Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11

Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

I uploaded File:Kawhatau River.jpg showing it as having a Commons BY2.0 license. It has been deleted because the page "doesn't contain enough information about the license". What information needs to be shown for BY2.0 licenses? The website says, "Prints in this series are covered by a creative Commons BY2.0 license. You are free to use them without seeking permission." The licenses guidance page says BY2.0 is ok. Johnragla (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnragla: I undeleted the file. I think you forgot to put {{ }} around the template for licencing information when you corrected the file after the initial warning. I corrected it with this edit. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know {{ }} was needed, as it's not apparent from either the Upload Wizard page, or the linked Commons:Copyright tags. Johnragla (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nepenthes pudica and image

Can the image from [1] be posted on Commons? That plant is ecologically unique and a picture would be appropriate. I can hypothetically contact the author, but I don't know if images from scientific journals require such licensing (many are imported to Commons). ̴̴ OJJ (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I would think so, the article is released as follows: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.. No exception seems to be made for the photo. Ellywa (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa: File:Nepenthes pudica.jpg. --OJJ (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thats a rather special plant. Nice! I added the photo to the wikidata item. Ellywa (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Author of SVG files

SVG shows pixels rather than vector image

I want to upload a new version of File:WinFile Icon.svg where I have reduced its size. Can I add myself to the author field? It's just that the one who converted the image to SVG added himself to the author field.

Артём 13327 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Артём 13327:

It depends on what you did to the file.

Running an SVG optimizer on a file is not a significant operation, so I would not claim authorship. Furthermore, simply reducing a file's size is not always welcome according to guidelines. More importantly, your optimization deleted the metadata element. When that element contains copyright information (this time it did not), then that deletion may run afoul of the copyright license.

Another consideration is the file's appearance did not change. I would usually put such changes into the Dublin Core contributor category rather than the Dublin Core creator category.

The Adobe type decision allows copyrights for programming code, so programming creativity can be a reason to claim authorship. I looked briefly at the files. Your version seems to have deleted a lot of useless style attribute information but is still primarily rect elements. I get the sense that the optimization was more mechanical than creative, so I would not claim authorship or being a contributor.

I also must question the conversion of the .ico file to SVG in the first place. The SVG retains the coarse pixels, so it should have been uploaded as a bitmap file. A good SVG file should look like a file cabinet at high resolution.

Glrx (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

>I would not claim authorship

I just want to upload a version soon where I've optimized it a bit manually. And I spent time on it. And I think that in this case it will be ok to add yourself to the author field. The one who converted this file to SVG added himself to the author field Артём 13327 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright query: Pxfuel

This site says it provides "royalty-free stock photos" "free for commercial use". Can they be uploaded to Commons under a CC0 license?

I recently uploaded one of them under 'Not sure' category in Upload Wizard hoping that the reviewer will give feedback, but it was abruptly deleted.

~Shubjt

The only situations where you can upload something with CC0 is either when the source includes a clear mention that the work was declared CC0 (and you trust the source enough to reasonably believe that the CC0 declaration was originally made by the copyright owner) or when it is your own work. There doesn't seem to be a mention of CC0 for the picture you linked, on the image page or in the terms of use of the website. The terms of use are permissive but maybe not quite enough. See also the last comment in this 2020 discussion. A search on Commons shows 35 files giving pxfuel as their source. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

They're definitely not marked as CC0. Also, "royalty-free" is not the same thing as libre; it's not clear that they grant permission to remix the photos and create derivative works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Their terms of use do seem very permissive, though. The limitations all seem to be non-copyright restrictions, apart perhaps from the line

You can't use or redistribute these images on free stock photo websites or apps, you can't sell and/or redistribute these images implying you're the photographer; and you can't sell and/or redistribute these images as stock photography

Felix QW (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the line "use or redistribute these images on free stock photo websites or apps" is the same reason that we consider {{Unsplash}} unfree post-2017. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I found the original source. Thank you for your time. ~Shubjt

Israel CBS

Hi, I uploaded File:Administrative divisions Israel.png and File:Arabs Israel.png. These images were originally released by the Israeli CBS under this license. I think it's a free-license, even though there are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. If I'm correct, what should I do to keep these images? Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is a free license. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Ruslik0. So should I create something like Template:OGL or Template:NLOD? Or are template editors and administrators the only ones who can do that? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Created this, I hope it's ok... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit of an edge case; it's more restrictive than Creative Commons licenses with respect to the required attribution (it requires attribution follow a specific format). Without comment as to whether or not this is a free license, I would add a note in the template that the license is not valid for photographs, personal data, working papers and studies available on the website; the scope of works to which the license applies seems to be fairly limited. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It does apply to working papers and studies except those "published on this site for which the authors alone are responsible". So I understand that CBS working papers and studies can be reused but if, for example, the CBS re-publishes on their website a paper from a non-CBS author, then the license doesn't apply (makes sense). I don't see the point of adding these limitations to the template because precisely these images shouldn't be uploaded on Commons in the first place and therefore these limitations do not apply to CBS content on Commons. (similarly, we won't add to the template that the CBS license doesn't apply to "computer code and applications by which this website functions"). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

USSR photo

What would be the copyright associated with a Soviet prison record photograph - taken around 1936-39? Shyamal L. 10:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The photo is likely anonymous. So, you can use the {{PD-Russia-1996}} tag. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Shyamal L. 03:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

YouTube screenshot that I want to use

I uploaded this screnshot and I wanted someone to review it before using it. Is the license valid? Solemn Penance (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Solemn Penance. The YouTube source for the screenshot does appear to be licensed under an acceptable license Creative Commons license. You see this by clicking on "See more" in the description box for the video. So, it should be OK for Commons to host. However, whether it's OK to use in any Wikipedia articles might depend on whether a consensus can be established to use it. Assuming you want to use the file in some English Wikipedia article, you might want to take a look at en:WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. Commons is really only concerned about whether the content it hosts is OK from a copyright standpoint and perhaps from a scope standpoint. Contextual use of images on Wikipedia pages often needs to be determined through article talk page discussion and is not always automatic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Solemn Penance: My answer was based upon the assumption that the videos uploaded to the KNTV YouTube channel are original works created by KNTV or someone working on behalf of KNTV. If KNTV got the concert footage from some other party, then, as Asclepias points out, the copyright holder would be whomever took the original footage and only that person can release it under an acceptable license. Now, we would hope that an organization like KNTV would have employees familiar enough with copyright law to know that they can't release works created by others ander a CC license without the original copyright holder's consent, but even organizations sometimes make mistakes. Even if the video as a whole was put together a KNTV employee, any parts of the video created by other parties might still be eligible for protection in their own right independent of the copyright of the video. It's quite possible that KNTV received permssion to use individual copyright protected elements in its video from various individual copyright holders, but I'm pretty sure that permission wouldn't extend to any screenshots taken of the individual elements for the purpose of uploading them to Commons. In order to do that, Commons would need the COM:CONSENT of the individual copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I did not comment about the video footage of the concerts. Only about the photograph added to the video and which is the object of the question. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the source of the picture. I don't know how to check for copyright licenses on Instagram, is there a help page for it? If it's not possible to check, then it probably can't be used, and the screenshot can be deleted. Solemn Penance (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure, but I think Instagram is more like Facebook and Twitter than it's like Flickr or YouTube when it comes to this type of thing in that I don't think Instagram is set up to be very user-friendly when it comes to CC licenses. In other words, I don't think users are given different licensing options to choose from; so, I think the copyright holder might need to explicity state they are releasing an image under a CC license in the image's description for it to be considered a valid licenses. Otherwise, I believe the default licesnsing of Instagram applies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Solemn Penance: Maybe or maybe not. To determine if the license is valid for this image, you must determine if the license was issued by the owner of the copyright on this particular image. As you probably found, fuller versions of this photo and many very similar, sometimes almost but not quite identical, photos are published on the internet. Which seems to indicate that they were taken at a promotional event, and it is likely that various photos were taken by photographers for various entertainment publications and for the production company SM Entertainment. The question is: was this particular photo taken specially for KNTV or did they republish a photo from another source? Which seems more likely? It might be possible to find an answer by tracking it to its original source. It is possible that they just used a photo provided by the production company for use by the media but still non-free. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Upload of licensed content in YouTube

Theoretically this video (as well as much more others) is licensed and may be uploaded to Commons. But, since no one has done it yet, I think whether is it possible or not. Therefore, I would like an answer. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The first hurdle is whether the person/entity uploading these videos is actually the copyright holder (or authorized by the copyright holder to do so). I think we're good there - the "MrBean" channel is linked from https://www.mrbean.com/ and if you go to their list of channels, they have a link to the "Classic Mr. Bean" channel. So it looks legitimate. My only qualm here is that from clicking around, I can't find any of the other episodes that have the same license. So was this "licensing" intentional or accidental? (I don't know enough about the Youtube interface to know whether someone can accidentally turn it on.) It seems difficult to imagine that the publisher of a major TV show would intentionally license it for anyone to reuse. --B (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I have YouTube channel and to license under CC you need to manually expand tab while uploading video and click it. It can't be done accidentally. There's always a possibility that person who manages YT account on behalf of IP owner did the licensing without their knowledge, but no way of checking that for us. Borysk5 (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Girls' Generation Logo.jpg

File:Girls' Generation Logo.jpg seems rather complex to be {{PD-logo}}, even per COM:TOO United States standards; so, I'm not sure how it meets COM:TOO South Korea or whether it can be kept by Commons. Before starting a DR, though, I'm interested in what some others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

To me, this certainly looks above the threshold of originality. However, I don't really understand the court case examples given by COM:TOO South Korea, as the EBISU figure supposedly under TOO does not seem less complex to me than the Fox logo supposedly above it. There must be some subtlety there I am missing. Felix QW (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Felix QW, I would suggest the reason is that the EBISU logo is simply modified text, whereas the Fox logo is far more graphical in nature, but you're right that there may be additional subtlety. Still, going by the examples, the GG logo seems much too complex to be PD. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of the little monkey character shown on page 2 of the EVISO ruling rather than the stylised seagull text mark. Felix QW (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the court said that the figure was a traditional depiction of Ebisu (a Japanese deity), with maybe only minor additions, and the company only added the name. If that was an original drawing, I'm sure it would be copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thank you, that makes a lot of sense! Felix QW (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Above TOO US. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Easily above TOO for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who commented so far. Based upon these comments, I've started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Girls' Generation Logo.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of photos of early printed ballads in the English Broadside Ballad Archive

I'd like some advice about the status of photographs of 16th- and 17th-century printed broadsides published online by the English Broadside Ballad Archive (EBBA) at UC Santa Barbara. Take this sheet, for example. It was originally printed and widely distributed in the 1680s, and is now in the collection of Magdalene College, Cambridge. The EBBA's terms of use state that everything at their site is free for use under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license, which because of the non-commercial restriction would normally mean that images like this cannot be hosted at the Commons. The license certainly applies to the original material published by the creators of the archive, such as the modern transcriptions of the ballad. But can it be applied to the photograph of the original sheet as well? Since it was published in the 17th century, the text of the ballad is certainly PD; the only question is about the photograph. As a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional object, would it be covered by PD-Art, even though the woodcut illustrations (the only part that can be considered "art" under the usual meaning of the term) are clearly a subsidiary element to the text? And if so, would the same be true of another ballad, like this one, which lacks any illustrations? I'm not sure how far PD-Art can be pushed for things that are mostly or entirely text (as opposed to paintings, drawings, lithographs, etc.) All opinions welcome. Crawdad Blues (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-Art}} should cover them (or {{PD-scan}} if they are scans, instead of photographs). PD-Art is not about the content of the photo, but rather the copyright on the photograph itself -- normal photographs have a copyright (regardless of subject matter) because of angle, framing, and other elements like that. But reproducing a 2-D work via photography basically means those (usually copyrightable) choices are obvious and not creative, and therefore there is no copyright on the resulting photograph. The content being reproduced is an entirely separate copyright, which has expired in this case (be it an artistic or literary work or both). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl, that's very helpful. I was obviously setting too much weight on the Art part of PD-Art. I wasn't aware of PD-Scan, which makes the situation clearer (to me at least). Crawdad Blues (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg

Can images sourced from w:Project Gutenberg be uploaded to Commons, in general?

Specifically, the 1870 The life of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Civil Engineer by his son, also named Isambard Brunel, deceased 1902, contains a number of images and diagrams that might be useful for Wikipedia articles. The book is marked in Gutenberg as PD in the US. Are these usable? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, digitalizations of imagens in the public domain are in it as well—they don’t have copyright. But I would like as well to hear the opinion of someone more used to these complicated laws. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

These should be totally fine, as they have been published before 1927 and their author has died before 1952. The digitalisation by Project Gutenberg is insufficient to create a new copyright, and they acknowledge this by noting that the work is PD in the US on their page. Felix QW (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

All images from the book have now been uploaded and placed in Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel. I shall move some of them to more precise categories when I have time. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg uses U.S. law; Commons uses both U.S. and the country of origin (i.e. the country of first publication). So for a non-U.S. work, you need to make sure it's also public domain by that country's rules. For something that old, there isn't much to worry about. The book author died in 1902, so it's {{PD-old-70}} in the UK. Each illustration could have a different author and therefore a different copyright term, though again anything that old is generally fine. For works published in say the early 1920s though, it may not always be OK. If Project Gutenberg has a U.S. work as PD, then it's fine to host here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Re-uploading deleted images

An editor has been re-uploading deleted images--using a new file name--after being deleted as copyright violations. At User talk:Bd2media, this editor stated that the images are theirs because "I paid for some of them for the rights". Administrator User:Christian Ferrer has previously discussed policy with this editor. I would appreciate if someone with more experience in copyright than me could assist this editor. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Reusing CC-licensed works in new CC-licensed works

Suppose, for example, you take a CC BY 4.0-licensed work and incorporates it into a new work, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (the default license on this project). The CC BY 4.0 legal code says:

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must … retain[,] if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material[,] … a notice that refers to this Public License ….

So you must retain a notice that refers to CC BY 4.0. Similarly, you must include the text of (or link to) CC BY 4.0. There’s no exception as a result of CC BY 4.0 being compatible with CC BY-SA 4.0. Is my understanding correct? And if so, why is there no template (like {{Attrib}}) to make this easy? Brianjd (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Example of attributing source work the hard way: Rites of Passage cover.jpg. And that one doesn’t even need attribution; it was added because of confusion at a DR. Brianjd (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Photographer from 1917 was found. What the actions will be for his photography?

Hello everyone. Previously, this photo from France in 1917 was put up for deletion, but was left by admins because at that time its author was not known. But the other day, new information about the author was discovered, though the date of his death remained unknown. I want to ask your opinion, will this photo be removed now due to an update info about the author? Iwego (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it likely that the author had died before 1952? Ruslik (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Born 1874, would have been 78 in 1952... DS (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iwego: Hello, All photos identified from "Y39" to "Y3779" at the source are also by Ernest Baguet, is that correct, according to Les Soldats de la mémoire? For example this one. The question you submit would then affect also other files. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to find out the date of death of the photographer Ernest Baguet, but I couldn't. If there are copyright infringements, then I will have to put a flag for quick deletion of files. Iwego (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I searched again the date of death of Ernest Baguet on other sites. There is a long list of names, but for some reason it is not possible to find a single suitable person with such data (name, surname, date of birth — in different variations). It is strange that his date of death is not known, because he was a famous World War I photographer who took thousands of pictures. In this regard, I was also interested in the question of using photos after the death of the author, from whom should this permission be obtained? Iwego (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If the photos are now considered to be within the public domain for pma reasons or some other reason, then you don't really need anyone's permission to use them. Determing that, however, might be hard if you're unable to narrow doen the en:provenance of an image to at least figure out when it was first published and when the photographer died. If an image is still protected by copyright, then there's a good chance the photographer's heirs would now be the copyright holders and you would need their COM:CONSENT for Commons to keep the image. It's also possible that the photographer donated or sold his copyrights to some other third-party. Are the images you're finding in various publications being attributed to anyone other than the photographer? Sometimes this attribution can be found at the ends of publications instead of on the pages where the images are actually being used. You could also trying contacting whomever is using the images in their publications and simply ask them where the image came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really surprised that this information wasn't found, because it can be seen that another user, Le Petit Chat, already worked on pages about the subject a few months ago and apparently did not find this information either. If you seek permission for works possibly copyrighted, you must find who owns the copyright. Depending on cases, it can be simple or complex. You must find who owned the copyright at the origin and to whom it passed though the chain of inheritances or acquisitions. If the copyright was kept by the photographer, it could have passed to the successive heirs or it could have been contractually acquired by someone. If the copyright was to the employer or to an organization, it could also have changed owners through acquisitions. In the case of photographs by Baguet the question is who, if anyone, owns the copyright on photographs taken by the members of the Photographic Service of the Army at that time. For what it's worth, the notices at imagesdefense.gouv.fr have mentions such as "© Ernest Baguet/ECPAD/Défense". So apparently the Établissement de communication et de production audiovisuelle de la Défense (ECPAD) claims a copyright. It's questionable, if they themselves don't know more than you the information about the year of death of Baguet. Some public organizations in France are known to put mentions of copyrights on public domain works on which they don't have copyrights. Anyway, it's probably a waste of time to ask ECPAD for free release. Even assuming that they could have a copyright, if they wanted to freely release the works, it would already be done. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I searched a lot for his deathyear but couldn't find anything. He probably died before 1970 since he does not appear on https://deces.matchid.io/search. -- Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The life expectancy in France before 1952 was much lower than 70 years. So, it is wise to assume that the photographer was dead by 1952 unless new information comes to light. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asclepias Thanks for the detailed answer. The photo source website says (translated from French): "Several tens of thousands of photographs, from the 'Albums Valois' collection, a leading source of information for the First World War, are for the first time available online, freely downloadable and reusable!" Do I understand correctly that Ernest Baguet's photos from this site (which without a copyright tag) can be freely placed on Wikimedia with an indication of the source, and this is not a copyright infringement? Iwego (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You should use the licence template Licence ouverte: https://argonnaute.parisnanterre.fr/En-savoir-plus/p7/Licences-d-utilisation -- Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Even if they had any ground to issue a licence on those works, they say that this license applies only to items that are explicitly identified as such in their notices. The linked webpage specifies: "Pour repérer qu'un document est placé sous licence ouverte, vous devez consulter sa notice, où cette mention figurera dans le champ "Utilisation autorisée". Au cas où cette indication "Licence ouverte" ne figure pas explicitement dans la notice, vous ne pouvez pas présumer que l'oeuvre correspondant à ce document appartient au domaine public." (Loose translation: To identify that a document is under licence ouverte (open license), you must look at its notice, where that mention will be written in the field "Utilisation autorisée" (Authorized use). If that mention "Licence ouverte" is not explicitly shown in the notice, you cannot assume that the work is in the public domain.) There does not seem to be such identification in the notices of the Baguet photos, althouh I might have missed them. The effort of La contemporaine to make their collections available on their website is admirable. That doesn't necessarily mean that their assessments are correct, even for items that have an assessment one way or another. Some of their notices include licenses and some don't. Their albums Valois for Belgium are mentioned licence ouverte. But for many photos in their albums Valois for France, for example this photo linked by Iwego above, there does not seem to be a license mentioned in the hierarchy of relevant notices. Many of their notices do not mention the names of the photographers. They might still have to progress in matching the alphanumerical codes with the photographers. Also, their claim to license (even with a free license) works that they consider public domain seems self-contradictory. Anyway, whether their licensing makes sense or not and whether their notices include a license or not, it doesn't mean that the photographs are not public domain. Commons has to make its own assessments based on the available facts. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that the website "www.pop.culture.gouv.fr" states that some items are freely reusable if they are also offered on the website "data.culture.gouv.fr", which has a section offered under "Licence ouverte". What a labyrinth! Photos of some photographers can be found there, for example by searching for photos by Roger Le Baron, but searches for photos by Ernest Baguet apparenly do not return any result there. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I have proposed the upload of Collection Valois photographs under Licence Ouverte because the page https://argonnaute.parisnanterre.fr/Blog-des-collections/p42/ links to https://argonnaute.parisnanterre.fr/En-savoir-plus/p7/Licences-d-utilisation :

Plusieurs dizaines de milliers de photographies, issues de la collection des « Albums Valois », source d’information de premier plan pour la Première Guerre Mondiale, sont pour la première fois consultables en ligne, librement téléchargeables et réutilisables !

Le Petit Chat (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Scan of the disc of La grasa de las capitales

Would it be legally safe to upload a scan of the compact disc of the album Grasa de las capitales. From what I can see here, the disc isn't creative enough to qualify for copyright protection. Lugamo94 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"Own work" and sockpuppets

In at least one significant case, Commons has accepted original works from a contributor who is later banned and the account is globally locked. Another contributor appears, claiming "Own work" as the same person; this contributor is abusive and likewise banned, and the works are kept. Lather, rinse, and repeat for a few more accounts.

• Whose work is this original work now? It is claimed to belong to one person, perhaps with a single email address, but this person has operated multiple accounts, and done so illicitly.
• Whose work is it when the next contributor arrives and claims "Own work" again? Are all accounts allowed to own the work? What about IPs, do they own it too? Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You're conflating two different meanings of "own"; "own work" means "it is work done by myself", not "I own this work". As for the copyright, accounts and IPs don't own anything; people own things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• But if this work is licensed, how can it be licensed (per COM:PRP) if there's a doubt over a sock, and their identity? They can (as the rights holder) license it through any identity they care to. But we can't have any faith in that, if they're repeatedly describing it as being authored by different pseudonyms. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Who would I attribute if I reused a work via CC-BY-SA? What if I uploaded these works and claimed them as my own as well? Who would stand in the way of these claims? Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  You would attribute them to whoever the license asks you to attribute them. I don't know who has the rights to most works I know are copyrighted, and in many cases I doubt there's anyone who has ever heard of the work that has a colorable claim to the rights; yet those rights still exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I misunderstood? If this is about one "own work" work, then nobody but the uploader should be changing attribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, if someone uploads "own work" then they assert control over the rights and standing to assign licenses, yes? Human individuals and organizations own copyrights, but for the purposes of attribution, Creative Commons permits us to attribute works by identifying an account, an email address, or a URL, which may or may not refer to a unique person or organization. Elizium23 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 4 says "identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);" so if they uploaded work A as JoeBob and work B as JaneRoberts, you attribute the first work as JoeBob and the second as JaneRoberts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My licensing templates and copying text within Commons or from Wikipedia

Starting in 2014 (according to the edit history), I created a template, User:Gazebo/CC-license, which I could use on the file description pages of works that I had created and uploaded to Commons. Among other things, the template could indicate the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and the template also mentioned the issue of CC licenses not allowing certain restrictive legal terms and/or technological restrictions. Starting in 2018, I created a sandbox for the license template. Later on, in 2020, as part of expanding the User:Gazebo/CC-license template (I had an interest in moving certain works that I had uploaded from CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0, and I did add CC BY-SA 4.0 onto a number of works while keeping CC BY-SA 3.0 on those works), I created a User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed template and a sandbox for that template.

Of particular note, I hope that the User:Gazebo/CC-license template and its related templates (User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox, User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed, and User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed/sandbox) do not incorporate content that violates third-party copyrights, particularly regarding the copying of text from other Commons templates or pages or English-language Wikipedia templates or pages.

As an example, in looking at the edit history for User:Gazebo/CC-license, the first entry has the edit summary Created page - template includes style info from "Template:Self" (2013-11-17 at 19:02) <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Self&oldid=582086115> licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>. My understanding is that textual content on Commons and on the English-language Wikipedia site is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, and the edit summary was possibly an attempt to mention the source and its title and the license. Over time, I may have become more aware of issues and details concerning attribution. On the English-language Wikipedia site, there is a page Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but I am not sure if there is any equivalent page on Commons. For the User:Gazebo/CC-license template, there is a later edit of mine (on May 28, 2018 at 07:02) with the edit summary Add "cc-version" parameter. The page contents may be derived from the contents of the page User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox; see that page's history for attribution information. In this case, the edit summary may be giving attribution more in line with what was mentioned in the English-language Wikipedia article on copying text.

For the User:Gazebo/CC-license template, there is an edit of mine on Feb 17, 2019 at 10:09 where edit summary indicates that the template was updated with the contents of the template's sandbox. With this edit, it appears that a comment was added in the template's source about the use of style information from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Self&oldid=312068377. For the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template, there is an edit of mine on Feb 17, 2019 at 7:50 (which I am guessing would be earlier than 10:09 on the same date) with the edit summary Use styling information from Template:Self. The new contents of this template may be derived from the contents of the page Template:Self; see that page's history for attribution information.

In the case of the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template, there is an edit of mine on March 23, 2020 with the edit summary Restore previous revision to conditionally display the "work was previously licensed under a different CC license" message. The content may be derived from the contents of the page User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox (specifically the revision at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox&oldid=404960574>); see the page histories for those pages for attribution information.

In looking at the edit history for the User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed template, the three edits have edit summaries that include a hyperlink to the User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed/sandbox template and a note about attribution information, so there may not be any problems there, assuming that the edit summaries are accurate.

The edit history for the User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed/sandbox template has an edit on March 18, 2020 and an edit on March 22, 2020 where the edit summaries for those two edits include a hyperlink to the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template. Also, there are two later edits on April 21, 2020 where the edit summaries have a hyperlink to Template:Self on Commons. Gazebo (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Software screenshot

I seem to remember that software screenshots generally do not go together well with a Creative Commons license, but this one is particularly weird: updated on a regular basis by different users to display the current version advertisement. It seems strange that a license from 2005 is supposed to be valid for an image that cannot be older than 2014. --217.239.0.8 17:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Linus Sebastian allows us to use his images on Wikipedia. How can we handle this?

Referencing image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linus_Sebastian_with_his_anechoic_chamber.jpg

Person in question had sent out a tweet yesterday saying "Wikipedia may use any picture or still frame of me" https://twitter.com/linusgsebastian/status/1591545158138728448

Is the tweet enough proof of copyright to put into the public domain or allowed on commons in some way? Urbanracer34 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

NO.

The comment does not put his work in the public domain. He has not been dead for 70 years, so he has the copyright.

Permission to use his selfies on Wikipedia is not a free license. It does not give others the permission to use his selfies elsewhere.

He needs to release material under a free license that Commons accepts. For example, CC-BY 4.0.

Glrx (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Urbanracer34. What is needed for Commons to keep such an image is the COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder as explained COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Sebastian can do that either by sending a CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT for verification or by publishing the selfie somewhere online and clearly indicating that he's releasing it under one of the licenses that Commons accepts as explained in COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. You should make sure that he understands what that means because such licenses are non-revocable as explained here. He should also understand that he, as the copyright holder, will be responsible for enforcing the terms of whatever license he chooses as explained here. If he has no problem with any of this, then Commons should be able to keep the file. Finally, Commons' primary concern is with the copyright statuses of the files it hosts. It's not really concerned with how files are being used on Wikipedia or on other websites. So, just because a file has been uploaded and kept by Commons, there's no guarantee that it will end up being used in any Wikipedia articles. Image use on English Wikipedia needs to comply with en:Wikipedia:Image use policy and any disagreements over image use that primarily contextual in nature will need to be resolved in accordance with en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, try to keep that in mind when asking for selfies from someone. They should be contextually relevant to the subject of the article where you want to use them and suitable for use in an encyclopedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There often is some confusion between copyright and personality rights. He can say "Wikipedia may use any picture or still frame of me" as far as his personality rights go. But the copyright generally is with the photographer, and in many countries, it is non-transferable. So he would normally own the copyright on selfies only, and he cannot generously grant rights on a copyright he does not own.
In addition, that twitter account does not even seem to be a verified account (by some of the comments I read), so I wouldn't even trust it for the personality rights issue. --217.239.0.8 17:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything stopping someone from making a Twitter account of Linus Sebastian, pay 8USD for verification and claim his pictures to be public domain? Trade (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Trade: Do you have a reference for your "pay 8USD for verification" claim?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I take it you have not been following the craziness about the blue check-mark on Twitter under Musk. Except for government agencies (and there might be some other exception) for a few days it meant only that the account has paid a premium. Of course this was a disaster and, maybe surprisingly, it looks like Musk is rolling it back. Just search on "twitter verified" and you'll find dozens of references. - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks, but I had better things to do with my time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Jeff G.: Personally, I think the $8 blue check mark roll-out actually poses some interesting questions for Commons when it comes to license verification via Twitter. It's probably something that should be discussed (if it's not already being discussed) at one of the COM:VPs or whichever talk page would be relevant for such a discussion. FWIW, it also probably has implications for using Twitter as a reliable source on English Wikipedia per en:WP:Twitter, but that's a discussion that needs to take place on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: with policies there changing almost day-to-day, I don't see much point to us worrying about forming a new policy of our own right now. We can't move with the speed of an autocrat. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Trade: There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to do such a thing just as there's nothing from stopping anyone for trying to commit things like en:copyfraud or license laundering when they upload files to Commons; however, Commons isn't required to host any content just because someone wants to upload it. If content is believed to be of questionable licensing or en:provenance per COM:EVID and COM:PCP, then it can be tagged or otherwise discussed for deletion. In addition, someone who did something like that might be running the risk of violating civil and criminal laws depending upon where they live which would have nothing to do with Commons. Since Sebastian seems to be very successful and well-known, he probably is monitoring how his likeness is used and is otherwise looking out for his interests. My guess is that he probably would go after those pretending to be him on social media, particularly if it involved misrepresentation that infringes upon his intellectual property rights or otherwise affects his commercial opportunities. Regardless of what he would do in such a situation, though, Commons would still not be required to host such images and would only do so if their copyright holder consent could be sufficiently verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The point is whether or not the subject of a Twitter account can even be used as a reliable source of license knowing that Twitter's control with the verification system is so poor Trade (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether it can be used for such a purpose any longer is a relevant question to ask. Whether it should've ever been allowed to be used as such is also relevant but perhaps a slightly different question. Prior to the change in ownership, the verified account process seems to have been considered more reliable; so, it's possible that it was thought OK to verify CONSENT this way via a tweet along the lines of COM:License review or COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. Maybe once the dust settles at Twitter and how things are going to work become clear, it will be easier to sort things out. Perhaps, therefore, it the time being VRT verification should also be required in the cases of such tweets. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Facebook is a bit problematic that way, too, but there are accounts that are obviously what they claim to be, and we accept statements made on such accounts as having known authorship. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

He is in charge of LMG who would hold the copyright. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I got the info I needed to know. Thanks. Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible to upload scan of work in public domain from paywalled source?

Hello. I found a better scan of this image. The scan comes from the British Newspaper Archive, which is a paywalled source. When you download thee image it says "Image © Illustrated London News Group". I looked in the "copyright questions" section and says " All newspaper images on The British Newspaper Archive are under copyright and require the right holder’s permission to reproduce in any non-personal productions". So, can I upload it or not on Commons? Second question: the image that you can download through the "download button" is in low resolution, however through the web viewer it is possible to see it in its full resolution (and therefore download it). Is it possible to use the higher quality version on Commons? Thanks! Sette-quattro (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You did not explain why those are in public domain, but if they are, yes you can upload them. Wikimedia does not concern itself with any disclaimers on PD works. Borysk5 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the work has been published in 1861, and the author died in 1883, so more than 100 year ago Sette-quattro (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Chertsey Museum

As the creator of the article on Henry Currie Leigh-Bennett on Wikipedia, I asked the Chertsey Museum to use this 1900 photograph of it's website in the article. The response of curator Emma Warren was "Thank you for your email, and for asking permission. The photo is actually on long-term loan to us, but if it can be credited to the S.A. Oliver Trust the trustees are happy for it to be used." Is that, regarding the rules among copyrights, enough to put it on Commons? Best regards, ̴Jeff5102 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: as long as the permission explicitly states the photos are to be licensed freely in a way that does not restrict commercial reuses by end-users (like netizens or content creators), it should be fine. For the permission, the museum must forward it to Wikimedia via email indicated at COM:VRTS). But first, the photo you mentioned dates to 1900 and made by Mr. W. Bates. 1900 may be the date of making but not the date of first publication. When was the photograph first published? If first published after January 1, 1927, then we may have a problem (potential COM:URAA copyright resturation issue), regardless of when the photograph was first made or taken. Note that for works to be considered public domain, they should be made prior to January 1, 1927 as per {{PD-old-expired}}.

The museum may only claim physical ownership but not copyright, unless the copyright still exists because the photo was only published later than January 1, 1927. Is the museum the beneficiary of photographer's copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Flag of Fox River Grove, Illinois.svg

File:Flag of Fox River Grove, Illinois.svg as uploaded as {{PD-shape}}, but the fox imagery seems to more than just a simple shape or logo per COM:TOO United States. Can Commons keep this as licensed or should it be treated as a "complex" logo? The same concern applies to File:Flag of Oxford, Kansas.svg, File:Flag of Lambert, Mississippi.svg, File:Flag of Smithers, West Virginia.svg and File:Flag of Huntington, Massachusetts.svg, -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate De Minimis usage

Hello,

I would like to confirm my usage of De Minimis on File:The Adams Brothers Company Truck.jpg is correct. There is an unwanted display in the background of the image, but to get a useful photo of the side of the truck, it would have been unavoidable (There was an even more prominent display on the other side)

Would it just be best to edit out the background, and avoid the question entirely? This will also be difficult due to the windshield, but it could probably be done. Mbrickn (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mbrickn, The display would indeed be DEMINIMIS and images such as this is precisely why COM:DEMINIMIS exists, The image isn't of the display nor is it 50% vehicle 50% display so you're good here, Also editing the image could potentially make it unusable but yeah the display is deminimis and that would never be questioned here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Though it might make sense to put a Gaussian blur over the readable copyrighted material. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! User:PawełMM was able to help me with that over at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Mbrickn (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry to ask this again, but I've been asked to confirm that the blurred version is appropriate for use on Wikimedia.

Thank you again for your help! Mbrickn (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mbrickn: I think so. @Davey2010? @Jmabel?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No point pinging me, @Mbrickn had ignored everything I've just said. If anything you've now ruined the image so well done top marks. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

My intent wasn't to ignore what you said - Indeed it had confirmed what I thought about the image at first.

I probably should have been upfront about this, but the point of me asking this question was that when I posted the image to German Wikipedia, It was reverted due to copyright concerns, due to the deminimis tag I had placed on it. This lead the initial asking of this question, because I was genuinely concerned that I had missed something important about deminimis.

When I linked this thread, after your response, I was told "Maybe you should rather ask the experts on wikimedia-commons if the blurring is sufficient to be „safe“." thus I reiterated the question here. In retrospect, I should have put my foot down and just insisted that it was OK. Mbrickn (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Photos from the French site Collectif Objets

Hello everyone. Can you please tell me, do I understand correctly that photos from this page can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia if the source and author of the images are indicated? At the bottom of their site it says (translated from French): "Unless otherwise stated, all content on this site is licensed under etalab-2.0". But if you follow the link indicated on the page to the platform Open Heritage (this site can take a long time to load), then under the same photos it is written (translated from French): "© Ministry of Culture (France), Conservation of Antiquities and Art Objects of the Meuse, all rights reserved". Iwego (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

data are under a free licence, but not the pictures. Pyb (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Readers can reasonably consider that "tous les contenus de ce site" (all the contents of this site) means "all the contents of this site", including the photos as well as everything else. The website "collectif-objets.beta.gouv.fr" is a collaborative website that the department of Culture makes available to municipalities for the municipalities to upload contents about the patrimonial objects on their territories. The municipalities are supposed to upload information and photos taken for this occasion and that they agree to offer under the license Etalab. In the page Comment ça marche ? (which is a page that summarizes the instructions for the municipalities who provide the contents to the site), the section about the license states: "Les photos déposées seront réutilisées dans le cadre de la Licence Ouverte Etalab." (The uploaded photos will be reused according to the Etalab open license.) The section also adds: "Cette licence ouverte est automatiquement appliquée lorsque c'est un agent public qui prend la photo. Si c'est une personne externe, il faut recueillir leur cession de droits." (This open license is applied automatically when it is a public agent who takes the photo. If it is an external person, their cession of rights must be obtained.) There could be a problem if a municipality does not follow the instructions and uploads photos taken from elsewhere on which they did not obtain the permission to offer them under the free license. As a collaborative site, that situation can be similar to the situation on Commons, except that the access to uploading material on their site is for the personnel of the municipalities. But a reader would normally be expected to trust the site. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In September, I uploaded several photos from the website of the French Ministry of Culture (1, 2, 3). These images are duplicated on the Collectif Objets site, where it says about licence etalab-2.0, but I discovered this yesterday. Experienced Wikimedia users told me in September that images uploaded from the French culture site infringed copyright because it has a license warning in French: "tous droits réservés". Therefore files were removed then. But can these pictures be restored now, taking into account information from Collectif Objets website?
List of deleted files I'm asking about:

1. Statue (gisant) le Squelette (436 x 700).jpg | This file is named "oa055_20215500222.jpg" on the Collectif Objets site. (7th photo out of 24 in the Collectif Objets' gallery)
2. Statue (gisant) le Squelette, détail (467 x 700).jpg | This file is named "oa055_20215500227.jpg" on the Collectif Objets site. (8/24)
3. Statue (gisant) le Squelette, vue partielle (467 x 700).jpg | This file is named "oa055_20215500230.jpg" on the Collectif Objets site. (11/24)

Iwego (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To continue in the line of a comparison between the site collectif-objets and Commons (or other collaborative websites), we could say that in general a potential reuser should be expected to assume that the items on the website were validly uploaded in conformity with the free licensing policy of that website (i.e. Licence Ouverte Etalab, unless specified otherwise), although precaution can be exerted by the reuser if there seems to be a reason to think that an item is not under that free license or even might have been uploaded in violation of that licensing policy. As on Commons, it may not always be easy to determine. In your initial example with the page objets/144586, there is no obvious mention that the photos are not offered under the free license, although, as you noted, a link leads to another site where this other link ultimately leads to a copyright notice for one particular photo stating all rights reserved to the department of Culture. That might be taken as a very indirect way of "specifying otherwise". So, maybe some precaution for this particular photo. Although the department of Culture would be in a very weak position to claim that a reuser made a copyright infringement by reusing this photo under the free license under which the photo appears to be on one of the own sites of the department of Culture. The other photos available on the page "objets/144586" are not linked in the link to the first photo. But it can be seen that at least the old photos were not taken recently by the municipality. They copied them from somewhere else. Their copyright status should probably be researched individually. Finally, the same page also has more recent photos, including the three photos (7, 8 and 11) that you list as deleted. Your additional research found that they also have a notice all rights reserved on the other website "www.pop.culture.gouv.fr". But they are not even linked to there from their display on the free licensed website. It's unclear. The department of Culture should be expected to manage its own websites consistently and responsibly. A reuser who accesses those photos on the website collectif-objets, where there is no mention or even link specifying otherwise, could be expected to assume that they are freely licensed in conformity of the free license of the website. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about TOO

I was analyzing the uploads of a user, and they uploaded a lot of soccer teams logos. Some of them are very complex, so they may be Copvyo, but I'm still not so sure about the COM:TOO on this images and I don't want to start a DR without a second opinion about it. Can someone, please, give it a look and tell what you think?--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kacamata: Many of these do look as if they are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per COM:TOO United States; however, they would also need to be too simple for copyright protection under the copyright laws of their respective countries of origin/first publication in order for Commons to keep them or otherwise be PD for some other reason (e.g. the date of their first publication makes them too old to still be eligible for copyright protection). Even though all the files have been uploaded as "own work", it's unlikely that any of them are per COM:Own work. So, any copyright ownership would most likely belong to the various teams they represent, and only those teams can release their logos under a an acceptable COM:CC license. The file's descriptions and licensing can be corrected if it turns out the logo are {{PD-logo}}, but different countries have different COM:TOOs and some TOOs are much lower than that of the US. Some of the files seem to be being used on Portuguese Wikipedia, which might mean the COM:TOO Portugal and COM:TOO Brazil also need to be considered and neither of those two TOOs are very clear. It may come down to starting a DR and then seeing whether there's a consensus for any of these to be kept and relicensed as "PD-logo" or figuring out which logos are too old to still be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks for the answer. I'll start a DR as soon as I can. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kacamata: From what I could tell, all those logos are from Brazil. It is my understanding that Brazil has a much higher ToO than the United States. So any logo that is too simple for copyright in the U.S. is almost certainly in public domain in Brazil as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64 Thanks for the answer. Yes, all these logos are from Brazil and were uploaded to illustrate an article in the Pt.WP. The question is: Do you think these logos are too simple to be copyrighted in the US? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 22:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kacamata: File:Escudos America-PE Evolução.jpg and a few others like File:Great Western logo.png might be borderline, but the rest are probably file. It's hard to say because copyright cases can be quite unpredictable. For example, the Best Western logo does not meet the ToO, yet a version of the Car Credit City logo with an extra border was granted copyright registration. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

US FOP and gravestones

File:Selena Quintanilla-Perez's grave.jpg is sourced to Flickr and the photo appears to be licensed appropriately for Commons. I'm wondering though whether the gravestone would be considered a 3d work-of-art per COM:FOP United States in this case and thus be eligible for copyright protection in its own right separate from the copyright of the photo. If it is, then the photo would seem to be a COM:DW which means the CONSENT from whoever created the gravestone would also be needed for Commons to keep the photo. en:Selena died in 1995 which means there would be no pre-1978 ways of claiming the gravestone is now PD. The file is being used quite a lot by multiple Wikipedia projects; so, deleting it is going to impact many pages. Even so, if it can't be kept, then it can't be kept. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To me this is quite clearly a violation of the copyright on the original gravestone; so unfortunately I don't think this can be kept without VRT permission from the sculptor. Felix QW (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This view of gravestones as sculptures has also been confirmed in numerous deletion requests regarding gravestones (see here). Felix QW (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, though. Is there anything besides maybe the rose on Selena's signature that hits threshold of originality? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, didn't scroll down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Felix QW on this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on NASA

The image File:NASA Artemis 1 Launch.jpg is currently tagged as a NASA image, but it has not been uploaded directly to the NASA website. It was taken from Flickr, where it fails to meet COM:FLICKR. Does Commons have an exception for NASA in these scenarios? Anarchyte (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

After doing some digging, this is likely a non-issue. The user account is official and links back to the official usage rights, so I think the NC is there to just mimic the "NASA Content Used for Commercial Purposes" section. Anarchyte (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Photos uploaded on bucurestiulmeudrag.ro

Hello, recently i saw that a person uploaded this image File:ALMO, Bucharest, Romania (cropped).jpg on Wikipedia from a site known as bucurestiulmeudrag.ro, which is a website where people contribute by adding primarily historical images, which are of significant value i believe for Wikimedia. However the site says that the copyright type is this https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed whereas the image was uploaded as it being part of a copyright decree that expired in 1996. So is it allowed or is it not? I would like to know given that i intend to upload other photographs taken by users on the website (one of them being a person from Japan who took photographs of Bucharest in 1990). TrainSimFan (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@TrainSimFan: It appears that {{PD-RO-photo}} is correct for File:ALMO, Bucharest, Romania (cropped).jpg, File:ALMO, Bucharest, Romania.jpg, and photos similarly situated, as long as they were taken and published in Romania before 1991 (or series before 1986), regardless of any claims by bucurestiulmeudrag.ro.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much sir! The site has valuable photos and they sure will come in handy! TrainSimFan (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@TrainSimFan: You're welcome! You forgot to ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

PD-GovEdict

File:Flag of Wolf Point, Montana.svg is a flag file that seems too complex to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States. The file was uploaded under a {{PD-GovEdict}} license, but that seems inappropriate as well since I don't that license covers flag imagery. Can this file be kept as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There are a great number of municipalities that use flags that aren't actually official in any capacity, and thus would not be {{PD-GovEdict}} works. Is there an official edict of this municipality and, if so, does it describe a flag that's designed in this way? We can make works based off of the text-based description of the official flag if that description is first provided in a government edict, but we generally can't trace photographs or the like. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

it is not an official flag: "In 1991, the City of Wolf Point received a $5,000 grant from Burlington Northern to erect a “Welcome to Wolf Point” sign for travelers arriving to Wolf Point on the train. The five (5) flag poles fly the American flag, the State of Montana flag, a DARE flag and an unofficial Wolf Point flag that was designed by Marvin Presser, a local historian" [2]. Borysk5 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Marvin Presser who invented the flag has e-mail address listed on his website ([3] - contact the author at the bottom) if someone for some reason would want to ask his permission via VRT. Borysk5 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Uploading Copyrighted Images With Owners' Permission

If I contact an organization (in this case a government agency) by e-mail and ask if their images could be uploaded to here for use by all the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation and they give me explicit permission to do so, would I be allowed to upload the images in question? If yes, which copyright tag would I be using? StellarHalo (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@StellarHalo: No. A permission restricted to the projects of Wikimedia is not accepted. A basic element of the reason for existence of Wikimedia is that the material hosted on Wikimedia must have a free license that permits anybody to reuse it. For more information about what to ask and the e-mail procedure, please see this page. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Which government? Which country? That would be another issue to consider. There is no reason to assume that all governments all over the world have the licensing rights to "their" images. In many countries, the copyright and thus the right to decide on the license is non-transferable and always remains with the photographer. --2003:C0:8F08:3A00:99DB:E210:42A9:E2D8 10:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

License of image on https://irland.um.dk/en/about-us/contact

I'm wondering if this image (https://irland.um.dk/en/-/media/country-sites/irland-da/om-os/sam_2935.ashx) falls under {{PD-DenmarkGov}}. I'm not sure whether this template applies to non-textual media or whether it applies to the Danish embassy in Ireland (where this was published). Thanks, $M_{101}^{atr1x-}$ {_user^page! | _t^a_l^k!} 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the exemption in place for public documents does not include photos from websites as they are not similar official documents to laws, court orders or administrative texts. Felix QW (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

FOP guatemala is all wrong

The current content of COM:FOP Guatemala is incorrect. A revisit of both the Spanish version of Decree 33-98 law as well as the English version at WIPO reveals the Guatemalan freedom of panorama (Section 64(d)) is restricted to personal use. As indicated at the Spanish version of the law:

d) La reproducción para uso personal de una obra de arte expuesta en forma permanente en lugares públicos o en la fachada exterior de edificios, ejecutada por medio de un arte que sea distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, así como el título de la obra, si lo tiene, y el lugar donde se encuentra.

English translation provided by WIPO copy:

d) reproduction for personal use of a work of art exhibited permanently in public or on the exterior facade of buildings, executed by an art that is places different from that used for the preparation of the original, provided that the author's name indicated, if it is dealing, and the title of the work, if any, and the place where it is.

This personal use restriction by the copyright law of Guatemala is against COM:L and does not conform to the Principles of Free Cultural Works that Commons enshrines, in which commercial reuses must not be restricted. It is worth noting that a footnote for section 64 states: "Reformed literal d) by Article 91 of Decree No. 11-2006 of the Congress." (In Spanish version: "Reformada la literal d) por el artículo 91 del Decreto Número 11-2006 del Congreso de la República.") Therefore, I suspect Guatemalan FOP was free before but it was made restricted by the 2006 amendment which is currently in force today. This seems a similar case to COM:FOP Honduras, COM:FOP Costa Rica, and COM:FOP Nicaragua, where copyright law amendments during 2000s (decade) restricted their freedom of panorama to personal uses of photos/videos only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could update COM:FOP Guatemala. I am consulting this type of country specific information were frequently when handling deletion requests. Ellywa (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa: done modifying. Actually it is not an update but a correction; no FOP since at least 2006 amendment. Technically covers all infringing photos here. I will wait for archival of this thread so as to add a link to this discussion at COM:FOP Guatemala for future reference. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting! Ellywa (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg needed to be updated as well, and @Ellywa: I have nominated {{FoP-Guatemala}} for deletion. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: I am not a good graphist. I leave that map editing to other editors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Me either😅--A1Cafel (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@A1Cafel and JWilz12345: I've updated the SVG map. Let me know if you see any issues. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: thanks for the update. I suggest updating Nauru too as per COM:FOP Nauru. For Vietnam as per COM:FOP Vietnam let us wait on January 1, 2023, the day it will become a no-commercial FOP country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. And I had no idea Vietnam is losing FoP as well. This is like 10 steps backwards. :-( Ixfd64 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: I got disappointed too. 😥 We in ASEAN region lost another one, thus five remaining states with FOP: Brunei, Burma/Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Perhaps we (the Philippines) will be added among Yes-FOP states once the five pending amendments to our Intellectual Property Code or Republic Act 8293 (in particular House Bill 799, HB 2672, and HB 3838, which all contain FOP provision) are passed as a consolidated amendment law, but more likely next year. By that time Vietnam is already a no-FOP ASEAN state. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Two comments were mistakenly posted here after archiving. They were moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FOP guatemala is all wrong, part 2. Brianjd (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

VRT verification needed? Derivative work?

I'm wondering whether File:ATOM AR3S.png and File:Amaryllo iCamPRO Deluxe.jpg should be VRT verified or whether they are COM:DWs. The files were uploaded by different accounts, but my guess is that both accounts were created by people connected to en:Amaryllo. No EXIF data or source information is provided for either file and they both seem to be fairly high res. They also look like something that would come from a company website with the "Innovation Awards" banners added to each file to help promote their products. The additional elements of the banners seem to complicate things since the banners themselves might be separately eligible for copyright protection. Any opinions on whether these can be kept as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these need a VRT confirmation of the license. Idem for File:Atom b 03 small.png. Yann (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

German Freedom of Panorama

L. Beck started a deletion request recently regarding interior shots of a German underground station, and in the course of that discussion it was suggested to bring the underlying issue to a wider forum rather than discuss Rathaus Steglitz in isolation.

The case revolves around the scope of German Freedom of Panorama, which is regarded by some scholars to exclude any interior locations; for instance, the legal commentary by Nordemann et al. (Kohlhammer publishing) explicitly states that German Freedom of Panorama excludes

Bahnhofshallen, U-Bahnhöfe, Straßen- und Fußgängertunnel, Passagen, Hausdurchgänge und Atrien

while also noting that opinion in the literature is divided on this point (They mention two other commentaries expressing the opposite viewpoint (Dreier/Schulze/Dreier und Wandtke/Bullinger/Lüft) and two other works agreeing with their viewpoint (Schricker/Loewenheim/Vogel and Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht). Felix QW (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, translate the German FoP exclusions text above. Thanks -- Ooligan (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me try:

"Halls inside railway stations, underground stations, subways/underpasses and road tunnels, arcades, passageways and atria".

The common denominator is that these are enclosed areas that are used by the public as thoroughfares.

The reason these cases are debated is that while they seem to be covered by the "public places" mentioned in §59 (1) Sentence 1, §59 (1) Sentence 2 explicitly notes that for buildings, freedom of panorama is restricted to their exterior vista. So the relationship between these two parts of the norm is unclear. Felix QW (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The Canadian Press logo

In File:The Canadian Press.png, it is claimed that the undated logo is copyrighted in Canada. I would boldly move the file to Commons on the grounds that it is too simple to be so, but even I am not sure whether the courts over there would agree with my assessment. My objection to the notion that the logo is copyrighted rests on the fact that the text is standard and the maple leaf is a derivative of the Canadian flag, whose Crown copyright has long expired, assuming it ever were. I could see the argument that the single quotations around the maple leaf, which makes the whole thing resemble the Canadian flag, crosses the sweat of the brow threshold, but that is not relevant here. FreeMediaKid$ 20:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this would exceed COM:TOO Canada, specifically "it need not be creative, in the sense of being novel or unique. What is required to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment. By skill, I mean the use of one’s knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work. By judgment, I mean the use of one’s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work. This exercise of skill and judgment will necessarily involve intellectual effort." It doesn't matter that the Canadian flag and quotation marks are simple existing objects; the copyright comes from the skill and judgment applied by a designer to combine them in this manner to convey the concept of a Canadian press agency. -M.nelson (talk) -M.nelson (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It is moments like this for which I am most proud of bringing these files to the village pump. Just reading and considering the quoted language changed my mind. It is a good thing that I acted on a whim to start this discussion first. As a result, I will just upload the vector logo locally under fair use. FreeMediaKid$ 17:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Licensing on {{Gov.pl}}

I know that the Government of Poland has switched the license to CC-BY-NC-ND in August 2022. However, I found that the old CC-BY license was still present on the English version of the website. I want to know if the CC-BY license can still be applied to those pages with CC-BY license? Pinging @Borysk5, Verbcatcher, Ankry, and De728631: who have participated in the previous discussions regarding the license change. A1Cafel (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps @JWilz12345: could give some ideas on this? --A1Cafel (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They might just have forgotten to switch the licence tag on the English content. However, that is their fault then because the translated version of the website is a different work than the Polish original. So one could claim that the English pages are still freely licensed as long as the current licence footer is displayed there. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Because there are some difference in terms of content. (Usually the Polish version had more content). --A1Cafel (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

They also didn't change it on some other subpages, I think this may their mistake. Anyway, their loss, if you see photo with CC-BY at footer of page, feel free to use it. Borysk5 (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Festival of Lights Berlin - Freedom of Panorama

File:Festival of Lights 2022 - Nikolaiviertel.jpg

Festival of Lights 2022 - symbol foto

Copyright laws change over the time, so i think it better to ask first before I upload some images from the Berlin Festival of Lights I made but never published: Are fotos and videos from the Berlin Festival of Lights covered by Freedom of Panorama, or do the require VRT permission on Commons? Same question for the Blue Lights in Hamburg Harbour? C.Suthorn (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

One freedom of panorama limitation relevant here is that it only covers permanent installations, not those only displayed as part of an exhibition. Felix QW (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Festival runs for 9 days (in 2022) and some, if not all, works were created to be shown only at the Festival, doesn't that meet the conditions for Freedom of Panorama in Germany? C.Suthorn (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The German federal court specifically answered the question of artwork created only for a temporary exhibition in the case of the covering of the parliament building, which was erected specifically for a time-bound presentation, and decided that such cases do not fall under freedom of panorama. Felix QW (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. If I may interject for a moment. For me, the artworks from the Festival of Lights are also not permanent and copyrighted. I support the potential deletion request, including that of my pictures. Best regards. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

AI artwork - license review requested

Quantified Human by Alan Warburton

License review was requested a year ago

• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/12#Open_licensed_images_relating_to_AI

I just now went to the talk page of that image and posted a rationale of why I think the license is appropriate.

• File talk:Alan Warburton - Quantified Human.jpg

I do not think there is any controversy here, but when @Nosferattus: uploaded the image they requested Commons:License review, and I also think it is a good idea to get more confirmation of the license here.

Here are some odd things about this image:

• It is AI generated
• Commons does not have strong or certain AI policy
• This is not based on a photo, but is a photo-realistic image of an AI-generated non-existent human. This is uncommon right now
• The photo comes from a campaign calling for art. I think the license is in order, but this is not a typical upload only from the artist creator

Can someone with license review rights please process the "review needed" category on that image by following the instructions at Category:License review needed? Also please post here saying that you have done so, and with any thoughts. I want this documented before I upload more images from this collection. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that we do have {{PD-algorithm}} for images that are entirely generated by AI, but I don't think that is the case here. Nosferattus (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Uploads by Thebees1889 (talk · contribs)

These scans/photos of various 1910s and 1920s cigarette cards/postcards/etc are described as Thebees1889 (talk · contribs)'s own work and licensed as CC-BY-SA-4.0, but they are clearly not the author/copyright holder of the actual images so this license isn't appropriate. I suppose many of the images would be PD in the US as they were published pre-1927 but as these was published in the UK I think they need evidence that they have tried to locate the actual copyright holder(s) and that either they were unable, or the real authors died more than 70 years ago. Thought it was worth bringing here as there are quite a lot of them. BigDom (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:PD-UK-unknown should apply here for anonymous works made before 1952. Borysk5 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I assume it would for most. But the question is whether the photographers are truly unknown, or simply that the uploader didn't bother to find out and instead claimed it as their own work? Because the descriptions don't give much information, e.g. cropped from "a postcard" or "a cigarette card", but which one, which brand? I'll leave a message on their talk page and see if they can provide any more information. BigDom (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

1958 Herbert Hoover photo

File:Herbert Hoover color 1958.png is licensed as {{PD-USGov}} and it's sourced the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Museum store, but the author is unknown. The USen:presidential library system appears to be operated and managed by the en:National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA, however, is like the en:US post office in that it is an en:independent federal agency that is established by the US Congress, but otherwise seems to operate independently of the federal government. The copyright section of the NARA website states that "the vast majority of the digital images" it hosts are in the public domain, but that it also hosts some images that remain copyrighted and that separate permission maybe needed in some cases, which is something that seems pretty standard for government websites. The How is a Presidential library paid for and funded? section of the Hoover Library's website seems to say that some of its funding for operations (including staff salaries) comes from private sources, which seems to imply sort of a quasi-governmental status, and the Copyright and Citation section states that some of the material in the library are protected by copyright or of unknown copyright status. Should it, therefore, be just assumed that this photo is OK as licensed or should it be treated as an anonymous photo instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I found this postcard on eBay that shows the photo with a copyright by Bradley Smith. Smith was a freelance photographer, so {{PD-USGov}} does not appear to apply. It could be {{PD-US-not renewed}}, as a quick search of the copyright database didn't turn up anything relevant, but it would be better to know more about the photo (for example, it could have been first published in a book or magazine that did have its copyright renewed). Toohool (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that Toohool. Maybe this needs further discussion at COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

NARA is, full stop, part of the U.S. federal government (executive branch). It's not a little nebulous like the Smithsonian. Any works created by their employees are PD-USGov. That said, most of its material are records transferred from other government departments, the majority of which are PD-USGov of course, but it's always possible for third-party stuff to be collected by governmental departments then transferred along with other records. In this case, it would seem PD-USGov is unlikely, but Hoover must have had a print in his records, which eventually went to his presidential museum -- but that means it was published at the time. The fact they are using it likely means it is either PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed. So yes, I'd probably change to that (or just use PD-US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• I changed to "PD-US-not renewed", I cant tell if the photographer was a government employee, but their name does not appear in the renewal database. --RAN (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Indiana Government Illegal Copyright

Indiana law does not allow copyright, trademark, or royalties to be placed on government photos. Per Indiana Code 4-13-1-1: Indiana's public records law does not allow public agencies to place restrictions on public records: "that requires the public to obtain a license or pay copyright royalties for obtaining the right to inspect and copy the records". [4]https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/

The photos I have uploaded should not be deleted as they were uploaded by and property of the Indiana government. Grahaml35 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the government website of Indiana's laws are geoblocked, preventing IPs from Germany to access them?! Since a lack of availability of the relevant laws makes working on Commons rather difficult, could somebody perhaps upload the "public records law" of Indiana to Wikisource (The law itself is public domain as an Edict of Government)? Felix QW (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Indiana is classified as "yellow" by Harvard University's State Copyright Resource Center, which tends to be fairly reliable when it comes to this type of things. The Harvard site states basically the same as what you posted above about copyright royalties, but the very next sentence is as follows: "State agencies are, however, allowed to enact rules prohibiting the commercial use of public records." Since Commons doesn't not accept any types of licenses that place restrictions on commercial use, that would be one reason why such files cannot be uploaded to Commons. Another issue would be whether the files you uploaded were original creations by an employee of the State of Indiana as part of their official duties, or something created by a third-party. Even in the case of US government websites, images created by third-parties are often hosted by such websites and the copyright ownership of such content is still retained by its original creator absent any en:copyright transfer agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Grahaml35, Felix QW, and Marchjuly: The second use of "4-13-1-1" is near the top of "ARTICLE 13. ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

OF STATE SERVICES, EMPLOYEES, PURCHASES,

AND PROPERTY" on page 477 of the 1,419 page 19,673 KB https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/a/f/5/a/af5a5d81/TITLE4_title4.pdf as archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20170215050654/https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/a/f/5/a/af5a5d81/TITLE4_title4.pdf , which can be viewed on the web at https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/titles/004/articles/013/ . However, I can't find the quoted text from above there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Public records are not the same thing as copyright. The public has a right to inspect the records, and make copies of them for particular purposes, but does not grant the full scope of copyright (commercial copying, derivative works, etc.). The scope of fair use on public records would be greatly enlarged, but it's not the same thing as a copyright license which allows *all* use, which we require here. Per the Harvard site on state copyright, Indiana has nothing directly on-point, and is rated "yellow", which is realistically unknown. In general, we assume states can copyright their works if they so choose; the public records law simply says that the existence of a copyright cannot prevent the disclosure of public records (this is common among many states); it does not say that copyright does not exist. You can only use the copied records within the bounds of copyright fair use, which is not enough for a free license here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Math920 is claiming authorship of several of the photos from my website www.pamirs.org. I have no objection to some of them being used, with appropriate recognition of my authorship. Others I request be withdrawn I Pamirsorg (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for notifying us. I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tajik boy.jpg where I will add other photos uploaded by Math920 that could be found on your website back in 2009. De728631 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Canadian soccer team badge logo

Is File:Canada-Badge-Outline.png OK to keep as licensed? Even though COM:TOO Canada seems to be similar to COM:TOO US, I'm not sure this would be {{PD-logo}} even under US copyright law. It seems like might be at least a borderline case that meets the "exercise in skill and judgement" criterion under Canadian copyright law that's required for something to be eligible for copyright protection, which means it might need to be treated as such out of caution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd lean towards it exceeding COM:TOO Canada due to the skill and judgement. The overall design (selection and proportioning of the elements) and stylization of the soccer ball both seem to have taken design skill and judgement, exceeding something "so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise." ^{(from COM:TOO Canada)} -M.nelson (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Portrait of Icelandic politisians

The Icelandic Parliament has a website with pictures of all the politicians that have a seat there. I was wondering if I could import them here. Their copyright notice is as follows (translated from Icelandic): Portrait photographs of members of parliament taken in 2016 and later are marked with the photographer and with the following text about permission to reproduce them: Reuse of this photograph is free to everyone, on the condition that the photographer's name appears where applicable. In addition, the author's right to honor must be respected so that reuse does not distort or change the author's work in such a way as to impair his authorship or uniqueness." link. Would this be enough to add them here? Steinninn ♨ 19:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My initial thought is that "the author's right to honor must be respected so that reuse does not distort or change the author's work in such a way as to impair his authorship or uniqueness" limits the ability to re-use for any purpose, making it non-free. But on the other hand it might be considered authors' moral rights which as a non-copyright restriction seems to be OK for Commons. -M.nelson (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Lee Harvey Oswald arrested at the Texas Theatre, Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963.jpg

Hi, Licensed as PD-USGov, but no author mentioned. Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• File:Warren Commission exhibit 697 (JFK motorcade).jpg

@Yann: alamy.com attributes the subject photo to "Svintage Archive / Alamy Stock Photo". time.com attributes it to "Jim MacCammon, courtesy Howard Upchurch". Ad-laden nydailynews.com attribtutes it to HO/REUTERS. I am inclined to believe Jim MacCammon was the photographer, as one of perhaps multiple photographers gathered for a perpwalk, so probably not the US Government's work. Sourcing for the second photo is even murkier, again probably not the US Government's work.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This article tells the story of the first photo. The photo was taken by freelance photographer Jim MacCammon. It was first published in Time magazine in February 1964. Time shared it with the FBI, which is how it made its way into the exhibits of the Warren Commission. Other than that, it wasn't published again until 2008.

So {{PD-USGov}} clearly does not apply. It's possible that it's {{PD-US-no notice}} from the publication by the Warren Commission, but probably not. It would have to have been an authorized publication, so we would have to assume both that Time gave the photo to the FBI with the understanding that they could publish it and that the terms between Time and MacCammon allowed them to relicense it to be published elsewhere.

As for the second photo, I found it here on the National Archives site, which lists it as coming from Record Group 272, which is the records of the Warren Commission. Perhaps someone can find a record in there that gives more information about where it came from. But {{PD-USGov}} seems unlikely. I would guess it was taken by some bystander along the motorcade route, who later gave it to the authorities. Toohool (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this research. I nominated both. Yann (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nagasawa Kanaye photo

Can I upload this photo [[5]] (this image: https://cdn-japantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/n-wineking-b-20171023.jpg )? It says "Kanae Nagasawa, one of the first Japanese immigrants to the U.S., is seen in this undated photo. | COURTESY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF ICHIKIKUSHIKINO / VIA KYODO". Kanaye lived from 1852 till 1934. So I think it was published before 1927. In Japan it should be in the public domain, because it was photographed before January 1, 1947. There is a larger, but darker version 1024 x 1508 pixels 159 KB https://imengine.prod.srp.navigacloud.com/?uuid=1abd7c7a-681c-54ae-9de9-fdc9095a2d59&type=primary&q=72&width=1024 (in jfif format) from slide 3 of https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/photos-asian-americans-in-sonoma-county-who-made-history/?artslide=2 sourced to "Museum of Sonoma County" and the credit "courtesy of Byck Family" at https://globe.asahi.com/article/11846555 . - Artanisen (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggested asking here at User talk:Jeff G.#Nagasawa Kanaye photo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Using data licensed under {{Data license Germany-attribution-2.0}} in a Commons Map

Which license would a map like this get? The original map is licensed under a free license. Would the combined map list both licenses under each other, combine them with each other or use only the "Data license Germany"? Example Map: File:Durchschnittsalter Kreisebene 2020.svg

Similar situation but with a slightly different license that doesn't allow commercial use: File:Hantavirusinfektionen RKI 2012.svg is based on a Commons map and uses data from the en:Robert Koch Institute which is licensed under non commercial use only (https://survstat.rki.de/Content/Instruction/DataUsage.aspx). How would a map like this be licensed?

Does using licensed data to color a map even fall under the license? --Hi, future humans! (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hi, future humans! it often helps to read the actual license text, which is available here. The English version reads (my emphasis):

(1) Any use will be permitted provided it fulfils the requirements of this "Data licence Germany – attribution – Version 2.0".

The data and meta-data provided may, for commercial and non-commercial use, in particular

1. be copied, printed, presented, altered, processed and transmitted to third parties;
2. be merged with own data and with the data of others and be combined to form new and independent datasets;
3. be integrated in internal and external business processes, products and applications in public and non-public electronic networks.

(2) The user must ensure that the source note contains the following information:

1. the name of the provider,
2. the annotation "Data licence Germany – attribution – Version 2.0" or "dl-de/by-2-0" referring to the licence text available at www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0, and
3. a reference to the dataset (URI).

This applies only if the entity keeping the data provides the pieces of information 1-3 for the source note.
(3) Changes, editing, new designs or other amendments must be marked as such in the source note.

Our template is misleading, as it talks about "this work" rather than "the data used to create this work": As far as I understand, the license is primarily concerned about the data itself. For example, if you merge some of this data with your own data, you need to retain the information that this part of the data has this license. Similarly, if you use the data to make a figure, you need to make clear that the data you were using was available under this license. The license text does not say anything about figures or maps made from the data, nor would it make sense to use this license for anything but data. As far as I can tell, you just need to make sure to properly list your sources. Section (2) tells you how to do that. HOWEVER: IANAL, other views welcome. --El Grafo (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Footer

Currently states "Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. All structured data from the file namespace is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License; all unstructured text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy." That is missleading. I think we should state that this only applies to structured data "labeled" as "structured data", e.g. categories, which are a structure, doesn't fall under this term. Therefore I propose to change from "All structured data" to "All data labeled as 'structured data'". Habitator terrae 🌍 21:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC) PS: Furthermore I worry whether bot copying of structured data could be a license violate, if e.g. a big database-work of metadata under CC BY-SA with its files was imported to commons and then all this metadata was automaticly copied - not collected - with a bot and claimed under its CC0-License.

? Habitator terrae 🌍 17:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Vancouver Archives re-use

I'm interested in uploading this photo https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/m-s-john-macdonald from the City of Vancouver Archives which was taken by Walter E. Frost (whose photos were donated to the archives) and is still under copyright per COM:CANADA. The 'Rights area' section of that page states that the photo is "under copyright" and that the rights holder is the City of Vancouver (assumed to have been transferred to the city upon donation, which seems to happen per their donation policy).

The Archives' reproduction policy is at https://vancouver.ca/your-government/archives-reproduction-of-materials-policy.aspx and states 3.3 Use of materials whose copyrights are owned by the City of Vancouver: For materials whose copyrights are owned by the City of Vancouver, the Archives grants the patron a non-exclusive license to use the reproductions without restriction as to the nature or purpose of the use. and 3.7 Credits: Patrons must credit the "City of Vancouver Archives" and the material's item number, and the photographer (if known), for each use of materials.

Am I correct in interpreting this as something like an {{Attribution}} license, and it being allowed on Commons? -M.nelson (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Who does the word "patrons" refer to? Borysk5 (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a generic term for users or consumers of their material. There doesn't seem to be a formal patronage or membership program. There also are no policies (or restrictions) for non-patrons, though they do distinguish between reproductions done by patrons themselves vs reproductions done by the archives on behalf of patrons. -M.nelson (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and uploaded the photo File:M.S. John A. Macdonald 1967a.jpg (and another accompanying photo File:M.S. John A. Macdonald 1967b.jpg) with the permission template {{Attribution only license}} and statement City of Vancouver Archives, AM1506-S3-3-: CVA 447-5335, Photograph by Walter E. Frost which I believe aligns with the example attribution statement at https://vancouver.ca/your-government/get-a-copy-of-an-archival-record.aspx as well as their policy previously linked at https://vancouver.ca/your-government/donating-records-to-the-archives.aspx. -M.nelson (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Croatian Euro coins

Hi! Croatia is switching to Euro on 1. January 2023. A new law was released (link in Croatian), stating the following (excerpt from Article 35):

(...) (2) Any use of the design of the national side of the euro coin requires the prior approval of the Croatian National Bank, which is issued in an administrative procedure.

(3) As an exception to paragraph 2 of this article, the use of all or part of the design of the national side of the euro coin is permitted without the prior approval of the Croatian National Bank only in the following cases: - on photographs, drawings, pictures, films and other specimens in two-dimensional form and without relief, provided that such specimen represents a faithful representation of the design of the national side of the euro coin and is used in a way that does not deform, mutilate or similarly deface the design of the national side foreign euro coins (...)

Is this acceptable for Commons? What is considered relief here? Thank you! —Ivi104 19:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Relief as I understand is 3d shape of coin, so not revelant as we're on computer screens. Borysk5 (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, unless the "faithfulness" requirement impedes derivative works, which we require to be freely possible. Felix QW (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Derivative works containing copyrighted land art/FoP clarification

Bit of a unique copyright/FoP question here. Per U.S. law, there is no freedom of panorama to photograph 2- or 3-dimensional copyrighted works of art, even if they are in a public place, aside from works of architecture. There are about half a dozen or more images on Commons of American artist Robert Smithson's (1938-1973) land art piece Spiral Jetty (1970), see: Category:Spiral Jetty. Per the executor of Smithson's estate, the Holt-Smithson Foundation, Spiral Jetty is still actively under copyright, owned by the Foundation, while the work itself is co-owned by the Foundation and the Dia Art Foundation. But several users uploading images of Spiral Jetty have claimed the work is in the public domain, or that land art is not covered by copyright. How should these images be handled? The courts have not been definitive in their assessment of copyright claims for land art, meaning it's a bit of a murky situation in terms of Wikimedia's obligations under the law, but I also feel like it's our obligation to defer to the more conservative interpretation when dealing with works of art. Any thoughts or takes on whether these images should be kept? There are many similar images freely licensed on Flickr and other sites that could be uploaded at lower sizes directly to Wikipedia to replace these images. 19h00s (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@19h00s: The law seems pretty clear that U.S. FoP only exempts "architectural works" that are embodied in "buildings". The term "building" means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary. So I don't think the FOP exemption would apply here. Then the question becomes is Spiral Jetty copyrighted? Leaving aside issues of originality, since Spiral Jetty was created in 1970, it would have required a visible copyright notice. In the absence of a copyright notice, it would have immediately fallen into the public domain upon publication (i.e. unrestricted public access). Thus it's probably safe to say that Spiral Jetty is public domain as it's very unlikely that it included a copyright notice. Nosferattus (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

But the executor of the artist's estate claims copyright, implying that there was a copyright notice, and even the owner of the work (Dia Art Foundation) also seems to be required to license images of the artwork as demonstrated on their own site. Smithson's copyright is licensed by the Artists Rights Society, also implying that there is some sort of legal basis for the ARS to take action against unlicensed images. 19h00s (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(should have done an extra search, but per the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, the work is in fact covered by copyright) 19h00s (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

They may claim it, but it doesn't necessarily make it so. That may also be slyly worded; they could simply be referring to photographs that they take -- those are obviously copyrighted and need a license. Also, the specific contours are earthen, and can be changed by waves etc. -- that is not the type of thing the Copyright Office usually allows registrations for. The general shape of a spiral would not be enough to qualify for a copyright. It's possible the artist or estate never bothered to try and register the work, but are simply claiming copyright. I don't see a copyright notice in photos, and the SIRIS entry states that it is unsigned, so no copyright notice there. If they can show a valid copyright registration for the work as a sculpture, it may be different, but failing that I'd have to guess that it's not a registrable work in the first place (don't think the artist gets credit for the specific placement of each rock, as that can change) -- but rather just the general arrangement in a spiral, and doubt that familiar shape alone would be copyrightable. See the Copyright Compendium, in particular section 905. It's very cool due to the location and the scale, but those are not copyrightable aspects really. Second, if it was copyrightable, the lack of a copyright notice would have ended it right away. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted here that 19h00s already opened multiple deletion requests for images of Spiral Jetty: 1 2 3, and one for a similar Smithson work: 4. Toohool (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• They clearly claim that there is copyright in the original work: at the bottom of the page, in the footer, they say:—“Nancy Holt’s artworks Sun Tunnels (1973-76) and Holes of Light (1973), and Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty (1970) are © Holt/Smithson Foundation and Dia Art Foundation, licensed by VAGA at ARS, New York”. However, they do not provide a registration number for easy verification, so I looked into the registration records. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that Smithson’s Spiral Jetty is sufficiently (1) creative and (2) fixed to be copyrightable—which is by no means a certainty. Given that, and its 1970 publication date (as claimed by Holt–Smithson), a copyright notice is required. There is no evidence, from aërial imagery or ground-level photographs, of a copyright notice. To be sure, however, I checked the CCE for works of art for 1970 and the first half of 1971; I found no records for Smithson. Thus, it is absolutely clear to me that Smithson’s Spiral Jetty (1970) is in the public domain (per PD-US-no notice), and photographs of it are not in violation of the (non-existent) copyright of Holt–Smithson. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Graphics published by the IPCC

Background: The w:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body responsible for advancing knowledge on human-induced w:climate change, publishes numerous graphics that are useful for presentation on Wikipedia.

Issues: Questions have arisen, whether (1) IPCC graphics themselves, or (2) newly generated graphics using the data underlying the graphics, may be freely uploaded to Commons. IPCC content is not explicitly published under a CC license: https://www.ipcc.ch/copyright/

1. Is it proper to have uploaded (for example) this IPCC graphic to Commons: File:IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM-50 Mitigation Options.png ?

• Note that the uploader created his own template: Template:IPCC based on the proposition that Wikipedia/Wikimedia constitutes "media".

2. Was this Commons graphic, based on data underlying the IPCC graphic, proper File:MitigationOptions costs potentials IPCCAR6WGIII rotated-de.svg ?

• Sub-issue: Is this Commons graphic a prohibited "derivative work" of the IPCC graphic, or a new graphic based on the (unprotectedCC-licensed) data underlying the graphic?

One discussion was recently begun here, without resolution.

Please let us know your reasoned answers to the above questions, as IPCC content is central to widely viewed wikipedia articles. RCraig09 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• From the copyright page linked above, "You may freely download and copy the material contained on this website for your personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute it or to compile or create derivative works there from, subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific materials." That doesn't look to be something compatible with Commons. No comment on question 2. Ravensfire (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Ravensfire that the copyright on the IPCC page is insufficient for free use on Wikimedia projects.

Regarding Question 2: A new plot based on the same data would seem perfectly fine; however, File:MitigationOptions costs potentials IPCCAR6WGIII rotated-de.svg is not that, but an exact translation of the graphic into German and therefore in my opinion a clear derivative work. If one would make, say, a pie chart of the same data, or group the data in a different way, etc, then that would be no issue.

But the present graphic is clearly a reverse-engineered copy of a copyrighted graphic, and that is not OK.

So it would only be fine if the plot of the data would be sufficiently simple and unoriginal not to attract any copyright in the first place; to me, the grouping on several levels seems beyond that, but maybe others also have opinions on this point.

See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Scientific_or_technical_diagrams for details. Felix QW (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• On question 1, I agree with the above commenters that this material is not eligible for Commons, and {{IPCC}} is misleading and should be deleted.
  On question 2, I believe this too is ineligible. Looking into what data is actually being presented at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/, it's clear that this isn't simple raw data (e.g. sensor or survey data) but is the result of significant professional research, investigation, estimation, analysis, etc. This meets "A set of data based on estimates. Estimates require some form of creativity (often from experts) and should be considered as creative content" as copyrighted in COM:Copyright rules by subject matter#Scientific or technical diagrams. (Additionally, I believe presenting the data in this graphic took a fair amount of creative work, far more than simply presenting a data table.) -M.nelson (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  The data is released under a CC-BY license, though, so derivative works of the data only would be fine. Felix QW (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, thank you. I agree with your comment above "Regarding Question 2" about re-using the data vs the graphic. @RCraig09: could you clarify your OP that the data isn't unprotected but is CC licensed (at the Accessibility tab of Felix QW's link)? -M.nelson (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@M.nelson: Thanks to User:Felix QW for finding IPCC's CC licensing of data. Per my 17:31 'Supplement', below, I am in full agreement that Wikimedians' plotting of data does not constitute copyright infringement (except for "databases" such as phone books, under U.S. law). Beyond these particular files, at https://ipcc-data.org/copyright.html I get the message "www.ipcc.ch refused to connect", so it would be best if the "ipcc-data.org" link referred to all IPCC data and not just to a particular dataset for a particular graphic. Can anyone here confirm what https://ipcc-data.org/copyright.html says? RCraig09 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The embedded frame at https://ipcc-data.org/copyright.html leads to the same copyright statement given for the IPCC website proper, prohibiting commercial reuse. I had also been of the opinion that the facts itself should not be copyrightable, but then Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Scientific_or_technical_diagrams does speak of exceptions where the data is derived by a sufficiently creative process to attract copyright, and for the present purposes and in light of the CC-BY license with the dataset we do not need to decide the matter. Felix QW (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• The IPCC copyright notice also says: "...for media use it is sufficient to cite the source while using the original graphic or figure." This made me assume that using the original file is in line with the copyright, while the SVG is not. And Wikipedia / Wikimedia are media, or would anyone disagree? - The uploader Hedgehoque (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikimedia projects are promoting free content, there are tight restrictions on the use of non-free media here (see meta:Non-free content). For Commons, non-free media are strictly prohibited (COM:Fair use), while the English Wikipedia has tight limits on their use (en:Non-free content). Therefore a license that does not allow commercial reuse and derivative works is unsuitable for upload to Commons. Felix QW (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have written a request for clarification to the IPCC secretariat. Hedgehoque (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

While hosting on Commons probably conforms to their license, i.e. it would not be copyright infringement to host it here, it violates our own self-imposed conditions in Commons:Licensing, where all works we host must conform to https://freedomdefined.org definitions. In particular, we require that works we host be allowed to be used commercially. (It's more than just policy; it's part our founding requirements, and is a general requirement for content throughout Wikimedia projects.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As Felix QW said, allowance for "media use" is insufficient for Commons/Wikimedia. We require allowance of re-use for any purpose, not just "media use" (regardless of whatever that means). -M.nelson (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Supplement to my original post:

— If an original IPCC graphic is mere routine charting of data (a column chart, etc.), I think the routine chart itself doesn't meet the threshold of originality and doesn't warrant copyright protection in the first place. However, if there is original content beyond the routine charting, a genuine issue may arise, which we are discussing here.

— Separately, it's clear that much of the data that the IPCC charts, is the result of immense scientific and analyticl effort, but it's not the data itself that is protected by copyright^{(except something that's large enough to be called a database (like a phone book)—which is protectable under at least U.S. law)}. I think this consideration gives Wikimedians considerable leeway in charting IPCC data. RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09: While I think most of your analysis is correct, the odd digression about phone books definitely isn't. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.. In the U.S., size and effort are completely irrelevant to whether or not something can be copyrighted. What matters is creativity and originality. Nosferattus (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: ~blush~ My memory of old cases appears to be incorrect. I may have been thinking about something like w:Database right. Thank you for your response. RCraig09 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• (Please note that I am creator of the plot that is object of question 2.) Concerning question 2, Felix QW brought up the possible issue that the grouping of the CC-licensed data might bring the original plot of the data above a threshold of originality, and hence a reproduction might constitute a copyright infringement. But this grouping has not been a result of the process of creating the graphic. It exists independently, as can be seen e.g. from Table 12.3 of the IPCC report ([6]), where the very same data is presented in form of a table with the same grouping. So, the plot made simply use of a grouping that already existed elsewhere, and hence the plot of data (including the grouping) is sufficiently simple as not to constitute a copyright infringement. Concerning question 1, in my opinion presenting the data in this graphic did not take much creative work. Take a look at File:MitigationOptions_costs_potentials_IPCCAR6WGIII_rotated-de.svg, where I describe how I created the plot. The graphic is a standard stacked bar chart with whiskers, all these elements are supported out of the box by established plotting tools. Given the data (and grouping), it is straightforward to write a small gnuplot script that creates such a standard bar chart. It requires only basic programming skills and, IMO, no creativity. --DeWikiMan (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

— I think that the grouping itself required creative decision making—whether or not the grouping happened "elsewhere" in the IPCC document also. That creative decision making places the original IPCC graphic over the threshold of originality and makes it subject to copyright protection.

— It seems that the discussion here is concluding that routine plotting of data is permissible under both copyright law and the more restrictive Wikimedia standards, but that copying or close recasting of non-trivial IPCC graphics are not permissible here. (The issue is not the "straightford"ness of GNU plotting—which most people can't do btw—but how the data is plotted.) RCraig09 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I had another look into the CC-licensed data [7]. The grouping is part of the data, and hence is CC-licensed, too.

My point was that the IPCC graphic under consideration, given the data (and grouping), is trivial, since there is nothing special about how it was created, it is a standard bar chart with whiskers.

Concerning the grouping, since I often use IPCC-sources, I'd like to digress a little and would like to ask for clarification: I agree that the grouping itself required some form of creative decision making. But does that mean that - were it not CC-licensed - using this grouping alone, e.g. in textual form, would constitute a copyright infringement? Maybe someone can point me somewhere where this is clarified. --DeWikiMan (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're projecting too much into the word "data" when you say "the grouping is part of the data": grouping relates to how data is arranged, and therefore can't be "part of" the data. Separately, it's possible that a textual arrangement could meet the threshold of originality; the particular arrangement would have to be analyzed to determine whether it warrants protection. On a side note: it's the arrangement of bars in the chart that we're talking about, not whether it's a "standard" bar chart. RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Of course if the textual arrangement is explicitly CC licensed, that changes things as far as the textual representation is concerned. RCraig09 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

In this case, it is quite clear that the sector (i.e. the grouping) is part of the CC-licensed data, since it is an element within the data-dictionary, see the tab "data-dictionary" under [8].

As concerns the arrangement of the bars, - given the grouping - I don't see anything in it that required creativity. --DeWikiMan (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Data dictionary" tab seems to be a definition of the format and content of the data, not the data itself. I agree that, "given the grouping", not much creativity is required to chart it (GNU plotting or otherwise); however, we're not assured we as outsiders are "given" the grouping in the first place. RCraig09 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree, that's what the data dictionary is, it defines the format and content, types and structure of the data, but itself is "only" metadata. So my wording was bad, I should have said "it is defined in the data-dictionary".

My point was not, that the data dictionary is licensed (though, perhaps a case could be made that it is), but that it defines the (licensed) data. According to the data-dictionary, "the data" consists of rows (tuples) of fields (data elements), where each row constitutes the data for a mitigation option. This data includes a field called "sector". So the sector and the assignment of other field values to a value of the field sector is part of the licensed data. Given, that a mitigation option is assigned a sector, in my opinion, there is nothing creative about visually "grouping" it by sector. (Actually, this the way in which the data itself has been stored.) --DeWikiMan (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

— You've made good description of how the data is organized. I agree that, if we assume a dataset is already arranged in rows of fields, there is "nothing creative about visually grouping it by sector". However, as I've alluded to previously, that's not the point concerning whether the resulting graphic doesn't meet the threshold of originality warranting copyright protection. The critical point is that the IPCC graphic does indeed possess the organized grouping of data, and it's irrelevant that the grouping is also reflected in a separate IPCC array of rows and fields (it's speculation, which of the graphic or the array preceded the other). Critically, the (presumably unprotectable) data are the values in the array, not the array itself. (In more abstract copyright terms, the data itself corresponds to the (presumably unprotectable) idea, and the array's organization corresponds to the (presumably protectible) expression of the idea/data.)
— I think that what we as Wikimedians may validly upload is a routine presentation of the data itself—without infringing on the protectible IPCC arrangement scheme. I don't think that this is an instance in which both the IPCC graphic and the Wikimedia graphic are "routine" or "uncreative" representations of the data, and so I think we Wikimedians must take care not to simply copy the IPCC graphic, but we must do the extra work representing the data in our own graphic. RCraig09 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify again, RCraig. But, frankly, it is hard to get to grips with your position.

1. I am confused by what you mean by "unprotectable". "The Data for Figure SPM.7" (published here [9]) is CC-licensed, isn't it? As concerns the "speculation", the existence of this data (including it's organiziation in rows) must have preceded the existence of Figure SPM.7, otherwise it couldn't have been created.
2. We seem to agree, that plotting Figure SPM.7 (including the "grouping" by sector) from Data for Figure for SPM.7 (including its "arrangement" in rows, which include the sector) is simple enough for it to be a "routine presentation" of the data.
3. I think we disagree what "data" means. I did not merely wish to "make a good description of how the data" is structured, but wanted to make clear that structured data is data. (a common understanding of the term, see e.g. [10]). Clearly, use of primitive values is only possible when they are associated with each other, e.g. arranged in rows (e.g. a float value of "Potential in cost bin 0-20" must be "arranged" with a string value of "mitigation option" for it to make any sense at all). A CC-license on isolated primitive values only, and not on the "arrangement" of values in rows (records), would be completely useless. So I believe the IPCC meant to license data as defined in the data dictionary, and that includes rows (structured data), which also includes the association of other values with a sector (the data element, on which, trivially, the rows are "grouped").
4. So, to summarize, I believe, what is licensed is data, consisting of rows of primitive values, including the assignment of values to a sector. I also believe that going from this (licensed) structured data to the plot under discussion is a routine representation.

Now, presumably the critical question is, what exactly the IPCC meant to license. I have not found a clear answer to this yet on ipcc-data.org. I will raise a ticket with their helpdesk and ask for clarification. In my experience, it could take very long until we get a response. If you have sources to back up your understanding of what you consider the licensed "data" is, what the license covers, please point me to them. They might really help me understand your view.

--DeWikiMan (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

— By protectable I merely meant "a proper subject of copyright protection"... copyrightable subject matter. Unprotectable here describes something not properly subject to copyright protection.

— A simplified example of what I mean is that: the values plugged into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet constitute the data. The particular arrangement and organization of the spreadsheet, including the order and organization of field designators at the top of columns, and the order and organization of row descriptions at the left side of rows, are not part of the data. Excel has an internal charting function that users can define, and when data is entered into the rows and columns, Excel immediately amends the chart to reflect newly added data. We can freely use the data—the values—but a non-trivial organization of the values into specifically defined rows and columns constitutes original creativity that we have to respect. Some individual spreadsheet organizations may be trivial and routine; however, other spreadsheet organizations, like the ones under consideration here, may constitute such non-trivial original creativity that we must respect under copyright (and even moreso under Wikimedia's stricter rules). 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Supplemented RCraig09 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think, we might be close to understanding each other. First of all, I didn't want to further delve into the argument I made at "19:52, 20 November 2022". I don't think this is necessary. My argument, from "20:49, 20 November 2022" on, was a different one and not about the presentation (visual/textual arrangement) of data in a spreadsheet or table. (That I directly linked to the spreadsheet must have been confusing, sorry for that.) It is essentially about what, I have good reason to believe, the data is according to the definition in the data-dictionary.

What I believe, the (licensed) data is, are rows (tuples, records) of values of associated data elements. So, according to the definition in the data-dictionary [11] the data is defined as:

       (sector name :String, option name :String, potential with cost lower than the reference :Float, potential in cost bin 0-20 :Float, ...)

and then, at least in my view, the data is (with the rows in random order):

       ("AFOLU","Forest management, fire management",0,0.38,0,0.78,0.22,0,1.4,,0.6,2.8)
       ("Energy sector","Hydropower",0,0.11,0.11,0.11,0,0,0.32,smooth,0.16,0.48)
       ("Industry","Material efficiency",0,0,0.93,0,0,0,0.93,,0.7,1.16)
       ("Energy sector","Solar energy",2.7,0.6,0.6,0.6,0,0,4.5,smooth,2,7)
       ...

I don't think, we are only allowed to use isolated, atomic values, and not their logical associations with each other. This wouldn't make any sense, and I don't believe this is, what the IPCC meant to license. So I don't think, this is the data (in random order):

       0,0.6,smooth,smooth,"Industry",0.32,0.22,0,,"Material efficiency","AFOLU",0.16,"Hydropower", ...

So, if the first view is correct, crucially, both the sector and the association of other values with a sector is in the data. It is not a "row description" that resides somewhere outside of the data only in a spreadsheet or elsewhere, as a separate idea. Clearly, the "sector name" is a data element that partitions the rows, i.e. it logically groups the rows by sector. This, I think, might be considered a creative step: define suitable sectors and associate mitigation options with sectors, so that we have a partitioning of the options. But with that step accomplished, visually grouping the options by sector means simply ordering and labeling them with sectors. That involves, in my view, no creativity at all.

Hence my view is that, all that might reasonably be considered creative is in the (licensed) data. Plotting from this data the graphic under discussion is a routine representation of the data.

Sorry, if my argument was confusing and not clear.

--DeWikiMan (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks to RCraig09 for starting this discussion and thanks to everyone to provide their insights! I've found it very interesting and also quite confusing. Have we reached an easy-to-communicate consensus yet? I guess the verdict is that this graph (the one with the mitigation options) ought to be deleted from Commons? And if someone was to re-create it how would it have to look? Could you, DeWikiMan, perhaps recreate it in a way that is copyright conforming so that a) we have a good example for future cases and b) we can use it at ? Only if it's not too much trouble for you. If you don't have time, perhaps you could outline how you would do it and then I could try to do it (I've never created a new graph for Wikipedia). EMsmile (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

— @DeWikiMan: My Excel example was perhaps too trivial an example. I used Excel "field" (column) designators and labels (row designators) as an example of a particular expression of the meaning that is concretely associated with atomic data values; the IPCC dataset involves a hierarchy that is more complex.
— We seem to agree that creativity lies in the hierarchical "sector"-ization (hierarchical arrangement, grouping, organization, categorization, etc...) of the atomic data values. We disagree whether this particular arrangement/grouping/organization/categorization of data values is part of the (unprotectable) data itself.
— Of course I agree that each individual data value "has" inherent meaning associated with it. You've correctly pointed out that tuple values can't be scrambled randomly into meaninglessness. However, there are various ways that the data (the unprotectable "idea" in copyright parlance) can be hierarchically organized and still be correct. In this (non-trivial) IPCC dataset presentation, these associations are specific and concrete (the copyright-protected "expression" in copyright parlance). If, as in this case, a dataset is non-trivial, the concrete expression of those associations will vary with the differently-organized datasets of the same data values (in other words, the IPCC could have organized the dataset-as-a-whole differently). That's why I say we can't simply copy or make derivative works of this particular hierarchical organization of this IPCC dataset. In non-trivial datasets like this, we should do the extra work to go straight to the data values (the "idea") and not merely copy the organization (the "expression" of the idea).
— (Separate from copyright issues: the motivation to avoid doing original data organization ourselves, suggests that the graphic is as complex as the dataset—probably too detailed for a lay audience encyclopedia.) RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "this ... IPCC dataset presentation" and "this particular hierarchical organization". You don't seem to allude to the concrete presentation in the excel sheet, and neither to an organization of the data in tuples (rows), as defined in the data dictionary.

Yes, perhaps the dataset-as-a-whole could be "organized" differently. For example, since the data element "sector name" partitions the tuples, we might think of a normalized organization of the data, where we would have two types of rows (tuples): one for "sector", one for "mitigation option" with associated potential-values, and a n-1-association between these two types of tuples. This could be considered a "hierarchical organisation". But, since the sector is in the data as defined in the data-dictionary, every "organization" of this data would have to preserve the sector values, i.e. their full meaning, including the logical association with other values. (It would have to preserve the "idea" as a whole.) If we left out the "sector name"-data values, added other ones, or changed their association with mitigation options, this would not be a re-organization but either a subset or a change of the data. Something would be lost. (But perhaps, this is not the kind of "organization of data" you had in mind?)

So, as you state above: "We disagree whether this particular arrangement/grouping/organization/categorization of data values is part of the (unprotectable) data itself." (To be more precise: I'd say the partitioning data values are in the data. "Grouping" or "arranging" the data by these values is a triviality and could be done by a computer program.) You seem to consider the sectors, by which the data is partitioned and hence trivially can be visually or otherwise grouped, not data values and not part of the data, even though they are defined as being data elements? If so, I fail to understand why.

@EMsmile: An English version of the German SVG wouldn't be much work. In my view, it would be conforming, but, of course, such an affront is ruled out, since we haven't reached a consensus, and I am not sure if we will. But if we do not make use of the fact that the sectors partition the mitigation options, would that be fine, according to your view, @RCraig?

So, I could create a very similar bar chart, but instead of ordering the options by "sector name", I could order them by "total potential" (in descending order).

In order not to loose the information about mitigation potential per sector, for each bar a "sector name" label could be added to the left of each mitigation option label. If these combined labels become too lengthy, we could abbreviate sectors, with a legend beneath that explains the abbr. (e.g. ES - energy sector, I - Industry). An option, that would more clearly present the information as it pertains to sectors, could be to have an additional panel below the bar chart, where we would depict sums of potentials for each sector.(This would be a presentation derived from the partitioning of the data by sector.)

--DeWikiMan (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi DeWikiMan, I am really keen to get a workable solution for this graph. Should we take the discussion about how to (re-)create the graph in a suitable manner to a more suitable location, e.g. the talk page of ? E.g. I was wondering if it would help to break the big graph into separate graphs (one for each sector) - would that perhaps help to reduce our copyright problem that comes from the "grouping" of the data by sector? EMsmile (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello ESmile, yes, that is fine. Why don't you start a discussion at a location that you think is suitable and ping me from there? But, as I understand it, if the grouping was a problem (which I don't think it is), I doubt that we could use this particular grouping at all. --DeWikiMan (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@DeWikiMan: I think the narrow point is boiling down to whether, as you say, "'Grouping' or 'arranging' the data by these values is a triviality and could be done by a computer program". However, the grouping/arranging isn't trivial. A computer could not do it. Grouping/arranging has to do with the meaning of the data (field names, categories, labels, etc) that only a human with subject-matter knowledge could perform. The undeniable complexity of the data definition page suggests that different humans would perform this non-trivial grouping/arranging in different ways, each way being a particular (protectable) expression of possible groupings/arrangements. P.S. Separately from copyright issues: maybe a subset of the data would be more appropriate content for a layperson's encyclopedia.RCraig09 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, yes, we have narrowed it down. And we can narrow it down further: For, when the sector values are in the data (e.g. as the first column of tuples) a computer program, in fact, can easily do the grouping itself. It is as simple as, e.g. this Python code with the pandas package dict(tuple(dataforspm7.groupby('sector'))).

So, perhaps, the even narrower issue is, whether picking the first column as the criterion to group the data can be considered creative enough for the graphic to pass a threshold? Now, if an intricate choice of a combination of several columns had to be made, and/or we would talk about several levels of hierarchy, it might. But in this case, we have a single, simple String-typed data element, that is at first position in the data records and that neatly partitions the data. So, even if we wouldn't know it's meaning, by general simple heuristics (that could be implemented in a program), it lends itself to the grouping.

And even if we would come to the conclusion, that one would need to know the meaning of "sector", just picking it for a simple grouping can, in my view, hardly be called creative. In fact, I am pretty sure that most humans - asked to group the mitigation options based on the given data - would pick the sector. The fact, that the sector data-element obviously suggests itself for grouping, should come as no surprise: Presumably, that is it's purpose for being in the "Data for Figure SPM.7", it's values and it's association with mitigation options have been defined in such a way as to easily group the records. Hence, simply picking it for grouping is obvious and can be done by non-experts.

Now, I think at the beginning there was consensus that - except perhaps for the grouping - the graphic was a routine representation of the data. And I wholeheartedly agree. But even without the grouping, for a presentation of this data (and, for that matter, almost any data, even more simple data) you have to make use of the meaning of data elements. E.g., for whiskers in a bar chart, you must pick the columns that "mean" an uncertainty range. To say, that something is a "routine presentation of data" only, if it does not make any use at all of the meaning, surely, would be overly restrictive. Then, I doubt there is any routine presentation at all.

So, even if we assume one had to know the meaning of "sector" to pick it for grouping, would this be any more creative than other cases of using the meaning of data? Is it more creative than, e.g., to put time on a X-axis and time-dependent values on a Y-axis, if one has a set of points (year,global mean surface temp)?

(As a sidenote, I don't think it is surprising at all that creating "Figure SPM.7" from "Data for Figure SPM.7" is routine, because the data-set has been created in such a way as to facilitate exactly this.)

I wonder, if there is any established case law or other legal sources that summarize, what the established opinion on "picking a single column for grouping a data-set of records" in copyright-law is. --DeWikiMan (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you spend so much time on this issue, and I appreciate it. However, your delving into the internal coding details (which are largely beyond my understanding) doesn't deal with the basic issue that the data's organization (hierarchical categorization etc) requires conceptual subject-matter knowledge to begin with. I agree that charting already-organized/already-categorized data involves routine coding; however, it's the initial conceptual organization/categorization that in this case is original and creative. (In contrast, I don't think a chart of this simple example] would violate copyright or Wikimedia's standards, because the initial organization is unavoidable and the number of "categories" is 1 (no hierarchy).) That's why I think the IPCC chart is at least questionable re copyright and Wikimedia standards, and charting directly from the original atomic data values is the safest way to proceed here. Aside, choosing only a subset of the data for charting would be less overwhelming for a layperson to read in an encyclopedia.. RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. The code was only there to show you that the grouping is simple and can easily be done by a computer-program.

What I find kind of hard is, that - and please don't take it as blame, simply as a kind request - your reasoning is sometimes too vague for me. When I thought I'd understood what you were referring or agreeing to, and I am trying to apply it to the particular case under discussion (data elements, the data dictionary, data types, the concrete graphic), it feels like I am getting nowhere. But then, this is also fine, I am patient and will keep trying that we get to the gist of it - in as concrete terms as possible.

First of all, it would be good, if you could be more specific as to what "conceptual subject-matter knowledge" in your view is required for having a notion of what a "mitigation option" and a "sector" is. In my view, very many non-experts will have a basic understanding of these terms. I am not saying, that they would easily find a good way of defining sectors or associating mitigation options with sectors. But that's already in the data - so what is left is picking the sector for grouping. One does not need to be an expert for that. And even if one would know nothing about mitigation, as I said before, there is simple heuristics: E.g. in the data-dictionary, the data is organized in such a way that "sector name" is the leftmost data element, and the only data element to the left of the "mitigation option". This fact alone alone strongly suggests that it is in a sense "above" the option-element, unlike all other data elements (which also, unlike sector, are of number type). This conclusion requires no subject-matter knowledge. And there are other good reasons - the neat partitioning, the fact that it is the only other String-type data element - that a non-expert or a program could pick this data element.

We can also look at the issue from another angle: "[...] a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data." [12]. (BTW, another routine expression of data, that seems not too far from the one we discuss, is this Commons_talk:Threshold_of_originality#Another_FRED_chart.)

We seem already have come to the conclusion that plotting a bar for each row, and labeling the bar with "mitigation option" is a routine expression of the data. So, how would we "express" the data element "sector name" and it's association with "mitigation option"? Obviously, it would be a form of label on the row or on several rows (for, multiple rows have the same sector name). And then, noticing that the sector is a good way to "arrange" the options (string-type, no empty labels, a few options per sector) is, as I argued above, also a natural choice a layperson can make.

But then, perhaps with "initial" you don't mean "beginning with the data, and going from there to the graphic"? In that case, it would be helpful, if you could be more specific what you mean by "initial" and "to begin with". Now, if, prior to creating a data-set there is a "conceptualization" (and in this case, a rather simple one), and it's creative result is reflected completely or to a high degree in the data, then only the residue, that what is not reflected in the data can make an expression of the data creative.

In our case, that narrows our issue down to the picking the first data element "sector" to arrange the rows, doesn't it? Which requires no or close to no creativity. Everything else is reflected in the data. --DeWikiMan (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructiveness. I'm afraid that any discussion of coding details (data dictionary, etc) is not helping. I'll summarize: By unprotectable "idea" I simply mean the numerical (atomic) data; by possibly-protectable "expression" I mean the subject-matter-specific textual labels and their hierarchical relationship and organization. The textual labels, and the hierarchical organization of the labels, are not part of the data. "Initial" is self-explanatory: it's how a human^{(does not have to be an "expert")} first decides on how to (hierarchically) organize the labels of the atomic data before they're placed into a spreadsheet, bar chart, etc.—the labels and their interrelationship require human subject-matter knowledge (not genius or expertise). The U. of Michigan essay^{(not a reliable reference as far as I can tell)} shows both protectable and unprotectable charts—which seems to contradict its own prior general assertion that "a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data". Copyright law doesn't require genius or expeertise to deserve protection; it merely requires original work. These IPCC graphics aren't extreme cases, but I think they're "over the line" enough that we shouldn't merely copy them. I hope this clarifies. RCraig09 (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, RCraig, this post might really have clarified your view and brought us, in a sense, forward. For instance, I thought we'd agreed that data is what the IPCC-data-dictionary defines data to be, but obviously I'd misunderstood you there.

I don't consider the "data-dictionary" to be a coding detail, not at all. See this explanation, what it is [13]. Nor do I think, "data" means only numerical data, not at all. There is string-type data, and this string-type data is used as labels in the graphic. I often work on data-centered projects, and I cannot remember that anyone ever considered strings in a table/record/data structure/database not to be data. If it would help, I can back this up with references that support this view. Nor do I think that numerical data is not subject matter. I am also astonished by your critique of the U.of Michigan essay. I am not an expert in copyright, so I myself cannot judge how reliable it is. But it has been linked from discussions here at Commons about copyright of charts, and the essay and it's author seem to have been considered as an authoritative source by our fellow Wikimedians.

At this point, I would emphatically ask you to back up your view with references, especially the assertion about what data is and what not, ideally with review literature on similar cases. I think, this would be very important, for, if you were right, then in future creation of charts how can one tell "data" from "something" that is defined in the data-dictionary as data, that is stored with the data, but is not data? --DeWikiMan (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• In a programmer's/coder's context, labels may be called string "data", but in a legal, copyright context, the labels are not "data" (for this chart). Labels represent concepts in a domain of human knowledge. Humans organize the (numerical) data based on their knowledge; computers cannot perform this organization.^{(unless programmed by a human, of course, which doesn't count here)} The graphic accomplishes a charting of the (numerical) data; the graphic doesn't "chart" the labels but uses the labels to describe the (numerical) data. The crux of the issue here may be that the term "data dictionary" is misleading because it wrongly suggests that everything in the dictionary is "data"; in the legal, copyright sense, everything in the "data dictionary" is not data.
• I think you've approached this entire discussion from a coder's viewpoint—analyzing after a human has already organized both (text-string) labels and (numerical) data into a misleadingly-named "data dictionary". But in the legal, copyright context, it is fundamental that data and organization (ideas versus expression) are qualitatively different. It is axiomatic that ideas aren't protected by copyright; however, some expressions are protected. If there is only one way to express the data (as probably in this simple example), then the expression could not be protected because to prohibit its copying would prevent the idea/data from being disseminated; however, if there are multiple ways to express an idea, then the expressions may be protected (it's a case-by-case basis, I'm afraid).
• The U of Michigan essay displays no discernible authors or evidence of peer review. That some Wikimedians have used it in the past is 100% definitely not a demonstration or standard of reliability. Its interpretive statement that "a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data" is not sourced, and, as I noted, seems to be contradicted by the subsequent presentation of one chart that's not protected and one that's not.

It's been many years since I studied copyright so I don't have specific references, but I hope this clarifies what are basic copyright principles. RCraig09 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

+Beyond the copyright issue: discussions in recent years esp. in en.WP's Climate Change talk page have formed a consensus^{(I think there are WP guidelines governing graphic text size)} that a graphic's text size should be comparable to that of the surrounding text in the article. This detailed chart's labels are not legible without significant magnification, and likely would face opposition in Wikipedia unless you were to go through the process of sifting through the data and using your human knowledge to chart the most relevant parts—which is what copyright law encourages us to do in the first place! RCraig09 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and some further clarification of it. You'd probably guessed, that I have strong doubts about what you write in this case (or similar cases) "data" in copyright terms is or is not. You may very well be right, but I need to see reliable sources confirming this view to accept it - and, first and foremost, to understand it. To me, it doesn't make much sense.

Suppose we had a data-dictionary that defines data elements (country, federated state, population) and a graph that contains as elements: labels for country, labels for federated state grouped by country, and a bar for population of each federated state. Of course, a string value "New Zealand" expresses the "true data"/idea of a specific country just as much as "NZ" or a country-code "15" would. Yes, there are labels in the graphic, but they "express" data, just as the bars "express" data. Would it be a "protectable expression" to "group" population per federated state by country in combination with bars for population numbers? If not, then in what way is (sector, mitigation option, potential values) different? Or, why would "sectors" or "countries" describe "numerical data", and not the other way round, values of mitigation potential characterize sectors? Or, suppose we had a graphic that simply shows how mitigation options are related to sectors, or federated states to countries - like a simple organizational structure chart -, that was based on some of the data-elements (country,federated state) / (sector, mitigation potential) but did not show potential or population values, would it make a difference even though it shows the same grouping? I don't expect you to have answers to these questions, perhaps there are none from a copyright perspective. Still, not only to assess this chart, but also for the next charts I do, I would really like to know.

For the record, here the thread where I found the essay, with more information and a conversation with it's author. So, I guess, next week I will try and find more appropriate sources myself and then come back to this discussion. As you seem to indicate, in this case perthaps no clear decision might be possible, but it'd be great if this discussion would result in a sort of guideline - if only a rough one - how to tell "data" from "not-data" (e.g. when looking at an IPCC "data dictionary", which, BTW, is not only used by "coders", but all sorts of project members, like scientists). The rule I applied - and I still believe to be fine - that data is, what is defined in a data-dictionary that was used to create a graphic; and to check whether something is a routine representation of data we basically need to consider what creativity is required to go from data in this sense to the graphic. --DeWikiMan (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So am I allowed to translate your svg? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@DeWikiMan: My 23:39, 30 Nov post summarizes the issues. Again, your examples and hypotheticals don't make the critical distinction between (a) the numerical data that the bars represent, versus (b) the labels that use human subject-matter knowledge to help readers understand the data. I can't say it any more concisely than that. I won't nominate this chart for deletion (it's a close call) but, as a practical matter, I doubt something so detailed will be well received if you attempt to insert it into a layman's encyclopedia. 06:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC) added words RCraig09 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia has many more technical articles that also hold appeal for specialists, and I can imagine graphics like this one potentially to be very useful in various articles. Felix QW (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I appreciate the summary of your view, and I believe I now understand it mostly, though I don't agree with it. I could not find scholarly literature that clearly supports your distinction between what you consider "data" (the numbers for the bars) and what not (the strings), nor mine (mitigation option and sector are also data). From what I read on the ipcc-data site and the references therein, sectors seem to be considered factual information about mitigation options and vice versa. They seem to exist as a concept/idea of their own, not merely as labels on options/numeric values in a graphic.

Even if we would consider sectors not being facts about mitigation options, and the arrangement of options by sector as creative and copyrightable (i.e. not "routine, common place, typical, garden variety, obvious...", cf. BellSouth about the arrangement of yellow pages), by what I read about Feist and related opinion, this "arrangement" has to be considered as an element of it's own, independently from the graphic [14]. But then, I think, a strong case can be made that even if it were copyrightable, it was put under CC-license by the IPCC, since this "arrangement"/"compilation" is contained in the licensed ipcc-data-set.

As to the usefulness of the graphic, I agree that in many cases it will be too detailed and overloaded. But since it is contained in the summary for policymakers, the authors of the report must have considered it useful and important for versed laymen, so I agree with Felix QW that it might be appropriate in more technical articles or sections. I think it is also very important to make clear, that only short term costs and potentials are included, and the picture could look very different, if long term costs had been considered.

Thanks for patiently discussing the possible issues with this graphic, --DeWikiMan (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@DeWikiMan: And thank you for your intense research and discussion (some of which was too technical for me, even though I have an engineering degree). This is definitely a complex case, given the partial licensing by IPCC. As a practical matter, to be safest (given Wikimedia's position that is stronger than copyright law alone), it's a matter of doing the extra work to start from basic numerical data. RCraig09 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Petition to the IPCC for openness The first priority is 70 years of copyright; the second priority is climate change. I know it is a weak start but Wikipedia has standing to demand change. meta:Wikimedians for Sustainable Development/Petition for IPCC to open Report 6 Bluerasberry (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

FOP guatemala is all wrong, part 2

The following comments were mistakenly posted at the archived discussion Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#FOP guatemala is all wrong.

Objection. No idea why COM:FOP Guatemala was written to disallow buildings pictures (architecture). The quoted law clearly makes a distinction between works of art and buildings. It restricts "reproduction [...] of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places or on the exterior façade of buildings". I object to the overly restrictive nature of the language of COM:FOP Guatemala, which does not seem to reflect the quoted law and seems to be arbitrary. I don't know what I am missing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78 You seem to misunderstand freedom of panorama. We don’t look to freedom of panorama to tell when derivative works are disallowed; they are already disallowed. Freedom of panorama is an exception, where a work seems like a derivative work but it is allowed anyway. Anything not covered by the exception is still disallowed.

FOP Guatemala does not mention buildings (except for those with art), so photos copyrighted buildings are disallowed as derivative works. Brianjd (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Brianjd I have spent a few hours today analyzing the issue and all I can say is that it is disappointing that the Congress of Guatemala amended the law in 2006 to make it more restrictive and modified it in such a way that it took away the freedom of panorama regarding buildings that previously seemingly was there. I will try keep looking into the issue. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: It is disappointing, as noted in the archived discussion linked above. Brianjd (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Any restrictions to FoP are disappointing. This was noted by other users in the archived discussion linked above, but it is good that you express your opinion here too. I don’t see any FoP for buildings, even in the old law that you linked to (I translated article 64, which appears to be the relevant article – I can’t skim through it, not being familiar with Spanish). Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: actually, it is not the sole intervention of the Guatemalan legislature, but also of a treaty that made Guatemalan FOP restrictive. Per Decreto 11-2006, their copyright law was amended to conform with the Central America–Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) with the United States. It is noticeable that Honduras and Nicaragua, two participants of the treaty, also revised their copyright laws in 2006, and made FOP restricted to personal uses only. Only Dominican Republic and El Salvador did not alter their freedom of panorama legal rights notwithstanding the demands of the treaty. Refer also to w:en:Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement#Intellectual property rights. For Guatemalan case, the restriction to FOP can be found at Article 91 of Decreto 11-2006. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 @Brianjd what should the law says if it could be ammended? I am suspecting members of Congress of Guatemala didn't intend to overly restrict publishing pictures of buildings. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I can’t understand your first sentence. For your second sentence, I can’t really comment, being unfamiliar with that country. But it would hardly be the first time that lawmakers displayed their incompetence. JWilz12345 has noted that there is a treaty involved here; I am also unfamiliar with that treaty. Brianjd (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the previous text of art. 64d did have FoP for buildings. In addition to not restricting to personal use, that previous text allowed "la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios" ("the reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in public locations, or of the exterior facade of buildings"). The word "of" goes logically with the words "the reproduction", so the sentence allows the reproduction of the exterior of buildings. The present text after modification reads "la reproducción para uso personal de una obra de arte expuesta en forma permanente en lugares públicos o en la fachada exterior de edificios" (the reproduction for personal use of a work of art exposed permanently in public locations or on the exterior facade of buildings). The tiny change of one word from "of" to "on" causes apparently a huge substantive change in the meaning of the sentence. The previous text seemed to make more sense. The new text seems bizarre. This particular point makes no difference for Wikimedia Commons, given that the new restriction to personal use makes reproductions non free anyway. But there may be some merit to the question by Thinker78 asking if the legislature really wanted to remove FoP for buildings and even the possibility of taking photos of exterior of buildings for personal use, which seems a drastic change. I don't know if that particular point would have been required by the CAFTA-DR, considering that the treaty was between the CA-DR countries and the United States and the US has FoP for architecture. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I’d like to think I would normally notice that, so how did I miss it here? I relied on DuckDuckGo, which gives: The reproduction of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places, or the exterior façade of buildings, made by means of an art other than used for the preparation of the original, provided that the name of the author is indicated, if known, the title of the work, if any, and the place where it is located. It’s missing the critical word of. Instead, I interpreted it as something like … in public places, or in the exterior façade of buildings …. I guess the lesson here is to not rely on machine translation! Brianjd (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: if you have connections with Guatemalan peeps, then you can suggest to them an architectural freedom of panorama similar to COM:FOP US, COM:FOP Denmark, COM:FOP Russia, COM:FOP Finland, or COM:FOP Norway. Perhaps a fifth (e) provision stating:

The reproduction of a work of architecture permanently visible in or from public places, made by means of an art different from that used in the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, and the title of the work, if it has one, are indicated.

Google Translate from English to Spanish:

La reproducción de una obra de arquitectura permanentemente visible en o desde lugares públicos, realizada por medio de un arte diferente al utilizado en la realización del original, siempre que el nombre del arquitecto, si se conoce, y el título de la obra, si lo tiene, se indican.

This is directly adapted from the restrictive Guatemalan FOP. At the very least users and content creators will still respect architects by obliging them to cite their names in captions or descriptions if the architects are known. Hope this helps, if ever you have connections or friends in Guatemala. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Thinker78 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment So Thinker78 you want a modification of the legal code? If so, then instead of asking here, shouldn't this be a matter to send to the Guatemalan Parliament? Wikimedia South Africa is currently trying such thing: the copyright restrictions mentioned at COM:FOP South Africa are nowadays an unfair wall for spreading useful ZA cultural contents, and they did such a proposal iirc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Liuxinyu970226: not only ZA but also us too. It is now possible to lobby our Congress to pass the current IP code amendments, thanks to the newly-formed Greater Manila Area branch of the PhilWiki Community. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Before contacting Congress it is a good idea to have a proposal. Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Thinker78: wait, here is the modified version of my suggestion, using the same Spanish wording for d. but for architecture only and no restriction (since the Google-generated Spanish translation above is of different wording): e) La reproducción arquitectura permanentemente visible en o desde lugares públicos, ejecutada por medio de un arte que sea distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del arquitecto, si se conociere, así como el título de la obra, si lo tiene, y el lugar donde se encuentra. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Some comparison with similar no-FOP Central Americam countries: @Brianjd, Thinker78, and Asclepias: I suspect if the restrictive Guatemalan FOP is interpreted symbolically (not literally), it tries to imply that architecture is included among works falling under restrictive FOP. At the same year as Guatemala restricted their legal right, Honduras modified their FOP, using CAFTA-DR treaty as the basis. Article 52 of their law is unambiguous but equally disappointing: Es lícita, para uso personal, la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior. At least it is not as implicit as Guatemalan FOP, or even Costa Rican FOP (in Article 71 of their law) which reads: Es lícita la reproducción fotográfica o por otros procesos pictóricos, cuando esta reproducción sea sin fines comerciales, de las estatuas, monumentos y otras obras de arte protegidas por derechos de autor, adquiridos por el poder público, expuestos en las calles, los jardines y los museos. It is non-commercial FOP, but non-commercial content is not allowed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)