Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
introduction		Help deskVillage pump
copyright • proposals • technical		Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcuts: 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)
Please note
  1. 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.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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 most recent comment is older than 7 days.


File:Siam Society Logo 2020 Complete.png[edit]

File:Siam Society Logo 2020 Complete.png was uploaded by User:Chrispasuk which I believe to be Chris Baker, a scholar in Thailand. The file is released as CC-own work. However, on the website of the organization [1] stated that "Copyright © 2001-2020 The Siam Society Under Royal Patronage. All rights reserved." In this case I try to contact the person in question by Commons talk page to explain the situation. Any recommendations on further steps? --Horus (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard statement that is present on practically any site. It can not deprive Chris Baker of his copyright if he is indeed the author of the logo. Ruslik0 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is if the organization in question also allow the distribution under CC or not. Even Chris Baker is indeed a designer, it may be the case that the organization reserved some or all its right. So it is not be as clear as if the website openly stated that the distribution of the logo is allowed. --Horus (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

File:El Iris 2.jpg[edit]

This appears to be a COM:DW work containing various elements. The file's description says it from 23 April 1916, but that only appears to be one of the elements. If, for example, you enlarge the photo, there's a different date listed and it actually looks like it comes from another publication. I'm not sure this can be kept, but I just wanted some other opinions first before starting a DR on this.
The above also applies to File:Mula Ciega Editions.jpg but for slightly different reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the first image includes a clipping from a supplement of a newspaper called "El Mundo" published (or printed) in Ecuador on Sunday, 31 January 1982. The clipping at the bottom of the page appears to be written by w:en:Horacio Hidrovo Peñaherrera, who died in 2012. That text element is almost certainly a copyright violation.
The second image should go to DR. I can't spot an obvious copyright violation but without further evidence we have to assume the cover art on a couple of those books is still in copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at these From Hill To Shore. It seems as if you're suggesting that the first image should be tagged with {{Copyvio}} and that the second image should go to COM:DR. Is that correct? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my original comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly (talk) and From Hill To Shore (talk) for your kind input. Horacio Hidrovo Peñaherrera was a good friend of my father's and wrote the prologue to the second and fourth edition of his novel. I have credited him in the body of the draft. Peñaherrera says in the clip that he obtained the copy of the handwritten El Iris from Columba Coppiano whom he visited in Chone. The Coppiano family was one of the few families receiving El Iris in 1916. She kept it all these years! Since it forms such an integral part of the Oswaldo Castro narrative, I would like to keep the image. Is it violating copyright laws if I just scan the 1916 Iris and not the whole article which includes the text element? Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oscar Waldoosty: To upload anything to Commons you need to determine if the file is suitably licensed (or is in the public domain) in both the country of publication and in the USA (where the Wikimedia servers are kept). For the US element, any image or document published before 1925 is in the public domain; you can set {{PD-US-expired}} on applicable images. For the country of origin element, it depends on local Copyright law. I assume that the document was made in Ecuador; is that correct? Is Columba Coppiano the person who wrote the 1916 text; if so, do you know when they died? In most countries copyright is protected for a number of years after the author's death. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No, From Hill To Shore (talk), Columba Coppiano was the recipient of a copy of El Iris, not the author of the handwritten text. The person who wrote the Iris text in the image in question is Enrique Amadeo Bolaños Moreira. He died in 1929 according to Coppiano https://www.eldiario.ec/noticias-manabi-ecuador/389323-chone-iris-periodismo-precursor-ii/. I surmise that Bolaños wrote it and not Castro because in a typewritten document found among Castro's papers entitled "Some brief notes on the origin of the weekly manuscript, El Iris," it states that the first page was written by Bolaños, the subsequent three were written by Castro. That looks like the first page of the second issue on the image. I can research to see if Ecuadorian copyright laws differ from the US. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oscar Waldoosty: According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador, Ecuador applies copyright for life of the author +70 years. As the author died in 1929, the copyright expired in 1999. You should be able to upload the 1916 part of the image with a licence of {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1929}}. Make sure to describe where the document came from in the "source" field on the template and list Enrique Amadeo Bolaños Moreira as the author instead of yourself. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, From Hill To Shore (talk).

File:Hello World Brian Kernighan 1978.jpg[edit]

This image of an item from an arts auction, straight from the web page of the auction, had been uploaded by User:TadejM as {{PD-text}}, asserting that "there is nothing copyrightable (the text is generic computer code)".

In my opinion, the fact that it was traded as a work of art implies that it is copyrightable; a similar case is en:File:Iris Clert Portrait Rauschenberg.jpg -- another text-only work of art, but tagged as copyrighted fair use.

Q1: is Kernighan's text-only work of art copyrightable or not?

To be extra sure, I've emailed Kernighan himself for permission to use his work of art on Commons, and got the following response:

I personally am happy to grant permission to Wikipedia
for the Hello World printout, as CC-BY-SA. I don't know who
really has the right, since I created it originally, then
donated it to Artsy, who then auctioned it to someone (not
known to me). But you have my permission insofar as it is
mine to give.
Brian Kernighan

Q2: is it possible for him to grant a CC-BY-SA license for his work of art after it had been donated to the auction house and sold on?

--Crash48 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crash48: Hi, and welcome. I would answer yes to both, but we need a specific CC-BY-SA version number. Please have him send it via OTRS with a carbon copy to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Being a work of art has no connection to being copyrightable, at least in the US. The page is indeed PD-text, IMO. (I'd say the same about the similar case, at least in the US.) Generally, the copyright does not follow the physical work, so Kernighan would have the copyright, if there were any copyright to have.
I'm worried about the 3-D effect of the frame, though. It needs to be cropped to clearly a 2-D piece.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Another relevant example is File:Secret painting mel ramsden art language.jpg -- deemed copyrightable, and licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} via OTRS. --Crash48 (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Deemed copyrightable by whom? That's the problem with comparing Wikipedia and Commons files; just because someone uploaded it under that license doesn't make any sort of consensus. I'm not sure what just what's going on in that photograph or what exactly is being photographed. It's got both an illustration and 23 words of text. In comparison, Kernighan's work has 13 tokens and four words, six if you're counting the signature. https://www.johnlangdon.net/works/earth-air-fire-water/ was ruled to be uncopyrightable by the copyright office, as was a shirt that said "My daddy says I couldn't date until I'm 35" even combined with some stock art. It's so minimal I can't see any way it would be copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Deemed copyrightable by whom? -- obviously by the OTRS team which approved the application to have that file licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Can you point me to the cases of the ambigram and the shirt? A simple web search didn't bring up anything relevant. --Crash48 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

the 3 files tagged for deleting[edit]

These 3 files are nominated by one user for copyright

I don't understand Persian, but https://isna.ir/ has "© 2020 Iranian Students' News Agency. All rights reserved" in English at the bottom. "No copyright" is insufficient, we need positive evidence of a free license. You have put "Author: Baratiiman" on the file that you now say is from Wikimapia. Wikimapia content is licensed CC BY-SA, which is ok here, but the image was uploaded to Wikimapia 14 years ago, before they changed to a free licence, so it is unclear whether the original photographer has agreed to the new license. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The line above All rights reserved استفاده از خبر با ذکر منبع خبرگزاری ایسنا مجاز است. means copy is permitted where isna.ir is named as source
  • and everything in esfahanemrooz.ir also has similar rule copy permitted where esfahanemrooz is named as source.
also how i can brink this image here https://www.google.com/search?q=%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%87+%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3%DB%8C&rlz=1C1OKWM_enGB916GB916&oq=%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%87+%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3%DB%8C&aqs=chrome..69i57.4199j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  • it's the statue that is holding the thing on the other one
  • Baratiiman (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate gives استفاده از خبر با ذکر منبع خبرگزاری ایسنا مجاز است. as 'Using the news is allowed by mentioning the source of ISNA news agency'. It's not clear whether this applies to images as well as text, although the translation could be inadequate. I think this declaration is inadequate for Commons:Licensing. A photo of a statue needs to satisfy the photographer's copyright and the sculptor's copyright, see COM:IRAN. Essentially, the sculptor must have died more than 50 years ago and you need good evidence of the photographer's permission. I am unsure which statue you mean, but most of those displayed by your link look too modern to be allowed. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
ARE YOU SAYING I HAVE TO TAKE PHOTO OF PEOPLE GATHERING GARBAGE, STATUES NEAR RIVER, STATUE IN THE DISTRICT 15 SQUARE MYSELF? I CANT TAKE A PHOTO OF THE TIE GIVEN TO SWISS MINISTER THOBaratiiman (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. You either have to take the photograph yourself of supply clear evidence that the photographer has released the image with a free license. You cannot upload most things you find on the Internet, but some photos do have acceptable licenses, including some from the Tasnim News Agency, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Tasnim News Agency. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I use a logo of company if I do not own the licence to that logo?[edit]

I work in a company, and they commissioned me to update the Wikipedia page about the company. I want to add the company logo o the page, but I do not own the logo. (Logo can be seen top corner of page- https://www.eng.elhalev.org/) I uploaded as a regular jpeg and said it was a picture I took because I didn't think about the repercussions. How can I have the logo, and how do I change the picture I uploaded?

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%91- the wikipedia page in question

If the copyright holder (presumably the company) is unwilling to release the logo under a free license then it cannot be kept on Commons. A possible alternative is to upload the logo to Hebrew Wikipedia as a fair-use image, see w:he:ויקיפדיה:רישוי תמונות/שימוש הוגן. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The simplest way to delete the image you uploaded (File:לוגו אל הלב.jpg) is to click on the 'Nominate for deletion' link. If your account is configured to use English then this is probably on the left of the screen. This deletion process can take several weeks, for faster alternatives see COM:SPEEDY. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. How can I change the image to a fair use? Do I need to delete the image and upload again?
Yes, Commons cannot host fair use images. I notice that it has already been deleted here; you need to upload it to Hebrew Wikipedia. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~, see COM:SIGN. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright on UK coins[edit]

COM:CUR UK appears to say that images of UK coins that were minted and circulated within the last 50 years are not permissible on Commons. On this basis I nominated several images for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/UK coins minted after 1969.

User:Wehwalt has commented that the minting date of a coin is not significant, what matters is the earliest date the that a coin with the design was issued. Samples of the UK 1/2p, 1p and 2p coins were released in 1968, albeit bearing the date 1971. Coins of the same design on the reverse side were subsequently produced with minting dates up to 2008 (with a word changed in 1982). Does this mean that images of these coin designs are allowed, irrespective of the minting date of the coin? Verbcatcher (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of it is that date of the design is what counts. You can't postdate a copyright. I've altered the language on the page Verbcatcher cited to make it clear, and left an explanatory note. I should note that these were more than samples, they were available for sale to the public in little albums I think for four or five shillings.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

wikipidea help[edit]

Hi i am a freelancer one of my client wants me to create his Wikipedia page can i create his account

Difference between COM:FOP Spain and {{FoP-Spain}}[edit]

COM:FOP Spain says: "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places ..." But {{FoP-Spain}} says: "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares ..." It seems to me, that church is a public place, but not a thoroughfare. What do you think, is there freedom of panorama in Spanish churches? Taivo (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

LPI, copyright law in Spain, art. 35.2 [2]
Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.
Court case Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Sección 15ª) 147/2006 [3]
El artículo 35.2 de la LPI (RCL1996,1382) se conceptúa como un límite al derecho de autor pero dicho límite no ampara en modo alguno ni la transformación del exterior ni incluye en su protección al interior del edificio.[...] El interior de un templo, considerado éste como obra arquitectónica susceptible de tutela por la LPI como hemos señalado anteriormente, no puede considerarse, a los efectos del precepto, cualquier otra vía pública. Article 35.2 of the LPI (RCL1996,1382) is conceptualized as a limit to copyright, but this limit does not in any way protect the transformation of the exterior or include the interior of the building in its protection. [...] The interior of a church, which is considered an architectural work subject to protection by the LPI as we have previously indicated, cannot be considered, for the purposes of the precept, any other public thoroughfare.
No, there is no freedom of panorama in Spanish churches. LMLM (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


If the interiors of the Sagrada Familia of Barcelona (and by the way the interiors of all churches in Spain, modern or not) are copyrighted as User:LMLM defends basing on the PDF document, why are the following images on wikimedia?: File:Barcelona - Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família (16).jpg or File:Retrat d'Antoni Gaudí.jpg (the last one is an artwork from 1989 located inside the Sagrada Familia). In addition, there are many photos of interiors of spanish churches (with antique and modern sculptures as the one I mentioned) that are posted on wikimedia, like this one: File:Iglesia de Iesu-Donostia-R. Moneo (39).JPG (located in Spain and dated from 2011); or these: File:Madrid - Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Rosario de Filipinas 06.jpg and File:Madrid - Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Rosario de Filipinas 05.jpg (these two from a church dated from 1967-1970 and located in Madrid). Are all of them copyrighted and suitable for deletion considering the arguments defended by LMLM? Of course not, there IS freedom of panorama in Spanish churches. On case contrary, there will be no images from the interior of spanish churches (modern or not) on wikimedia, and wikimedia is full of these type of photos. Spanish churches are public places and can be accessed by the general public. Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Enciclopedia1993: Please use internal links.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Enciclopedia1993: there are numerous photographs on Commons that should not be here, images on Commons are not evidence that FOP applies in churches. There was a related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Collections of the Museum of FC Barcelona which concluded that a museum in Spain did not qualify for FOP. We should not allow the implications of a decision to influence our interpretation of copyright laws. Even if FOP does not apply to Spanish church interiors, that would not prevent us hosting images of churches that are sufficiently old. Incidental modern objects in an image can be disregarded as de minimis. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
So, what is the final decision in this particular case with this image Verbcatcher: File:Nuevo Templo Sanxenxo San Ginés.jpg?Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not up to me to make final decisions. If LMLM's analysis of the legal position is correct then the file should be deleted (as the sculpture appears to be too modern to be public domain), and COM:FOP Spain should be updated. However, it is possible that LMLM has overlooked something. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In the PDF document appears fundación Junta Constructora del Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Familia as the owner of the copyright of the church, but the most part of the churches in Spain are not property of a foundation, so the case explained in the precedent document can only be applied to the Sagrada Familia, not to the rest of the churches of the country which not depend from a foundation that owns the copyright of the buildings. The most part of the churches of Spain (modern or not) are public places and not depend from any foundation, like the one where the sculpture of San Ginés is located.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have proposed a change at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Freedom of panorama translation. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Photographing the Eiffel Tower at dusk.jpg[edit]

I am curious if the image mentioned above should be hosted on Wikimedia commons as the Eiffel Towers lights are a copyrighted display and cannot be use without permission? I only asked because I have recently read a couple articles about this [4] and [5] I did not want to flag it for deletion without ensuring that Wikimedia doesn't have some sort of exemption from commercial use. Thanks in advance for any information. Mcmatter (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but there is some text at the top of Category:Eiffel Tower at night that adds some context. If it is ruled that we can't keep photographs of the tower's lights, a large portion of those 711 images may end up deleted. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would say the lights are de minimis for that particular photo either way. The original court case was about a special light show, not the standard night lighting. But, the ruling sounded expansive enough to cover the night lighting as well. However, it has been argued a lot here, with some strong opinions both ways. There is some discussion on the category page. Not sure we've ever come to a real conclusion, but not sure these get nominated a lot anymore either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"My images must not be made part of another image"[edit]

We have a number of nice photos with a proper license but also with such a strange and nasty statement... I wonder what should be done. Perhaps somebody could contact the copyright holder and ask for clarification. Or then we could just remove the additional restrictions mentions but that might be illegal. --Palosirkka (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Most or all of these images come from the Andy Morffew Flickr account. Those I have looked at are licenced CC BY 2.0, and the "not made part of another image without permission" restriction conflicts with the 'Adapt' clause of CC BY 2.0. We could treat this as a non-copyright restriction or we could conclude that the photographer did not understand the license. You could try to contact the photographer on Flickr and ask him to remove the restriction from the Flickr pages. If the photographer does not withdraw the restriction then should we delete these images, or delete or strike through the restriction (as in File:Yawn (16250948685).jpg), or leave them as they are? Verbcatcher (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Palosirkka, Verbcatcher: Without clarification, the images should be the subjects of a DR for having a restriction on derivative works incompatible with COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
When you contact the photographer, I suggest that you ask him to compare this image which I adapted from this image (See gallery below). Most of the work in producing the final image was done by the producer of the first image, but the value of the second image relation to the first relies on two curved lines, a bit of text and little else. Clearly the credit should be shared between the producer of the first image (NASA) and myself.
  • Legal adaptation of one image to give another

  • Original image (image of the earth - drawn by NASA artists)

  • Final image (definition of kilometre - original adapted by me)

Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Would somebody be willing to ask him? I would do it myself but I don't run non-free software, like the JavaScript required to operate Flickr. I can do it if somebody manages to dredge up some reasonable contact info, like an email addy. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think there are good chances that he will agree. His website does not have the restriction [6]. It has an attribution requirement, not a CC license. The restriction appears on some flickr photos only. But not on his newer flickr photos. And not on his flickr profile [7]. You could use the contact form on his website. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I sent him FlickrMail.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Jeff! --Palosirkka (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Palosirkka: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 The notice now does not appear on the Flickr pages that I have looked at, so it seems that Jeff G.'s FlickrMail has done the trick. I assume that the phrase should now be deleted from the file pages. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: That would be a fair assumption. Thanks for checking and removing that phrase. I completed the removal process.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Palosirkka as OP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Happy days! Good detective work and saved us a bunch of cute pix. In this time we need all the good news we can get. Thank you to Verbcatcher, Jeff G., Martinvl and Asclepias! --Palosirkka (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Palosirkka: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved

New logo for FC Utrecht[edit]

Hi, is https://www.fcutrecht.nl/assets/toolkit/images/logo-fcu.svg below COM:TOO Netherlands? See also COM:HD#My first image upload to Wikipedia/Wikimedia: Uploaded an SVG for FC Utrecht (association football club).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Status on Beirut Explosion 2020 Official Government Document listing initial deaths[edit]

Had a conversation first about the best way to list the file so it may be appropriately uploaded to commons Commons:Help_desk#Sharing_Government_File and used the recommendation made by other Wikipedia's. Here is the file File:Beirut Explosion 2020 Final Death List 2020-09-03.pdf. Now this file is being questioned for copyright status as seen here on my talk page: User_talk:RitaHaddad. Any feedback? Thanks RitaHaddad (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @EugeneZelenko, Jmabel as tagger and advisor.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Logo is definitely not-trivial. Proper license tag for government works should be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If the logo is copyrighted, then someone with the ability to edit a PDF should probably download this, put a Gaussian blur over the logo, and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's de minimis, but it could be redacted or obscured I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The logo is definitely de minimis; we're interested in the document as a whole, which is just a list with no original authorship. I added a DM tag. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Where should this link point to?[edit]

I'm talking about the Non-US copyrights link at Template:URAA_artist/doc. Currently it's 404. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Sorry for the noise. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Betania in Fjellstrand, Norway.jpg[edit]

Came across the file File:Betania in Fjellstrand, Norway.jpg today which seems to have been tagged with "missing source information" since it was uploaded 12 years ago. I'm unsure what to do about it, so hoping there's someone here who can sort it out one way or the other. TommyG (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The "missing source information" notice does not appear to be generated by a tag and is presumably generated automatically. The original uploader to English Wikipedia (User talk:Sindre) appears to have declared themself as the author, and I see no good reason to question this. {{Own assumed}} might be appropriate, but the template description is discouraging and adding this to the Source field does not make the "missing source information" notice go away. How do we fix this? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I have fixed it correctly, here. The file had both {{PD-author}} and {{PD-self}}, which looked wrong. {{PD-author}} is for images released by people outside Wikimedia projects, so I have removed this. I have also added {{Own work by original uploader}} to 'Source'. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, great job. TommyG (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Life images[edit]

Should all Category:Second Life images be deleted? Then engine itself is free, but uploaders rarely provide the source of models & textures used.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletion would not be appropriate. Deleting an otherwise free image, because some textures are used minimally in the shot, would fall under derivative works. If someone is using something like TV screen shots, and these are significantly present in the image, then that may be grounds for deletion. In comparison, someone not declaring where they got a rough brick surface texture from, when the shot is of the house they made, that's way below "significant doubt". --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Symphony No.1.jpg[edit]

Are picture like this ore this File:Dae-Ho Eom Symphony No.2.jpg a copyvio? Oesterreicher12 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

These appear to be the cover artwork of musical scores. They probably originate from here, which is cited as a ref in the Korean Wikipedia page where one of them is used.
  • File:Symphony No.1.jpg contains simple text and a logo, so the issue is whether the logo exceeds the threshold of originality, see COM:TOO South Korea. The test to apply here appears to be "has own characteristics as a product of mental efforts". In my view this does, so this is a copyvio (unless permission can be established).
  • File:Dae-Ho Eom Symphony No.2.jpg is a clearer copyvio because it includes a photograph.
These should both be nominated for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both are now nominated. Oesterreicher12 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Pictures given to me by the owner[edit]

Hello, I have received some historical (1940s to 70s) images of a Lebanese association football player (who is now deceased) by the player's daughter. The photos she sent me are digital photos of physical photographs (she didn't scan the actual photos, she just photographed them and sent them to me). Am I free to upload them on Wikipedia? She is a woman in her 60s, and I don't feel like asking her to go through the whole procedure to upload the pictures herself. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Did the player's daughter take the original photographs? We need permission from the original photographer (or their heirs). If she took the photographs then she should either upload them herself or send an acceptable email to the COM:OTRS system to validate the licenses. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
No, most of the photos aren't taken by her (obviously, the 1940s ones). Only one or two are contemporary (2000s, 2010s). If the photographer is unknown, what can be done (for example, for a 1940 or 1960 photo)? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The rules to apply are in COM:LEBANON. Some of the older photos might be allowable under this clause:
  • In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall expire 50 years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public.[75/1999 Article 52]
However, its unclear how you can establish that they are truly anonymous, rather than you not knowing who the photographer is, and when they were 'lawfully made available to the public'. If they were published in a newspaper before 1970 you would satisfy the publication test, but this would make the anonymity test more doubtful. I suspect that you will not be able to establish that these are allowed. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
How can one establish that the photographer is anonymous? I don't know who he is, the daughter doesn't know who he is, and surely the player didn't know who he was (they are line-up photos before the match, or photos of that nature, not personal photos for example). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how Lebanese law would interpret 'anonymous', but we are cautious in these matters, see COM:PRP. If they are team line-up photos then they were probably taken either by a photographer engaged by the football club or by a press photographer. In both cases the photographer unlikely to be anonymous. Is anything helpful written on the backs of the photos? If they were published before 1949 and you knew the photographer's name then you could apply {{PD-Lebanon-Photo}}, but this appears unlikely. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
What constitutes as an anonymous photographer? Nehme1499 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Usually if the actual publication had the photographer's name. They of course could be on the back, etc. Photos published before 1949 in Lebanon should be OK, anonymous or not ({{PD-Lebanon-Photo}}). Anonymous photos published before 1970 should also be OK, but when there is a named author, 1950 and later photos are that person's lifetime, and 50 more years. "Anonymous" isn't quite the same thing as "unknown" -- if the author's name was known but has been lost by later publishings which neglected to mention the name, it's not really anonymous. Works known to be under copyright but with no way to determine or contact an owner are called "orphan works" and are an uncomfortable topic for copyright -- most countries do not have special provisions for them, and there is often resistance when they try. These might be close enough to be considered anonymous though, if we are looking at the initial publications which were distributed, and no author is mentioned. We do tend to be conservative on such things (e.g. no orphan works), and if the photos are of an entirely unknown provenance it's hard to allow them, but at some point anonymous does become a reasonable assumption to make -- it helps a lot if we know we are looking at the original publications, where the author was most likely to be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. The woman has also sent me the back of the pictures (if there is text): in all cases there is just hand-written text by the (deceased) footballer explaining the year and/or location, context, etc. of what is represented. There is no author name of something of that sort. These pictures are mostly of football tours abroad, line-ups, group photos, etc. I am unsure how the footballer got these pictures; however they all seem to be "personal" pictures, not extracts from newspapers or other publications. On a similar note: let's say I have a physical picture of a relative which was taken by a professional photographer. My relative paid for it, and is in their (or my) possession. Am I (or they) able to publish it? Is that picture mine? Or does the photographer have to publish it himself on Wikipedia (which, let's say, isn't possible because the photographer is untraceable)? How do these "possession" issues work? Nehme1499 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
In reply to 'on a similar note', professional photographers rarely transfer the copyright of their work to their retail customers. The physical picture may be yours, but you are unlikely to own the copyright and you should not add it to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Army Barracks, Portoviejo photo deletion[edit]

I cut and pasted the conversation below. Hope someone can help me out.

Thank you, FitIndiaTalk ✉. I am slowly reading through the various links you have posted. I would like to clarify that the picture in question is from 1911 and that I have credited the publisher and photographer in the footnote which accompanied the photo: Manabí a la Vista, Obispo Juan B. Ceriola. Guayaquil, Talleres gráficos de F. E. Rodenas, 1911. Fotografía Francisco Gámez Fernández. 185 pages. Since the subject of my draft has handwritten "This is where I was held prisoner.." on the top of the photo, I consider it most valuable for the article. I am suffering from Wikipedia link/tutorial overload, so it will take me a while to understand what I must do to make my upload conform to regulation. Can you help me out? Very sincerely yours, Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if you post a message here. Thank you. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, FitIndiaTalk ✉. I'll cut and paste. I hope I get some bites. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Philippine buildings (and possibly, other structural works) 1951–72 again[edit]

Good day. As the last discussion about the copyright status of Philippine buildings from 1951 to 1972 here went into an impasse, I might raise this again, but this time through a new input shared at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City). Setting this renewed Philippine FoP matter aside (since the steps being taken by some Wikipedians here as suggested in that forum might take some time), here is an input by @Howhontanozaz::

"At the time the monument was designed (1930s), the copyright law in force was Act No. 3134 (1924) which required registration and a notice for a work to be copyright-protected. As per Section 11 and 12 of the Act, copyright may be secured either by the "registration of the claim" and "by publication thereof with the required notice of copyright" or "by the deposit, with claim of copyright, of one complete copy of such work or of a photographic print or of a photograph or other identifying reproduction thereof" to the National Library. It is also clearly stated in Sec. 11 that "No copyright in any work is considered as existing until the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of claim to copyright shall have been complied with." Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972 which removed the requirements was not retroactive thus work published before 1972 had to comply with the requirements of Act 3134 to be eligible for copyright protection."

I might interpret that the copyright law prevailing before November 1972 was the American colonial era-Act No. 3134 of 1924, even if the country joined the Berne Convention of 1951. Some might say that the 1924-era law is identical to the United States copyright law at that time, but with in-depth analysis by Howhontanozaz I can assume that somehow there's some difference between the two. I also doubt that a presidential proclamation during that time (before Marcos) had the power to enforce an international treaty - without a relevant law crafted in the country (which would emerge as the Marcos-era Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972). I might also add an input from Exec8 at the aforementioned forum:

"Another ruling, on G.R No. 161295, dated June 29, 2005, it states that Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works. The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.

To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant."

Examples of 1951–72-era buildings include:

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Heads up update Putting this discussion Time2wait.svg On hold as per update from Howhontanozaz at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. To quote How's update: "Everyone, I just received a very welcome reply from the Intellectual Property Office's Bureau of Copyright. According to them, "The inclusion of a freedom of panorama provision is among the amendments being explored in the ongoing review of the present copyright law. No assurances however of its inclusion in the final bill. Rest assured however that this is in our radar." The Wikimedia community should lobby for this amendment." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Michael Joseph Owens.ogg - CC0 1.0 Universal?[edit]

This audio file File:Michael_Joseph_Owens.ogg has been released as CC0 1.0 Universal by the user JohnAnkerBow based on content from a permanent link of the English Wikipedia article about Michael Joseph Owens. Is this proper? Can I do the same and release audio files of me reading Wikipedia articles as CC0 1.0 Universal so that others don't have to attribute the authors or me by using my audio file? Datariumrex (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Datariumrex: No, that's not proper, it should have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or higher.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @JohnAnkerBow as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. With this search I see there are in total 59 files marked as CC0. Hereby pinging all/most who have released spoken Wikipedia article audio files that were at some point claimed to be waived/licensed as CC0 1.0 Universal:

Datariumrex (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Datariumrex: You're welcome, but you could have pinged all at once per Template:Pinging/doc.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Datariumrex:It is not obvious how to find my non-compliant recording nor how to change them :-( Back ache (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Back ache: If you have more than one audio recording of spoken Wikipedia articles which do not have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or higher, please give it/them such a license.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Datariumrex: I don't know how to customise the search so as to bring up just mine https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3ACC-Zero+incategory%3ASpoken_Wikipedia_-_English&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

Chris Sununu photos[edit]

An account named csusunu some photos photos of en:Chris Susunu to Commons as "own work" over a two-day period in March 2016. The photos are File:Chris Sununu on the Appalachian Trail.tiff, File:Christopher T Sununu.jpg and File:Chris Sununu.jpg. Susunu became the en:Governor of New Hampshire in 2017 and is still serving in that capacity. All of the photos are of Susunu and at least one appears to be professionally taken; so, if it's assumed that Susunu uploaded the photos himself, they don't appear to be selfies, but rather photos taken by someone else.
All of the photos have EXIF data, but the EXIF data for the one taken in 2012 (File:Chris Sununu.jpg) lists someone other than the uploader as the copyright holder and author. Since the photos were uploaded back in 2016, they seem to be being used on quite a number of different websites other than Wikipedia. While I guess it's possible that Susunu uploaded the photos himself, the claim of "own work" does seem a bit questionable. It also seems possible that someone (perhaps representing Susunu) uploaded the photos and just used Susunu's name as their username either because they thought that's what they needed to do or just didn't realize it might create confusion. Again, even in that case, it seems that the claim of "own work" would at least need to be OTRS verified. Are these OK as licensed or should they be tagged with {{Npd}} or discussed at COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Canada OGL[edit]

Looking for a template to upload several thousand Open Government works under https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada, and there does not appear to be one created. This will act as the default license for Government publications after 1969 which are not on a more specific license (Category:Government of Canada publications).

If a form of OGL-Canada does not exist, can someone create it? --Fæ (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Found it, {{OGL-C}}. So not obvious. We could do with a template navigator tool. --Fæ (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hidden Category: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International missing SDC copyright license - why that?[edit]

Two files (own work, licensed under Cc-by-sa-4.0) I had transferred from de:wp to Commons with the help of https://commonshelper.toolforge.org are now listed in hidden Category:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International missing SDC copyright license:

Not sure what exactly is missing, images are IMO properly licensed, the license template is in place and the license text appears on the file description page. What exactly is the purpose of this cat?

N.B.: Initally assumed that only transferred images might land in this category. Now I notice that images uploaded directly to Commons are affected as well: File:Ultrasound-PreAmp-Breadboard.jpg. --Burkhard (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

See this thread Commons:Forum#Creative_Commons_Attribution-Share_Alike_4.0_International_missing_SDC_copyright_license (in German). --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Help_desk#Avoiding_the_"missing_SDC_copyright_license"_and_"missing_SDC_copyright_status"_errors. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for pointing to above discussions. Guess I will follow the advice from Fæ and ignore them. Well, maybe I'll leave a comment on the cat's discussion page that a bit more context could help avoid user confusion. --Burkhard (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=466919708"