it I found that there's no such option on the "Release Rights" section of the Upload Wizard (only 2.0 and ShareAlike 2.0). What do I do instead? --Samtyler654 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the Flickr user to change the license to something that isn't ND - we don't permit NoDerivs works.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
If the copyright owner wishes to change licence to something not in the selector (but still accepted here), you can add the template after uploading, by editing the file description page. This is often needed in more complicated cases. I think the option is mentioned in the Upload Wizard. But yes, you have to have a non-ND licence. --LPfi (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

German sports newspaper 1933

Can someone review this German newspaper from 1933 to see if it would be PD? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on when the authors of the articles and photos published in this newspaper died. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

PD-US

A Question about PD-US. If I scan book, that published in the USA, of author that died in 1930, and the illustrator died in 1950. Is it ok to upload to Commons such a book?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.132.173.104 (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When was the book published, did it have a copyright notice or a copyright renewal?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It was published in 1909 in the first time and then in 1912. And another question. Can I upload only an illustration from the same book. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.173.145.214 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-1923}} applies in either case, if the book was published first in 1912 or earlier, as is the case here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
If the book was first published in some other country, it needs to be free in that country also (in most cases). Most countries have a term of 70 years pma (instead of a term based on publication), which for the illustrator means 1950+70=2020. So in that case one would have to still wait a few years (which shows how absurd the copyright terms are). --LPfi (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
And yes, individual images can also be uploaded. Copyright on individual works seldom last longer than that of the combined one. The only caveat is about images first published in a different country. --LPfi (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

First UK edition of Howards End

I want to upload the first edition of EM Forster's Howards End to Commons. Is it okay? If so, which licensing tag is appropriate? --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lessee, published in 1910 means that US copyrights don't exist on it. E. M. Forster died in 1970 so the UK copyright would expire in 2040/2041. Seems like a "no" to me. I'd upload it to the English Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}{{Out of copyright in|2041}}.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably would need to be on English Wikisource if it's the whole book, not Wikipedia, but same idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The museum I work with has given me permission to use their logo on Wikipedia, which copyright tag do I choose? MBlairMartin (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What kind of permission were you given? Ruslik (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Guidance for paid editors, which covers your situation. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Evil Masquerade - The Outcast Hall Of Fame - lineup (2016).jpg

What do you think about it? @Magog the Ogre marked the file with {{No permission since}}, but I think that now almost everything is fine. "Almost" because the source page does not specify CC-BY-SA version. --jdx Re: 10:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a contact link on the site. I'd ask them to clarify which CC-BY-SA license they are using so that reusers know which license to indicate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I posted a note about this issue on a WP talk page. Comments here or there are welcome. --Light show (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please copy any useful comments to the WP talk page. - Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Finding out about the copyright registration - or not - of a plaque made/published (presumably) in 1986

It's not clear if en:File:Charles W. Sandman plaque.jpg is under copyright - there is no copyright tag visible and the publication date seems to be 1986, but I don't know how to find copyright registration information anywhere. Relevant discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Registration information for anything 1978 and later is on www.copyright.gov. In general though, public display does not equate to publication since 1978 -- see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. That makes it more difficult to claim PD status for works put on public display in the 1978-1989 time frame. But, that is more often a problem with statues (works which exist in one copy) rather than literary works, which almost certainly were published one way or another at the time. The question though is if the lack of copyright notice on the specific public copy would be meaningful -- it usually is not for statues, but unsure for a literary work. It might be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I also wonder about text vs. rest of the artwork, the concern is specifically about the text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

File:BED1.jpg

File:BED1.jpg was uploaded with a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license tag by Emprince19 who says it is their own work, but I found the same image here and at the bottom of that page, it has a copyright notice and no Creative Commons license. I'm not sure whether it being on Commons is a copyright violation or not? Thanks for the help. Seagull123 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The account may be associated with the subject. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The right owners are free to license works under several licences, and using one here and another there. But we usually do require OTRS correspondence in such cases, to assure we have permission from the rights owners and not from a random user. --LPfi (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Seoul photos released by city government under CC

Hello guys! The Korea Herald reports that the Seoul government has released photos of Seoul into CC-BY domain, among them photos taken twenty years ago. The database is huge, with some 23,000 photos. Checked the site and it indeed cites CC-BY: http://data.si.re.kr/picture_info My question is that can these photos be uploaded to Commons? My issue is that South Korea doesn't have freedom of panorama for modern buildings. Can general street photos (not depicting a specific building) be uploaded? (Example) Teemeah (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about copyright in Korea, but I'd guess general street photos would be fine as long as any particular copyrighted building is de minimis, and they can be tagged with Template:De minimis. It would also be interesting to ask the Seoul government whether they'd obtained licenses from architects for their photos. --ghouston (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll ping User:-revi, who I am sure can provide more insight, and inform other Korean Wikipedians of this development. I'd personally support uploading the images to Wikimedia Commons wholesale. The entire fop issue is clearly copyright paranoia - even the Korean government doesn't care about it, as we can see from this very example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Photos like this is safe as pre-1923 architecture (actually 15C), this might be in borderline, I doubt if this is acceptable. Point is COM:De minimis, I believe. General buildings should be fine. I'll contact Seoul Metropolitan Gov (or WMKR will do contacting for me) to get a highest quality possible as a dump and upload them en messe. — regards, Revi 12:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

White House Performance videos

Are videos posted by the White House such as The 2016 Kids' State Dinner: Jungle Book Performance, which normally would be PD-POTUS, that state something like "Footage, music and other materials (c)Disney", still be allowed on Commons? If so, I'm presuming a De minimis would be required. Elisfkc (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, any contained songs / lyrics / play dialog would make it not allowed. No way that would be de minimis. The video recording part is PD-POTUS, but any contained works would not be. If there is any included footage from Disney movies, that would be an issue too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: no footage, but there is singing. Elisfkc (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Henry Wilson by Nahum Ball Onthank - IMG 6879.JPG

Need to verify if File:Henry Wilson by Nahum Ball Onthank - IMG 6879.JPG is public domain. Please advise. Maile66 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The painting is PD. The photo would not qualify for PD-Art, but it sounds like the uploader took the photo, so they could license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Uploader has been very active, so I second the suggestion to ask them to license it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the image's photographer and uploader. Yes, the original painting is in the public domain, and so is my photograph. I have added a CC0 tag to make this clear, to this image, and to the other images that I uploaded at the same time. Note that the images were uploaded in 2010 - I'm not sure that CC0 even existed at that time! But anyway, they are certainly all in the public domain. Best wishes, Daderot (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I note though that PD-Art is not an appropriate license here (it isn't a faithful reproduction since you took the photo at an angle), thus I've used a somewhat different license tag; I've also added that license tag to a Wikidata item since enwiki has such a tag (but typically albeit not exclusively used for fair use images) and I couldn't find the Commons one at first.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this image constitute copyrightable artwork? Please also see this GA review on the English Wikipedia. Jujutsuan (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The painted crosswalk? In the U.S., no. In Finland, less sure, but I seriously doubt it. It's a crosswalk, and the colors are pretty standard -- do not see how that would amount to showing the personality of an individual human author. The photograph is copyrightable of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in Belgium

Hi everyone ! There is FoP in Belgium ! \o/ Anyone wants to help me restoring the files in Category:Belgian_FOP_cases ? Léna (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic news, and I'd love to help restore... I would like some clarification first on exactly what is covered (I'm not sure what art plastique covers). Could we please first update Template:NoFoP-Belgium (and move it to Template:FoP-Belgium), and also COM:FOP#Belgium? Storkk (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone edited COM:FOP#Belgium to state that the law would take effect 10 days after publication -- so would that be 15 July then? Or is it effective immediately? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
As for art plastique, that is translated in previous versions of Belgian law as "Works of Fine Art". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
In the Dutch version it has "beeldende, grafische of bouwkundige kunst" which may translate as "visual, graphic or architectural arts". I'm not sure exactly what the difference is between visual and graphic arts, but it implies that 2 and 3 dimensional art as well as buildings are covered, as long as they are on permanent display in a public place. The restrictions are that the work must be shown as it appears in that place (maybe some surroundings are required in the image as well as the work itself? I think the Netherlands has something similar) and it shouldn't affect normal exploitation of the work (perhaps a problem for exact reproductions of 2D works). --ghouston (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ghouston: I think your translation is pretty accurate. This FOP provision seems to be very similar to the Dutch one. Natuur12 (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with all of that. Photos of 2D works which are basically just copies (straight on and framing it) would almost certainly affect the normal exploitation of the original, and in most cases should not be allowed. But other situations (showing the public context), they would seem to be allowable. The Netherlands FOP law looks like it is more restricted as to subject matter in comparison -- but the Dutch language version of the Belgian law does seem to confirm the translation as being for most all visual art, and buildings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To whom it may concern and @Ghouston: The French version is quite clear. « 2/1°. la reproduction et la communication au public d'oeuvres d'art plastique, graphique ou architectural destinées à être placées de façon permanente dans des lieux publics, pour autant qu'il s'agisse de la reproduction ou de la communication de l'oeuvre telle qu'elle s'y trouve et que cette reproduction ou communication ne porte pas atteinte à l'exploitation normale de l'oeuvre ni ne cause un préjudice injustifié aux intérêts légitimes de l'auteur; » translates IMO to The reproduction and the distribution [communication] to the public of works of statuary, graphic or architectural art [the difference being that "art plastique", or, I guess, the equivalent "beeldende kunst" explicitly refers to sculptural works, making a difference to graphic (drawing, painting, photography) art - GD] intended for a permanent placement [display] in public spaces, as long as it is a reproduction or distribution [communication] of the work as is and that this reproduction or distribution [communication] does not harm the normal exploitation of the work and neither cause wanton prejudice at legitimate interests of the author. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Another question often encountered in connection with FoP: What is considered a "public place"? In many countries, FoP doesn't cover interior spaces, even if they're accessible to the public. Do we already know how to interpret the Belgian law's "public places" (lieux publics)? I wonder because I noticed that File:Stockel-TinTin-1.jpg, File:Stockel-TinTin-2.jpg and File:Stockel-TinTin-3.jpg were restored by User:Thibaut120094 (by the way, Thibaut, please also remove the old deletion request template from the file description page when restoring files, it's still there). The first of these might be also problematic with regard to the "2D reproduction" issue, as there's not a lot of context. And the pictures were taken in a metro station - in some countries, this wouldn't count as a "public place", I think. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, M0tty asked me to restore the files in Category:Belgian FOP cases/deleted en masse with a script, here's the list of files I restored: User:Thibaut120094/Undeleted, if there's files that don't fall into FoP exception, feel free to delete them. For the DR tags, I'm on it. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: If you restored the files en masse with a script, maybe you could also remove the deletion request templates from the pages with a script? Would be great and better than having to remove them all manually now... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm on it. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, for some reason I skipped the "For the DR tags, I'm on it" part of your post; I probably should read more carefully - thank you! :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Done :-) Hope I didn't miss any. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: Flemish communal laws seem to include churches as public places (openbare plaatsen) -> “jaarmarkten en markten, bij openbare vermakelijkheden en plechtigheden, vertoningen en spelen, in drankgelegenheden, kerken en andere openbare plaatsen”. In context of the ban on smoking, "openbare plaatsen" are defined as “plaatsen waar de toegang niet beperkt is tot de privésfeer” (places where access is not restricted to the private sphere). Similar definitions I see applying to older laws on public drunkenness. Also note the examples given when the law was proposed mentions museums as an example of what isn’t allowed, not "interiors" as a whole, which seems to be tied to it harming “the normal exploitation of the work” (museum exhibitions with entry fees). Tom-L (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The information in this article from the News Media Coalition talks about an explanation that accompanied the draft version of the law. From what the explanation said, the FOP provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and at the same time, the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public. (The explanation appears to add something like the following: if a work of art is situated inside a building that is not permanently open to the public, then the artist may not have expected public exhibition of the work.) I have added information about this explanation to the notes under COM:FOP#Belgium --Gazebo (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Heavily watermarked image

This heavily watermarked image, taken from an old Genoese cookbook, has been uploaded from this website. The uploader Gaborasta is probably the website owner (GABriele RASTAtaldo), anyway I think there are some problems with this image. Does it need a OTRS ticket? There is also a cleaner version here (National Library of Rome website). What do you think about?--Carnby (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to have either version, the one directly from the National Library is vastly superior. Watermarks are discouraged on Commons in all cases, and a watermark that blatant substantially lowers the value to Commons. The only copyright issue that needs addressed with the National Library scans is that of the book itself - {{PD-scan}} can then be used with the appropriate copyright tag. I cannot read Italian but for those who can, the information pages on the book start here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If our image is free, the National Library one is free; the NL page has all of the text from our page, plus a couple lines apparently from the previous. Assuming the 1852 is correct, both are clearly free. The one we have is terribly problematic with that watermark.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

GC Maps

The FAQ at http://www.gcmap.com/faq/using indicates that great circle maps generated by that website are licensed for noncommercial use only. However, the great circle map at File:Five_longest_air_routes.gif is listed as PD-ineligible. Is there a policy for overriding a website owner's claim that a picture is indeed eligible for copyright and only usable under certain conditions, on the ground that the picture is too simple to be copyrightable? CapitalSasha (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that PD-ineligible is applicable to that map (for one thing, the background is surely a work that could be copyrighted). For the general question, a copyright tag is just a tag, it does not override originality requirements.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of files like File:Cleopatra showing Octavius the bust of Julius Caesar, Pompeo Batoni.jpg that according to the templates aren't licensed properly, because "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." I'm not even sure what US public domain template would be right, since I have no idea whether the painting was ever "published" or not (i.e., another copy distributed, by somebody who held the copyright.) It could be {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{PD-1996}}. Is it even possible that something published outside the US and {{PD-old-100}} could still copyrighted in the US? Is the warning spurious?--ghouston (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It was displayed at a point in time where that made it published. Outside the Ninth Circuit, being published anywhere in the world is published for US purposes. (meta:Wikilegal/The 9th Circuit and Works Published Without Formalities explains some of the details. We've generally ignored that; I'd like to believe the WMF would take a case on the subject to the Supreme Court and get the 9th Circuit overturned, but maybe not.) There's complex rules of common law copyright; as far as I understand, unless common law copyright was actually actively held, it dissipated. Unless you're looking at something by Mark Twain or John Adams (1735-1826) or something else with an active rights holder, it would have been public domain before Federal copyright covered unpublished works.
With rare exceptions, it's not something to worry about, especially not with an 18th century author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
So we can add {{PD-1996}} pretty much automatically to {{PD-old-100}}? I wonder if it would be possible to combine the two into a single template, that perhaps explains any exceptional cases where it wouldn't be valid. --ghouston (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Unless there is documentation to the contrary (i.e. known to have never been published anywhere), I think we generally assume that works that old have been published long ago, so PD-1923 is the assumption. And if they haven't been legally published, then the U.S. term is PD-old-70 anyways. It's not really something to worry about much -- it's virtually certain to be PD one way or another. I think the note on the need for a separate U.S. tag has gradually been added to all the PD-old-* tags, as in most other cases it's more in doubt, so I guess it was added to the 100 one as well, even though it's highly unlikely that such a work is still under U.S. copyright. (And, really, even the PD-old-100 tag is sort of fiction. There are only two countries with longer terms than PD-old-80, and both of them were non-retroactive increases, so their current effective terms are much shorter. It's just that their effective terms increase by one every year, so they will get to those numbers eventually.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that such old works are surely public domain one way or another in the US, but it seems to take too much effort to work out exactly with template applies to fix the warning in PD-old-100. But it seems that {{PD-1923}} can be used in most cases if we assume that a painting is "published" merely by displaying it somewhere. --ghouston (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed the file above to {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1787}}, no more warning. --ghouston (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I recently nominated two files for deletion, on the basis that were images of 20th century postcards for which the claimed PD-old declaration was unlikely to apply. See here and here. User:INeverCry concurred and deleted these files. The same concerns apply to a large number of files in Category:20th-century postcards, those where the publication date or original photographer cannot be established. Should all these be deleted? If so, what is the best way to identify those that can be kept? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Verbcatcher I spot checked a few that looked okay. Can you present some specific examples that might be a problem?
There is a grey area for evaluation, but Commons tends to keep content that is likely in the public domain even when there is not definitive evidence establishing this as certain. The best way to identify files to keep is by the presence of an appropriate copyright license and rationale, and a lack of anyone challenging it as incorrect or implausible. Feel free to challenge some files as you like if it helps you understand the review process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
20th Century may be OK -- many postcards were anonymous authorship, and EU copyright would last 70 years from publication at that point. U.S. copyright may be an issue for some of those (usually those published 1926 or later, but can differ by country -- French postcards can be OK up to 1934 or so). Everything can depend on if the human author was credited on the front or back, and the year of publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
For US postcards, it's very rare to find many that aren't PD for one reason or another, and that's aided by very distinctive eras of postcard types. The vast majority found on eBay and other auction sites are divided back postcards from 1907 to 1915, easily identifiable by their full-side artwork and distinctive coloring. Others are undivided back (1901-1907), which are also unambiguously PD-1923 (the original offering for sale clearly counts as publication under US law). Even most of the later styles - white border 1915-1930, white border linen 1930-1945, and chrome (1939-present, but rare after the 70s) - are almost always PD from lack of copyright mark, lack of renewal, or both; I can't say that I've seen more than one or two (out of literally hundreds that I've uploaded) from before 1950 with a copyright mark, and even many form the 1980s don't. The only tricky ones are real photo postcards which aren't always as easy to date, but many of them have postmarks, distinctive items in the photo, or other ways to determine age and PD status.
TL;DR: I can't speak for other countries, but US postcards printed before 1989 can generally be assumed to be PD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The guideines in Commons:Anonymous works apply in most cases. According to this, in most EU countries the copyright on anonymous works lapses seventy years after publication, so unattributed postcards published before 1946 are ok. Some other countries use a fifty-year rule, so unattributed postcards published before 1966 are ok. In my limited experience commercial postcards rarely if ever credit the photographer.
Based on this, the deletion decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roscoff-Arrivée des voitures d'oignons.jpg was probably incorrect, as this is clearly pre-1946. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johnnies.jpg is later, but is probably also pre-1946. Should I ask for these to be undeleted?
From my quick survey, these files look problematic:
I nominated them for deletion. Not sure about the one from Norway. Yann (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous post-1946 Italian postcards in the following categories. All of these may be in copyright.
Some of these have a PD-Italia declaration. This requires that the image must not have artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality. This is dubious for a published postcard. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Foreign postcards would have had their U.S. copyright restored by the URAA (unless published before 1923) if they were still under copyright in their source country in 1996. So, for some countries (for example the UK or Germany) the line might be 1926. For France, they had 50-year anonymous terms at the time, so probably 1945 -- though I'm not sure if the anonymous term got extended by their wartime extensions, which might add another 8 years. Italy had a six-year wartime extension in 1996 (50 years otherwise), so maybe 1940 for them. For PD-Italy... yeah, tough call. Portraits or anything else where the photographer could arrange the subject matter would be out, and I think they ruled that some very artistic landscape photographs were also ruled to be 70pma, but other more snapshot-like photos may still have their shorter terms. I'm not sure there have been many rulings to help us out. Some of those later postcards are claimed "own work" as well, so there is likely some bad licensing in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Especially if cards are pre-1923, it's worth asking for undeletion. The difference might be if a postcard was signed by the artist or photographer on the front -- in which case we'd need to identify them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This is helpful, but we need firm threshold dates, e.g. is it 1940 or 1966 for Italy? Also, Template:PD-Italy does not distinguish between works that qualify under the 20-year rule for "simple photographs" or under the 70-year rule for "works of photographic art". Should we have different templates so that we can see which is claimed? Any postcards with a PD-self declaration should be treated s suspect. Is there a way to search for these? Verbcatcher (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
PD-Italy is only about the 20-year term for simple photographs. The line for those would be 1976. Given the description in the law, I'd guess a number of postcards would actually count under that law. For other works, the current term is 70pma, or 70 years from publication, and would use either PD-old-70 or {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. In 1996, Italian law was 50pma, or 50 years for anonymous works. But they added 6 years to everything for wartime extensions, so 1940 is probably the line for artistic works. (The threshold of originality may also have been different, as they had not implemented the EU directive yet, and it was very common for photographs to have shorter terms then. Italy seems have kept their old clauses in their law, while Germany changed so that virtually every photograph now has the 70 year terms, which is why we still have the PD-Italy tag -- but the old law was in effect in 1996 so that would be the one that the URAA would use). Nothing about copyright is easy; there can be messy judgement calls in all sorts of areas. If we want to keep as many photos as possible, we need to wade into all these corner cases. And they can differ country-by-country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello all! I recently created a map in GIS (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K%C3%B6ppen_Csc_US_West_Coast.png). I used data sourced from the US Census Bureau (outlines of Western US states), which is in the public domain. I also used raw climate data from the PRISM Climate Group of the University of Oregon (their terms of use are here: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/documents/PRISM_terms_of_use.pdf; *edit: I did do a lot of calculations and modifications of that raw data). Based on their terms of use, I understand that I can use their data, as long as I credit them, which I did.

So my question is: do I have copyright over the work and can I release it under CC, like I want to? How do I handle the copyright for this? Currently, it's slated to be deleted, due to insufficient information about the copyright. Redtitan (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Oregon data are free for non-commercial use only, although one may question their copyrightability. Ruslik (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Would releasing this map under a Creative Commons license that prohibits commerical use, say CC by-ND, be valid? What would you consider the most valid license? It's slated to be deleted soon, and I want to make sure it continues to available. Thanks! Also, I should add that I did calculations using the data from the University of Oregon, to calculate where the specific climate type was that I mapped out, so it wasn't as simple as me simply adding a dataset to a map. Redtitan (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, just seeing on the wikimedia commons guidelines that non-commercial licenses aren't valid. I do have an email from the person at the University of Oregon allowing me to create climate maps with their data and upload them to wikipedia. Is there any way I can attach that to this file and release it to public domain? Please help! I'm really confused and really don't want this to be deleted, as I spent hours making this map and put a lot of work into this. The copyright issues are very unclear to me. Redtitan (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The copyright does not protect abstract data. So, please, clarify what you mean by "data" here. Ruslik (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The data from University of Oregon was spreadsheet data of climate averages (maximum, mean, and minimum temperature and precipitation). I applied criteria to that data to see if they matched a particular climate type, then colored in the regions on a map of the western US that matched that particular climate type. Redtitan (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying now. The data itself isn't copyrightable, so there shouldn't be a copyright issue if I modify that data and then use that in a map. I credit them as the data source in my map, and from what I understand, that's all I'll need to do. Redtitan (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct now. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Logo made up of road signs

While doing some other work on enwiki, I discovered File:NVTA Logo 2758.jpg and File:NVTA Logo web.jpg. I deleted the latter as a copyvio (and it would have qualified for speedy deletion as a smaller duplicate anyway), but on second look I'm not sure whether the remaining file is allowed on Commons or not. It consists of four traffic signs, of which nearly but not exactly identical versions are definitely PD: File:MUTCD D11-2.svg, File:MUTCD W4-2R.svg, File:MUTCD I-7.svg, and File:MUTCD I-6.svg. So this then leads to three questions:

  1. Are identical versions of all four signs provably PD?
  2. Does the version with all four signs together count as a copyrighted derivative work, or is it a trivial combination?
  3. Does the more recent version with an edge fade qualify as copyrighted, or is it still trivial?

There's no sense keeping the older version on Commons in either case - it should be overwritten by the current version if that is PD, or replaced by the fair-use current version on enwiki if it is not. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything copyrightable over the four MUTCD symbols. I would call those trivial combinations, including the more recent version. But since the two versions are different, I'd keep both. They are not duplicates -- one has wording, one doesn't, one has the edge fade, one doesn't. Historical versions are of interest anyways, even if no longer used on en-wiki. If the one you deleted was an exact duplicate, just smaller, then cool but I'd probably leave everything else be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The deleted one was an exact scaled-down duplicate of the file still on Commons. So just to confirm - you're saying there's nothing about the logo currently on enwiki that's copyrightable, and I should upload it to Commons and keep the existing version? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Handwriting

Hey, I wonder if I can upload this handwriting to the commons. The one who wrote this died almost 23 years ago. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean? Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Strangely, the appearance of a person's handwriting can be copyrightable, as a form of 'artistic work', even if the actual written text isn't (not that I can read this, lol) Reventtalk 00:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify... I'm not saying that a person's 'style of handwriting' is itself copyrightable (it's essentially a typeface, in a way), but a specific instance of handwritten text can be... it's the 'appearance' of how the person wrote the specific text that, especially if it was not in some kind of 'standard' handwriting style, that can have the needed originality. Reventtalk 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0 and Revent: It's in Persian language and reads: "We hold the illusion that we've stayed but the martyrs have passed. But the truth is that time has taken us away with itself, but the martyrs have stayed." This is the actual handwriting style of Morteza Avini ([4]) and is not any specific style of writing and I don't think can be counted as an artistic work. --Mhhossein ( talk) 05:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a long text. It is likely to be copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Handwriting is not copyrightable in the U.S., unless there are pictorial aspects of it. Some UK scholars think it may be copyrightable there, but that will be rare I'm guessing (very few countries use their definition of "original"). Stuff like calligraphy can be copyrightable in some countries. Obviously, if the written text qualifies for a literary copyright, then that counts. That could be enough text to create a copyright -- certainly some short poems are. In the U.S., "short phrases" are not copyrightable, so things like slogans are not, but once you get to a couple sentences, it's at least possible. If the text is repeating a known saying, that is different of course. I have little idea what Iranian copyright law would consider copyrightable though, and that is the real question here. The English translation of their law lists "decorative writings" as copyrightable -- I don't know if that sample would qualify, or if that would mean something more like Persian calligraphy. And like other copyright laws, they list all "literary, scientific and artistic writings" as copyrightable. So the question is if Iranian law considers that amount of text a literary or artistic writing, and I just don't know. If it is, then Iranian law protects it for 50 years after the author dies (it used to be 30, but was non-retroactively extended to 50 in 2010, so authors who have died since August 1980 get the longer protection). If not, then it's OK to upload. But I'm not sure that many here have much idea about how much text is needed to qualify as "original" under Iranian law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Clindberg for your comprehensive explanation. I don't think that our case can be counted as "literary, scientific or artistic writing." Should it be proved? How? --Mhhossein (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded the image. --Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It's anyone's guess what the Iranian threshold is -- and since they are not a member of the Berne Convention (it is supposedly under discussion but it has not happened), then they are not even bound by the Berne Convention norms anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Stamps from Argentina

Asking just to be on the safe side: I have read this about copyright for stamps from Argentina. Am I right in thinking then that [5] and [6] are in the public domain? Blue Elf (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That depends on who the designer of the stamps are when they died. Normally it is 70 years after their death per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Argentina. According to this stamp listing they are from 1961 and 1971 but they don't provide designer details. However, for a truly anonymous work the copyright period is 50 years. So first you need more information. Ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! :-) Blue Elf (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that "No Photo" is not a reason to remove from Wikimedia Commons?

"No Photo" means "don't take pictures". I think in this case it should be uploaded with OTRS permission from Taipower Company (Eric850130 say "烏山頭水力發電廠" and "烏山嶺引水隧道" both belong to 嘉南農田水利會).

Now, you can see that there is a problem with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eric850130. Can someone explain why these image can be reserved but is not to gain OTRS permission?--Liji (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Permissions like that are non-copyright restrictions. It is up to the uploader if they want to take any legal risks involved. The Taipower Company does not own any copyright interest, so there is no need for OTRS, as we only delete for copyright problems. The uploader runs any risks if there are other legal issues, but that is up to them to judge. If the uploader wants them deleted in light of that restriction, we would delete, but only in that case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Municipio Quito: missing permission, copyvio or everything is alright?

Hi,

Doesn't File:Municipio Quito 2014.svg need an OTRS or else? I only see "Copyright © 2016, Municipio del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito. Todos los derechos reservados" on http://www.quito.gob.ec/ but as the file is here since 2014, I may have missed something.

Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is above the threshold of originality, it definitely needs an OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it passes TOO. This is just two different typefaces and a coloured line. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @De728631:
It means just changing permission to |Permission={{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}} and removing the CC BY-SA 4.0, that's it?
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I have imitate the File:Boeing wordmark.svg case like this. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that should be ok. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

//

I've spent the last hour searching the site for where to respond to a notice from Admin Eugene Zelaskey that three of my uploaded images, vintage photos, need verification that they are mine to post. There was also a fourth notice concerning metadata on a photo apparently disproving my ownership of copyright; however this fourth image is not anywhere among my uploads, nor has it been deleted. i must assume this fourth citation is incorrect.

Regarding the three photos in question: I responded to all the requests for information in the quick upload function when I uploaded them. All three photos are in my possession, were photographed by my late father, and any identifiable people in one photo are: my late grandfather, my late grandmother, my mother, my two brothers, my two sisters, and myself; or in the photo of me as an infant and my late father, taken with a timer beside the family garage. The photos may be "vintage", but that is a description which makes me "vintage" as well - a characterization I find uncomfortable. Any living person among the subjects has requested to have access to the photos available for internet sharing. All are aware of and approved in advance the public availability of those images.

The photo at my grandfather's pond was taken - by my father, who is not in the photo - in March of 1953, in Columbia County, Georgia. The photo of the hay wagon was taken in 1976 from the front porch of the family homestead in Barnwell County, South Carolina, by my father. The photo of my father and me as an infant was taken with a remote timer by my father on the Clemson University Extension Experiment Station in Pontiac, South Carolina, in May, 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandlapper1709 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sandlapper1709:
You have to edit the file pages themselve to correct them. For example, to update |date=2016-01-26 with the true dates you just give, to replace in |author=[[User:Sandlapper1709|Sandlapper1709]] your name by real authors, etc.
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sandlapper1709: And note also, that any image that is not your own work (eg. a photo not taken by you) and not in public domain yet (eg. not published before 1952 or published and copyright renewed) require a written permission from the photo copyright owner (the photographer or their heirs). Follow COM:OTRS in such case. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Besides sending the email as described at COM:OTRS, if your father is no longer alive and you are the heir to his intellectual property, the correct license tag would be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, not {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I hope that helps. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Klassisk förpackning av Marabou Mjölkchokladkaka från 1956.jpg

Is it obvious copyvio? --jdx Re: 16:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Marked BMacZero (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BMacZero (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dandvat.com

Hi,

Can someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Mr.dogra.007, please? His images can be found on Dandvat.com (like on dandvat.com/history) and sometimes other websites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.dogra.007/sandbox show his intention to promote Dandvat.com. Some could be ancient pictures now in the public domain but I found nothing about that. I have tried to treat them but I have the sensation of not knowing what I'm doing on those ones.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Ellin Beltz: --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BMacZero (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:National Football League uniforms

Just wondering if the files in this category are OK to be licensed as free work. Some of the helmet logos such are freely licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}, but others appear to be too complex to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Likely de minimis. Many of the US sports logos were PD-US-no_notice to begin with, and only more modern variations (often more subtle) would be copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Clindberg. I agree that some NFL teams like the Bears, Packers, 49ers, Cowboys, Browns, etc. have fairly simple helmet logos (or in the case of the Browns no logo at all) and, therefore are some type of PD. There are, however, many teams which don't. For example, File:Redskins uniforms12.png, File:Ariz Cardinals uniforms.png, File:Patriots 12uniforms.png, File:Jaguars13 uniforms.png and File:Miamidolphins uniforms13.png from that category all seem to use logos that are above the TOO. Many of these such as en:File:Miami Dolphins 2013 Logo.svg, en:File:Jacksonville Jaguars 2013 logo.png and en:File:New England Patriots logo.svg appear to have been created after 1977 so not sure if {{PD-US-no notice}} applies to them. It's also unclear how many of these are "own work"; for example, File:Tampa Bay Buccaneers uniforms 2014.png looks like it might possibly comes from a website like this. Can de minimis be simply claimed to justify uploading these kinds of files as own work, or do they at least need a proper source? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
March 1989 is the PD-US-no_notice line. Most of the current NFL logos are small variations (at best) over virtually-certain-PD versions, and it's only those differences which would be copyrighted. At the scale that they exist on these... de minimis I think. Now if the uniform outlines came from somewhere on the net, that could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Understand. I wasn't aware that {{PD-US-no-notice}} and {{PD-US-1978-89}} were both applicable. I believe that only the Jaguars, Panthers and Ravens have been newly created teams since 1989. Other teams have re-branded which might make their newer logos eligible for copyright protection. I can understand the de minimis argument based upon the size of the logos, but the files themselves still do not seem to be the own work of these respective uploaders, but rather look like they come from some website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:WIIS logo.jpg
To whom it may concern,

I recently read about an organization from the CSIS news feed called "Women In International Security", which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in D.C., and want to create a wikipedia page for it so that more people can learn about this organization and their work and great causes. I uploaded their logo on wiki commons today in hope to use it on the wikipedia page that I am working on simultaneously. I notice that the picture is not showing up on Wikipedia and realize that the copyright permission of the picture is not cleared. My problem is that I do not know how to verify the copyright status of the picture as I found the image on Google Image search. Can any experienced editor kindly point me to the right direction please?

Thank you in advance for your help.

--Lawjul (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm honestly not sure whether that logo would be copyrightable in the U.S. or not. If it's copyrightable, then it is certainly copyrighted, and you'd need to go through the process at COM:OTRS to get appropriate permission to use it. However, the only part of it that is not simple graphical shapes or text is a very standard equal-area Mollweide projection of the globe, on which they can't really claim any copyright (compare File:Mollweide projection SW.jpg. I've move this to the Village pump/Copyright page, where someone is more likely to be around who would know. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that is copyrightable. The only plausible grounds would be a 'compilation copyright' for the arrangement of otherwise uncopyrightable elements, and I don't think that's even close to being sufficiently original. Reventtalk 04:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Secretary Geithner Visits UPS.jpg

Is it PD or not? The photo has been published on Flickr by the U.S. Department of the Treasury but the description on the source page says "Photo courtesy of UPS". --jdx Re: 10:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is "courtesy of UPS", it is not in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well... it is not PD-USGov. Presumably UPS knowingly allowed the photo to be posted in a stream marked "public domain", so it could still be PD-author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The photo is unused and its copyright status is unclear so I nominated it for deletion. --jdx Re: 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I happened to be reading the latest issue of the British magazine Digital Camera when I came across a brief in the front of the book about a change to UK copyright law I was unaware of, but that may require some mass deletions here. I could not find any evidence of previous discussion of this anywhere on Commons, either.

Apparently an amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in the last few years repealed Article 52, which governed the copyright status of mass-produced artistic works. The new law is scheduled to take effect, the magazine said, July 28 ... a few hours from when I am posting this, UK time.

It basically retroactively extends the copyright period for such works, primarily furniture, from 25 years after the creator's death to 70. This puts things like the Barcelona chair back into copyright. Apparently this was heavily sought by the international furniture industry to bring Britain's replica furniture industry to heel. basically by putting UK copyright law in this area in line with the rest of Europe <super>Now I understand Brexit a little bit better</super>.

The aspect of the change that should most concern us, however, is twofold:

  • It exempts the furniture from freedom of panorama, making any photographs of copyrighted furniture derivative works and thus incapable of being licensed as a free image when photographed in the UK.
  • It apparently applies to copyright-eligible interior design as well, even if the individual items of furniture are not themselves copyrighted.

Here's an Ars Technica article discussing this. Here's another article discussing the new law's possibly dire impact on British design publishing.

My question, are there any photos in this category (and elsewhere; that's just where we would have to start) we would have to delete? Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Visual artists and licences

Hi,

I see a lot of artists or artist representatives uploading pictures on Commons. Some doesn't seem to understand licences. They want at the same time to keep their rights on their works and to be featured on Commons or some Wikipedias. Some will understand why their files are deleted as a protection of their rights, some will just give up with frustration, and some will send an OTRS. Among those last ones, some just follow the procedure to finally having the right to expose their work on a well known wiki, but without knowing what they exactly do with their own rights.

Personally, I do not fully grasp the implication of putting own art under a free licence. But I feel CC BY-SA 4.0 as potentially dangerous. What are the risks? Do I have to scare those artist? (With a hollow voice) "If you want to live by your art, don't put it on Commons." Is there genuine examples of profit lost because of a badly chosen licence? As an invented example: If someone prints your art on T-shirt (with the right credits and licence) and meets financial success before being widely imitated, what the artist can do?

Is there s recommendable pages or templates for user talk pages to explain incidence of the licences I could start with before using concrete examples?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • If someone prints it on a T-shirt, it's going to be rather difficult for them to conform to the terms of (for example) CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or GFDL, all of which require that the license be reproduced. (I guess they could print the license on packaging.) But, yes, probably if we can do something to have artists better understand that it would be good. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Galapagos+map.jpg

All maps from http://www.freeworldmaps.net are now licenced under a non-free licence, but they used to be under CC-BY-SA-2.5 as the Internet Archive says. IMO an admin should confirm that this file actually is under BY-SA just like it is done eg. in case of Flickr photos. Unfortunately, it seems that on Commons there are over 40 maps from this source. --jdx Re: 12:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

CC-BY licenses cannot be revoked retroactively. It seems like the copyright license for that site has changed quite a few times in the past.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I know that these licences cannot be revoked but the situation is confusing. I was going to fill {{Copyvio}} but something told me to check how it was in the past. --jdx Re: 13:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: Created, and populated, Category:Freeworldmaps.net images needing license review. The files need a {{License review}} template added after the license on the date they were uploaded to commons has been checked by someone with the userright. Reventtalk 22:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

PD painting requiring permission

The painting of Drying Fish at [7] was painted in the 1840s and is therefore clearly PD. However Alexander Turnbull Library has added the note Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa, must be obtained before any re-use of this image. As the painting is PD do they have the right to withhold permission, or can I upload it regardless? Optimist on the run (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: Make your own decision. The precedent has been that the Commons community does not criticize contributors who choose either way.
In en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute a Commons contributor took all the pictures from a museum website against the museum's protest. Those pictures remain in Commons. With the en:Reiss Engelhorn Museum other users took those pictures, and the Wikimedia Foundation lost a lawsuit in Germany about keeping the pictures. Despite losing the lawsuit the images remain in Commons. I am not aware of what consequences come to contributors who upload such content, but so far as I know, there is no community lore about bad outcomes coming to users who upload such content. Follow the rules as you understand them but I think there is no clarity available beyond a few stories like these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably the usual story of an institution claiming that its digitizations of public domain works are entitled to a new copyright. I have no idea if that has ever been tested under New Zealand law. Commons accepts it regardless as {{Pd-Art}}. See also [8], points 174 and 175. --ghouston (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, it's complicated, and really comes down to a personal decision about what level of 'risk' you are willing to accept. People discussing this issue (at least in reference to the US) commonly refer to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as if it's authoritative, however that case is only 'binding' on courts in the Southern District of New York. We can't give you legal advice, and it's not uncommon for Commons to be able to 'keep' a work that was probably illegal for the specific person to upload. Reventtalk 01:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: , @Ghouston: ,@Revent: , thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and upload it in due course (when I've written the appropriate article), and if the library kicks up a fuss I'll suggest they can nominate it for deletion. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo Profialis francais - lisse(Converted).pdf and the Threshold of originality in France

This file was nominated for deletion for nearly valid reasons (but it is in use, therefore in scope). So, seeing the discussion I have some questions concerning Copyright, just to get opinions abou the TOO in France:

  • Is the logo bellow or above the TOO in France? (it seems too simple for me)
  • Since the file seems to meet the TOO and is not SVG (eligible to have a different license than {{PD-textlogo}}), Is this edition valid?

Can someone take a look? --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Amitie 10g:
I feel that the French TOO threshold is lower. (For French speaking contributor, I could recommend this comparison between England's and France's conception of "originality" in copyright laws.)
I would say that this P/leaf/construction-lines logo can be copyrighted in France.
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm considering uploading a photograph of a person, Arthur Benison Hubback, from the National Portrait Gallery here for use in the article about him. However I'm not quite sure of the copyright status, is it permissible? The photograph is dated 1919, and I have seen other photographs by the same photographer later than this date, but I want to be certain before I upload the image. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

To be accepted on Commons the photograph must be out of copyright both in the US and also the country of origin - in this case the UK. In the UK, for a known photographer the copyright expires 70 years after the photographer's death. According to the NPG the photographer Walter Stoneman died in 1958. Thus the image cannot be uploaded to Commons as the copyright in the UK will not expire until the end of 2028. If the photograph was published before 1923 it will be in the public domain in the US and acceptable on English Wikipedia. Aa77zz (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that the National Portrait Gallery has been known to go after individual Wikimedia uploaders for distributing content from their site. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So what is the official position of Wikimedia exactly? Upload and accept the risk of prosecution? I see quite a few photographs by Walter Stoneman from NPG here in Wikimedia - for example pictures from 1919, 1921, and 1922 and others. They seem to be in violation of copyright if they must satisfy the +70 years after death rule. Hzh (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There are other Stoneman photos under Category:Walter Stoneman. Aa77zz (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If they are a UK work, and UK copyright still exists, they should be deleted. If any of those photos were made under the direction of the UK government, they would likely qualify as PD-UKGov and be OK. Under the older UK law, anything made under the direction or control (or even first published by) a UK government department was considered Crown Copyright -- even if the author was not a government employee. That changed in 1988, but Stoneman's photographs would have been under the old rules, if they apply. I think it was possible for copyright to remain private if there was an agreement to such effect, but those are impossible to verify. Any other photos Stoneman did though should be deleted, as long as they were first published in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Many of Stoneman's works held by the NPG were taken as part of the National Photographic Record. This was a project instigated by Stoneman in collaboration with the NPG where he invited selected people (including prominent politicians and military officers) to sit for photographs, so these photos were not taken at the direction of the UK government. January (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Were they first published by the government? In that era, even that would change them to Crown Copyright. But a collaborative project like that may have had a specific agreement as to copyright, as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Europarl logo.svg

Is the licensing of this file correct? If it is, then I think there's probably no need for en:File:European Parliament logo.svg to be treated as non-free since the only reall difference between the two files seems to be the language used for the organization's name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The EU actually claims (see here) that is is a protected original design, and that all rights are reserved (i.e., they claim copyright). While there's not much originality here, it would be hard to justify it as free against the laws of every single EU member state, which I think would be needed. It's likely this is above the TOO 'somewhere' in the EU, and the EU parliament would (as a lawmaking body) itself have the power to claim rights in this 'by fiat' anyhow. It's probably not ok here, IMO. Reventtalk 00:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Revent. What should be done, in your opinion, about the Commons' file? Tag it with {{Logo}} or nominate it for deletion via COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 Info: The file is already tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} (several users, incluing Me, agree that the last version of the logo is bellow the TOO) and survived 2 DRs; open a thrid one only with stronger reasons (in doubt, just don't touch the file) --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that info Amitie 10g. FWIW, I wasn't necessarily trying to get this particular file deleted; I was trying to figure out why the one uploaded locally to English Wikipedia is non-free since the only difference between the two is that the non-free has "European Parliment" in English while the PD one has it in Latin (?). -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: There are many logos used on Wikipedia under a fair use argument that are not sufficiently complex as to be copyrightable (i.e. below the COM:TOO). It's fair to assume that, in many cases, the uploader knew little or nothing about copyright other than that such a claim would let the image be on Wikipedia without being deleted. That does not, however, mean that we also don't have problems with images that are copyrighted, but legitimately fair use, being transferred to Commons incorrectly. The relevant point here is there is absolutely nothing about the 'text' attached to a logo that can change it's copyright status... it's the 'logo' that might possibly be protected, not the text. If one is PD, so is the other. Reventtalk 00:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And yes, that is latin. Reventtalk
@Amitie 10g: I don't think the image is 'sufficiently original' by most standards... it's pretty obviously intended to evoke the design of the EU Parliament's 'hemicycle' meeting chambers. My concern is that the EU parliament might actually own the rights to it (as a legislative body) by 'fiat'... they could simply, by law, say they own it regardless of the TOO, by explicitly saying they do. That's not demonstrated, and not an argument made at the DRs, but it's worth looking into, since they 'claim' to own it on their website. Unless they object, though... probably a trivial concern, since it's pretty clearly PD against most standards of the TOO. Reventtalk 23:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Small edits to existing images on Commons

I've recently uploaded a few images that were variations of images already uploaded on commons: cropping and color tweaks. Unfortunately for me, these were mostly connected with the recent attack in Nice, and it seems I have been templated on the French Wikipedia, which I've never edited, for missing information. As it's difficult to engage in a discussion in a language you don't speak, I'm dropping this here. The originals are all too easy to find, and I believe the originals are all in the same categories as the tweaked images. So...yeah...I just need to know what to fix.

I'm best reached on the English Wikipedia under the same name, but I will try to check back here in short order for any response. Timothyjosephwood (talk)

Despite how easy the uploader claims it is to find the images, the onus is on the uploader to provide all the necessary details but I have searched for these images and cannot find them, so have left a post on his enwiki page. I found a source for File:Hüseyin Avni Mutlu (cropped2).png but this File:A Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick - Google Art Project.png has no source and neither have the others on his talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume the source for that one is File:A Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick - Google Art Project.jpg. The name is identical, only the extension is changed. --ghouston (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As Ww2censor said above, you need to actually name (and preferably link) the source files -- that is the required source info. (If it turns out the source file is a copyvio, it helps finding all the copies, etc., and we can verify the license.) I did fix one of your files, but finding the source images is not easy, while it is for you (or should be) ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:  Comment An obvious crop, such as focusing a wider image into a 'standard' headshot of a depicted person, or removing the wall around a photographed object, attracts no new copyright protection. The status of such images is identical to that of the original. The 'source' of such a file should be an {{Extracted from}} template, pointing at the source (which should separately have been uploaded to commons), and the {{Extracted image}} template should be placed in the 'other versions' field of the source image. Pointing at the other file from both directions makes the verification of a work's copyright status easier, and ensures that we clean up the derivative works correctly if an issue arises.

As far as 'color tweaks', or other retouching, if you are merely applying the presets of a software program (i.e. you just hit the 'white balance' button) that is not a creative act, so again the copyright status does not change. If you actually used even the slightest degree of creativity or judgement in the retouching (you did it manually) you should 'claim the copyright in', and license, your contributions... see {{PD-retouched-user}}. In either case, the derivative work should be marked as a {{Retouched picture}}, and also as a 'other version' of the source.

Also, please, don't ever overwrite the original of an image with a retouched version, even if it was 'obvious' retouching... upload it was a new file, for the sake of the sanity of people checking it years later. Reventtalk 00:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gippsland motor garage

Good Morning,

We have modified the image for a new campaign and We need to know the conditions to post the image on a trademark of fuel in the spanish media as newspapers and magazines.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.142.93 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. File:Gippsland Motor Garage, Old Gippstown.JPG has been published under a Creative-Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Creative Commons licences in general require that you attribute the original author on every copy that is distributed. In this case it would be "Gippslander2012". You also need to provide a url to the license text on every copy: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode. And what is probably more important, you would have to release your campaign image under the same or a similar free license, so anyone else could potentially make money off your artwork. For more details, please read the full licence at said link, but for the given reasons, Creative Commons images are probably not optimal for proprietary advertising. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@80.25.142.93: Just as a note, you can use the name of the license as a hyperlink to the license text, you don't have to actually use the URL in a 'visible' manner. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is sufficient. You need to actually read and comply with the license, however... as was stated, the 'SA' restriction requires that derivative works be under the same license. You may be able to, however, contact the author of the image and obtain the rights to use it under a different license. Reventtalk 00:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The following photos have a specified license of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} but the photos appear to be quite old and the applicability of the CC license seems questionable. For at least some of the photos, it would appear that {{PD-US-1923}} could apply.

It is likely that at least some of the photos (particularly those concerning specific events) would have been published at some point before 1923, but finding indication of pre-1923 publication might not be easy. --Gazebo (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gazebo: If the works are licensed, but you think that they are likely actually PD, you can mark them as {{Wrong license}} and state your case on the file's talk page... it's not, to be honest, a major issue, since they are 'freely licensed' even if under copyright. A larger concern is if MTU actually has the rights to license them, if they are not PD... they might just own a copy, and be merely licensing their reproduction. Reventtalk 00:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

An image of a UK MEP has recently been uploaded and included on his wikipedia page. The uploader asserts that it's their own work, releasing it CC4, but if we reverse search the image we can see that the same image has featured in various Birmingham (scroll down) and international newspapers, on the bloke's own site and that of his party.

I guess there might be a template that can be added to the page to tell the uploader "please prove your copyright ownership" and delete it if they don't. Can anyone tell me what the procedure is, please?

The uploader has form for rules violations.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. --Strolls (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Strolls:
With the gadget Quick Delete, you can click "No permission" in the left column Tools section to have an automated procedure.
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The template used seems to be Template:No permission since with a automatically filled date. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done... Hi Strolls: What I did was to go to the left sidebar under tools, and use "Report Copyright Violation" and briefly summarized the two obvious indicators of "not own work". There is also "Nominate for Deletion" if the situation is not so cut and dried or the situation might need time to sort out. Thank you very much for pointing this out. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: You're right, no need to wait for a permission: All this user's uploads are picked up around the web and mis-attributed. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Strolls: @Lacrymocéphale: Just as an FYI, the template {{Wrong license}} can be used when you don't actually want to mark a file for deletion, but when you think the license is probably incorrect. It's best used when 'neither resolution' would result in deletion, such as a when a licensed file is possibly actually PD. Reventtalk 23:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah! Many thanks. That's what I was looking for really - being uncertain, I didn't want to accuse the bloke. --Strolls (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Image in a 1897 edition of the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society in London

Given the publication date, the image almost certainly falls under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. There is no attribution ("from a photograph") of the photo and no information on other publication; it could either fall under either {{PD-UK-unknown}} or could be still copyrighted until 2019 (if it was made by en:Henry McMahon) or even later if the other McMahon was the photographer and died even later. My sense is that PD-UK-unknown is the more likely scenario (these McMahons don't look like the sort of person who would make a photography themselves), but I'd like a second opinion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The edition in question is http://jgslegacy.lyellcollection.org/content/53/1-4/289.short.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Same question about http://www.jstor.org/stable/1774479?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

File:BLOSSOM.png

I'm pretty sure think image is out of scope and a copyright violation. I also doubt the uploader is the original author. Second opinion? ~ Zirguezi 18:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zirguezi: I would say "used for vandalism on Wikipedia in English". Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Mark for deletion? ~ Zirguezi 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Nommed. MSJapan (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, speedily, as a blatant copyvio... image is explicitly and specifically a derivative work, a depiction of a clearly identified cartoon character copyrighted by Cartoon Network. Reventtalk 23:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI, material like this is specifically covered by the first case in the COM:DW casebook. Reventtalk 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

De minimis

Hi. Are these:

cases of de minimis similar to the Louvre Pyramid at Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines or am I missing something? --Sporti (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Those are all pretty clearly de minimis... the photos are not 'of' the sculpture, and the photos would be just as 'desirable' for portraying their subjects (the scenery) if the sculpture was not there. The sculpture is also not shown in enough detail that it would be particularly identifiable as 'that' sculpture (as opposed to a similar one) if not for the actual context of where it's located.... there's no way these photos could possibly damage any exclusive right of the sculptor to duplicate their work. Reventtalk 23:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ronnie Lagnada.jpg

File is licensed as CC 3.0, but its is given as "Own work by the author, Originally uploaded in the English Wikipedia" with the author being given as en:User:Ronald Galope Barniso. A source link is provided, but that leads to File:Canat Boac Marinduque.jpeg, which is a different image with a different author, so it unclear how this can be used to verify the CC 3.0 license. Isn't OTRS permission or some other kind of proof needed that the author of this photo has agreed to freely license it? There is also File:Ronnie Lagnada (crop).jpg which is a crop of the same image and is also licensed as CC 3.0. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The source link is erroneous. The correct link is en:File:Mayor_Ronnie_Lagnada.jpg, which is a duplicate uploaded to enwiki. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: @Ruslik0: Flagged the file on enwiki for a move to commons. The copy here can be speedied (and redirected) as a duplicate once it's transferred. Images that have never been previously published outside of Wikimedia projects don't require OTRS permission, if uploaded by the creator. {{Extracted image}} and {{Extracted from}} should be used for the cropped version. Reventtalk 00:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's now fixed on enwiki, redirected to the copy here. Reventtalk 01:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Revent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Mass

Hi,

Is there a way to do a "copyright infringements mass speedy deletion request", like a "speedy" equivalent to COM:MASSDEL?

Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it depends on rights & gadgets. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lacrymocéphale: You can create a mass DR for a user or a category with COM:VFC, easily. You 'could' also use VFC to flag files for speedy, but it's not as trivial. Reventtalk 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @Revent: I'll study and try this script/gadget. Have a nice August. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lacrymocéphale: Creating a mass DR is actually the example used in it's documentation, amusingly ... it's perfectly acceptable to create a mass DR and state that it's for the speedy deletion of the listed files. Many DRs are speedily closed as delete because they don't actually need discussion. (For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:BLOSSOM.png, which was a very clearcut case) Reventtalk 23:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Revent:
The case which made me ask for the help of a procedure (or, better, a gadget) was Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:RSun0525. The three first files have been already deleted because I use the "Report copyright violation" tool for each. When I understood that several files of this user would be a problem, I started a DR because it can be easier to factorize the study.
How could I tag a DR like this one as "speedy"? Is there a template or something?
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lacrymocéphale: Just mention in the text of the DR that you think the case can be speedily closed... an admin patrolling new cases will notice, and do so if they agree. Reventtalk 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lacrymocéphale: I just speedily deleted and closed that... they were all images of 3D objects, and attributed to websites that do not use free licenses. Clear-cut case, IMO. I'm not saying that mentioning that the subject of a DR should be speedy will be as fast as an actual speedy template, but if you are correct they should be closed when noticed, without the discussion period. You can also just 'mention' the DR somewhere like here to make sure it's noticed faster. Reventtalk 00:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: thank you for this two last simple advices. I'll do it next time I cross a similar case. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I've started using COM:VFC. It's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Republikan army.jpg

This user has a lot of copyvio issues, and this may or may not be one - it might just be a case of a bad license. All of the source page's images are PD; not only does it say so at the bottom of the page, but it's a work of the Philippine government. The problem I see is that this is a composite of two different images on the page - one image is from the image under Roman numeral I, and the other is from Roman numeral IV. So I'm not sure that the composite falls into PD, and I'm also not sure that the uploader has the right to release that composite as PD under a CC 0 license based off of a PD Gov because of the alteration. Put simply, I'm not sure that PD this far out of context is still PD. I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking. I'm also not sure why the originals themselves weren't used in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I think the license is wrong (should be PD-PhilippinesGov), but I'm unsure if is allowed on Commons, due to the fact that it's a composite. I believe it is ok to be on Commons, but I'd wait to see if someone else can confirm that. Elisfkc (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I was actually in the process of updating the license when I realized but I couldn't find the image on the page. That's when I figured out there was a composite problem, so I decided to leave it alone until suitability was determined. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a copy of two PD-PhilippinesGov images. There is such a thing as a "selection and arrangement" copyright, which is the only thing a CC0 license could be based on, but you won' get one of those based on arranging just two items. So, I'd just change the license to PD-PhilippinesGov, while mentioning that these are two uniform selections out of several others at the source page (choosing one enlisted man uniform and one officer). No real copyright issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Might as well ask about a related one, so I can fix both licenses at the same time. What about File:OFFICERS-UNIFORM-1899-1902_-_Copy.jpg, which is composited out of a lot more than two? Does it still hold, or is that way above the "selection and arrangement" threshold, as it's even got a title added? MSJapan (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely because the selection is really just from that source page, and it's a simplistic arrangement (two rows). But it'd be closer. Would still not be a copyright issue, as the arrangement would still be licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Updated per discussion. MSJapan (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ecce Mono - restoration of Ecce Homo by Elias Garcia Martinez.jpg

I don't think File:Ecce Mono - restoration of Ecce Homo by Elias Garcia Martinez.jpg can be considered public domain, it is a recent work by a living artist. What am I missing there? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 05:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnnyMrNinja: There was a claim by the person who restored it that their work was a faithful restoration of the original. There is an idea that non-creative exact duplication of a public domain work produces a public domain output. Probably the situation could be better documented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A "slavish" reproduction, where you are trying to replicate exactly existing expression, is not copyrightable in the U.S. You *might* argue that if that was the artist's intent, that they did not add anything creative themselves. But, even something like the Statue of Liberty replica in Las Vegas has a separate copyright, as the sculptor there did claim they were trying to alter it a (very) little bit, and that's enough. You could also easily argue that even though it's a "restoration" the new work is obviously different and that the artist created a new copyrightable work in spite of themselves. At the very least, the Flickr author looks like they just combined existing photos of the works -- and so the Flickr license there is probably completely bogus. And I do see other versions on the net from August 2012 such as here, which predated the September 2012 upload to Flickr (and look to be the same source photos, even if one is cropped differently). Using in a comparison context like that would likely be fair use in a great many situations, but the CC license is false, and I am more than a little dubious on a PD claim of at least the third photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There's arguments about it, but I think I agree with you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
According to our article at en:Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja), the artist requested royalties, which would imply at least that she eventually acknowledged it was an original work. Of course if that wasn't the original intention I'm not sure what that means for copyright. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I did a little research on this and while my sources are not from a law journal, I did find many repeats of them in the popular press:
  • 2012 "While [Cecilia] Gimenez could end up with ownership of what she painted on top of the fresco, the foundation isn't sure who owns the original. It's either the foundation or the 16 grandchildren of the painter. " [9]
  • 2016 "The court ruled that the Martinez family owned 51 per cent of the copyright, Cecilia 49 per cent, and the Ecce Homo, as restored by Cecilia, still looks down from the church wall." [10]
I am leaning toward suggesting that the precautionary principle be applied for this/these images unless there is some other opinion which trumps the court of the country of origin? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope. The Spanish copyright of the original expired in 2015, so I'm not sure the Martinez family owns any of it anymore, but that clearly indicates the Spanish court thought an additional copyright was created. And since Martinez died in 1934, that means the U.S. copyright of the original lasts probably until 2026 as well (restored by the URAA) to boot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
2 Clindberg Do you think this file should be nominated for deletion based on the discussion? Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07&oldid=211714671"