Shortcut: [[:]]

Archives 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)

• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive Ancient (Up to October 2004)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 1 (Oct. 2004 – March 2006)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 2 (March 2006 – June 2006 )
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 3 (May–June )
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 4 (July–August 2006 )
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 5 (September 2006 – March 2007 )
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_6
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_7
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_8
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9

• 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 If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.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)

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Review of license templates

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/U.S. patents

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Ecoport copyleft

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

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

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?

Image:Google.png = {{PD-textlogo}} ? Spellcast (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. It's stylized and not plain text. Also, Google itself claims copyright on it.[1] Rocket000(talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the U.S. Copyright Office says "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are generally not eligible for copyright. Adding shadowing (variation of ornamentation) and adding coloring does not seem sufficient. I don't see that the Google page link explicitly says the logo is copyrighted; it, rather, lumps it in with other IPs (the logo is most certainly trademarked, thus the TM - no ©, however). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the linked page, but I still think this passes the creativity threshold. At least in the U.S. Rocket000(talk) 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with applying the creativity threshold (I assume you mean the threshold of originality) is that the reasoning underlying the Copyright Office's statement is that text is a "useful article". Imagine, for example, all of the creativity and design (originality) that went into this car; it doesn't amount to anything copyright-wise, however, as the creative elements cannot be separated and recognizable apart from the "intrinsic utilitarian function"; so, too, is the case with text. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that might qualify as copyrightable is the 3D effect they use, probably a Photoshop bevel effect. Borderline, at best. There is a Wired article on the logo's creation... not sure if the copyright statement there is something that Google is actually claiming copyright on the logo (most of the versions there would qualify), or just a typical statement to put there out of habit. My guess is PD-ineligible, but it is a pretty high-profile one to claim that on ;-) The non-3D version would most certainly be PD-textlogo, and we could probably get an SVG of that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the typeface wouldn't be copyrightable, the logo wouldn't be as well. But according to that article it seems to be a commercial font. →Christian.И 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Typeface as typeface" is not eligible for copyright in the U.S. Font files can be copyrighted as a computer program, but not the visual appearance (i.e. result of using them). Other countries are different, but that is the long-standing U.S. position. That is also why Commons can host the SVG samples used in that article ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it is. I agree the typeface itself isn't the copyrighted. Color doesn't matter. That leaves the shadows/styling, which is borderline in it's originality (IMO, it shouldn't be anywhere close to passing that threshold, but I don't decide these things). BTW, we have File:Google g.png Rocket000(talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Wikipedia one for deletion. As for the others, I think they're all copyrighted except the word-mark. However, my position has always been that it's ridiculous to claim heavily protected trademarks are free content. Superm401 - Talk 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User who often confuse trademark protection and copyright protection should be blocked immediately ... We cannot host any photo of a living person because it isn't free in a dogmatic sense --Historiograf (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me, Historiograf? I assure you that I am not confusing trademark and copyright protection. However, you seem to be confusing personality rights and trademark. Superm401 - Talk 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite mistaken on that topic... otherwise all of the photos we have of living people, such as Jimmy Wales will have to be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? Neither I nor Historiograf am suggesting deleting personality rights images. Superm401 - Talk 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? lol I though this was about Google's logo. Rocket000(talk) 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wiki commons. There are so many licensing when it comes to uploading images. I am trying to upload images from a book that I will shown in my wiki book. What is the most efficient way to do that? and under what licensing will I used to make images available for everyone else to view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdv2754 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Posting in the middle of this page is normally a good way to have your question overlooked.

• Have you made these diagrams yourself? In that case, you must choose a license, we cannot do it for you. Start by reading this very brief overview, and then read the linked pages there to learn more about licensing.
• If these are not your own creations, the license is determined by the source where you got the images from. Assuming you're talking about the text at b:Metabolomics/Metabolites/Lipids/Energy Storage:
  • Triglyceride appears to be © All rights reserved, at best non-commercial only, and thus must not be uploaded here.
  • Beta-Oxydation comes from Steve Cook; the correct license is {{GFDL}}.
  • Anything here is © 2006 American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, so it also cannot be uploaded here.

And so on... images scanned from a book can be uploaded here only if you state which book it is, and if the images are out of copyright. For recent publications (and I presume any text on lipids on that level will be recent), the images are not free unless explicitly stated so, and thus must not be uploaded here. Lupo 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English Wikipedia there is an excellent SVG file of the flag of NATO (w:Image:Flag of NATO.svg), created by en:User:Mysid. However it is labeled as "Non-free image data" and has Fair Use Rationales for inclusion in some WP articles. There is a claim that the source is from the NATO web site (page http://www.nato.int/multi/natologo.htm ), which is not true, as the NATO page only includes two poor quality bitmaps. Is it perhaps the result of confusing copyright with trademark and similar restrictions?

My personal view is that, if the copyright owner en:User:Mysid agrees, it can be given a free license (GNU or whatever) with an "Insignia" qualification to cover possible restrictions of use. In this case it would be possible to transfer it to Commons.

May I have your views on this subject? Sv1xv (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

w:Image:Flag of NATO.svg is a derivative work of the proprietary NATO flag, and is not free. Superm401 - Talk 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of NATO.svg. Superm401 - Talk 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is PD-ineligible... that is a pretty standard representation of a compass, with a couple of extra lines. However, as noted, it was moved to en-wiki earlier because it was previously deleted from commons, so they would be pretty gunshy about moving it back. My guess is that it is protected under trademark or other laws typical of national insignia. If someone independently drew it, especially a design this simple, they should own the copyright if any exists, I would think. Trademark and insignia laws obviously would prevent most usage. I think it is OK to host it here (since I think the non-commercial restriction is not copyright-based), but others may disagree. If you want to try, I would post the image at Commons:Undeletion requests and see what others think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An SVG file is not a derivative of a poor bitmap, it is original creative work. The reverse could be true: a PNG bitmap produced from an SVG is derivative work. And all this discussion about proprietary flags has nothing to do with copyright, it is a trademark-related issue and could be covered with the appropriate templates. Sv1xv (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't think the design is PD-ineligible, which means the flag would be both copyrighted and trademarked. Superm401 - Talk 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "PD-ineligible" assumption is difficult to prove or reject in an informal discussion and it's better to avoid using it. However I do not accept that the SVG is derivative work and that it infringes on a copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that he created a "flag of NATO" without basing it on the flag of NATO? Derivative include all forms of work created from and inspired by other works. It's not pixel for pixel, but it is obvious that Mysid's version is based on NATO's version and hence by definition is derivative. The fact that his version is an improvement in terms of how it renders is irrelevant. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "inspired by"... ideas are not copyrightable. A derivative must be recast, transformed, or adapted from an existing (copyrighted) work. You have to include some of the original expression in the new work. Going back to my original point though... do you consider this image a derivative work of the NATO flag? If not, what are the elements that make the SVG derivative but not that image? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I overstated that a little bit, though the point that this example is still derivative holds. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carl, I am really diasappointed with the views expressed by some users here in Commons. Instead of supporting freedom of expression, they try to enforce even more restrictive views than the current copyright laws. I wonder about their real motives. This "inspired by" is plainly wrong. It implies that if I see a nice painting or photo of the local lighthouse and I take my camera and tripode to produce a roughly similar photograph, I am violating the copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons must operate successfully within the current copyright laws, not the laws as we may prefer them to be. Your photograph example is a non-sequitor. The images on NATO's site and the images on en wiki are not created independently from some external reality. They are both designed to copy an original NATO flag, which is copyrighted. Superm401 - Talk 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that your view is an extreme and rather biased interpretation of the copyright laws. I feel that I made a mistake when I subscribed to Commons in the first place. Sv1xv (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I disagree that the NATO flag is copyrighted. Trademark/insignia is an entirely separate matter. I don't see any original authorship in that flag whatsoever... it is a stock version of a compass. Which goes back to the question I posed above... can you answer that? SVGs can certainly be derivative works of bitmaps (particularly if they are traced), but not when it only involves only common symbols. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems creative enough to me. The fact it is a flag for one thing, the presence of the broken and slanting connector on the thin parts of the points, the relative positioning and sizes of the circle and lines to the star. The standard for creativity is minimal, and this combination of elements is sufficient for me to believe copyright applies. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is low, but it is not minimal. From the Copyright Office: Copyrightability depends upon the presence of creative expression in a work, and not upon aesthetic merit, commercial appeal, or symbolic value. Thus, registration cannot be based upon the simplicity of standard ornamentation such as chevron stripes, the attractiveness of a conventional fleur-de-lys design, or the religious significance of a plain, ordinary cross. Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric r. figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations. To me, this is a pretty standard compass symbol with maybe a couple of minor variations, and a simple addition of a couple of lines (which are often present on compasses anyways). I don't think it approaches creative expression. The fact it is a flag doesn't mean anything at all (though it means quite a bit for trademark or insignia law, of course). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Supreme Court (Feist v. Rural) repeatedly and explicitly describe it as a "minimal degree of creativity", allowing for almost anything that is not either a mere copy of an existing work (as simple geometry is) or created through a mechanical process. To me, the NATO design, though limited, is sufficient to meet the historically very low standard. Dragons flight (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right... but there needs to be creativity. The Copyright Office guidelines take those decisions into account, and say that making slight alterations to common symbols is not creative at all. You need to create something new, something original, something not seen before. To me, the NATO design does not do that at all; it is a minor variation of a quite common symbol. The broken connectors do not always appear (see this version), so even if you consider that a copyrightable change (I don't) then they would be the property of the wikipedia contributor who drew that particular version. It might even have been a function of sizing down an image which had a very thin line to start with (look at the flag in the image on this page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trading emails with the publisher of Xcitement magazine regarding him licensing the images for use on Wikipedia, and what he's done is created a webpage by which he can place images which I can then move over to Commons. He's placed the page at xcitement[dot]com[slash]pictures (link partially disabled to prevent webspiders from casually finding it), but he's placed this as a header on it:

Xcitement Photos Licensed For Use By Wikipedia On Wikipedia using the Creative Commons (Attribution, ShareAlike) license” in exchange for link-backs to our site only. As is Wiki Policy Any way. Any one else If you landed here by accident This is a private page PLEASE LEAVE AND USE NOTHING!!! These Rights are granted to Wikipedia ONLY!!!

I'm just a lil' nervous about the final text; in one statement he's clearly stated that everything is CC'd; on the other that last sentence seems to kinda work against the Commons. I mean, he genuinely wants his photos to be used on Wikipedia; from his very first email to me:

"I would be very happy to work with Wikipedia. similar to haw you work with Lukeisback.com. I love Wikipedia, I use it and link to it often."

Any advise on what I should do? Is his statement on the header of the page acceptable? Also, when I upload, how should I tag the source for the image?? Should I link to the actual image page on the xcitement website? To the master page which I provided earlier? Or to the xcitement.com website, and if we go with this choice, how do I prevent the uploads from being tagged as {{nosource}}? Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These Rights are granted to Wikipedia ONLY!!!" indicates he doesn't accept that the license is valid for all third parties. In my opinion, the images should not be used. Superm401 - Talk 02:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he's dropped the last sentence and changed the sentence before to read "This is intended to be a private page..."; That clears up half the problem I had. Now, how do I credit the source for the image? Any suggestions?? Tabercil (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should credit the source as xcitement.com, as requested by the author. To avoid the {{No source}} issue, we could use a system similar to the Flickr review process (I've posted on the talk page). Otherwise, you could go through OTRS: it would probably take him the same amount of time to send the images by e-mail to you and OTRS than it will take to upload them on his website, so you could use that system instead. Pruneau^talk 10:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These images are not acceptable. The page says still "Licensed For Use By Wikipedia On Wikipedia" and "in exchange for link-backs to our site only". Forget it. That's a clear "Wikipedia-only" arrangement: images uploaded under these terms will be speedy-deleted here. Furthermore, we cannot promise any backlinks, especially not "backlinks to his site only". Either the images are released under CC-BY-SA, no strings attached, or the deal is off. Note that CC-BY-SA requires that the source be credited (on the image description page), but we cannot promise any exclusive backlinks. What if someone else adds a "See also these related pictures at competitor[dot]com"? Lupo 11:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lupo that the words "For Use By Wikipedia On Wikipedia" need to be dropped. As for only I'm not sure he meant it like Lupo understood it - I think he meant "Wikipedia can only use these images if they provide links to us". Haukurth (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work either. If these images are plain CC-BY-SA, they can also be used in print publications outside of Wikimedia projects, where no backlinks are even possible. They can, however, define how they should be credited, as say that for online publications, a backlink should be used, and for print publications, they want the URL mentioned. But then that would apply to all reusers who wanted to reuse these images under CC-BY-SA, not just to Wikipedia. Do they know about "nofollow"? Lupo 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all but I think the part about giving credit can possibly be explained to their satisfaction. The "Wikipedia only" aspect seems much more likely to be a deal-breaker. Haukurth (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this the same way as Haukurth. The header states "For use by WIkipedia on Wikipedia using a CC-BY-SA license in exchange for links back to our site only. As is Wiki policy anyway." That last part shows that the only refers to the linking, not to a WP-only licence (WP-only licences are certainly not "wiki policy anyway"). But it certainly is worth making sure he understands what a CC licence means. Pruneau^talk 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trading emails with him since the start trying to get the license issue settled out and I'd like to keep the amount of follow-up emails with him to a minimum. We've traded about a dozen so far and his last email contained the comment: "I am fedexing out a small vial of blood from my pointer finger and two spits of saliva on tuesday!" so he seems to getting a lil' tetchy at the moment. He's offering what could be an extensive collection of images as the magazine has been around for 16 years so I would really like to make all this work. As a result, I want to keep the number of future emails to a minimum so... what is the least amount of change that is needed to make his license statement work? Tabercil (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, understanding is kind of the key thing. If you make sure he understands that the CC-BY-SA license (and any other license we will accept) allows anyone to use the images, allows derivative works and allows commercial use and he still wants to contribute then we're all set. It's not as if we want to trick him into putting certain words in a certain order to achieve a magical effect. For wording I'd suggest something like: "I release the following images under the CC-BY-SA 2.5 license. Users of the images must attribute them to website X." They're perfectly entitled to specify the manner in which they must be credited. As far as I can tell they can certainly insist that a specific URL be used, even in a print publication. Haukurth (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already sent him a link to one of the videos hosted on the Creative Commons website as an attempt to enable him to see what the Creative Commons license means - specifically this one. Tabercil (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious whether the Wikipedia W like or is copyrightable or {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. Could someone please take a look at it? Thanks. (I'm no expert on this subject, please don't bite me if i didn't get it.) --Nerzhal | ?! 21:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these two images should not be copyrighted and could easily be tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}. --Kimse (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easily PD-ineligible. If anything does, that fits the definition of "text in a general typeface". Rocket000(talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed them to {{PD-ineligible}}, let's not promote copyfraud even it's freely licensed.Rocket000(talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK , thanks for attending to it. --Nerzhal | ?! 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy has no freedom of panorama. Does that mean that most photographs of Roma are copyright violations and aren't acceptable on Commons? --Kimse (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's possible that there may be a few copyvios on that page. I don't know when the architects of all these buildings died. A few images might merit checking, but mostly, it's really old buildings, built before there even was copyright, or where the architects must have died more than 70 years ago. Images of modern buildings or sculptures would not be ok. Lupo 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Lupo. I'll check the modern buildings and sculptures to see if I can find out the time when they were built. --Kimse (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The important question is "when did the architect die?" Lupo 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this in English, so that a wide range of editors can view it if needed. The old Kremlin template was deleted, due to the Kremlin website not clearly allowing commercial work etc.

I uploaded a number of photos from the Kremlin website, using Template:PD-RU-exempt, and these were deleted from Commons using the above deletion discussion as a reference. Some of the photos I uploaded were from here (use these photos as a guide for this discussion)

A point in the deletion discussion mentioned that:

1. The website usage allowance doesn't allow for derivative, etc
2. Photos on the site are credit to Joe Smith.

These photos are different, in that they are not authored by and/or credited to individuals, but are clearly credited to Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office.

As you can see from Template:PD-RU-exempt, official documents of state government agencies are not subject to copyright; the Presidential Executive Office (under the Directorate of the President I believe) being a State Government agency. As these photos are in effect official documents of that agency, they are not subject to copyright, and hence may be used on Commons without restriction, regardless of how vague the right to use on the site is.

Discussion needs to take place on this, as it is imperative that these free works be used by Commons and WP. Cheers --russavia (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An additional comment, it is the same licence (PD-RU-exempt), which allows for the Ukaz (President Decree) on South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence to be uploaded to Commons, and Medvedev's speech to uploaded to Wikisource. --russavia (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What is the copyright status of a single frame I take out of a movie? lets say I want to add photo to a page about some personality. It is ok to take single frame from a movie made about him and add it to the page?Assafn (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not unless the copyright law allows it. Usually this will be because the entire movie is out of copyright. Please do not upload anything still under copyright. -Nard the Bard 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken photos of plants and flowers in a park of modelgardens. For commercial purposes the name of the company should be mentioned with the photos. In the description I will mention where the photos have been taken. However what license should be used so that the user of the photo also mentions that?--Wouter (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this: for commercial purposes the name of the company should be mentioned? Nichalp (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example a photo of one of the modelgardens is used in a publicity picture where the garden is in the background with an overlay of garden tools to be sold by a company that sells the garden tools. An other example is that a photo of a fairly rare plant is used in the catalog of somebody else. In both cases the owner of the modelgardens may say "no problem when the photos are used but we want that always is mentioned 'this photo was taken in modelgarden XYZ'". I hope that this answers your question.--Wouter (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a derivative graphic from three/four icons. The problem is one is licenced under cc-by-sa, another under GFDL, and a third under GPL. So, how do I release this derivative work? Nichalp (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just screwed. Any chance of contacting the authors and getting them to multi-release? Haukurth (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did this (Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/License compatibility) ever materialise? Nichalp (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently uploaded an image on commons and would request some clarification for use in commons for image Image:Girl sufferedwithburnwounds.jpg. There may be potential disputes so wanted to present some facts for your opinion.

• The source of the image verifies the identity.
• Whether she is a christian can also be varified by a third party RS. See Reuters enclosure of images. [Reuters story in pictures]. It verifies the community background. I have not taken the image from Reuters as hat would be copyright violation.

Rather it is from a release by AICC. It is available on the AICC website for usage. See [AICC page] Please advise if I need to provide any more information. Of course, there can always be more for the sake of more but would appreciate if I have sufficient information or not. The original photographer is known to me. Please advise. Thank you so much for your help in advising. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is where that GFDL license comes from. I don't see anything on that site and there's no OTRS release. Haukurth (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Much appreciated. Since this is a local photographer, I needed to upload the photo myself and determine the best License for use. Based on the information available, do you propose any other license? I am not very well versed with licensing. All I know is that a) I know the photographer, b) the image is for release, c)image versacity is authenricated by Reuters as well and d) as long as the organization he is part of (AICC) gets the credits. Recordfreenow (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing a picture under the GFDL license irrevocably allows anyone to use the picture for any purpose, including commercial purposes. It also allows anyone to produce modified versions of the image. If the photographer is (verifiably) on board with that, that's great. If not, we'll probably not be able to host the image here. Note, however, that since this is a photograph of a person personality rights can come into play. Haukurth (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) If attribution is the only condition the photographer asks for, any CC-BY license would be fine. But if you know the photographer and/or are in contact with him you might ask him whether he wants to be credited by personal name (for security reasons eventually not) and if he agrees to a possible commercial use of that image, because that is a condition on Commons. Commercial use can be intentionally made more difficult by choosing the GFDL license as this requires to print the full license text besides the image, what is nearly impossible if you want to print the image on a t-shirt. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously wouldn't recommend putting this one on a t-shirt. Haukurth (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you understand why I wrote this? Photographers asked for a permission to upload their image on Commons sometimes hesitate when they hear or read that the image must be free also for commercial use. And they may be right to fear that their image is put on a jar or on a t-shirt and sold for money, as is fully o.k.in view of the license. In this situation it sometimes helps to explain what disadvantage a GFDL license has for re-users and to propose to use that license, and that can get you the consent of the copyright holder. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point I'm trying to get across is that personality rights may be a limiting factor even with no copyright restrictions. Haukurth (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I've tagged the image with PR. Also see my remark below. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually very helpful and does respond to my concern. Well above the facts stated above, I know that the little girl is a villager from a remote village in Khandamal. I know her name and a lot of othe details. These can be disclosed but I rather not if I dont have to. The pastor, who is the photographer but not the owner of photo, is also the regional secratary (equivalent to an area representative) of an advocacy group called wikipedia:All India Christian Council (AICC). Now since the photo is actually owned by AICC, would an e-mail from any AICC authorized representative with a Commons:Email templates to permissions-commonswikimedia.org be sufficient? Thanks for your time and effort. Much appreciated. Recordfreenow (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be fully o.k. to ask the permission from the AICC as the photographer has an official function in that group. The name of the girl should NOT be disclosed. But it might be interesting to know whether she is Christian. As the image was taken by the pastor, we are probably right to assume that her parents consented to the publication of the girls image. In the current situation it would be surely to much to ask for their consent. --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Túrelio, Done! E-mail sent by AICC to OTRS and permission received and follow-up also completed. Thanks for all your help. Recordfreenow (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article using this logo has been nominated for GA on english wikipedia and I want to be sure it does actually qualify under the liscence the uploader has used. My instinct would be to say no, and it should be being used as fair use because it seems to have a deffinate design about it. However I would not claim to be an expert in this particular area of copyright by far, can anyone advise? Million Moments (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAD is not a US federal organization, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, the logo is protected by copyright and not freely licensed. The logo is not simplistic enough to be licensed under {{PD-textlogo}} — the design of the letters A and D don't look like simple geometric shapes as mentioned in the license. I'd suggest to move it to English Wikipedia under fair use. By the way, Image:Nebraska USAD Gold medal.jpg cannot be hosted on Commons either as it is derivative work. --Kimse (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that image will also need it's copyright changing? Ok is their a procedure for me to move these images, or should I just nominate the image here for deletion and upload it to english wikipedia? Million Moments (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just copy it back then nominate the Commons copy for deletion (PD-textlogo is definitely not applicable here). It will be accepted as a fair use logo at en wiki. Superm401 - Talk 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help everyone! Million Moments (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably would have said PD-textlogo would apply -- otherwise you could argue that it is a derivative work of Image:17pStar.png or something similar. I don't think the jagged lines really qualified, as pretty much a section of a regular geometric shape, and color choice would not either. That would, to me, fall under the "aesthetically pleasing" but not copyrightable area. But, obviously, others disagree :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images such as Image:PBB Protein APC image.jpg are being uploaded but the license info does not seem to be properly formatted. These come from the PDB and are freely licenced, (see PDB Usage Policies) this for example is the source for APC. Is there any way to fix this automatically? They should be under a CC-attribution license to fit best with the PDB requirements. TimVickers (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know bots are to blame for many of our problems, like adding additional tags or rewriting history, but we can't blame them if it was incorrectly licensed to begin with, which was {{PD-release}}, aka {{PD-self}}. Unless the uploader is the author, this should have been {{PD-author|PDB}}. And we can never say something is under a certain license if it was never released under one, even if the terms are exactly alike. For things to be CC, the copyright holder must explicitly say it is. Rocket000(talk) 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Rocket000. However, I'm still a bit unclear about what you recommend we do. Do you mean that {{PD-author|PDB}} is the correct license? I wasn't sure about that, since the site seems to request attribution. TimVickers (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's says it's "free of all copyright restrictions", which I would interpret as {{NoRightsReserved}}. They say "Users of the data should attribute the original authors", but they don't try to make that a requirement. Superm401 - Talk 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! TimVickers (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the current transfers manually. The bot uploads have been using the Wikipedia template en:Template:PD-release, will this cause problems when other images are transferred to Commons? TimVickers (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, it should be corrected, but it's not a huge deal because they're both the same ultimate status, PD. Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the process of trying to get en:Old Trafford to Featured Article status. However, one person who commented at the FAC nomination had concerns about this image's licensing, particularly the fact that the uploader felt it necessary to say "use it free" in the description, despite uploading it as a public domain image. Can someone please help me with this, as it's quite important in getting the article to Featured Article status. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing seems all right to me and I thought I was a license hawk. The uploader hasn't been active for some months but s/he does have e-mail enabled. You could write to her/him to clarify what your FAC friends want clarified. Haukurth (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the uploader IRL, but my experience from no.wikipedia is that he is trustworthy and a serious editor. I have no reason to doubt that his uploaded images are his own. He might not care too much about which license to use and seems to pick a license at random when he uploads his photos, but he certainly wants other people to use his photos (he states here [In Norwegian] that he «just wants to share them»). He knows that all images must be freely licensed and he is obviously willing to do that. As his major in college was computer science, he should know what a free license is. --Kjetil_r 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the replies guys. I think that should be enough to sate the FAC reviewers. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain is not a license. However, he seems to have no objection to releasing all his rights. Superm401 - Talk 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know that, but it is usually too cumbering to write “… he might not care too much about which license to use or if he releases it into the public domain and seems to pick a license at random or release into the public domain when he uploads…” etc. --Kjetil_r 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wishes to give me photos they have taken, as well as all rights to the photos, with the understanding that they are to be uploaded to Wikimedia as public domain, what is the easiest way to achieve this? Tim Ross (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get them to email COM:OTRS saying they release those photos to PD, and that you'll be uyploading them. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the advice. I can certainly handle that. One minor question, though: all of the various templates I located seemed to assume that an internet-accessible photo was involved (insert link), but these are paper. Can I just use something like "the 23 photographs I made in August of 1971 showing volcanoes of Asia and Oceania" in place of a web link?

Yes, I can't see why not. Haukurth (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're your photos that you took in 1971, obviously there's no need for a link. If they're someone else's photos, please have them email OTRS for verification (even if there are no digital copies yet). Superm401 - Talk 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This directive sets the duration of copyright to 70 years following the death of the author (for multiple authors, of the last author; for collective, pseudonymous or anonymous works, following the date of publication)

The above is from Commons:Licensing#European copyright law. Could an expert expand on what "collective" and "pseudonymous" mean? Would it apply to German postcards published by a company or organisation which uses staff photographers? For example, this 1908 German postcard was deleted because the photographer's name and date of death could not be found. Here is the deletion log and here are attempts to find more information (the postcard is marked "Louis Glaser, Leipzig").

I also tried to follow the logic in w:en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights - would a 1908 German publication have been in the public domain before January 1, 1996, and so still in the public domain? -Wikibob (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a collective work is one which brings together multiple, separately copyrighted elements -- such as an encyclopedia or newspaper (where each article has a separate copyright, but the selection and arrangement of all the articles is copyrightable in itself). Not sure of the exact definition in EU law though. Anonymous is published without an author name, pseudonymous is published with a pseudonym (i.e. not the author's real name, with the real author's identity undisclosed). These laws are there more often for books, pamphlets, and other materials where authors often wanted anonymity. It is normally obvious, since those items all have places where the author's name is supposed to go when it is published. Pictures are harder, since there is no such location, so determining "anonymous" instead of just "unknown" is very hard (unless you have a copy of the actual first publication). If an author's name is not on a postcard... that means it was published anonymously, for sure. Now, simply by disclosing the author sometime in the following 70 years, the copyright term would then become the full 70 years pma (since it would no longer be anonymous). If we have an actual postcard though which does not have the name... that, to me, should swing the assumption towards being "anonymous". If the company still exists, it would probably be a good idea to ask though. As for the second question... the U.S. part of that would be OK since it was published before 1923, so it is PD in the U.S. regardless. Foreign copyrights which were restored are essentially considered to have been registered and renewed, so anything published 1923 or after would still be copyrighted in the U.S. That is where the 1996 date comes in -- if it was PD in the country of origin in 1996, then the U.S. copyright was not restored, and so it is still PD in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that extensive answer. So, since the postcard (published in 1918 due to postmarked stamps on the rearside) only has the publisher's name that makes the author anonymous, until the author's name is dislosed, if ever? The image was deleted with the reason "if author is unknown, we cannot determine if they died before 1938". Should Commons policy be more clearcut? If the author is anonymous (and not unknown) do we allow the image or not? Should we allow it until the author's name is "announced", so to speak? Or, should Commons forbid images that are now anonymous in case the author is announced in teh futire, maybe decades later?

As to the image, it was restored once before so I am reluctant to request it be restored a second time, but there are more images affected. It was used by several language wikipedias (which have broken links now). The company was Verlag Louis Glaser, Leipzig (Verlag means publisher here) and appears to have been active from 1880 until the late 1920s, but I could find no more details. Commons holds at least 13 postcard images from Louis Glaser (not yet deleted) and the web has many of its postcards from various collections. This is an archive of the one deleted from Commons. I admit this is quite complicated for me, but is it worth me requesting a Deletion review for that image in order to determine how the policy should be implemented (given that the same logic would apply to the other 13 images)? (See also: Commons:Village pump#Deleting images without informing projects? ) -Wikibob (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I downloaded a satalite image from Nasa, then re-sized it and cropped the newly re-sized image. I then added the distribution markings myself. Is this now original work or derivitive work or neither? I dont want to add any other distribution maps until the question is clarified. Hope you can help.Andrew massyn (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not "your own work" nor is the correct license "pd-self". Cropping adds no creative design to the work, so a derivative is not created. You should use the original license {{PD-NASA}} on this image. Even if you did do something creative to the image, you would still need to cite the source and use correct licensing for the original image. -Nard the Bard 21:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I'll re-licence it. Andrew massyn (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to list where you got it from (link or picture number). -Nard the Bard 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bloody hell! I'll find it in due course. its late at night, and I wont find it now. Andrew massyn (talk)

I fixed it, maybe you should take a look that everything is ok. --Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by these stipulations, what do you think about the possibility of uploading photos from NATO? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, we need free pictures, not pictures with clear restrictions --Historiograf (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is the difference between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA? Is it only that CC-BY-SA imposes that any further use of the document is still licensed under CC-BY-SA? Second question, if a picture has been uploaded on Commons under GFDL/CC-BY, is it possible to change its license to GFDL/CC-BY-SA or does it violate something? Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question, BY-SA imposes that any derivatives must be licenced compatibly, ie using CC-BY-SA. To answer #2, you can always make a licence of a derivative work more restrictive than the original, but you must always comply with the licence of the original, so you can't remove restrictions. That is, unless you were the creator of the original work as well. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Regarding my second question, you seem to say that it is ok to change from CC-BY to CC-BY-SA, but not the other way, right? But since the picture was once released without the SA restriction, isn't it necessary that a copy of it remains available without this restriction? I only want to be sure I'm not going to make mistakes here. --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cc-by has only one restriction: all further uses must be attributed. It does not say you cannot add the sharealike restriction. -Nard the Bard 15:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that: the picture under CC-BY-SA is a derivative of the first one (under CC-BY), and it is allowed. My question is more Commons-specific maybe: is it necessary that the first one remains online with a CC-BY tag, or can I just change the license tag to CC-BY-SA in all my pictures? --Eusebius (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary that they remain online with the original licence, but remember that these licences cannot be revoked - if you release an image under CC-BY, then anyone can use it under that licence, even if your derivatives are more restrictive. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Obviously, there is no problem with changing CC-BY-SA to CC-BY, since that is just removing restrictions. There is also no problem with adding additional licenses. Anyone which used this image though under the CC-BY license can continue to use it under that license. For example, if there is a derivative work which uses it, you can't force that to become CC-BY-SA. Also... what would you say if someone used the original uploaded version of the image with a CC-BY license, since that is how it was provided? That would be considered fine, I think. I would say changing is highly discouraged, at best. Maybe if you uploaded a different version, that new version could be CC-BY-SA, but since the CC-BY is irrevocable you really can't add restrictions on the original version. That said I'm sure many people have done it (though at least we have the edit history). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand better, except Carl's remark about changing CC-BY-SA to CC-BY, which is in conflict with what was said sooner (that removing restrictions is not allowed). --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is on derivative works, which contain additional copyrightable content, which can be licensed differently than the original (sometimes). CC-BY-SA forbids that, so you can't make a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA item and then use CC-BY as the license for the new work (unless you are also the copyright owner of the original, in which case you can do whatever you want there). You aren't changing the license on the original in this case. As for existing works with the CC license, once you give away rights you can't bring them back. You can always give away more rights (e.g. change CC-BY-SA to CC-BY) but not the reverse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And now, on WM Commons, if I edit the license info about a picture, is it considered a derivative work or an attempt to change the license on the original one? Is there a policy about that? --Eusebius (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the work itself has not changed. That is just changing the license. A w:derivative work is a new work based on the image, say a drawing based on a photograph, or a translation of a book, or a movie based on a book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help out at this English Wikipedia copyright question, which I believe untimately affects all wikis here. Od Mishehu (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. I think I understood the question... rootology (T) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that either you misunderstood the question, or I misunderstood your answer. The question is about non-PD images which are displayed with no way to find out who created them. I don't see how that can not be a problem. Pruneau^talk 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While browsing through the uploaded images of Ferditje, I found this Dutch postcard. It is from 1899 or earlier (see the date on the postcard), and created or printed by N. J. Boos in Amsterdam (according to the tiny inscription Uitgave van N.J. Boos in the lower right corner). I googled somewhat for "N. J. Boos" and some other terms but was so far unsuccessful. I am not sure about the policy at Commons regarding old images where the author and/or his or her death is not known. Do we have a rule stating that something that was published ${\displaystyle n}$ years ago is considered PD for some ${\displaystyle n}$? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears to say "N J Boon", not Boos. Googling that shows that N. J. Boon was a Dutch printer / publisher active at least until 1919 [2], but nothing more specific so far. --dave pape (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this spelling error. I've meanwhile tried to locate some of his works in multiple Dutch libraries but was unable to find anywhere a lifespan. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek which acts as a national library and which attempts to provide lifespans where known fails here as well, see here where the lifespan of his co-author is given. This points back to my original question: How do we proceed when we now the name of the author, we know when it was published but we have no idea when the author died? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a fixed "n-years" rule. Certainly not one with n=100. See Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 13#Old images without an author. Personally, I set n=150 for such cases (except for U.S. stuff, where pre-1923 is fine). Others have advocated n=170 or n=160. Some people think all three of these choices were too high. And in any case, this N. J. Boon is only the publisher (the Google results indicate that he had a publishing house in Amsterdam); I don't think he's the photographer, so even if we should be able to find his death date, it wouldn't help us at all. Lupo 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently it come to my attention that we have a lot of images with the model of the Guy Fawkes' mask of the graphic novel and movie V for Vendetta. What I want to ask is, do this specific model existed in real life before the 80's or it's an original creation by David Lloyd? I've got an image of a Guy Fawkes mask used in 1986, and it's quite different from the V's one. Categories regarding this issue are Category:V for Vendetta (not all of them) and Category:Protesters wearing V masks. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]