Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Village pump
Revision as of 18:34, 28 March 2013 by Canoe1967 (talk | contribs) (→FOP?: designate authority)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to bottom

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Header

Help promote VPC

Please help make sure that this venue for discussing copyright issues is appropriately linked from other Wikimedia wikis. Examples include en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and its equivalents.

However in linking here please make it clear that the primary venue for copyright discussions should be that wiki. Users should come here only for discussing copyright issues relevant to Commons - most commonly files which could potentially be moved to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally.

Mozilla Public License 2.0 and templates

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

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

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

Hi folks,

A file like File:Brooklyn Museum - On the Heights - Charles Courtney Curran - overall.jpg can be hosted here because it was first published in the US (its country of origin) before 1923, hence {{PD-1923}}.

Should we add an additional tag indicating it is also PD in other countries per PD-old-70, or is it wrong/unnecessary?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the country of origin is USA, no additional tags are required. Ruslik (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Required, no. But it was not my question :) Jean-Fred (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, there seem to be two perspectives: (a) provide the minimum copyright information necessary to prove it's OK for Commons to host a file (b) provide as much copyright information as possible, for the benefit of re-users. Obviously (a) is the priority, but (b) is certainly an issue. Partly because of this I think we should encourage tags like {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. Rd232 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. I thought I had a look at {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, and concluded that it more or less implied that the USA were not the country of origin − the way {{PD-two|PD-old-70|PD-1923}} does. My mistake then, PD-old-auto-1923 is appropriate for the situation. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Trudeau

We don't have any decent images of her. I found this one and many more pre-78 with a simple Ebay search for 'Margaret Trudeau'. Many are bad images and many have watermarks. Would anyone like to help find a good one that qualifies under Template:PD-US-no notice? Would the one above qualify or would it risk DR?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth contacting the Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum project? Ford and Trudeau overlapped for years, and it seems very likely they have photos of some state function or another with Margaret Trudeau present. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fototermin Landtagsgebäude Niedersachsen}}

Sorry, but I can't speak German. Could anyone explain what this template ({{Fototermin Landtagsgebäude Niedersachsen}}) means and how it translates into a valid commons license? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a license template, but just an information template about a photoshooting by Wikipedians in a state parliament of Germany. See here, File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-003.jpg, for an example. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought it included some information about the licensing. As that's not the case, this image is a derivative work and, assuming that FOP does not apply here, we should assess whether some {{PD-Germany}} applies. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Am I missing anything? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 08:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the uploader. He will research the name of the painter. --Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only said image. There are plenty of similar derivative works. If the art work is in the public domain, the derivative work can be applied whatever compatible license. Otherwise they'll have to be deleted. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:The murder of Jayavira Bandara Mudali by the Portuguese.PNG

Dear friends, I uploaded this file few months ago and I have noticed a banner in red saying "PD-Art template without parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States"

Authour of this image is Philippus Baldaeus a Dutch minister. He passed away in 1672. Please tell me how to resolve this issue. What do I need to type?

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tag to work. It still needs categories though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll add categories Nishadhi (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pascal Sebah

There are two - arguably three - major photographers with the name Sébah: Pascal Sebah, his brother his son, Jean Pascal Sebah, and Pascal's brother Cosmi.

We seem to be presuming that if the work is signed Sebah, or even Sebah & Joaillier (which is a partnership entered into by Jean at around the age of 16, and with a Frenchman who also might hold copyright) - that we can use the death date for Pascal Sebah and claim it's out of copyright.

This is not actually true, Jean Sèbah died in 1947, and I believe still holds copyright in Turkey, and don't see how he wouldn't. Polycarpe Joallier died in 1904, so he's probably alright, but...

I don't see any justification for how Jean Pascal Sebah's work is out of copyright. The linked category specifically gives the information needed to see this is a copyvio.

How the hell was this not spotted years ago? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a lot of copyvio. Why should it be surprising that a photographer who can be confused with another photographer might have some of his works mistakenly uploaded? When you say "this is a copyvio", that's clearly false, as some of the files--like the one dated 1873, a year after J. Pascal Sebah was born--are clearly out of copyright around the world. You're welcome to go through the files and find the ones that are in copyright in their source nation and nominated them for DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do get grumpy after insomnia. But we should sort this out and move stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.copa2014.gov.br

There are about 300 files sourced to the Copa2014 website, which displays very clearly that all content is CC-BY-SA however I don't think that this is the case; the site contains photos and logos that are copyright to FIFA and others. for example on this page. The Logo on the main page is, I suspect copyright to FIFA. So my question is do we need to get a type of ORTS notice from the website verifying what is and what is not covered. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 07:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a Brazilian government website and not a FIFA website, you're right to question their use of the images. The site is licensed this way as part of a government initiative for all their content. If what they actually mean is "everything the government did is CC-BY-SA, but that's not everything on the site", with no disclaimer to that effect, then they deserve a slap and a place in Commons:Bad sources. I guess it's possible there is an agreement with FIFA and other sources to relicense their content. --moogsi (blah) 08:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell FIFA guard their IP very closely, it is unlikely they would allow it to be used in a CC-BY-SA way, what is there to stop someone from moveing en:File:WC-2014-Brasil.svg to commons and saying as it appears on the www.copa2014.gov.br site it it licensed CC-BY-SA. LGA talkedits 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like careless on the part of the Copa2014 site. We can assume they have rights to use FIFA content, but not to license it as CC-BY-SA; we'd need OTRS confirmation of that if it's actually the case. Rd232 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I contacted Mowa Press (http://www.mowasports.com) regarding images from this Brazilian sports agency published at http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/com-gols-de-fred-e-oscar-brasil-sai-na-frente-no-amistoso-contra-italia (see credits: "Foto: Mowa Press"). I asked if they know that images from Mowa Press are used at this portal from Brazilian government and if Mowa Press is fully aware that these images are licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0-br}} = free to copy, distribute, transmit, remix, adapt and to make commercial use of these images. I asked also if there is a special agreement between Mowa Press and copa2014.gov.br to publish some selected works for "free" at copa2014.gov.br. I got an answer from Eduardo Bernardes, per http://br.linkedin.com/in/edubernardes a Business Development Manager from Mowa.
He wrote:

“ O acordo citado não existe. O que oferecemos como serviço para nossos parceiros é o uso exclusivamente NOTICIOSO de nossas fotos mediante correta creditação para a MoWA Press ou MoWA Sports. Qualquer outro uso não está coberto e deve ser negociado conosco caso a caso." ”

—Eduardo Bernardes, MoWa Sports

[Translated] The cited agreement doesn´t exist. What we offer as a service for our partners is the exclusive use of our photos for news through correct crediting MoWa Press or Mowa Sports. Any other use is not covered and must be negotiated case by case with us.(screenshot of conversation, if desired, available)

As I understand, copa2014.gov.br seems to be a customer of MoWA but is abusing contract and/or licensing conditions. The whole thing seems to be buggy. At copa2014.gov.br we have a mixture of works by copa2014.gov.br and "other sources". Another example: http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/novas-imagens-da-arena-fonte-nova-mostram-iluminacao-interna-confira = credits: "Natália Arjones/Arena Fonte Nova/Divulgação" and sourced with http://360.io/HYnzLq (a 360-panorama of the stadium Arena Nova made by Natália Arjones). Or http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/primeiros-camarotes-da-arena-fonte-nova-estao-prontos-veja-fotos = credits: "Erik Salles BAPRESS / Arena Fonte Nova / Divulgação" (BAPRESS is a Brazilian stock photo agency = http://www.bapress.com.br). To complete the confusion we have for example http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/obra-de-mobilidade-urbana-para-copa-avanca-em-mato-grosso = credits: "Edson Rodrigues/ Secopa-MT", which is sourced with http://www.mtnacopa.mt.gov.br/conteudo.php?sid=309&cid=81282& which itself is licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0-br}}.

Do copa2014.gov.br really has permission to publish all these works under {{Cc-by-3.0-br}}? Sometimes yes, sometimes apparently not = unclear. Additionally, sometimes a paragraph appears at the links cited above which says: "As notícias com a assinatura Portal da Copa podem ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte." = News which are signed with Portal da Copa may be reproduced if the source is cited. Is this a license limitation, related only to the text? Or are images included? And why we have at MoWa Press´s example the signature "Portal da Copa" and at BARPRESS´s, Natália Arjones´s and Secopa-MT´s examples not?

Concluding: Images, that a not clearly credited with "Portal da Copa" (example) need individual verification or should be deleted via unknown copyright status.

In any cases they should add to there license something like "(...) except otherwise specified and content replicated by other sources" (portuguese: "(...) exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes").

Btw, I already had some bad experience with buggy licensing issues of sites maintained by Brazilian government. Recent example: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by TV Brasil... Gunnex (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket copyright statements should never be taken at face value, especially those at website footers instead of dedicated pages. The same applies if the site said "All rights reserved", which doesn't necessarily mean that they own the rights to every single thing on the website. Detailed copyright statements usually say something like "All content is copyrighted by such and such unless otherwise noted", but many don't bother. Blanket statements are standard practice, see for example how film studios claim to won all rights on film websites, DVD covers, trailers etc. but add attribution for the rights they don't own in the credit roll.
In any case, it's common sense to consider images on a case by case basis. Maybe the copa2014 site should add a detailed copyright statement, but they are clearly crediting the images to their owners, and that shouldn't have been ignored by our users in the first place. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where from here, I am planning to go through each of them in turn and check the source page and looking for any sourcing credit, any with a credit I will nominate for deletion, the question is what to do with those images that no longer appear on the page listed as source, it could be for a number of reasons, including that copa2014.gov.br only had a time limited licence to use them. LGA talkedits 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to look at their Flickr stream. You won't find agency/stock/FIFA images there, and images are tagged one by one and clearly credited to Portal da Copa, so there's less chance of confusion. Notice that these are only stadium and construction photos, which makes sense that they'd own the rights for them, unlike other types of images. -- Orionist ★ talk 02:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have took the first few images in this list, they are all artistic representations of what the stadium will look like :
  • File:Pantanal Arena.jpg - Can't find it on the flickr feed, can find this page on the website with an different artistic view of the stadium - credited to "Divulgação".
  • File:Baixada Arena.jpg - Likewise not on flickr feed, also found similar image on this page, this time attributed to "Atlético Paranaense"
  • File:Castelao Stadium.jpg Not on Flickr feed would appear to come from the website of the designers here at least need an ORTS verification.
  • File:Amazon Arena.png - also not on Flickr feed would appear to come from the website of the designers [1]
  • File:Pernambuco Arena.jpg Can't find it on the flickr feed, can find this page on the website with an different artistic view of the stadium - credited to "Arena Pernambuco"
LGA talkedits 04:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pantanal Arena.jpg: Credited (for example) in 2009 with "GCP Arquitetos" (gallery, scroll to image 16+17, GCP designed that stadium) via portal2014.org.br (© Copyright 2009 copa2014.org.br All rights reserved), .jpg I and .jpg II (very similar, lower res). As we have no direct source link for this file it might be doubtful if this image was really published at copa2014.gov.br (and the uploader already had some bad experiences with copyrights, today with File:Village Mall.jpg, grabbed - as expressively stated by uploader - from here = .jpg, with no free license visible and declaring the file in Commons as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}...). Via site search - as I could verify: no hits. Btw, copa2014.gov.br was launched officially in 09.2011.
  • File:Baixada Arena.jpg = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
  • File:Castelao Stadium.jpg = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
  • File:Amazon Arena.png = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
  • File:Pernambuco Arena.jpg = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
Without a direct source link, a verification/review of the license is not possible. Imho, all files above a "no source"/"no license"-case.
Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Visualizations like these are usually done by the architecture firms doing the designs. Who owns the rights to the designs and renders would depend on the contracts signed between the architects and the stadium owners/event organizers/whoever commissioned these renders, so they might be owned by the Brazilian government, but not necessarily. It's hard to tell. Anyway we need to find clear indication of their status to be able to keep them. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't think it is prudent to rely on claim of being on the copa2014.org.br site to be licenced CC-BY-SA I would think a bulk nomination of all the files that Soulflytribe has uploaded from copa2014.org.br under the grounds of unable to verify the sourcing/licence. I have left a note on the uploaders talk page.LGA talkedits 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Brazilian Government's site where I downloaded those pictures say that everything related to the World Cup can be freely published everywhere. But I don't care very much about this subject anymore, so you guys can delete everything. It's fine to me. I won't resist. Soulflytribe (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it does not make it so, there are a number of examples listed above to give pause for thought on this, there are good cases for claims of fair use on all of them on projects that allow that, commons does not. I intend for starters to nominate for deletion any file sourced to www.copa2014.gov.br that looks like it was created by a third party and cant be located in use on www.copa2014.gov.br. LGA talkedits 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's obvious that you won't find! You can't speak portuguese! Try this, my friend: go to http://www.copa2014.gov.br/, then roll the page down and you will find this: "Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil." what means: "All content available in this site is published under creative commons 3.0 license." Thanks. Soulflytribe (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know that the site says this, but as the conversation with Eduardo Bernardes quoted above shows, this is patently untrue. The government cannot release an image under a particular copyright if they don't own said image. Care must be taken when dealing with these sorts of issues. Copyright is a very complicated issue that takes time to understand. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We know that the site says this, but as the conversation with Eduardo Bernardes quoted above shows, this is patently untrue. The government cannot release an image under a particular copyright if they don't own said image" That is a very serious accusation. Pay attention, you and Eduardo Bernardes are basically saying that the Brazilian Government is doing something illegal. Soulflytribe (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is only as serious as copyright is to the Brazilian government agencies. These government offices are putting CC-BY-SA licenses uniformly on things that are clearly not works of the Brazilian government, and there is no explanation of how all these different private sources could be convinced to use the same license without any exceptions. Gunnex mentioned Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by TV Brasil as an example of how this has been a problem before. We now have a Brazilian government website saying that the photos are from MoWA, and a statement from MoWA saying that CC-BY-SA is not within the rights granted by MoWA. And also, MoWA Sports seems to test the limits of ethics also: If you view the mowasports.com website with JavaScript disabled, you'll notice that the MoWA website is acting as a search engine spam site with hidden text and links for grey-market prescription erection pills ("Viagra for sale without a prescription") and "pay-day loans" (special loans that avoid the regulations of normal loans). We don't know if MoWA has any better license from the photographers than the Brazilian government has from MoWA. As Gunnex mentioned earlier: The whole thing smells bad. Per the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, we don't accept files with this kind of questionable provenance. Let the Brazilian government and MoWA and whoever else work out their flexible legal issues among themselves; Commons is better off staying away from those photos and whatever is attached to them for now. --Closeapple (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's crazy that you guys are actually taking Bernardes' words as the ultimate truth. Those pictures are not related to Mowa (a press office!) in any way. Bernardes is talking about something that he is not involved with and doesn't know much about it. Mowa doesn't build stadiums or have contracts with FIFA. The Brazilian Government does. South Africa's World Cup's logos and official pictures are spread around wikipedia and no one seems to complain. There are many Brazilian Government sites talking about the World Cup and all of them say that the content available is all under 3.0 license. "It is only as serious as copyright is to the Brazilian government agencies.", you say. But maybe you are wrong? I don't believe FIFA and the other companies involved would allow such illegal occurrence for so long. Those sites exist for more than 5 years now (Brazil was appointed as host in 2007). It's a tempest in a teapot. I don't have too much time today, but I will try to help you more with this. Don't delete the pictures yet, please. Soulflytribe (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I want to ask why people can upload those pictures to the Qatar World Cup's article at wikipedia , but not use similar pictures at Brazil's World Cup page? Why would FIFA allow the Qatarian Government, but not the Brazilian Government? Can someone enlighten me? Thanks. Soulflytribe (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, read the licensing rationale on the page. That image is used on en.wiki as fair use. It could not be hosted on Commons because Commons does not allow fair use --moogsi (blah) 16:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valid?

I'd like to call your attention about this picture. It's licensed in flickr under a compatible license (CC-BY-SA-2.0) but includes the following statement in the picture page: This photograph can be used for publications, including this copyright statement: “©PromoMadrid, author Max Alexander”. Is such a statement mandatory? What do you think? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not mandatory, a statement about the desired text of attribution is totally in line with Creative Commons. Unlike a total waiver of copyrights by releasing a work into the public domain, works under a Creative Commons license are still copyrighted but the author permits using them under the terms of the specific license. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I understand your argumentation, but we're not going to include the desired text in every wikipedia article including the picture. That way we'd be breaching the required attribution conditions, wouldn't we? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it has to be on the picture; it says it has to be in the publication. A book would likely put it on the copyright page, we put it on the file page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's right. A single attribution at the Commons file page is sufficient. We usually don't credit the photographers in Wikipedia articles, unless they are really notable or the article is about the photographer. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should tack on all the attribution lines to the bottom of every Wikipedia page automatically. But we've sort of set the standard for using CC-BY-SA files already, and given that few have really objected, I think we're okay as we are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Credit line. Rd232 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Air Force logos

Posing a question to the community from a discussion that started here over the file below:

File:Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg

This image being the subject of discussion below, and since it will likely be deleted at some point, a copy has been uploaded to a free image host here so that editors reviewing this in the future will be able to see the image being discussed. – JBarta (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question would also pertain to the following three files (and maybe more) currently licensed on en:WP as non-free logos:

File:The Scorpion Squadron.gif
File:Knights of the North Squadron.png
File:Bat Squadron Israel.gif

The question is, given that each of the four squadrons were formed (and hence likely the logos) before 1962, is it correct to suggest the above four files are now public domain and should be licensed as PD-IsraelGov? – JBarta (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of my detailed comments as to why these files (as well as The Goring Ram Squadron.gif which I created) are correctly licensed as "Non-free symbol" (non-free fair use) and not "PD-IsraelGov" can be found in the earlier discussion here in which I basically point out that the License Agreement on the Israeli Air Force website from which these images all come states: "According to copyright laws, including the Israeli court as well as international treaties, the copyright of IAF publications, including all information published in this service (i.e., the web site) belong to the Department of Security and Israeli Defense Force. These copyrights also apply to text, images, illustrations, maps, sound samples, video or audio bits, graphics, "Flash" applets and software applications ("The protected material"). All rights reserved to the state of Israel. Department of Security ©2003". As the copyright notice specifically includes "images", "illustrations", and "graphics" that would indicate that these logos are under copyright and only eligible for use on WP as a non-free "fair use" illustrations.
As Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg also is of one of these copyright protected designs the same licensing restriction should apply to that image as well. It is also unlikely that this particular logo was "created before 1962" as it clearly depicts a swept wing A-4 Skyhawk, a type that this unit did not operate until it was reactivated at Hatzerim in August 1978 as "the IAF's eighth and last A-4 Skyhawk squadron." (During this Squadron's two previous active periods if flew the Boeing-Stearman Kaydet (a 1930's radial engine prop bi-wing trainer) in 1956, and the French built Fouga Magister, a straight wing V-tail jet trainer, during its brief six-day war activation in 1967.) That being the case, under the provisions of §42 of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 the Israeli government's copyright protection of this design would not expire any earlier than 2028. Centpacrr (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on the age of the logo. You make a good case above that the logo for the Goring Ram may have been redesigned after 1962... possibly even first designed after 1962. Might also call into question whether or not all (or most) of these logos were designed well after their squadrons were created. I don't know. – JBarta (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no evidence to support that "PD-IsraelGov" is the correct licensing for Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg, you will need to change it to something else although I'm not sure what (if any) "non free fair use" category would be appropriate other than "Non-free symbol" and even that one is doubtful under the circumstances. Centpacrr (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg has been reworked and uploaded as a non-free file to en:WP. The two articles that used the image... 147 Squadron (Israel) and List of Israeli Air Force aircraft squadrons have been updated with the new file. The small GIF version will be deleted as an orphaned non-free file, and I've nominated the original file, File:Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg for deletion citing the issue you pointed out above. Unless you have more to add, we'll say that's a wrap... – JBarta (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this means that the "Non-free symbol" licensing of File:The Scorpion Squadron.gif, File:Knights of the North Squadron.png, and File:Bat Squadron Israel.gif is no longer being challenged as well as no evidence has been provided that they were created more than fifty years ago and are thus still copyright protected under both §42 of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 and as stated in the IAF License Agreement. To change them to "PD-IsraelGov" would first require affirmative proof that their copyrights have expired. Centpacrr (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made a reasonable case that one of the logos may have been created after 1962, thus opening the possibility that some, most or all of those logos were created after their squadrons were created or after 1962. In the face of this uncertainty, I'm content to see them all as non-free logos. I might also mention... again... because you keep bringing it up, that the IAF website is irrelevant here. In this and all cases, copyright law takes precedence. – JBarta (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I think I made far more than a "reasonable case that one of the logos may have been created after 1962" but in fact a very positive case that the affirmative evidence proves that it was not -- and could not -- have been produced before 1978. The more important point, however, is that an essential prerequisite for applying "PD-IsraelGov" in this case, or any PD licensing template in any other situation, to a file is that whoever does so is obliged to be able to provide affirmative proof that the file is in fact PD based on the expiration of its copyright term or for whatever other reason as opposed to just speculating that such is the case. In other words the burden of proof is on the editor who makes the claim that a file is PD, not on the rest of the community to prove that the file is copyright protected. Following that simple policy should eliminate 99% of the copyright disputes on WP.
Now as for your contention that your personal interpretation of copyright law "trumps" a published user agreement or copyright notice I believe that WP's policy and guidelines require the following. Whenever such a copyright notice is found, it is then incumbent upon any WP contributor who wants to claim that a covered file is actually PD under applicable copyright law to: A) present an absolutely "airtight" case with no holes whatsoever that they are correct, and; B) is then further obligated lay out that case to the community for comment and consensus before using the file in any WP article. This is especially true when the copyright claim is made by a government as it was in this case as this should be given extra weight and credence. Upon my investigation in this case I was able to find compelling evidence that the Government of Israel was correct about the copyright status of this image as not yet being free under §42 of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 as it was not only not produced before 1962, it could not have been produced any earlier than 1978. Thus your "speculation" that it was "PD-IsraelGov" because you surmised that it had been produced before 1962 proved to be just false speculation. Such a blatant "cart before the horse" approach is just not good enough to meet the policies and guidelines of WP for the use of copyrighted material. So again let me point out that the "burden of proof" is always on the contributor or proponent to be able to show that an image file is actually PD if that is what he or she claims, and not on the community to be able to prove the opposite. Centpacrr (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Italy}} vs it:Template:PD-Italia-film

{{PD-Italy}} seems to apply only to works which do not have "artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality" (simple photos). it:Template:PD-Italia-film seems to state that this applies to ALL films, regardless of artistic merit. {{PD-Italy}} is the natural substitute for this template when transferring PD-Italia-film images from it.wiki. But do they actually state the same thing? Are films always "simple photos" or not? --moogsi (blah) 07:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both tags refer to the same bit of the Italian law, yes. PD-Italy does mention film frames of film stock. The English translation of the law says "stills of cinematographic film". I've wondered about that (whether it's more like news footage, or do full-up artistic movie frames get the same treatment) but the English translation at least does seem to point to the shorter protection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the relevant sections and it does seem like films are 70 pma in a normal sort of way, but an individual frame of film is not afforded the same protection. There is no contradiction between the templates at least --moogsi (blah) 09:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probable screenshot

File:AOI image OK for conformal coating inspection.png appears to be a screenshot from software, but the uploader claims it is original work. I haven't challenged a licence on commons before, so I'm not sure what the procedure is., --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed a screenshot made by the uploader using the software, I think it would be ok - just simple text and a simple border; the blurry pc board in the background would be de minimis. However a glance at the uploader's talk page indicates another user believes it was taken from a website - an entirely different matter. Dankarl (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks,

A little help on understanding copyright of derivative works in the United States. In particular I took a picture of a couple of Dairgold milk containers for the Wikipedia article on the company. I recently received a notification of possible copyright violation for this picture. I have looked though the discussion pages but can't/didn't find clarity on whether you can post pictures of (probably copyrighted) commercial products (in the United States). Would it matter if it subject of the picture or incidental in the picture? Seems like there are lots of pictures of commercial products in the Wikimedia files. Thanks.

I presume you mean File:Dg milk containers.jpg. The old bottle is probably ok either as simple text or no notice and could be cropped out separately, but the modern carton is clearly copyrighted and can't stay here. You could try moving to WP as fair use but they are pretty stringent as to what they permit. Product labels here do not get as much scrutiny as they should get. Dankarl (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dankarl, the bottle is fine as there it does not get over the bar of threshold of originality, however the carton does and is clearly copyrighted, I think a claim of fair use would be acceptable at enwp. LGA talkedits 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have an answer to the particular, but I asked a question about the general. In the United States when can you have a picture that includes part of a copyrighted image? (So I presume making the whole picture a derivative work.) If so how much? Does it matter if the originally copyrighted material is only a small part of the whole? If there are multiple original copyrighted works is it a derivative of all the works or each work individually? Thanks.
Quick and incomplete answer: if the copyrighted content is a focus of the image it is probably infringing. Incidental inclusion of copyrighted content in a photograph of something else, particularly at low resolution or out of focus or including only a small part of the original may be acceptable. In particular, store shelf displays (not including posters etc.) are often ok. See Commons:De minimis for a more complete explanation. Per your last query, it is certainly a derivative of each included work individually. I'm not sure what you mean by "of all the works" but if you are thinking of a photograph of an assembly of copyrighted works, then if that assembly was copyrightable then it is a derivative of that copyright also. Dankarl (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find a very good explanation at Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. Cheers -- Orionist ★ talk 22:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah just the thing to mostly explain copyright on packaging. Thanks!
I think the photo is probably OK. There are bits of copyrightable stuff on the carton but the photograph is not particularly focusing on any of them. This is what the Ets-Hokins decision was about, mostly -- only photos primarily of the label would be copyrightable. I could see some dissension on the carton, as it is there to show what the carton looks like, but the focus is on the whole carton and most of the elements are not really copyrightable, and the photo does not seem to be focusing on the ones that are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edseeman (talk · contribs)

I don't understand what is wrong with anything I have submitted. It is all too legal for me to comprehend. If someone can explain to me what violations I have committed with my uploads and entries I will gladly explain. I have complete rights to all that I have created since I am both Ed Seeman and Eduardo Cemano. Regarding any Frank Zappa material is concerned, as his personal filmmaker during our 1967 1968 collaboration, I have contractual permission to show certain short films we created together. Please advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edseeman (talk • contribs)

I think you talk about Commons:Deletion requests/File:ED SEEMAN BIO.jpg because thats your only contribution. Talk there. This page is about copyright questions, the deletion discussion is about project scope. Commons is not a place for such text files. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org

Is everything public domain in this archive? I want to use some photos from old issue of magazine. Dominikmatus (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there's a lot there which is not public domain. The Internet Archive Terms of Use also say: In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law. The "noncommercial" restriction is not compatible with Wikimedia projects at all, and Commons doesn't accept "fair use". However, I think there is also a lot of content at archive.org which is in the public domain, but this has to be ascertained for each individual case. In the case of your example, at a first glance I don't see why it should be PD. In fact, I don't see any notice regarding the copyright status... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thank you. Dominikmatus (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you contact the publishers [2] [3] and ask them what uses are allowed? -- Orionist ★ talk 20:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A longer but maybe redundant expansion of the above: Considering en:Internet Archive#Omni magazine and this message archive, I would consider IA to be an archive/library rather than a republisher. Also, Fine Woodworking seems to have been uploaded by federicoleva@tiscali.it, the same user who uploaded Omni magazine discussed in those links. So, for this magazine, I'd presume the usual copyright: U.S. works published 1978 to Feburary 1989 require copyright notice or registration, but don't need both. Page 3 of this issue of Fine Woodworking has "Copyright 1987 by The Taunton Press, Inc. No reproductions without permission of The Taunton Press, Inc." I don't think there are different rules for periodicals. As a corporate work created after 1977, copyright is for 95 years after publication, so the end of 2082 (1987+95). --Closeapple (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needed a copyright notice (registration would be irrelevant). It has one though, so as a 1987 U.S. work it will be copyrighted until 2083. The IA terms are not really relevant, but we would need a license from the publisher (presumably the copyright owner) to upload any of that magazine. Well except advertisements without a standalone copyright notice would be OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
  1. I was under the impression that, for 1978–1989 publications, if the copyright holder forgot the copyright notice but caught it and registered within 5 years, it still got copyright protection just like 1989+ works. (See File:PD-US table.svg via Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United States and Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States at Cornell for the rule.)
  2. I knew there was something special about advertisements that I was forgetting, but I couldn't remember what. Where is the information about advertisements needing a separate copyright notice? I wonder if it would apply between 1978 and 1989 when registration of the work (and therefore a deposit copy showing what was covered) would no longer have been necessary. If Dominikmatus wants to use material from advertisements, that may be important. --Closeapple (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, registration within 5 years (among a couple of other steps) could serve to protect the copyright if there were copies distributed without notice from 1978-1989. 2) 17 USC 404(a). I suppose registration within 5 years could protect those as well from 1978-1989. It's a weird, specific exception which I think originally resulted from the ruling in a court case and was later put into statutory law. I think a newspaper owner tried to claim copyright over the advertisements (since there was no separate notice and they had copyrighted the collective work) and tried preventing the other party from using the ads in other newspapers, or something weird and abusive along those lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The advertisement rules are here: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Advertisements -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FOP?

File:WWF Undisputed Championship.jpg Are these belts sculptures, jewelry, or utilitarian etc? Is there country that has FOP for non-permanent displays to take pictures of them in case they are considered 3D sculptures? They will probably never be displayed permanently.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they essentially to be treated the same as medals or trophies? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Should we all agree that award belts are treated like medals and trophies for copyright purposes of images and add that to this policy page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jewelry, medals, and trophies are all considered "sculptural works". This is uncontroversial and well-supposed by case law. As for belts (buckles), even these were found to be copyrighted in Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc. Эlcobbola talk 16:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should I add 'Awards, medals, and trophies' to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter and refer it to the section on 3D art then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "Awards (medals and trophies)" might be appropriate, but the talk page there is really the place to ask. As an aside, that page is a disorganized mess; it might be a worthwhile project to reorganize the thing (i.e. level two header of "sculptural works," with level three headers of "Toys", "Models", "Jewelry", etc.) instead of just tacking on another section. Эlcobbola talk 17:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be better to move COM:CB#Utility objects into a policy page of its own, and move some sections of COM:CB to that policy page. The law differs a lot between different countries. A Stormtrooper helmet is an artwork in the United States but ineligible for copyright in the United Kingdom because it is purely utilitarian, and many European countries don't differ between utilitarian and non-utilitarian objects at all. For each country, we would need need to know whether utilitarian objects are protected by copyright or not (COM:TOO contains some hints for a few countries), whether utilitarian objects are covered by FOP (the Danish law seems to include some things such as "ships" in the definition of a "building") and how a utilitarian object is defined (the UK definition is obviously different to the US one given the Stormtrooper ruling). For example, utilitarian objects such as nail clippers are protected by copyright in France. Are we allowed to upload photos of French cars to Commons? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That talk page doesn't seem to get much use nor answer many questions. I just added an awards/trophies section and there are three more sections I mentioned on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: Yes, there really ought to be an actual COM:Useful Articles page (not just a section on COM:DW) just as there are COM:derivative works and COM:Freedom of Panorama pages. It's a major concept in copyright law, and one with significant complexities and jurisdictional differences. It seemed a large gap when I was writing User:Elcobbola/Models. Эlcobbola talk 17:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the COM:UA shortcut goes to a section which is very US-centric, even mentioning sections in the US copyright law, but which ignores the laws of all other countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should pop over to WMF legal on meta and have them fix all these pages. Most are their policies anyways. I don't think we need consensus to clarify the WMF stand on these issues and then we would have an official page or 12 instead of 42 un-official ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=93470933"