Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Help promote VPC

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

Statues of Yuri Gagarin

I have a question about a series of photos of statues of Yuri Gagarin. First, there is this statue commemorating Yuri Gagarin. It was erected in 1984 in Russia (during the Soviet era), but the photo was taken in 2008 (after the Soviet era ended). I've asked here about FoP in the Soviet Union. Then there is a picture I took today of a statue in the UK which is a direct copy (using moulds) of this statue. The picture is here. I have several other pictures of the statue and of the unveiling ceremony, but before I upload them I want to check the status. One complication is that the statue was only granted a one-year license by the local authority, so I think that means it counts as a temporary installation, not a permanent one (whether it becomes permanent later is another matter).

So we have a picture taken in 2011 in the UK of a statue temporarily installed in the UK, but which is a direct copy (clear derivative work) of a statue installed in 1984 in Russia in the Soviet era, of which photos also exist but taken in 2008 (after the Soviet era). So what is the status of all these photos? I fear none are OK in terms of freedom of panorama, but I'm hoping they might be for some reason. There are a number of other statues of Gagarin as well, in Category:Yuri Gagarin and its subcategories. Would those be problematic as well? If so, that would be a bit depressing. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My hunch would be that the UK photos are fine, though it would depend on the definition of "permanent". Powers (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We definitely have FOP works that are derivative works of works copyrighted in other nations (this seems a bit questionable to me but they tend to be kept in deletion discussions). However, works must be permanently installed in the UK to be eligible for FOP. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Possibly I need to use a picture of the statue with the shroud covering it before it was unveiled (or no picture at all). It will look silly to use that picture instead of the one of the statue, but needs must. The other question I have is why the newspaper journalists in the crowd with me were happily snapping away at the statue and publishing their photos in newspapers and on websites. How is that different to uploading a picture here? Why are the rules different here than elsewhere? Are others (those journalists) breaking copyright laws with impunity, or are those laws drawn too tightly here? Or is it a case of the journalist publishing in a newspaper being a one-time fair-use publication, versus Commons being a long-term stock archive that needs to be freely reusable by anyone at anytime? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have an answer to this (the secondary question about newspaper use vs uploading to Commons and how Freedom of panorama works for news photographers), or should I raise it at the Village pump? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the answer is the last sentence of your question. In the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, see the provisions of chapter III, Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works, for example section 30 about fair dealing for purposes criticism, review and news reporting. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NFL uniforms

Is there any problem with trademarks of the NFL teams for self-drawn uniform pictures? DEWP likes to use them - but currently they are under fair use at ENWP. Example: en:File:AFCE-Uniform-NYJ.PNG

The uploader (currently inactive) said to me: "Sadly, because of NFL licensing rights, that is the highest res I'm allowed to make them." I thought {{Trademarked}} is enough?! So if the author agrees to a free license I/he could upload them to Commons. Thanks for comments. --Saibo (Δ) 23:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If he drew the basic uniform image in question, there should be no copyright restrictions, I don't think (any logos on there should be de minimis). Trademark restrictions would apply, but I'm not sure that trademark can really restrict an educational usage such as this (there is no danger of something thinking the NFL or the team is associated, I don't think). While it does obviously restrict some uses outside Wikimedia, yes, those are non-copyright restrictions and should be OK. I'm not sure if the NFL has guidelines on such things (resolution of depictions like that), but if it does not really impact our usage we may as well follow them if so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Carl! Okay, like I thought it is. the selection of colors and some stripes is not copyrighted. Then I just need to get the uploader upploading them here (if possible in higher res) with a free license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Image upload verification

I was wondering if you could advise me on whether this image is OK to upload i.e. complies with Wiki's copyright, file size etc. And if so, what copyright tag to use. I have had many images deleted in the past for not following the Wikipedia policy!

The poster image by w:Art Young was first published in 1917. Source on date: In w:Ammon Hennacy's The Book of Ammon he says "Elizabeth Gurley Flynn gave us a framed picture by Art Young from the old Masses of a reward wanted for Christ..." (p. 410, 5th ed. 1970). w:The Masses ceased publication in 1917, confirming the artwork was first published prior to this time. He also published the full poster in his autobiography on p.332.

The image has been reproduced many times since 1917, including a 1953 US Government hearing as described here and shown here.

If this image is OK I intend to scan several images from Art for the Masses: a Radical Magazine and Its Graphics 1911-1917 (1989) by Rebecca Zurier and load them into Category:The Masses. Would this also be OK? Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd think it would be ok under {{PD-old}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}}, as it was first published in the US? (For works first published in the United States, use a United States public domain tag). If so, which one is best? Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case the artist is known (Art Young). He died in 1943, so 70 years from the date of his death will only expire on 31 December 2013. However, I agree with Nirvana2013 that since the work was published before 1923, {{PD-1923}} applies. PD-old should only be used when PD-1923 is inapplicable, and it is known who the artist was and 70 years have elapsed since his or her death. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

PD-Old should be use in addition to PD-1923, if both are applicable (which is not true in this case). As an American work, PD-Old is not directly relevant (for U.S. works, copyright term is still almost always based on publication and copyright formalities rather than when the author died), but it could potentially help users in certain other countries (those that use the rule of the longer term, for example). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I defer, of course, to Carl. :-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've modified the PD-old tags, except for PD-old-100, to read "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." This is closer to what we actually want users to do, since PD-old is not usually sufficient to show PD in the US as required by Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Licence Art Libre / Free Art License

According to this blog entry by Finanzer, images that use only the FAL can't be used in Wikipedia, as §3 of the license requests that any work that is using images under this license must be available under the FAL, too. Therefore, if a FAL image is used in a Wikipedia article, at least this article or even the whole Wikipedia would have to be licensed under FAL, which isn't possible. If an image is available under other, suitable licenses (e.g. CC-BY-SA) there is no problem, but "FAL only" doesn't seem to work. However, there are images on Commons that have the FAL as their only license, as I noticed, e.g. File:Bad Bellingen - Evangelische Kirche8.jpg. So, my question is: Should all "FAL-only" images be deleted? Or maybe, as it doesn't seem to be a useful license for Commons, should we stop accepting the FAL (delete the template) and subsequently delete all images that don't have an additional valid license? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this in several places recently. I think that is a misinterpretation -- I think the license is intended to basically be the GPL applied to artwork, or something conceptually similar to CC-BY-SA. They both require derivative works to be the same license as itself, but a Wikipedia article is not a derivative work of the images contained within -- rather, the article is a "collective work" of the text, images, and the arrangement of all of them. The copyright in a collective work is not related to the copyright in the contained works. The FAL is set out by the Free Software Foundation as a definitively "free" license... it's going to be very hard to argue it is not "free". The problem may be one of translation; I would hope that the FAL is not trying to control collective works which make use of the photos (which is beyond the rights which copyright law explicitly gives them), so I would like to see a declaration from the authors of the FAL if that was really their intent. At the moment, I don't see it as being all that different from CC-BY-SA or similar share-alike licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I notice now that the license translation into German which Finanzer refers to is still based on version 1.1 of the license, whereas the English translation of version 1.3 seems to be quite different in the wording: Incorporating this work into a larger work that is not subject to the Free Art License shall not challenge the rights granted by this license. If the work can no longer be accessed apart from the larger work in which it is incorporated, then incorporation shall only be allowed under the condition that the larger work is subject either to the Free Art License or a compatible license. This doesn't sound too bad, I think. But then it's of course not a good thing that the translations are based on different versions. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The license was originally written in French, as well. That is probably the best version to look at (would help to have someone who knows French well). But yes, the above does seem to indicate that being part of a collective work is fine (since the work can be separately accessed), and it is only derivative works that are "infected" (like other copyleft licenses). It would be best to get a clarification from the FAL folks themselves though, if someone knows the appropriate forum to ask in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The blog is wrong. See the examples provided in the FAQ on the FAL website: http://artlibre.org/licence/faq#FAQ_281. (Following is my own unofficial summary of the examples.) Example 1: A photo under the FAL can illustrate an article that is not under the FAL, provided that the information about the photo mentions the author and the license. However, the photo could not be modified by the superposition of a text which is not licensed under the FAL, because then it would be a derivative work mixing text and photo and such derivative work should be placed under the FAL. Example 2: A piece of music under the FAL can be used as music in a movie that is not under the FAL, provided that the credits of the movie mention the piece of music, its author and its license. But the piece of music could not be mixed with other sound elements that are not under the FAL. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm the author of the blog entry. I have only used the german translation of the license and not the version in other languages. That was the reason of the confusion by me. On the other hand it's an good message, that FAL licensed works can used without any problems inside other works. Than i think this was the intention by using this license in combination with unfree licenses, to avoid using these pictures outside the wikimedia universe. I will in next days correct my blog entry. Thanks for all comments. Greetings --Michail (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for that, Asclepias. Those to me are clear examples of collective vs derivative works, i.e., usage inside collective works is fine, but derivative works must use the FAL as its license. "Accessed apart from the larger work" is just the way they put it, it would seem -- a song used in a movie (a component of a collective work) can still be accessed apart from the other component works, so it is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Polish passport photos from 1913 (or so)

Hi, I was wondering if photos from Polish passports from 1913 thereabouts are in public domain. According to this template:

This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements: it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States, it was in the public domain in its home country (Poland) on the URAA date (1 January 1996). To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.

it seems like they would be, though I'm not sure what the copyright status of passport photos in general is. Specifically I was thinking of this photo [1] of Cywia Lubetkin from 1913, which is in the Yad Vashem collection. There is also a a Nazi issued passport photo from the war period [2]. Additionally, a photo of Marek Edelman here [3] which would probably also qualify though there I have to do a bit more research.

Any help would be appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos by Brian Burnell, copyright issues

George.Hutchinson (talk · contribs) has uploaded at least three photos by Brian Burnell, most likely with his permission:

• File:T&T Scarborough-2.JPG
• File:T&T Scarborough edited.jpg
• File:T&T Port of Spain-1-tonal.jpg

However, I believe that the "self-" license tags are not correct, they should be {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Brian Burnell}}, which displays the proper attribution. Should we change it? Also there is an additional requirement for OTRS permission by the photographer, can someone from the OTRS team check the permissions database? SV1XV (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should clearly change it to match the provided documentation. An OTRS email would definitely be a good idea, to confirm the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tuberculosis painting

Someone had one of those nasty 7 day tags on it, but I went ahead and put it in formal deletions. Want actual opinions delivered as this image is high profile.

TCO (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

PD-old tags updated

The tags {{PD-old}}, {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-75}}, and {{PD-old-80}} have been updated to read: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." This is necessary to comply with Commons:Licensing, which requires works to be public domain in the United States (the current copyright terms of the US are PD-old-70, but this only applies to 1978 or later works and no such works have fallen out of copyright yet or will until 2048). Typical tags are {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-1996}}. Needless to say, there is an enormous backlog of images that are not in compliance with this requirement, and I'm pretty sure the Upload Wizard and old upload forms are also incorrectly placing PD-old tags by themselves. I did not update PD-old-100 because, except in a few places like Mexico, the vast majority of these images are PD-1996. A related template is {{PD-Art-two}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The clearer this is, the better. Hekerui (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the text is while but the link is not: {{PD-1996}} tag is mentioned in this section. --Jarekt (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

soundz r trickee

I want to clear (or kill) this sound, which is stalled for Featured Sound.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rossini-William_Tell_Overture.ogg

P.s. Sorry if it looks like I'm double processing. If I thought the thing was compliant and just wanted a second opinion would come here instead of deletions, but given I have no clue and given the thing needs a pretty good validations, I threw it into the "acid test" of deletions.

P.s.s. You guys are the best. Srsly!

TCO (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern sculptures in the US

I'm not familiar with US copyright law. Are the photographs statues shown in the photographs in "Category:Alexander Wilson by Alexander Milne Calder" (1846–1923) and "Category:Joseph Leidy by Samuel Aloysius Murray" (1869–1941) in the public domain in the US? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem {{PD-US}} would apply to both. Wknight94 ^talk 16:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know that first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary that the publication occurred before 1923. (And if a publication occurred before 1923, it is not necessary that it was the first publication.) But it is necessary that a "publication" occurred in a year allowing the work to enter the public domain. The section Commons:FOP#United_States gives some suggestions about how to find the information. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The specific tag PD-US can not apply. "This media file" is not in the PD because its "copyright has expired" but because its author released it into the PD. There should be some other way for indicating the status of the statue. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm puzzled. I believe the uploader (presumably the photographer) properly licensed the photographs to the Commons. However, is there sufficient evidence to show that the statues are in the public domain? My understanding is that if the statues are still copyrighted, then the photographs will have to be deleted as there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. If it can be shown that the statues were installed before January 1, 1923, won't {{PD-1923}} apply? Thus, isn't it necessary for "publication" to have occurred before that date? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the question is about determining the copyright status of the statues. My reply to Wknight94 was about his suggestion to use one particular tag that is worded to apply specifically to the files (the photos) and therefore not applicable to those photos here. But anyway the important point is that the information about the photographs and about the statues can be mentioned and distinguished. The photos already have the proper tags from the uploaders. It leaves the status of the statues to be determined and mentioned. Works can be in the public domain in the U.S. even if published after 1922. It's all that stuff about notices and renewals. The difficulty is to determine if and when they were published (for statues installed before 1978, it seems that would be the time of their installment in a public space), if there was a notice, if there was a renewal. If it is found that they are into the public domain, that information can be made clear, not necessarily with a tag (a tag can be used if it does not cause confusion with the status of the photo but it can just be explained in ordinary words if there is no appropriate tag). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the Joseph Leidy statue in the Smithsonian's Art Inventories Catalog, but no date of creation is specified. The other statue does not appear to be in the catalogue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No copyright notice mentioned on that one, so almost certainly PD one way or another. Ah, here is a 1912 photo of that statue. So, that statue is {{PD-1923}}. You can use the tag on the photos if you want; just clearly mark it as being for the statue in particular.

Oh, and for the first one, here is a 1940 publication (The Flicker, December 1940 issue, 2/3 of the way into the PDF) which has a blurb about the statue. It mentions another publication from 1913 which discussed the statue (along with an illustration), and mentions it had been exhibited in the "seventies", which I presume was the 1870s. So, that one looks easily like PD-1923 as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the sterling detective work. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a dumb question, perhaps, but I really don't know the answer nor how to find it. How do we determine if something was published with a copyright notice in the US? --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at a published copy, and try to find the notice :-) It had to be visible; the idea of notices were so that somebody looking at it would have an idea if they were allowed to make use of the work without doing much other searching. If no notice, it was OK. The notice had to have the year, so in the first 28 years, then you knew it was not OK. After 28 years, you could do one search of the renewal records in Washington, and find out if it was renewed. And after 56 or 75 (depending on the era, now increased to 95) years from the notice date, then you knew it was OK again. For books, it's easy -- it had to be on or near the title page. For movies, during the opening credits I think. For statues in particular, it's hard without looking at the statue itself. Given the court rulings of the era, we think that statues permanently in public would have been deemed published, so they would have needed notices on them. The Smithsonian's SIRIS Art Inventories catalog has a ton of information on public sculpture though, and a large number of them have all their inscriptions documented, and will mention the copyright notices if they find them. That is the usual way we check. Photographs might do it, but without seeing many angles it can be hard to say for sure if one is there or not. For these above, since they were published before 1923, the question of notices, renewals, etc. is moot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Carl, I will use your answer as a reference. I suppose the search in the copyright renewals can't be done online? --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links. Note that these are generally page scans, not a database search. There are databases now for book renewals, but for all other types I think it's the page scans. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit broader than that; http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf has a partial list of places where it can be on page 3, and for books on can be on either side of the front or back cover, etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; the pre-1978 law had a shorter list of where it could be, whereas the 1976 Act (effective 1978) allowed the Copyright Office to specify the locations as regulations, which is what I assume that PDF is. Not positive if that larger list is valid for pre-1978 publications, but it's possible the Copyright Office had started accepting notices in places not specified in the law, and later changed their regulations to match. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could all this fascinating information be placed in a guideline somewhere? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Magazine ad from 1963

The image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KleinsAd1963.jpg is categorized as free because it doesn't have a copyright notice. However, it was printed in a commercial magazine, and I'm almost positive the magazine itself had a notice on another page, which would extend to the advertisement. 151.213.41.25 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not extend to the advertisement. They needed separate copyright notices. There were actually court cases on this, applying specifically for advertisements. (I think it happened after a magazine editor claimed copyright control over an ad, trying to prevent their use in any other publication). That bit about advertisements not being covered by the collective work copyright was made explicit in the 1976 Copyright Act, and is now at 17 USC 404. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hostess Comic Ads from 1975 to 1982, can they be loaded to the Commons?

Hello,

I have been updating information about the Hostess Comic Ads that ran between 1975 to 1982. They all have the copyright notices displayed at the bottom of the ads.

Would those be OK to load into the Wiki commons?

If you want an idea of what they are, there are examples of the ads on a Facebook page: Hostess Comic Ad Archives.

The images I would load into the commons would not have the digital watermarks that the facebook images have.

Thanks, --ImaPaqRat - Bruce D. Fisher (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they cannot be uploaded to Commons. Since they had their own copyright notice, they are under copyright in the U.S. for 95 years following their publication -- in other words quite a long time from now. We would need to get the copyright owners (which should be named in the notices) to license the works under one of the very open copyright licenses we require, which most would not want to do, quite reasonably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl, Thanks for the information. I thought that was going to be the answer. --ImaPaqRat - Bruce D. Fisher (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding attribution

Many of the images are licensed under Creative Commons. One of the stipulations is:

 "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"

The trouble is, out of a few hundred images I looked at only two had verbiage that specified how the image provider wanted attribution.

If nothing is specified, are we to assume no attribution is required?

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but I've been all over this website and can't find an answer to that.

Any help would be appreciated.
—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.42.3.125 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

When the author did not specify a different attribution line, I think that what he wrote to identify himself as author (for example in the "author" field of the information template, if he used it) can be assumed to be the manner he specified for the attribution. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan Coat of Arms

Hi, I'm wondering about File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png ... which is on commons now with a CC3/GDFL license, although it's non-free on English en:File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png and as part of an Emblem in German de:File:South_Sudan_emblem.png wikipedia Non-free (fair use or somesuch) seems correct to me, as the legal situation isn't so clear yet.

I have made an SVG version of the eagel and wonder if I can upload it to commons... or if actually that png version should be removed from commons because it violates license requirements. Iridos (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudanese copyright law, Article 6(d), states that copyright does not extend to ideas, methods, state emblems and symbols.. Of course this is a new country, which can pass their own copyright law at some point, so it's anyone's guess as to what that law will say. Not positive, but I think usually the laws of the older country remain in place until/unless new ones are drafted, so at the moment it is arguably OK, but yes the situation is definitely muddy. As for an SVG... if it was drawn according to a written description, it is OK regardless of the copyright of the above-linked rendition. But if you did tracing, or closely copied the outlines etc. of the above version, then yours is a derivative work and will be subject to whatever rights the author of the first one has. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight on Sudanese copyright law. As you can see it's a very close approximation to the (*sigh* low resolution) png... so, although it's not traced but drawn by me, of course it's not just made from the description and has to be regarded as a derivative work.

So two more questions: a) Do I interpret what you said correctly in that I should upload to commons for now (althought later law changes might make deletion necessary) and b) if the Sudanese copyright "does not extend to [...] emblems and symbols", what is the correct license to choose and is the CC3/GDFL double-license on the png version File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png (that should be kept as source for the SVG) correct? Is there something I can link to (this discussion?) to make the reasons for the decision on any specific license clear in the image description? Thanks, Iridos (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The GFDwhatever licensed image on Commons is a typical example of Copyfraud, which is unfortunately quite common on Commons concerning coats of arms. I believe that the arms should be PD, as the Sudanese copyright law declares state emblems as PD, and the constition of the South Sudan declares in article No. 198 that "All laws of South Sudan shall remain in force [...] unless new action are taken [...]" It is very doubtful that South Sudan had an own copyright law before independance, so I believe it should be possible to upload it on Commons. Can anyone add to Template:PD-Sudan the fact that the state emblem is free of copyright and change the linked copyright law the english one here [4]--Antemister (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the explicit continuity of laws declaration. In that case, yes, it would seem that the coat of arms PNG from their official website is PD (virtually a form of PD-author, really), and the SVG version is then also OK (it may not get any copyright protection in South Sudan, but likely would elsewhere). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Building copyright in Iran

Would you mind describing me, what kind of pictures from buildings, can be uploaded in commons? for instance, is it right? --Ayda (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the question of interest to anser is:

“

According to article 12 of copyright law of Iran, such works remains on protection for a period of thirty years after death of it's author(s). Also according to article 13, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production.

”

-- RE rillke questions? 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million. But I knew this law. I want to know, picture of which kind of buildings exacltly we can upload? Or none of them?! --Ayda (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated. In countries with freedom of panorama for buildings, such as the United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, anything goes. In countries without it, such as France, the design of the building must either have fallen into the public domain, or be so utilitarian as to be uncopyrightable. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So what about objects in museums? Something like a plate or glass that is made about 40-50 years ago? --Ayda (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the country in which the photograph is taken. Different countries have different terms of copyright. If the copyright in the artwork has expired, then you can personally take a photograph of it for the Commons. (Note that you cannot just grab a photograph of the artwork from the Internet even if the artwork itself is very old, because there is a separate copyright in the photograph.) To find out whether the copyright in an artwork has expired, in many cases you will need to know who the author was and when he or she died, because most countries calculate the period of copyright from the year in which the author died. For example, in the UK the copyright period is 70 years from the end of the year in which the author died. Let's say that the artwork was created 50 years ago, in 1961. However, the author only died in 1991. In that case, the artwork will only enter the public domain on 1 January 2062. Note that the UK is one of the countries that recognizes freedom of panorama for certain types of artwork such as sculptures. Assuming the artwork is a piece of sculpture permanently displayed in a public place such as a museum, photographs of it can be taken and uploaded to the Commons without any problems. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your describings were helpfull. Thanks alot. --Ayda (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

NASA JPL Caltech Spitzer policy

I recently nominated a Spitzer image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perseus' Stellar Neighbors.jpg mainly because I completely misread the Special Case clause.

However, now I am confused by the meaning of policy clause "2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech"." (Bold emphasis mine.) Some credit lines have the name of the lead investigator appended, an example is "NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC/Caltech)". If the "should" means "must" then does Commons need a license template for those images so that re-users will correctly attribute the images? As is done at {{Cc-Hubble}}.

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/12#Nasa Copyright here concluded that such requests are not obligatory, but is this really the case?

I also nominated a similar image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sig06-027.jpg.

I also nominated an old Spitzer image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SIRTF ir 1.jpg because the image policy at the time was different, but could someone please check I have not misinterpreted that too? I a clarification request at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:Spitzer space telescope (NASA images) -84user (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

USRC Massachusetts (1791).jpg

I hope I did everything correctly. The original source is unavailable, but the same image can be found here (page 3) and it claims that this is an U.S. Coast Guard illustration. We have no information when the image was published, so I put {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}} instead of {{PD-US}}. mickit 08:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Anonymous-EU}} vs {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}

There's a discussion in Template talk:Anonymous-EU#PD-EU-no author disclosure about the difference between these two copyright tags. A merge seems to be the right solution. Could someone unravel the hank? Further, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is not listed in COM:TAG. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolivian visa with incorrect license

The linked file has a listed license of FDL or CC by-sa. This is almost certainly wrong, as I doubt the state of Bolivia issues its documents under that license. I'm almost certain it should be public domain. (the page it originates from is cc by-nc-sa, but that shouldn't matter, as that wouldn't change the copyright of the visa itself)

Though there seem to be no PD license tags for bolivia. To stay in line with other license tags, we'd probably need Template:PD-BO-exempt, however, I haven't found an english copy of the bolivian copyright law with a short googling. Anyone can help? --84.161.39.172 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)