Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓

This project page in other languages: English | +/− Shortcuts: COM:VPCOPY COM:VPC COM:CQ 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. For old discussions, see the Archive section below. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days may be archived. Please note If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read the FAQ? Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.   Start a new discussion

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.

Use of Nike Missile Base Location Maps for U.S. and N.Y. Defense Area

A user: Bwmoll3 (Brent Wade Moll) is credited as author. I want to use these two maps in a book I am writing about a former, local Nike missile base in Mahwah, NJ. I was planning to write the credit under the photo as "Courtesy of Brent Wade Moll via Wikipedia." Is this the correct format for the required credit?

I have been reading all the legalese on this site, but it only confuses me. Please explain if there is anything else I need to do to use these map images.

First of all it would be helpful to know which file(s) exactly you would like to use because different files may have different requirements for attribution. E.g. this file though could be credited as "Courtesy of Brent Wade Moll (Bwmoll3, Wikimedia Commons)". Please note that this is not Wikipedia which has its own repository of images. De728631 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial files

Commons has many files from this collection (one example). However, I'd just like to run through the issues I have with them:

• All are correctly licensed for Australia {{PD-Australia}}), their country of origin. The AWM people themselves say "Copyright expired - public domain", which I take in reference to that. I therefore proceed on the basis that such files are in the public domain because their copyright has expired, and not because their copyright holder has placed them in the public domain.
• Many files, if not all, do not mention their copyright status in the United States. This is in contravention of Commons policy, which requires files "are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." and that "The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag."
• I've been trying in a discussion on Wikipedia to find the correct licence for these files, which has been unsuccessful for reasons I haven't yet been able to explain.
• Previous discussions at en.wp (e.g.) have thrown up some statements of interest. None of them, however, have ever been implemented with regard to the files' licensing, and so, whilst meaning that the files have not been deleted have also meant that the files remain in contravention of policy:
• As far as my research has shown me, two particular sets come to importance:

• Those files from before 1946. I have suggested using a rational thus:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and it was in the public domain in its home country (Australia) on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights. This file was in the public domain on 1 January 1996 in its home country, Australia, by virtue of either: Being the work of a private individual, and taken before 1 January 1955; or Being the work of the Commonwealth or a State government, taken more than 50 years before 1 January 1996. The photograph itself does attribute copyright.

• Those files from 1946-55.

• I believe that Quadell was absolutely right in his analysis here that such files should be sent into the hellhole of URAA-problematic files (Has that one been resolved since?). Their copyright status in the United States is surely untenable, regrettably. (Several argument has been proposed in response that appear to confuse their status in Australia and the United States. It is important to keep them as separate as possible to avoid confusion.) Quadell's suggestion seems not to have been implemented.

I've tried to keep this short. What are others' views on situation 1 (pre-1946) and situation 2 (1946–55)? Grandiose (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first point is a bit flawed: the Australian War Memorial (AWM) is in fact the owner of these images. As well as being a memorial and a museum, the AWM is a major archive for official documents, files and photos relating to Australian military history (much like the Imperial War Museum, but with an even broader mission in regards to supporting historical research). As such, when they label images on their database as being 'Copyright expired - public domain', they're saying this about their property, and so could be reasonably seen (I think) as releasing these images into the public domain in instances where they might not otherwise be out of copyright. It may be worth noting that there's no reason to think that more than a handful of these photos (which are works of the Australian Government created mainly to record the actions of the military for domestic consumption and use by the official historians) has ever been licensed in the US. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, Nick. Their copyright page says "This term describes material held in the National Collection that is clearly out of the period of copyright protection. Material that has passed out of the period of copyright protection is known as being in the "public domain"." This is phrased as a descriptive statement and I don't think it can be used to imply that they have been released – if indeed held – by the AWM. Releasing something from copyright typically takes a fair unequivocal statement. Grandiose (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) All Australian photos taken since 1946 are copyrighted in the United States, so they will presumably be deleted as part of the URAA review unless they are licensed under some free licence. Photos taken before 1946 are not guaranteed to be free in the United States either, so you need to check them more carefully. In particular, all unpublished photos taken since 1942 are copyrighted.

Photos not published anywhere before 1 March 1989 are copyrighted for at least life+70 years in the United States (sometimes more, works for hire have a different term). For example, photos in private family albums are usually unpublished.

Photos first published after 1922 may be copyrighted in the United States regardless of when they were taken if US copyright formalities were followed, see en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights.

Your template use doesn't look entirely correct to me. For all Australian photos, use {{PD-Australia}} to explain why they are out of copyright in Australia, and additionally use a US template explaining their US copyright status. For unpublished photos, use {{PD-US-unpublished}}. For photos published before 1923, use {{PD-1923}}. For photos first published between 1923 and 28 February 1989, use {{PD-1996}} and use the reason tag to specify why there isn't a subsisting copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My template use is indeed {{PD-1996}}, and complements {{PD-Australia}} as you suggest. Can't say I understand the bit about subsisting copyrights, what I did was take the text of PD-1996 and explain why I believed each requirement was fulfilled. (Quadell, coincidently, has pointed to Golan v. Holder and thus the recommendation may now be that post-1946 files are unfortunately still under copyright, unless the government releases them. Might be worth an email?) Grandiose (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Australian photos can be copyrighted in the United States for three reasons. You need to check that none of them applies. An Australian photo is copyrighted in the United States if at least one of the rules applies.

1. URAA rule This is the easiest rule: all photos taken since 1946 are copyrighted.
2. Unpublished rule This is also quite easy to check, but you need to prove that the photo is unpublished. Go to this page and check the section "Never Published, Never Registered Works". In the public domain if the chart tells that it is in the public domain.
3. Subsisting copyright rule This is often much harder to check due to confusing copyright formalities in the United States. Go to the same page and check the section "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." For Australian photos, there is no need to check the "first published abroad" section if you've already tested the photos against the URAA rule above. If neither this rule nor the URAA rule rules the photo as copyrighted, the photo is in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If the pictures were taken by Australian government then they would be under crown copyright. This is for 50 years, and was not extended in 2005. So AU government pictures from 1961 are now in the public domain. You people seem to have forgotten the Australia-USA free trade agreement/treaty from 2005 which recognized Australian copyright and public domain in the USA, though I don't know the USA law reference for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that agreement changed the treatment of Australian works inside the U.S. If works were not public domain in Australia on January 1, 1996, and were first published between 1923 through 1977, then they received a U.S. copyright term of 95 years from publication. Thus, Australian photographs taken 1946 or later typically still have their copyright in the U.S., even if they have since expired in Australia, and therefore are a problem for hosting on Commons. Crown Copyright could be a special case -- technically, the Australian government could press a U.S. copyright claim on works from 1946 or later as well, since they were not PD in Australia in 1996. The UK has specified that they consider their Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide, i.e. is a special case of PD-author where the copyright owner is placing their own works into the public domain. I don't think Australia has specified on that one way or another, and I think it may be reasonable to assume the same with their works, but some here could disagree. But I think the discussion above is more about non-crown copyright images, where photos from 1946-1955 have expired in Australia but not the United States. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It would surprise me if the free trade agreement enforced the rule of the shorter term for Australian works in the US. No treaty I've ever seen does such, since no country has an economic interest in reducing the length of its copyrighted works outside its borders; I know the US didn't encourage such a rule for US works, so it'd have to be one way, which I doubt would have gotten agreed to. And the US has not written any such provision into US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My most immediate concern is to ascertain whether the licence I provide above for files pre-1946 is sufficient, should be modified or replaced. Could anyone advise? Grandiose (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-1996}} would be correct for those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not always, although I guess most exceptions would be unpublished photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that no country has an economic interest in reducing the length of its copyrighted works. If it was, countries would extend copyright indefinitely. You are forgetting the whole purpose of copyright, which is to promote the production of works. That is why terms of copyright are strictly limited. When the Australian government, under pressure from the United States, extended its term of copyright from 50 to 70 years, it explicitly did not restore copyrights that had expired. Nor did it extend the term of the crown copyright on works. These continue to expire after 50 years. We are only talking about crown copyrights here. So crown copyright photograph from before 1946 was in the public domain in 1996. After that, who owns copyright of crown copyright photographs in the United States? The crown does, and it expires after 50 years. So images from 1946 through 1961 are in the public domain in the United States, and those from 1962 will fall into the public domain on 1 January 1963. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the crown's copyright expires in Australia does in no way mean that the same thing also happen in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, under the Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement, which is the law of the land in the United States. The Australian government sets its own rules on its own copyrights, which United States law protects. And the Australian government has terminated its own copyright of works more than 50 years old. Consider it the other way round: what is the copyright status of a US Federal government photograph in Australia? It will be copyright to the US Federal government. Which has released it into the public domain. Therefore, it is in the public domain in Australia too. The 1996 rule only comes into play with privately owned works, those which are not crown copyright. It is in this case that the copyright may have expired in Australia but not in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The United States government has released its works to the public domain in the United States, but the works may be copyrighted by the United States government in other countries. See this page for an explanation. Similarly, the Australian government releases its works to the public domain in Australia 50 years after publication, although the works may still be copyrighted by the Australian government outside Australia after that point. Outside the country of origin, the works are presumably still copyrighted unless the rule of the shorter term is applied. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that the Australian Government would ever enforce copyright on its old images overseas. Can you provide any examples of this happening? Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that there is a list of countries where the Australian government regards its copyright to expire when it says it does, and the United States is on the list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting -- where is that list? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I take your point that US public domain images should not be uploaded to commons, if they are not in the public domain world wide. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons only requires images to be in the public domain in the United States and the source country. See COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. United States government images are both in the public domain in the United States and in the source country, so they are fine. The list you mentioned can't be taken into account if you don't tell where the list can be found. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You can find it here. If, as you say, the United States does not accept other nations expiring their copyrights, then all United States images must be taken down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that list that talks about works made in Australia; it's all about protecting works made overseas. No, the US does not have the rule of the shorter term; why that would require that all US images be taken down, I don't know.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that no country has an economic interest in reducing the length of its copyrighted works. What I said was no country has an economic interest in reducing the length of its copyrighted works outside its borders, which I stand by. If people in the US are willing to send money to Australia for an Australian work, it's all to Australia's economic benefit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And I stand by my explanation of the purpose of copyright. Although it runs a budget surplus, the government is not a for-profit organisation. Copyright is a process by which short-term protection is granted by the public in return for works later being given over the public for the public good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget the "purpose" of copyright; most politicians have. Any law a government passes is generally to the benefit of its people, not people overseas. There's no reason Australia should deliver Australian works to the US public domain one second before the rest of the world's works end up in the US public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but they did have their law specify a different term for their own works, so they did not intend for the copyright on own works to last quite as long as everyone else's. That is the copyright owner placing their own works into the public domain, basically. The UK did in fact say they consider their Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide; it's not a completely unreasonable thing to assume something similar for Australia, as I'm not aware of any statement to the contrary for them. Particularly since that under the Berne Convention the rule of the shorter term is allowed -- nobody should expect to get further protection overseas then they get at home, though it can happen. Australia does seem to be following the UK lead on trying to license a lot of their works under free licenses -- see here. Even in the U.S. case, the oft-quoted cendi.gov bit comes directly from the House notes of the 1976 Copyright Act, which in turn was based on an early 1970s opinion from the U.S. Register of Copyrights, which thought that overseas enforcement of US Government works was possible due to specific wording in the Universal Copyright Convention. It turned out that wasn't necessarily the case, as the UCC later (early 1980s) did their own study and had representatives look at the question themselves, and the responses were decidedly mixed -- potential protection was going to be a country-by-country thing at best. Since then, the U.S. has joined the Berne Convention, which doesn't have the particular wording in that area that the UCC does, which could change the situation even more. The situation is harder because it's completely theoretical; I'm not aware of any case where a government tried to enforce a copyright overseas, particularly after when it has expired in its own country. That said, U.S. law might allow the Australian Government to bring a lawsuit here for photos taken 1946, since it has not forcibly expired per U.S. law, so I can understand the hesitation to declare such things "free". Even then though, it could still be ruled as someone placing their own work into the public domain, say a case of common law w:abandonment, or some theory like that. If an individual in say Germany says "I place this work into the public domain", without using the explicit term "worldwide", but also not explicitly using the words "in Germany only", what would a U.S. court rule if that person later tried to enforce copyright in the U.S.? That's basically the situation with foreign government files, at least for those countries which have a different government works term than the country's normal terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

American paintings exhibited or sold without copyright notices prior to 1978

After reading Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago and Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, I am forced to come to the conclusion that any American artwork (including paintings) that did not include a visible copyright notice and was publicly exhibited or sold prior to 1978 is now in the public domain (with a few edge case exceptions). Since paintings almost never include visible copyright notices, wouldn't this make most of them public domain? Kaldari (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Many, yes, I'm sure. As for the exhibiting part, we'd have to know that photography was permitted, which can often be hard or impossible to determine. Works permanently placed in public would be impossible to control photographs, so those seem pretty safe to assume. I also wonder if a notice is allowed to be on the back of the painting -- if you sold the physical painting, both the front and back should be equally visible to the purchaser. It's the exhibition part where that gets dicier, since if the only notice to potential copiers is hidden from view, it may not count. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that if a photograph is taken against local rules about camera use, then we can't upload it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The photographer owns the copyright, so they control distribution in most cases. It's up to the photographer if they want to respect those rules, and whatever non-copyright legal ramifications ensue. See Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography. If the photographer wants to upload the image against the wishes of the property owner, we generally let them, and won't delete it. The main exceptions are if the photograph itself is a derivative work of some other copyrighted work (like a sculpture), in which case the author of the underlying work controls distribution unless freedom of panorama applies in that location, or if the photograph violates someone's privacy in some way (in which case it's illegal to even publish the photograph). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Situations

Please tell me the situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons? "67.142.165.24 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)"

They are explained in the upload wizard. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright on MIDI (link)

I didn't realize that Village Pump had a copyright section when I posted this:Commons:Village_pump#Copyrights_on_MIDI.3F I don't know if anyone here wants to read it over.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Russian copyright

It seems that Russia changed its public domain criteria according to: Template:PD-Russia-2008. See the fine print under footnote [1]. Does commons have a policy and/or list of creators that qualify under the extension of the copyrights?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Russia changed this exactly in 2009, which brought some of the things out of public domain. No, we do not have any lists as fas as I know, but I do not think there are so many authors who had their copyright extended.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The concern that brought this up is a photographer that died in 1938. All of his images have been nominated for deletion and one is nominated for a Featured Picture at the same time. File:Victor Bulla - Young Pioneers Defence.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear case (provided the bio details are correct, I did not check). The work is not in public domain.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This may bring up more questions. He has a page on ru:WP but not an english one. I may try and translate it. This is a quote from: en:Political rehabilitation -- "Many cases were subject to amnesty only, but not to rehabilitation (in particular those who were prosecuted for "belonging to Trotskyite Opposition"). If he was subject to amnesty only, would his works still be in PD? Should we provide citations before we delete existing files in commons? etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, rehabilitation is a legal process, one has to apply, have a court hearing etc. Then he retains the rights. Amnesty is smth proclaimed by one of the former presidents, this is not legally sufficient in my understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am half way through a google machine translation here: en:User:Canoe1967/sandbox. The Russian page has the rehabilitation added at the bottom of the biography section with no reference. I added the {citation needed} tag in my page to it. I may finish the translation. Google seems to have pasted the Russian and English text, and I am still chopping that out. I wonder if his family did the legal process, or the editor confused amnesty with rehabilitation. I wonder if a Russian wikipedian could verify that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Russian Wikipedian, but most likely they did.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an article here where his daughter said he was "rehabilitated". Is there any place where that can be double-checked? On the other hand, it sounds like he donated his work to the Russian state in 1935, which is where the photos come from now. It's possible they could just release it to the public domain. The en-wiki article w:Karl Bulla says all the photos in the archive are PD and gives a reference to this Russian article. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Carl, I never thought to look up his father's article. It seems he has a grandaughter still living in Russia. Someone may be able to just phone or email her and ask?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Pre 1989 company annual reports

Are pre-1989 company annual reports public domain? The US government requires publicly traded companies to publish them and the ones I have looked at do not have a copyright notice. These often contain product photos and if no byline or credit is given these photos they would be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Utilitarian objects protected by copyright

According to the description, File:4xcolor mini maglite 20050614.jpg was taken in Sweden. According to Högsta domstolen case T 1421-07, the torches are copyrighted as an artistic work in Sweden. COM:FOP#Sweden only applies to artistic works permanently installed in a public space outdoors, but these torches seem to be temporarily installed in a private space indoors, so FOP doesn't seem to apply. Thus, the photo seems to be unfree in the country of photography. As an additional source, check the usage of the file: Utilitarian objects protected by copyright and sv:Verkshöjd (Swedish Wikipedia article on threshold of originality).

Should we start deleting photos of utilitarian objects taken in Sweden and photos of Swedish utilitarian objects taken outside Sweden? This could have some rather interesting effects, causing problems with photos of non-nude people due to copyrighted tunics, jackets, more jackets and mats. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish court said that protection was limited, probably limited to to real copies. But a photo is not a torch. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good enough disclaimer to use {{Attribution}}

Is a disclaimer like "You are welcome to use the photos in the photo gallery. Please give credit to <organisation>." - like the one that appears here - enough to allow us to use the photos under the {{Attribution}} tag? - Htonl (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes. You may wish to email them to add a Creative Commons tag to the site to make it more clear. The photos are taken by the government so may be in public domain with attribution depending on the laws there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Template:PD-South-Africa-exempt is probably the better choice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In previous discussions it's been established that the PD-SA-exempt tag only applies to a limited range of truly official works like laws and court judgments. It apparently doesn't apply to general PR material produced by the government. - Htonl (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. We prefer such statements to explicitly acknowledge commercial use and derivative works. That looks more like a case of Commons:Image casebook#Press photos to me. The general copyright terms on the site prohibit commercial use (and prohibits use of photographs altogether). While that gallery does have a different copyright policy than the overall site (they allow use of the photographs), I don't think I'd be comfortable assuming that means use for financial gain as well. You could contact them and ask for clarification. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need a "Template:Photos from a SA.gov page with a vague statement on use that we take in good faith as copyright with attribution"? I agree then that {{Attribution}} is better.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Trademark?

There is an image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakin%27_Stevens which is covered under international trademark 005784285 and infringes upon that trademark under classes 9, 16 and 41. Could you please advise?

I see two photographs on the page but no trademarks. I tracked the images back to sources and they seem to be ok with the copyright tags they have now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Um... to the best of my knowledge, no, images are not "covered" under a separate wordmark. From what I can see, the wordmark "Shakin Stevens" is protected, per here and here (that is the number you gave). That covers the use of that phrase only, and only to the extent that trademark law covers (which is usually more in a misrepresentation sense). Certainly if another performer used that name, that would be an issue, or if a photo of someone else was mislabeled using that name, perhaps, but I'm not sure how a trademark like that could affect the photo (unless it was used in a way to make people think it was an official product of the band or person, something like that). An accurate label of a photo should in no way be a trademark issue. You might look at w:Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_to_claims_of_infringement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

CC & Flickr

If an image on Flickr is licensed CC BY 2.0, but then underneath says "Request to license...via Getty Images", does this mean you have to submit a request for CC BY 2.0 to apply, or is the request for further rights? Mato (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I take that to mean that it would be a request for further rights. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright template and Japanese currency

Discussion regarding the applicability of {{PD-Japan-exempt}} to Japanese Yen images is happening at: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Copyright_status_of_Japanese_Yen_bank_notes. Please take a moment and comment. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A straight reading of those exemptions would not seem to cover currency, unless it is covered by the "notifications, instructions, circular notices and the like" portion. This summary document, from a third party I think, seems to imply (in section 6 of Chapter 3, "Issues in Practice") that commercial use of currency is somewhat allowed, although laws pertaining to counterfeiting could come into play. Section 3 in the same chapter on government works in general also seems to say lack of protection on government works may be a bit more expansive than the reading above. Not sure... doesn't seem to be anything explicitly allowing them, but I also have no idea about custom practice in Japan, and it's possible there are "notifications" or something similar which defines the designs on currency, coins, and the like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of Sri Lankan currency

Can anyone advise as to the copyright status of (especially modern) Sri Lankan coins and bank notes? For example, File:One LKR coin.jpg, some of the images in Category:Coins of Sri Lanka, and Category:Banknotes of Sri Lanka. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Sri Lankan copyright law does not seem to have anything special for a government term (slightly odd for a former UK colony, but it looks like they have more of a WIPO-model copyright law now, though they actually take the "fair use" definitions from U.S. law). Section 8 says that copyright does not apply to any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof. That seems to focus on the text itself, and not graphical works. On the other hand, for some of those coins, they use the national emblem which seems to date from shortly after independence, though the current version is from 1972. Not sure where that particular representation dates from. The other side of the coins seem to be mostly writing. The law before 2006 said copyright does not apply to laws and decisions of courts and administrative bodies, as well as to official translations thereof, so the wording has slightly changed, and the terms of protection was shorter overall. It's possible the emblem was defined in a law. Doesn't seem like the newer law retroactively restored copyright for anything which had expired, but I'm not sure. I nominated File:One LKR coin.jpg for deletion because the photographs appear to lifted off a website; that is independent of this question though. Dunno, but I really can't see anything which would preclude copyright on coins or banknotes, though for the coins there could be questions on threshold of originality, and that kind of thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Cosplay images

Hello! can somebody explain me why cosplay images at category:Star Wars characters are acceptable while images like this File:R2D2 from Lego.JPG are not? If a character is copyrighted, it is copyrighted even if you dress up like them, aren't they? As the design remains the same. So under what rule are cosplay images not bothered? :) If I dress up like Darth vader, it's ok to upload the photo, but if I take a photo of an exhibitied darth vader figure, it's suddenly copyrighted? How does this work? Thanks for clearing this up. Teemeah (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding the character aspect, the R2D2 there is a toy, which likely counts as a copyrightable work in its own right. Photos of toys have indeed been ruled (more than once I think) to be derivative works, since toys count as sculpture, so even if somebody assembled a completely different robot that nobody has seen before the photo would still be a problem (unless it was the uploader who actually put it together). Clothing is generally utilitarian, and not protectable by copyright (though masks can be, and the designs on clothes can be); while there are lots of blurry lines in this area I don't think anyone has ever run across a case where photos like that have (photos of public events) been ruled derivative. A couple of those are probably edging up to the line, but there are significant differences between clothing (which does not get copyright protection, although a character in general might), versus solid sculpture, which does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I see but both are characters :) So if I dress up to be C3PO, which is also robot, thus a sculpture, at a public cosplay event, then a free licence photo can be made, but if I take a photo of a C3PO robot at a public exhibition, it's gonna be deleted. Interesting approach. Teemeah (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The rigid C3PO costume might be a more interesting situation. And a couple of those other images may be edging over some borderlines too. It's not an easy area to be sure, but there are limits to what a "derivative work" is -- a copyrighted work which is present but unavoidable while taking a photo of a larger subject (such as say, a parade) may not count as a derivative work. A couple important court cases have sided that way. The character copyright is an odd beast in itself as well; there are lots of blurry lines in that area. People making (unauthorized) costumes have indeed been sued and lost; but photos of people in public wearing authorized costumes may be a rather different beast, copyright-wise. If you took a photo of *just* the C3PO costume, without any context (say on a blank background, so the focus is obvious), that could well be an issue. These aren't easy questions for sure, though I personally do prefer to limit things to where we can point to actual court cases (they can be shocking enough) without trying to invent more and more theoretically possible problems (without any backing court case) and deleting on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Teemeah -- It's been established many times that clothing is overall "functional" or "utilitarian" under United States copyright law, and that photographs of clothing as being worn by people do not violate copyrights. (Much the same reasoning explains why haute couture designers can't prevent cheap knock-off imitations from being made.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, however: Dressing up as a specific copyrighted character, converting the entire appearence of the person into that of, say, C3PO, the Klingon Worf, or Spiderman, which consists of more than just wearing some clothing but also make-up / masks - couldn't that be seen as problematic, copyright-wise? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, clear. :) Teemeah (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File: Photo of Bruce Clark on the cover of April 18, 1997 edition of Vancouver's Terminal City magazine

The file was posted an hour or so ago. Then User: January made a change saying, I think, it is necessary for the author additionally to consent in writing, that the licence is not sufficient. My information came from the author who apparently thinks that referring to the licence would be sufficient. I see now there is a template and I have asked an intermediary who knows the author, Darren Atwater, to send it along to him. I expect to have it soon and will be able to relay it to you. So, I have two questions. First, how do I relay it to you? I did not see a place on the upload form for an author permission template. Secondly, can someone ask January to hold off deleting the photo until this can be taken care of. I looked but could not find how to contact her directly.--Evarose3 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see two separate issues here: one is the file, like most 3rd party files, needs to go through Commons:OTRS - please see that page for procedures and formalities noting in particular that relaying the permission is not ordinarily adequate, it needs to come from the copyright owner at a verifiable email address. Secondly you appear to list two separate licenses, one of which is ND (no derivatives) which is not allowed here. Dankarl (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the speedy deletion tag to a "no permission" tag, which allows a week for the permission to be confirmed. (If it is deleted after that time, a Commons administrator can still restore it if permission is later received.) January (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Royal Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II.svg

This and the related File:Royal-Cypher-Eliz-2-Gold.svg seem to be public domain in the UK due to crown copyright having expired. If so, would they be PD in the US as well, or would they have fallen afoul of the UFAA? They probably became PD in 2002. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The act of creating a vector version most likely involves its own creativity, so it would have a copyright even if the underlying work is PD. As for UK Crown Copyright, they have mentioned they consider Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide, so even though if they may have technically had a right to bring a U.S. lawsuit after its UK copyright had expired, they basically said they wouldn't, so we treat that as a form of PD-author. {{PD-UKGov}} has the links on that, so we don't worry about the URAA status when it comes to UK works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely a svg version of a jpeg or tiff is essentially a derivative image of the original image and so cannot be claimed to have created a newly licenceable image? While some image creators might draw a vector image by hand they just trace lines around the outlines of the original and fill in the colours of the original. Some creative software even does the work for you, so I don't really see a creative element. Ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A derivative work -- by definition -- has copyrightable authorship attributable to the second author. Derivative works are registered as such. It's just that the if the copyright of the underlying work is still in effect, the work additionally needs the permission of the first author to distribute it. Once that underlying copyright expires, the only thing left is the copyright of the additional expression added by the second author, but that's still a copyright. Only a straight copy, or when the additional work does not itself qualify for copyright, is there no additional copyright. Just hitting "trace" in a program would not be enough to create a copyright, you're right, but once you go about cleaning that up and making lots of small decisions on the lines, it's probably different. There was an old case where a w:mezzotint of a painting was deemed to have enough originality to qualify as a derivative work (with a copyright above and beyond the original). Colorizing a black and white film almost certainly does as well. It doesn't take much, and it does not require drawing something from scratch. Coats of arms can have their own idiosyncrasies as well; the general design is often more of an idea, and individual drawings of the design are not necessarily derivative works (see Commons:Coats of Arms). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File:UKTV.svg

How complex is this logo in the United Kingdom? --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's a text-only logo in an existing font/typeface, the UK would not give any copyright protection to it. That seems rather plausible for that logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File:PoundTheAlarmCoverArt.png

This is a single cover so obviously not licensed GFDL/CC-BY-SA as uploaded, but is it simple enough for {{PD-text}}? January (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File:MI5.jpg

This image (claiming to be a former logo of MI5, the UK Security Service) is tagged as from the CIA World Factbook, and also as being public domain due to UK government copyright having expired. However, I do not believe that this is accurate and I cannot verify that the image is authentic. It has, however, been on Wikipedia or Commons for years! I cannot find it in the CIA World Factbook. I also doubt whether it is actually created by the UK government. On English Wikipedia, the MI5 page refers to the book Defence of the Realm, the authorized history of MI5 by Christopher Andrew. The logo does not appear anywhere in that book, and the "Mankind's Immortal Victory" phrase comes from a different image (a sketch by a former deputy director of the service, nothing to do with this logo), though there is a drawing of an all-seeing-eye logo that does not resemble this one (it is a giant eye with a Latin motto underneath, and other decorations). It does not appear on the MI5 website. In all the years it has appeared on English Wikipedia, it hasn't garnered additional attribution beyond (1) either pre-1955 or 1950s-1970s, and (2) a "citation needed" tag that has sat there untouched for years.

The image does seem to be used quite widely on conspiracy-theory sites, due to the eye-in-a-pyramid motif. The uploader here is one "FU NWO" whose other contributions are on the same theme - probably the username is short for "Fuck You New World Order". The history of the image on English Wikipedia is also dominated by conspiracy types.

In summary, I think this image is likely to be inauthentic, and in any case its provenance is different from that claimed - it is not from the World Factbook, there is no evidence that it comes from the UK government, and it may be an outright fabrication by conspiracy theorists.

Update: This ebay page shows a cap badge in the same design, but with "007" on the crown. The author says: "I designed it and offered it for years in the Baird Collectibles mail order catalog. I also wholesaled the emblems to other mail order catalog companies who dealt in spy related items. It's not likely that any spy would carry a badge, but I thought that if the world's most famous fictional spy had a badge or a patch it would look something like this, starting with the triangle, adding a Queen's crown and logo (EIIR), with MIV and 007. I was later told by folks from England that MI5 is never written with the roman numberal V, but I still thought it was a neat design and there are thousands of these badges and patches in circulation. The design was never officially associated with any British spy organization nor the fictional character James Bond."

This is not an MI5 logo, but a piece of unofficial James Bond memorabilia. (Bond wasn't even in MI5!) I assume it is also under the copyright of eBay user "bedoya2". --76.124.236.162 23:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty crude fake. The logos used by British Government agencies have always tended to be very bland. The eye in the pyramid thing definitely wouldn't get the OK from anyone on Whitehall. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all instances of this from the English-language Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start a deletion request (see COM:DR) with the information provided here. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(I've modified the link in the section header so that this discussion shows up in Special:WhatLinksHere/File:MI5.jpg.)

Regarding the message at User talk:FU NWO: has it been listed at COM:DR? I can't find it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar but it didn't seem to work - it looks like it left the message on that user's page, but didn't do anything else (I assumed it had failed completely). Sorry! Somebody else should do the nomination. 76.124.236.162 13:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

French money

The copyright on the French banknotes denominated in francs was apparently held by the Banque de France. In 1998, a magazine published reproductions of such banknotes without authorization from the Banque. The Banque sued the magazine for copyright violation, on the basis of the copyright law. In this case, in 1999, a judgment by the Cour d'appel de Paris (also confirmed in 2002 by a judgment by the Cour de cassation) ruled that when banknotes are in current use as the legal mode of payment, any legal complaint about their unauthorized reproduction must be based only on the anti-counterfeiting section of the penal code, and not on the copyright law. Consequently, the complaint of the Banque, which in this case was based on the copyright law, was rejected. In other words, when a banknote is the current legal mode of payment in the country, its copyright holder's rights of action against unauthorized reproduction under the copyright law are suspended, and the only recourse is the anti-counterfeiting measures of the penal code. The courts based their decision in this case on article 36 of the Code des instruments monétaires et des médailles, which states that "the counterfeiting and the falsification of banknotes [...] are repressed by sections 442-1 to 442-7 of the penal code".

In 2002, soon after the introduction of the euro money items, all money items denominated in francs ceased to be the legal mode of payment in France. However, for some more years after they ceased to be the legal currency items, they retained their value in that they could still be exchanged for euros at the offices of the Banque de France. The final date of possible exchange for coins denominated in francs was in 2005 and the final date of possible exchange for the last banknotes denominated in francs was 17 February 2012. After that date, they are definitely void.

On Commons, some contributors seem to interpret the above-mentioned court decision as if it meant that the copyright was inapplicable on all copyrighted items of French money denominated in francs, and forever, and everywhere. They upload images of French francs coins, practically as if there were no copyright on French francs. But that seems to ignore the facts that : 1) the court decision was based explicitely on the wording of article 36 of the monetary code, which is specifically about banknotes, not coins, and 2) the court decision was based on the reasoning that the application of the copyright law was excluded on those banknotes because they were legal currency items. It also ignores the fact that, independently of the copyright recourses of the copyright holder being suspended or not in France, the copyright holder still holds his copyright, and his copyright in the Unites States is not affected, unless there's an equivalent jurisprudence or doctrine in the United States to the effect that U.S. anti-counterfeiting laws exclude U.S. copyright law recourses, but I don't think it's the case.

I'm not saying that those uploaders are wrong, but I feel that they have been extrapolating a lot, without the matter having been discussed much and clarified. The explicit reasoning and wording of the court decision does not apply to coins nor to out-of-currency items. But what would the courts have decided if the case had actually been about coins instead of banknotes, or if it had been about out-of-currency banknotes instead of about then-current banknotes? Would the courts have modified their reasoning and found a way to cover also coins and out-of-currency items? Maybe, or maybe not. Technically, the court bases its decision on the wording of article 36 of the monetary code, which says that "the counterfeiting of banknotes is repressed by the penal code". The court's trick is to interpret that wording to implicitely mean that any unauthorized reproduction of banknotes can be dealt with under the penal code only, to the exclusion of the copyright law. The problem is that if the case had been about coins, the court could not have invoked article 36 of the monetary code as the legal basis for its decision, because that article is about banknotes only. So, what would the court have done? It could have decided to apply the copyright law to the case normally, as the copyright holder was asking. Or it could have found some other legal basis, other than the monetary code, to justify a decision to exclude the copyright law. Perhaps it could have done without any invocation of the monetary code and instead just invent a jurisprudential justification to the effect that since the penal code contains something about the counterfeiting of coins as well as banknotes, the copyright law recourses should be excluded. It is interesting to note that the penal code also includes an article prohibiting counterfeiting of out-of-currency banknotes and coins. We can speculate about what the court would have decided, but we don't know.

The questions:

• 1) Considering the decision that the French court issued specifically about what was then the legal currency banknotes in francs, could that decision have been reasonably extrapolated to cover also the coins in francs when those coins were still the legal currency coins?
• 2) Can the decision that the French court issued specifically about what was then the legal currency banknotes in francs be reasonably extrapolated to still cover the banknotes in francs now that they are not legal currency anymore?
• 3) Can the decision that the French court issued specifically about what was then the legal currency banknotes in francs be reasonably extrapolated to cover the coins in francs now that they are not legal currency anymore? (Yes, question 3 is a combination of the two extrapolations that were addressed separately in questions 1 and 2.)
• 4) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then can the decision that the French court issued specifically about what was then the legal currency banknotes in francs be reasonably extrapolated to now cover the French national faces of the euro coins, which are currently the legal currency?
• 5) Can the decision of the French court suspending the application of the rights of the copyright holder under the French copyrigt law in France have any effect on suspending the application of the rights of the copyright holder under the Copyright Act of the United States in the United States? Even if one assumed that some unauthorized images of copyrighted French money items might not constitute actionable copyright violations in France, those images constitute copyright violations in the U.S., and they can't be uploaded to Commons, can they?

-- Asclepias (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How explicit does a license need to be, when uploading files from another source?

I have just started a deletion request, because I believe the source page is not clear enough. This is however very much as subjective opinion (on my side), so I would have liked to be able to find some previous discussions on the matter to refer to. Unfortunately my searching-karma today seems to be very bad, so the only other I was able to find was Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Www.folketinget.dk (which oddly enough also was about a Danish source). Basically the source page for the file in "my" deletion request, states that "På disse sider kan man frit hente og anvende billeder af forsvarschefen Knud Bartels." which translates to (my translation) "On these pages you can freely download and use pictures of [then] chief of defense Knud Bartels.".
On Commons:Problematic sources#Promotional_photos it states that "Despite common and misleadingly vague phrases such as "may be used freely", publicity photographs are generally provided with the understanding that they will be used in unmodified form for informational purposes in a context related to the subject of the photographs (such as an article about the product, company, or person depicted). Uses of such images are thus restricted to reporting about a particular event or to promoting a product or person."
Commons:Licensing "only" states that media allowed are either "explicitly freely licensed" or "are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." The definition of Free Cultural Works only states a number of freedom that must be provided, but I don't find it that clear on how explicitly they should be given.
My questions are thus?

1. Have the "explicitly"-part really not been discussed on Commons before?
2. If it have then where (and sorry for my crappy searching skills)?
3. Shouldn't either Commons:Licensing (or perhaps Commons:Source) mention something about this?

In kind regards, Henrik

I think "explicitly" in the commons guideline above means an actual CC licence. If it hasn't been discussed then it should be. Do Denmark images taken by government have some type of public domain with attribution to the photographer? I wonder if some of these .gov sites have PD images and just don't want to state that directly. That have to put that 'use freely' statement in under any public domain laws they do have, otherwise why would they add it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not that rigid -- there are plenty of free licenses which are not CC licenses. But we do prefer to have actual mention of derivative works and commercial use, so there is no misunderstanding. Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses gives the general criteria. But yes, the above case does seem not specific enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the quote the OP is looking for: "A copyright license is a formal permission stating who may use a copyrighted work and how they may use it." The keyword is 'formal'. Should we change explicitly to some form of formal or official? Those sites that say 'freely use' are not a formal licence I take it? That quote is from the top of the link in Carl's post.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a formal statement as it stands, in my opinion. It's certainly a permission statement. It's just that "free" is a loaded word; some may mean it to simply be free of cost, whereas for our purposes it needs to be a very different meaning, and we want to be very clear there is no misunderstanding of intent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could add a word to clarify for others: "explicitly have an acceptable free license " type statement? I am just thinking this in case others need clarification that licences need to be an officially accepted form unlike the site mentioned above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Something like that maybe. I'm not sure there is ever going to be an "officially accepted form", as each permission statement must be evaluated. But yes, the requirements are that the permission allows derivative works and commercial use, which the simple word "freely" does not necessarily connote by itself, unless it's clear from other stuff they had the freedomdefined.org definition in mind. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Bageren er desværre død - så nu bager han ej brød 2012-05-20.jpg

After I uploaded this photo I came to think about that there may be an issue with the copyright of the text on the sign and perhaps the design of the sign as well. I first asked about this at the main Help desk page, where Stefan4 suggested to try and post the question here instead. Some facts about the photo

• The photo is taken in Denmark at a public location.
• It is a sign which is meant as a joke on a well-known historical building from 1788, which has been the home of a dean.
• The golden sign (kringle), not the text part was stolen in 2009 and replaced by a new one crafted by a local builder of boats with assistence from people from Norway, also in 2009.
• The humorous text originates from the Danish author Peter Seeberg who died in 1999. He was a museum custodian for the town museum as well. It is a rhyme in Danish and translates (approximately to) "The baker is unfortunately dead - so now he is not baking bread".
• I have tried to figure out when the text was authored, but have not managed to find any sources with a year.

Is the photo OK, or should I open a DR? Thanks in advance, --Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)