Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Community Portal

Village Pump (copyright & proposals)

Help Desk (Upload help)

Administrators' Noticeboard (vandalism, user problems, blocks and protections)

Graphics Lab

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓

This project page in other languages: English | +/− Shortcuts COM:VPCOPY COM:VPC COM:CQ Welcome to the Village pump copyright section This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. For old discussions, see the Archive section below. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived. Please note If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read the FAQ? Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.   Start a new discussion

Help promote VPC

Please help make sure that this venue for discussing copyright issues is appropriately linked from other Wikimedia wikis. Examples include en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and its equivalents. However in linking here please make it clear that the primary venue for copyright discussions should be that wiki. Users should come here only for discussing copyright issues relevant to Commons - most commonly files which could potentially be moved to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally.

Mozilla Public License 2.0 and templates

Hello. Template changes are needed because of Mozilla Public License 2.0. Please see Template:MTL/doc.

Templates affected (at least by the need to mention that 2.0 exists):

• {{MPL}} — 1.1;
• {{MTL}} — “Mozilla tri-license”, i.e. MPL 1.1 / GPL 2+ / LGPL 2.1+; MPL 2.0 is not a tri-license; it can be compatible with the “secondary licenses” (GPL 2+, LGPL 2.1+, AGPL 3+) or incompatible with them;
• {{FirefoxWiki}} — uses MTL; Firefox is now licensed under MPL 2.0;
• {{MPL2}} and {{MPL-2.0}} — first MPL 2.0 templates, not mentioning the “secondary license” conditions.

--AVRS (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

UK law for publications by companies

Hi everyone, I'm trying to figure out what the United Kingdom's provisions for works created and published by companies are. I was thinking it would be in accordance with Template:PD-UK-known, but I don't think it fits very well: at the very least we know the name of the company, so it's not quite "unknown". And since companies can't die, no PD-old-70 either...Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue was dealt with by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in a 2011 case called Asia Pacific Publishing Pte. Ltd. v. Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte. Ltd.. Essentially, for copyright to exist there must be an author of a work who is a natural person. Companies cannot be authors, though they can own the copyrights in works created by natural persons. Therefore, if no natural persons can be identified to be the authors of a work, the work is not copyrighted. A work can be created by a natural person and the copyright in it transferred to a company. In that case, the period of copyright would still be calculated based on the lifetime of the author. The Court mentioned that the position in the UK is the same. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That might not be the whole truth since the Copyright law of the United Kingdom apparently accepts the authorship of "a body incorporated under the law of a part of the United Kingdom, or another country to which the qualification clause extends." De728631 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The copyright term is based on the individual employee who made the work. It doesn't matter that the employee isn't the copyright holder. However, works for hire (works for which the initial copyight holder is a legal person) seem to use a different definition of the word "anonymous" than other works. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I thinks that's a good summary of the situation. Indeed, in many countries, a company can be the first owner of the copyright when the author is one of its regular employees, and then the term of the company's coyright is calculated from the employee's death date, assuming that the identity of the employee is known. However, IMO, there's only a problem with your sentence beginning with "therefore", which seems to overinterpret the Court's opinion in the case linked. That sentence sounds like you're saying that works by unidentified authors (or anonymous works) are not subject to copyright. I don't think that's what the Court implied. My understanding is that the Court merely says that a copyrightable work must be something that, by its nature, is an original creation by a human (whose identity may or may not be known), as opposed, for example, to a preexisting fact, or to something that results from a high degree of automation, where there is no original work produced because there simply is no sufficient human intervention in the process. However, when it is obvious that something is the product of the original and creative work of a human, it is copyrightable, because there was actually a human author, even if the identity of that author is not known. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't intend to imply anything about copyright not subsisting in anonymous works or works by unidentified persons. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• So, in short, it would be PD-UK-Unknown as the individual employee is not known (even if the company is?)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the question about an actual work or is it a question of pure theory? If about a work, it may help to know what work and its context. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both, but we can use File:Marie Lloyd 02.jpg (which I uploaded after this discussion) as a case study. This image was taken by The Hana Studios Ltd., with no named photographer, in the mid-1890s and published as a postcard; the subject was an actress popular at the time and this appears to have been, in part, for promotion.Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'd say the situation where a photograph is taken in a studio by an unknown photographer is quite different from the situation in the Asia Pacific Publishing case. In the latter, the court found that it was not possible to identify who the author(s) of the work were. Even the company claiming to be the copyright holder did not identify the employees involved. Thus, I think the former situation should be treated as a work created by an anonymous author. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Statue inventory

Does http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=Weaver+John+Barney normally list any active copyrights? I am wondering about File:The Bullwacker by John Weaver.jpg.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember we had a discussion about Weaver's Bullwacker. Was this not settled at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-01#File:The_Bullwacker_by_John_Weaver.jpg? However, the description page is still missing a method of verification of the license from the photographer, for example a link to the photographer's statement or a copy of an email from him archived through OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I lost the photographer's email with my last hard drive. I may be able to contact him the same way I did before through Panoramio. He had no issues at all and was happy to host his image here. He viewed the page and approved the license but I didn't realize I should have gone through OTRS. If that fails then I can probably email 1/2 of Helena to see if they can take pictures for us. I hope to keep his because it is a good shot with and he mentioned stance and angle he needed to take it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I managed to recover my account and send an email. The file page has a better source now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If the permission he sent was the one written in the metadata ("permission to use on wikipedia with attribution"), it can't do. Please make sure that the request is for a free license. For the source, I thought you said the Panoramio version was not the source of the Commons version. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
He emailed me the original image before. I adjusted brightness/contrast/metadata and uploaded it with the attribution license. He emailed back that all was fine. The source before I changed it today was just his name with no urls. If/when he contacts OTRS then they should be able to sort it, I hope.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

He is in contact with OTRS now.

Copyvios

May some adminis take in charge User:Didjou who do not respect copyright by re-uploading deleted images. Thx--LPLT (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Detail of a building still FOP ?

I am not sure whether this image I just uploaded File:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation visitor center.JPG qualifies for freedom of panorama because of the artwork on the facade and the shadows it creates. Please feel free to delete it if it is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbar (talk • contribs) 2013-05-20T23:15:07 (UTC)

This is in the United States, so there is freedom of panorama for buildings. In the case Leicester v. Warner Brothers, it was decided that a sculpture was covered by freedom of panorama because it was part of a building, so I would assume that any artistic aspects with this image are covered by COM:FOP#United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Goldhairnet.jpg image should be removed' copyright violation

The person who uploaded this file, Ubc.roman.women, is not the copyright holder of the image. The VRoma Project holds the copyright (http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/hairnet2.jpg); I took this photo and did NOT release it into the public domain. The uploader also took 3 other images from VRoma, but these 3 have already been deleted for copyright violations. This image should also be deleted. Barbara McManus, Co-Director, the VRoma Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfmcmanus (talk • contribs) 2013-05-21T00:26:49‎ (UTC)

Deleted and uploader blocked. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. russavia (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of Category:Logos needed

Most logos should be using {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}} combo, I think. Instead, most have CC/GFDL mess... And no, I won't SOFIXIT because 1) I am not sure I am right and 2) I have enough other wiki work. Just reporting this one. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can a bot be made to go through the whole cat and sub-cats and tag them all with {{Trademarked}}. I assume if they are logos then they would be TM. Another bot could go through and put any that don't have a PD text tag they would be put in a cat marking wrong licence. The bot could leave messages like "This was tagged TM because it is in a logo category, please check...."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While putting {{trademarked}} on every logo wouldn't hurt, it would be still misplaced in many cases. Most logos of free software, but also logos of smaller companies or those used for private purposes are not trademarked after all. So this definitely needs broad consensus before doing anything.

Automatically putting a license tag is probably not possible at all. Many logos already carry a PD license although they actually are neither PD nor below the threshold of originality. Although wrongly licensed those wouldn't be touched at all. Other logos might carry different licenses (e.g. CC licenses): Most of the time those are probably used in error, but how should a bot recognize those cases were they are not? Any way one would need a manual review of the files (and I highly doubt we ever have the manpower for this).

The only thing I could imagine would be creating a license tag specific for logos (similar to {{self}}) that puts a given license, might also add {{trademarked}}, sorts the file into an appropriate category per license and accepts an optional "reviewed" parameter. The "reviewed" parameter could then be set for files where the license was checked to be valid and the files could be moved into a special "reviewed" category per license tag. However this still would need immense resources and probably isn't worth the effort. --Patrick87 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Branson Belle stage curtain 2005.jpg is a dual case where it needs photographer license as well as PD logo and TM. They could be hard to sort in cases like this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Many of the logos in that category seem to be copyright violations. I think that the category needs a careful review.

CC/GFDL is useful for SVG logos as it tells that the SVG source code is licensed under a free licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mediocrity

Hi, it seems that all or almost all of the files uploaded as own work by User:Mediocrity have been ascribed to two authors. Should an OTRS-confirmed permission be requested for all of them? (I've also left a message at the user's talk page so that he/she will be able to help us sort this out.) --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons files have to be free in both the United States and the source country, and the source country appears to be Austria. I think that someone once wrote that USA law only demands permission from one author if there are several, so if the uploader is at least one of the named photographers, then I believe that the images are freely licensed in the United States. The question is then whether this also is the case in Austria or whether Austrian law requires permission from both photographers. An easier solution may be to simply get an OTRS ticket. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo only? Don't we need to respect copyright status in the US anymore?

Hello,

User:Sanandros is currently uploading loads of photographs like File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 14.5” - od-green.png with {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} being the only "License"-tag and nobody seems to care. I thought we had to respect the copyright status in the US too (see Commons:PD#Material_in_the_public_domain), or did I miss something? Those pics might be fine in Switzerland, but what about the US? I noticed that (unlike e.g. {{PD-old-70}}) {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} does not have a reminder like "You must also include a United States public domain tag […]" – is there a reason for that (apart from "nobody did it yet")? And in case I didn't miss anything and those files can not stay here: Would it be possible to move them to dewiki? Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the case Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., the photos additionally have to be below the threshold of originality of the United States, or in the public domain in the United States for some other reason. It is unclear whether Swiss photos published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989 were restored by URAA or not if they were below the threshold of originality of Switzerland. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. Let's stop this here and move over to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Sanandros. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of republication of PD documents

Please see this file and this file. Both are Public Domain books in Malayalam language. The second book is really big with 862 pages.

• These books are scanned with the aim of digitizing it in Malayalam Wikisource.
• Both books are republication of some really old public domain works.(public domain because the authors of both the books are expired at least 100 years ago)
• Both books are republished by prominent publishers of Kerala, India. In one case, a PD book is published by DC books which is one of the very famous publishing group of India.
• Both the books has footnotes, extra texts, and so on which are add by publisher and which is not part of PD document.
• In some case these type of new editions are the first ever edition (and may be the only available version) of some really ancient documents.

Now the questions are:

1. Do we have a policy on these type of PDF/DjVu files?
2. Since the publisher has copyright on footnotes/extra texts they add, can they claim copy right on the whole book?
3. If we edit out all publisher footnotes, extra text (for an 800 page book it is really time consuming and boring) can we keep that in Commons or other wiki projects?
4. Can the publisher claim copyright on Layout of the book. If they can, then what we do in the previous step will not help us.
5. Can the publisher claim copyright on the typeface/font they used for printing this book.

I request the community to frame a clear policy on these type of documents since that will save much volunteer time. --Shijualex (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the US at least, layout and fonts aren't copyrightable. But removing the footnotes and extra text is a requirement, as is verifying this is actually the public domain text, and not a version reedited by an editor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the UK and some former UK colonies, there is a typographic copyright which in the UK lasts for 25 years since publication which covers typographical arrangements in a book. India belonged to the UK in the past and the copyright law of India is similar to that of the UK in several aspects, so it is possible that India also has a typographic copyright, although I don't know what copyright term India uses for that. Recently written footnotes can of course not be used. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As set forth above, the general rule is that simply reprinting a PD work does not give rise to a new copyright. I don't think that the UK typography rule would apply to a simple reprinting in a different type face, provided that it was an "ordinary" face and that the layout was also "ordinary". The problem arises with the text itself. If the original is 100+ years old, it almost certainly has mistakes -- spelling and other typos. If, in resetting the type, the new publisher fixed those mistakes, there may be enough to give rise to a new copyright -- it would be a very fine point, as simply fixing spelling errors, as a computer spell-checker would do, may or may not have enough originality. Given the effort required to remove footnotes, it might be best to leave these alone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, the COM:CRT#Typographical copyright is meant to protect things such as the choice of how many words to have on each line, where to put the line breaks, how many lines to have on each page and similar things. As India essentially has an earlier version of the British copyright law, but with some subsequent Indian modifications, there is a risk that India also may have a typographical copyright. I don't know whether correcting errors would be copyrightable. This probably depends on the kinds of errors you correct. For example, if you only correct spelling errors, then this would seem to follow a given algorithm, which doesn't seem copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The query is mostly about the copyright of Layout, typeface, design, and other non-textual things that publisher add. We all agree to the point of removing FootNotes and non-PD extra text that is added by publisher. My question is, even if we remove Footnotes and other non-PD extra text will the documents stay in Commons or in other WMF wikis (here wikisource). --Shijualex (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting license

Hi, I'm not sure what is the license of the image published at http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=840&picture=summer-morning. It links to cc-zero but requires a mandatory citation of 'this particular page' (which one, actually? the one of the license or of the image?). I've currently used cc-zero at File:Hayrack full.jpg but another opinion would be welcome. Thanks, regards. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They mean that is must link to the CC-0 license which our CC-0 template does. They probably want to make sure that all re-uses link back to that and keep it PD for all uses. You may wish to add that to the file page as well for any that re-use it from there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/browse-author.php?a=44480 has many nice ones that someone should download.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That site looks like a future botjob. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Caution please on the botjob. Site has a lot of great pictures but often with totally inadequate description. A lot were harvested from other public domain sources but left the relevant details behind, so better sources may be found with some digging. Research and curatorial judgement is to be preferred to mass uploading. Dankarl (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Also we have already had a number of bulk uploads from this site, some duplicating existing files of higher resolution. Dankarl (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting license information

Hi. Please have a look at File:Brown Pelican at the Indian River Lagoon - Flickr - Andrea Westmoreland.jpg. It is tagged as CC-BY-SA at Flickr but the description has conflicting information ("No use of my photos in any way without my express permission").

IMO, there are two explanations: The author did not understand what CC-BY-SA means (does the license still hold if it was not the author's intention but maybe a mistake while using the Flickr interface?) or the author changed the license on Flickr but forgot to update the image description (in which case we could safely delete this part of the description.)

Maybe some admin should contact the author for clarification. I assume that the import of her images was done without her knowledge but it would really be a shame if we needed to delete them, these are about 1000 high quality pictures of plants and animals in Florida!

There was another picture that had the text "All rights reserved" in the description, which I deleted. I am not sure if that was conflicting too and unfortunately I don't remember the file name (I categorized about 300 of her pictures.) --Zeitlupe (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Both the statements "no use without permission" and "all rights reserved" are incompatible with CC-BY-SA and Commons. You can ask the author for clarification yourself, there's no need for an admin to do it –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't contact the author myself because I don't have a Flickr account (and no intention of getting one). --Zeitlupe (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note also that as a general rule of law, specifically added provisions that contradict a standard document (in this case the CC license) are controlling, so unless Ms. Westmoreland changes her mind, we cannot keep any of these. Her Flickr page aggressively claims copyright and prohibits any use without her permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim - Two questions on that point.

• First, in general, how do you tell, with "no use without permission" accompanied by a CC license whether this is a qualifying provision modifying the CC license or multilicensing, ie that the CC license is the permission spoken of, or that the CC license of a given page is specific language modifying the general language on her Flickr user page. Relevant to that point is that her copyright claim begins: "With the exception of certain photos where I have assigned a different license the following applies:" Most of her photo pages do not appear to have have either "no use without permission" or "all rights reserved" on the page itself (I spot-checked 15 or so without finding an instance).
• Second, If general copyright language on a Flickr user page undermines a specific license granted on a photo page, does not this undermine the logic of our bot review and authentication of licenses? Dankarl (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

After reading her Flickr page, I also think that the pictures need to be deleted. I informed the operator of Slick-o-bot to carefully check the Flickr user pages for such conflicts in the future before triggering a mass import. I leave it to some admin to decide if these pictures should be speedily deleted or if a formal mass deletion request is necessary. --Zeitlupe (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did run the bot (as requested at here), but I dont known there was a copyright statemant on another page. I only checked the CC-BY-SA on the images. So my opinion about this is, a given CC-BY-SA on a image is a given CC-BY-SA and can not revert by a licence text on another page? What if nobody red this page and use the image under CC-BY-SA? It is not legal too? If they is no able to apply the right licence to the images, it is not our problem. It is like on ebay. If I sell an item for 1$, I can not explain the cost is 1000$ an another page. --Slick (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My comments above notwithstanding I would support speedy deletion. If someone wants to try for clarification and specific permission via OTRS she has an email on her user page but I suggest getting them down first as a sign of good faith. Dankarl (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Dankarl (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I've done a lot of contract work over the last 45 years, so I'll take another try at the generalization I made above. As a rule, the specific overrides the general. Thus, a handwritten provision of a contract (or license) overrides something typewritten (or out of a laser printer) and specifically written language overrides words pre-printed on a form. Anything that the user says about licensing overrides any provisions of a general license. Thus "You must notify me before using an image of mine" overrides a CC-BY license and makes it unacceptable to us. Also, a provision on a specific Flickr page overrides anything on the user's home Flicker page. A Flickr user who is doing it "right" will say on his home page, "All images are All Rights Reserved except as noted on any specific image", but it's not essential. If a Flickr user says "All Rights Reserved" on his home page and then marks an image CC-BY, the CC-BY controls that particular image. See Lex specialis for a discussion of this in the context of interpretation of laws. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I informed the user on his Flickr page; so we can wait for a few days for any response. We can think about a DR for all of his works, if the response is negative. His profile page says “ With the exception of certain photos where I have assigned a different license the following applies” so I assume this is an experienced user who knows what a license is. So I assume he would not have a problem if we use his CC BY-SA 2.0 works (unless he replies soon). (Note that his new works are “All rights reserved” to which he is talking about on the profile page. “A different license” means some old works in CC BY-SA 2.0) © Andrea Westmoreland on his work doesn’t mean “all rights reserved”. I think “No use of my photos in any way without my express permission.” Can be neglected; which is very common in many self uploads here too.

A general suggestion: It will be nice if our admin/OTRS team maintain a Flickr account to contact Flickr users through Flickrmail or through comment on Flickr pages. Then they can inform the user about the transfer of their files to Commons, if it is transfer for thr first time from a new user. (I remember how ComputerHotLine informed me about the transfer for the first time). JKadavoor Jee 15:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor I can't follow your reasoning. According to her Flickr page she has 1104 photos on Flickr and we have imported 999 of them, which were all (I assume) checked by the Flickr-Bot to be tagged as CC-BY-SA on Flickr. So if she says "ALERT! With the exception of certain photos where I have assigned a different license the following applies" but 90 percent of her photos are tagged as CC-BY-SA then this is not an exception and it doesn't look at all to me that she knew what she was doing and that she chose CC-BY-SA intentionally. --Zeitlupe (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes; most of her encyclopedic works (like [1], [2], [3], etc.) are CC-BY-SA 2.0 and others (like [4], [5], [6], etc.) are All rights reserved which endorse my assumption that she did her licensing wisely. (As a Flickr user for years, I know it is difficult and less chance for an accident if we choose different license for different works in between.) JKadavoor Jee 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maud Tindal Atkinson

A couple of questions about images of works by this author: first, this image has "b bridgeman art culture history" written across it; since I doubt that the original bears that text, how can this be regarded as a "faithful reproduction"? It might perhaps be argued that even if the painting is in the public domain, the text added to it is not? And yes, I've asked a question similar to this before, in relation to digital watermarks. This isn't digital, it's right in-yer-face.

Secondly, if this artist died on 20 May 1954, as this possibly entirely unreliable site suggests, should any of these pictures be here at all? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Text is not copyrightable as pictures; as text, it needs a lot more text to be copyrightable. If she did die in 1954, then her works would generally be in copyright in UK and not be acceptable for Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added Category:Maud Tindal Atkinson; note that two of the paintings (one, rather) are of her, not by her, should you start a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Those that were published or copyright in US before 1923 could be moved to English Wikipedia as PD-US, and those published elsewhere before 1923 as PD-US-1923-abroad. Dankarl (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying. Yes, of course the portrait of her by Byam Shaw (1872 – 1919) is a different case and should not have been included in my blanket question. So, in the opinion of others, should a deletion request be made for the other images, some of which seem to carry the wrong licence? Re Dankarl's suggestion, I see that the book cover could be moved to wikipedia as there is a definite date of publication before 1923; but not how that could be justified for the others. Please excuse my limitless ignorance. And I'm sorry, but are we really convinced that the phrase "Bridgeman art" is completely free of all copyright and intellectual property restrictions in the United States? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They were all published before 1923; I don't know why we should be paranoid about it. She was a commercial illustrator working for children's books; their publications are going to shortly after their paintings and shouldn't be hard to find. The Sir Galahad picture was registered with the US copyright office in 1920, as its page shows, so there's absolutely no question for it being out of copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Phrases can not be copyrighted in the US, no way, no how.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Models

Hi, what's the current stance about models? The guideline [7] states that models are copyrighted in the United States, but there are numbers of categories containing images of models (e.g. Category:Majorette, Category:Lego train etc.). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very clear that models may be copyrighted in the US -- they are specifically mentioned in the law (17 USC 101) -- see User:Elcobbola/Models. I think that they are copyrighted in most other countries as well. Note that in both cases, it is irrelevant whether the prototype has a copyright -- the model has a copyright in its own right whether or not the prototype has one. Of course, if the prototype also has a copyright, then we must consider both.

With that understood however, remember that in the USA until 1977 (1989 without registration), a work had to have notice in order to have a copyright. In my experience most model cars, trains, and other similar works have a copyright notice on their underside, but it is certainly possible that some of the models we have on Commons are PD-no-notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

FOP in DC

I just created Category:National Statuary Hall Collection 1963 to 1977 that should contain eight statues from w:National Statuary Hall Collection. Should we sort out the copyrights on the others and make sub-cats by copyright year for them? We could also just delete my cat as a bad plan.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lettera di accompagnamento nomina Cavaliere di Malta (Fabio Amerighi).jpg

This seems to be a very complex situation. Does anyone know if Ferdinando d'Afflitto would be considered to be the author of this document? Also, what is the source country, Italy or the Sovereign Military Order of Malta? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Confused about consent template

I'm not clear on {{consent}} and would like advice on which tag I should use. First, the subject: A photograph hosted on Flickr of a child wearing a costume, photographed in a public place at a public event in England. The photographer has agreed to allow the photograph to be used in accordance with a Creative Commons license, and he will request the consent of the parent(s)... but consent to what? Publication? To me, the best consent tag appears to be {{consent|hosted}}, which reads: "This media was copied from an image hosting website at the source indicated, where it was uploaded by a third party. Evidence of consent is provided at the source location." For one thing, most of the consent tags say "I personally created this media", which I did not, unless uploading to Commons is considered "creating". So I want to avoid that language. If evidence of consent is provided at the source location, that would mean he needs to update the image's description at Flickr with consent. But again, consent to what? What phrase is considered "consent" that would allow the image to be used? I also plan on using the {{Personality rights}} tag for the image. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I use {{consent|appearspublic}} for images like that as well as {{Personality rights}}.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still going to try to get consent for the image; if I understand correctly, consent should probably have been obtained for the image to be published on Flickr at any rate, but now consent will be obtained with the knowledge that the image will be licensed for free use. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Finnish Defense Forces WWII photographs

A large archive of high-resolution photographs from Finland's Winter War, Continuation War, and Lapland War has become available at http://sa-kuva.fi/neo?tem=webneoeng. Please take a look particularly at the terms of use. Are these suitable for Commons now or should we ask for clarification on any issues?

See also Alan Taylor's article.Dankarl (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be possible that {{PD-Finland50}} would apply to some images if they were previously published.

It would certainly be best to contact them for clarification to confirm that these images are truly free. If we can get a single statement to that effect from SA-kuva (about who holds the copyright if any, and what specific re-use is allowed), then maybe some kind of mass import is in order. The statement "free for anyone to use" is promising, but "free" and "use" are not unambiguous. There are certainly some amazing pictures in there –⁠moogsi (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-Finland50}} applies to all of them, but {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} applies to those which weren't published before 1966, so only the published ones can be uploaded. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If the template PD-Finland50 is correct, then it seems that the URAA does not apply to any of those photos created before 1946. Could we not say that all those photos published before 1989 are okay for Commons? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, yes, it seems that the law switched from 25 years pd to 50 years pr before the URAA date. However, Commons:Subsisting copyright is a problem for photos not published before 1 March 1989. Also, if they were published after 1963, then a subsisting copyright is much more likely for published photos as all it needed was a copyright notice. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

At terms of use they clearly say that they can be used only with a citation. That would be the same as claming a cc-by license. -Theklan (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo of a sculpture not located in its source country

Maybe someone would be willing to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mariehamn aland (3).jpg? The country of origin is Sweden but the sculpture is located in Finland, so this raises an interesting issue for the FOP situation. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:The Mikado Chappell Vocal Score cover, c.1895.jpg

Does the likely work-for-hire status of this image cause any copyright issues? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify Adam's question, which arose here, the question is whether this would be considered an anonymous work in the UK, or a corporate work by its publisher. My own view is that it is a corporate work, in which case copyright in the UK would be held by Warner Brothers, the buyer of the original publisher, while it would be public domain in the US as pre-1923. Since Adam and I disagree about this, we need a third opinion. Thanks.Chick Bowen (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

...But just belonging to a corporation doesn't grant a permanent, never-ending copyright. Copyrights do expire in the UK, and we don't have a method to assure they never will (outside of explicit act of Parliament, as with the KJV and Peter Pan). Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand; what duration of copyright do you think it has? Life+x rules never have anything to do with the "life" of the corporation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is a truly anonymous work, or a corporate work, then it is long out of UK copyright. If, however, the author is simply unknown to us, then it may still be in copyright, although 1895 is early enough so that is less then 50/50. The best thing would be if the person who made the scan were to examine it carefully for a credit to the illustrator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If the actual employee's name was made known, even if it is considered a corporate work, then the term is life+70 in the UK. Otherwise, {{PD-UK-unknown}} would apply, and the term would be 70 years from publication whoever owns it. In the UK (and EU), the "author" is always the actual human being and the term can only be based on their life -- it is only if that person is unknown (in the UK) or anonymous/pseudonymous (most other countries) that the term is based on publication and/or creation. In this case, the author doesn't seem to be named (normally, they would be credited right in the original publication), in which case it was published anonymously, so copyright probably expired in the 1940s and was not restored by the EU copyright extensions in 1996. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Hakko-Ichiu_Monument_in_1950s.JPG

I like to make sure if I am correct or otherwise mistaken. This photo is of the statue designed by Jitsuzo Hinako(1982-1945) in Japan. The photo was taken by a newspaper photographer in ca.1953, thus the copyright of photograph itself has expired already(as tagged {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}). In my understanding, the copyright of the statue author is not restored per COM:URAA because the author died in 1945 and his copyright expired in the end of 1995 in Japan. I therefore consider that the statue is in PD in US as well as in Japan. Thank you for your advice in advance. --Nightingale (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

file from presscentre

Hi is it legal to upload files from presscentres with this license:(german:)Rechtlicher Hinweis: Die zur Verfügung gestellten Cover, Fotos und Texte dürfen ausschließlich einmalig und nur zu Werbezwecken oder für redaktionelle Berichterstattungen verwendet werden. Es ist nicht zulässig, die Cover, Fotos oder Texte zu verändern, zu ergänzen oder zu bearbeiten. Im Falle einer missbräuchlichen Nutzung behalten wir uns ausdrücklich vor, die Nutzungsbefugnis jederzeit zu entziehen. (English (computer translation):)Disclaimer: The author of the art, photos and text may only once and only for advertising purposes or to be used for editorial coverage. It is not permissible to change the art, photos or texts to add or edit. In the case of misuse we reserve the right to revoke the authorization to use any time. Thanks for help...--Edit1306 (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC) PS: link to website: [8] --Edit1306 (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Commons only accepts content that anyone can use for any purpose, and the terms must permit modification. (See Commons:Licensing.) The terms you cite prohibit most uses and prohibit modification. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Would be a selftaken picture of the cover ok? (I don't think so) But where do the pictures of covers in WIKIPEDIA come from ex.[9]. Please explain ways to get Book covers into Wiki-Articles??? Other Websites??? --Edit1306 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are uploaded directly to the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" rationale. They are not on Wikimedia Commons (which is a different project), as we can't accept anything under a "fair use" rationale. See w:Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images for more information on Wikipedia's policy, and which images they will accept on that project. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, making a copy of someone else's non-free work (whether by taking a photo of it or otherwise) does not "liberate" it from their copyright. en:File:Inferno-cover.jpg is hosted locally on the English Wikipedia project under fair use provisions. This is not possible on Commons; see Commons:Fair use. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Signing an agreement with a museum?

Last month, I emailed the Harvard Art Museum for a high-resolution copy of a painting, noting that the painting (and therefore their scan) is in the public domain and, in a rush of adrenaline and completely ignoring their fee schedule, I said the total fee I would be paying is $0. I didn't think anything would come of it, but turns out they approved my request, as long as I sign an agreement. For anyone curious, the agreement is here: page 1 and page 2. They also request (like any contributor would) a link to the image and the article it is used in. This kind of stunned me; has anyone had to do something like this before? And should I proceed?—or if that last question is a legal question, then don't answer. The thing is, I'd love to have the painting here on Commons. Advice completely welcome. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You tell them that the image is in the public domain and then you consider signing a contract where you would turn around 180 degrees and state exactly the opposite. Unless the Board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation mandated you as its representative to sign or to negociate a contract in the name of Wikimedia or of its projects, you can't. Seeing how every paragraph of this contract is a direct contradiction of the basic principles of Wikimedia, any claim or even any suggestion by any unauthorized user to associate Wikimedia with that sort of action should, IMO, result in the immediate and infinite blocking of all the accounts of that user. If you want to tie yourself personally into that sort of agreement in your own name, that would be your call. But, as the terms of that contract are in complete contradiction with the terms of use and with the nature of Wikimedia on practically every point, then if you want to respect the terms of that contract, you can't use the image on the Wikimedia projects. Or, if you use the image on Wikimedia in conformity of the terms of Wikimedia with a statement that it is freely usable, then you would ignore the terms of your personal contract with the Museum, which includes the obligation to use the image for a single printing, to be used on a date in 2014 (!), without reuse, etc. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

All the paragraphs on the Terms of Agreement page certainly seemed limiting and contradictory with the public domain or even with the restrictions on reproductions and derivatives, but I wanted second opinions to be sure. And I never intended on presenting myself as a representative of Wikipedia in that way (I would think Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. would be more correct at any rate), I only told them I was an editor at Wikipedia. So apparently this is turning into scarier stuff and all for a stupid painting that I have a book scan of anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancient papyri as 2D public domain works or copyright-able 3D works? Potential batch upload from the Laurentian Library

I have been pointed to the recent release of a large collection of high quality photographs of important papyri (papiri / papyrus) in the collection of the Papyri of the Italian Society (PSI) stored at the Laurentian Library and made available online at http://www.psi-online.it, example research quality image of PSI XII 201285. Images of the site are protected as "It is forbidden to make any further reproduction by any means" as defined in the site terms here. The images are excellent, and have great educational value and for these reasons I would like to batch upload these to Commons for the public benefit, but am in a quandary as the institutions involved are unlikely to ever change to a Public Domain licence through patient discussion, and I do not want to risk prosecution or financial claims for damages for copyright theft.

Previously, on Commons, the community has tended to avoid generalizing or accepting the position that all papyri may be interpreted as 3D works, see this reference 2011 discussion on this noticeboard. However, in the academic world, photographs of papyri are normally accepted as 3D works and publishers tend to keenly stick to this "rule", even if the legal precedent or national copyright law is non-existent.

I propose that Commons establish a policy that:

Photographs of papyri are considered faithful reproductions of 2D objects, unless the photograph was clearly and unambiguously taken with the intention to show the materials of the papyri (intended to show its construction, fibres or microscopic detail) rather than intended to fully and accurately represent the available text of the papyri as a 2D work to be read.

For example "PSI XII 201285" linked above is clearly intended to fully represent the text for the purposes of reading and transcription, and it is not a research image intended to show, say, damage, restoration, microscopic detail or partial detail that does not represent the text. Feedback, and in particular links to legal precedent, are appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)