Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC Welcome to the Village pump copyright section This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives. Commons discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Please note One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing. Have you read the FAQ? Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.   Start a new discussion

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Iranian Wikimedians

Recently, I raised an issue over plenty of files uploaded by Mardetanha (the photos where he was depicted and he still claimed to be the author of those photos!). An admin DRed those problematic photos. He said that the photos were made in (a) user group session(s) but all the problems stemmed from the false assumption held by Mradetanha who thought to be the author of the photos just because the photos were done by his camera. He admitted that he was not the photographer.

Yann's improper speedy closure of the DR, extended the issue to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems which is attention worthy.

In whole, Mardetanha provided an inconsistent explanation (admitted by another user) for his improper uploads violating copy rights: At first he said that Darafsh did the photos then he tried to convince us that he was the co-author as the photographers had just pushed a button and the rest was set by him. He believed that asking the so-called author to update the author field was useless.

Finally, it was concluded that the photos were done by random participants of those sessions and Jkadavoor tried to devise a scheme to keep the photos (See Photos by Iranian Wikimedians User Group). He made a template, Mardetanha asked the members of the usergroup to verify it by signing it and the photos are attributed to the Wikimedia Usergroup. Considering those inconsistent comments by Mardetanha, this topic is aimed at shedding light on the legality of the template and gathering broader views on this. Please consider that we really don't know if all the photos are done by the user group because those sessions were semi-public and any non-member friends or participants could make those photos. Moreover, as they will keep on uploading the files on this basis, we'd better see if this prospective is healthy. So, we are discussing two different groups of the photos; some already uploaded photos with unknown identity and those which will be uploaded confidently because a template has made the uploads legal. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teles, Steinsplitter, Jameslwoodward, Jmabel, INeverCry: pinging some admins and users for attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Green Giant's comments are welcomed, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be easy to say that if we don't know for certain who took the photos, then they cannot be freely licensed. However, this is a group of Wikipedians, dedicated to the idea of free licensing, so I think the risk of a problem is very low if we make a good faith effort to deal with the situation. If (a) each of the persons who might have taken one of the images on which the template is used sends a message with a free license to OTRS, or (b) all such persons sign a paper copy of a free license and a scan of the paper license is sent to OTRS, I think we can use the template if it includes the OTRS ticket number or numbers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - I want to agree with James's comments above. I think one ticket can cover all the images taken by the Wikimedians and anyone taken by non-Wikimedian whould requires a separate permission to OTRS. Wikicology (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology: Thanks for the comment. But, we have no way to separate the files taken by Wikimedians and those taken by non-Wikimedians. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It depends on weather we could trust the representatives of the user group since we can only act on information provided by them. Wikicology (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether Jim see the collapsed part of that template. I don't see the need for any additional mails to OTRS as permission is already granted by 14 people there. Moreover, it is very difficult to verify whether an email is associated to a user if it comes from gmail/yahoo etc. Scanned copy of a signed paper is OK; but I failed to see any advantage for it compared to the digital sign already on the template. Jee 08:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Our routine way of taking free licensed from people when the copyright is unclear is to take an e-mail via OTRS. That is, as Jee says, problematic in some ways, as some of them are from anonymous accounts, but that is policy. This is breaking new ground. In effect, the template is a claim of "own work" by a group of 14 people. If the images haven;t appeared elsewhere, I think it is probably OK -- but there is still the problem that we can;t be sure that the 14 took all of the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes Jim, its a new style as those people are Wikimedians and so I didn't see the need for a confidential permission. The permission may not be perfect; but those are just group photos of those people themselves. I think we should consider to spend more energy in permissions like this where the works are very precious. :) Jee 11:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward, Wikicology: You hit the nail on the head. "We can't be sure that the 14 took all of the images" and things "depends on weather we could trust the representatives of the user group." As far as I see, the inconsistency in Mardetanha's comments and the story which changed with every edit, makes us more cautious about those "wilfully incorrect information" and we may not assume good faith, in my opinion. We may face plenty of more unlawful photos in future if we don't resolve this issue here. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Where you see the inconsistency in his words? His first response to you is "It was may camera and asked someone to take photos". Did he change this anywhere later? He thought the oral permission (or lack of contesting copyright claim) from his colleagues is enough. We rejected that claim and asked the individuals to give a formal permission. And they did it. What more you need? Do you saying you can't trust that 14 people? Jee 17:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein, as a co-founder of a user group myself, I can tell you that representatives of user groups are trustworthy. That being said, I don't think Mardetanha acted in bad faith. Yes they misunderstood our policy on licensing, but that is not uncommon. Wikicology (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I just copied the words of users such as Wikicology and Colin. Wikicology: I think you are too optimistic here. However, you did not tell us why all "representatives of user groups are trustworthy"? Please consider that misunderstanding "our policy on licensing" is something and "inconsistent comments" is another. I have fresh cases at hand where where Mardetanha tried to mislead the system (in my opinion). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Hanlon's razor ? Wikicology (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"we may not assume good faith" - this is a recurring rationale to justify summary process. you will not increase quality of this group's uploads, by trashing a pillar. you want to elevate PRP over all else, then you will preside over a walled garden like wikinews. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Slowking4: Are you endorsing the uploaded photos with unknown authors? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

do not put words in my mouth. i am opposing the assumption of bad faith, as behavior that undermines the credibility of the commons. you want to be an asshole, go for it; it is all on you. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Slowking4: Watch your language please. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

guy kawasaki has a self-diagnostic - http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/ Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein: So far you are the only one here who think that there is an issue with the current solution. Since you are from the same language community, it looks like as you have a personal conflict with the group. This is obviously the wrong venue. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Assume good faith! I don't know him and his so-called usergroup. Read the previous comments by other users once again such as "the inconsistency in Mardetanha's comments" and "the story which changed with every edit","wilfully incorrect information". --Mhhossein ^talk 11:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no user problem any more, except may be your insistence with this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you the one reported at COM:ANU guilty of improper speedy closure of the DRed files? As you see in others' comments, there are still some obscure points. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

An image that includes a toy

I've been knitting doll clothes for my granddaughters' 18" girl dolls. These dolls are cheap imitations of the expensive en:American Girl dolls. I'd like to take a picture of a doll looking into a small telescope to put on my user page on the English Wikipedia. The doll will be facing the telescope, so the viewer will not be able to tell which of the many brands of dolls under copyright she is. The clothes are created from my own patterns. How recognizable does an object in an image need to be before there is copyright infringement? StarryGrandma (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If the doll is unrecognizable, I do not see any problem. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Under the situation you describe, the doll itself would be COM:De minimis... the doll is unrecognizable, and what specific brand it is is completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the image (any of a number of doll bodies would serve the same purpose). Gottlieb Development LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp. is relevant (even though it was about a movie, and a pinball machine) as the court gave a basic 'rule' for when DM applies... the particular quote from the decision that makes the point is "Indeed, an average observer would not recognize the Designs as anything other than generic designs in a pinball machine." - Revent^talk 23:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of old Russian works

Hi, In this case, it is mentioned that the copyright expires in 2021. But why not in 2017, in 2019 or in 2022? The author died in 1946. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The copyright is extended for the duration of the war. Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah OK. So 4 years? This should be mentioned in Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Russia and former Soviet Union, in Commons:Copyright tags#Russia and former Soviet Union, and in Template:PD-Russia. Right now, it is not clear at all. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, by 4 years (part5 of article 1281 of the Russian civil code provided that the author worked during the War of participated in the War). Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this OK? Yann (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It is ok for Russia but I am not sure about other former parts of USSR. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What a weird privilege to give to veterans. Anyone in a war gets the term of their copyright extended for the duration of the war? I put the citation at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union because this seemed so odd and dubious that I think anyone would like a citation there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is so weird. Wartime extensions, for instance, exist in France. Ruslik (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit history of files transferred from Wikipedia

File:Margam Chain Home Low Radar Station.jpg has recently been transferred from English Wikipedia to Commons. I think I edited the file summary while it was on Wikipedia, to add the coodinates and possibly other information about the subject. These edits are not shown in the Commons revision history. Has the Wikipedia revision history been lost? I'm not concerned about credit for my contributions, but I thought that authorship details were needed to comply with licensing requirements. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not preserve the edit history of the file page but only credit the upload history of the image. The Wikipedia page gets deleted in the end anyway, and the text contributions are different from the image file as such. What is transferred to Commons is really just the image, while the Wikipedia text is left over there. The backlink to the original WP page in a phrase like "The original description page was here" is also sufficient for attribution of the text page authors. This is because on Commons and Wikipedia alike, "deletion" is never a true removal of content, but the edits are simply removed from public view. They will remain cached though and are visible to admins and bureaucrats, so the attribution history is actually preserved. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am reassured that the full revision history is somewhere, albeit not generally accessible. However, more than the image is transferred from Wikipedia. In this case the associated text including the coordinates and the scheduled ancient monument information have also been transferred from the Wikipedia page, and their attribution is different from that for the image. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the broken file transfer process. history, and source metadata is not carried over. you would think they could make it more like a move after all this time, but there is little interest. there are hundreds of thousands of files with this problem. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me what Verbcatcher mentions here is a real problem. Someone can have made quite significant contributions, which effectively go uncredited because the only history of those contributions is hidden from everyone except for administrators of the wiki where the image was originally uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

it gets better - suppose the following edge case - an uploader to english of fair use high resolution image which is downsized by bot erasing exif and credit, is then determined to be really PD, and transferred to commons. you have no author credit, and no provenance. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I was asked on IRC by a currently blocked editor to link this Phabricator ticket here, as it's relevant to this discussion. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T140462 - Revent^talk 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am pleased to learn that an extension for this is being worked on, although I am unclear whether and when it will be rolled out. I hope that the new extension will be able to recover the histories of previously-transferred items. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: - I was the one who transferred the file (I've been copying over images of heritage sites in the UK). Kelly (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kelly: - I did not mean to criticise your actions, I was drawing attention to a problem with the tools that you presumably used. However, I apologise for not alerting you to this discussion. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Oh, I agree this is something to discuss. I'd suggest moving free files from Wikipedia over to Commons prior to modifying descriptions, as they'll all end up over here anyway. However, this does affect multiple users so a system solution would definitely be better. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Nail & Gear.svg

Can it be assumed that the file has been licensed as {{CC0}} given the source link provided for the file or it OTRS verification required? Moreover, the ountry of origin appears to be the UK, so I'm not sure this would be below COM:TOO#United Kingdom to be converted to PD like File:Hello Internet Logo.svg being used in the same articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I can not find where in the provided link it says CC0. Ruslik (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Ruslik? Would it be acceptable to tagged this with {{npd}} in your opinion or would that be a bit of overkill? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be appropriate. Ruslik (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello, someone please help!

I'm a new user and I have been editing a page. I introduced new photos on the page, gave photo credit as required and promptly was asked if I had permission to use the photos. I have permission from two of the photographers, and I believe the other two photos reside in Getty Images. My problem is, how do I let Wiki know? The Commons page is very complicated and gives me no clear path. The person who contacted me said the photographer must give permission directly to Commons, however, without knowing the procedure to follow, and I mean step-by-step, i.e. click here, click there, I cannot direct the photographers on how to submit their permissions. I need to resolve the problem quickly as this person has a national tour coming up, and having a current Wikipedia page would greatly enhance its success.

Thank you!

P.S. I'm not even sure I'm putting this in the correct place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Fullerton (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:OTRS. In addition, if some images are Getty images, they are probably can not be used without a permission from Getty. Ruslik (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose Getty does not own the copyrights, but just has a right to license the images on standard terms. So to get the permission, you have to get in touch with the authors or find from third party sources that the image is free (unless Getty advertises an acceptable licence, which I doubt). --LPfi (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

files from MapQuest

According to the DR's below it does not seem that MapQuest published under a free license. But there are a lot's of files that created with ShareMap (Category:Created with ShareMap). The EXIF indicate that the file is CC-BY-SA 3.0 but the source also mentioned MapQuest as one of the sources (example).

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Autobahndreieck Neuss-Süd.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Citadelle de quebec open street map mapquest.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:5 County Point.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Houston map.jpg

-- Geagea (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

My initial reading of this OSM page and this readme indicate that the Mapnik style (which I think is the same as Mapquest Open?) is under the MIT License. However, I stand open to correction. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sharemap only lets you export maps if everything shown is available under a free license [1]. There is even a specialized export option that generates an {{Information}}-template and appropriate license tag for Commons. So most of the files in Category:Created with ShareMap should be safe, I guess? --El Grafo (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Source of picture wants to remain anonymous

I have a source who wants to remain anonymous. He has taken a picture that he wants to release as public domain. There is no reason to believe the picture infringes anyones rights. How can I help him do that? --Prosaole (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way is OTRS. Any communication with OTRS remains confidential. Jcb (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

He can set up an account on Commons and release the photograph, or do the same thing on Flickr and choose the appropriate license, then you could upload the file here. No organization guarantees that records held on the OTRS database will never be made public, and no claim for damages would be possible if it happens. --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This would work only if the files were never previously published elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The same issue exists with OTRS, but with the added problem of zero transparency, so mistakes are rarely discovered. Even worse, OTRS volunteers have no standard methods of checking an image, such as a simple Google image search, nor verification of an email domain. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: There is no "standard", but usually it is done that way: the email address should be linked to the "source" in some way. Your source, who wants to release the photo under CC0 (not public domain please), can send the picture and the permission to publish it under a free license to photosubmissionwikimedia.org: in that way there is no need to set up any account, and the OTRS operator will do what is needed to check if the release is acceptable. --Ruthven (msg) 13:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree there is no standard. As for what is usual, I have no evidence for that. I'd really like to see some published evidence, as from that might come some firm requirements for verification for any volunteer handling the OTRS Commons queue. When I was an OTRS volunteer I ran domain checks and would routinely do a Google image search as the minimum. The amount of effort was a minute or two, but were I ever challenged, the records of the verification were there in the ticket history. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If you've been an OTRS volunteer, you can understand why no evidence can be published: we are talking about private information that OTRS operators agreed not to divulgate. Going back to your initial question, it seems that even you doubt of the authenticity of your source; in that case I think that it's better to let it go. --Ruthven (msg) 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way. If you read my suggestion that we publish evidence, what is being published would be the statistics of the types of verification used for tickets in the Commons queue. No confidential information need ever leave the database for that to happen. As of today, there are no statistics of this type released, nor is there any public standard for the required checks on Copyright expected from OTRS volunteers handling the OTRS Commons queue. That's not a healthy way to conduct ourselves considering how legally important it may be for our reusers to have highly reliable OTRS verification processes. --Fæ (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that we are going off topics, but to produce such statistics would be an enormous work, i.e. going through every ticket ever answered. In the future we can consider adding a checkbox, where the volunteer can select the kind of checking done (e.g. obvious from the email address, google search, official website, ID, …). About defining a "standard", that is now transmitted from mouth to ear (aka keyboard to screen), there are currently several discussions going on.

Going back to your source's donation, I still think that the best option would be 1) you to check if it's ok copyright-wise in the first place, then 2) send the request with the evidences to OTRS (e.g. to photosubmission queue). --Ruthven (msg) 16:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Paintings by Dmitry Kustanovich

Is anyone able to discern whether File:Весенний ручей Кустанович.jpg, File:Рыжий питерский кот.jpg, File:Ранняя весна в Петербурге.jpg and File:Осенние березы.jpg by en:Dmitry Kustanovich have been released as {{CC-zero}}. The source website is in Russian (I think) so I cannot really read it, but it does not appear that any of the paintings shown there have been licensed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that page states that the reproductions of works of Dmitry Kustanovich shown on it are released into public domain. Ruslik (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this Ruslik. I used Google translate on the source website, but the English was a bit awkward sounding so I wasn't sure if it was reliable. I also saw what looks like a copyright symbol at the bottom of the page, so felt it would be best to see what others thought. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is because only specific reproductions are released, not all website. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Rostov-na-Donu Centralny rynok

• 

This picture has been released with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license but there's a watermark on the picture itself with a © symbol. Is it OK for Commons or not?--Carnby (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The © symbol only means that the image is copyrighted to its author, which is true here regardless of the license. Ruslik (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Photos of Calder's "La Grande Vitesse"

Are File:Alexander Calders "La Grande Vitesse".jpg and File:LaGrandeVitesse1969.jpg OK as licensed? The photos themselves can be freely licensed, but I'm not sure if the sculpture itself can be assumed to be within the public domain. There's no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art in the US per COM:FOP#United States, and the sculpture does not seem to be old enough to be in the public domain if it was installed in 1969. Moreover, Alexander Calder dies in 1976 so I don't believe enough time has passed since his death for the copyright he held on his work to be no longer valid. Looking at Alexander Calder, it appears that the are specific conditions which need to be met for any photos of his work to be acceptable for Commons and I'm not sure these meet them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The license is published before 1978 without a copyright notice. The permissions link is the art-inventories site, which documents a signature but no copyright notice on it. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. I don't see the issue, nor why the death date of the author would matter for the copyright term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Clindberg. I only mentioned the year of Calder's death because it make reference to it on the Commons page Alexander Calder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that template is a generic one which usually applies more for non-American authors, but this is an American author, and it is only works published since 1978 which have a term based on life. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

the death date matters for berne devotees, who doubt US legacy copyright rules. the deletions have been perfunctory, except where some US editors can research the formalities. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Xunta de Galicia

The Government of Galicia (Spain) has this legal notice on its website and similar ones in other subsites (e. g. this one) and I suspect this means that their images can be uploaded to Commons, as it is quite similar to the rationale of Template:Attribution-gencat.

Am I right? And if so, which steps should I take to upload such images? Should I create a custom license tag?

If you have any problem understanding Spanish, let me know. F (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's Galician, not Spanish :) But you're right, the content of xunta.gal Website is available under conditions quite similar to the rationale of Template:Attribution-gencat, even simpler as they ask to:

• Not distort the meaning of the information.
• Always quote the source of the information.

--Ruthven (msg) 18:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: OK. Thank you very much for the confirmation. But I'm still unsure about how to proceed. Allow me to insist — Should I create a custom license tag? F (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Petillés: Yes, I think that a custom template is the best solution, as the terms don't really match the ones of an existing license, even if they are close to CC BY. --Ruthven (msg) 17:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Thanks again! I'll do it that way. F (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Provo Flag (2015-).png

This file is being licensed as {{PD-USGov}}, but I'm not sure that is appropriate. "PD-USGov" seems to be intended to apply to works created by employees of the United States federal government, not works created by employees of individual state or municipal governments. I know that Florida and California are covered by {{PD-FLGov}} and {{PD-CAGov}} respectively, but I am not sure about works created by employees of the State of Utah or employees of municipalities located in Utah. If this type of licensing is considered acceptable for Utah, then it should be also OK for works created by employees of the other 49 states and the employees of local government organizations located in the states as well, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Provo Flag (2015-).png opened. en:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments is the reference that should be used for such issues... if it is incorrect in specific cases, we should just fix it. - Revent^talk 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Revent for checking on this and the link to the subnational page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Israeli currency

It has come to my attention (rather haphazardly) and that of User:Revent (see earlier discussion) that images of Israeli currency banknotes and coins (en:Currency of Israel) are subject to conditions under Israeli law that may be incompatible with Commons.

A document on the Bank of Israel website titled Instructions concerning the use of photocopies and replicas of coins and banknotes permits the photographic reproduction of items of Israeli currency provided that they meet the following conditions. For the reference of others, here is their Legislation & Regulation page which contains links to other documents that might be useful in interpreting the below. One important one at least would be the Bank of Israel Law 2010 (English) (note: this PDF does not appear to be text-searchable with Ctrl+F when I tried).

I have excerpted the following from section 2:

(c) A replica of a coin or banknote may be used as part of a design or an advertisement, provided that the all the following conditions are met:

• 3) Elements of the design of the coin or banknote must not be changed, and no features, other than text for advertising purposes, shall be added to the replica.

So the condition that the designs "must not be changed" can very well be interpreted as a clause prohibiting derivative versions. I believe for this reason that images of Israeli currency are not compatible with our licensing policy to share media with free restriction to make modifications.

Aside from this, I still think these images have substantial value of both a documentary and historical purpose for Wikimedia projects, with the most obvious example being the Hebrew Wikipedia (link to English-language embassy page). So I bring this discussion here for the following purposes:

• Discuss this interpretation of these local law conditions, and whether this warrants deletion of all images from Commons
• Decide if this affects all Israeli currency from all dates, or only ones that are still in copyright by the state
• If they are to be deleted, coordinate a plan with Hebrew Wikipedia with respect for their image policy, to upload the currency images locally

seb26 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Affected images

The majority of images have been tagged with {{Money-IL}}, which quotes the conditions in English from the above document. Approximately 189 images. Relevant categories:

• Category:Money-IL
• Category:Money of Israel

Other relevant links

• World Intellectual Property Index section on Israel legislation
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Israel
• Commons:Currency#Israel

seb26 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment, simply, that I believe that this is a significant question that impacts an existing and widely used licensing template. I have not specifically read the relevant documents (I am very mistrustful of translations from Hebrew) but would specifically ping @Geagea: and @Yuval Y: as Israeli admins. - Revent^talk 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Also @Matanya:.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. as a matter of fact I never check it and it's look like you are correct in the general idea. Any way we have less problem with the coins as most of them are or ineligible or contain very old symbols of Israel. Also part of the files are from Mandatory Palestine period. Before the independance of Israel. Not sure if he.wiki have a different policy about that. part of the files might be qulify as fair use. Anyway I will check it with he.wiki people and will take care all needed to bring it to the correct condition. -- Geagea (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This feels more like a moral rights type of thing (don't change the design to make a viewer think the changed design is actually on coins, etc.) That doesn't prohibit derivative works entirely (such as changing the aspect or something), just that the underlying design is not altered, which could prejudice the original author in the minds of viewers. Plenty of FoP clauses have similar restrictions on them. If a change gets to the level of parody, that would be fair use and beyond the author's ability to prohibit anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole issue in this document is about the money in Legal tender, which means the current used money in Israel. This regulation is in a purpose of preventing an option of using the file to make a fake money. Anyway it is not about copyright. Also more, the criminal code of Israel, 1977 section 467 (PDF) says:

"Imitation of banknote

467. If a person makes or circulates anything that is not a currency note, but which is essentially similar to a currency note that is legal tender in Israel, then he is liable to a fine of NS 9,600."

I dont really know if photograph or scan of a banknote considered as an "imitation". If so it is not allowed even for a fair use but not sure about it. Even the Bank of Israel website include sampels of Israeli banknotes. -- Geagea (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

wont let me post photos

Im new and Im trying to post a photo that I took with my own camera but its basically saying I cant post because it cant determine the source of the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityboi78 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Kickapoo Chiefs logo.jpg

This file is licensed as {{PD-ineligible}}, but that does not seem correct. The arrowhead imagery does not seem to be "common property" at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kickapoo Chiefs logo.jpg opened. - Revent^talk 01:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Cheyenne Mountain High School Logo.jpg

Should this be {{PD-logo}} instead of {{PD-text}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. I changed the copyright tag. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Photo of Drooker Painting at Easel.jpg

Does this file need OTRS verification or is the declaration given by the uploader sufficient? The description says it has been previously published on Facebook, etc., but the subject of a photo is usually not considered to be the copyright holder of said photo; moreover, not sure how much good faith should be assumed regarding the uploader and the subject of the photo being one and the same person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the file for deletion, hoping to receive an OTRS permission from the photographer. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

PD-MA license

A new license tag, {{PD-MA}}, was created by Simtropolitan recently. The justification given for declaring Massachusetts government works as PD seems pretty reasonable to me. However, I wanted to double-check before I go hog-wild using it for uploads. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Pi.1415926535 for making this post, I should've gone through a more formal process when making that. I'm currently working for the state in Boston (though I am not acting in capacity as an official) and it's well understood here that works of the Commonwealth are public domain, whereas works of municipalities are given a certain jurisdiction of their own. If anyone feels this needs more documentation or better language, please let me know. This tag would be extremely useful for uploading items from projects like the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS), and I do feel it is better to note this than a general PD-US. --Simtropolitan (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, this seems pretty clear an straight-forward to me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A work created in execution of duties of employment

That is, in sense of the the Copyright Act of Estonia (§ 32). The question is about what information is sufficient to have no significant doubt (COM:PRP) that this law provision applies. I'd expect that at least we should be able to tell that the author really was employed (as per law "under an employment contract") and what were one's "direct duties" that are relevant to creating the given work.

Currently File:Klaevi spordiplats 1930 kaardil.png is believed to be in public domain due to applying this law provision. Applying this law provision was contested, since we don't know who was the employer to whom the economic right might have transferred, nor what might have been relevant direct duties. File was kept (twice), saying below the closure decision that "printed and distributed by the editor" and "there is the name of the printer as well". This doesn't seem to prove in any way that the given law provision applies. I'm seeking for more opinions on that. Does it make any sense why the file was kept based on information that we currently have about this work? If I'm missing something and the given reason after all somehow implies that the given law provision might apply, then could someone please try to further clarify this. 62.65.58.38 09:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That law looks to me like one of the few countries which accurately implemented the EU directive on the copyright term of works for hire. I believe that intent was, for works for hire (i.e. works created in execution of duties of employment), that the term is 70pma if the human author is identified on the original publication, but 70 years from publication otherwise (even if the author is named later). To me, it looks like K. Zeibich is named there, as the artist and lithographer, so that should be a 70pma term. Obviously, the copyright at the time was minimal if it existed at all, but these would be the restored copyrights from more recent laws, which would conform to the EU directive. It's not technically special to Estonia but it does explicitly put in the clause mentioned in Article 1(4) of the EU Copyright Term Directive, where the author needs to be named on the initial publication to get the 70pma term. But it seems like the author was named here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you are are probably right that instead 70pma term applies to this file.

But I'd still like to clarify the above disagreement, in case it again raises about some other work. Let's say that the author wasn't named or work was pseudonymous, and we still wouldn't know more about actual employment or relevant direct duties. In this case, was there any reason to consider it a work created in execution of duties of employment? 62.65.58.38 06:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is the presumption. Material published by companies is virtually always made by their employees as a work for hire. If an employee published something on his own time, it wouldn't have the company's name on it. The only question is if there was a specific contract which let an individual retain copyright -- but those cases are extremely rare, so I think it's fair to assume these would be works created in execution of their duties of employment. If we find specific evidence of a special contract, that could change things -- but normally yes I think we would assume the company owns the economic rights to works published under their name. They get a 70pma term if they name the human author on the initial publication, and 70 years from publication if they do not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean companies like map companies, not publishing/printing houses in general, right? In first case, yes, map companies do employ cartographers. Otherwise, a cartographer who isn't employed as one, can still publish one's work through a publishing company. The same way that writers can publish their books through publishing companies. Obviously there's some sort of contract between the author and the publisher, but it's usually not an employment contract, i.e. it's not author direct duty under a contract to make maps (or write books) for the publisher. So, even though, publisher's name is usually on whatever they publish, this shouldn't allow presuming that the author was employed by the publisher.

Given map doesn't have a name of company that would presumably employ a cartographer on it. It only has name of the printing house on it. 62.65.58.38 06:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Monument morts Servignat series

We know that FOP is not allowed in France. Considering FOP in France, should the following files be kept?

• File:Monument morts Servignat 2.jpg
• File:Monument morts Servignat 1.jpg
• File:Monument morts Servignat 3.jpg --Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This monument is very simple: no decoration, no sculpture, so it should be {{PD-ineligible}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No, those buildings are not PD per COM:TOO#France where we have "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works." --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you know about copyright in France? Why do you ask if you want to decide all by yourself? This quote is about copyright by the photographer. In France, copyright is attributed when the work shows the personality of its author. Not the case here. Yann (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-SA versus Public Domain

Hi. Once again I have met the use of CC BY-NC-SA on items that belong to the Public Domain. I have just uploaded this neat watercolour to Commons in spite of the website's (Danish Maritime Museum) proclamation of CC BY-NC-SA, which is not allowed on Commons. However, I think that Public Domain rights (painter died in 1853) overrides this claim. Am I missing something here, or are they trying to protect content with a license that is not enforceable in this case? Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-Art}} would seem to be the correct license here. Whether a photograph would rise to a copyrightable level in a particular country, is hard to say without court rulings -- but Commons policy would overrule that for uploads here anyways. You may want to use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} to specify the NC-SA license for the photo, if that is possible, since that could still help re-users in other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

no - you are not missing anything. we are trying to coach institutions to let go of the NC on public domain items, but it is hard. in europe, they still have the faint hope of "sweat of the brow". please consider using template:artwork, with old uploader[2], or commons:pattypan. we also have refrained from combing through and uploading all their items [3], preferring to upload institutions who work with us at "sum of all paintings"[4], but it us a matter of time. cheers. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

When is a 2D (ish) frame a violation of the Frames policy?

So, I have come across this a few times. File:Émile Bernard - Mirror frame decorated with plants, flowers and two women figures - Google Art Project.jpg - the frame is the object, but is it 3D enough to be a problematic file for Commons? I do see moulding at the top and it does appear to be low-relief carving/molding overall too, so my guess is, it is an infringement, but it's not an obvious one like a full 3D sculpture or fancy frame would be. Any thoughts? Mabalu (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Émile Bernard died in 1941. it is his work, or do you have evidence someone else made the frame contrary to the museum metadata? [5] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed response. My question here is, I know that a modern photograph of a PD three-dimensional object is considered copyvio in the way that an accurately reproduced 2D object in public domain isn't. We crop out frames from painting shots for this reason, unless the whole photograph has been released into the PD by the museum/institution or by an uploader who took the photograph. My question is, is this mirror-frame 2D enough to be acceptable, or does it being a low-relief carving/sculpted object make it problematic as a copyvio of the Van Gogh Museum's rights? Mabalu (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

American photo from 1972

A young Swedish animator visited the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank in May 1972. In the very same month a Swedish local paper published a photo showing the event - without any Copyright-information. The photo must have been taken by some anonymous Disney employee and have most likely never been published in USA. May I upload the file on Commons as for instance "{{PD-1996}}" or is the photo more likely protected by copyright? --N0WIS (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that the photo is in public domain in Sweden now or was in 1996. Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NonFreeWiki and RFC proposal at Meta-wiki on extending Commons to non-free content

The proposed sister project, meta:NonFreeWiki, a non-free counterpart to Commons, is proposed. Currently, the majority supports this. Also, there is the ongoing RFC discussion at Meta-wiki on allowing non-free images to Commons. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Company logo on sign

@Lotje: pointed out that the company logo in File:Toppers Pizza table.jpg may be a copyright violation. I don't know the rules around company logos: this is a sign inside a pizza restaurant and the same logo is visible through the window on the opposite side of the sign. So it's meant to be public so that it can advertise pizza. But perhaps any reproduction of their logo is a copyright problem. I just don't know. Runner1928 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the logo is en:de minimis in this context. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Erich Hartmann (Jagdflieger).jpg

Was it appropropriate to tag this file with {{npd}}? That tag seems more suitable when an actual claim of ownership is made over the image's copyright; this file, however,is licensend as {{PD-Germany-§134}}. I'm not claiming the file's licensing is correct, but this seems like something which would better be discussed at COM:DR since it seems to involve a little COM:PCP. I'm pretty sure it can be assumed that the photo was taken prior to the end of World War 2; it's not clear, however, who took it and when it was first published. If it can be shown that it was published prior to 1947, then it seems that it would no longer be subject copyright, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that is not a candidate for speedy deletion. That needs to be a regular DR if the PD reason is contested. Something needs to be an obvious problem for a speedy tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OK Clindberg. What's typically done in cases such as this? Remove the tag and ask to person who added it to bring the discussion to DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed you did that and were reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of death for G. Howard Short

Hi, I recently uploaded this 1914 illustration[6], believing it was published in an American journal (and therefore PD-US), but turns out it was published in the UK, so this does not apply. The illustrator is one G. Howard Short, who I can't find any information about, other than he wrote and illustrated some articles about aviation in the early 20th century. I'd be happy if anyone could somehow find his date of death, so I can see whether the image qualifies as PD-old, otherwise it might have to be uploaded locally on en Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a phrase in this 1925 Cambridge publication which refers to "the late Mr. Howard Short". It also mentions Hankin, one of the publishers of the image in question, so it seems like that would be the same person. Text is also at this link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair use in India

Hi, No direct consequence here (though it is a reminder that we shouldn't apply copyright law too strictly), but this looks quite interesting: wikinews:Delhi High Court restores copyright infringement case at Delhi University. See also this article by Lawrence Liang. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)