Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_17
Timestamp: 2014-03-09 14:18:51
Document Index: 18215564

Matched Legal Cases: ['art?\n17', '§5', '§ 5', '§ 129', '§16', '§1', '§1', '§16']

Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17 - Wikimedia Commons
Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17
1 Netherlands article 15b
2 Stargate glyphs and diagrams
3 No choice for adding picture from someone else
5 Individual image review for transfer
6 File:Pcbetarank.jpg
8 File:Ceramika5.jpg
9 Possible unfree image on commons
10 Template:PD-HK-PR
11 Category:Fernando Botero
12 Book covers
13 File:Alabbas.JPG
14 Scanned German Banknotes (ca. 1920)
15 Grace's Guides.
16 Box art?
17 Check my work?
18 125 kb restriction on CC license
19 Allowed or not?
20 Old pictures: Julius von Haast
22 Possible unfree image
24 Copyrightability of satellite imagery
25 Template:PD-Vlaams-gemeentewapen
26 CC Developing Nations license
27 Fair use or original work?
28 Museum run
29 Google books
30 Flickr low resoultion images
31 Works PD in the USA and 70-pma countries but not in their source countries
32 Falling rain
33 SVG and fonts
34 Image:Cascade_Range_related_plate_tectonics-de.svg
35 Princess Caroline of Monaco photo permission
36 CC legalcodes
37 Museum für Antike Schifffahrt
38 Photos of Walking with Dinosaurs - The Live Experience
39 Mexico or UK?
40 File:El Grito.jpg
41 Military Insignia from Israel
42 Architet dead, who is the copyright holder?
43 US Copyright of Public Place Statues
44 nonexisting license template
45 Sampling plus license
46 {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
47 Creating an official process for approving licensing templates
48 File:Canadian National Vimy Memorial - .Mother Canada.JPG
49 LOC, New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection.
50 Copyright question Signal
51 seed herbarium image project photo license help
52 Can I import these photos under Creative Commons license ?
53 CC legalcodes
54 Crazy Horse Memorial Copyright
55 Policy on bylines?
56 Template:PD-stamp
57 Adding a license?
58 Can hieroglyph's be considered PD-text?
59 Catalog fair use question
60 copyfraud in France
61 Missing metadata
62 Category:PD Indonesian Government
63 Garden tags
64 r.e. 9.67.1: U.S. Government
65 File:Barns grand tetons.jpg
66 United Kingdom:Ordinary Copyright
67 Template:PD-Yugoslavia
68 On images of coins obtained from unknown source
69 Question: Copyright on old works
70 1992 Norway stamp tagged with PD-Old?
71 Ubisoft
72 Suurhusen Church-Pisa Tower comparison: questionable license
Netherlands article 15b
I reinserted the Netherlands section on article 15b, which says that published government works where copyright is not expressly reserved are not protected by copyright. I'm not entirely sure why it was removed... I didn't see any discussion on it. However the same is repeated at en:Dutch copyright law and is also the basis for the {{PD-NL-Gov}} tag; if the supposition is invalid there are wider implications so I thought I would restore the section but then discuss it here. The inference seems to be directly supported by references I found when searching... This article specifically mentions it, and also some of its difficulties, and this word document which is apparently from the Dutch government also seems to validate it (though it restricts the application to works where the copyright would be owned by the government, not third-party works which happen to be published or broadcast by the government). Does anyone have any further info? The section seems OK, but I have little idea about actual practice in the Netherlands... Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried that there appears to be no words like "photography" in the act, though "visual and audiovisual recordings" are mentioned in your second source. If there's an implication that this only applies to informative works, not artistic works, we could be setting ourselves up for trouble. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The nl:s:Auteurswet 1912 - Hoofdstuk I#Artikel 15b says "werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst", litterary, scientific or artistic works. There is no problem with photography. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Stargate glyphs and diagrams
While going through Commons:MIME type statistics/Unusual types, I came across File:Milky way stargate with detailed glyphs.svg (which seems to have some markup problems that prevent MediaWiki from rendering it) and, from there, Category:Stargates and Category:Stargate glyphs. These images depict a fictional device from the TV show Stargate and various symbols used on it. While at least some of the individual glyphs seems likely to be {{PD-ineligible}}, I have my doubts about putting them together, in the exact same arrangement as used in the series, together with a diagram of the complete device, as in e.g. File:Milky way stargate detailed glyphs-partially colored.png and other images in Category:Stargates. Of course, many of these images could easily qualify as fair use in articles dealing with aspects of the TV series, but that alone does not make them suitable for Commons. Opinions? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I've learned, files like File:Milky way stargate detailed glyphs-partially colored.png is not okay for here. One dot is pd-ineligble, but combined together, you can end up with something copyrightable. Then again, IANAL. Anrie (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No choice for adding picture from someone else
File:Zirkel peng 002.jpg is a picture I received from the author, specifically to upload it to Wikipedia. When I uploaded it, I noticed that there is no choice in the dropdown for that situation. I therefore added "unknown" for the license. Please correct this as appropriate.
I don't regularly monitor the commons; if there is any problem, please notify my on my English talk page. Thank you! SebastianHelm (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: The author already uploaded a similar picture earlier, File:Zirkel.jpg, under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. SebastianHelm (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:OTRS. The author can send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In this email he/she must state three things very clearly: 1) That he/she is the author. 2) That this is concerning File:Zirkel peng 002.jpg (he can give the filename or URL) and 3) which license he would like to release his work under. To make it foolproof he can simply use the template provided at Commons:Email_templates.
If you are going to upload more images by this author, ask him to add in the email that you will be doing so and that you have his permission to do so under the license he chose. Hope this makes it clear. Anrie (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that the author does indeed have an account: User:Peng and they are active. Just ask him/her to add the license of their choice to the image and Bob's your uncle. Anrie (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This makes me want to ask what is the term of copyright for materials which are not audiovisual (i.e. having both a sound or visual component) and not photographic. Apparently there is no general PD-Brazil tag. — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
From the law linked to on that tag... The author's economic rights shall be protected for a period of 70 years as from the first of January of the year following his death, subject to observance of the order of succession under civil law. So, 70 p.m.a., which is a pretty typical term. {{PD-Old}} is the tag usually used for that, so often there are not specific tags for every country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Individual image review for transfer
Hello. Can this diagram be transferred to Commons? The original can be found here (Faltblatt 1 & 2.pdf - takes 60s, sorry). What are the pros and cons? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sitting here, and like to share my point of view, but nothing ever happens, I wonder. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that claiming PD-ineligible? I'm not sure that would be OK here then... seems like the original would be eligible in the U.S. at least, and likely other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe" means "this file is below the bar of the threshold of originality". And "Diese Datei ist möglicherweise nicht mit den Richtlinien von Wikimedia Commons kompatibel" means "this file possibly is not compatible with the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons". What now? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is most likely copyrightable (and thus still copyrighted) in the U.S., so I don't think it should be uploaded here. The information could be used to make a separate diagram, but the exact (or substantially similar) presentation cannot be copied (in particular the drawing of the river, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The top view with the river could presumably be redrawn based on free maps or aerial/satellite photography. As for the layout in general, perhaps someone more familiar with the topic could tell us whether and to what extent the layout and symbols used in this diagram are standard conventions for documenting the dimensions of a bridge (in which case we should follow them rather than trying to come up with our own). Ps. I don't seem to be able to download the PDF linked to above; it says it has already been downloaded too many times. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The diagram again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Pcbetarank.jpg
In this image the copyright tags are wrongly used because this is a screenshot of a copyrighted website.--Wcam (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Does the attribution at the top of this page indicate that the copyright is not public domain as other USGS works would be? Stepshep (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the image was taken by a civil servant on duty. If Dr. John Chardine was working for USGS then, it shouldn't be a problem.--Yamavu (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Ceramika5.jpg
I do not exactly how it is with the copyright but I think that this photo and others as shown on http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugeniusz_Molski?uselang=en#Galeria_prac_Eugeniusza_Molskiego are not allowed because of copyright. The artist is still alive. Am I right? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the photos in the given gallery can be used on commons. The regulations on Freedom of Panorama in Poland doesn't apply to paintings and small objects exhibited in a museum. I fear these images have to be removed.--Yamavu (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible unfree image on commons
I have found a identical copy of this image File:Ribosomer i arbete.png on en.wikipedia [1] the wikipedia copy has been marked as Possibly unfree image this file must be reviewed an if necessarily deleted because commons is not a place for unfree images.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It apparently came from nupedia.com -- that was all GFDL, so this looks fine. Is there any reason to doubt the source link? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I cant verify the source, i get error messages every time i try to visit nupedia.How about you, can you verify that the file actually exists on nupedia?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
w:Nupedia died around 2003; it was a forerunner of Wikipedia. Source links do go dead as websites evolve; by itself that is no reason for suspicion. The en-wiki file was uploaded in 2003 so that fits. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Template:PD-HK-PR
I came across {{PD-HK-PR}}. It seems to be used on images ripped from the web. The actual text is at [2], i doubt all the images are covered by this. Multichill (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Category:Fernando Botero
I hate to do this, but I ask because I take paints to photograph statutes and sculpture at a wide angle so that I don't run afoul of copyright issues. I started to do this because many of my artwork photos were deleted. Yet many of the files in this category are close-ups of sculpture. Am I incorrect in thinking these are copyvios, or has something changed? --David Shankbone (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It depends on location. Where you are, you have to deal with COM:FOP#United States, but most of these seem to have been made in other countries, with for example COM:FOP#Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or should covers like this Wordsworth edition of Gulliver's Travels be public domain? The image used is PD-old (created c. 1900, (French) author died in 1931) and the rest is simple text (PD-ineligible). Anrie (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be public domain. But I think it will be out of scope. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Even in an article on Gulliver's Travels? Anrie (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems perfectly inside Commons' scope to me. Articles about books or authors are frequent on wikipedia, to name just one possible usage. --Tryphon (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a possible but unlikely usage: unless it will be used, I don't see a reason to upload it. Shouldn't wikipedias and wikisources (and so on) show the covers of notable editions, rather than give free publicity to (perfectly respectable but uninteresting) publishers of dime store editions? --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but is there a free one available? Besides, it's always a good thing to have a choice; who are we to say that wikipedia editors should not use this image? As long as it's free and can be used for educational purposes, we should not impose our views on the other projects. --Tryphon (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong way to approach things. Someone wants to upload it, and it's not clearly out of scope, so the Commons should accept it if the license is okay. Anyway, dime store editions tend to have the advantage of easy recognizability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that taking a PD-old work, cropping it and layering it with text and color, putting it a whole new context is not itself copyrightable. It strikes me as being above the de minimus standard for copyright, which is pretty low. I think a judge might argue that the classic case is about a telephone book, where what is wanted is the phone numbers independent of source. Here we are more than capable of making our own cover for Gulliver's Travels, but what is wanted is their cover, which indicates that it does have protectable copyright. From another perspective, unprotectable things would all be pretty much the same no matter what the source; if two people's design for a cover would be strikingly different, as is likely, then there's probably something protectable by copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In the U.S., no, I don't think that would qualify as a copyrightable print. Short phrases and titles are not copyrightable, and neither is the arrangement of type on the page. You generally need some other graphic element to qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Alabbas.JPG
This image seems to be cropped from this image at http://www.yamahde.com and since I do not read Arabic, I don't know if there is a copyright exemption on that site. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The uploader has also copied a number of images from http://ashura.dk, whose copyright notice says "Denne hjemmeside er en del af ungemuslimer gruppen Det er tilladt at kopiere, printe eller trykke al indhold, så længe det hjælper med udbredelsen af islam. Det er desuden også tilladt at benytte nogle af artiklerne eller bøgerne på andre hjemmesider, efter at have nævnt kilden.", which roughly means "This site is part of the young Muslim group. You are allowed to copy, print or press any content as long as it helps the spread of Islam. It is also allowed to use some of the articles or books on other sites, after having mentioned the source." This seems non-free (as in "May I use it to stop Islam?" "No.") --Palnatoke (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Scanned German Banknotes (ca. 1920)
I have uploaded scanned Banknotes (or, in fact "Notgeld", i.e. emergency money) printed during the economic crisis after WWI in Germany. I used {{PD-GermanGov}} as a license, following an example that I found under Category:Notgeld. (Here is an example: File:Notgeld-Dömitz-10-front.jpg.) But I am unsure if this license is correct, because this license seems to be applicable only for law texts and the like (that's what the description of the license says, even though the term "Amtliches Werk" would probably also cover official money.
Other files use {{PD-self}}, or {{PD-old}}, but I think they aren't applicable either, because the banknote wasn't created by the uploader, and there is no way of knowing whether the unknown artist who created the banknote has died before 1939, respectively. Which license would you use? --DrHok (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
According to §5 UrhG (the German copyright law), official works are exempt from copyright. Official means every work, that is formally proclaimed, instead of just published by the government. Banknotes are proclaimed, just like laws and verdicts. Their designs are announced in the governmental register. So {{PD-GermanGov}} is perfectly fine. --h-stt !? 12:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm.. OK, but the law (UrhG § 5) talks about "Gesetze, Verordnungen [...]" (laws, decrees etc.), i.e. publications having to do with legislation as such. Images are only covered as part of a legislative publication (see de:Amtliches_Werk). Furthermore, the law is from 1966 (Federal Republic of Germany) while the banknotes are from 1920 (Deutsches Reich), predating the law. --DrHok (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In Germany, we love retroactive copyright laws; read § 129 Werke UrhG. sугсго 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you find an answer to this question could you please add a couple of lines about it on Commons:Currency or it's talk page. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The predecessor of the UrhG was the s:de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Tonkunst of 1907. It already contained the same exemption in §16 (and yes, it covers the illustrations in question because of §1 No.3). --h-stt !? 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. I am not a lawyer, so I might simply be unable to parse the (notoriously convoluted) law lingo correctly, even though I am German. Using common sense I'd say §1 merely defines the scope of the law. The detailed exemption in §16 doesn't seem to cover anything but law texts and texts to be used by authorities. I mean I would be glad if this discussion could be closed, because I uploaded the images, but I'd rather read an assessment by a lawperson. Anyone around here? --DrHok (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure, if "Notgeld" was in any way officially proclaimed as is the case with regular banknotes. The special thing about the "Notgeld = Emergency money" was, that it was issued by the local municipallities in very short intervals. The reason for this was that the galloping inflation didn't allow to wait for the official banknotes to arrive, because when they did a whole bunch of zeros would be missing on them allready. Therefore this "Notgeld" is very attractive, because local motives, by local artists were used. Perhaps somebody should look for the legislation that made the issue of such "Notgeld" possible in the first place and perhaps we can draw an anallogy to regular banknotes from there. --Wuselig (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Grace's Guides.
Could an expert cast an eye on this Copyright statement, on the Glass's guide wiki. [3] It seems to me that the text can be freely cut and pasted, but what about the images. Are they being slightly generous in their interpretation of UK law. For instance [4]. This is a 1951 image? Does their licence allow us to upload it? Can someone give an opinion please? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look in the light print at the bottom, they explicitly specify GFDL 1.2 or later as their license. So, any of their original content can just be tagged {{GFDL}} and uploaded here. However... that would not apply to content not created by them, such as the image you point out. Looks like that was published by "British Steam Specialties" in 1951, which if anonymous the copyright would expire in 2022, and if the "B.E.H. Z---" on the lower left is the artist, then 70 years after his/her death. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Does this count as free? http://www.flickr.com/photos/royalport/422268734/
Specifically, I'm a little hazy on what is acceptable when it comes to pictures of copyrighted items. For example, it is apparently okay to host pictures of Super Nintendos, is it then also okay to host a picture of the box? Or is that crossing a line because of the box art? Where is the line with these sorts of things? ~ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably not free. Have a look at Commons:De minimis. The box art is indeed the fly in the ointment. Super Nintendos (the machines themselves) are probably allowed since utalitarian objects (things we use, like cups, cars, tvs, chairs) themselves can't be copyrighted (iirc). Anrie (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, probably not free, though it could pass as fair use on Wikipedia if you had some specific point about the box art that you wanted to illustrate with it. But do see Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at File:Jonathan Edwards 1817.jpg and check to make sure my copyrights are in order?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it's {{PD-art}}: by looking at the source picture, only the frame has been removed from the representation of the original. --Eusebius (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, good. That's what I thought. Thanks!--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for caring about the issue! I wish all uploads were documented like that. --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
125 kb restriction on CC license
As per OTRS Ticket#2009010910006781 and the following OTRS Wiki I am calling for help to clarify.
I am helping a user who has gotten permission to use photos from Dresden under cc-by-sa-3.0 if they are not uploaded in sizes larger than 125 kb.
The legal code section 4.a says
"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License"
Will this 125 kb rule conflict with the demands of ability to share the work? --|EPO| da: 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That looks like that resolution limit would restrict the CC license improperly. Here is a possible workaround: We consider the below-125kb version of the original work (which would presumably be >125kb) to be a derivative work. Therefore, the cc-by-sa-3.0 release of the below-125kb version would be appropriate. How does that sound? That way, the image that we have on file is within cc-by-sa-3.0 and is not covered by the restriction in the OTRS, making the question moot. Now, it might be a good idea to protect that image from being edited, to prevent someone from impermissibly uploading a >125kb version.--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that a workaround, I would call that the terms -- it sounds like the author is licensing the 125KB and less photos under CC-BY-SA-3.0, and no license on the larger versions. Nothing wrong with that. The author cannot restrict what people later do with those <=125KB versions, but they have the perfect right to choose what versions they license and what they don't. A smaller version wouldn't qualify for a derivative copyright if someone else scaled it down, but that is irrelevant -- it is a separate work and can have a separate license, I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It is perfectly valid to license only small copies of photographs or other works, but not the original size. All the 100.000 photographs from the German Federal Archive have been uploaded with 800px as the longer side, even though larger scans are available directly from the Archive - but then of course for a fee. --h-stt !? 08:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Carl Lindberg and h-stt: There is no technological measure imposed in this case. Just the downscaled variants are licensed under CC but you have all freedoms of the CC license for the small images below 125 kb. This is similar to cases where photographers upload their photos not at the full resolution to the Commons but offer full scale licenses through different licenses. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we allow upload of images that require (per copyright holder) an active link to the external source website? This problem (Can be used only with an active link) exists with File:20070913-latynina.jpg.--Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Использование материалов spletnik.ru разрешено только при наличии активной ссылки на источник. Все права на картинки и тексты принадлежат их авторам. The second sentence reads All rights on images and texts are owned by their authors. No free licence. sугсго 07:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Old pictures: Julius von Haast
Hi, I doubt if it would be ok to upload a pair of pictures of Julius von Haast (1822-1887). I found them here and here. It's likely they are in public domain, but I don't know anything about the author, so I can't be sure. .So, can I upload them? and if the asnweris yes, with which license?. Thanks in advance. --Erfil (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictures are necessarily an