Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Could someone look at images uploaded by User:BPSkantze, some are marked "own work" and they are not, but could some of them still be free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangsna (talk • contribs)

 Comment This request has been languishing since October 20, and could really use a check by one of the regulars. Thanks. Revent (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TyUUIjjg9ws/RfhrUyh53gI/AAAAAAAAAR4/r0SO3HQiZxw/s1600-h/colorrhap5.jpg[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igormulpas (talk • contribs) 20:43, 09 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Igormulpas: It appears to be a still from "Holiday Land", which was published with a copyright notice in 1934 (it's watchable online, and the copyright notice is at the front). In order to upload it, we would need a specific check for if the copyright was renewed (which would have been circa 1962). Such a check really needs to be done by someone familiar with the Catalog of Copyright Entries... if it was renewed, the term is 95 years, and it is under copyright until 2029. "Babes at Sea" was the next cartoon in the series. So, "Babes at Sea", no... (it's not from that cartoon) but it might be okay if someone knowledgeable checks....if nobody volunteers shortly (and you are still interested in uploading it) poke me and I will look. Revent (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_Monaco_at_dusk.jpg JP MISS is the only author for this image. Thank you for your understanding. Original link: https://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1518/monaco.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.11.153 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@86.162.11.153: Talked to an OTRS volunteer on IRC, Krd... the filed OTRS permission for the image is consistent with JP Miss (as a pseudonym) being the sole author, the other attribution being an artifact of the 'upload credit' on a 3rd party website. Corrected the attribution of the image on this basis. Thanks for mentioning it (correct attribution is important). Revent (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've so many similar templates, including approved by me in my OTRS time. But while looking back to them, I see an imperfection. It claims "This permission only extends to photos taken by xyz at this link". But we are not reviewing whether those files exist in that link in a particular date. Chances that those sites disappear. Chances that authors delete their works from there. Then we've no evidence for those files had published there. So I think every file under such permission need to be reviewed by COM:LR or a similar mechanism. Jee 03:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now,Template:Vitaly Druchenok. Odder could you comment on how logical this template is? I don't know which OTRS volunteer approved it. Jee 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: Not being an OTRS agent, either, I don't know who approved it, but I recall @Base confirm that it was a genuine release by the photographer, Vitaly Druchenok, who agreed that all the files he uploads to that site will be released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Perhaps Base can comment on this once again. odder (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We usually can recognize the volunteer through the user parameter which is missing here. That's not my main issue. I feel the wording is not logically safe enough to assure those files are from that pool. Let us wait for Base's comment. Jee 11:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: Right; I'm not sure it was Base who accepted the permission, I know he confirmed it to be genuine at one point, but it might have been someone else who dealt with the ticket. As for the source, I think it all comes to the assumption that Vitaly Druchenok owns the "Vitaly" account on that website, but I do agree it's better that we wait for Base (or any other OTRS agent, for that matter) to confirm that the ticket is indeed valid. odder (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahonc is who responded to the ticket. Storkk (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the language used in the license release can't really be regarded as confidential in this case. It is: "I am the copyright holder of photographs found at http://spotters.net.ua/search/?user=Vitaly and I agree to licence these photographs under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." In this case, I believe it is not problematic that it was forwarded, because there is a note on the ticket stating that it was confirmed "via feedback form on site.". This doesn't address the inherent problems with "on site xyz at date DDD", which I agree is potentially problematic. Storkk (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Storkk for looking into it. Yes, the problem is not with the permission; but with the logic applied in the template. We can't verify each file this way. So pinging odder and Ahonc again. Jee 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that each file should be reviewed in a matter similar to Flickr and other external sources (by a license reviewer), noting the date when the file was confirmed to exist at Spotters.net.ua, as is the procedure with Flickr and others. odder (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should no longer accept this wording. For general releases I think we have two safe options:

1. The photographer releases all his work
2. The photographer releases a part of his work, but this is specified in a way that can be reconstructed. E.g. a release of all his pictures of planes, or all pictures listed on a provided list

In the end a permission is only reliable if we have registered what files are included in the permission. Jcb (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks odder and Jcb. It is very late from my side to find this logical loophole. I don't know what to do with existing uploads under several similar templates. (I think I approved a few earlier.) May be a code expert like Zhuyifei1999 can run a script to mark them existing in those sites? Jee 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jee: There were just 8 files from that source, and so I marked them all as reviewed by hand earlier today (and forgot to mention it until now). odder (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General notes... files uploaded as 'present on site at date' should have the source page either verified as in the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) as of that date, or added to it when checked. The Internet Archive is the 'definite record' for such things. Theoretically, every image that is not, to all available evidence 'own work' should eventually be reviewed. That the "PD Review" project died is a pet peeve... it is a subset (though more specialized) of license review, and verifying the PD status of images is just as important. It does, however, need more technical knowledge than the typical (yes the source says this license) of license review, but.... LRs should be paranoid anyhow, about sources that am themselves copyvios. When I do reviews (and typically, I do other things) I consider Google Images and Tineye searches for prior online publication to be mandatory, and I think all reviewers should do the same. Revent (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review of Madeline Kahn photo from 1974, from Keystone Press Agency. FWIW, her lead image is currently using a poor non-free, so something better is hoped for.--Light show (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show: I'm not seeing there, or finding elsewhere, any evidence that this image was published at the time, or ever actually distributed for publication. It appears to simply be a photo taken at a public appearance by a third party. Do you have any evidence that this was ever published? Revent (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where, when or even if it was reprinted in a publication is not necessary to prove publication, as explained by the copyright office: "publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public." The reverse gives the description of where it was taken, the date, and the photographer, shown as "Credit: Peter Gould, Keystone". It also has the standard Keystone stamp, indicating it was made available to the public. --Light show (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show: You miss my point, as seems to often happen. The quote you give is incomplete, and would actually argue against this being okay, as there is no indication here that it was actually 'distributed to the public'. Such evidence, that it was distributed without notice, would make it clearly okay... I found none. What could be applicable here is the second part of that section of the that definition, "the offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication." It's quite likely Keystone would have done so, it's their business model. That is, however, text from the 1979 act, and this is a 1974 photo, so is irrelevant unless the image was not published by Keystone for several years... unlikely. The 1909 act did not define publication. The Keystone stamp on 'this copy' does not prove that the image was published without notice.. this could easily (and plausibly) be an actual 'photographic print', made from the negative and kept merely as a file copy, while 'printed' copies for distribution had a notice. Since Keystone is actually in the business of 'selling images', not 'promoting clients', they had more incentive to careful about copyright than a talent agency.

The image is, indeed, 'probably' okay, as Carl said below. The problem is, as I have repeatedly told you, 'probably' and 'likely' are not the standards of evidence used on Commons. If there is a significant, reasonable doubt, the image is not acceptable. You seem to consistently respond to requests that you find better evidence with claims that it's not needed, that your 'guess' or 'assumption' is okay. It's not. You past history shows that the community does not trust such judgements on your part. You do not, honestly, seem to have learned from your block... it's only that you are not actually 'uploading' without discussion that saves you. If you were uploading images merely on the grounds of the arguments you, personally, have been making since unblocking, you would be reblocked. Revent (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering what the policy is for obvious talent agency promotional photos not showing the reverse. For example, this one, another, or this one (2nd), from the William Morris Agency printed on the front. Is it conceivable that a PR agency would require permission, via a copyright, to print a photo of their client?--Light show (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show: It does not matter, not at all, if it is 'conceivable' that they would or would not do so. You need to show reasonable evidence that the particular, individual work was itself actually published, by the copyright owner, in a way that did not meet the statutory requirements. This has been mentioned to you before, repeatedly. Revent (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my reply above, it is not necessary to prove it was actually published. These are agency promotional photos made available for reprinting or for press kits. --Light show (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be free of copyright, works needed to be published (meaning *that copy* was actually distributed) and did not have a copyright notice. If we can't see the back, we really can't say there is no notice. And yes, we need to show publication. Overall there is little doubt it was published at the time, but for the lack-of-notice tag we need to show those copies in particular were actually distributed -- if it was only the copies they had in storage which had no notice, but the ones they distributed did, there was no loss of copyright. The Kahn one... is probably OK. Those do look like markings from an entity other than Keystone, and there is also a Keystone stamp. I worry somewhat if it was a wire print (i.e. never distributed outside the client) but not sure those would get those Keystone stamps. Many photos get reproduced many years later, so if there are no markings indicating actual distribution of that copy before 1978 it's hard to prove. Again, you are claiming that the copyright was lost because the actual copy you point was itself distributed and it had no copyright notice. Both aspects need to be shown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this file qualify to {{PD-shape}}?

• little portions of text, arrows and squares are common property and contains no original authorship
• The document inside the text editor is derived from the Wikipedia article, which is {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}

--Rezonansowy (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the output may be trivial, the Write software itself is copyrighted and non-free. That is why Commons only accepts screenshots of freely licensed software. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: It doesn't matter if it's free or not, when we deal with the Threshold of originality. The user interface of the MS Write seems to be under this threshold and {{PD-shape}}. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Screenshots. For results created by software we also need to consider the computer code behind the output. E.g. just recently, a screenshot of malware producing plain text and ASCII art has been deleted. For the same reason you can theoretically claim a copyright for SVG drawings of simple images because the script behind it may require original thought and effort. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PNG doesn't contain any software -- it's an image. The question is whether, considered for what it is, ie an image, it exhibits sufficient originality. That's different to an SVG which does contain code (albeit sometimes code that does not manifest any notable originality or creativity attributable to the creator); and it's different to an image of text, where there may be copyright in the text displayed as text. Here, we simply have an image. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Window decoration and common UI elements was already discussed. These elements are not exclusive to Windows. However, the non-free software status could be still discussed, and IMHO, seems too simple. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the elements here in more detail: The text is from the CIA World Factbook (compare [2]), which is PD-US Government. The flag of Switzerland is old, and also geometric. The map of Europe appears to be a free one from Commons. The way these elements are arranged together is conventional and shows no particular selectivity or creativity.

The arrangement of sliders, arrows and menu items are entirely generic, stock features. (Compare the U.S. notion of Scènes à faire). There is nothing here that was not also present (and considered ineligible) in Lotus v. Borland.

Beyond that, there is nothing in this image. There is no distinctive original artwork or design. It doesn't matter that this is a screenshot of a piece of non-free software, if there is nothing in the screenshot that is sufficient (neither in part nor together) to attract copyright. Jheald (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Josve05a tagged the file with {{Copy to Commons}}. Do we already have enough arguments to transfer this file? --Rezonansowy (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On Flickr I've seen uploaded by James Puckett a lot of photos of specimens of metal type I would like to upload. The photos are CC-licensed and all samples from the 50s or earlier, possibly as early as the 20s, but no sources are given. (Here's an example. They seem to all be American or just possibly in some cases British.) What do people think about uploading these? Some such as that are really just a printout of the letters of the font; some such as this are much more composed. Blythwood (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they are bitmaps, they would have no U.S. copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the maps in Special:Contributions/NitinBhargava2016, probably based on Google, copyrighted or not? Most likely uploaded in good faith - just checking the actual copyright situation to be sure (some old threads seem to indicate, that they are copyrighted). GermanJoe (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Maps is indeed copyrighted, and not under a COM:L compatible term either if memory serves. They get uploaded rather frequently, though. I am guessing these images are good faith uploads of cropped Google Maps images indeed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, that last image says "Map data c 2016 Google Images c 2016 Terra Metrics" in the bottom right corner.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the advice - have nominated all three images for deletion. GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image of the interior of the Palace of Serbia published by the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a Commons compatible license. However, after uploading it, I became a bit unsure if it is possible to retain this image in Commons. I understand that in Serbia Freedom of Panorama exists, but not for public interiors. Does the fact that the image was released by the Austrian foreign ministry with a Commons compatible license allow it to be used in Commons? Thanks Gugganij (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have drawn with Inkscape three logos of Italian companies; one is this ({{PD-ineligible}}?); the second is the "inverted heart" taken form the previous logo ({{PD-ineligible}}?), the other one is the signature taken from the panel above the door ({{PD-signature}}?). May I upload them to Commons (there are no copyright/trademark signs)? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you may. For the first one, I suggest that you use {{PD-logo}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And {{Trademark}}--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking some assistance in clarifying the copyright status of File:John Lyng.jpg. On its source site it's tagged as CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 which is not an acceptable license but on Commons it's additionally tagged as PD-Norway50. According to that template non-artistic photographies under an older photo law had their copyrights expire 25 years after creation if their copyright had not expired by 29 June 1995, otherwise they'd be subject to a 50 year term. This image was made in 1963 so neither the extension of the Norwegian term would apply (since the copyright had already expired in 1988) nor the URAA (the copyright has expired in 1988 and wasn't prolonged in 1995 until 1996). Is there something wrong in this logic or is it safe to consider the image as truly PD? I am asking because enwiki uses a fair use image which would need to be deleted if the Commons image is properly licensed as enwiki fair use policy does not permit fair use images when free ones are available to fulfill the same scope.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the tag, the older law was the later of 25 years from creation and 15pma. The named author died in 1993, so it was not PD by the older law in 1995, and was also not PD on the URAA date in 1996. It sounds like it has since come into the public domain in Norway (in 2014), but it will be copyrighted in the U.S. until 2059. (For any EU country which treats it as an artistic photograph, it will be under copyright until 2064.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clindberg. I've put in a deletion request here, seeing as that CC license is not free enough for us.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Clindberg, Yann, and De728631: Hi! I must admit, that I am quite confused how URAA affected files are currently treated in Commons, considering also the recent outcome (kept) of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peloduro Portada No.99.png, concearning a "fresh" upload from 01.2016 which is in PD in Uruguay (the illustrator es:Peloduro died in 1965) but not in US. So far as I could follow all the related discussions, "old files" with URAA issues (including the restored ones) should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, avoiding in potential deletion requests for these files "a mere allegation that the URAA applies" because it "cannot be the sole reason for deletion". For "fresh uploads" the comment made by De728631 in above discussion makes sense (for me). In other words: are "fresh uploads" of URAA affected files tolerated in Commons — or not? Thx in advance for any clarifying comment. Gunnex (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to COM:L#Uruguay Round Agreements Act, files should be deleted if "there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US [...] law", and in this case, there is significant doubt that the file is free under US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that URAA cases require careful analysis of the copyright laws and dates involved to tell whether the copyright was effectively restored. Thus, Not-PD-URAA cases can't simply be deleted like, say, fair use images, but need case-by-case discussion to tell whether the status of the file is questionable to the point of warranting deletion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Stefan2: thx for the feedback. As I feared, my test case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alfonsin88.jpg just reflects what I was trying to say with " I am quite confused how URAA affected files are currently treated in Commons, (...)". Gunnex (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg. Carl in your above analysis. Is it assumed that the photograph was not published, neither in Norway or US. If it was then the publication analysis would apply rather then creation analysis above. How likely it is that it was published, is not important to this particular analysis, I just want to concentrate on what would happen if it was published. I assume that right now we cannot be sure about this question, of course normally on its own, this is not enough to prevent a file from being deleted.

I looked at Nimmer on Copyright (for non copyright obsessives this is the Holy Grail on copyright that is regularly sited in by the US courts, it was cited in the Golan v. Holder Supreme Court case that is so key to this whole issue.) This is out of his 9A.02[a][2] section on URAA resurrection based on formal defects. I am copying and pasting and removing citations. Interestingly the work addressed in the discussion was also created in 1963 same year as the photo. In that case the work had been published. Phrases in brackets are my comments, they are not intended as legal analysis.

Concerns regarding copyright resurrection arise vis-a-vis foreign nationals who lost US copyright protection from failure to comply with parochial American formalities under US law, such formal stumbling blocks blocks as notice and renewal threatened to doom the American copyrights of the unwary, including those belonging to foreign proprietors.

Failure to resurrect those works is of much less moment that the previous scenario. [previous scenario involved works that were not published]

First, the consequences of those formal defects applied equally to US nationals and foreigners, meaning that this situation at least was not aimed particularly at the "Mahfouzes" [have no idea what this means] of the world. Moreover, for technical reasons, Article 18 of the Berne Convention arguably requires resurrection of very few of these works.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical Cuban work published with proper copyright notice in 1963, but not timely registered for renewal in 1991. The term granted works published in 1963 was twenty-eight years, after which the work lapsed into the public domain. Given the expiration of the term of protection previously conferred, the appears to be no need to resurrect it from the public domain under Article 18. [By this Nimmer states that there was an expiration of a full copyright term of 28 years, which was prior to January 1, 1996 (the date when the URAA restoration rule becomes applicable) so there is no URAA restoration issue. 1963+28<1996]

Now imagine that the Cuban work was republished without notice in 1965. The latter unnoticed publication would cause copyright forfeiture. But in as much as that work enjoyed US copyright for two years, [under date of creation rule the counter started in 1963 and ended in 1965 when the publication rule overtook the date of creation rule. So under the date of creation rule the work was considered US copyrighted for two years], like reasoning indicates that subsequent expiration of the US term would not require resurrection of the copyright. [1965+2<1996]

Can it be maintained, to the contrary, that a two-year term (or even an initial twenty-eight-year term) is "abnormally" short, such that resurrection is still required? The Senate Report for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act tacitly assumed a distinction based on an artificial concept of normalcy, referring to works “that have fallen into the public domain for reasons other that the normal expiration of their terms of protection." Although that retroactive view of the Berne Convention’s anti-formal requirements represents one defensible strand of treaty analysis, this author views the Berne Convention’s prohibition of formalities as operative within US law solely from accession on March 1, 1989 onward, not retroactively….

The conclusion therefore follows that even a “short” term previously accorded obviates the need for resurrection under Article 18 [of the Berne convention].

At the very end of the restoration due to formal defects section, Nimmer writes - "In sum, therefore, this author views works in the U.S. public domain on account of formal defects as seldom in need of resurrection pursuant to the Berne Convention."

Carl would you agree that this analysis would be applicable if we assumed that the photograph was published in the US? What about published in Norway with/without a US notice?

@Yann and other compatriot editors.I looked through our discussions and decisions on URAA and pasting them below along with some comments:

From the February 14, 2012 WMF's legal team’s URAA review statement providing general guidelines on dealing with URAA copyright restored files deletion requests:

Copyright is only restored if the work entered the public domain for one of three enumerated reasons listed below. If the work entered the public domain for other reasons, such as expiration of a full copyright term in either the U.S. or the source country, then copyright is not restored.

First reason: failure to comply with formalities in the U.S. Before 1989, the U.S. had formal requirements, such as registration, deposit, and mandatory copyright notice. If a non-U.S. work entered the public domain for failing to do one of these things, the work may be restored if the other required factors are met.

Second reason: lack of subject matter protection. This reason will apply to sound recordings made outside the U.S. before February 16, 1972.

Third reason: national ineligibility. This would be the case if the U.S. failed to recognize copyright in the work because the source country did not have copyright relations with the U.S.

These are general, non-comprehensive, guidelines for identifying content that may have been restored copyright under § 104A. If a specific work obviously has restored copyright under these guidelines, Commons may choose to apply the regular speedy deletion. If not, a more comprehensive analysis by the community may be needed. [The standard of review for this analysis is not stated.

Following the Golan v. Holder Supreme Court decision, a February 2013 Legal/URAA Statement article, states:

As has been discussed extensively within the Wikimedia community, the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Golan v. Holder upheld the constitutionality of the law implementing the URAA. The practical effect of the URAA was the removal of many non-US works from the public domain and the placement of these works back under copyright protection - even if they were freely available in their country of origin. As a result, the Wikimedia Foundation now has files hosted on its servers that may have reacquired copyright protection… Members of the Wikimedia community, understandably upset and frustrated by this law, have proposed removing the affected works from Commons and forking them to third-party servers outside of the US. Unfortunately, these plans would violate Wikimedia Foundation policy and US law.

Following the explanation for its conclusion, in the subsection ‘’’Guidance’’ it is stated:

The ‘’’community’’’ should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department [the February 2012 statement above] as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing [reference to files that can be tagged for speedy deletion]. However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature [for the community] to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent. [Note, it is explicitly stated that the standard of review in these cases should be different from the community’s normal deletion standard.]

One year later WMF releases another statement. February 28, 2014 Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge. Again regarding the issue of moving servers to where US copyright laws do not apply. It provides reasoning and restates its conclusion that the servers should not be moved. In the last paragraph it states

at the core of this discussion is a community policy of Wikimedia Commons. The community policy only accepts content that is freely licensed or in the public domain both in the U.S. and the source country. Given the application of U.S. law, Commons volunteers now face a difficult task in figuring out whether content on Commons has been taken out of the public domain as a result of the URAA. While we can't provide legal advice to community members, we have identified some relevant factors to consider. We have also proposed a Wikimania talk on the URAA and other copyright issues. But most importantly, as we stated last year, very few works on Commons are likely to be affected due to the various requirements of this statute. Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.

In the statement WMF states that while it cannot provide legal advice “we have provided some relevant factors to consider” by the community. It reasons that very few works on commons are likely to be affected do to various statutory requirements. It explains this by stating “to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA.” Such a decision would require information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer. Likely meaning that a commons volunteer likely will not be able to make a justified decision to delete a file. Its conclusion is “So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA.’’ Based on what it previously stated, it is likely that WMF is not referring to its decision to delete a file but to a reason for a commons volunteer to delete a file.

Approximately one week prior to the above WMF statement a Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA was initiated. The WMF February 28 statement is considered in the discussion. On April 2, 2014 the discussion is closed, with the conclusion that “Closed as YES. URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Yann (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)”

On April 9, 2014 the Commons:Review of Precautionary principle discussion was initiated. The principal stated:

This is a proposal to relax the scope of the Precautionary Principle policy to allow Commons to host more of the locally public domain files that are being deleted because of the US URAA law, and also to keep more photos that have freedom of panorama in their home country but which might be copyright-protected in the US.

Please feel free to skip the detail if you are not into copyright issues; your opinion still matters.

Put simply, do you agree that Commons should aim to host more files that are public domain in their home country even if they *might* still be copyright-protected in the US?

The final resolution stated:

A careful study of the opinions below show that there is overwhelming support to reject the proposal in its entirety (with a ratio of around 3:1)… According to the generally accepted guidelines for closing discussions — of which the most important ones are listed at the page explaining the role of bureaucrats — a closing bureaucrat might give more weight to well-argued opinions rather than unargued votes. With that in consideration, it is even clearer that at this moment, the Commons community does not wish to relax the scope of the precautionary principle to host files that are in the public domain in their country of origin but which are still copyrighted in the United States due to the restoration of copyright imposed by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

It is my understanding that the outcome of this discussion stands in direct contradiction to the recent discussion on restoring files affected by URAA. Given that there are many problems with the way in which the URAA discussion was closed, and given the fact this discussion was originally initiated as a means of resolving the incompatibility between the precautionary principle and the outcome of the URAA discussion, and the fact that the precautionary principle is an official Commons policy, it is my understanding that at this time there is no community agreement to host files affected by the URAA. odder (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Commons:Licensing article URAA section states :

Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.

Compare to February 2013 WMF statement:

if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature [for the community] to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent.

The Precautionary principle states:

The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.

As I stated on top, the conversation seems to be at an infinite continuation. I have provided the above info to illustrate the complexity of the issue as referenced to in the WMF legal statements. And also, if the conversation continues - to have easy to refer to key elements of previous discussions.

Hello everyone, i stumbled accross this site http://erfolgsfans.com/erfolgsgeschichte/fcbbilder/bilder_in_der_chronik which has an original chronik from 1925 with many pictures which would be very helpful for the article of FC Bayern München and many other german soccer related articles. Is it ok to upload these pictures?

Thanks and greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKNickel (talk • contribs) 2016-02-15T11:01:45 (UTC)

The copyright likely expired 50 years after the publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they are anonymous, then photos published 1925 and earlier would be OK. Anything after that and their U.S. copyright would still be valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Tholme has posted some pictures of Spinoza on Wikipedia. I wish to know where they came from or contact Tholme to ask him/her in person. Is this possible?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijts (talk • contribs) 2016-02-15T11:54:02 (UTC)

@Nijts: Tholme has an email address on file, so you can use the 'email this user' link in the tooltray (to the lower left) to contact them directly from their user page... for convenience, here is the direct link. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Tholme Revent (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Some users have made derivative works of Géoportail, a French governmental website about maps, which is not free. What about File:Carte Grand Cret Eau.svg and File:BP echangeur-porte-de-Bagnolet.svg? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

Sorry if this has been covered before. I'm in charge (and legal inheritor) of an estate of 500+ very detailed architectural drawings, done between 1912-1970, by my grandfather, who was an architect trained under Paul Bonatz, as well as a city official partially in charge of preservation and restoration. The drawings cover various perspectives and details of buildings from Germany, Italy, England and beyond, including sights that have been destroyed in the meantime. We think this is an interesting resource, as the drawings are both attractive and have good documentary value. Some of my grandfather's drawings were used in architectural books.

I have full legal title to all the images, and we would love to share the drawings with a wider public. We think 40-50 should be of interest to a wider audience. (We will not use material from books, of course.) Is this indeed okay? My grandfather passed away in 1978, so it's obviously not yet covered by the 70 years rule. But, as mentioned, I own the collection, and the title.

Thank you! Hans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hundnase (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a heir of your grandfather, you can release the drawings under a creative commons license. I think it will be better if you do through the OTRS channel. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See: File:Unknown_-_Funerary_Lion_-_57.AA.11.jpg and it's source, https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6503/unknown-maker-funerary-lion-greek-attic-about-350-bc/

I am working on a project to upload 'many' images from the Getty that they have provided under their "Open Content Program", and trying to do it in a 'best practices' way. The images themselves are under a quite explicit 'copyrighted fair use' license (see http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontent.html), but the Getty has also written object descriptions that are under a separate CC-BY-4.0 license... as 'professional' descriptions that provide significant context they seem quite worth also adding to the category pages, but they are explicitly under a different license. The question is 'the best way to do so'... after asking around a bit, this seems to be a somewhat unique situation (that copyrightable description text, itself useful, is not under the image license).

My current idea is to write a template ({{Getty description}}), for use in the description field, that wraps their text in a quote template, with explicit licensing, i.e. {{quote|text|{{Getty Museum}} / CC-BY-4.0|source url}}. This would give, for the particular image I linked....

This crouching lion with its head turned to the left originally afforded symbolic protection to a grave in Athens or its territory. The lion's face and mane are stylized, and its body is rather doglike. The small incisions all over the body indicate fur. This unrealistic rendering of lions is typical of Greek artists, who would never have seen a real lion and thus modeled their depictions on a combination of artistic tradition, large dogs, and house cats.
In antiquity, walled family burial plots lined the roads out of Athens. Sculpted lions such as this one, placed at the corners of the plot, were especially popular in the 300s B.C. Funerary sculptures had a dual purpose: they protected the tombs and served to display the wealth and prestige of the family. The ostentation of these displays led to an Athenian law of 317 B.C. that banned all but the simplest of grave markers.

— J. Paul Getty Museum / CC-BY-4.0, in: https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6503/

I'm really just asking for a consensus that this would be acceptable, or for someone to point out an existing method. Thanks. Revent (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine to me. Yann (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image (drawn by me with Inkscape) OK for Commons?

• 

Thaks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "not OK", as the wolf silhouette is not a "simple geometrical shape" and different from the one shown in File:Wappen Wolfsburg.svg. Well, you could still say that it's a derivative of a PD-work (the said coat of arms), but I wouldn't. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about simplifying more the silhouette and making it a set of triangles?--Carnby (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a video of the European Parliament and couldnt find a suitable license. Therefore I created a new license template for the European Parliament based on the Eurostat template (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution-Eurostat). The policy of the European Parliament is that you are allowed to re-use the material as long as certain attribution requirements are met (link to the original source, mentioning if the video is modified and mentioning if you created a translation that that is not the official translation, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/legal-notice). This is the first version of the license template, please give feedback or improve if needed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution-EP --Hannolans (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The European Parliament is copyrighted and you can therefore not upload pictures or videos of it without permisson from the architect. See COM:FOP#Belgium for the one in Brussels and COM:FOP#France for the one in Strasbourg. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a video about the building, but a video about a plenary debate in the European Parliament about the directive of the re-use of public information. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VODChapter_20130613_09033600_09350400_-48b995e413f3a40a3e0c97_EN.webm

Who holds the copyright to the speeches in the first place? In most parts of Europe, the copyright would typically belong to the person who wrote the speech, presumably the individual politicians. The copyright tag you created refers to situations where the copyright is held by the European Parliament, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Are speeches of politicans in a parliament copyright protected? --Hannolans (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speeches are printed in the Official Journal of the European Union. On that website it reads: "14. Can I reuse the entire contents of the EUR-Lex database? How? Yes, you can re-use EUR-Lex data, for free." (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/faq/intro.html?locale=en) --Hannolans (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannolans: the relevant text seems to be "reuse ... is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced ...". This sounds incompatible with our licensing requirements, which stipulate among other things, that anyone must be able to adapt the work. Storkk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (note, this is a separate objection to Stefan2's above) Storkk (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought so at first as well, but in the next sentence they write "Any partial reproduction of data or multimedia items from this website must also cite the URL link of the complete item or the web page from which it was sourced.". So this assumes that partial reproduction is possible as well under an extra condition to link to the original file. Not sure if that qualifies as an possibility to adapt the work? Same for translations. --Hannolans (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that they do use other words in other languages for 'entire item'. In German: "zum persönlichen Gebrauch oder zur gewerblichen oder nicht gewerblichen Wiederausstrahlung vorbehaltlich der Einhaltung der Integrität der wiedergegebenen Elemente und der Nennung der Quelle gestattet." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/de/legal-notice) and in Dutch: " is in beginsel toegestaan voor persoonlijk gebruik en voor doorgifte, al dan niet met commercieel oogmerk, mits de integriteit van de gereproduceerde fragmenten wordt gerespecteerd en de bron wordt vermeld." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/nl/legal-notice) and in French: "est autorisée moyennant le respect de l'intégrité des éléments reproduits et la mention de la source." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/fr/legal-notice). So I assume they made a translation mistake for the english text? --Hannolans (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They responded in OTRS with the following answer: "Dear Mr. Lans, Thank you again for choosing our content. I have just double checked with our legal department and they have confirmed that you can use this video on the wiki page provided that you will acknowledge the source. In case you decide to use the video not in its full length or with any alterations different from its original version, please also include the link to the original file." I asked them to verify the draft license but they answered today "You will find all the necessary information in our Legal Notice: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/legal-notice Unfortunately we are not entitled to give any comments or information beyond the scope of this Legal Notice. Thank you for your understanding.". So I'm a bit lost how to interpret this --Hannolans (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part about "any partial reproduction" could mean that you will still be fined for partial reproductions but that you will be fined less than when making other modifications.

The template could also be interpreted to mean that it is permitted to make extracts from and translate the material but that any other modifications are prohibited. In that case, it would, for example, be prohibited to parodise the material, and a licence which doesn't permit parody of the licensed material is obviously unacceptable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they wrote "In case you decide to use the video not in its full length or with any alterations different from its original version, please also include the link to the original file.". Any alterations would qualify as any adaption, including a parody, I assume? But for a parody, note that personal and moral rights of the members in the video are still in place, as is also the case for Creative Commons Attribution. --Hannolans (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I send them additional questions by OTRS? Which questions? --Hannolans (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the licensing for this file correct? I have no reason to doubt that the photo was the "own work" of the uploader, but it is a photo of a copyrighted logo, isn't it? The shape of the bottle itself is generic enough for sure, but the logo seems to fall under COM:PACKAGING. Moreover, the focus of the photo is the bottle logo, so I don't think de minimis can be argued here. Since the file's description says it's from the 1970s, I guess {{PD-Pre1978}} may apply and {{Trademark}} added as well, but it seems as if the CC license only applies to the photo itself.

I think there are also similar issues with the respective licensing for File:Dr Pepper bottle.jpg and File:DrPepper 0.5l PET.jpg and File:Temple Dr. Pepper.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a {{PD-Text}} logo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is not copyrightable -- and per Ets Hokins, it wouldn't matter if it was. The photo is not primarily of the logo -- it's of the entire bottle. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes and Clindberg: First of all thanks for taking a look. I can understand the licensing if the logo is not copyrightable per "PD-logo", etc., but I don't quite understand the it wouldn't matter if it was part of Clindberg's reply. The entire "Not OK General rule" section of "COM:PACKAGING" seems to say that the copyright status of labels/logos used in packaging does matter when it comes to such photos. There are exceptions listed, but exemption number 3 "Packaging which carries only a printed design which is old enough for the copyright to have expired. That applies to the classic Coca Cola logo (but not to more recent Coke designs)" seems to imply that the packaging of newer Coke products may still be protected by copyright, so such photos may not necessarily be freely licensed. If the copyright status of such labels/logos used doesn't matter at all, then it seems the conclusions reached by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg, and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/06#File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg were incorrect and some files may have been unnecessarily deleted/altered. It also seems to mean that similar photos/files (e.g., such as en:File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg, en:File:ClearlyCanadian Cherry1.jpg and others in en:Category:Images of bottles, en:Category:Cereal box covers, en:Category:Images of cans and en:Category:Images of soft drinks) uploaded as non-free to Wikipedia could actually be freely licensed and moved to Commons, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. It's arguable whether COM:PACKAGING is good policy -- I don't think there are any court cases which back it up -- but on the other hand, most packaging has artwork over the entire box, and the packaging completely surrounds the entire product. Designs on the surface of a utilitarian product are a different matter -- we don't delete photographs of people who happen to be wearing clothes which have a copyrightable pattern on them (and there are many). At some point the derivative work line of thought becomes too onerous on photographers, though it can be fuzzy where that line is. For a similar situation, there was a French case where a building was prominently in the center of a photograph of a city street (the building was at the far end). It was ruled to not be derivative, because the photograph was of the entire street, not the building in particular. Similarly the ruling above says when a photograph is mainly of the label itself, the situation would change -- there you are focusing on someone else's copyrightable expression, rather than expression which was unavoidably there when photographing a larger subject. There was a similar ruling of photos of a motorcycle with copyrightable graphics on it -- photos of the entire bike were fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may branch this discussion by folllowing what you wrote Carl, to something which I've been wondering for a while. What would you say about images like this? It is not of the enitre aicraft, but cropped (photographed) focused on the artwork. Josve05a (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in the case of that particular image, at least, it's quite clear that the photographer's intent was to show the artwork itself, not the 'utilitarian object' that it happened to be attached to. That being the case, I would personally consider it to 'obviously' be a derivative work of the artwork. It's a case of the image being 'focused on the particular copyrightable expression', as Carl put it, and the title and description given by the photographer make that explicit. We can't later 'claim' that it's just a photo of a plane's tail that happens to have copyrightable art on it in order to avoid the issue... the 'work' created by the photographer was clearly intended to show the art. Revent (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are rarely any clear distinctions when you get to stuff like this. Even the Ets-Hokin case, the lower court ruled it was a derivative work before being overturned -- so it's not obvious among judges, even. For photos like that, virtually all uses would be OK due to fair use -- it's just the sliver of uses such as if you put that photo on a postcard (i.e. where money is being made off of the photo) where you would run into trouble in real life -- but that's also the line we need to follow for "free". Given the above ruling, that photo of the plane is focusing on the artwork on the tail, which is clearly copyrightable, so I think that would be an issue. The stuff in en:Category:Cereal box covers are straight-up copies of cereal box artwork -- those would definitely be issues. Images of the bottles would seem to be OK; the question gets fuzzier when the packaging designs cover the entire surface of the product. Some of those may trade on the intent of the photographer -- are they taking the photo of the cans, with the packaging just being "incidental" -- or is the photo trading on the expression provided by the packaging artwork itself. For one example, a fashion photographer had a model wear a pair of fancy glasses because he thought it make the photo better -- and when the glasses turned out to be copyrighted, the judge ruled the photo was a derivative work. But if you were taking a photo of someone who happened to be wearing those on the street, where the inclusion decision was not really the choice of the photographer -- that should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Indeed, the line I tend to follow is basically 'can some small business owner without a legal department rely on us'. You rather have to assume that someone might want to use any random image in a book, on a printed object, whatever...we really need to avoid any kind of 'unlikely to get in trouble' train of thought. In cases of DW or DM, I think we really have to give a lot of consideration to the 'available evidence' of what the creator's intent was... a photo of 'an object that happens to have some art on it', compared to 'some art that happens to be on this object' are not the same... one can likely be DM, the other is a derivative work of the art (being imprecise, here, technically both are derivative works, but...I think I'm clear). I think any court, looking at the reuse of such an image, would look quite closely not only at how the photo was reused, but the available evidence of the intention of the photographer. I got poked to weigh in about something similar on enwiki recently, about if the 'display' of a copyrighted photo of Kim-Jung-Il, on the grounds of an embassy in a FOP country, would let us crop out the particular photo for use in an infobox... several issues, but the relevant one being that we can't use something that is an 'exception' to copyright, in a 'intermediate' derivative work, to get around the copyright in the original. Revent (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can this file be licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"? My understanding is that the threshold of originality tends to be lower for logos, etc. of organizations in the UK than it is in other countries and I cannot find anywhere on grimsby.ac.uk/index.php stating the content on the website has been freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you can use {{PD-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, as Marchjuly pointed out, this is a logo from the United Kingdom, and their threshold of originality is low enough that en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg (which is significantly simpler than this logo) is considered eligible for copyright protection.

I don't see any mention of any Creative Commons license either before or after the upload, and their terms seem to be completely non-free. The licensing claims seem to be completely made up, just like for the other files uploaded by the same user. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies Ruslik0 and LX. I tend to agree with LX on whether this can be considered "PD-logo". It could possibly qualify as PD-USonly if uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but it's a close call, so it's probably best to treat this a non-free logo instead. Either way, I think it needs to go from Commons. The only question is whether this should be done using {{Copyvio}} or {{No permission since}}, or should it be discussed at DR. Any suggestions? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the file with "No permission since". This will give the uploader some time to provided proof of a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:George W. Bush Presidential Center dedication.tif contains some rather... interesting information in the EXIF "Copyright holder" tag. It makes quite grandiose claims about what one can and cannot do with the file (e.g. "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way"), which is utter nonsense since the file is clearly PD-US (there may be issues of personality rights, but as I understand it, those are far more complex than these blanket prohibitions). Do we have a copyright tag or other template for marking files like this as "no, really, this is public domain, the EXIF is wrong?" If not, should we? --NYKevin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: What should be relevant? The Exif metadata, or the US Copyrigh Law and the legislation about the works from the US Federal Government? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of an existing template or category. As checking EXIF data is the type of bot housekeeping job that can result in mass deletions without much human intervention, it would be a good protective measure to have a category/template that ensures that files with misleading EXIF data are skipped from future checks. As a technical point, changing the EXIF would be a bad thing to do, as it would then get harder to compare the file with externally hosted versions. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions mentioned are basically about publicity/personality rights, and have nothing to do with the copyright. So, just add the {{Personality rights}} tag. The license tag is correct (though could be {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}, which is more specific). Would be good to credit Pete Souza in the Author field (using Creator:Pete Souza) and add to Category:Photographs by Pete Souza. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Gunnex (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NYKevin is right. For the record, the restrictions constitute w:copyfraud. But Fæ's argument for keeping the EXIF is hard to argue against. Thus, a template tag advising would-be-users of the issue would be appropriate. {{Copyfraud}} is taken for something else - a redirect to Template:Copyright claims, BUT "No pages link to Template:Copyfraud", so it seems reasonable to replace the redirect. It could be argued that something less direct/more flowery would be better - {{Dubious copyright claims in EXIF data}}, but I would disagree. We have hundreds of such files; see Commons:Village_pump#Photos_distributed_by_White_House, etc that warrant such a tag. --Elvey (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not copyfraud -- while we at Commons place the lion's share of importance on copyright, in real life, other rights are just as meaningful, and there are real restrictions based on those rights as well. In that case, "manipulated" doesn't mean merely altered in any way like a derivative work, but really would mean changed (e.g. photoshopped) such that something that really wan't there in the photo appears to be there in the manipulation, which could rise to the level of en:misrepresentation or slander. Even if legal per copyright law, it may well not be legal by other laws, and that notice is simply calling those other situations out (probably in too-strong terms, but that is the author's wish). You can't read every restrictions statement and just assume it's based on copyright -- many statements involve trademark, publicity rights, federal insignia laws, or other rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you (as I usually do) if it weren't for the fact that the statement appears in a metadata field called "Copyright holder", which makes it at the very least gravely misleading, and that appears to be intentional. The disclaimer is also present in the "Image title" field, so repeating it in a copyright-related field seems to serve no other purpose than to inspire uncertainty in potential reusers. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to control the titles of the metadata fields -- those are sort of standard. They splattered the same warning in the title text too. Secondly, in many other countries, such restrictions could also be based on the moral rights, which are usually part of copyright laws (or "author's rights", as not all countries use the term "copyright"). Although "copyright" really correlates to the economic right portion of author's rights, it can still be related depending on a country's laws. Basically, EXIF has some standard fields related to copyright, but they neglect to have fields for other types of rights, so there's not much you can do to make it explicit -- if you want the warning in there, you have to shoehorn it into some existing, standard field. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About copyright. If I write an article or a book using wikimedia free images, does this affect the whole copyright of the work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.170.87 (talk • contribs)

Note: Question converted as cleanup of accidental DR. Эlcobbola _talk 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my question is, that this painting can be uploaded to Commons? It was painted by Jean-Baptiste Lallemand around 1789. --Fmvh (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Fmvh use the template {{Pd-art|Pd-old-auto|deathyear=1803}}--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Fmvh (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please someone can check this request Commons:Village_pump#Help_re_license_confirmation.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, in my university library in Germany, I scanned a cover of the first edition of Gustav Meyrink's Walpurgisnacht, a book originally published in 1917. Now, Gustav Meyrink died already in 1932, but both the publisher Kurt Wolff († 1963) and the cover designer Emil Preetorius († 1973) died more recently. Who is the owner of the rights here? Am I allowed to upload the file? Thank you --Jakub Ehrenberger (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jakub Ehrenberger, well, regardless of who the rights owner is (which is difficult to say), the fact that the cover designer died in 1973 means the cover -- provided it is, as you seem to assume, eligible for copyright protection in first place -- is still protected today. This means we cannot use the scan unless the current rights owner releases it under a free license (see Commons:Licensing; e-mail templates to request such a release can be found at Commons:Email templates). Which brings us back to the question who the copyright owner is ... Typically, the publisher would have been granted exclusive rights, but their scope may not be sufficient to freely license the work. Also, use on the internet was, obviously, unknown back then, so unless the publisher has since acquired additional exploitation rights from the author's legal successor(s) (unlikely), he couldn't make such a release anyway. So, it's complicated; if you want to pursue this matter, you'd likely have to get in touch with both the publisher (usually a company, whose legal successors may differ from those of the company's founder as a natural person) and the author's legal successor(s). — Pajz (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm policy or precedent regarding retroactive, more restrictive license tag changes that substantially alter the license terms of content long after it's been uploaded? See this example I happened to notice. Policy re. those changes being effected by subsequent edits to templates in user space, where they're less likely to be noticed? I figure if an uploader (well, copyright holder) wants to allow a more restrictive license template than they have in the past, an appropriate guideline requires they start using a new template and allows an in-use license template to be made less restrictive, but not more restrictive. --Elvey (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a licensing change; just a note that the file's existing license is incompatible with Facebook's terms of use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My questions are about the general case, not the example I happened to notice. And you're right; I stand corrected. Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the background see meta:Legal/CC-BY-SA on Facebook. --Túrelio (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I'll be bold and link his template to that page.--Elvey (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]