Please help make sure that this venue for discussing copyright issues is appropriately linked from other Wikimedia wikis. Examples include en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and its equivalents.
However in linking here please make it clear that the primary venue for copyright discussions should be that wiki. Users should come here only for discussing copyright issues relevant to Commons - most commonly files which could potentially be moved to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally.
Still not solved: Vectorization of PD-works: Copyrighted or not?
Already discussedin september, but still not solved:
In the last weeks, I did some housekeeping in some flag and coat of arms categories, usually removing the various PD-self and CC-licence plates und replacing them by PD-ineligible or PD-country tags, because a CC-licence for a flag with free stripes is surely a copyfraud. I also replaced some CC-licences plates from several state emblems (which are not classic, european-style coat of arms, where an artistic rendition is of course copyrighted), an action which for which I received some criticism, because it was claimed that the vectorization of such emblems might be copyrighted, altough the (raster) basic image is PD. The question concerns graphics like File:State emblem of Mongolia.svg. Those images are an exact vectorized copy of a PD-image (without any alterations or "improvements"). Perhaps influenced by my german background, I believe that the vectorization is also PD, because no new artwork was created. Are there other opinions on this question? If there are, two questions have to be answered:
How should we tag a "basic image PD, vectorization CC" image?
Where is the "treshold of orginality" in such cases?
A SVG file is completely analogous to a TrueType or Type1 font file, which have been ruled by courts to be copyrightable as computer programs, even if the fonts they draw are not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that analogy though -- the Copyright Office considered the kerning and other font information the primarily points that made it copyrightable, and not the outlines -- but not sure that courts have followed that logic. An SVG of a circle is still PD-ineligible to me. That said, if somebody hand-edits the SVG file, that could be considered copyrightable, a completely separate work from a different SVG coded another way but which results in the exact same image. If drawn in a GUI editor though, I think only the resulting shapes are what could be copyrightable, and they wouldn't be given much different status than a bitmap I don't think. Still, there could often be small copyrightable details in a vector, especially in cases of complicated images like coats of arms -- those will almost always have a copyrightable component. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I should also say that some countries, such as the UK, still allow a sweat-of-the-brow copyright, meaning an SVG is almost always copyrightable there, and existing CC tags should be left alone if for no other reason -- they can ease usage in those countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please do NOT remove CC tags from such works. The threshold of originality can differ considerably by country, and there is always some uncertainty with it. If the shape is PD-ineligible by our standards (which usually follow U.S. standards), by all means add that tag but please keep the existing CC tags, as they could be critical for use in some other countries. It is *not* certainly copyfraud; the aboriginal flag was actually ruled copyrightable in Australia since they use the rather different UK-based interpretation of "original". And modern renditions of coats of arms would almost never be PD-ineligible -- each different rendition gets its own copyright, so SVG or recent bitmap drawings would all be copyrightable most likely. See Commons:Coats of Arms. It has nothing to do with when the design was introduced and everything to do with when the artist drew it, and who that artist was. So PD-country tags are usually inappropriate for those, and even if they are exempt from copyright in some countries, they will be copyrightable in others so again, please don't remove CC tags supplied by the authors if they are there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Antemister -- I am not a lawyer (and don't even play one on TV), but your personal concept of "exact vectorized copy"[sic] seems to me to be factually and legally quite problematic (except in some simple cases where the emblem/flag has an exact geometric specification), as I tried to explain on your user talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case of the threshold of originality, it is in fact not possible to be compliant with any copyright law, that's why it was decided to use US copyright law. The design of the aboriginal flag may be an extreme exception, such a simple creation is not copyrighted in most countries. The Well, let's come back to the two questions above, are there any suggestions for them?--Antemister (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation of the coat of arms images is unbearable. Exact reproductions of emblems (not coat of arms) are CC-licenced like own artworks (imagine the situation that government official wants to use such an emblem - he will have to mention the "unknown wikigraphist" on his document...) In case such SVGs are protected in some countries and we want to keep the CC-tags, there has to be labeling that only the (vector) rendition is protected, and not the basic image. Just having a CC and a PD-tag together is not enough. I had suggested a new template. Coments, please.--Antemister (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's unbearable. Someone adding their own expression to a PD work does get their own copyright. It should be pretty apparent that they don't own the emblem. An SVG is never going to be an "exact" reproduction of a bitmap -- the question is how much did the vectorizer add. If it was the simple result of a trace program (something like vectormagic.com can often do a good job), then no, there is no additional copyright. If they did significant further cleanup work, maybe, and if they added some of their own touches, then yes. If drawn by hand looking at a bitmap, almost always there will be their own copyright. An SVG of a circle is just as PD-ineligible as a bitmap though; it's just that most emblems and coats of arms will allow enough variation to allow for copyright. If there is a specification of an emblem which gives precise dimensions and that sort of thing, then there probably wouldn't be. It's possible if someone hand-edits an SVG they could get a copyright as a computer program... for example, someone comes up with an inventive way of implementing the American flag in SVG, they may theoretically be able to copyright their SVG text, even if the visual output is identical to other SVGs (and not protectable as a visual work). I'm not sure the Mongolia one is a good example -- the SVG is clearly not an "exact copy" but has many of its own slight variations, be it in the way the border area was done, or how the "hill" background was done, the lotus at the bottom, the wheel and how the scarf hangs off -- you can easily tell when one or the other is being copied. Vector-images has their own distinct version, different than ours. The Mongolian emblem also has a textual description to start with, part of their constitution (article 12). I actually wasn't able to find an "official" graphic version with a quick search, though there may be one out there. In short, if an author wants to claim a copyright on a vectorization, I'd allow it -- most of the time they are probably right. The main exceptions would be in places where the *exact* outlines are already dictated, and the SVG was not hand-edited. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For File:Coat of arms of Cameroon old.svg, I found your personal "exact vectorized copy"[sic] rationale for removing self copyright declarations to be quite strange, since while I was doing my best with the information available to me, and within the limits of my artistic abilities, this SVG has a number of deviations from any "exact" government of Cameroon specification (such as the scrolls being changed to horizontal, the shape of the map outline, the map outline not extending close to the top of the red area, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg & AnonMoos: You both point out that only the personal rendition of the emblem is copyrighted, which are, in fact, a deriavative work of a PD image. If you use the same licensing for such a deriavative work as you use for a totally self-created work like a self-taken photo like File:GroßglStr.jpg, then the license is not really correct. In case of AnonMoos Cameroon Coa, he has to write a text like: "The basic image of this file is PD-Cameroon. I, the copyright holder of personal rendition, releases it in the public domain." In (the few) cases the arms is not PD, then no personal rendition can uploaded. In order to have a standard phrase for that, a template schould be created--Antemister (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are still thinking there is something which needs to be specified on the basic design; I would disagree. National coats of arms and the like are really not copyrighted; the general design is common property and that should be obvious (which doesn't stop some misguided DRs, and obviously there are insignia laws which prevent misuse of such symbols). Do remember that many countries deem the contents of laws (from anywhere) to not be protected by copyright; that would go for any COA or emblem designated by law. Each rendition of course can be copyrighted, so if there is substantial similarity in the details to previous versions (even if PD), yes it is good to mention those so people can figure out exactly what is the new material, but only the CC tag is actually required (or whatever the author wants for the new material). It becomes an issue only if it could be considered derivative of a copyrighted original -- but even if the original is CC-BY, the derivative is allowed to only have a CC-BY-SA license on it (though not the other way around), with the only requirement that both authors are listed. We don't require people to point out, given your example photograph, that the bridge is not copyrighted and not the photographer's property, same for the mountains, nor require them to mention that other people can take a similar photo from the same spot and have it be OK -- all that should be obvious. If there is a specific PD representation used to make a new version, mentioning that is a good idea. But if the new version is an original take on all the elements, such that there is no real expression taken from an existing representation, then there is no real source other than the basic design, which doesn't need a tag at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every CoA is PD, an example is the Canadian one. That is the main point of the work I did (and do) on Commons for the last weeks. I read the national copyright laws and check if government documents (especially laws) are PD (this is the case in practically all countries). In case laws are not PD (usually in some former british colonies), it seems near impossible to upload the coat of arms here (perhaps panorama freedom may help). That's why I believe that any state arms needa a copyright tag which declares that the arms is PD. Perhaps influenced by my german background, where the treshold of originality is higher than in the US, I do not believe that most renditions of coat of arms have enough originality to be eligible for copyright protection--Antemister (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone did a version following the (1921) description, sure it would be. However it seems as though that particular SVG followed very closely a Crown Copyright drawing, so that one in particular is different. SVGs can be derivative of bitmaps, if they follow a lot of the small details, most certainly. That does not prevent someone else from making their own, original realization of it. Some countries declare their laws to not be PD, true, but unless a drawing was actually part of the law, that doesn't matter much (and would be deemed PD in much of the world; the U.S. for example would not recognize copyright in the actual body of the law in any event). A graphical work is never derivative of a written description; those are always their own copyrights. If laws are PD, then that can help if there is a drawing in the law itself, as that becomes a PD version we can potentially vectorize, but if there is no actual drawing in there, then it doesn't matter much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
US treshold of originality seems to be unbelievable low compared to that in Germany: Practically any drawing of an arms is below the treshold there. Anyway, in fact the vast majority of those arms on commons are deriavative ones of official one (which is desired, of course, as we want to have rendition similar to those the government uses). It seems (?) to be generaly accepted on Commons that an official version of an arms from a government document can be tagged with a PD-country-tag, in case laws are PD in this country. If someone creates a deriavative SVG of such an arms, this graphist has to add an information on description that 1) the basic file is PD and the graphist is allowed to create such deriavative, and 2) the licence under which he publishes his rendition.
Yes, Germany has a much higher threshold than the U.S. The UK and Australia and probably New Zealand, in turn, have a much lower threshold than the U.S. does. Unless it is very simple design (and even then UK/Australia might give a copyright), just presume that all renditions have a copyright (unless expired, or part of PD law, etc.). They are not necessarily derivatives in the copyright sense; the basic design as defined in law is an idea, and the rendering is the expression with its own copyright. If one graphic version follows the small copyrightable details of another, then yes those can be derivative. I think I've pointed to Commons:Coats of Arms before, which goes over this. If an uploaded version is based closely on another graphic version, then yes the copyrights of that source version should be pointed out, but if just following the basic design of a seal, then no -- that is an original work and the author can put whatever license on it they like, just like any other drawing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same opinion. File:Full Ornamented Coat of Arms of Charles I of Spain (1520-1530).svg is an artwork of its own, correctly licenced File:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Congo.svg was created perfectly according the official version. No artwork und thus no copyright of its own. Most coat of arms are between those extreme cases, the majority of them tend to exact copys of official version, as most graphists on the WPs don't see themselves as artists. The questions if they are deriavative works depends on the treshold of originality defined in national copyright laws. From the german view, those CC-licenses are mostly copyfraud, from the perspective of the US they are OK. German admins refuse to delete graphics stored locally on the german WP if the version on commons are only CC-licenced, and they start deletion request on such files (today, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:NTC LR.png, an exact copy licenced CC, this should be copyfraud everywhere in the world). That's we need to explain this situation every file description page.--Antemister (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partially reverted the licensing of File:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Congo.svg. Even something like that will typically attract its own copyright, probably in the U.S. and definitely in the UK and similar countries. The artistic choices needed in vectorization (bezier curves, etc.) are different than those in bitmaps, and while not always copyrightable, I'm guessing they often will. The "country of origin" of these representations is also where the author lives (i.e. publishes it); using a Congo license tag makes no sense and is incorrect, since that particular SVG is not included in their laws, and none of the expression is subject to their laws. It could be derivative of the source book; no idea on that one. It's never a good idea to delete licenses just because they wouldn't be valid in Germany -- keep them since they are almost certainly valid in some countries of the world, and removing the licenses then creates uncertainty for use in those countries. If an author has put a CC license on things, leave it. In some countries, yes, it would seem as though the copyright law would prevent copyright on basically *all* representations, but that is not true everywhere, so if some of the content is CC licensed as well, that can greatly aid in other cases. Copyright follows the graphic representations; using the "PD laws" types of tags is entirely incorrect unless there is a graphic version in the law itself -- otherwise the copyright is independent of the content of those laws and the tags should reflect that. Keep in mind, Australia even gave a copyright to the aboriginal flag -- the U.S. would never do that, let alone Germany. But we try to make our content as usable as possible in *all* countries, and CC tags can often have definite relevance, and we should not be removing them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Commons wants to take care about those really strange australien copyright law, it should even try to to do so with the german one, where such CC-licences just cause a smile. It should be mentioned that the CC-licences only apply in country where the image is above treshold of originality. Isn't a work first published on Commons a work first publisched in the US, because Commons is a US institution?--Antemister (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning that CC licenses (or any copyright licenses) only apply in cases where the work exceeds the threshold of originality is true of any work, and should be obvious -- not sure why we need to mention that. I understand that such licenses may seem very silly in certain countries, but thresholds of originality do not apply worldwide, whereas CC licenses do -- if there is any doubt for a re-user (and there often is with threshold of originality cases), the CC license does provide a way to use such images without doubt. I think we would particularly pay attention to UK/Australia copyright if the uploader is from those countries, but such a license from any user may have value in some situations. As for country of origin with electronic publication... that is a very thorny question. I suspect that publication occurs when the user distributes the work to Commons (not when Commons makes it further available), meaning the country of origin is wherever the user is when they upload, but I'm sure it's arguable. There was some discussion during a WIPO treaty in 1996 (see here, Article 3), which proposed that the country of origin be the Contracting Party where the necessary arrangements have been made for availability of these works to members of the public -- that seems to concentrate on the actions of the copyright holder and where those took place. That definition was not specifically adopted but my guess is that something like it would be the situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that it doesn't analogize well with what's gone before. If a British author mailed a manuscript to an American publisher and the publisher made copies in the US, that would be publication in the US. Even with the definition from WIPO, the place where the arrangements have been made for a work uploaded to Commons to be made available is the US; the US foundation pays money to a US company to host servers in the US that make the file available.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That situation is different to me -- the author had specific discussions and made arrangements with a U.S. publisher in that case; to me that would be where the arrangements are made. In the case of Commons, that doesn't really exist -- the photo is prepared for upload and actually uploaded by someone in another country, under their full control, with no material involvement of someone in the U.S. itself -- I fail to see how that could be considered a U.S. work. That actually does have ramifications; if infringement occurs an author of a U.S. work must obtain a registration before they can sue, but that is not true of a foreign work -- I would be surprised if that was required of a foreign uploader to Commons (or Flickr, or other U.S. hosting service, etc.). In your example, actions by people in the U.S. would be required to make the work actually available to the public, and not so for a simple upload to Commons -- the person in the foreign country has caused it to be available by themselves. The issue will I'm sure come up someday, and it will be interesting to see how it goes ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if an author had a discussion with a publisher in London, and they sent the files over to a printer in Boston and ran up a thousand copies in the US, that would be publication in the UK? I simply see Commons as the publisher. (I'm not sure the WIPO definition clarified anything.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arrangements for actual publication were made in the U.S. in that case. Not really the last place the author had contact with, but really the last people to really control the work before distribution, to me. In many cases, the distribution reach (or location) of a publisher makes it pretty obvious which country it gets published in, when there are physical copies, but on the Internet and its worldwide reach with electronic copies, I think that notion breaks down, and I just don't think such uploads can (or should) be considered U.S. works just because that happens to be where the storage is. Are works considered simultaneously published in many countries of the world then, because the work gets located on squid caches around the world, which is really from where it gets distributed locally? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there seems to be some progress in that long discussion, at least one part of the question seems to be solved, but there is the second: Most coat of arms and at practically all state emblem are deriavative version the official one. The question is not whether the deriavative ones have enough originality for being eligible for copyright protection. If the basic file is under copyright protection, those deriavatves are copyright violations and cannot be hosted here. Opinions?--Antemister (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
PS: An example of a really good licenced image is File:Afghan presidential election, 2009 poster 4.jpg.--Antemister (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, all versions are not necessarily derivative of the official one (rather almost always that is not the case). That is a common misunderstanding -- re-read Commons:Coat of Arms. The basic design is an idea (often written out in blazon); any drawing based on that idea/blazon is not a derivative work (it is not possible for a graphic work to be derivative of a literary work), but rather has its own, 100% independent copyright. So yes, contributors can draw their own versions, and license them however they wish. Also note that the content of actual law is often not protected -- for example, even if the source country claims copyright on their laws, the U.S. will not recognize that claim (see {{PD-EdictGov}}) so uploading even official ones (if the drawing is in the law) is not a violation in the U.S. Per policy, we generally do respect those claims, but that distinct from legality. Now, it is certainly possible for a vectorization to be derivative of another, pre-existing graphic depiction. In those cases, you are looking for the small details -- are the leaves drawn the same way, things like that. To delete on that basis though, we really need to look at the source (graphic) version and see if it is derivative. A vectorization by definition does not make a straightforward copy of the expression, and almost always adds its own expression, but can conceivably contain the expression of a source bitmap (such is the case with en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg -- it contains all the tiny details on the Bursey-Sabourin version, which distinguish that from earlier graphic depictions of the arms). The fact of when a country adopts an emblem (or changes it) is usually of no consequence -- copyright derives from the actual expression seen in individual representations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, in fact, practically all arms, emblems and seals that kind of deriiavatives as you write. Most graphists here draw the arms exactly according to the official one you find in flag books or government websites, and only few really create an own artwork by using only the blazon. The question is: Can we expect that the grapic version you find on official documents is in the PD in case the copyright law declares such documents as PD? If yes, we can upload an image taken from there, if not, we need an image which is not a deriavative of the official version.--Antemister (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Antemister -- that's partially true for official government emblems (which you seem to be almost exclusively interested in), but it's really NOT true (and in fact either somewhat ignorant or somewhat insulting) with respect to coat of arms images in general on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only issue I am interested in, but currently the most important one on Commons. The copyright situation of many CoA is unclear, which lead (and leads) to several deletion requests and deletions. As such files are used very often, such action cause annoying and much work in reuploadiing them on the local wikipedias. Most of our state emblems here (most raster and some vector ones) are copied from official documents, government websites or flags books. Are they PD? Most of the vector files are deriavatives of those? The vectorizer claim copyright oon their rendition, OK, but are their rendition copyvio-deriavatives of the source files?--Antemister (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You only seem to know or care about national governmental emblems, but the great majority of heraldic work on Wikimedia Commons is NOT in fact concerned with national governmental emblems, and you will embarrass yourself less in future if you don't make hasty broad sweeping generalizations in an area concerning which you appear to have little interest or knowledge... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is connected with the broader problem of uploaders usually not mentioning the copyright status of works depicted or used as bases (here "based on blazon only" would be great, "FoP", "original PD-Finland50" or similar in many other cases). This should be solved in the upload interface and in the upload instructions. --LPfi (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it's only in a minority of cases that a Commons image author has never seen any artistic rendering of a coat of arms at all, but is going by pure textual blazon only. However, if the Commons image author doesn't copy any artistic/ornamental details of a heraldic visual depiction he/she has seen, beyond what is necessary to satisfy the blazon, then it's very difficult to see how any real "derivative status" copyright dependency has been created. When I was making File:Trinidad-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg (or rather, its original PostScript source -- the PostScript came first, then the PNG, then the SVG), I based it on information in A Complete Guide to Heraldry by A.C. Fox-Davies and J.P. Brook-Little (1969 edition). The book gave both the textual blazon, and also a small sketchy black-and-white-only line diagram. The line sketch gave some clues as to how the surmounting was done that might not be obvious from the textual blazon, but I did not copy any purely ornamental/artistic details from it, and any attempt to tag the Commons image as a copyright derivative of the Fox-Davies and Brook-Little book would be rather unfortunate, and turn out not to be a very constructive or productive thing to do... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Yes, I contribute practically only on the topic of state emblem. In case of the arms you mentioned the CC-licence is OK, as you created this image only according to the blazon and so this file is your private artwork. That is not the case for the vast majority of state arms, as those are usually copied from or drawn after flag books or similar sources, and self-drawn renditions mostly copy every single detail. We should not mix up those two different situations. @LPfi, I had suggested that above.--Antemister (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has a PD-self license (I rarely use CC licenses on images which I make from scratch, or which are derived from other PD images). AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read all of the text, but I think that it is always useful if an image is free in as many countries as possible. Whenever I come across any {{PD-old-70}}, and I see that the author died long ago, I always update them to {{PD-old-75}}, {{PD-old-80}} or whatever the highest allowed number is, since it tells that the image is free in more countries. If a vector image does not meet the threshold of originality in the United States and the country in which it was made, then {{PD-ineligible}} (or similar) is enough according to Commons rules, but it causes problems for users in countries where it does meet the threshold of originality. You can't decide upon any licences for the countries in which it doesn't meet the threshold (it's in the public domain so people may use it in any way in other countries), but it would be very convenient to have a {{Cc-by-sa}} (or whatever) for other countries. Even if the file description page lists {{Cc-by-sa}} as the sole licence, people in Germany and similar countries wouldn't have to care about the licence, but if you are concerned that people might not be aware of this, you could create a more detailed licence statement, for example "It is believed that this image is in the public domain in many countries in the world because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality in those countries. In countries where it does meet the threshold of originality: {{Cc-by-sa}}." --Stefan4 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, your practice involves removing license tags for what have seemed to some other people to be arbitrary or capricious reasons. AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL license migration
I've just come across an image tagged with {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}, and... find it very odd indeed. The template originally dual-licensed under GFDL and cc-by-nc-sa, but post-migration it's GFDL + {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}} + cc-by-nc-sa. I can see this was discussed on the template talk page, and must have been discussed to death during the license migration, but the result seems very odd. The migration seems to have nullified the original cc-by-nc-sa licensing, yet left it in place as a token gesture. But since there's nothing that can be done under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}} which can be done under cc-by-nc-sa, surely the latter is redundant and confusing and should be removed? (Personally, I'm not convinced that these files should have been eligible for migration, but that boat seems to have sailed long ago.) Rd232 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the image uploaders didn't want their images to go to Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated, then they needed to opt out each image before the license migration period was complete. Since the "nc" restriction is now meaningless, the question is whether we want to keep a prominent public record of the original uploader's original intentions or not... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise might be to change it so that there is a record of the original license ("was originally licensed under" sort of thing), whilst removing the license template. That would clarify things for reusers. Rd232 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time when Wikipedia copyright was GFDL people were often given the advice that images can be safely licensed under GFDL, as putting the licence verbatim on products is too cumbersome. The cited dual licence shows clearly that the rights' owner did not want to license the work under cc-by-sa. I think we should treat those images as had there been an opt-out, at least if the uploader was not active anymore at the time of the migration. That is hardly legally binding when done now (anybody can use the earlier version, the migration of which was as legal as that of any image), but the best we can do. --LPfi (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in our best interest to appease users who are willing to put restrictions on their works, which obstruct commercial reuse. The opt-out feature was a compromise for some users who are still active and participated in the discussion. Now adding restrictions to even more images, while we are not obliged to do this, is IMHO against our mission. We are not here to help people obstruct commercial reuse. Regards, --ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not in our best interest to appease users ..." it is in our best interest to respect users' wishes, or there is a risk of appearing capricious and unreliable and putting people off contributing. That said, whilst I would have argued strongly against relicensing these files at the time, I think that boat has sailed, and there's not much point talking about that now (unless the users reappear to complain, I suppose). All I'm concerned with in this thread (I guess the title didn't help, my bad) is the confusion of having two contradictory CC licenses. I suggested above converting the original CC template into a historical "was originally licensed under" note, and I've yet to hear a better suggestion (or reason why that's not possible). Rd232 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you quote me, please quote the complete expression: I said, it was not in our best interest to appease users whose goals are different from ours. Honestly, I don't see much harm in putting those people off from contributing. Just like you don't let Republicans distribute their flyers in your Democrat headquarters. Furthermore, I don't think anyone is being put off from contributing by us not reverting the license migration on these files (which we legally cannot do anyway). The license migration offered people who felt strongly about it (and who are in danger of being put off from contributing) the possibility to opt-out their files. Some users took that possibility, others didn't. The ones who didn't either don't care or are long gone anyway. I can't see how reverting the migration on this template would increase contribution from anyone. Regards, --ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, the quote taken in isolation sounds ridiculous! I meant it as a referent for what you said just above, not to be read in isolation, but should have quoted the whole sentence to avoid confusion. As for the substance: I'm not arguing for undoing the license migration on these files now; that wouldn't make much difference. Whatever damage has been done by seeming to treat uploaders' licensing with disrespect (which is what it might easily feel like), has been done. You focus on the users whose goals (NC restriction) are not compatible with Commons'; but I would say that other users might look at this behaviour and say "if they think they can do that, what's to stop them relicensing my work in some bizarre way in the future? No thanks." But, as I said, the damage (whatever damage there is) is done. I'm now concerned only with having two contradictory CC licenses on a given file page, which must be confusing to reusers. So, again, is it possible to convert the original CC template into a historical "was originally licensed under" note? it seems to me that in effect this is unfinished business from the license migration. Rd232 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2 cents. Suppose somebody is publishing a pamphlet that they want distributed under NC licence (why? i don't know), they cannot use any CC licence except CC0, CC-PD, or CC-NC-*, thus removing this licence does remove the possibility of reuse by at least that person. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 18:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So... the seemingly contradictory licenses can co-exist, and re-users can choose which to use? ... well if that's the case, we should leave things as they are. I rather thought the new CC license would override the old, but if the old one is still valid, fine. Confusing, though. Rd232 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has relevance to derivative works. Let's say that you have two images and you wish to make a collage out of them. The collage is a derivative work of both images, so the licence of the collage must match that of both images. Some examples:
Licence (image 1)
Licence (image 2)
Licence (collage)
CC-BY-SA
CC-BY-NC-SA
Copyvio (the collage must be published under a licence which allows commercial usage while at the same time it mustn't be published under a licence which allows commercial usage)
CC-BY-SA CC-BY-NC-SA
CC-BY-NC-SA
CC-BY-NC-SA (image 2 requires a non-commercial licence while image 1 allows both commercial and non-commercial licences)
CC-BY-SA
CC-BY-SA CC-BY-NC-SA
CC-BY-SA (image 1 requires a commercial licence while image 2 allows both commercial and non-commercial licences)
Thank you, that is very clear. An explanation like this ought to be available on some relevant Commons page. Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing is perhaps the place; the textual description currently there is not as easily understandable as your explanation/table (though it is perfectly correct, and fine if you already understand...). Rd232 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what I want to ask additionally, is there any specific Commons-wide project and/or place besides this general one to assess these terms for images? Cheers 217.187.30.7415:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The standards of copyrightability vary significantly by country; even if it would be considered PD in one country there may well be another where it would be considered copyrighted. Since the CC licenses apply worldwide, and remove all doubt, we tend to just leave those licenses in place either way. Commons:Threshold of originality is one place we try to show border cases which have come up in court cases or similar in a few countries, though it's hard to show the other side of the line (simpler stuff which was granted a copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Licensed-PD-Art}} was created for images that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions but possibly not in others. I think a more general {{Licensed-PD}} tag could be useful, and could be paired with tags like {{PD-text}}, {{PD-text-logo}}, and {{PD-ineligible}}. It would say something like this: "This image is released under the following license: (license) In some jurisdictions, the image may be in the public domain due to the following: (PD tag) In these jurisdictions the terms of the license are not compulsory." Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The defendability of the CC-licenses tailored to the specific jurisdictions/language will be up to the knowledge and ability of the lawyers who made them, some local courts may still challenge CC license made for their jurisdiction/language. Ah I think I'll let this issue rest... but seriously! I haven't seen one wiki in the wild linking or referencing the image properly! And just another thought couldn't you avoid the issue by referencing the original image and license in the meta/rdf tags of the file? This one doesn't. It would also add some bytes to the image size, which may be significant as it's a top-100 image. ;) And some more questions, does the Wikimedia Foundation hire any lawyers? Are they contactable by the community? ... heh sorry for the rambling. Greets 217.187.30.7417:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, CC damn well oughtta be releasing this sort of image under CC0. The burden of compliance with CC-BY is simply too large for a logo that you want to plaster on every page. And as you say, in practice, no one does. It sends the wrong message when you disregard widespread noncompliance with your own licenses. I wonder if they would be amenable to this. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that these images are not by CC, but rather individual Wikipedia contributors -- I think they were created due to license ambiguity on the images actually provided by Creative Commons themselves (since made more clear). CC controls the use of their icons by a trademark policy (which is appropriate), and I think their images are CC-BY, but I think the situation was much less well-defined when these were created. As far as attribution, clicking through to the image page is generally considered enough. I somewhat doubt this file would get copyright protection in the U.S. (it would depend on the gradient in back), but other countries are a completely different matter (Australia once granted a copyright on this, for example). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 217.187.30.74 with slightly different IP again (they're nearly closing the IPv4 gap...). As an argument for making this file public domain, there are some vector files with gradients on Wikicommons that are maybe even more nuanced than this one, as an example: File:Adobe_Photoshop_logo.svg and they are considered not to be copyrightable. Greets. 217.187.22.24919:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generic questions, using Kroger as an example
Hi. I'm coming from English-language WP, and I'm trying to wrap my brain around free, non-free, fair use, public domain, threshold of originality, copyrightability and the like. I sort of get the concepts, but I'm not sure just where the parameters lie. So I'd like to start off with this example from U.S. grocery chain Kroger.
Probably. Just text & geometric shapes. Pushes the limits because of the extremely stylized "K", and of course it is trademarked, but I'd guess it's not copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Free" is a set of rights, typically governed by copyright law, which everyone must have on a work. If copyright does not exist or has expired, we consider that to be "public domain", and therefore obviously everyone has those rights (though our definition does ignore other potential rights which can restrict use, such as trademark or publicity rights for individuals). If something is copyrighted (the usual case for modern works), then that copyright must be liberally licensed so that others have those rights. The term is defined here, and had its roots in the free software movement. "Threshold of originality" and "copyrightability" are similar concepts -- the copyright law of each country define which types of things can be copyrighted (in general, ideas and facts cannot be copyrighted, but only specific expressions of those ideas -- e.g. the particular wording of a paragraph, but not the idea conveyed by those words). Even when a type of work is copyrightable, laws also generally require that works be "original", with varying definitions. This area can differ between countries quite a bit, and is difficult to get a real handle on. Commons:Threshold of originality tries to give a few examples; for the U.S. this page lists many appeals decisions of the U.S. Copyright Office; those often get into the threshold of originality boundary and can be helpful to understand it (but are quite dense to read). This page summarizes a number of court cases which treated this area, and this page goes over some other types of copyright boundaries. Not surprisingly, this type of thing can be hard to answer definitively. As for your Kroger example, I think the U.S. would not consider that copyrightable, as that is lettering plus common, simple shapes in a simple arrangement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info/opinions! Based on what I've found in Commons:Threshold of originality for the Best Western logo (where the U.S. Copyright Office denied copyright, and stated it didn't matter if the top "symbol" is a stylized crown or a stylized "W"), it didn't seem like the stylized "K" in "Kroger" would be an issue.
I've got another Kroger-related followup logo; but it might help me first to ask about a logo on the Threshold page. There is a shiny, 3D, real-life Ford logo marked "may not be eligible for copyright protection". Because the heading talks about "the logos in these images", I assume they're not talking about the image, as I understand that you can take and upload a photograph of a copyrighted logo, without encountering any copyright problems.
Could you please tell me a bit about why the Ford logo is in question? I notice that the image is used on several WPs as the identifying logo for "Ford Motor Company", while the apparently different(?) logo used in en.WP is either somewhat 3D, or 2D with a color gradient. Thanks again. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas Light Displays
What is the copyright status of light displays in the US (and elsewhere) on public or private property. In Chicago, there are some really wonderful displays, espcially Lincoln Park Zoo's Lights and in the neighbourhood of Sauganash Heights-Lincolnwood (known locally as Candy-Cane Lane). It is my understanding that some holiday or other light displays may be copyrighted. Is this information accurate? -- 21:05, 12 December 2011 User:Circa24
My intuition is this: utilitarian lighting (designed to light an area) is not protected, while complex decorative lighting (going beyond simple shapes/text) would be protected. The only case law I'm aware of: in France, the Eiffel Tower is in the public domain, but a company claims copyright on photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night, due to the lighting display they installed on it. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States is a bit different situation -- that normally requires a fixation, i.e. the work to be fixed in tangible form for protection.[2] I'm sure there are places that will claim protection though, even if it is untested in court cases, and some displays may make use of items which are effectively sculpture. If you could point out places that claim it, maybe that would help. I'm not aware of any U.S. court cases which would back up such claims though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have some great shots of the Lincoln Park Zoo Lighting Display that I took in a night photography class, and I am planning to spend some time in Indianapolis, also known for their great lighting displays. I'd love to share them, but I'm afraid of running afowl of someone's copyrights. Is there any place on Wikimedia to post a photo where more knowledgable users could check them first? User:circa2403:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How to delete an image uploaded by mistake
A first time user Musicfanz1 uploaded a high resolution photograph that was likely taken by a professional photographer. This new user clearly does not know all of the byzantine rules here. The photo was uploaded on November 5 then nominated for deletion on November 11 [3] then the uploader emailed permission to OTRS on November 13. Another new user Pikks tried to upload a reduced resolution image on December 12. This was discussed on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions [4] These users are trying to correct their error but don't know how.
It is possible to specify a low resolution image in the OTRS permission. I did that for the Ed Roberts photo. "Spencer Smith of Smith's Studio, 5417 Main Street, Eastman, GA 31023 releases this low resolution copy (232 by 300 pixels) under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 license."
The US copyright law allows for correction of mistakes under certain conditions and these new users are making a timely request. We should encourage professional photographers to contribute to the Commons and still allow them to make a living. A typical Wikipedia/Commons reply is that that licensing is absolute, perpetual and invariable. This viewpoint reinforces the outside world's view of Wikipedia, a hostile place for newcomers. I assume these new users should figure out how to request a deletion at Commons:Deletion_requests. We should have a short explanation and procedure on how to delete images uploaded by mistake. Maybe it is already there. I didn't see one at Commons:Deletion policy -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a large resolution photo licensed CC-BY-SA, and a smaller resolution version licensed CC-BY? That seems fine; we would keep both under different filenames. We would delete the smaller one if it's an exact scaled-down version with equal or more restrictive licensing. Or did the photographer not intend to give the CC-BY-SA license for the larger version? Ah OK, that seems to be the situation. If the high-resolution version was not intended to be released under a free license, and it has just been a month, then we'd probably respect a request to delete, particularly if there was miscommunication involving OTRS. They would be nominated for regular deletion though. In normal circumstances, don't upload a smaller-resolution file on top of a higher-resolution one. You could either upload the lower-resolution one as a separate file, and send OTRS permission that makes clear it is a lower-resolution version only, and then nominate the other one for deletion explaining the mistake (they didn't realize it was the high-resolution version being licensed). Or, nominate the current file, again explaining the mistake, and explain very carefully in the DR that only the high resolution revisions should be deleted, while leaving the overall file itself (admins can sometimes make mistakes processing that kind of DR though). You would follow the instructions at Commons:Deletion_policy#Regular_deletion. It would be best if a separate OTRS is sent to clarify the resolution being given permission though; if the original OTRS is for a different filename or is not clear, it could cause confusion later at some point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous logos that are borderline PD-textlogos that I'd like to ask a second opinion about. I'm asking because they were originally or also uploaded to English Wikipedia, and I don't want to delete them there unless we are confident they are not uncopyrightable. Please note that some of the logos may be mistagged as self-created (the uploaders are sometimes lying or not paying attention); others might be properly tagged as self created (uploaded by copyright holders) but are missing proof of permission:
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Commons has to treat these images with caution by assuming that these are all non-free images. Since a logo is a graphic mark or emblem commonly used to add value to commercial enterprises by identifying their product, service or organisation through branding, you should err on the side of caution by assuming that these logos are registered trade marks, and as such are afforded special copyright protection.
On the other hand, if you do have any evidence that they were published without copyright protection, or their design has been identified by a third party source as being judged to be beneath the threshold of originality, then they just might be in the public domain. However, I would suggest to you that this is very unlikely.
What we can't do is to assume that the images are in the public domain simply because there no information available about their copyright status at the time they were uploaded into Commons. At the very least, we have to assume that these designs were created by a graphic designer, and that uploading them into Commons is an infringement of the designers' copyright.
Lets be absolutely clear, an OTRS ticket from the designer, publisher or registered trademark holder is needed before these images can be classed as being in the public domain. In the absence of an OTRS ticket, the {{Fair use}} template should be placed on each of these image so that they be removed from Commons. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are well over the line. The Tron image is most probably OK (that is only lettering and everything is just centered), and the Cleveland show might be OK, except that the letters may be arranged so to draw a copyrightable shape. Not sure on that one; probably safer to delete it. The Escogido baseball team I'm also not sure about; it may not reach the threshold in the U.S. but that is a Venezuelan logo and I have no clue what the situation would be there. So, I'd probably only keep the Tron Legacy one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you could come to this conclusion, Carl, based purely on your own opinion. In the case of artwork for Tron Legacy Reconfigured, this is an intergral part of the artwork for an album cover published by Walt Disney Records. if you have a look at this website, you will see that the uploaded file is only a small fragment of a much larger graphic design that goes way above the threshold of originality.
Carl, you are way out of line to suggest that Commons can keep this artwork and ignore the copyright of the designer and publishers in this particular case. Contributors to Commons cannot make judgements about whether an artwork is original or not based on personal opinion; we need to provide third party sources to identify such works for us. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are out of line to suggest that we are not allowed to interpret copyright law -- of course we can make judgements. That is copyright paranoia otherwise. See Commons:Threshold of originality and many of the decisions of the U.S. copyright appeals board here; many of them deal with this sort of thing. To suggest we cannot apply the same arguments to other works is incorrect. Copyright is determined by the uploaded expression only -- if something non-copyrightable is pulled out of a larger work, that element is still non-copyrightable. That does not affect the copyright on other elements, and of course we could not upload the larger work. If you think that being part of a work which contains other copyrighted items somehow "infects" this work with a copyright, that is mistaken, and a fairly significant misunderstanding of copyright law. The Tron image above contains purely non-copyrightable phrases, and is entirely text ("typeface as typeface" is not copyrightable in the U.S. -- see here). The arrangement is entirely centered, and is therefore too simplistic to me to support a copyright -- there is no creativity in the arrangement. You have to treat each upload on its own merits. Some designs are too simple to support a copyright, as numerous court decisions and copyright office decisions have found; I reject the proposition that we are not allowed to make our own judgements on the matter following case law and other precedents. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to me, I am not suggesting that we are not allowed to interpret copyright law. Of course we can make judgments, but can only do so if there is third party evidence about this specific image to support our opinions. We cannot form opinions from mere generalization.
The reason why I can't rely on your personal judgement is that, as a contributor to Commons, there is no real evidence that you (or I exist): therefore, everything we say has to be taken with a pinch of salt, because what we write is nothing more than hearsay when viewed from the perspective of the real world. Since our personal interpretations of the law cannot be used on their own as a basis to make judgement on copyright law, then we need to provide third party evidence (real world evidence) to back them up.
Take the example of File:Tronlegacyreconfigured.jpg: it is not a very complex graphic design I grant you, but to suggest that something pulled out of a larger work is not "copyrightable" if there is no creativity in the arrangement is just another way of saying that we don't have to give attribution to an artist if we were to cut there work into little parts where their creativity could not be seen. That is a way of evading copyright law in my book, simply by saying that the sum is subject to copyright, but the parts are not. This is a classic example of a derivative work: it is just a paired down version of the whole design that can be seen here.
Having said that, the evidence that this is a "copyrightable" work is there for all to see: both you and I can see the Disney logo is clearly displayed within the design. I don't know if the Disney logo is itself subject to copyright, but, regardless, if this image has their logo on it, then they are clearly asserting ownership of this work, in which case I suggest to you their copyright should be respected, regardless of merit.
Simply put, I reject the proposition that we are allowed to use our own judgments to brush aside claims to copyright simply by using case law and other precedents (regarding registered trademarks) that do not apply to this case (regarding original artworks). That would be wishful thinking, and is not an argument that would stand up in court of law in the real world, where such opinions would be subjected to peer reveiw.
Think I am being too abstract in this view? Put it another way, if you want to go toe to toe with Disney's legal representatives in a court of law, then if you were to treat this image as public domain and start printing t-shirts based on this or any part of the album artwork (including just the text bits) and offering them for sale, then you would risk being sued for copyright infringement just as you would do for stealing part of any other Disney designs.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold of originality is part of copyright law. To suggest that we are not allowed to interpret that with respect for a particular image, but instead must rely on an outside person's interpretation on every specific image, is basically saying we are not allowed to interpret that aspect of copyright law. There are plenty of examples, and the rationales and wording used by the courts and copyright office are applicable to all works, not just ones they happen to consider. That is the entire idea, that people get better guidance on making their own decisions. I may or may not exist ;-) but any argument is here on its own merits. Just because we are WIkimedia contributors do not mean that our opinions have no weight -- in the end, we need to interpret copyright law and there are inherently lots of boundary issues. I believe in respecting the public domain as much as respecting copyright; you appear to want to acquiesce to any copyright claim no matter how novel or unsupported it is. The Disney logo is not evidence of copyright (nor is it copyrightable itself as it is just lettering); it obviously identifies the author though. Every precedent I mention above is about copyright specifically; I'm not sure why you would think those are about trademark. I would certainly agree the Tron image is trademarkable, and almost certainly trademarked, and if you made a t-shirt with it, you would be committing an obvious trademark violation. However, I don't think that would be a copyright violation. Trademark and copyright can overlap, but there are items which are trademarkable but not copyrightable (such as the Tron one, I think, and many other logos), and there are many which are both (most of the rest of the examples above). And there are things you can't trademark, but can copyright, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be absolutely clear, when Gavin says "Lets be absolutely clear, an OTRS ticket from the designer, publisher or registered trademark holder is needed", he phrases his own idiosyncratic opinion as policy. That is not standard operating procedure for Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside our differences of opinion for a moment, at the very least we are agreed that Tron Reconfigured artwork is the intellectual property of Walt Disney Records. Whether or not Disney can enforce intellectual rights over this work is a matter of speculation. Either way, we can only form an opinion based on the evidence in front of us.
Whether this artwork is original or copyrightable or not, I personally cannot say in the absence of a specific court judgement or other third pary evidence relating to this image. However, if we are agreed that the artwork is owned by Walt Disney Records, then that is evidence that it is a non-free image until proven otherwise. I can understand why some editors might disagree with this view, and if they want to upload similar works of Walt Disney into Commons, all I can do is to suggest to them that it is the wrong thing to do. However, you should know that an identical image that has been uploaded at Wikipedia is categorised as a non-free image, so I am not alone in the view, despite what Prosfilaes would like to think. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't say it's copyrightable, then you cant say it's non-free. Trademark is a non-copyright restriction, and does not have a bearing on whether the work is "free" or not. "Intellectual property" is therefore not a specific enough term on this site; we are concerned purely about the copyright. Disney owns the trademark, yes, the keep-or-delete question is if this rises above the threshold of originality for copyright or not. All you have been saying is that you don't want to give an opinion -- that is fine, but then please don't call other opinions wrong without saying explicitly why you think this does rise above the threshold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Tron image. It is just text. Keep the Cleveland image. Calligraphy is not copyrightable in the United States. Maybe Keep the baseball club image, but it really depends on how {{PD-ineligible}} is defined in the source country. Delete most or all of the rest as they seem to be more complex. Category:Logos suggests that the first two, and maybe the third, but hardly the rest are fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my fault that the editor who uploaded the file did not upload any copyright information that demonstrates that the artwork is non-free or in the public domain, but in the absence of such information, we cannot disregard the wishes and the rights of the copyright holder based on our personal opinions. We need third party evidence to support the extraordinary claim that it is non-copyrightable.
If we cast our net wider in our search for evidence, and go to the website of Walt Disney Records, you will find clear assertion of copyright over everything (including the artwork) that Disney produce. This is a good reason to treat the artwork as non-free, because we don't have any third party evidence to support a contrary position.
It it fair to say that based on the real world evidence that we have before us (rather our own opinions), Disney are claiming in good faith that their artwork is subject to copyright, and so we should respect that, regardless of our personal opinions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrightability should be able to be decided by looking at the work; that is not something that the uploader necessarily needs to provide evidence for (though it would always help). We do not need explicit third party evidence; we do need to base it on solid legal arguments however. Those arguments do come from third parties. You say "copyright holder"; that says you are assuming there is a copyright to begin with, so you are assuming the question -- that is circular reasoning or rather begging the question. Of course Disney claims copyright over everything they are legally allowed to copyright; the notice is for the composite work of the website, but the copyright of a composite work, has no bearing on the individual parts that make up that work -- if separated, copyright is applied to that piece only. Obviously, many portions (such as the other part of the album cover you pointed out) do have their own copyright, but the only thing in question here is the image actually uploaded. If that is copyrightable on its own, then we should delete it, if not, then it should be kept. The arguments though need to be based on legal precedent -- copyright is not granted based on whether there is a claim or not; it is automatic if it is eligible, and obviously does not exist at all if a work is not eligible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intellectual property is a vague term unhelpful in discussions like this. I feel the idea that Disney owns it is tantamount to claiming it has a copyright; a trademark is not ownership, it's merely exclusive right to use it in some commercial cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the Walt Disney Company tries to claim copyright for anything ever made by that company, hoping that no one will contest that. However, this does not mean that Disney holds any copyright of the item; it just means that Disney has issued a statement that it owns the item, which may or may not be true. To this discussion, I would also like to add File:Disney Junior Logo.png (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Junior Logo.png) which is similar. It would be nice to be able to finish that discussion at some point. It is also interesting to see how easy it is for Wikimedia to claim that a third-party logo isn't copyrightable while still claiming copyright for some of its own very simple logos (see Wikimedia). At least and look like {{PD-textlogo}} to me, and some more of the images on that page would probably also go under that tag. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly my earlier arguments have not been accepted.
However, the knockout reason why Commons should respect Disney's copyright claim is because the artwork can only be used for the same purpose as a non-free would be used. Since the whole context of this discussion is whether this album art is non-free or not, then if it can only be used to identify a specific product of Walt Disney Records, that clearly indicates that it is a non-free image.
Put this another way: if the uploader wanted to use an image that is not "copyrightable" to visually identify the album "Tron: Legacy Reconfigured", then the uploader had the option to create his own artwork for this purpose, and release it into the public domain. Instead, he chose to upload Disney's own design because:
My own personal view is that this artwork is more than simple text and geometric shapes: it actually identifies the product in a unique and recognisable way. If there was any other purpose to which the image of this artwork could be used, I would be inclined to agree with Carl Lindberg. However, since image that cannot be used for any other purpose other than as visual identification of Disney's work, and that is the killer argument as to why it is copyrightable, and hence this is a non-free image. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking in terms of trademark -- symbolic value (and visual effect) are not used in determining copyrightability (as mentioned many times over in the appeals decisions). You seem to feel that a trademarked item is non-free since it can only be used in limited contexts without violating trademark; that is however explicitly not Commons policy. And making custom artwork that uses a trademarked name would likely inherently be a trademark violation itself, and thus not acceptable here -- we accept trademarked items, but of course can not use them in any way which violates trademark. That is part of the issue -- there is no real other way to represent the logos without uploading only the approved designs which make use of the trademark. If such logos are not copyrightable, by copyright law, then they are considered "free" and can be uploaded to Commons. Otherwise, they remain fair-use only on local projects. In any event, looks like it was deleted without discussion anyways. (file was restored) Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned with the trademark in the image, other than it does serve to identify Walt Disney Records as the maker of the product, whose terms and conditions (displayed on their website) make it clear that they assert copyright over everything they make. This is on reason why we should accept their copyright claim at face value, but it is not the only argument.
The killer argument for treating the image of the album artwork as a non-free image that it clearly identifies the album "Tron: Legacy Reconfigured", and there no other use to which the image could be used in Commons other than "to identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended". Simply put, if there is no other use to which this image could be put other than piracy, then from the perspective of Commons, it must be a non-free image. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, that is no argument at all. Its inability to be used for other purposes is only due to the trademark, and therefore no bearing on what we consider "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is wishful thinking, Carl. Even without the Disney's trademark, the cover art still identifies the product in a way that a free image could not. Proof of this is that the uploader clearly intended that the image should be used to illustrate the article about the product in Italian Wikipedia. Lets be honest with each other, if an non-free image of the cover art is uploaded and used in this way, it is to "properly convey the meaning and branding" that a free alternative cannot. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The art can be used for several things without voiding Disney's trademark. For example, you could create your own custom font and use some of the letters on this image in that font. The fact that there might not be any potentially useful derivative works that you can make out of an image is irrelevant. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things that could be done with this artwork, in theory, but in reality that is implausible because it would be easier to create your own artwork that is fit for purpose, rather than trying to make a square peg fit into round hole.
You are talking about a fair use rationale, which is only needed if there is a copyright in the first place. If this is below the threshold of originality, then there is no copyright to begin with, and no copyright holder, and it is free, and everything you keep repeating is meaningless. The fact it is used to identify a product is immaterial -- the copyrightability is exactly the same whether it refers to a product or not. And yes, you could possibly extract small bits to use elsewhere (the main problem is that the starting image is so simple there is not much to extract). You still seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding something -- File:Best Western logo.svg cannot be used for much other than identifying the company either, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not copyrightable and therefore "free". The question here is threshold of originality per U.S. law, and nothing else, and you are basing your argument on factors which do not enter into that determination. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, Gavin, you need to acknowledge the distinction between trademark and copyright, which Clindberg has made heroic efforts to make clear to you. Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection which provides protection for creative works for a limited period after creation; a trademark provides potentially unlimited protection for unique identification of something (so long as the trademark remains in use). Copyright requires creativity in a design, and no usage; trademark is about usage, and requires no creativity. It is perfectly possible to have a copyright-ineligible trademark, and such files can usefully and legitimately be hosted on Commons for usage in Wikipedia (and perhaps other Wikimedia sites) in ways that do not constitute trademark infringement (i.e. by identifying the trademarked item on a fair use basis - an issue to watch out for at the Wikipedia end as the assumption will usually be that items from Commons can be used without fair use declaration). That it is often nearly impossible to find other legitimate uses is irrelevant. That is why we have {{Trademarked}}. Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have acknowledgded the distinction between trademark and copyright, and I understand the point you are making: you are of the opinion that copyright protection does not apply to this image, but I don't accept this opinion, because it is not based on any real world evidence, just hearsay. The real world evidence I have seen here, suggests to me that the artwork for this album is way above the threshold of originality, but that is just my opinion, and this can be ignored not only because this too is hearsay, but also because I do not claim to have a perspective on this issue that is superior to you or Carl or any other Commons participant.
The reason why this is a non-free image is indicated by the use to which it has been put, and also by the fact there is no other legitimate use to which it could be put, i.e. fair use image. The uploader has used it to identify the album "Tron: Legacy Reconfigured" because there is no free alternative that could be used to "properly convey the meaning and branding" that this image of the artwork conveys. The use of the term "branding" in this context is not about trademarking of Walt Disney Records per se, but used in the sense that the artwork is sufficently original to associate the product with the film franchise, which is the purpose for which "copyrightable" artwork of this sort is created. It was apparent to the uploader that this artwork achieves for exactly the reason why Walt Disney Records is likely to have commissioned this artwork in the first place: to be sufficiently original and distinct so as to identify the product as special or different from other products in the market place. This image can serve no other purpose other than to used as a non-free image for these reasons. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The reason why this is a non-free image is indicated by the use to which it has been put, and also by the fact there is no other legitimate use to which it could be put". Cite the law that says that matters in a copyright sense. There's no legitimate use for the word Disney other than to identify the company or one of the family members, but that doesn't make it copyrighted. (Or "I'm Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.") --Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The (excerpted section of the) Tron Legacy album cover is clearly not copyrightable; we have countless legal precedents from the U.S. Copyright Office that make that painfully clear to anyone who cares to investigate. (That the album cover as a whole includes copyrightable artwork has no bearing on the copyrightability of any particular part of that album cover.) In my opinion, the Cleveland Show log and the RuPaul graphic are also not copyrightable. The others I would delete from Commons (unless we can find out more about the threshold of originality in Venezuela). Powers (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which legal precedents from the U.S. Copyright Office apply to Tron artwork? Could you be more specific? Please be aware that we cannot rely on hearsay in these matters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which legal precedents from the U.S. Copyright Office apply to the Mona Lisa? Once again, you're applying a different standard to applying the "too simple to be copyrighted" rules then you apply the "too old to be copyrighted" rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to me, I am not applying different standards; the analogy you are using is too trite to support this view. It is a matter of fact the Mona Lisa is in the public domain by virtue of its age, but it is a matter of personal opinion whether this album cover is original or not. If there are legal precedents from the U.S. Copyright Office apply to Tron artwork that can be brought to this discussion, these would be better than hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Gavin, you said (on whether these images meet COM:TOO) but that is just my opinion, and this can be ignored not only because this too is hearsay, but also because I do not claim to have a perspective on this issue that is superior to you or Carl or any other Commons participant. You claim not to put your opinion above anyone else's (in a manner that implies you've never even heard of the community's "consensus" approach to matters of opinion), but at the same time you seek to overturn the way the community has handled these matters for a long time, with no evidence that is really relevant to your argument (which seems to be, when it boils down to it, that trademark use somehow confers copyright protection). At this point it should be abundantly clear that you're not going to change the community's approach by discussing this matter in this thread. If you really think you're right, you should approach the WMF legal counsel (email is listed somewhere); if the WMF issues a legal opinion on this, the community will be forced to listen. Rd232 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there is a wider picture to consider, but it does not matter who is right or wrong in this regard. If the legal counsel of Walt Disney Records were to contact the WMF legal counsel and request the image to be removed, then there is a risk that our discussions here would become irrelevant, as it would be left to the lawyers to decide. However, if we deal with this case in a cautious way by treating it as a fair use image, then we can keep the lawyers out and avoid the Judgment of Solomon.
I think this fits in with the wider community's "consensus" approach to legal matters: we should try to avoid the risk of legal action where it unnecessary. Commons does not really have any use for this artwork image outside of "fair use" (which is what it is being used for, afterall), so why Commons needs to dispute Disney's claim of copyright over album covers they have created is beyond me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're making it sound like Commons is trying to make this case an exception; but it isn't, there is a well-established principle backed by a range of legal precedents (COM:TOO) and it is being applied here. You're seeking to overturn that principle, and you're not going to succeed by continuing this thread, which originated with a discussion of the application of that principle before you took it in a rather different direction. Rd232 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. What is extraordinary about this whole discussion is the number of claims that are being made without any third party evidence that this album cover is not subject to copyright protection. The unanswered question in this regard still stands: "Which legal precedents from the U.S. Copyright Office apply to Tron artwork?" --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that none of us here at Commons are qualified to pronounce whether the rulings of the US Copyright Office are relevant to this case, let alone be taken as precedents. The correct answer is that, while there might be a precedent out there somewhere, we don't really know if there are any precedents from the U.S. Copyright Office that apply to Tron artwork.
Please forgive me if I don't acknowledge your point of view, but consider the situation that we are in. The US Copyright Office probably receives thousands of requests to register graphic designs every year, most of which they accept, some of which they must refuse. If the artwork for the album "Tron: Legacy Reconfigured" were submitted for to their office for registration tomorrow, we have no way of telling whether they would grant or refuse the request. More importantly, for all we know an application to register the Tron Legacy artwork may have already been submitted and accepted. I think you have to acknowledge, no matter how reasonable it is to pronounce the Best Western logo as being applicable to this case, we cannot rely on such pronouncements because, given the lack of third party evidence to support this view, it is little more than hearsay, but more importantly, it could be entirely false. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're using the word wikt:hearsay correctly. We are not reporting what another said. It could be totally false; that's not the standard that we've used before, for practical reasons. Any "own work" could be copyvio; even reproductions of old paintings could be modern hoaxes. (I've looked for a book I could scan a better version of File:Nymph with morning glory flowers.jpg from, but I've never found a printed source that shows it.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, you're saying we cannot accept reasonable consensus judgement by Commons users on an issue where some judgement about licensing is required - and that's just about everything Commons does, since judgement is required on whether users' declarations about licensing of uploaded media are reasonable. In this case, we'd need nothing less than an OTRS ticket from Disney saying "yes, this is PD-textlogo". Except, OTRS is staffed by volunteers as well, so how can we trust that? So basically, we need to shut down Commons (since WMF can hardly afford to replace the volunteers with paid staff copyright lawyers). Do you want to tell Jimbo or shall I? Rd232 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is staffed by unpaid volunteers, but at least they are operating in real world, whereas we are not. If we want to keep Commons free of lawyers, then we don't want to upload non-free files that would require them to monitor our actions, or worse still, have to defend our actions in court.
Going back to your earlier point about "reasonable consensus judgement by Commons users", of course I respect your right to exercise judgement about licensing, but my gut feeling is that the pronouncements made by Carl, yourself and other users may be based on a category mistake relating to the nature of image that we are looking at, and the conclusions that you have jumped to may be erroneous as a result. On the one hand, I accept the consensus view that simple text, coloring and geometrical shapes "without a spark of creativity" fall below the threshold of originality required by the U.S. Copyright Office. Nonetheless, there is evidence to suggest that this album cover is entitled to copyright protection because its design should be categorized, not as a simple design, but as a derivative work because it is being used to illustrate a product that is part of the Tron franchise for which Walt Disney would receive copyright protection under Title 17 of the US Code.
The evidence for this is based on typeface used on the album cover, which is based on the same typeface that used for the promotion of the film Tron: Legacy. This typeface has been in development before the film release (see for example, this image from the 2009 Toronto Fan Expo, and has been used in film posters and other forms of derivative work ever since, which I think we can agree is subject to copyright. A reasonable judgement based on the typeface would suggest that the album cover for "Tron: Legacy Reconfigured" would be entitled to copyright protection, because it falls under the category described in COM:DW as being of "such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article".
If the typeface was copyrightable in the U.S., I'd agree with you. But Congress was pretty explicit that it is not: The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101. A work which does not rise to the threshold of originality cannot be a derivative work, because it's not a "work". It would not matter if it was used as a component in a different copyrightable work; any public domain element can be extracted and used (though of course that would not affect the copyrightability of that other work). Symbolic value also is not relevant in determining copyrightability; it is based solely on the expression actually present. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were solely focused on the typeface as the "work" in question, I would be inclined to accept your counter argument. However the album cover in question is more than just a typeface, it also explicitly identifies the film franchise ("TRON LEGACY") by name, as well as using an original arrangement of that typeface ("R£CONFIGUR3D") that does not appear anywhere else. Lets be honest, this album cover has been copied wholesale in order to preserve its originality, and there has been no attempt to extract or use the typeface separately from the design of the album cover. Based on a unique combination elements, the "spark of originality" is actually present in this album cover, such that we know it to be a derivative work from the film "Tron: Legacy" which is the work in question. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And since you criticize us for interpreting the law without evidence, do you have any law or court cases to buttress your position? Because I find your interpretation of law to be without precedent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it identifies the film franchise by name is immaterial (at least in a copyright context; that is of course precisely what trademark is about though). Copyright is not based on symbolic value. Additionally, names, short phrases, slogans, and that sort of thing are not protected by copyright: Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. As for "original arrangement of typeface"... um... that is called a "word". "Reconfigured" is not an original word. And the result of using reversed characters is still just a typeface; they are meant to be read as letters, and are still just typographic ornamentation. The fact they used numbers for a couple letters is barely novel; it's done in en:leet all the time, and to me is not the type of original expression protected by copyright anways, but rather at best "novel and distinctive" in the way that slogans are yet still not subject to copyright (and not really novel anymore, either). Of course the image was uploaded because it identifies the album; someone found a portion of the cover which was too simple in and of itself to copyright, but can still be used to identify the album -- that kind of thing is routinely uploaded. For a fuller description of what a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work needs to be to attain copyright, look at the Copyright Compendium: 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 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, the graphic is a series of non-copyrightable words, arranged in a centered column. It's certainly not a derivative work of the film -- that implies specific, identifiable expression from the film is present here, which really would only be the word 'TRON LEGACY" in its typeface (which is not copyrightable, as mentioned, and thus not protected expression). Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to me , I have said all along that my opinion can be ignored because it is hearsay when viewed from a real world perspective, but also because I do not have a superior perspective relative to any other Commons participant. However, for Prosfilaes to dismiss my views as being "without precedent" is little more than a trite insult.
As explained earlier, we need to look at the evidence that is before us, and the knockout reason why this artwork is a non-free image is demonstrated by its "fair use" to which the uploader clearly intended, namely to illustrate an article about the product. Fair use in this context means that the image is "...cover art, a form of product packaging..." and that the rational for using it is that "...the entire image is needed to identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image". If proof is needed, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: its a non-free image being used for a fair use illustration.
On the issue of fair use, I would illustrate this point with reference to Castle Rock v. Carol Publishing. Although the crux of the Castle Rock case is centered on what constitutes commerical use vs. fair use, the case is relevant to us because it describes the characteristics of a derivative work that would be subject to copyright in terms of the use to which it is being put.
There is no dispute as to whether Walt Disney holds copyright over the album "Tron:Legacy Reconfigured" nor is it disputed that uploader of this image copied the artwork directly from the album cover;
The uploader clearly intended fair use of the image, as there has been no attempt to create his own artwork to illustrate the article about the album, nor was there attempt to extract or use the typeface separately as has been done elsewhere;
It would be hard to argue that the work was not subject to a claim to copyright, since if the image copied directly from website of Walt Disney Records, whose terms of use mades their claim explicit;
There no alternative or transformative use to which this image could be put, other than for the purposes of fair use;
The album cover is derivative work, because it is promotional material that the copyright holder (Disney) would generally develop or license to identify their products, a secondary user of the image (Commons) could not develop or license the artwork in this way (unless it received an OTRS ticket).
When taking all factors together, the the only reasonable use that could be made of this image is fair use, and the only reasonable conclusion from its use is that it is non-free image.
I admit that this case is not directly relevant, so again, feel free to ignore my opinions. Having said that, I think these arguments do counter Carl's assertion that this album cover cannot be categorized as a derivative work because it's not a "work" in the first place. I think if we are honest with each other, we could agree that this album cover does contain the "spark of originality" and that it is a derivative work, and this is why the uploader chose to to copy this album cover in the first place, because a free image would not contain that spark (i.e. public interest in the "Tron:Legacy" franchise) that this artwork provides. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a dispute that Disney owns copyright over the portion of the cover as uploaded here; if this portion does not reach the threshold of originality then there is no copyright to own in the first place. Ownership of other works is not relevant.
A fair use claim, and all the language surrounding it, is not necessary if the image is not copyrightable. You seem to be assuming the question again.
It is certainly possible to argue the work is not subject to copyright per law; that is what we are doing.
Transformative use is a fair use term; again not necessary if not copyrightable.
The fact that it is promotional material has no bearing on its copyrightability, as mentioned previously. Copyright does not protect ideas or symbolism, only expression.
Every single argument you present in your list above presupposes it is copyrightable, so none of those arguments really address the question at hand, and don't advance the discussion much. Your previous two posts had come closer to why you thought it passed the threshold of originality, even if not supplying any references, but now it seems like you are circling back to a "it's copyrightable because it's copyrighted" argument or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an over simplification of my position, and does not invalidate my arguments. Looking at the evidence and infering that the album cover is subject to copyright is not the same as presupposition. This is not a circular argument as you suggest; rather this is an example of strong inference. Not only can we observe what the uploader has done in the past (2), what the status of the work is in the present (1 & 3), but more importantly, it is possible to predict that the use of this image must be restricted to fair use, rather than piracy, in the future (4 & 5). Castle Rock v. Carol Publishing is a useful case, because the court's decision about non-fair use was inferred from the evidence, not presupposition.
My argument still stands, but I do concede that there is not have any direct evidence that the album cover is subject to copyright. You are entirely correct to say that copyright does not apply to mere text, common geometric figures or shapes, typefaces and simple colouring. Having said that, whether this applies to the design of this album cover is a matter of opinion, and clearly is a source of disagreement between us. At its lowest level, every artwork is composed of simple graphic elements, but when assembled together, an artwork can become more than just the sum of its parts, and my personal view is that this is an uncommon arrangement of these elements in which the "spark of originality" is present. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was just added (copied from English Wikipedia) and I'm suspicious about it. Note that it is a British logo, so it must require less skill and labour than a simple signature in order to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Any opinions? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best guidance I have seen is here and here, which indicate the pure text logos probably don't, but if there is any artistic element, then it probably does. Given the little graphic on the right... I'd probably lean towards copyrightable there. And there was a case (full text here) just recently where special treatment of the letter "E" was deemed enough for copyright there. The case was mostly about trademark, and rejected a laundry list of defenses, but copyright and the "originality" question was mentioned in one paragraph, saying what is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work and citing a 1966 precedent. They seem to use "original" in the sense that it was not a copy of something that came before. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new here and I really don't know what to do now...
I started to write about character from anime series Naruto (On Serbian). I uploaded a lot of pictures on Wikipedia, and they didn't removed them yesterday. Right now, at this moment they removed ALL pictures that I uploaded and now I don't have picture for my article! I really need these pictures, so if someone can tell me what to do? What should I write in the description of the picture? Should I write: I DO NOT OWN NARUTO! Naruto (c) Masashi Kishimoto and Studio Pierrot?
If someone knows, then help me. Please.
OoQuiet.SnowOo (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)OoQuiet.SnowOo[reply]
Commons cannot accept fair-use pictures at all, so they would be deleted from here very quickly. You may be able to upload them directly to the Serbian Wikipedia, provided they are allowed there under their guidelines. So, follow the guidance at that link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you uploaded three more fair use pictures which I have now tagged as copyright violations. Please don't post any fair use images on Commons. If the Serbian Wikipedia fair use rules allow them to be hosted locally, you can upload them at sr:Special:Upload. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely remove free licenses from works containing parts copyrighted by Wikimedia. I believe attaching free license tags to such works is misleading. Even if it's only intended to apply to the added contribution by the photographer/uploader, and even if it's explicitly labelled as such, I can guarantee 90% of uploaders won't notice that and will think the free license applies to the work as a whole. Of those who do notice, very few will have a conceivable use for the portion not including the logo. Besides, the uploader had no legal right to create and distribute a derivative work in the first place without a license from WMF, so they can't really complain about the license removal. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is copyrighted in Mexico because the artist died less than 75 years before 2003 and less than 100 years before 2011. It is copyrighted in the United States if, and only if, it was first published at some point between 1923 and 2002 and any relevant formalities were followed (details here). It is copyrighted in the Ivory Coast if either a) it is copyrighted in the United States and the earliest publication of the image was in the United States, or b) the earliest publication was in either Mexico or the Ivory Coast. It is in the public domain everywhere else in the world. By the way, if you click on the copyright statement on that page, it says that the museum in fact does not know whether it is in the public domain or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes thanks, I had forgotten about that 95 years thing. I suppose it means the file should be nominated for deletion ? --Zolo (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that this applies to everything in Category:Samuel Halpert. I am not happy with the 95 years rule; it basically says that anything, first published between 1923 and 2002, and, where applicable, with copyright statements, late registrations and renewals, are copyrighted in the United States even if the items were produced millennia ago. How are we supposed to know whether a random ancient item was published, and if so, when it was published? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt it is still copyrighted in Mexico ;-) Their 75pma law wasn't retroactive. That is a different debate though. But yes, it might still be copyrighted in the U.S. The question is when it was published. If it is still considered "unpublished" (as exhibition does not necessarily imply publication), then it is actually PD in the U.S. (70 pma). It could also be PD if it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 (I don't see a notice on the painting itself), or it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed. There was a book about him in 2001; that may have published works if that did not happen before, and would trigger a clause which extends copyright until 2047, though only if that was the first publication. But there also a book from the 1920s that sounds like it might have some pictures in it; perhaps many were published then. The Brooklyn Museum probably isn't sure and is going to err on the side of caution. It may be a candidate for a DR, as the publication question is a difficult one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my mistake about Mexican copyrights. I only listed the conditions under which it would be copyrighted in the US (first published between 1923 and 2002 and in compliance with any applicable formalities). If unpublished, or first published before or after the specified dates, it is in the public domain. The 2001 book is problematic: if it was published there, and no one can dig up an earlier publication, I think that we have to assume that it will be copyrighted in the United States until the end of 2047. This page lists a lot of books which may contain this painting, but it may be hard to find them in order to check. Some of the book titles, and especially those containing the words "America" or "American", sound interesting. [6] (from 1932) seems to have paintings by him, but it's not clear which ones. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the cover of this 2002 book, so that is the absolute outside limit. Looks like it is in this 1986 book too. It is in this 2003 book, and that gives dates of the painting as being from 1915-1919, which brings up pre-1923 possibilities. Searching could be complicated in that Halpert did a different painting of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1913 (see here). This 1967 book has a Halpert painting of the bridge, not sure which one. Per this, the estate sounds a bit ugly -- Halpert divorced about a week before he died, and his family apparently took over the estate (somewhat forcefully). This painting apparently was donated by Benjamin Halpert, a brother, and the estate was sold off to others. There are several volumes relating to exhibitions, but no idea if they included images of the works, or the one in question: 1922, 1924, 1926, 1927, possibly this one from 1927, 1935. Really not sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes WP-users simply don't care, and upload free pictures under a fair use template, without any analysis on their copyright status. Sometimes there is an error on our side, sometimes external PD sites are not prudent enough for Commons. Could provide some examples? Trycatch (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "characters" can be registered separately -- they are embodied in the book, movie, comic, etc. which defines the character. The character copyright expires as those works expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, individual graphic works outside of the comics. Usually you need more than one drawing to establish a "character" though. Otherwise it's just a graphic work (with the usual derivative rights). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
posted on WikiProject Comics on this issue, there are cases like Tarzan and John Carter who despite his original tales are public domain, the heirs of Burroughs still have rights to some aspects of the works in the case of Sheena, should be even the Phantom by Lee Falk, published in Australia whose covers are hosted on the Commons and the character has not entered into the public domain.Hyju (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I've always thought of, what is the state of newspaper comics? Let's say that a newspaper comic strip was published before 1964 in a hundred newspapers and that 99 newspapers renewed the newspaper copyright but that one newspaper failed to do so, can I then upload a scan of the comic strip from that newspaper? en:Google News Archive is useful for looking at old newspapers, but since the removal of the search function, it is hard to find new newspapers unless you know the URL to it beforehand. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. But considering that there still are prints of pre-1964 newspaper comics which claim copyrights, I guess you're right. Otherwise, it would always be possible to find some eligible newspaper. But how was en:The Uncensored Mouse possible? Did King Features Syndicate fail to renew copyrights or were they in the public domain for some other reason? The only information I can find in the preface and copyright notices of the first issue is that the publisher planned to publish all newspaper and Sunday strips up until the end of 1936, so I guess that's where the public domain stuff ends. In the recent Fantagraphics books, not all strips have a copyright notice, but the notices might have been edited out by Fantagraphics. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You only need to renew a copyrighted work once, and a lot of newspaper comics were renewed separately. (Unfortunately, prints which claim copyrights don't mean much.) For a work simultaneously printed in many newspapers, I don't know how copyright law would work; I think it likely the lack of an individual renewal would cause it to go into the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some images, such as File:Montage Marrakech.jpg, show many photos. Wouldn't they need links to all of the individual photos and a list of all applicable licences in order to confirm the copyright status? This image has no such list, which also means that it fails attribution requirements if the photos were taken by someone other than the uploader under a licence requiring attribution. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of these images on Commons? I added the tag to a few of images in Category:René Lelong (first published in 1930). Should they now be removed, or are URAA pictures somehow accepted here? I'm also wondering about the status of File:René Lelong - Joys of Spring.jpg: should it have {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} too? It was made "ca. 1890-1900", but there is no mention of any date of publication and it is only the date of publication which is relevant for the US copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game
Does this only extend to the one who takes the screenshot and not to other people? If the one who takes the screenshot can do anything, I assume that this person can release the individual screenshots as e.g. {{CC-BY-SA}}, but {{Minecraft}} alone might not be enough.
but don't just rip art resources and pass them around, that's no fun.
Is there a limitation here in that you can't create certain derivative works which are defined as being no fun? Commons generally requires that it be possible to create any derivative works of your choice. It also seems unclear exactly when something is no fun.
Any tools you write for the game from scratch belongs to you. [...] Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money. We reserve the final say regarding what constitutes a tool/plugin and what doesn't.
The game company can obviously not require that tool and plugin developers allow any use of any screenshot, so the "you're free to do whatever you want" statement obviously doesn't apply to tools and plugins, so we can't have any screenshots of tools and plugins unless we receive permissions from the individual developers. I don't know whether they can affect the graphics in any way, though.
To me these are well within scope. The statement that you cannot rip the art out of the images is the same as the limitation that you can't crop the de-minimis artwork out of the freely licenced photo and claim that it's under that free licence. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question about rights
I'm about to upload a picture on The Dance Party's wiki page. The photo I'm about to upload is a photo I have taken at the 2011 Warped Tour at Blossom Music Center during their performance. The photo has my photography tag in it. The question I have is, will I still have full rights to that tag if I upload it or will the rights be handed over to Wikipedia and Wikimedia? --unsigned by User:Nitro95024
What you do is that you publish the image under a free licence. Basically, it means that anyone may use your photo for more or less anything, with few limitations. You can still do whatever you want with the image yourself, except that you can't repeal the licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or the abbreviation "copr.". The old law on the matter is at s:United_States_Code/Title_17/1976-10-18/Chapter_1/Sections_19_to_21; note that the year could be omitted on sculptures, and a monogram would also suffice for the name, provided the real name is on the pedestal or nearby somewhere. Also see the Copyright Compendium for further guidance; they mention that misspellings and variants where the intention is clear is OK. The pre-1976 compendium (section 4, large PDF, see here) has other examples of acceptable variants (and non-acceptable variants). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If SIRIS documents all the inscriptions, and does not mention a copyright notice, then yes we tend to take that as evidence for lack of notice. SIRIS doesn't always document the inscriptions, but it seems they usually do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them (e.g. File:1795 Painting 60.jpg) show very old paintings and look fine to me (copyright would expire 70 years after the painter died, and anyone who made a painting in 1795 would have been dead for more than 70 years). Some stamps (e.g. File:Stamps1871.jpg) are very old and there is a possibility that the creator might have been dead for at least 70 years. Also note that copyrights of anonymous creators expire earlier than copyrights of creators who have revealed their identity (but it might be hard to prove that someone really is anonymous). The discussion you mentioned suggests that some of the other stamps might need to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I would suggest to delete at least all the stamps published before 1941 (2011 - 70), except 2D reproduction of work of art in the public domain. BrightRaven (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Permissions
Hello, im not sure if im on the right page, but i was wondering if anyone could help. ive taken a picture and want to upload it to wikicommons, if i do that and provide details of the image for permissions via an email, do i have to write it myself as i dont know how to word it, or is there a template available for me to fill in. thanksGouldtime1 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not send an email permission unless there is some reason why your authorship of the image might be questioned, for example, if the image was already published on the internet. Please see Commons:OTRS for the details about when an email permission can be required or useful and for examples of how to write it, if you conclude that you should send one. If you refer to File:Daisies in kent.jpg, it is indeed published on some websites since several years, in a larger size than your Commons file. But you say that you took the photo and that the date is 19 December 2011. So, yes, in a case like this, a permission is required. You will probably need to provide some clear evidence to show that you are the author. Sending a permission from an email address directly associated with the original publication might be required. For more details, you can ask at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are only 2D things there, it's probably fine, but it looks as if the photo might show some 3D architecture placed next to the painting. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo shows any 3D art, permission from the photographer is also needed. I think it looks as if some 3D architecture is shown, so I'd say that we need permission from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could anybody here maybe send a request to the copyright holder of the image asking if they would allow for the image to be used here (and be released with CC license). Cheers, Magister Scienta (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has always baffled me. We have a specific policy in regards to this.[7] Yet I sometimes see what I feel are clear violations such as this [8] File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG. The image depicts a copy protected poster with a number of trade marked logos. It is being used on Wikipedia but when a discussion began as to whether it complied with copyright policy at wikipedia an editor requested it be closed and the admin there (Gwen Gale) closed the discussion with this:This CC image is at Commons. Any worries as to whether this image captured any copyright infringement outside the bounds of fair use which carries through to the image itself, should be taken up at Commons. As to whether the image should be carried in this en.WP article, that's an editorial matter to be driven only by editorial consensus pending the outcome of any copyright/fair use discussions at Commons. As an aside, the copyright policies of en.WP and Commons are the same. However, Commons does not carry "fair use" images.
Where would be the proper place to carry out this discussion? Is this image within the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons? If I feel strongly that this image is has been uploaded without the consent of the copyright owners and trademark owners against Commons policy, where do I take this for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depicts a protester holding the poster -- it is not necessarily a derivative work by copyright law. A photo focusing on the poster would be a problem, yes -- read the policy closely; the issue is what expression the photo is really based on -- if other elements are incidental to the overall scene, I'm not sure that it would be considered "based on" enough to cause a derivative work. Trademark is also irrelevant, as I don't see how that could be considered a trademark violation (trademark owners do not get at all the same protections as copyright owners), and trademark is not relevant to whether something is "free" or not (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). All the logos are also incidental to me, so no copyright issue either. Definitely not a straightforward question, but mere inclusion does not always mean it's a derivative work subject to someone else's copyright. Commons:Village pump/Copyright is probably a better forum, but you can read the Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits decision (see the paragraph starting "We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable") and Latimer v Roaring Toyz, the section on derivative works -- that case was about photos of a motorcycle with a copyrightable design on it; the lower court used logic which I'm not sure really holds, but the circuit court there arrived at a similar decision to the lower court but with different logic, though skirting actually making a ruling on derivative works (rather implied license) while strongly hinting that the broad lower court ruling was not valid, but they still would not consider those specific photos derivative. Those both describe the other elements as incidental to the primary subject of the photo, and would not cause it to be a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand part of this is interpretation and that I myself may be taking a more strict interpretation. My main problem with the image is the focus on the trademarks and copy protected poster and the way it is used on Wikipedia for that exact reason. It appears to be undue weight to illustrate this since it is only a single line in the section and it is the consensus of editors that it is "Ancient history" because it happened in the first week of the protests and feel that inclusion in the lead is not worthy of mention. When looking at the summary on the image page, it appears that the it makes no mention of the image or what it is supposed to be. That made me a little suspicious as to the legitimacy of the image itself. I will take your advise though and bring this up at the copyright village pump as well as look into all the information you left for me. Well...I'll read through all that first as it looks like these may be even better information to help my understanding. Very big thank you Mr. Lindberg. I very much appreciate your civil answer. As an artist and a photographer I know that to question the work of another tends to lead to very heated posts. You have been very helpful.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe, as I stated on Shankbone's talk page, that the logos are not incidental here - they may be small, but they are a major part of the picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a de minimis thing exactly, but it's not really focusing on the expression in the logos themselves, so those (to me) really aren't an underlying work. It's more interesting to see which logos were chosen to be on there, rather than really making use of the artistic expression of any of the logos themselves -- you have to make that argument for a derivative work (and even that only if you are arguing that the photo is focusing on the poster -- maybe, but it was just part of the scene being photographed). The photo of the girl would be a bigger part before any of the logos. Many of the logos aren't copyrightable to begin with, either, and almost all the rest were almost certainly published without a copyright notice before 1989 at some point (most companies didn't bother with copyright protection on logos, as trademark protection is usually more appropriate). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, I think it is de minimis, but not in the sense that expression is most commonly used on Commons. Fundamentally, each individual logo is reproduced so small and as such a small portion of the overall composition that the presence of the logos would qualify as fair use even in a commercial context. Now, before someone jumps down my throat, I know that we say "we don't accept fair use as a justification on Commons" but all de minimis arguments are ultimately fair use arguments. This is a case where Commons vocabulary has drifted a little from actual legal vocabulary, using each of these terms as a shorthand for the context in which it most often comes up. I don't think there is any problem with hosting this image. Carl, I'd be interested to know if you disagree with any of what I'm saying about the vocabulary. - Jmabel ! talk09:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a technicality, de minimis can be different than fair use I think, though they can be intertwined as well. It is all fairly subjective. See the page here, which notes a case regarding the Se7en movie where the judge ruled de minimis without bothering to do a fair use analysis (i.e. go through the four fair use factors, which is required if such a defense is considered). The en:de minimis article does note the usage outside of fair use (and also notes a usage which is involved with fair use). You may have a point if there are free photos of a situation where the subject is making fair use of another work -- i.e. the fair use is inherently embedded in the photo itself. Parody is another example where (I think) we allow fair use items, as that has been shown to even allow commercial use, and is commonly allowed by other countries too (in the U.S., parody is a fair use defense). But that may also be better reasoned like the cases I mentioned above, where they would pick only the objects the photo was really "based on", and other works which happen to unavoidably appear are incidental (and also do not seem to be subject to a fair use analysis since they do not rise to derivative work status). The logos in File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG in particular I don't think are an issue -- there is little actual expression in them to begin with; people may react to their symbolic value but that is not an aspect protected by copyright. The photo of the girl was the most problematic issue to me, though I thought it was still OK (and the photographer of the girl apparently agreed in a later communication). A lot of this is very subjective though; it wouldn't surprise me if some judges do use fair use arguments in seemingly similar situations. I suspect that defendants would often bring up both de minimis and fair use as defenses (and anything else which might apply, like "not a derivative work"), making the judge consider all possible arguments. I'd think fair use is normally only considered if all those other arguments fail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Creighton memorial Peterborough Cathedral.jpg depicts a memorial slab of Mandell Creighton in Peterborough Cathedral. It is a replica of the one designed by Henry Harris Brown (1864–1949);[9][10] the original lies over Creighton's grave in St Paul's. Since Brown died in 1949, the slab would still be copyrighted until 2020 in the UK.
UK's freedom of panorama extends only to works of artistic craftsmanship installed in public display. This means 2D art are typically excluded, but exceptions include stained glass and hand-painted tiles. Would this slab be considered a work of artistic craftsmanship and why? Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos.
Keep any NC licence statements. They allow people to limit derivative works to non-commercial usage. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
_Logo.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.schippernet.com/zak_projects/MASS/kcbs/web/kcbs_web/logos/kroger/Kroger_Corp_logo.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Glamourina1.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Delete most or all of the rest as they seem to be more complex. Category:Logos suggests that the first two, and maybe the third, but hardly the rest are fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
and 
look like {{PD-textlogo}} to me, and some more of the images on that page would probably also go under that tag. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The art can be used for several things without voiding Disney's trademark. For example, you could create your own custom font and use some of the letters on this image in that font. The fact that there might not be any potentially useful derivative works that you can make out of an image is irrelevant. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Day_12_Occupy_Wall_Street_September_28_2011_Shankbone_31.JPG){kind=link}
