Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:St-Jeure d'Ay singes heureux 1.jpg

Is this photo a copyvio or not? An IP claims that it is and that the author is Eric Frezal. The photo is used here, but I am not sure if the uploader copied it from this page. --jdx ^Re: 09:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mugshot

Is it legal for me to upload a mugshot of a criminal here on wikimedia? The mugshot is most likely the property of the law enforcement agency that toke the image. I believe that the picture is specifically needed to illustrate the subject in question, that there is no free equivalent form of media that is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information, and I believe that it qualifies as fair usage under U.S copyright laws. I would like to ask for advice on this subject, as to whether or not doing this qualifies as fair use. Thanks in response. TTTAssasinator (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia may host them as fair use, but you'd have to check with the rules on that particular Wikipedia. Commons only holds Free media, which doesn't include mugshots unless they were taken by the FBI or another organization that puts its work in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Russian Maps

Is this applicable to maps made in Russia which are based on Russian laws? (E.g. Maps of Russian Administrative Districts.) Thanks. Wetitpig0 (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The administrative boundaries themselves are not copyrightable but specific maps can be depending on what these maps contain in addition to the boundaries. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The map also contains the name of the administrative subjects. That's all. Wetitpig0 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, are deriatives considered as own works? Wetitpig0 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Australian National Maritime Museum

I just noticed that even though the images from the Australian National Maritime Museum are marked on Flickr as "No known copyright restrictions", the rights statement on their website also says "Users may download or print off these images for research, artistic or other personal use. If images are reproduced or distributed it is on the condition that they [...] will not be used for any commercial or for-profit purposes without the permission of the Australian National Maritime Museum." As far as I can understand, that effectively means a CC-BY-NC license, which is not acceptable here. I don't know anything about copyright rules in Australia - for all I know, maybe many of the photos are in the public domain anyway - but I suppose it's a good idea to look into it. Blue Elf (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about why they would say they are not aware of any copyright restrictions for the files on Flickr and then try to impose various restrictions. It seems like they accept that they don't hold any rights but want to get usage fees regardless. --ghouston (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Writing as the uploader, and having uploaded lots of other Flickr Commons collections, what you are seeing that the ANMM has selected parts of its collection it believes are completely free of restrictions to share on Flickr, while their Website terms just default to being cautious and they don't bother to assess subsets of their collection to test whether some are public domain.

For many Museums, they don't have the resources to assess every image, and they often have a duty to avoid risk as much as possible.

Lastly, from a Commons perspective, it does not matter to us that a verifiable license from a GLAM is different in different places. This just means we can (and should) choose the weakest and even then, if we can demonstrate that a restricted image is public domain, we can ignore whatever other licenses say and add the most legally correct one.

If you remain unhappy, I suggest you write to the ANMM via their Flickrstream and ask them about the license inconsistencies. It does not hurt to confirm what their viewpoint is. --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a section of that page linked by Blue Elf [1] on "Copyright and Flickr", so it's not just default website terms. However their pages on Flickr don't seem to make any such claim. --ghouston (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We have many uploads from GLAM with the "no known copyright restrictions" tag but you will also notice the tag specifically states; "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined", so is we are diligent reviewers we can make an attempt to verify any images that might be incorrectly assessed as freely usable by the institution. However, as an example, I discovered that some images from the National Library of Ireland are in fact not free of restrictions and I'm sure there are some more lingering around. As Fae says, institutions do often tend to have blanket copyright statements on their websites which are clearly no correct for every image, even some of the US military's Flickr accounts have copyright restrictions when we know that US government work is in the public domain. We get two sides of the coin and need to be aware of these issues, so we ascertain the actual copyright status where there are any doubt. Ww2censor (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If they explicitly license a work with "No known copyright restrictions", they really shouldn't be able to then go claim a copyright restriction elsewhere. That is counter to Flickr Commons' aims. And their license page even explicitly says: This means that the museum is not aware of any copyright restriction on these photographs. So... even they say there is no copyright restriction, so I don't know how they can restrict commercial use, unless it is a trademark thing about using their name in connection with the use. For our purposes, that would be a Commons:Non-copyright restriction. Or, maybe it was standard fair-use boilerplate that someone copy/pasted to that section. But the Flickr license really is hard to ignore. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Theatre photos by User:Christian Michelides

Hi, I think that many or all of User:Christian Michelides's wonderful theatre photo uploads are copyright violations. The pictures were taken during press performances, which means that there is probably a permission to use these photos for press purposes, but I don't think that this also applies to using them on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, we could only keep the images that have nothing copyrightable in them, e.g. closeup shots of actors. I have already contacted the user on his talk page but received no response. --Gnom (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the images File:Antigone 5370-michelides.jpg has an OTRS ticket, though as I am not an OTRS volunteer I can;t say why this has a ticket and other don't, bit is is possible this could also covers this editor's other image. However, the author is also the editor and the camera metadata is, for those images I checked, all are from the same camera model and most were uploaded by him, so I doubt there us actually a problem. HIs own uploads are 280 images over a 2-year period. Permission to photograph does not usually affect the copyright which remains with the photographer unless they have contracted to limit their own copyright by receiving permission to attend and photograph the performance. I doubt you can accurately infer what was agreed or not. Which specific image do you think contain copyrightable elements? If there are specific ones you can always tag them with {{LicenseReview}}. If you still have concerns,and ss you have not received a response on his talk page maybe you should contact him on his website which is clearly linked by his user page. Ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor, I was referring to the copyrighted stage sets and costumes which can be seen in many of the photos. --Gnom (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As I suggested, you can always tag such images for review or even deletion when you suspect they contain copyrightable elements so long as they are not de minimis. I agree that File:Tosca 8074-michelides.jpg probably should be considered for review if not deletion. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, before I tag a few dozen photos used on numerous wikis for deletion, I thought I'd at least ask here first. I was wondering why nobody had seen this before. --Gnom (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It needs a German speaker to review the OTRS ticket but it does relate to a number of images not just the one mentioned above. Nthep (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Die letzten Zeugen Ffm 6516 Michelides.jpg is a featured picture and has a different OTRS ticket number than File:Antigone 5370-michelides.jpg I mentioned above, so certainly an OTRS volunteer should have a look before you do anything. Ww2censor (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait for this to happen then. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If the uploader is a licensed photographer, the ability to upload would be based on whatever contract he or she signed with the theater or production company. If they gave the photographers the right to take photos, but did not restrict the further licensing of those photos, then they are probably OK (at least as far as the works are seen in the photo -- I don't think they are licensing the pictured works directly). Only the photographer and theater company would know the terms of that contract, so I think it really should be the theater company to ask for deletion, as otherwise we really don't know and probably shouldn't assume that it's wrong. But, that is assuming these were taken during press performances. If they were taken by an audience member without any explicit permission from the theater or production company, that would be different, and I think a reasonable concern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't imagine a theatre allowing the use of photos taken during a press performance for any purpose. --Gnom (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Such photos often end up on Getty etc., so they could well be sold commercially. It depends on the contract -- photographers or press agencies may not agree to such restrictions. I would hope the photographer would know the restrictions they are under before uploading, to be honest. Such underlying works would only be licensed in the context of the uploaded photographs themselves -- it would not give a direct license of any underlying works, so you could not make a derivative work of the set design directly, for example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Both tickets are in German, so I would suggest getting a native German speaker's opinion (@Wdwd and Steinsplitter: ?), but taken together it ticket:2015040110015983 and ticket:2016020310014071 seem to me to be reasonable evidence that the theater has (at least) OK'd the license. Storkk (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked both OTRS tickets and at random some of the related images: Both tickets have the permission for a press accreditation from "Burgtheater Wien/Pressestelle". Looks alright. The tickets cover the following images:

Other images like File:Haensel und Gretel 2658-Michelides.jpg are not mentioned in these tickets. (side note: The info about the covered files is allready public available and does not disclosure any internal information)--Wdwd (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:NhaTrangStd.png

File was uploaded as "own work", but it can be seen online here and here and given the uploader's Vietnam Football League history it seems likely they simply found the photo online file somewhere online and mistakenly assumed they could upload it as their own. The soccerway and spox websites attribute the file to the Flickr account of vinhtantran and it looks like this is the actual source of the photo. I guess it is possible that the uploader and the Flickr account holder are the same person, but there is a Commons' account Vinhtantran which is still active, so not sure who is really the Flickr account holder. FWIW, the Flickr licensing seems compatible with Commons' requirements, but I'm not sure what needs to be done here. Should the file be tagged with {{No permission since}} or does the licensing just need to be edited to reflect that it likely comes from Flickr? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Marking it copyvio, as uploader states another license than on Flickr and did not attribute the author properly is OK. Fixing the source and license info basing on Flickr is also OK. Ankry (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Flickr image is the exact same and has a much higher resolution version, but the rest of this editor's images seem to be copied from the internet. They are low resolution images lacking metadata, so other than this one, they all look suspect and have been tagged. Ww2censor (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Swedish photo from 1963

I would appreciate some expertise on Swedish copyright law in this DR. The photo is the subject of a complaint (though not directly from the putative copyright holder). Storkk (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 3.0

I would like to upload content (photographs) from the following website: http://lewishamwarmemorials.wikidot.com/ (I am not connected with the site, I just found it while looking for photos). It says "licensed for reuse" under CC BY-SA 3.0. Does that mean the photos can be uploaded to Commons? Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually while this page links to a Creative Commons cc-by-sa-3.0 licence the text states that one cannot use material for commercial purposes which would mean cc-by-nc-3.0. It can't be both as these are essentially contradictory statements, so one might need to verify their actual copyright and get them to remove the non-commercial text from the page or change the CC link. On a quick look I can't link to any photos to see if they have the same licence, but that same page states that contributions must accept their conditions to licence as they state. But what exactly is that? If they confirm the cc-by-sa-3.0 licence then yes, you can upload them here. Ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll just go take a photo myself, it'll be easier. (Maybe someone else can email them?) Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, sometimes that is the easiest solution. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Building News and Engineering Journal (1916)

Would I be right in presuming that images from the Building News and Engineering Journal from 1916 are public domain by age (pre-1923)? The volume in question is here. As the image is of a memorial, I have also ascertained the dates of the architects and hence that their works are now public domain. I would like to extract a hi-res image from the archive options there - what is the best way to do that? The page in question I have uploaded here. Could someone check the link I gave there and see if it is possible to get any higher-resolution files? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If I recall, you need to download the "SINGLE PAGE PROCESSED JP2 ZIP" and find the page you want which will be the highest resolution available. Ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am now waiting for someone to point out that one of the architects died on 20 January 1946 so the work doesn't become public domain until 1 January 2017. But I am not sure who holds the copyright for the illustration in that image. Is it the anonymous person who drew the artwork? Is it the memorial designers? Is it the journal that published the image? Hopefully this (British) journal was also published in the USA, as that would make things a lot simpler... Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyrighted free use restricting reuse

Hello,

If a copyrighted work where permission is given to use, reuse, modify, etc. (even for commerical purposes) compatible with Commons if the reuse is :

limited only to digital media, or
limited to maximum X appearances from the same author work in a physical publication (Web, DVD, book…)?

I already have my own idea for this matter, but want it to be confirmed.

This is directly related to this license: About on freeworldmaps.net

Thank you in advance for your inputs

--Scoopfinder^(d) 11:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No, see Commons:Licensing. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scoopfinder: No. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#File:Galapagos.2Bmap.jpg, and the notes at the top of Category:Freeworldmaps.net images needing license review. Revent^talk 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible Flickr washing

Upon seeing File:Jake Rudock in 2015.jpg, which was extracted from File:Jim Harbaugh, Jake Rudock, and Wilton Speight in 2015.jpg (which had had an automated review by User:FlickreviewR), I found a bunch of other images to for use on WP (File:20160917 Wilton Speight.jpg, File:20160917 Wilton Speight2.jpg, File:20160917 Ty Isaac.jpg, File:20160917 Ty Isaac2.jpg, File:20160807 John O'Korn and Wilton Speight.jpg, File:20160807 John O'Korn and Wilton Speight.jpg and File:20160910 Mike McCray chasing Nick Patti.jpg). However, I am realizing that when I uploaded them, I should have researched why the metadata seems to suggest an author other than the flickr accountholder. I am wondering if this account is a Flickrwashing account that posts tons of images that should be under copyright protection.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, it looks like James Coller provides photos to both the Michigan Daily and the Maize & Blue Nation (see here though they have no site search to find more easily). Certainly the Maize and Blue Nation's Flickr photostream are authorised by the team. James Coller's own Flickr photostream all appear to be ARR or NC and watermarked, so I doubt his images from the Maize and Blue Nation are copyvios. Ww2censor (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. If he reserves all rights and watermarks them on his own, why does another author have the right to release them CC?--TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger On his own photostream he reserves rights but does not do so for the images he provides to Maize and Blue Nation for their use and their photostream, so those are not marked with any restrictive rights. Ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much the identification of the author that is troubling, but it's the contradiction in the license terms. When the metadata specifies that the image is "All rights reserved", it should be considered all rights reserved. Either the flickr account manager doesn't know what he's doing or he doesn't have permission to release the work as free. N.B.: Waiting for the bot review before cropping a file would make the bot review useful and save trouble for license reviewers. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Attention User:Arbor to SJ and User:Bagumba who posted and cropped the original file mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Uhm. It seems fairly obvious from the evidence that James Coller is the photographer, but in this case is working for hire for the Maize and Blue Nation (which is also indicated by the EXIF data), which in turn is releasing the image(s) as CC-BY-SA. The inconsistent data is unfortunate, but you'll note the licensing information is inconsistent even within the EXIF data: the "Credit/Provider", "Copyright status", and "Usage terms" fields appear to be default camera (or Adobe Lightroom; but I would set these fields in the camera) settings, whereas "Image title" and "Copyright holder" was changed for the specific image (in Lightroom, I'm pretty sure). I'd say looking for copyvio here is searching a problem that doesn't exist. Am I missing something? --Xover (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Licensing is beyond my expertise. This is a somewhat confusing situation. I am just making sure these pictures are good for commons.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Using a friend's camera

I just saw that files by a user is nominated for deletion because the metadata shows that the photos are taken by others. However, the uploader argues that he owns the copy right and he has just used the cameras of friends for those photos. How can the issue be resolved. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it can. There is only so much we can do to verify the copyright status of a file. Either we trust the statement by the uploader that they took the photos themselves (and are thus the copyright holder) or we don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

On the file I looked at, the metadata show not only the identity of the owner but also his email address. A solution would be to write directly to him and ask what he thinks of this and if he ever heard of the uploader. If he confirms the story of the uploader, ask if would send a confirmation to OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Xintiandi 3D Printing Pop-Up Studio.JPG

I am wondering if the description/licensing of this file and File:ARUP MAMOU-MANI The Fitting Room.jpg need to be tweaked per COM:FOP#China, People's Republic of since they seem to be photos of a 3D-sculptures installed in a public place. I'm pretty sure that the photos can be be licensed as {{Self}}, but not sure whether proper attribution is required for the creator(s) of the sculptures depicted in the photo, especially since they are the focus of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the {{FoP-China}} does not apply here as it does not seem to be an "outdoor public place". Ankry (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Official Map of India with-Indus.jpg

I added the missing source which seems to be a governmental division. Could someone please check the licencing or tag it for deletion if there is no fitting license. Thanks, --Achim (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Album covers

I came across some album covers of albums by Indie artists uploaded by the designer to Flickr - [2]. Are these OK to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? They have the correct Creative Commons license, but I'm just wondering if there might be complications. Hzh (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, are we sure that they are the designer and also the sole designer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The person seems to have worked for some time as a graphic designer, here and here. Given that the album covers are of small indie artists (some releasing their music themselves) who cannot spend much on album artwork, I think it is reasonable to assume that whoever did their artwork is likely to be from someone doing it as a small scale operation, i.e. the work is likely to entirely by him and only him. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

I have several of my own images taken at Hearst Castle that I would like to upload, however the official website (http://hearstcastle.org/contact-hearst-castle/photo-film-guidelines/) states that "photographs taken on site may not be used for commercial purposes" and "advance written permission is required to publish or broadcast any Hearst Castle image in any medium or format". I'm pretty sure that it is acceptable to license these images under CC-BY license (given the amount of photographs in Category:Hearst Castle), however would like to check just to make sure. MB298 (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I fear that Category:Hearst Castle may in fact be the greater problem here. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States and Hearst Castle was designed between 1919 and 1947, whatever that means in terms of readily-built architecture and thus publication. So I suspect that the architecture and ornaments are still copyrighted, and with the restrictive in-house photography rules, even images of out-of copyright artwork exhibited at the place may not be used commercially without approval. De728631 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Buildings from before 1990 are not copyrighted in the US at all (according to {{PD-US-architecture}} and COM:HIRTLE, anyway) and ornaments from 1919-1947 would need a copyright notice to be copyrighted. My sense is that the abovementioned rules fall under the auspice of non-copyright restrictions otherwise, or to basic courtesy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is good news at least in terms of architectural FoP. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There is freedom of panorama for architecture in the US -- just not sculpture. The house rules on photography do not affect the copyright -- just a matter of how much you feel bound by them, etc. -- any risk is yours. If you want to upload such pictures, we would keep them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar handbill, 1967 ?

Can someone review this concert flier to see if it's PD? 1967 Thanks. --Light show (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be presumed public domain. The photographs and the poster design seem likely to be still be copyrighted. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It could be PD-US-no_notice. However, it may also depend on where those photographs are from -- if they were from India to begin with, that would be the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a flier in any case be a derivative work, per U.S. law? And even if the photos were used somewhere else, wouldn't their use in a flier with original text, layout, design, and illustrations, also be a "compilation" based on the same law, and would require its own copyright? --Light show (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons policy is that works need to be PD in both the country of origin and the US. If the country of origin is not the US, then the no-notice stuff doesn't help with that side of things -- just the U.S. side (and then you also have the URAA which might have restored the US copyright). As for US law, a compilation is not the same thing as a derivative work. Yes, that would probably be a compilation, where one copyright notice could have covered the whole thing, but in most cases there did need to be a copyright notice somewhere. But if those are photos first published in India, the US copyright got restored by the URAA and the lack of notice is today meaningless. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Even for a 1967 flier? The URAA took effect in 1994. And per the en:URAA aticle, "the United States denied this retroactivity of the Berne Convention and applied the rules of the treaty only to works first published after March 1, 1989." --Light show (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Even for a 1923 flier. And read the article more carefully... the failure to retroactively restore works (per Berne requirements) was not well received and led to the URAA, which did. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm still a bit unclear on this. You wrote that it would probably be a compilation, and a compilation needed its own notice, which this flier didn't have. But for compilations, any copyright would not extend to "preexisting works," such as any photos. Which also means that even if the flier publisher had printed a notice and had registered the flier, their copyright would only cover the original matter, like the text and overall design. It implies that it would not have affected any possible copyright of the photos. --Light show (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adding it? --Light show (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If something is a derivative work, the copyright notice would only cover the additional expression added to the original. So, in those cases, a missing copyright notice would not affect the copyright of the underlying work -- it would remain copyrighted. For a compilation, a missing notice could, although a single copyright notice would cover all works involved (at least to avoid losing copyright), and of course the individual works needed to be used with permission in the first place -- if a use happened without the copyright owner's permission, the lack of notice would be meaningless as it was a copyright violation itself. You did not need a separate notice for every individual work in a compilation (even if it was the wrong name). If the photos were not of U.S. origin though, the URAA trumps all of that. The URAA restored copyright to such works as if they had been properly noticed and renewed, if they were under copyright in the country of origin in 1996 (which, if India, these photos would have been). So where were the photos first published? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This was from a 1967 flier, which from the name, titles, and addresses on the back, was apparently their management agency. Performers like this always had a booking agency to set up their tours. The photos were presumably owned by the agency and used to promote their client by using them on their fliers. The purpose is the same for publicity stills for actors and other musicians. A copyright would defeat the purpose of the flier. --Light show (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That company was also their U.S. record publisher, as can be seen here and here. Their records would naturally be copyrighted, since they were sold, but the fliers were intended to be free and widely distributed to promote their musician, so a copyright would not be wanted. --Light show (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Frans Hals - portrait of a man in a tassle collar.jpg

Hi I uploaded this file in good faith because I trusted the source, even though I could find no other sources for it. Now according to a news item this has been declared a forgery. Can it be preserved now on Commons or must it be deleted as original modern art? If it needs to be deleted, then I will try to upload to the English Wikipedia with its own article as it's the subject of a pretty big international art scandal now. As far as I know the forgerer is still unknown. Jane023 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, here's the link: File:Frans Hals - portrait of a man in a tassle collar.jpg. I already delinked it from 4 wikipedia lists. Jane023 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's a modern forgery, then it is in copyright and hosting it on commons would be a copyvio, unless the (unknown) forger has released the work under a free license. Fair use on enwiki would seem to be the only viable option. --Xover (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well whoever it is will probably be keeping their mouth shut if the painting indeed sold for millions of dollars. Here is the news item that crossed my google feed today: this and a few other paintings are discussed. Jane023 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is marginally possible that a rationale silimar to {{Non-free graffiti}} would gain community consensus. Storkk (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ooh nice one! Is that an actual OK template to use? I never saw that before. You mean something like this {{Non-free forgery}}? I can see uses for it, such as the more famous Vermeer forgeries etc. Even the descendants of famous forgers such as Han van Meegeren would probably not mind, as their forebears are seen as having been "too good to be caught".Jane023 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly used, but is has been rather contentious. I'm also not sure the work of art itself is illegal (which seems likely necessary), instead of just its sale or passing off as authentic, so I'm not 100% sure the same arguments could be made. Storkk (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the painting completely made up, or is it a slavish copy of an actual original? If the latter, there may be no additional expression added over the (out-of-copyright) original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it certainly is original. It is a sort of pastiche of about 4 paintings from his later period, but looks the most like a dull clergyman in the collection of the Rijksmuseum (which of course was a safe bet to copy, as that one has an impeccable provenance). Jane023 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has been continued at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#File:Frans Hals - portrait of a man in a tassle collar.jpg where at least one more from the same forgery case has been posted: File:Venus by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1531. Oil on panel.jpg. I believe we should have a forgery template of some kind for these, as of course we will never know the creation dates and authors for sure unless these are revealed by police investigation. There are lots of notable 20th-century forgery cases where it would be nice to have the illustrations, such as this one: en:File:VanMeegeren The Disciples at Emmaus.jpg. Please add your comments there. Jane023 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons "downgrade"

Apparently, Flickr user gnuckx has now released a whole lot of his work under a CC-0 licence after previously releasing them under CC-by-2.0. Please see the images in Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream (CC-0) and Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream. While CC licenses cannot be revoked, the copyright holder may of course release his work under a less restrictive licence at any time or waive any and all rights. So I'm wondering what to do with the 2.0 content at Commons. Specifically, the "free" images don't seem to have the full resolution as the original 2.0 versions released by gnuckx. De728631 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

If I am correct, the FlickreviewR 2 bot will change the license of the Commons file which has {{Flickrreview}} on it to the license the source Flickr file is licensed to. For example, User:Humanoid uploads a file from Flickr as File:Humans are great (99999999999).jpg, and the license on Commons is CC-BY-SA-2.0 while the one in Flickr is CC-BY-2.0. Since {{Flickrreview}} is added on files from Flickr, FlickreviewR 2 "sees" that the two files, one on Commons, and one on Flickr, are the same, but the licenses are different. The bot then changes the license of the one on Commons to CC-BY-2.0, to match with the one in Flickr. If this is true, then we can have a bot who will change the "reviewed" tag back to {{Flickrreview}} for FlickreviewR to change the CC-BY-2.0 license to CC0. If not, then we have to do change the CC-BY-2.0 license to CC0 one-by-one manually. If you don't understand what I mean above, just ask me. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It worked. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, but what about the improved resolution of the source images in Flickr? Will the bot take care of that, too? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: At this stage, the bot changes the licence in the first batch of uploads where the full resolution was used. The only problem is the source pages at Flickr, because gnuckx did not simply change the licences in all his original Flickr uploads but uploaded most of his stuff again with a CC-0 licence, lower resolution, and new Flickr IDs. So the current bot job would have to replace the source links too and probably also rename the files with Flickr IDs in the name. E.g. see File:Grand Canal - Rialto - Venice Italy Venezia - Creative Commons by gnuckx (4969449751).jpg vs File:License Free Photo - Creative Commons by gnuckx (11645343194).jpg. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In this example, "File:License Free Photo - Creative Commons by gnuckx (11645343194).jpg" looks like a smaller duplicate with an unspecific name and a confusing statement of "CC attribution United States" in the comments on its flickr page. Why not delete that duplicate from Commons and have the bot review the CC-0 of "File:Grand Canal - Rialto - Venice Italy Venezia - Creative Commons by gnuckx (4969449751).jpg", which is larger, has a better name and is offered with CC-0 at its source? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be easiest way but the bot would first have to find the matching pairs of files to review and update. As I mentioned above, there are currently two different licenses for each of these files at Flickr, so the source weblink for the newly-licensed file with the CC-0 needs to be determined by the bot. I believe this should be very tricky without any commonalities of the two respective files other than the subject of the photo and the EXIF metadata. The metadata in this case is not a unique machine-readable representation of the image and the description and Flickr IDs are totally different in the two respective versions. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Yes, the bot can handle that (for example, one on Commons is 200x500 px while on Flickr is 1700x1500 px, bot will overwrite the one on Commons with the 1700x1500 px version), since I saw the bot doing that when I was a license reviewer, but there are some cases where the bot doesn't recognize that the smaller version on Commons and the larger version on Flickr doesn't match even though they really do (in our senses). The bot uses an algorithm to "see" if two files match or not. Maybe the downsampling changed some part of the image code on Commons, that's why the bot thought that the downsampled image on Commons doesn't match with the original in Flickr. I recommend you to ask Zhuyifei1999 which is the operator of this bot for more questions, since I have no idea how he wrote the code for the bot. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The bot simply check if the commons one matches any of the the flickr downsized versions, using filesize and hash. And technically I'm not the author of the bot. User:Bryan is :P --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

But since both files in your example are tagged CC0 on flickr, the review bot needs only the flickr page of the large file to review its updated status. Same as in the example by Pokéfan95. In such cases, there is no need for the review bot to use the small duplicate or to match the two files. However, are there large files still tagged CC-by on flickr? If so, their status should probably not be changed by a bot on Commons if it hasn't been changed by the author on flickr. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's great. This change to CC0 for the older uploads at Flickr is brand new. Yesterday they were still CC-by-2.0, so gnuckx must have been changing his licenses there too. This makes it obviously easier for the bot since we now need just another review run and a change of the Commons licence tag. If and when the high-res licenses have been replaced completely, we can delete the duplicates. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Files at Category:Barangays Quirino 2-A, Quirino 2-B, Quirino 2-C & Quirino 3-B Claro, Project 3, Anonas, District III, Quezon City

The files here are licensed as CC-BY-SA-4.0, but in a part of their description, it says that "(Note: Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor Florentino Floro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever)" (emphasis is mine). Should we replace the {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license on all these files with {{PD-self}}? Pinging Judgefloro as they are the copyright holder and uploader of these files. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No. The author-uploader should be asked to clarify the apparent confusion himself. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes which I saw due to the red alert I saw in my pages; actually, and recently, I add my own created Words of Donation of all my photos without any condition, in Laymen's terms hoping that anyone who uses my photos will use them without any condition, like mentioning me; I deeply note the many flavors of Licenses to protect the owner or Uploader here in Commons; so, may I humbly clarify that what I mean, is that I Donate all my photos here in Commons to Commons without any condition whatsoever for public use and domain; I am just stressing or underlining my philosophy of absolute Donation of all my photos without any condition, sincerely --Judgefloro 08:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC) (talk)

If that's the case, I am going to replace the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license of all the files in the category with {{PD-self}} per I Donate all my photos here in Commons to Commons without any condition whatsoever for public use and domain; I am just stressing or underlining my philosophy of absolute Donation of all my photos without any condition. (emphasis is mine). ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

All files in the category now {{PD-self}}. But since Judgefloro said above, I add my own created Words of Donation of all my photos (emphasis is mine), it means replacing the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license of all of Judgefloro's files with {{PD-self}}. Oh no. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Files by User:Connor7617

I've just discovered a disturbing pattern of uploads by Connor7617 (talk · contribs) (a suspected sockpuppet banned for massive copyvios on enwiki). They uploaded a large number of images claiming them to be PD-US-no notice; however, they were scans from unknown source with no actual provable lack of copyright. See File:1932 - Lehigh Valley Transit Streetcar 812 Third and Hamilton Streets.jpg for an example. Unfortunately, it's not a simple case of of nuking all their uploads; many are justifiably PD scans from the 19th and early 20th centuries. I don't really have the time or energy to sort through thousands of uploads to check PD status, most of them outside my expertise area. Can anyone suggest a way to make this task manageable (sorting them by date, perhaps) or take on some of the checking? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For the example image, this appears to be another copy; it's a postcard with no notice visible. The note on the image is slightly incorrect -- on many types of work, the year was not required in the copyright notice, and this may be one of those types of work. If these are U.S. works before 1964, there's a much better chance of PD status. I wouldn't blame anyone for mass deletion based on the lack of work involved in proving them out, but in browsing some of the upload thumbnails, virtually all of them seem to be postcards, which are very often easy to verify on the net -- typically other people have versions of the postcards where the lack of notice can be verified (and there is no doubt about publication either). It's just a lot of time. Might be good to categorize stuff -- U.S. works before 1923 (those should be easy to dispense with), U.S. works before 1978 or 1989 (and before 1964 is even safer because of the lack of renewal possibility too), and non U.S. works (if any). Those last ones could be more problematic. I'm guessing the vast majority are probably valid uploads -- they look reasonable at first glance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's also the issue that many of the images may not have even been published anywhere near the date they were taken. A number appear to be scanned from books or slides; the latter could be any date, and the slides well be unpublished. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Photos taken by someone else

Following the death of my father earlier this year, I am minded to donate some of his photos to Commons under an attribution licence. What do I need to do to achieve this. Obviously the photos are in copyright until 2087, when they become PD. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: If you are the only heir then you will have inherited the copyright so you treat them as if they were your own images and can either licence them under a CC licence or place them into the public domain and tag any uploads to commons with {{PD-heirs}}. If you are not the only heir (and the copyrights weren't specifically inherited by you) then it would be a Consent case with email permission from all the heirs via OTRS required. Nthep (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that we usually assume that a heir has the rights to license a file unless evidence of the contrary exists (there is a deletion request somewhere in which this was discussed). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's also what I remember - that we assume that a heir has the consent of other heirs, if there are any. The template to use would be {{PD-heirs}} of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The questioner's comment seems to imply that the copyright owner would likely want to keep the works under copyright. Then, the copyright to use is not PD-heirs. The template to use is the template for the free license offered by the copyright owner. ("Category:License tags for transferred copyright" has a few suggestions, but any free license accepted by Commons may be used. Or if they want to release the works to the public domain, I think CC0 is recommended.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, of course. Something like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} then. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks all, especially Gestumblindi. That seems to be the licence to use. My main concern was attribution. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaunt logo rgb white (1).jpg

File was uploaded as "own work", but it seems to be fair use based upon this website. File does seem simple enough for conversion to {{PD-text logo}}, however. Another file File:Raven-black.png is not so clear. It's also uploaded as "own work", but it's not being used in any articles so I'm not sure if it's not. I couldn't find the file being used online, but it does seem to be above the TOO for the US, which would probably make is so for most other countries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The raven logo is used by a company of that name. I think it's clearly above the TOO. As for the Jaunt logo: PD text logo might be OK. --rimshot^talk 08:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I tagged the Raven logo as copyvio since it is above the TOO. Anyone may convert it to a DR if they don't think so. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bette Davis 1941 candid

Can someone please check this photo for upload? It shows the reverse w/o notice. It's a borderless print and has not been trimmed, as can be seen by the corners. It's described as an original vintage photo. The seller is a major dealer of Hollywood photos with 100% rating by buyers. But if necessary, I can check the copyright catalog. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Has a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see that. So I ran a renewal search for related names for 1968-1970 and came up with nothing. (example for 1969) --Light show (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, renewal searches are very quick. For half of 1969, for example, there were 6,369 new registrations for all art related items, including photos, both published and unpublished. But there were only 122 renewals in that period, or less than 2%, which means that about 2 photos got renewed. --Light show (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

de Havilland candid from 1949

Can someone please review this photo of de Havilland and Wyler from 1949? I checked all surrounding renewal dates and found nothing. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

File:The Terrace Theatre in Robbinsdale, Minnesota.jpg

File is uploaded under a CC 4.0 license. It can be seen online at robbinsdalehistoricalsociety.org/americas-finest-theatre/. There is, however, no information provided about the photo itself other than the year it was taken, so it's not clear where the Robinsdale Historical Society got the photo. I am assuming the original copyright is held by the photographer and perhaps the RHS got permission to use on their website, but it's not clear (at least to me) that they have permission to freely license it for use by anyone anywhere in the world without restriction.

Same also applies to File:The Terrace Theatre in Robbinsdale, Minnesota in 1998.jpg which appears to be the same photo uploaded with a different name for a different year. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Niklas Akerblad photo.JPG

Hello, this user has uploaded this photo that was sent to them by the author, but they no longer have evidence of permission. I tagged it so, and the user asks me how to provide verification (I assume other than OTRS), or if it would be possible to move it to en.wikipedia. I am not sure how to answer the question, is there someone better versed in the rules and regulations who could help them with this problem? Their talk page is User talk:Lordtobi. Thank you so much. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've given my 2c on User talk:Lordtobi. Essentially, OTRS is required. Storkk (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Madagascar postage stamps

A 1988 stamp on the centenary of the Jesuit mission in Madagascar there would go well with our Wiki article. https://manresa-sj.org/stamps/2_Madagascar.htm Can you tell if this is copyrighted?@Jzsj: Jzsj (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

How old are photos? Who are the photographers? Ruslik (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

On that note, the copyright term in Madagascar is 70 years pma [3] and there doesn't seem to be an exemption for government works like postage stamps etc. I did some research on the lowermost stamp: it was obviously designed by the Cartor company of France, so under French copyright law, the propietary rights may even have been transferred to the company. I think this one at least is not suited for Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Jesuit Mission stamps" are not actually postage stamps but cinderella stamps or labels that will fall under regular copyright. In some countries official postage stamps are in the public domain or have a shorter copyright term. There seems to be a name printed in the bottom of the labels and that seems to be CARTOR, who are a security printer. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

BLM Nevada

~~I think this user should be blacklisted as they publish not own images under a free license. See eg. this photostream (esp. this image uploaded here vs. [4]). Any comments?~~ Ankry (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems they just make a mistake; forget it. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Using public domain images that might not be possible to use

Hello, I need help with a copyright question regarding an image that is to be used on a state owned webpage in Sweden, image is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anaglyph_-_formerly_attributed_to_Piero_della_Francesca.png I am not sure it is possible to use this in a webpublication without the consent of the creator? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.238.76.91 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The file you link to is Cicero Moraes's "anaglyph" 3D rendering of File:Formerly_Piero_della_Francesca_-_Ideal_City_-_Galleria_Nazionale_delle_Marche_Urbino_2.jpg. The original painting is in the public domain. The 3D rendering is under the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license. You may use it, provided you abide by those license terms. You can read them in full at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode , but essentially you must: a) credit Cicero Moraes; b) clearly state the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license; and c) release any modifications you make to the file under the same license. Storkk (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright in General Government (occupied Poland)

Do we know which legislation applies to the pictures taken in the occupied Poland? Polish or German? Best regards --Discasto _talk 16:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Discasto: Without getting into a detailed legal argument (read the various references at http://lawofwar.org/occupation.htm if interested), the occupation of Poland by Germany was not purely 'military' in character, but a matter of exercising effective 'governance' over the areas. Acts of an 'illegal government' that are for purposes of civil administration, that would be 'legal' if passed by a legal government, are effective law. Essentially, German law would apply in those portions of Poland which had been 'annexed' to Germany at the time of the creation of the work, and the laws of the 'occupation government' would be apply in the areas that were under it's control. Perusing en:Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany and en:General Government might be helpful.

This is of course 'my opinion', based on my understanding of international law, but it seems well supported... I'm unaware if the issue has ever been extensively discussed on Commons. Revent^talk 17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Industry 4.0 Emerging & Disruptive Trends.png

File is uploaded as "own work" and it might be, but its description also seems to imply that it might have been taken from the book Body of Knowledge from Process Modeling to BPM - The Complete Business Process Handbook Volume 1. The uploader is listed as one of the books authors, but I'm not sure if permission is also needed from the other authors for the file to be freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

OTRS permission is required. Neither LinkedIn image nor the book seems to freely licensed. And we have no evidence that User:ProfHvS is Henrik von Scheel, the book author or the LinkedIn account owner. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

While there is a clear OTRS permission, I see no problem. Ankry (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi there,

I want a second opinion on this user's uploads. Can we consider the uploads as derivatives works that should be deleted as copyvios? Wikicology (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think, {{No permission}} and requesting explanation of the copyright status of theese works via OTRS is a better way. Unless you know that some of the photos were published as non-free or are clearly neither PD nor made by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party.jpg

Is this file acceptable for Commons? It seems unlikely to be "own work", but I am wondering if its acceptable for some other reason. I am asking about this because en:File:Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party.jpg with the same name exists as non-free on English Wikipedia. If the Commons version is OK, then there's really no need for a non-free on English Wikipedia and that version can probably be tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:F8 or for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly cannot be considered "unpublished own work of the uploader". Marked as copyvio. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Ankry. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Photos from Norsk Maritimt Museum

As I stumbled across File:DS Nordstjernen (1937) fargebilde.jpg, I wondered - the description page says this image is released under a CC0 license; however, following the link to the source Europeana: Norsk Maritimt Museum it says "Rights Reserved - Free Access", and following that link, "This digital object is protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by the organization giving access to it." Further following the link from Europeana to the entry at the museum's web site, this site gives "Copyright" under license, no indication of CC0 anywhere. I then noticed that Commons has quite a lot of photos from the Norsk Maritimt Museum, most uploaded by 4ing, where I can't find a CC0 license at the source, e.g. File:Borgestad (NSM.2105-078).jpg. Am I missing something here? However, it might be possible to change the licensing template in these cases to {{PD-Norway50}} such as in File:Belnor (NSM.2101-993).jpg? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think CC0 is bogus -- doubt that any of the entities involved would own the copyright. It may well be {{PD-Norway50}} though -- I think that fits. Looks to be a 1950s postcard with no authorship listed (at least I see other "Bergen Line" postcards with no author credit in circulation), either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The files were marked with CC0 when they were uploaded, but the license were later changed. I think the CC0 marking was done by mistake, and then corrected. I have made a list of the uploads and split them in files that for certain should be (or have been) marked with PD-Norway50, and files with unknown copyright status or not eligible for PDNorway50. - 4ing (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that PD-Norway probably is OK for photos before 1970 -- it was 25 years then, which would have expired before it was increased to 50 in 1995. The Alaska one might be {{PD-Canada}}. I'm not sure what your criteria was for the "not eligible" list. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the files in that list might have to be discussed individually. PD-Norway50 is not eligible if the photo was taken outside Norwegian jurisdiction. - 4ing (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@4ing: Thanks for the list; if I get this right: under "Free access - no reuse" you listed the where it's either known that they were not taken in Norway (and PD-Norway50 therefore isn't applicable) or where the location is unknown? At least they're not that many. Probably we should start deletion requests for these? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

...or the death year of the photographer is not known. I would appreciate if you would run then through regular deletion - hopefully some of them can be kept. - 4ing (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@4ing: Thanks. I noticed that two of the files under "PD-Norway" in your list still have a CC0 tag: File:Borgestad (NSM.2105-078).jpg and File:Bosphorus (NSM.2100-158).jpg. Is there a reason for that or can we assume PD-Norway50 for these, too? And then, on how to proceed: I suggest that I would create a single deletion request page listing the files from your "Free access - no reuse" which then, however, could still be discussed individually there, instead of opening dozens of individual pages. Do you agree? Other opinions? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the license for the Bosphorus image to PD-Norway, the other one is more uncertain and should probably be added to the deletion request. A lot of the images have been credited Per-Erik Johnsen, but he can't be the photographer of all these images ([http://digitaltmuseum.no/011014238029 this is a WWI photograph). I agree to your proposal of a single DR, where we can involve more people in the discussion. - 4ing (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@4ing: I've now started the DR. As for the Nordstjernen postcard prompting this thread, I'm still a bit unsure: PD-Norway50 is for images not considered to be "works of art" - what is Norway's threshold for a "work of art"? This postcard, for example, is of course more than a snapshot, it is a well-composed shot, probably by a professional photographer. "Work of art" or not? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: It's a grey area, but it would normally require more than just high technical quality to be regarded "work of art". It's my understanding that typical postcard photographs would generally not be regarded work of art. - 4ing (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Logo LEAG

Hallo,

ich kenne mich mit Commons im allgemeinen nicht so gut aus, und da wollte ich ersteinmal hier fragen, bevor ich ein Bild hochlade. Und zwar geht es um ein Logo einer (erst kürzlich) neu gegründeten Firma. Das Logo ist dabei unter dieser Adresse zu finden, die Webseite des Unternehmens ist [www.leag.de hier]. Könnte mir ein erfahrener User sagen, ob dieses Logo unter "Simple Design" läuft, oder doch ein copyright recht hat? Vielen Dank =) /Pearli123 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

i'm really new to wikimedia commons and i want to ask you guys before i start my first upload. I want to upload a logo of a new company called [www.leag.de LEAG]. The logo can be found here. Now, before i upload it and create work for admins to delete it because of copyright violation, i want to ask experienced users on commons. Is this image to be used under simple-design aspect? Or will there a copyright violation? Thank you in advance, have a nie day /Pearli123 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that we are all volunteers and laymen here, we can't comment with certainty on the legal aspects, but given the high threshold of originality in Germany, that logotype is unlikely to be deleted as a copyright violation if uploaded and tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}. It's in SVG format, which is great. The company seems likely to meet the sort of relevance criteria applied by most Wikipedia projects, which means the logotype would be within our project scope, so that's good too. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@LX: The "high threshold of originality in Germany" seems to be somewhat outdated, see the note there and this English summary. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kfc taco bell.jpg

The photo itself can be freely licensed by the photographer who took it, but I'm not so sure about the store signs it shows. Wouldn't the KFC and Taco Bell logos be considered fair use and thus making the entire photo a copyvio? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps each sign is small enough to be considered De minimus. Otherwise, they could be blurred out. --ghouston (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if de minimus can be claimed here since the whole point of the photo as it's being used in en:Taco Bell#Concepts and en:KFC#United States is to show the a co-branded KFC/Taco Bell restaurant. I am wondering if this photo would be allowed under COM:FOP#United States. A building may be photographed, but does that also extend to any signs or logos affixed to or located on the same property if they are directly associated with the building itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither de minimis nor FoP-US applies to the table in the front of the building. Ankry (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry and Ghouston: Would that make this a copyvio then unless the two logos in front of the building are either cropped or blurred out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think so. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It could well be the "incidental" part of our de minimis policy. It's depicting a Taco Bell restaurant as a whole, with whatever they use as a logo as part of it -- it was not taken because of the expression in the logo itself. That is basically "incidental". Just like, per Ets-Hokins, taking a photo of a bottle is not derivative of the logo in that bottle (even if prominent in the photo). I think this is basically equivalent -- there was going to be some logo there; it is incidental to the photo of the entire restaurant. If a photo is focusing on the sign itself, that is when it gets to be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Clindberg. So, it might actually qualify as FOP in the US if we consider any signs/logos attached to the building itself or on the building's property to be a "part of the building" as long as the photo shows the "entire building" in a panorama perspective and is not specifically a close up focusing on the sign(s)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not FOP exactly (well the building part is, since it's a photo of the building), but rather the photo is not a derivative work of the sign, that's all. It's not strictly the legal definition of de minimis, but it is incidental, which is a different sort of way to avoid derivative work status which we sort of subsume into our "de minimis" policy. Similar to the way a photo of the entire Louvre plaza is not a derivative work of the pyramid, even though it may be prominent and in the center -- it is going to be there when taking a photo of the larger subject. A photo (or crop) focusing on the sign could become a problem. Really, a logo designer should not gain derivative rights over every photo where the logo happens to appear -- it would just be photos focusing on the logo in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional clarification Clindberg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations and copyright

I'm not too familiar with the way illustrations are copyrighted. Would File:Honey Grevillea illustration (uncropped).jpg be a copyvio? I took the photo and uploaded it two days ago. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless the drawing and the text is your own work (or PD for some reason, eg. as a US governement work), it is a copyvio. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Derivative works. When your work (expression) copies expression from someone else's copyrighted work in a significant way, it is a derivative work, which gives the author of the underlying work control over distribution of yours (at least while the copyright in the underlying work still exists). That is part of copyright law, pretty universally. In your photo, you are copying a significant version of a textual work (the description) and a graphical work (the drawing of the plant). The photo may be making fair use of those works depending on the situation your photo is being used, but in general Commons cannot host works under a fair use rationale, and there would probably be potential uses of the photo which would be copyright infringement, so we couldn't consider the photograph "free" unless we had a license from the photographer (which we do) *and* the authors of the other two works (which we presumably don't). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Czech museum with differing CC clearances on various images

Just a very quick check. I've come across a Czech museum website with a number of very nice images on their database. A lot of them have individualised copyright notices attached to the images. For example, here is an excellent image of 1910s tango shoes with an explicit "PUBLIC DOMAIN" tag added, and looking at other files, there are other outstanding shots of historic objects with the same tag added. Other images have more explicit/detailed CC notices appended (see [5], [6] for two examples), and some have none at all. It seems obvious that images explicitly marked as "PUBLIC DOMAIN" should be fine to be uploaded to Commons, but I just wondered if there is anything else on the page that might suggest otherwise? Not able to read Czech at all, I just wanted to double check first. Mabalu (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

-nc- (non commercial) licenses are not accepted in Commons. While cc-by and cc-by-sa are OK. English license text is linked. Remember to provide author info if available or at least a link to the source page. And preserve tha same license while uploading. If no license is shown, you need to receive a written permission from them (these seem to be 3D works, so PD-Art does not apply).Ankry (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They also have interesting collections of 2-D materials, which can use PD-Art. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Images there with a free license should be okay, unless you find that a pictured object is under copyright based on the information about its author. Be sure to get as much information as possible about the original objects as well as about the photographs. It would probably be useful also to tag the uploaded images for review by license reviewers. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have uploaded one image to see how it goes and whether any flags or concerns are raised. Thank you. Mabalu (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't add the license tag yourself. In that particular case (http://www.esbirky.cz/predmet/3911053 ), the museum got confused about the CC licenses, and went for the "public domain mark" license, instead of "Creative Commons Zero", which is a common mistake (Creative Commons should really have named their tags better, as "public domain mark" is meant to be used for when copyright owned by someone else has expired, rather than marking your own works, but when wanting to release their own works to the "public domain" the first tag seems the most obvious). That may technically be best as using {{PD-author}} as they did not explicitly use Creative Commons Zero. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Slightly confused still, sorry - I don't think I claimed to have added the license tag myself, but similarly not sure that's what you mean. I get completely baffled by all these different tags and definitions. So I should use {{PD-author}} to indicate that the copyright holder has released into PD? Mabalu (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Mexico

A question that came up here, whether a freely licensed photo of a non-free artwork in Mexico is covered by freedom of panorama. Template:FoP-Mexico/en cites several restrictions on commercial and derivative works that make me wonder. (Similar image for comparison) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mexico has a pretty liberal FoP clause. However, conforming to the Berne convention, a photo cannot affect the normal usage of the original work -- so if it is a photo of a 2D work, and the photo can basically be used as a substitute for the original in a publication, it's really more of a copy than a photo showing the work in its original context -- is that that narrower set of photos that the restriction is aimed at (and really is in effect for all FoP laws). I can't see the deleted image so I can't really comment. The "alteration" is referring to moral rights -- don't make changes that look like they exist on the original work, thus possibly harming the author of the original work if people think the alterations exist on the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Screen capture from security camera

What would be the copyright status of a screen capture from security camera? It is a screen capture of security camera at major rabbi in Israel. The recordings was given to journalist which captured a frame. I see that already discussed several times before (2011, 2012, 2013 and also 2016).-- Geagea (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a very tricky question. This has something to do with COM:TOO. In the U.S., footages from fixed angle and not moving security cameras are in the public domain because it lacks originality. But this doesn't apply to all countries (and it is not even a majority). A possible solution I think for here is to make a page for the copyright status of footages taken by security cameras for each country to avoid confusion. This of course needs a lot of research. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I can ask Wikimedia Israel to receive legal document (legal advice) from a lawyer for the purpose of making a page for the copyright status of footages taken by security cameras. For the legal situation in Israel of course.-- Geagea (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Olivier 1958 candid

Can someone review this photo of Olivier and Wyler? The photo is from 1958, although the one being sold isn't the original. However, I checked all renewals from 1978 through the present and found no photos of either of them renewed. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you also check this one from a 1961 film The Children's Hour. No photos were renewed. --Light show (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The second one looks good for PD-US-no_notice. Who is the copyright owner of the first one that you searched for? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The first one is a candid with the director for Carrie in 1952, which was a Paramount movie. --Light show (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Neil Young, 1977 promo

Can someone please review this photo from 1977. I contacted the seller who said there was nothing but some pin holes and tape marks on the back. This was a recording company promo photo w/o notice which should allow for a PD-Pre1978 template. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's just a registered trademark symbol near the logo. Hrm... would prefer to be able to actually upload the back, and it would be best to have some evidence of actual distribution before 1978 on that copy, but... seems likely it was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The seller sent me a scan of the back to confirm there was nothing printed. So I'd upload it at the same time. --Light show (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ace in the Hole" 1951

Can some review this photo still for that 1951 film? I checked for any photos renewed relevant to the film or Douglas and found nothing. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to search for more than photos -- anything where the photo could have appeared. Certainly you found the film itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

License sentence parsing

Hi,

On http://www.lorigreiner.com/photopermission-html what does "This image is released under Creative commons 4.0 for free commercial and non commercial use" mean exactly?

"This image is released under Creative commons 4.0 for free; commercial and non commercial uses"
"This image is released under Creative commons 4.0 for free-commercial and non-commercial uses" (What could be a free-commercial use? An advertising for example?)
something else?

Is it CC BY 4.0 or CC BY-NC 4.0?

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I would assume CC-BY 4.0, as commercial use is explicitly allowed, doesn't sound like NC to me. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like it's free for commercial use, so it wouldn't be NC. Could be -BY, or -BY-SA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"This image is released under Creative commons 4.0 for free use, commercial and non commercial." -- Asclepias (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all. I asked for its deletion by misinterpretation and was about to re-ask deletion. My bad. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Where is the license on various sites?

I've been uploading images from a few photo and video sharing sites (500px.com, Vimeo.com, YouTube.com) that have Creative Commons licensing, but put the license in odd places on the page, often requiring an additional click to find. Various License Reviewers (of which I am one, but naturally don't review my own uploads), have been having trouble finding these licenses on the page. So I made Commons:Where is the license on various sites?, or COM:WHERE LICENSE for short, to tell reviewers where to find such licenses. Anyone know of other media sharing sites with licenses in not obvious places that can be added? Any better idea for a name or a short link for the page? Any other places I should advertise this? Any other comments? --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. Just recently I was reviewing a file's licence and had to look at the source page again an again to find the original licence. So I think this compilation will come in handy. Should we also explain which licenses are incompatible with Commons (CC-by-NC, PD Mark 1, etc.)? After all, this page may also be frequented by uploaders. De728631 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd put that information on some other page, actually, and link it from the "Where" page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:License review needed comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Linked from there. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@GRuban: I think including the incompatible licenses may well be a problem, especially for inexperienced editors, unless you make it entirely clear which are acceptable and which are not. You did this well for 500px and only made a list of the good licenses but for Flickr it is confusing the way you have them listed now. I would be inclined to make a header of some sort in bold text stating which are acceptable and which are not, placing the acceptable at the top. Just my 2c worth. Ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Will try; what do you suggest we write about the complicated No known copyright restrictions and Public domain mark? --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should rearrange the page so we get one section for "Where is the licence" and another general section listing the types of licences that are either compatible with Commons or not. As to the Public Domain Mark, there is an explanation in {{Flickr-public domain mark}}: "Reasons why Public Domain Mark (PDM) is not acceptable". We should just copy that. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

William Wyler publicity portrait

I received a reply about this publicity still about what if anything is on the back. They said the back is blank. The sellers are professional photo dealers with a perfect rating from buyers. --Light show (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Even more than the Neil Young, there is no evidence on the copy itself that it was distributed before 1978 or 1989. You need some evidence of that, either on the copy or other copies. I do see it on Getty though, and they only have vague information on it (they think 1945) which I think is a pretty strong indicator it is PD (i.e. it was a publicity photograph they collected without knowing its provenance). NARA also used it without credit, though that version has an additional inscription at the lower right which it would be nice to know what it said. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the thing at the bottom right is just a photo ID number.[7] Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for searching. I'll have to start using more archive sites. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Destination board of Lucknow Mail.jpg

File is uploaded as "own work", but I am wondering if this is acceptable per COM:FOP#India because the photo includes two other photos whose copyright status is not clear and might be considered to be a 2d picture in this particular context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

They are "de minimis" in this context. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank's for taking a look Ruslik0. Just for reference, the file has been tagged with a "No permission since" by another editor @Ankry: . I am not sure if that's because of the two photos I mentioned above or because of another reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I publish images of paintings I own?

Hello,

I would like to integrate a new entry regarding painter Fritz Osswald (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Osswald) and create the same page in other languages. According to what I have read about copyright and licenses, I would not be allowed to publish paintings of artists dead after 1946, unless I get their heirs' authorisation. As a matter of fact, I am the owner of the paintings I'd like to publish. What am I supposed to do in this case? I would also like to publish a photograph of the artist, a picture taken from the German art magazine "Velhagen & Klasings Monatshefte" of year 1909. Am I allowed to use that picture?

Thanks in advance for your support.

Kind regards, Wikimaupedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimaupedia (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikimaupedia: The fact you are owner of the paintings does not automatically mean that you are owner of their copyright. The copyright belongs to the author (or his heirs) unless they were transferred in an agreement. You have to check in an agreement whether the author has transferred his copyright while selling the painting(s). If the copyright were not transfered, you may need heirs' written permission to publish images of the painting(s) under a free license (that is required for Wikimedia Commons publication). In most cases (et least in EU) the copyright disappear 70 years after the author's death. Ankry (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Swiss copyright law allows for a transfer or total waiver of copyright, so as Ankry said, you would have to check if the copyright was also sold to you with the painting. As to Velhagen & Klasings Monatshefte from Germany, is the photographer credited anywhere? If not, you can use the following licence: {{PD-art-two|PD-anon-70-EU|PD-1923}} If a photographer is named, you would have to find out when he died. The photograph would then be protected for 70 years after his death. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Diagrams by en:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Could some copyright-experienced user help cleanup these filedescriptions & authorship claims?

Thanks. --S I 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

photo of sculpture

Hello. Can I upload this image? Artist died over 170 years ago, but does the photographer own the copyright? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a 3D work, the photographer probably owns copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar, 1967

Can I get a review of this photo of Ravi Shankar, showing the back. Seventeen is or was a magazine. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The photograph was taken by Michael Ochs, who is not dead yet. Getty Images puts this as c.1970, however I find it on magazine covers as early as 1962. Ref http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/74294969 --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Even in 1960: [8] Ankry (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw that image, but was not certain the date was 1960 as the thumbnail is too small. --Fæ (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hrrrrrrm. Michael Ochs was a picture collector, not a photographer. He would have been 24 years old in 1967, the date on the eBay image. He would have been 17 in 1960, the date on the second link. Ochs was not the photographer here. If he collected a PD publicity photo and Getty is marketing it as "copyrighted" with his provenance, that may be a PD indicator. On the other hand, the eBay link does not show the back -- they just show the paper attachment. And once again, if the photo was originally from India (or Europe), it may have become PD in the U.S. very easily but its copyright may well have been restored in 1996. It sounds like he started touring internationally in 1956 so the photo could be from just about anywhere. So... probably need a bit more evidence on where this photo actually comes from. If it's the U.S., there is a chance, but not sure enough evidence has been provided. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Carl. It's too easy to be mislead by the grubby money grabbing antics of Getty Images, I'll try to avoid that presumption again. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Items in archive.org

Is it permissible to upload a cropped image of one of the pages at this location: specifically page n1379 or thereabouts (p835 Nov 30th 1922)

https://archive.org/details/motorcycle29lond_

The original I presume would be out of copyright (UK 1922) while the photo image appears to be offered within the public domain though I was unable to locate a definitive copyright statement on the site

https://ia600208.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/7/items/motorcycle29lond_/motorcycle29lond_jp2.zip&file=motorcycle29lond_jp2/motorcycle29lond_1379.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0
--Blacktav (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The photocopies of 2D works do not have a copyright separate from that of the works themselves. So, you can upload them. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Blacktav (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SorollaRoomAtHSA.jpg

Is this file counted as a derivative work of a PD picture and hence is free? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, since all paintings at the HSA were created from the 1400s to the 1920s, which definitely means public domain. If you want to use this image, you need to follow the license's terms in the file (in this case, CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

CSICon logo

Hi, is this the appropriate place for asking whether a logo is simple enough to be uploaded without permission? I recently uploaded several logos that apparently were too creative and thus protected, and I got an alarming 'last warning'. Since I don't want to be blocked from editing, I think I'll henceforth ask whether logos such as this one are ok before uploading them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly {{Pd-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, I hope you're right. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Marshall Hall Publicity 2.jpg

File uploaded as "own work" by Marshallkiphall. The uploader states here that he is en:Marshall Hall (singer). The singer's official website is marshallhallmusic.com and it appears to under currently "off line" so to speak. I was able to find an archived version here, but did find the photo. This photo as well as the others on the website do look like publicity photos perhaps taken by a professional photographer as a commissioned work. This file does have EXIF data, but even so I am wondering if OTRS verification is still needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything submitted by the subject requires an OTRS release from the photographer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look King of Hearts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Casino de Carballo.jpg

The copyright status of this file is not clear for me. Is it in PD by now? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

? That is a photograph taken a month ago. That will be under copyright for the life of the photographer plus 70 more years, though it has been licensed CC-BY-SA. If you are talking about the building, Spain has FoP, so it doesn't matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg: I meant to investigate the FoP issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Spain has freedom of panorama, so there should be no problem from that angle. --rimshot^talk 18:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Declarations of consent

I am wondering if something such as File talk:IMK.jpg#Copyright Statment would be considered acceptable as an "explicit release under a free license" would be considered accepatable for verification purposes. I posted a response which says that it isn't, but I just want to make 100% sure that I am not giving the editor incorrect information. I has tagged various logos uploaded as "own work" by the same uploader as missing permission, and the uploader posted similar messages on the other file talk pages's as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, release statements such as this need to be sent to OTRS. Our rationale for this procedure is that anyone can create a Commons account and claim to be author of some work that is otherwise non-free. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But do we have an authoritative website that lists an official email address? Otherwise anyone can create an email address and send a message to OTRS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The organisation has this domain which is registered in Iraq. AFAIK this means, however, that copyright could not have been transferred to the organisation but we need a statement from the original designer. I'm not sure though how this is currently being handled at OTRS. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, it has to be noted that for the vast majority of files uploaded to Commons, we simply assume that the uploader is indeed the author, if photos are uploaeded where "own work" looks plausible and they're not online anywhere else. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@De728631, King of Hearts, and Gestumblindi: for taking a look at things. This is interesting because there is an ongoing discussion about at en:User talk:Deryck Chan#Furcadia about a similar type of statement added to some files uploaded to English Wikipedia. I say similar just because of a "declaration of consent" simply being added to the file's page by the uploader. The Wikipedia files were uploaded in 2008, which was way before the files being discussed above were uploaded to Commons, but it is interesting because it seems that at one point (even with respect to Commons) such a statement might have been considered acceptable despite the fact that could claim something as their "own work" when in fact it might not have been. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, any work that has not been previously published we aren't that concerned about, unless the uploader has history of copyvios or clearly indicates that they are a different person from the photographer (and in the latter case, we accept an OTRS from any old email). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@De728631, King of Hearts, and Gestumblindi: The uploader has posted again at File talk:IMK.jpg#Copyright Statment. Most of what has been posted seems to be a combination of en:WP:OTHERIMAGE, en:WP:NEVERSUE and en:WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; there was, however, an additional "And I also sent a permissions email to Wikimedia Commons OTRS with my premission" added in a second edit, which might indicate it's OK to replace the {{No permission since}} tags with {{OTRS pending}}. It could just be an attempt to delay the inevitable, but I think assuming good faith here and letting OTRS figure it out might be in order. Any opinions to the contrary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable approach to me. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I have removed the "no permission" tag and added "OTRS pending" instead. When the OTRS email turns out to be insufficient we can still delete the image. De728631 (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you De728631. Just for reference, I did post about this on the file's talk page and was only waiting to add the tag because I thought it I need to know the date the email was sent to OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FOP-Italian cultural heritage

Per the agreement mentioned here, "...these regulations provide for the payment of a concession fee by those who intend to benefit economically from reproductions of property belonging to the Italian cultural heritage. Reproduction of this image is permitted for personal use or study." This is while we know that we are allowed to upload the files which are totally free, i.e. commercial use are also allowed. Then how can such files be uploaded? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the assurance from the lawyers is worth quoting. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Edward Loomis Davenport 2.jpg

This photo was taken before 1877 and the card looks like it was made for publication. So I suppose PD-1923 applies instead of the original uploader's GFDL/CC licence for a faithful scan. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right if the photo was published before 1923. If not then {{PD-US-unpublished}} will apply. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to think a photo from an actor who died in 1877 in an obviously archaic photograph format wasn't printed before 1923. The problem is, once you hit 1923, there's a whole bunch of other rules that come into play, and PD-US-unpublished doesn't come into play until 2002... and I have more doubts that that's actually Edward Loomis Davenport than that that card wasn't published long before 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the scanning lacks originality to create another copyright, so {{PD-US-unpublished}} if not published or {{PD-1923}} if published before 1923 should be used. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Library of Congress New Delhi

There are about 30 images from the South Asian Literary Recordings Project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=SALRP&title=Special:Search&go=Seite
They are licensed as PD-USGov which I think is not correct if I understand [9] correctly: "All the literary works recorded as part of this Project are protected by United States copyright law (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) and/or by the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. [...] The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. It is your obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when downloading or otherwise distributing the recordings from the South Asian Literary Recordings Project web site." Can we keep those files or do they have to be deleted? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The copyright statement is explicitly referring to the literary works -- the project was to record Indian authors reading selections of their own works. So the recordings cannot be uploaded, obviously. But... if the photos were taken by Library of Congress employees during those sessions, the PD-USGov tag would be correct. The photos do have some similarities, so they do sort of look like they were taken at the time they were being recorded, so that seems rather plausible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Spanish motion picture rating icons

Dear all, I was wondering if these images, credited everywhere to the Ministry of Culture of Spain from 2010, would fall under either {{PD-SpanishGov}} or {{PD-shape}}. (If so, i would take them to the Illustration workshop for cute little SVG images.) – Máté ^(talk) 05:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not all public works in Spain are in public domain. The works must fit the description in the template. So, where are these diagrams from? Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Several sites icluding El País name the Ministerio de Cultura as the source for the pictograms, but I have not found them on mcu.es (they are from 2010, they may have been taken off since, as most stuff relating to ICAA is at mecd.gob.es now). They were clearly designed for mass use, however that does not necessarily mean compability with Commons. Is PD-shape not an option here because of the cone, or is it? – Máté ^(talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Found 'em. Anexo II of BOE-A-2010-2728. – Máté ^(talk) 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that they haven't copyright because they are on the BOE and it hasn't copyright. But I'm not sure.--Sebasweee (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Everything that is published in the BOE are public domain by PD-SpanishGov, and this designs are explicitly defined in Anexo II, colors included. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 00:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you (y gracias) for all the comments. I'm taking it to the next step. – Máté ^(talk) 05:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A derivative

I'm not sure if this file is counted as derivative of a protected photo. I think there should be a free license related to the painting on the wall. These files (1, 2, 3) also have the same situation. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

More likely than not, the photos are derivative works. You are correct in that photos of artistic works should have copyright or license tags for both the artwork and the photo. The information for the Carol M. Highsmith collection at the US Library of Congress indicates that photos in the collection that show artistic works may be restricted by virtue of the artist's copyright. In other words, it appears that Ms. Highsmith's releasing the photos into the public domain does not alter any copyrights on artistic works depicted in the photos. According to COM:FOP#United_States, the US does not have freedom of panorama for artwork. At the same time, the FOP info indicates that artwork that was installed before January 1, 1978 (presumably, this would include murals that were completed before that date) and for which copying or photographing the work was not actively prevented is out of copyright in the US. In such a case, the {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not-renewed}} tag should be used for the artwork itself, in addition to any tag for the photo. At the same time, if the artwork is copyrighted and not freely licensed, then the images probably have to be deleted. --Gazebo (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a couple of considerations for public artworks like this. If the artwork is original, then it may be public domain as a condition of the project funding its creation. For some of the Highsmith collection, the murals are reproductions of public domain works, often with copies separately on Commons. In those cases there is no new copyright created by the act of creating the mural. I'm not claiming that's the case for these examples, but worth keeping in mind for other cases. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like the mural was privately funded -- and disliked by the purchasers so they had it replaced within a year. So, the version in this photo no longer exists.[10][11] A photo of the entire building might be OK... much like a photo of a bottle would not be derivative of a label on that bottle. But... this does seem to be more focusing on the mural, which could well be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Collapse of Con Mine.jpg

I'm at work and while I can browse through Commons and Wikipedia I have a hard time viewing other sites due to the connection being very slow. The File:Collapse of Con Mine.jpg was uploaded from here but I don't think that it is available under a proper license. Can somebody check and tag the image if necessary. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 17:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a license on the source. I do see Facebook metadata too; may be a Facebook source with a license but certainly not the one given. Does not appear to have been uploaded by the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Tagged. Yann (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 00:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:MMR Authority.png

As stated in the file description page, this is a logo for a Victorian Government statutory authority. In that case, shouldn't the above image also be copyrighted if we follow the case of the logo for Public Transport Victoria, which is also a statutory authority?

(Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Australia also states that government-produced works are copyrighted for 50 years.) - Pizza1016 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, this logo is non-free and copyrighted. I nominated the logo for deletion. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Vector versions of maps and schemas

What exactly is going on here? Is it a new consensus that an exact vector recreation of the same data still remains copyrighted if becomes an exact copy of already created and copyrighted raster map or schema? If so then we will definitely migrate all potentially vandalizable in such way materials to the local storage, but I'd like to clarify first as it can be just some unnecessary aggravated misunderstanding. --NeoLexx (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a new consensus; it's standard that an exact copy of a copyright work is copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear... Does this project still keep awareness of the non-copyrightable status of data and the unevitable similarity up to equality of images created with this data? Or is this the current consensus that say Battle of Jutland Sheer order cannot be currently illustrated? Because the proper order is already drawn and copyrighted? and anything else will be either exact copy of it or a deliberate data and fact corruption? Same for a number maps and schemas, obviously.

I do not refute the Commons rights to come to any current internal consensus if only expressible by human words. But for Wikipedia interests and timely article protection it would be useful to get some raw idea of how far Commons is planning to go with this particular endeavor. Thank you in advance. --NeoLexx (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about consensus, it's about copyright law. Of course if the original image is not eligible for copyright, then the derivative work is not subject to that non-existent copyright. There have been further comments on the deletion request, please refer to that. BMacZero (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess you din't read me properly. It is not about line-by-line recreation of a copyright-free work. It is about data usage which (by using it properly) necessary leads to an identical work. Coming back to the ship order (but evenly apply to a number of maps and schemas): there is (by available data) an exact ships' disposition for a given moment of time, marked by proper navy ship signs. Is that the current Commons position that the first who used that data and copyrighted the work - that person (organization) is an exclusive copyright holder of the result of this particular data? So anyone else either has to use data for another time period, or to introduce some visual mistakes, or to use custom (non-navy) signs? This is the question of the topic, so "if it's copyrighted, then the copy is copyrighted as well" has no connection with it whatsoever. --NeoLexx (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You stated that it is an identical copy of copyrighted work. In general, if just working from the data you produce an identical copy of a work, then the work isn't copyrightable. However, reality has many, many ways in which it can be visualized, and things can change massively depending on what is and isn't shown, and what is and isn't idealized. Compare, say, File:1975_MBTA_commuter_rail_map.jpg, File:MBTA Commuter Rail map.png, and File:MBTA Commuter Rail Map.svg. They're all slightly different time periods, but even without that, despite being stylized, non-proportional, representations of the same system, they're quite different in design choices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The most interesting. It looks like no one has seen the scheme in Frost. But evrebody is sure that image is a copy of Frost... --Sas1975kr (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa 2014

The images in the different Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2014 categories need to be vetted for FOP violations. I'm going to try to work on it when I can, but would like some help. Elisfkc (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. The theme for Wiki Loves Africa 2014 is "Cuisine". However, I am struggling to seeing how COM:FOP applies to cuisines. In either case, I plan to take a look at each of the categories. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: I had been running into a lot of images of restaurants in countries where there is no FOP. That was the big issue. Elisfkc (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate them for deletion. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Lee Grant publicity photo, 1967

Can someone review this photo of Lee Grant from 1967? I'll confirm with the seller if anything is on the back. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC) The seller replied back stating that nothing is on the reverse. Note that the photo is described as an "original vintage photo FROM YEAR OF ISSUE." --Light show (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is nothing on the back, do we know that that copy was distributed before 1978? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They replied and said there was nothing on the back. The listing says "It is an Original Vintage photo FROM YEAR OF ISSUE". --Light show (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

So they have owned it from 1967? It certainly looks like it was made back then, but PD status -- if you are going by the evidence on that copy only -- rests on that copy being distributed before 1978, as opposed to being undistributed stock which was only given out later (meaning it was possible the distributed versions had a copyright notice). If there is nothing on the back, there is nothing that confirms distribution back then inherently, so it would matter where that copy came from. Still, there are other photos from that time -- like here -- which are of a similar style and do have such evidence, so the odds this is OK is pretty high, and maybe high enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ellen Hollman 2014.jpg

The image was uploaded from Flicr by User:Stemoc and initially marked by them as reviewed. At the moment, we have an OTRS case concerning this image, so we need to be 100% sure that the license is correct. It is possible that Stemoc is involved there. It is also possible that they made an accidental mistake. So it would be nice to have an uninvolved user license review. Now, the image is marked as copyrighted in Flickr. At the moment, I see no good solution in this case. Any hints? Ankry (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This file was uploaded to Commons less than two weeks after it was posted to flickr, and photos of the flickr account in their other albums are offered with a free license, so it is somewhat possible that the flickr account had initially marked the photos of this album also as free and later changed them to non free. However, apparently this file was not (validly) reviewed on Commons. There's no valid evidence to say that the license was ever free or to challenge the non-free status. When a file at its source is obviously marked not free and there's no valid evidence to support an opposite version, the file should be deleted, even in the absence of a complaint from outside Commons. It should be even more obviously deleted if the OTRS communication is a complaint from the copyright owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hrm. The upload claims it was done by the UploadWizard Extension, which should check for valid licenses on Flickr. It looks like that extension will place the {{FlickrVerifiedByUploadWizard}} template on there. But... I'm not sure it's 100% possible to determine that the extension was actually used, as opposed to that text/template simply being placed there on an individual upload -- maybe that extension has a separate log somewhere which could be validated against? The other thing would be if the default Flickr license was CC-BY (looks like it), but the contract with the photographer for that album did not in fact enable them to license the photos that way, and so they have since changed it -- that may mean it's not a legal license to begin with. It does seem highly likely though that the file was on the Flickr page that way, originally. If there is no way to validate the UploadWizard's work, then Category:Flickr images verified by UploadWizard may be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Commons:License review and Category:Flickr review needed, the valid methods of license review, for flickr files, seem to be by a flickr bot or a review by an authorized human reviewer. License review methods should be reasonably reliable, easily verifiable by ordinary users and reusers, and validated by the community. If UploadWizardExtension files have become exempt from license review, and if it has been proven reliable, difficult to fake, and verifiable and if it has been accepted by the community, that's fine, but then it should be noted somewhere on the relevant pages to avoid confusion, preferably with a reference to the decision.
Good point about the Florida Supercon maybe not having enough rights. Photo sessions, where clients pay a fee for photos with celebrities, involve contracts between the client, the event organization, the celebrity, the photo ops company and the photographer. Each of them could have some interest in having a say about the use of the photographs. Limitations to what the Florida Supercon can do could be related to copyright or to clauses in the contracts with the celebrities or other parties. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: the OTRS complaint is not copyright related. At least at the moment. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Uhm the Image was added via the UploadWizard and they were cc-by-2.0 then. It may have been changed recently since nearly all their images since 2013 are cc-by..I usually add via the UploadWizard as it prevents any image from being added without the proper licence.--Ste moc 00:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Joan Baez, 1963 Press Photo

Can someone review a publicity photo of Joan Baez from 1963, showing the back with publication clipping? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The watermarks on it are not acceptable. See Commons:Watermarks. AHeneen (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, 1945 press photo

Can I get a review of this image of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein? It shows the reverse and is an original press photo. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The watermarks on it are not acceptable. See Commons:Watermarks. AHeneen (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I know. They won't appear on the final upload. --Light show (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK. Does not look like the initial author put that clipping on the back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:USCAAbyline(white).jpg

Not sure if the "Copyleft" licensing on this file is correct. The logo may be below the TOO for the US, but there's nothing on the organization's official website which indicates it's been released under a free license or that the uploader created the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed the FAL license to {{PD-logo}} per your rationale. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Pokefan95. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Silliman statue.jpg

Is a copyright license also needed for the statue depicted in this photo per COM:FOP#United States? The photographer can license the photo as PD, and the statue itself may be old enough to be PD, but I don't think that necessarily means the photographer can license both as {{PD-self}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If the statue is PD, there is no copyright which needs licensing, so we would only need a license for the photograph. So, the tag is fine. If we want to add a note as to why the statue is PD, that is fine too. Per here the author is Creator:John Ferguson Weir, and it was installed in 1884. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Understand and thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, I have adjusted the photo's file info page to include a {{PD-1923}} tag for the statue along with details about the sculptor. (Thanks, User:Clindberg, for finding the info about the sculptor and the year the statue was made.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gazebo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Roman Polanski 1971 press photo

Can someone please review this photo of Polanski from 1971?. The back indicates it was printed as a 1 column x 4" deep image. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Dustin Hoffman press photo 1969/1976

Can someone review this press photo of Dustin Hoffman? It's dated 1976 although the film came out in 1969, but it would still have a pre-1978 license. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this covered by FOP Germany?

Would someone please by nice enough to review this picture of a 3-D piece of art on a shop front. The artist died in 1966. -- MaxxL - talk 18:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO it is. It seems to be a street view. FOP info added. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Midnight Sun performance space in Olympia WA 2008.jpg

Is it a sort of advertisement? --Mhhossein ^talk 09:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any issues there. It's a photo of a storefront. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:The Midnight Sun performance space in Olympia WA 2008.jpg. I don't see any problem either (except that it lacked relevant categories, which I've fixed). - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Image of a Georgia State Park plaque

I believe that File:Moon-eyed people.jpg is a copyright violation. I'm told that "Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works (including prose displayed in a public place on markers or plaques such as those on display at historic buildings) are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. Exceptions include works of the United States government and of the states of Florida and California." Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on whom wrote this prose and when. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

1968.[12] Why does the author matter? Doug Weller (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If it was the federal government, it would be {{PD-USGov}}. Works of a couple state governments are considered public domain as well, but not Georgia. The date will matter because a copyright notice was required before March 1, 1989. If this was 1968, the text is {{PD-US-no notice}}. The map is obviously much older and PD due to age. While what you state is true for new works today, aspects of previous copyright law can still apply for older works. Nothing is ever simple ;-) Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US gives some further detail on the situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who told you this, but the Berne Convention is specifically not US law. For a US work, we are concerned solely about its legal status in the US (see COM:L), and US works that were out of copyright due to lack of copyright notice were not restored to copyright when the Berne Convention was signed by the US and US law adapted to conform to it. US works prior to 1978 (and in some cases 1989) that were published without copyright notice are not copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There's details at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status of photocopies of ancient books

I would like to upload a massive amount of ancient Chinese books to wikicommons. Before that, I would like to reconfirm their copyright status. The intended uploads met the following conditions:

The original books are in public domain;
Some of the books are recent reprints of the original books. They are direct scans and does not involve typographical rearrangement;
For some of the reprints, page numbers were added by the modern publisher;
For some of the reprints, additional matter (forewords) were added by the modern publisher. But they will be removed prior to uploading.

I want to be sure about this. Deletion after the upload has been done would be desperate.--維基小霸王 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any problems. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine to me. Yann (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

License tags for File:Henri-Landwirth-1989.jpg

I recently uploaded File:Henri-Landwirth-1989.jpg, for which the photo was originally from the Florida Memory Project. From what one understands, the photo is one of many that were lent by the MOSAIC Project and copied by the Florida State Archives. On the file info page, I used the license tag {{Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl}} along with {{Personality rights}}. Does this seem correct? --Gazebo (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gazebo: The license is fine... my only nitpick would be that {{Photograph}} or {{Artwork}} is better than {{Information}} for stuff from GLAMs, since they actually give you specific fields for more information. What you've done is perfectly okay, tho. Revent^talk 14:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/10

Mugshot

Russian Maps

Australian National Maritime Museum

Theatre photos by User:Christian Michelides

Swedish photo from 1963

CC BY-SA 3.0

Building News and Engineering Journal (1916)

Copyrighted free use restricting reuse

Possible Flickr washing

Using a friend's camera

Album covers

Hearst Castle

Ravi Shankar handbill, 1967 ?

File:Frans Hals - portrait of a man in a tassle collar.jpg

Creative Commons "downgrade"

Files at Category:Barangays Quirino 2-A, Quirino 2-B, Quirino 2-C & Quirino 3-B Claro, Project 3, Anonas, District III, Quezon City

Files by User:Connor7617

Photos taken by someone else

Bette Davis 1941 candid

de Havilland candid from 1949

Madagascar postage stamps

Using public domain images that might not be possible to use

Copyright in General Government (occupied Poland)

Second opinion

Photos from Norsk Maritimt Museum

Logo LEAG

Illustrations and copyright

Czech museum with differing CC clearances on various images

Freedom of panorama in Mexico

Screen capture from security camera

Lawrence Olivier 1958 candid

Neil Young, 1977 promo

"Ace in the Hole" 1951

License sentence parsing

William Wyler publicity portrait

Can I publish images of paintings I own?

Diagrams by en:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

photo of sculpture

Ravi Shankar, 1967

Items in archive.org

SorollaRoomAtHSA.jpg

CSICon logo

Casino de Carballo.jpg

Declarations of consent

FOP-Italian cultural heritage

Library of Congress New Delhi

Spanish motion picture rating icons

A derivative

File:Collapse of Con Mine.jpg

Vector versions of maps and schemas

Wiki Loves Africa 2014

Lee Grant publicity photo, 1967

Joan Baez, 1963 Press Photo

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, 1945 press photo

Roman Polanski 1971 press photo

Dustin Hoffman press photo 1969/1976

Is this covered by FOP Germany?

The Midnight Sun performance space in Olympia WA 2008.jpg

Image of a Georgia State Park plaque

Copyright status of photocopies of ancient books

License tags for File:Henri-Landwirth-1989.jpg

Navigation menu

Search