Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcuts
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to an archive (Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 29 in October 2010). Sections without timestamps are not archived.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Archived discussions

By date

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

(the dates are very approximate because some debates dragged on for months, while others became inactive very shortly)

  • ...
  • Some principally important discussions are archived in separate pages. There is no point in arguing on the archived pages, because few people will read it. If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.

(these headers are preserved in case someone has linked to them)

Against DRM 1.0

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM

Review of license templates

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Review of license templates

U.S. patents

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/U.S. patents

Ecoport copyleft

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Ecoport copyleft

Museums Bilder

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Museums Bilder (in German)

Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?

Still active discussions

Template protection after review

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

Multi-licensing

On the Project page it seems to say that the current policy allowing non-free licenses (if multi) exists because Multi-Licensing with restrictive licenses may be desirable for compatibility with the licensing scheme of other projects; also, multi-licensing allows people who create derivative work to release that work under a restrictive license only, if they wish—that is, it gives creators of derivative works more freedom with regards to which license they may use for their work.

I have a hard time following the logic of this paragraph. Someone uploads media and slaps an explicitly non-free license (or two or three) on it and then, in order to get it on the Commons, adds a license deemed free by the Commons but elects to remind the reader of all the restrictive elements of both the free license and the non-free license(s). Somehow a user is supposed to know that although it explicitly says on the page in boldface "No Derivatives", derivatives are actually OK because another part of the same page mentions another license? It's fine to put up a big STOP sign where no stop in fact exists so long as readers who are already fully informed about all the fine print can technically go? Why? I don't see the reasoning for allowing any non-free licenses, particularly in light of the way they are routinely abused by uploaders in terms of accurately communicating licensing terms. How can adding a non-free license improve compatibility? Also, how can adding a non-free license give creators of derivative works more freedom than a CC0 license? For this to make any sense at all one has to assume that one is adding a non-free license to a license that is already sharealike/copyleft restricted. This assumption should be made explicit.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright owners can license their works as they wish -- that is their right. Provided they have a Commons-compatible license, they can add any others they choose. That is quite simply their right and nothing we can (or should) do about it. They should make clear that users can choose to use the work under any of the available licenses though. The {{Self}} template is useful to make that clear; it combines multiple license templates with the note that you can choose any one of them. Agreed that trying to obscure the free license is against the spirit, if not the letter, of Commons. Combining with CC0 is definitely silly though -- is there one of those? That's not really a creative commons license in the normal sense of course; that is giving up basically all rights. However, additional licenses beyond CC-BY or CC-BY-SA can definitely be applicable. CC-BY-NC makes no sense if CC- BY is the license, but it could make perfect sense in combination with CC-BY-SA, for example, and adding non-creative commons licenses can increase compatibility with works using those other licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is, people who upload to the Commons have to give up at least some of their rights, such that appealing to uploaders' rights in general amounts to begging the question: just what these rights should be for a Commons contributor is the very question at issue. The fewer rights that are given up, the more disputable it is that it's a true Commons contribution, up to a cut-off point that has to be collectively determined and enforced. re "They should make clear that users can choose..." it's the fact that hardly ever happens when a non-free license is used that is the problem. The standard uploading tools don't support the addition of non-free licenses, and so they exist because the uploader has done some extra fiddling and this fiddling invariably serves to obscure instead of remind re-users what their rights and options are (a typical multi-license with a non-free is yesterday's POTD, which has an explicit "NonCommercial-NonDerivative" clause and no suggestion that a freer license could be selected). re "Combining with CC0 is definitely silly," indeed that's why this paragraph on the Project page should be reworded because the "rationale" that is given for multi-licensing with a non-free doesn't make any sense except for when the multi-licensing involves share-alike/copyleft restricted licenses on the "free" (if even then, it isn't really clear at all on the Project page how multi-licensing with a non-free can help). It only "solves" a problem that wouldn't have existed had the licensing on the "free" not been so restrictive in the first place.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a set of requirements to be a "free" license. If someone wants to make up their own, that is OK. It is discouraged, obviously, because it probably will be brought up for discussion taking people's time, and there are lots of aspects of copyright law that someone making their own license is likely to forget but have been thought through in the more standard licenses, meaning it's likely that custom licenses don't end up being actually "free". But, we can't completely forbid it. I don't think the possibility of someone combining a PD license like CC0 with ones with restrictions is common enough to bother clarifying that point. Though I guess that is a sort of danger of replacing "PD-self" with "CC0" in the options, as most people associate "creative commons" as "free with some restrictions" and not a complete public domain dedication. In the end, the copyright owners have absolute rights over their work, and it is up to them what they want to do. So long as they meet the basic requirements on Commons:Licensing, the rest is up to them. But, other editors are free to edit image pages to make them better conform with policy or be more clear, so long as we don't actually change any license terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re "If someone wants to make up their own...", generally people are not making up their own from scratch but are taking a CC-BY-SA license, fudging it, and then calling the fudge CC-BY-SA-compliant. According to Creative Commons that is NOT OK because the legalcode of CC-BY-SA says its terms cannot be modified or added to outside its legal code. There's no such thing as CC-BY-SA-compliant. It either is CC-BY-SA or it isn't (it's a different license). If it's a different license, it may be equivalent enough to be called equivalently "free", but it should not be called a CC-BY-SA license. How can editing one of these sorts of problematic uploads "change any license terms" unless there are terms on the page that are additional to or modify what is linked to on Creative Commons' definition pages? In any case, why is it unacceptable for the community to get specific about meets the "requirements", by say, insisting that CC-BY-SA constitutes a bright line and that its terms cannot be manipulated with customization? You call for a "general" or fuzzy line instead of specific bright one. Blurring the line just makes enforcement of community policy more difficult without doing anything for uploaders in terms of giving them more legal rights.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing multilicensing is an important way to deal with incompatibility. For example, the BSD software license may seem less restrictive than CC-BY-SA, but it's still incompatible with it, having specific requirements that CC-BY-SA does not - adding the CC-BY-SA license allows it to be used both in free content projects like Wikipedia and in open source software projects. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I haven't been clear. re "...adding the CC-BY-SA allows..." I'm not objecting to adding a CC-BY-SA. I'm objecting to adding a CC-BY-NC-ND or other license that the community agrees is non-free. What does adding a non-free license "allow"? Functionally and legally, it seems to me that adding a non-free license adds nothing, particularly if the included free license is truly and indisputably free. It's therefore pure signage: uploaders preserve rights (at the expenses of users) but only by creating the false impression amongst users that they've preserved those rights. It's signage serving private interests erected on "Common"ly held property. No?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to supplement CC-BY-SA with CC-BY-NC, a simple attribution license for non-commercial uses, without further restrictions. SV1XV (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the SA is dropped and replaced with NC in the alternative license, giving the option of escaping SA (a copyleft restriction) to those who aren't restricted by NC anyway. But why is the policy not changed to allow the addition of what's been deemed a "non-free" license, like CC-BY-NC, ONLY when that addition would also remove a restriction on another license that's been deemed "free", like CC-BY-SA? The given rationale for multi-licensing logically supports THIS kind of multi-licensing, but does not support ALL multi-licensing involving non-free licenses. For good policy, either we need another rationale for giving the green light to including a non-free licenses in general (like CC-BY-NC-ND) in a multi-license OR we limit the policy to what the rationale justifies, which is cases like this ONLY.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY-SA plus CC-BY-NC means that noncommercial users can make a derivative work but not be bound by a license. The authors are giving up additional rights beyond CC-BY-SA in that case. Multi-licensing with other free licenses is also quite common, as many of those licenses are not directly compatible and can cause issues in derivative works. The more licenses you add, the more situations you are allowing it to be used in, in general. There are a few nonsensical combinations but not many. I'm not sure that most of those situations are intentionally trying to obscure the free license, but if you think they are, bring it up with the user (please assume good faith), or feel free to edit the pages to make that more obvious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To return to why I started this topic, the project page should be amended to read more like you have provided here, since it is more logical than the current "explanation." Re "feel free to edit the pages," even hinting that one is going to do this inevitably gets people's backs up (e.g. "Just who are you to question of one our best uploaders? I'd rather have his contributions than your crappy work. You are strongly advised to back off."), and given that the community here is dominated by uploaders instead of users, as individual uploaders we have a self-interest in rallying to the defence of any uploader whose "rights" are being challenged. Your calm and civil response is atypical; one generally needs a large posse and a lot of riot gear before daring to step on what uploaders consider to be their "turf." I've seen others indicate that they thought I had a point but they stayed on the sidelines because they didn't want to be attacked.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, there could be such thing as "creative commons compatible" licenses -- they are defined and referenced in the CC legal code -- but they have to be actually listed at CC's site and none are listed yet. Yes, editing people's licenses can be an aggressive thing to do, particularly without prior discussion -- which is why I primarily recommended posting a note on their talk page, explaining the confusion you felt reading the license, and seeing if they can fix it themselves. That would also usually mean they will correct things on future uploads as well. Adding the {{Self}} template is probably not all that aggressive, though of course the users can edit the pages right back. Keep in mind though that the copyright owner can specify a few things within the bounds of a CC license, and they can also request anything else, provided it is not a requirement. It is common for people to ask for a notification of third-party as a courtesy, although that is not a requirement, and so not at odds with the license (making notification a requirement is a problem though). A "posse" should hopefully not be necessary if you are polite, and are open to the possibility that you yourself could be wrong (i.e. misunderstood something). If there is a disagreement over the nature of some custom text (i.e. does it go beyond the allowed bounds the CC license or not) then bring up the question in a community forum somewhere so others can add their opinions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone on the sidelines, I strongly disagree with your proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you have a supporting argument for your opinion? Just what is the proposal in your view? I didn't think there was a specific proposal out there but here's one: in the sentence on the Project page that says "...multi-licensing allows people who create derivative work...", insert "without a derivative works restriction potentially" after "multi-licensing."--Brian Dell (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I choose not to get into it with you; I was merely pointing out that you can't claim the people on the sidelines as your supporters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I ever claimed that everyone on the sidelines shares my concerns. I said I've seen evidence of SOME, and I said that not in order to make some claim about popularity but to support my observation that Carl's proposed remedy of having volunteers take up problem licenses with the license creators under status quo policy is like sending out a repo man without a writ. The reality of pushback means a bot should do the job, uploaders should be forced to use standard license templates, and/or the policy should be very specific about where the line is so there isn't an argument every time about whether it has been crossed. I'll readily grant that most Commons Talk page readers and even more Talk page participants do not share my concerns because the great majority of them are primarily uploaders to the Commons as opposed to downloaders.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the proposal. I think it reflects an assumption of bad faith to suppose that multilicensing is being done solely to sow confusion. If confusion is happening, we can do something with the formatting/style to make it less confusing. In reality, a multilicensed work is even more free than a non-multilicensed work, and I'd frankly love to see all CC-BY-SA works on Commons under CC-BY-SA/CC-BY-NC. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, in fact, true that multilicensed works are generally more free (than the freest license among them would be alone). They can be more free in certain circumstances as has been explained here (and not explained on the Project page) but these circumstances are rare; - I've been around here a while and I've never seen such a case in practice! Whenever I've seen a non-free license without the SA/copyleft restriction that the free license has, the non-free license slaps on a ND restriction thereby voiding any gain (share-alike restricts how you can license your modifications to a work, but replacing a SA with a ND doesn't allow you to modify in the first place!) Anyway, with respect to clearing up confusion, how about this proposal: when one or more licenses are non-free, users must be advised that they can choose their license. I've seen cases where users contacted uploaders to ask questions about this and were incorrectly advised that they could not choose their license.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a bot run around to all images which have two or more licenses, and add a wrapper indicating that a downstream user can choose the license they want. While such a wrapper is occasionally seen now, it sows some confusion when it isn't seen. Especially when uploading a new crop or a slightly altered version, I've been confused as to whether I must use all the licenses of the parent image, or if I could choose the license I preferred. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, in most cases multilicensing works is "more free". You are automatically giving up all necessary rights with the free license, and any additional licenses are giving permission for use in other circumstances. Multilicensing is usually used with both a Creative Commons license and one or more non-Creative Commons licenses (particularly the GFDL), meaning the work can be used in situations which are already making use of those other licenses, in addition to what the Creative Commons license allows. Sometimes people will multi-license with different versions (i.e. both 2.5 and 3.0) of the CC licenses... there can actually be good reasons for that, and is quite valid. Or, something like the Free Art License in combination with a NC type of CC license -- that user may not like the particulars of the CC legal code and wishes to avoid the usual versions. This usually comes into play with derivative works... you cannot use both GFDL and CC-BY-SA works in another work which is derivative of both of them, even those both originals are "free", since the licenses both require their own license to be used for the result and they are not compatible. Same goes with the FAL most likely. Giving people multiple options means greater freedom to create such derivative works. Agreed that multi-licensing different types of Creative Commons licenses generally does not make sense outside of the CC-BY-SA/CC-BY-NC combination, but I haven't really seen that happen in practice that much. The bot idea may have merit, though since we have made it particularly hard to have a NC license (the tags with that name usually redirect to copyvio) it may be hard for a bot to pick up these particular situations since they are often either subst'ed text or a user-custom template. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we could just stay on topic here, at issue are multi-licenses that include non-free licenses, not multi-licenses in general (note the rest of the sentence when I claimed that it's not true "that multilicensed works are generally more free..."). Under current policy, a CC-BY-NC-ND/Free Art multilicense is fine and when I've seen these on the Commons they've furthermore never been accompanied with any indication that downloaders can choose their license. How does adding the CC-BY-NC-ND give downloaders any more rights that the Free Art license alone? Whatever these rights are, I suggest that a downloader would have to be extremely familiar with the details of licensing to make use of them, such that for the vast majority of potential downloaders, the license just creates the impression that it is NC and ND restricted.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users already have the rights conferred by the FAL in that case; adding the CC license may be helpful in certain circumstances. It certainly can't hurt a thing, which is the main point. Copyright owners have every right to license their own works in whatever manner they like, so if that's what they want to do, then fine -- they must have their reasons, and we don't have to know why. Perhaps a re-user is non commercial and not making a derivative work, and is more comfortable with the CC license family and does not want to risk using the FAL. While similar, they are differently legally, and who knows what details may be a problem. The FAL requires to specify where to access the originals, for example, while the CC family does not -- who knows, maybe that is an issue for some odd reason. You are correct that CC licenses with an ND provision do remove most of the situations where it is useful to add them, but who knows. In the end though, authors can license works as they wish, and there is absolutely no reason (nor right) for us to interfere with that. Provided that at least one of the options is "free", then we can host it. The only possible issue is not making clear they are two separate options, or if maybe if there is a nonsensical combination (CC0 with another, or CC-BY with CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-SA or something). Though sometimes even at first blush it seems nonsensical, it may not be -- files which were dual licensed CC-BY-2.5 and GFDL got CC-BY-SA-3.0 added during the re-licensing stuff, which due to the version numbers is not completely redundant to CC-BY-2.5. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is simple: free images for free new knowledge. No pictures for commercial parasites! --89.246.63.155 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found an example of cc-zero files multilicensed under other licenses: Template:TUBS/licensesection and other files by the user. They are tagged with cc-zero and PD-self, but also the GFDL, the FAL, and every CC unported free license. I've been removing the licenses other than cc-zero and PD-self, since they have no meaning of any sort, but the author reverted these changes, saying that it's "the authors choice not yours". Does it make any sense to have these, and is there a good reason to remove them? —innotata 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually more complicated than that. Some of the images tagged with this template cannot be released in the public domain, as they are derivatives of GFDL/cc-by-sa-licensed images (for example, File:Bavaria OAL.svg is based on File:Bavaria location map.svg; as it stands, File:Bavaria OAL.svg is a copyright violation). So User:TUBS should actually make sure she/he's not infringing on the copyright of others. But as for the images that are entirely her/his own work, I agree that only cc-zero should be retained. –Tryphon☂ 19:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there enough reason to remove, though? Surely most or all of the other licenses aren't even valid, since copyright and all rights are released under cc-zero —innotata 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an important reason to keep the other licences: in some countries (at least Finland, but probably all of EU) the PD-self and cc-zero may be legally invalid. Therefore it is important that there is some other licence that we can use without legal risk (and of course possibility to choose among other licences is good).
The problem is that you cannot give up your moral rights other than for specific limited use. The "waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law" is not waiving any moral rights as neither the law nor the licence specifies such specific limited conditions.
You can of course, in most cases, comply with the law by attributing the author etc., but I am not sure there are no problems. At least derivative works or copies having lost the original attributions may be problematic.
--LPfi (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No Known Restrictions" Question

Merged to Commons:Help_desk#License_Question

FAA aeronautical charts

Hello,

at http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications the en:Federal Aviation Administration provides tons of high-quality en:Aeronautical charts for the US. Is it correct that those are all {{PD-USGov-FAA}}? At least some of them could be of great value for us. To get an example you could go to the VFR Terminal Area charts, download one of the (rather big) zip-archives and open the TIF-file that has a "TAC" in its name. There are also other types of Maps such as en:Airport diagrams and en:Enroute charts, some of them just scanned, others as georeferenced Geo-Tiff or vector-graphics (PDF). Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all FAA charts for places in the USA (and probably those elsewhere) are PD.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. --El Grafo (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Commons allow me to violate the law?

I am a citizen of Russia. Russian Civil Code articles deny me from publishing architectural photos under any free license without permission from the architect. Another user tells me: where the threshold of originality is not met, Commons have the official practice to ignore any further law or civil code. Does this mean that I, being a citizen of Russian Federation and acting in my homeland, gain a right to ignore the Civil Code of the country? How can this be? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the quirks of the Commons. My understanding is that, strictly speaking, because the Commons servers are located in Florida, USA, we take the position that only US laws govern the hosting of files in the Commons – the laws of other countries are not applied. It is for individual users to decide whether the laws of the countries they are living in permit them to upload particular files to the Commons or download files for use. However, one important exception to this position is that we require public-domain files to be in the public domain both in their source countries and in the US. Again, I understand that this is not because it is a legal requirement in the US but because we want to ensure that such files are free to use anywhere in the world from a copyright point of view. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Commons takes into account FOP in other countries?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason as I stated above, as I understand it: to ensure that images are as free as possible from a copyright perspective. Here at the Commons, we seem to be concerned primarily with copyright, and to a lesser extent privacy law. We do not, though, concern ourselves with other potentially applicable non-copyright restrictions that might apply in various countries such as laws prohibiting the display of Nazi material, censorship laws, laws prohibiting the use of images of people taken in a public place without their permission, and so on. I readily agree that this seems rather arbitrary, but I believe that's the position taken here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your point. You are asserting that Russian law imposes a copyright-related restriction on the reproduction of architectural works by way of photographs. If you think this is a problem, you should raise it at "Commons talk:Freedom of panorama" or here, providing links to the relevant laws and/or interpretations of such laws. (Do raise the issue in one place, not multiple places.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MosMetro_VDNKh_2011.jpg. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have the right and obligation to think for yourself. Sometimes Commons won't agree on an interpretation of the law with you, and in reality Commons is formally bound by different laws then you, no matter what rules it decides to make. If Commons chooses an interpretation you disagree with, at a certain point the only solution is to let it go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "another user tells" you is not set in stone. Most of these deletions are done by two sysops, it's either User:Jcb or User:Jameslwoodward. They usually have opposite views on this subject. One case doesn't mean much; nominate more and more and files will end up with "the right" admin. Or get the button yourself. NVO (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JCB, in particular, appears to have an... unorthodox... view on the threshold of originality for buildings. I think it would probably be a good idea to have more input about this issue, and about many of the keeps that are in this category (buildings in non-FOP countries that are kept because they supposedly aren't original enough for copyright). Buddy431 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Ireland}}

I have just deprecated this template. It needs someone competent in copyrights to find and replace all uses of it. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with it? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland does not have any provisions beyond 70 years pma (covered by {{PD-old-70}}/{{Anonymous-EU}} already), so there's no need to have a template specifically for Ireland (similarly to how we don't have {{PD-Slovenia}} or {{PD-Lithuania}} either). -- Prince Kassad (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking it should be redirected to PD-old-70, since everything it was supposed to cover was 70 pma/70 years after publication if anonymous. —innotata 22:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps of Nepal

Hi all, does anyone know if Nepal's postage stamps (1970's and younger) are under copyright? Thanks, - Till (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Nepal The Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) Nepalese copyright last for 50-years pma, unless we define stamps as being objects of "applied arts" in whcih case the term is 25-years from the creation of the work, per Chapter-3 Term of protection of Copyright found on this WIPO webpage. While the Government claims copyright of it own work there is nothing that shows the term varies from the defined periods. This 50-year period is very similar to many other countries' copyright terms as seen at Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and Commons:Stamps/Public domain. So right now, 1961 is the cut off point. I'll see if we can add a suitable template and details to the appropriate pages. Ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the quick and detailed answer. - Till (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applied art?

Per the previous post about Nepalese stamps, do we consider postage stamps to be applied art or not? Ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on the design itself. Stamps can reproduce straight-up artistic works like paintings or photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy Band recordings

Hi folks, I hope this is the right place to ask this question. I noticed that someone uploaded File:Majulah Singapura instrumental.ogg, a recording of the national anthem of Singapore made by the United States Navy Band. The recording's tagged as {{PD-USGov}}; however, the Navy Band's own website states (e.g. at [1]) that "[t]he music files on this website are intended for official use by Department of Defense and U.S. government offices only. Exceptions to this policy will be considered on a case-by-case basis".

I'm just curious. Is the Navy Band able to put such restrictions (if they are indeed supposed to be restrictions — strictly speaking, they only talk about what the files are "intended" for) on these recordings? -- Schnee (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this really means much: these being published, I don't think there are any copyright restrictions except with copyrighted compositions (which might be part of the reason for the statement, and I'd guess Singapore's is copyright), or any non-copyright restrictions (and see en:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates/Archive_5#Govt_PD_avoidance and other discussions on enwiki). —innotata 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the clarification and the link! -- Schnee (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the national anthem of Singapore will not enter into the public domain until 2058, 70 years after en:Zubir Said's death. That affects File:Majulah Singapura instrumental.ogg and File:Singapore National Anthem at the National Museum, Singapore - 20100720.jpg, not to mention wikisource:Onward Singapore. Maybe there's something I'm missing. Powers (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National anthems are kinda weird. They are more a national symbol and probably not subject to normal copyright (i.e. there is no way the composer gets royalties every time it's performed). In particular, U.S. law does not allow copyright on laws, i.e. {{PD-EdictGov}}, and it sounds like this is the case -- the law apparently even contains the official score. So there is no copyright in the U.S. (I reverted your change in en-wiki since they follow U.S. law). In any event, it sounds like it was commissioned by the government, and almost certainly it would be considered a governmental copyright within Singapore, if it exists there, given their old copyright law (and actually that was made while still a UK territory, so would have been Crown Copyright at the time). It might, though not in the U.S. I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the Navy Band Recordings, they are public domain (confirmed by the US Navy, sent to OTRS at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3915168&ArticleID=4462617&QueueID=53&Session=10a5ea4dee1d50380242772b4a25a34a47). So the recordings themselves are Public domain, but as for the anthems themselves, it is a case by case basis. For Singapore, the song was created in the 1950's, but the author did not die until the 1980's (so the 70 year term is not even up). Also for sound recordings, it is 70 years. I honestly think it would have to be deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sound recording is PD-USGov, and not a work of a Singaporean at all. That part is fine. The copyright in the anthem would not have been owned by the individual at all, but rather by the Singaporean government, as it would have been Crown Copyright at the time, and probably a governmental copyright now, if it still exists. That copyright may still exist in Singapore though. I think it was 50 years from publication at the time it was published but may have been extended to 70 (in 2005) before that expired. On the other hand, the song is effectively PD in the country where the recording was made, making this a bit more twisted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Majulah Singapura instrumental.ogg", I think that the musical work underlying the recording is still under copyright. I suspect that since the piece was commissioned by the City Council of Singapore in 1958, the copyright is owned by the Government of Singapore (presumably the successor of the City Council). The copyright in such a work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published by or under the direction or control of the Government: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". Thus, the work probably enters the public domain in 2028. I should point out that Powers justifiably noted that "[a] commissioned work of art is not the same as a work for hire. We would need more evidence that the copyright was assigned to the City than merely the fact that it was commissioned." — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need to be careful with non-retroactive extensions of copyright terms; in this case I think you're right but if the song had been done four years earlier it would not have been. And Crown Copyright was pretty aggressive when it comes to commissioned works, and current Singapore law looks similar. So yes, I think it was a government copyright. Carl Lindberg 04:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate.jpg

The President released a copy of his birth certificate today. (For background, see en:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.) The image is claimed to be public domain as it was published without a copyright notice prior to 1977. I don't think that's correct, though. It was created without a copyright notice in 1961, but it wasn't published until 2011. Is there some better public domain rule that applies here (eg, ineligible for copyright as there is no original authorship)? --UserB (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Trycatch, this is a filled out form, looks like a case of {{PD-ineligible}} Hekerui (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It contains a fair amount of text, but it's facts, no "creative spark". Dcoetzee (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a licencing.

I found a multiple licensing at File:2010-05-breda-fahrradschilder-by-RalfR-10.jpg. It seems to refer to a licence for non-commercial use. In the edit mode, the texte of the licencing does not show. Can someone check this file licencing? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's licensed GFDL-1.2, see User:Ralf Roletschek/Lizenz. The user also added a CC non-commercial license, but we use it under the terms of the GFDL. That is a highly discouraged practice, given the impractabilities of that license, but you can use it commercially under the terms of the GFDL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean, the non-commercial restricftion is not valid? And shoulnd't then the non-coomercial restriction be removed? But I can't remove it, seems to be in some template. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the author has added additional licenses which may be of use outside of Commons. They can add as many licenses as they want; as long as one is "free" then we can host the work under those terms. Carl Lindberg 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps uploaded by User:SeikoEn

This user seems to have a long history of uploading images that subsequently are deleted for their dodgy copyright status.

Now this user has made a bunch of maps of the history of the Ukraine. These maps are useful, as we do not seem to have any alternative maps showing the same level of detail for this particular topic. But there are, again, copyright issues.

  • To begin with, the uploader has inserted frames with text in the images, and that text seems to have been pulled off copyrighted sources.

These insets could just be cropped off, allowing us to keep the map without the text, but the user is very protective about his files, and calls such an approach "vandalism".

  • The source for the blank backround map of Europe used is not indicated. It is not any of the free blank maps available on commons. If it turns out that a copyrighted background has been used for these maps, they are not freely redistributable and will need to be deleted altogether.

I will be grateful if other people look into this and comment.

The maps in question are the following:

--Dbachmann 09:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. Text was collected from various sources both free (e.g. File:East Slavic tribes peoples 8th 9th century.jpg -- Wikipedia) and non-free (e.g. File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg -- Encyclopedia of Ukraine) without any attribution. What about the source of the blank map, I suspect it's File:Template europe map.png, again used without attribution. In the end there are problem with these maps, but it seems at first sight that these problems are solvable, and giving heavy usage of maps it's better to solve problems instead of deletion. Trycatch 14:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice detective work. I agree it'd be a shame to lose these if the problems are solvable with attribution. Have you talked to the uploader to see if he or she would be willing to add the necessary attribution? If not, the uploader needs to be reminded of our requirements here, but then you can go ahead and add the attribution yourself. As for the text, if it comes from a non-free source, by all means enforce its removal via a deletion request if necessary. Otherwise, if you think non-captioned versions would be useful, feel free to create a derivative work and upload it under a new filename. Powers 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source map you found was generated via the Generic Mapping Tools project; this could very well have been done the same way without being a direct derivative of that file. Carl Lindberg 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from movie trailer

I've read a number of the discussions about using screenshots from movie trailers;

I've also read these related offsite links;

These say that using a screenshot from a movie trailer is OK under certain conditions.

Before 1923

Films and trailers published in USA before 1923 are in the public domain because the terms have expired.

Between 1923 and 1977

Trailers are in the public domain if they meet both these conditions;

  1. First published in the United States
  2. Do not have a copyright notice anywhere during the trailer (view entire trailer to be certain)

Some examples would be File:Howard Hawks'Rio Bravo trailer (26).jpg and File:Audrey Hepburn War&Peace.jpg.

I have a few questions

  1. Is this still the current situation?
  2. Should files like this have "trailer" appended to the end of the filename?
  3. Should these files be high resolution and high quality?
  4. Is the proper license {{PD-US-no notice}}
  5. Should these files always be added to Category:Film trailer screenshots?

Thanks for any help - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your appraisal is correct as far as I can tell. Some trailers with a copyright notice are still PD due to lack of registration or renewal, but this is more difficult to establish. To answer your questions, the file should be as high quality and high resolution as possible, including the word "trailer" in the filename is a good idea, {{PD-US-no notice}} is the right tag, and that category looks appropriate. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-old-auto}} and {{PD-old-50}}

{{PD-old-auto}} looks like it rather needs to be changed. It uses months to calculate the applicable copyright term, which I don't think any countries use: certainly, most calculate from the end of the year of death. It also only supports values above 70 pma.

Also, why does {{PD-old-50}} say we should have country-specific tags for countries with shorter copyright terms? We don't do anything like this for countries with 70 pma+ terms, and I'd think it's undesirable for straight cases of 100, 70, 50 etc years pma. —innotata 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed {{PD-old-auto}}. It now only uses the year to calculate which PD template to use. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should it also include shorter terms than 70 p.m.a., though? —innotata 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of the world is on shorter terms than 70 p.m.a., why shouldn't it? A billion Indians should be able to know that a work is free in their nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added support for PD-old-50 to PD-old-auto. Enjoy! Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of political parties in Singapore

Are "File:SPP logo variation.png" and "File:WP logo variation.png" simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second one I would not call PD-ineligible; the first one is borderline. Powers 17:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that neither are PD-ineligible and should be transferred back to the English Wikipedia and used under a fair-use justification. Let's see if there are other views. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Jacklee is from Singapore, I'd go with his opinion. Neither is really {{PD-textlogo}} in any case, but I think they are both on the bad side of a close call on PD-ineligible.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, send both back to en.wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tool I can use to transfer images from the Commons back to the English Wikipedia, like a reverse-CommonsHelper? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I drew each of the diagrams myself, and I took pains to ensure they are not 100% carbon copies of the originals. Perhaps it is only courteous to at least drop me a line to advise tweaking the images further first before taking the above actions?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I thought the problematic images could simply be moved back to the English Wikipedia and used under a fair-use justification. What I did not realize was that they are being used in templates, and fair-use images are not permitted in templates. But I do not think that tweaking the images a bit will help. They will have to be redrawn more substantially so they are dissimilar from the original logos, otherwise they are still derivative works of the latter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the problem with logos. If you redraw the logo so that it is different enough to be a separate work, then it's no longer an accurate representation of the logo -- which means it's out of scope for Commons. Powers (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take such a hard line. I don't see why a novel symbol of some sort should be regarded as out of scope. Let's say I create a new symbol promoting animal welfare that is not actually the logo of any organization. Why should that symbol automatically be nixed if it is useful for use in templates (such as WikiProject banners) and such? In the present case, Huaiwei has redrawn the two logos in question so they are no longer derivative works of the original logos, but in such a way that they may still be used at small sizes in templates. I think that is within scope. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray photograph of a budgerigar

May I upload a radiograph of a budgerigar? The x-ray photograph ist certainly not made by me, but by my veterinarian. I think there is no creation height in this graph.-- Hägarien (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where the radiograph was taken, I think. If it was taken in Austria or Germany then images such as X-ray photographs are not copyrightable. But if it was taken in a common law jurisdiction such as the UK, then it might be. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It ist a german one. What kind of license does it need?-- Hägarien (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. We don't have a specific copyright tag for this, I believe. I tried proposing an update to "Commons:Licensing#Germany" that would mention the distinction between creative (Lichtbildwerke) and non-creative works (Lichtbilder) in Germany (see "Commons:Licensing/sandbox") but there was no consensus for its adoption at the time. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absent a specific German tag, I'd use {{PD-ineligible}}, with a full explanation in the "Permission" field of the Information template. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I asked in the german wikipedia - they recommended me to get the license from the vet. Thanks -- Hägarien (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, X-rays are protected in Germany as Lichtbild and thereby are protected for 50 years. See de:Bildrechte#Röntgenaufnahmen (in German). --Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a new licence tag? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad photos

The Twitter user who first mentioned helicopters over Abbottabad has since posted a few cellphone photos of the area, including the third one in this tweet of the actual compound. In this tweet, he mentions that "The images I uploaded (from my cellphone) can be used freely". Is that enough for a {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag, or would a more explicit statement be required? Wondering what people think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A more explicit statement would be required. In particular, modifications and commercial uses must be explicitly permitted, and the permission must be perpetual. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of language teaching materials

Hello there Commons people! I have done a lot of work on the English Wikipedia but I'm generally quite clueless when it comes to images and their copyright problems. As such I have a question: I would like to use this image of a one-one-one language course taught using the Silent Way, in the article en:Silent Way. I know that I need to get permission to use this image under an acceptable license from the copyright owner. I haven't done this yet, but let us suppose that I have, and that there are no problems with uploading the image itself to Commons. The problem is that the charts in the background of this image are copyrighted (I think by The Cuisenaire Company, but I am checking this). Does the appearance of copyrighted charts in the background of this particular image mean that I wouldn't be able to use it without the permission of the Cuisenaire Company as well? This is beyond my expertise, and I would appreciate any help you can give. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one of them is this chart. Both charts seem to consist of rather simple text. If uploaded on their own, something like that would probably be uncontroversially tagged with {{PD-text}}. Even if it were eligible for copyright protection, it takes up only a small part of the photo, it is not a primary subject of the photo, and it's inclusion seems to be incidental, which makes it de minimis. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the image. Thank you very much for the reply! I shall ask permission for the de minimis image and see if I have any luck. There's one more thing, too - I'm intrigued now that you say the chart could be uncontroversially added to Commons. If it is possible then I want to upload these images [4][5][6] to Commons and add them to the Silent Way article. After some more searching it appears (from some of the image files themselves) that the copyright belongs to Caleb Gattegno, the inventor of the Silent Way, who according to his English Wikipedia article passed away in 1988. The images are all colour-coded using the same system, one colour for one English sound, and I would think that anyone claiming copyright on the images would point to that innovation as being central to the work and taking the mixture of colour and text (or colour and rectangles in the third image) over the threshold of originality. Do you still think uploading these images would be ok? I don't want to cause unnecessary work for people by starting deletion discussions, etc. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just received a reply stating that "all the published works of the late Dr Caleb Gattegno including the Silent Way are now owned either by Educational Solutions Inc (now in Toronto) or by the owner of that company, Eaton Donald." So the claim to copyright is definitely present. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly done the right thing by asking before uploading when in doubt – I wish more people would do that! Regarding copyright as a result of coloring, here is what the United States Copyright Office writes in its Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices: "In determining the registrability of a print, the copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." This case involves other jurisdictions, but I personally find it unlikely that simple coloring of letters would give rise to copyright elsewhere. Furthermore, copyright protects originality in expression, whereas in this case, the coloring is not done for creative effect, but to encode a factual property. Copyright does not protect facts.
I think you would be unlikely to incur problems from Commons itself by uploading either the photograph (provided that you obtain the photographer's permission) or the charts that you and I linked to. As you've noted, Educational Solutions Inc. appears to assert copyright, and there is of course nothing to guarantee that they would not make your life difficult to protect their business model, regardless of the merits of their claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick and informative reply! I'm glad I asked. I shall upload them when I next have the chance. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there were more extensive text (say a paragraph) spelled out it might rise to to the level of copyrightability, but there just isn't enough text there as it stands. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Yemen

I wonder if this template still actual? It was created in 2007, but in 2008 Yemen became a member of Berne Union, so duration of copyright in Yemen can't be less than 50 pma. I can't find in the web a new Yemeni IP law or something, though. Trycatch (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, as of early 2010, they have drafted new laws but not yet passed them. So they are not compliant with Berne really, unless the situation has changed since. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's what was needed. Trycatch (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to add this to Commons? Pöide St. Mary's church photo

Would it be OK to transfer this photo from the German wiki to Commons? My understanding is yes. If I am wrong then where? My German is too poor to understand all details. --Neolexx (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its ok, use CommonsHelper. I will transfer the image for you to File:Dorfkirche Peude, 2005.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link and for your assistance. --Neolexx (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Licensing&oldid=54134130"