Another issue: If FOP was to apply to artwork permanently attached to a vehicle, would it make a difference if the vehicle and the artwork were originally from one country but happened to be within a different country when the photo was taken? --[[User:Gazebo|Gazebo]] ([[User talk:Gazebo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Another issue: If FOP was to apply to artwork permanently attached to a vehicle, would it make a difference if the vehicle and the artwork were originally from one country but happened to be within a different country when the photo was taken? --[[User:Gazebo|Gazebo]] ([[User talk:Gazebo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:: I think not, most FOP's require the work to be permanently located in the public place (as far as I can recall only [[COM:FOP#Korea (North)|North Korea]] has a FOP that lacks the permanently located requirement), a car is very rarely permanently located anywhere except perhaps when in a museum display. None of the Red Bull campaign car images appear to be permanently located. <font face="Lucida Sans">'''[[User:LGA|<font color="#90EE90">LGA</font>]] [[User talk:LGA|<font color="#8B0000"><sub>talk</sub></font>]]'''<sup style="margin-left:-4ex">[[Special:Contributions/LGA|<font color="#006400">edits</font>]]</sup></font> 22:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds
An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below.
I'm proposing this matter here per the advice of ChrisiPK at AN.
As we all know, CC had updated all of their license deeds after the release of CC 4.0 licenses. It is to educate the licensees (and licensors too) about the legal terms by highlighting them more promptly. And, we can see some terms like "remix", "work", "file" are not perfectly conveying the copyright terms. So CC changed them to "adapt", "material" to satisfy all types of works, means and medium we are using.
There is also a warning about the third party rights (like publicity, privacy and moral rights) that may limit the reuse. Our current practice is to add specific tags on individual files, which is time consuming and not perfect as we can't check all files.
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons <license name with link to deed> license.
"Foo" <title of the work with link to URI> by Real name (www.example.com) <attribution parameter provided in author field with a link to user page> is licensed under a <license name with link to deed> license.
You are free:
You are free to:
to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
to remix – to adapt the work
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following conditions:
Under the following terms:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license (link to legal code) before using the licensed material.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Additional details
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.
SupportOption 4 or 3. Jee 07:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Option 6 considering new suggestions. The layout, design, colours, icons, etc. can be changed/improved. I'm only concerned about the wordings. Jee02:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The layout of this proposal is confusing, it took me a few minutes to work out that this was a "from existing text" to "new text" proposal with them side by side. Adding to the confusion is that this appears to be trying to do all variations of Commons allowed CC licences in one go. I suggest the "from" and "to" texts are side by side in a wiki table and that each licence, or each licence component in CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA are made clear rather than bundling. To go the extra mile, I suggest creating the new draft licences in a sandbox and linking to them here, so that the end result can be seen as it will appear on an image page. --Fæ (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those license tags are so complicated; so difficult to understand for an ordinary volunteer. Probably Multichill can help. All tags of version 1.0 to 4.0 except CC 0 use that same components. CC BY doesn't use the "ShareAlike" part. I didn't look on NC as it is out of my interest. Will try to improve the presentation. Jee08:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would clearly prefer to use a more grammatically correct presentation (like Wikimedia Commons does currently) than a BuzzImportantWordInCamelCase (like ShareAlike) terminology (like the new proposal offer to uniformize with Creative Commons text). --Dereckson (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use of separate words than in the legal code will affect the legal validity in case of disputes. Jee02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the links in the icons on the current tags are not working. It seems link= only works if full URI is provided. Jee03:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a useful improvement and brings our CC4 template in line with their deed.
I'm not clear how the ""Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) " bit works. Could someone give examples for Commons-sourced files and perhaps indicate if e.g., Flickr-sourced files would be done differently.
I like how "This file is licenced" has been dropped since CC have admitted they don't consider any of their licences to be file-based [something to consider changing in earlier templates too, but that's for another day].
I don't think the "You are free to" or "Under the following terms" should be in bold, nor the links.
I think "Notices" should better be titled "Caveats", since that's what they are.
The CC4 deed also has "for any purpose, even commercially." and "The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms". These are both important points and I don't see why we should miss them out.
I don't see why our "deed", if that is what this is, needs to link to CC's deed in the word "deed". It is just confusing to read "This dead" which contains a link to something else. Since ours is nearly the same, we've made theirs redundant and so re-users would be best jumping straight to the full licence text.
1. "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
I had spend a lot of time to understand the "marking" and "attributing" procedure. "A good rule of thumb is to use the acronym TASL, which stands for Title, Author, Source, License." It covers all the necessary information for attributing a licensed material (work). I understand your question as "original source" of third party uploads are different. In that case we may consider to add the source parameter too as in the Media Viewer. Then it will look like "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) (Own work/external source) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Note that we try to provide attribution parameters through various ways (Creditline, attribution= in license tag, etc. But I noticed that external sites like eol.org only look into the author= field in Commons.)
2. This update will affect all CC tags except CC 0 as this edit request is on Template:CC-Layout.
3 Done.
4 Considerable if enough consensus (I'm not a native English speaker).
On point 1, I still don't understand and need an example. Since this is a generated template, where would one get "Real name" or "www.example.com" from. Please can you give a few examples from real Commons images. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Sure; you can see here how I provide attribution to the POTY winners.
1. Real name is given.
2. Only user name given.
4. Flickr user name, Flickr source, and name of adapter provided.
Support the text of {{Cc-by-4.0}} should match https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en. I did not check word by word the match of the proposed text with creativecommons.org version but it should be close. The same goes with all the translations already done by CC. One concern I have is with "Foo": most photographs do not have titles and we should not expect people to title them, but should allow someone to add title if desired. I would also like to keep the suggested attribution part as a separate field. Incorporating it into sentence will cause trouble as people can put all kind of nonsense there making the sentence incomprehensible. Current approach isolates injected text so it is less of an issue. We should probably update Commons:Credit line. --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second option is "Attribution: Photo by Example / CC BY-SA" as a second line as in current template. But the current problem is we only (most people) provide attribution as "author name" only. It gives the re user a false idea that only author name is required as attribution. In fact, attribution requires Title (optional), Author, Source, License. Jee17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "attribution" statement might be misleading as it often only mentions author. Maybe we should update and expand Commons:Credit line and link to it (we might want to also rename it to something like Commons:License attribution). I do not think filename and title are equivalent: our filenames can be up to 240 bytes long and the only requirement are that they are unique. Many were chosen not by authors but by the uploaders, for example in case of flickr images (like all files here) --Jarekt (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; and wonder how Media viewer handle this: <p><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg" alt="Areca catechu nuts at Kadavoor.jpg" height="480" width="360"></a><br>"<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg">Areca catechu nuts at Kadavoor</a>" by <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jkadavoor" title="User:Jkadavoor">Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India</a> - <span class="int-own-work">Own work</span>. Licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0">CC BY-SA 4.0</a> via <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/">Wikimedia Commons</a>.</p> displays "Areca catechu nuts at Kadavoor" by Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Note that we need "title" or a word like "Photo" or "Media" at least to link it to the source. Further not that, according to CC this attribution may not be immediate visibility under the use. It can be in page footer, tail page of a book, or in a "credit page" especially created for that purpose alone in a website. In such cases, a meaningful tittle explains the media is the only way to associate them together. Jee02:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the ping. I still had this somewhere on my list. My main concern is that it's going to become some massive bulky template. The first prototype doesn't look promising at all. We should focus on getting a slick small template, not trying to teach copyright in a template. I'm inviting some of the WMF legal and design people to pitch in. Multichill (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of it. But my opposing arguments are:
If we use a small template just covering the first line, people use their own templates to convey the remaining parts.
We our self applying {{Personality}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Consent}}, etc. in selected works with makes the page more bulky than this. Further, that practice is not perfect as we can't filter all such files easily from our collection.
I think educating people is more important than limiting the page size; if it leads to misuse, thus makes damage to our potential contributors.
I agree with you that sound review by a legal team is necessary before applying the change. I think Media Viewer team can help us. Pinging Keegan (WMF). Jee02:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Jee. I'll have to read up on this and see how I can help pass it along, and to which part of the WMF, if appropriate. Pesky note: it's the Multimedia team ;) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keegan (WMF). I know you're not from the legal but hope you get enough support from them. And it will be nice if the attribution requirement is provided in the same way in the "file page" and "Media Viewer". Otherwise it will add another confusion and annoying too. :)
What is your (team) opinion about "title" = "file name without extension"? It will be nice if we can add an extra field title= in {{Information}}. But we already have so many files. So I think adding it now is difficult? Jee09:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: : The Multimedia team opinion is that adding these fields isn't difficult, you can use a bot or a Lua module to take care of it. In the long run, looking at Wikidata integration, it might even be beneficial. Structured data=good data. So yeah, go for it if the community agrees. No problem from this end. As for the legal aspect, I've passed that along for someone else to look at since it's outside my purview. HTH. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keegan (WMF); this is interesting. I think adding such a field to {{Information}} will be a great improvement. May be a bot can set the default value for all existing files as "file name without extension" so that authors can change it later if they wish so. @Jarekt: , Multichill, Jean-Frédéric... what do you think? ({{Specimen}}, etc. based on Photograph template have already has a field "title"; so it can be used.) Jee02:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many Artworks and artistic photographs have official titles, snapshots do not. As an uploader of a lot of photographs I think it would be pointless to title them and using a filename sounds like even worse idea: filenames were not designed to be titles they are only supposed to be unique. Welived for so long without titles for our photos why do we need them now? If I want a title to be mentioned in my cc license I will add it to the attribution string, since that what it was designed to do. Also you can always use {{Artwork}} or {{Photograph}} template if you need that field. But even there people are encouraged to use {{Title}} template or templates like Category:Multilingual tags: Title, which can be hard to fit in an attribution field. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jarekt: But how then people can specify source in the attribution? There is no need of a word if the image is hyper linked in a website or attribution is mentioned near the use. But it is not applicable for all cases. See, an e-book is published with 100 photos from Commons and attribution is provided altogether in the last page. Then it is better if we can "Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor" by Jeevan Jose...., "Acmella ciliata by Kadavoor" by Jeevan Jose...., etc than "Photo" by Jeevan Jose...., "Photo" by Jeevan Jose...., etc. It will be far better if we can mention better titles than "file names". ("Papilio demoleus at Kadavoor" is better).
Jarekt, I understand; and some file names by bots are also very lengthy. So what about picking title from {{Credit line}} if provided, else from {{Title}} if provided, else use file name without extension as a compromise? (BTW, that example is com:ADVERT and need to be renamed. :)) Jee14:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with picking titles from license attribution string, {{Credit line}} or {{Title}}, but if those are not provided than I would assume the uploader did not wish to title his/her images, like I do not care about titles in all the images I uploded over the years. Creating default titles for others would need to be a bot job and I doubt it would be approved. But we can offer a service where people that want titles can request for them to be added to their files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jarekt: Then what about using a word like "media" to link to the source if no {{Credit line}} or {{Title}}? The Media Viwers also need to to updated; as it is now using file name as title. I think they did it on the advice of Legal. So we need to consult them (legal) too? Jee15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Media Viwer is not suggesting attribution strings. I do not see any problem with it. I also do not see how is it related to the discussion about a license template. --Jarekt (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jarekt: See this discussion. Media Viewer or any other third party automated tools need to pick the license and attribution string properly from our tags. A manual user can pick it even from data scattered in various locations. Jee16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jarekt: While experimenting with [1], I found another option without title: "This work by <author name with url> is licensed under a <License name with url>. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at <source url>". Can we proceed this way? See Option 3. Jee09:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the changes, but it would be good to include the "Licensor cannot revoke the licence" part in all the deeds here, and the CC Some Rights Reserved image on the left would look better using the version on our current commons deeds. --Graphium07:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Graphium: I included an example showing those information too. Regarding logo, they are a collection of three separate logos; will change automatically in the layout template to match with the license used. (eg: CC BY, CC BY-SA, etc.). Regarding the design, see http://creativecommons.org/policies#license. It should be a "double C in a circle". Jee03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: Ok noted. Just adding one more suggestion. There should be a spacing between the "CC Some Rights Reserved" logo and the "Attribution" and/or "ShareAlike" buttons. The template appears better that way IMO. --Graphium05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I know, the CC-licenses also require the re-user to name the license the work is made available under. That's something we have always neglected for reasons I don't remember, but this seems like a good opportunity to re-think the issue and maybe put an additional notice into the templates. --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jee, I must admit I didn't notice that when I first looked through the proposal. All in all, it looks very reasonable to me. Are the wiki pages linked in the new template available in other languages than english? Couldn't find any direct links there … --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any news on that? If there are no translations of that, we should think about other ways to make sure people know they have to name the license. (I think that's a very important part that has been neglected far too long). --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the approach this is taking and have promoted these changes in the past. Our license templates should at a minimum contain all the things the relevent CC Deed does. BTW, the word Notices is bolded and need not be to create a common format. Otherwise bold the other section headings. When there is a final version it should be put up for a !Vote, not yet while discussion ensues. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fix the English please. "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. --> "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. --Graphium16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they never spell out the full name with "License" at the end. "the" is required here for style reasons, without it it sounds clumsy. Regards, --ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)09:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ChrisiPK, I re checked and found that they use a whenever full name is spelled. They use "License" and "license". So the or a? Jee09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: It would be good to follow what CC uses, which in this case is "a". However English-wise I think "the" is more appropriate. Let's wait for Chris' input. --Graphium09:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a second example covering all CC terms in the deed. Note that I included the "exception" clause too under "notices". Jee15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Files on Flickr have a headline and a description. The headline could arguably be a title, but is sometimes something useless such as "IMG1234.JPG". Should we interpret it as a title? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with how you use words such as "material" and "work" and how you name the rights holder. They have different definitions, and if the licence uses a different word than the template proposals above, this could have strange results in court. For example, the Swedish copyright law provides protection to the following kinds of material:
Kind of material
Rights holder
Explanation
Works
Author
A work is something which meets certain quality requirements, see COM:TOO. Parts of the quality requirements come from the notion that a work must be "created", and parts of them come from the word "work" itself. Split in two groups: "artworks" and "literary works", with different degrees of protection.
Performances
Performing artist
Only performances of literary works are protected, see "works" above. The performance itself doesn't need to meet any quality requirements. On Commons, this should only affect sound and video files.
Sound and video recordings
Producer
No quality requirements needed, but protection is only given to the first fixation. Mere duplication doesn't reset the term. Some recordings are also protected as works and/or performances.
It must be a photograph and it must be an image. Some photographs are also protected as works. No quality requirements needed, but it seems that only new photographic images are protected and that new copies of existing photographic images aren't separately protected. Strange applications of COM:DW, see e.g. NJA 1989 p. 315 (drawings based on photographs weren't copyright violations). Single frames in films count as photographs if created using a camera.
Thanks Stefan4. My understanding form the previous discussions with CC community is that they changed the word "Work" to "Licensed Material" to accommodate databases. (See [2], [3]).) They replaced the word in almost every places; but still using "work" in marking guides. I don't know whether it is an unnoticed error or not. I can see many such errors (like license text changed to CC BY 4.0; but links till to CC BY 3.0) in their sites. Reported to them; but doesn't get any reply so far. Jee02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, different versions of CC licences use different words. Use the word "work" in the templates for licences which license works, and use the word "material" in the templates for licences which license material. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: But they (CC) changed the word "work" to "material" in all of their deeds, even in CC BY-SA 1.0. We need not compelled to follow them; but I wonder what they mean by such changes. Jee17:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the intent was to have a more generic term that would not depend on what is used in a specific jurisdiction, so that the license would be more robust across national boundaries and types of material. "work" can still be found in the body of the license itself, as part of the definition of "Licensed Material" in 4.0: "the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License".
I'm not sure I would have made this change to the older deeds, but it is important to keep in mind that in the situations where the work/material distinction is legally important, the legal code, not the deed, is likely to be what is getting read/interpreted. So being consistent and easy-to-understand is arguably more important than being legally precise in this particular situation. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, with smart templates we could avoid this problem by saying "image", "video", "recording", etc. (depending on mimetype) instead of "work" or "material". This would be more clear for most non-lawyer users and not bother the lawyers (since they'd read the full license anyway). CC is stuck using generic words, but we don't have to be. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Or we can use the word "media" to cover all of our contents (if a mimetype check is not practical)? Jee17:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: @Jkadavoor: @LuisV (WMF): "Material" was used because the license is not always being applied to the entirety of what most people would consider a "work", and sometimes what the license is applied to isn't considered a work of authorship. So yes, databases—not generally considered works of authorship, but are "licensed material"; other things that don't strictly fall under the definition of "work" in a jurisdiction but include rights that are licensable under CC licenses might also count. But also it is more accurate in the case where only certain elements are being released under the CC license—only an excerpt from a book, only the music from a video, only the content from a website but not its copyrightable design elements. You could still accurately call these "works" (the wording on the older licenses isn't wrong in these cases) but it is confusing to people who see that the license applies to the work and don't know that "work" may be defined to be a smaller subset of the more obvious thing. We chose "material" not only to be more broadly inclusive but to indicate that a license may not necessarily apply to the entirety of a thing, but only to a separately copyrightable element. (Not that CC encourages people licensing things in a confusing fashion--if you license a bunch of different elements of a larger work differently, even if you mark them all as clearly as possible, it is probably just asking for trouble. But it is legally possible and people were in fact doing this with their materials.) Using "work" is not wrong; using "material" is more generic. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is moving in the entirely wrong direction. The licensing notices are already too verbose. The proposed versions are twice as long and guarantee that no one will ever bother reading them. Why do we always have to make things more complicated (to the point of absurdity), rather than simplifying. Does anyone think that users actually read the wall of text at Special:Upload, for example? Less is more.Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: We had considers a brief option too at Template talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0. So either it can be as brief as a 1. single line (This work/material by <author> is licensed under a <license name with link to deed>. You can find a specimen of this license at <link to legal code>.) or 2. a summary of the license. Most of our other license tags are very brief. I don't know why CC tags are designed in a different way. Anyway the current tag is not acceptable as CC already changed many words/explanations in their deeds. Jee03:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: I'm fine with changing the wording, but can we have a simpler option to vote on? I don't like any of the lengthy ones suggested above and actually think they would make people less likely to understand the licensing. Kaldari (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: Sure. Could you add one as option 4? I'm happy to wait more time for further suggestions before the voting start. Jee05:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a 4th option which keeps things simple, but still emphasizes the most important piece of information, the attribution. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: Thanks; it is an acceptable compromise for me. One minor suggestion. The word "file" is a bit confusing as it was a matter of debate here. According to CC's stand the license is applicable to the Licensed Material without considering the medium of expression or quality. So I think a word "Material", "Work" or "Media" may more suitable than "File". Jee06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet sure whether I'd prefer a long or a short version, but what I do like a lot about option 4 is the emphasis on the attribution part. I'd very much prefer this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the current options given, a useful possibility would be Option 1 with the title and author of the work being optional i.e. the top line could read "This work by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under" or "This work is licensed under". Wikimedia Commons has many already uploaded works for which changing the deed markup would not automatically cause the work title and author info to appear in the deed. In addition, it may happen where an altered version (i.e. a derivative work) of a CC-licensed work is uploaded and in such a case, assuming that there is only one author name may be problematic. For the Option 1 deed, it would also be useful for the deed to mention that commercial usage is allowed, possibly by changing "upon the material" to "upon the material, even commercially" for clarification. --Gazebo (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had totally forgotten about this discussion and now I am somewhat late to the party. The current suggestions are all still too explanatory for my taste. Note that we don't provide for any other licenses (e.g. {{GFDL}}, {{FAL}}) and from looking at the WMF input below it seems this is a good idea to protect both us and reusers. So my recommendation would be to change the template to visibly identify the licensing elements but not explain what they entail. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've no clear idea. Usually Legal take much time to make any comment. In the mean time, I will try to add a simple option too as ChrisiPK suggested. Jee15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow the discussion either, but has it been discussed whether we could make the license details collapsible? They could be expanded by default for logged-out and new users, and collapsed by default for experienced users … FDMS 4 15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WMF input
Hi everyone, I asked the WMF people for input. Actually for two types of input:
Legal part: The license templates should be as short as possible (less is more!), but legally sound
Design part: Our current layout has been in use for quite some time and can use an update. If we're rebuilding all cc license templates we might as well make them look more appealing
They're not telling us what to do, but advising us (the community) so we can make a decision. The people who'll take the lead from the WMF side:
Comment Hi Multichill, thanks for asking them. Nothing wrong with a design overhaul in general, but I'd suggest to keep that separate from the content part this discussion is about. It's already complicated enough, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we wait for WMF legal we may be here until next year. I say we provide a license template that replicates the deed offered by CC (their legal obviously had input into that and thinks they are valid) Then link to the license itself only. As to design, make that a separate issue. No need waiting for this cosmetic update as that can be done only after we decide on content anyway. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, some preliminary thoughts from me - thanks to Multichill and Jee for asking me to weigh in; sorry I couldn't do it more promptly.
There is no legally right/wrong answer, because there isn't much precedent for analyzing this sort of "summary" of a legal agreement. So these comments are even less legal advice than usual. They're essentially opinions of what I would think about if I were doing this for the Foundation; they're not statements of the law/meaning of the license, and they aren't the Foundation saying "do X".
I think it would be very good if design could weigh in before any decisions are made about which words to use, for two reasons. First, readability: more words + better visual design might be just as readable as fewer words + current (not very good) visual design. So the design may impact how many words we choose. Second, design will influence content and vice-versa: design may have creative ideas on how to present the core ideas, like a complete reorganization, or suggesting a "hide this in future" button, or many other things. They don't just simply make the words we choose prettier :)
This is probably obvious, but most of the wording improvements suggested by CC are, I think, no-brainers to adopt. For example, the new attribution language is much more helpful to readers than the old attribution language. So I'm glad to see that mostly reflected in the options above.
I suspect that attribution and the license information should not be mixed together. That can make it very confusing to know what attribution a user should use - the one in the "use this file" widget? The one in the license text? ...? There is also a lot of duplication- many repetitions of the file name, author name, etc. (I should also say that I'm pointing out the problem, but design will probably have better solutions for it than I will :)
If design and/or the community wants to cut word count, I would suggest leaving in restrictions (DRM clause, "may not give you all of the rights") and leaving out the non-core permissions ("licensor cannot revoke", "exception or limitation"). Prioritizing this way respects licensors and reduces the risk of a mistake for users.
I am biased, because I pushed CC to add it to the deed, but I think the "no additional restrictions" language needs to be in the summary. That is a core requirement of the license and should be visible to reusers.
The "no warranties are given" and "only some of the key features" language might make sense to move outside of the CC template, and use more widely, since those are true of essentially all of the license templates as far as I know (with the obvious exception of PD, since there is no "actual license" to link to).
Those are my preliminary thoughts; sorry they can't be more concrete/specific but this isn't that sort of problem :/ Hope they are helpful. I'm very busy in the run up to Wikimania but will try to be as responsive as possible here. Thanks! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your points I'm wondering if we should work on a expandable show/hide template like at this example. We could show the minimum information in normal view and have the option to expand to show more information. Just a thought.... Multichill (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those examples hide the whole thing. I think I was thinking of hiding just the new "notices" section, since that is secondary information. In my mind, the important thing (that many of the PD templates get wrong :/ ) is to clearly explain to users what rights they have, so I would think we would always want to show the rights/basic responsibilities.
They also seem to default to closed, which is probably not ideal, but then again, I'm not a designer - I'd just like to be one in my next life ;) —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like that! I might consider calling them "Additional details" instead of "notices" if we went this route - the extra word won't hurt since so much else is hidden. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: It has two links. One to deed and one to actual license under "Additional details". I think the CC deed is available in more languages than the legal code (not sure). I think it is OK; but open for further suggestions. Jee03:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jee, but from the beginning it was pointed out that the template was in effect a deed and linking to it was redundant. The header link should be to the full text of the license and thus the link in the sentences would serve no further purpose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it. But I agree with showing the most important info first and then make it an option to expand the rest if users want to find out more. I'll get back to you guys hopefully at latest the end of next week. MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have some initial thoughts and mock-ups to illustrate. Thanks for being so patient! Wikimania prep has been taking up pretty much all my time. Here (1.0) is an attempt to connect the usage and terms more than we previously did, by stating in one place and sentence "Under this license terms*, you are free to…:" and then a list of things you're free to do and what you must do after, which is to attribute and sharealike. But I began by questioning why we care about CC license banner and the purpose of the license. Because people tend to be unaware of their boundaries, a CC license is there to protect the work of the creator and the fair usage of the user of the work. Since CC license permits users to do a lot of things (which they already have no problems with) so long as they are in compliant with license. I thought it was more important for users to know know what they must do if they choose to use the work, because without following terms, they risk getting in trouble. Here (2.0), I made the entire banner look like a single important message with a very clear hierarchy of info, as if saying: Attribute and Sharealike and you'll be fine. Same thing here (2.1), just with different language that's more actionable, "You are free to share & adapt…as long as you…Give attribution, Share Again." I've moved around some sentences here and there but don't claim to for them to be more appropriate for legal purposes, but is what I think could be more understandable. A more condensed version could look like this (2.2). On a side note, I really like how The Noun Project has done to educate icon downloaders to properly attribute the author. When you click on the Download button, you are required to agree to attribute the author (3.0). Once downloaded, you are directed to a page where you get pretty specific instructions on where to attribute the author depending on popular medium usages. We should do something similar!MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank May for working on this - it has challenged me to think hard about what should be in the templates. Three quick comments:
It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but I like the idea of de-emphasizing the permissions (which I think are widely assumed) and emphasizing the restrictions.
It is not obvious from the mockup, but the idea with 2.2 is that there could be mouseovers, popups, or other expansion which would show more information around the two primary restrictions.
2.2 scared me at first (fewer words == worried lawyer) but the more I think about it, the more it could free us up to do some interesting things in the expanded area. I still want to discuss it some with others on the legal team, but I think it's very promising.
Do we really want to give specific instructions how to follow the license? Looking at the screenshot of the Noun Project, they tell you clearly what you need to do, e.g. to "Include the attribution either on the page where the symbol is displayed, or in About or Credits pages.". The problem with CC licenses is that we do not know what exactly they require. Threads about whether CC-by mandates that you put the attribution next to the image pop up regularly. The Commons/Wikimedia community may have an idea of how to interpret the license but who tells us that this is the one true way? Thinking ahead: What happens if we propagate this interpretation via our license templates and some court decides that it is invalid? Which ramifications would this have for us; would people even be able to extract damages from WMF because they followed the interpretation on the license template and were subsequently sued themselves? Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)08:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To a large extent, we already give instructions on how to follow the licenses. The template contains statements about compliance, and the various attribution gadgets make (implicit) statements about how to comply. So, sure, we have to do it carefully (and ultimately it has to be a collective/community decision) but that shouldn't stop us from thinking creatively about how to encourage people to attribute correctly/easily. Or perhaps to put it another way: anecdote suggests people fail to understand how to comply the vast majority of the time. If we try to help fix that, of course there is some risk that we get it wrong, but it is hard to see how we could get it so wrong that we make it worse than the current situation. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multichill, what about this new layout? I think "texts" of "Option 6" can be used with any of these layout, hiding bottom parts under "Read more". Jee11:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FoP Netherlands
Hi all reading Template:FoP-Nederland, the phrase "as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space." is causing me disquiet, along these lines to be truly free on Commons, works must be free to be remixed by third parties in any way. However this rider would seem to imply that we can only apply FoP to a work only if the derivative work created faithfully depicts the artwork as it is. So one could not for example photoshop graffiti onto it, create a derivative in which it is a different colour, or make it seem as if the work was located in a different location, i.e. no remixing, and no remixing is incompatible with Commons. Thoughts please?--KTo288 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons makes an exception and accepts works relying on FOP, even though there are restrictions on what derivative works can be made. --ghouston (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem very clear exactly what kind of derivative works are permitted by FoP, if any, in any country, so this restriction from the Netherlands may not be very significant. However note that there's also "Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included”. I guess Commons itself is such a compilation. --ghouston (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The usual "faithful" clause is for moral rights -- you can't make alterations unless it's quite obvious to a viewer what those alterations are, lest someone think they are actually part of the original work and could affect the original author's reputation. As for the FoP part, remember the exception is that photographs etc. of the object are allowed, so you can only make derivative works of that particular photograph. If you make a work that strays too far from the original photograph, then you are making a direct derivative work of the original underlying work (not just the photograph), and are no longer necessarily protected by FoP. It's really not a reason to prohibit the photographs we can otherwise use; there are lots of valid uses of such photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of more possible significance is the restriction that "Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included.” If, as Ghouston previously mentioned, Commons itself constitutes a "compilation" (or, for that matter, one or more of the categories on Commons could constitute "compilations,") could there be an issue given that the uploading of works in reliance on Netherlands FOP probably does not take into account the number of works from any given artist or other author? Perhaps someone who is familiar with Dutch copyright law can elaborate as to how Netherlands FOP applies to Commons. (On the other hand, Commons currently allows photos of artwork covered by FOP overseas even though there is uncertainty as to whether foreign FOP for artwork would apply in the US where Commons is hosted.) --Gazebo (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does "a few" (enkele in Dutch) mean anyway? I don't know what they are thinking when they write these laws, why don't they just say "five" or something? It does refer to a few of the artist's works, so it seems to be fine to have countless photos of any particular work, as long as only a few such works are included. Deciding which of an artist's works should be included in Commons would be an interesting discussion on each artist individually. --ghouston (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that Commons could ignore the restriction on "a few" of the works, since as a US publication it doesn't need to follow Netherlands rules, and this particular rule doesn't prevent individual files from being used in the Netherlands. But under US rules, only buildings are included in FoP, not art works, so you'd end up with collections that violate copyright law in both countries. --ghouston (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, though. That aspect has no bearing on this particular work and its copyright status. I doubt that Commons would count as a compilation; it is more of a database, which is different. There is no creativity in either the selection of works (we want anything which is educational and OK from a copyright perspective), nor its arrangement (it's a database, and the EU has different, sui generis protection for those). The WMF itself would be the defendants, so it would be up to them how to handle it if something actually came up. There are always some restrictions on how you can use FoP photographs; this is just another type of restriction, but like the others I don't think it should mean we don't accept them at all. There are lots of valid uses of such photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for the input, I guess we can carry on as we have then until we are actually challenged on any one particular case, and for the WMFs lawyers to determine the merits or not at that time.--KTo288 (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Commons, indie games, and cloning
Part of my wikiwork involves talking to indie video game developers about licensing some of their game assets to cc-by-sa or freer for use in video game articles (Category:Video game files uploaded by czar). The indie community has a recurring problem with video game clones, when another developer rips off their game idea and circulates the clone for free. The original devs tend to lack recourse with this, since gameplay is not copyrighted. The devs often ask me about their liability to clones before they donate assets to Commons so I wanted to pass along the question to those who know more about this than I do. Should indie devs not be donating certain types of content like app icons and logos, animated GIFs and videos, or certain screenshots or else invite liability with clones?
For instance, in the case of File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm, would a cloner be able to use the animation of the game's protagonist if attributed? Would the cloner be able to legally replicate the game as animated? (I'm assuming each of the individual frames are licensed under cc-by-sa with the video.)
And for one specific case, a dev told me that: "The only way we could counter attack the cloners and get them to change their app names or app icons (which were almost identical to our's) was by arguing that they were attempting to mislead our customers by mimicking our trade name and trade dress." Is this right, or do you have better advice? Are these types of needs incompatible with cc-by-sa? czar ♔03:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Releasing game assets under a CC license will almost certainly make it easier for other parties to reuse the assets in other works. (As a side issue, IANAL, but if (for example) party A releases noninfringing game assets under a CC license and party B reuses the assets in a game clone such that as a whole the clone violates the rights of party C, then party A should not be liable to party C for releasing the assets under a CC license.) If a game is licensed in its entirety under a CC license or a combination of the GPL plus one or more CC licenses then it may indeed be easier to produce clones than if the game was licensed under a proprietary license. For a given game, it might be possible for a game to incorporate CC-licensed assets (even CC-BY-SA) while having code (for example) that is not licensed in the same way. (Indeed, the question has come up before as to whether GPL-licensed code can be combined with CC-licensed graphical assets.) Another possibility is for the copyright holder of CC-licensed assets to release the assets under a CC license while also authorizing the use of assets in a game that is not as a whole licensed under a CC license. (The copyright holder of a work can make the work available under multiple licenses if they so choose.) A CC license applies specifically to copyright and does not grant any rights with regard to trademarks or trade dress; however, Creative Commons has indicated that using a CC license may be problematic for trademark rights.
On the issue of game clones, a case of possible interest is the Tetris clone "Mino" that was found to infringe copyright and trademark rights regarding the Tetris game. From what one understands, the copyright issue was not the game mechanics but a combination of visual aspects that were replicated in "Mino," including as the playfield dimensions, the "game over" screen wherein the pit fills to the top automatically, and the manner of rotating the blocks. There was also a trademark/trade dress issue with the "Mino" game using game pieces made from brightly-colored square blocks.
@Gazebo, thanks. I'm more interested in the visual aspects than the GPL code since most developers I work with release their press kits under cc-by-sa. My question is whether I should encourage them to leave GIFs or video or icons/logos out of the licensed kit for any reason, if you have a suggestion. For example, if I were to make a game using the main character of the video linked above, would it be infringement with the option of legal recourse if that video was never licensed under cc-by-sa? Does that license give devs a weaker position when combatting cloned work? czar ♔16:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a press kit for a game is going to consist entirely (or almost entirely) of material that is CC-licensed, it may be possible to have the kit only contain a minimal amount of content from the game, in other words, not enough content to clone the entire game if the contents of the kit were to be reused. Also, if a game incorporates logos or distinctive visual elements that function as a trademark, it may be possible to emphasize that CC licensing of that content does not constitute a trademark license. (Along these lines, the Creative Commons FAQ says that it may be better not to license logos or other trademarks under a CC license; this other CC FAQ entry is also of interest.) --Gazebo (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Character animations
Can a character animation taken from a cc-by-sa-licensed gameplay video be used in another video game under cc-by-sa, effectively making the character cc-by-sa? @Gazeboczar ♔20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would cause the character itself to be cc-by-sa, unless the animation was the original work which defined the character (and even then it would not cover any aspects of the character defined by later works). If there was enough material for a character copyright overall, a work using the animation might still be derivative of the (fully-copyrighted) character even though the animation itself is OK. It would mean the other video game would have to also be licensed cc-by-sa though. The full answer might depend a lot on the details though (how central is the character or animation to the other game, how much detail is copied, the nature of the use, etc. etc.).
Given a video game that is not licensed under a CC license, it could be possible for a user to record a gameplay session and then to license the video under a CC license. In such a situation, however, the user would not be able to apply the CC license to preexisting game material for which they were not the copyright holder. In addition, for the user to legitimately distribute their video recording, they might have to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s) for the game unless it was a case where the reuse of the game material within the video was to fall within US fair use or another copyright exception. If a third party wanted to further reuse or redistribute the CC-licensed game recording, they would most likely have to follow both the CC license and any copyright restrictions on the game material itself. --Gazebo (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Fastily closed this RfD yesterday with one vote for deletion (my own) and two votes for keeping the file (User:Yann, the uploader and User:Steinsplitter). I get how the request was closed on a procedural level (2>1), but don't think that my concerns were properly addressed and would appreciate to get some comments on this. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an anonymous photograph, the copyright lasts 70 years from publication. The source has declared it public domain; we will generally trust their determination even if we don't know the exact reason. So, we consider it public domain in the country of origin, and make the best guess as to why. Perhaps {{Anonymous-EU}} would be a more likely tag. We also generally assume photos like that were published at the time even if we don't have direct evidence, thus the PD-1923. If you have specific reason to believe that this photo was *not* published at the time, then that might change things. In general though -- we will not question the source's copyright determination without some very good evidence to the contrary, and we will often make assumptions that such photos were made to be published, and so virtually certainly were published in the era it was made. That is backed up somewhat by being PD in France; if it's been more than 70 years from publication it's also probably been more than 90. The main thing is that we do make reasonable assumptions if something is (by far) the most likely scenario, which is what has been done here, at least with the US side of things. We assume good faith on (essentially) anonymous uploaders, even though we have no guarantee whatsoever they are the actual authors, and that is in general more likely to wrong than assumptions like the above. There is hardly ever 100% certainty on any work, actually -- just what appears to be the scenario given the available evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Press agencies are very strict about copyright matters. If this image (as well as thousands more from the same agency available on Gallica) would be under copyright, they would certainly not allow the National Library of France to publish them, and even less to tag them with "public domain". Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Carl. On the one hand, the pragmatic approach of assuming and guessing constitutes a violation of COM:PCP on the other hand enforcing it for each and every file would probably cause World War III. IMHO trusting an institution's non-public copyright assessment is Bundesarchiv all over again. {{Anonymous-EU}} looks like a better solution than {{PD-old}} - eventually creating a separate template for orphan works might be worth a try. I'm still not convinced by the rationale for keeping this file based on its uncertain publication status. Following through on the premises of Wikimedia Commons is a make-or-break decision. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really violating COM:PCP -- that is when there is a reasonable or significant doubt, not for theoretical, unlikely doubts. If that photo had a known photographer, it could be different, but again that particular source is in general quite good with copyright status, so unless there was some proof or at least significant evidence to the contrary, we would follow it (I'm sure they have made some mistakes so it's good to double-check). Photos by press agencies were almost always published; it would be rather unusual not to, so that is the usual assumption (that it was published around that time). If it is PD in France, it's a virtual certainty that it is PD in the US, since the anonymous term in France on the URAA date was 50 years (though possibly with an 8 year wartime extension). So it really just needed to be published within 30-40 years or so of when it was taken. Also, there may have been terms of gift that we don't know about. They probably have a better idea than we do (same goes for the U.S. Library of Congress). If that website had a non-France work which was PD in France but not its country of origin and marked PD because of that, that would be a reason to delete, or if some information comes to light that makes it probable that the PD determination was a mistake, things like that. As I said, it's possible to throw some theoretical doubt on virtually every file, so we usually would only consider deletion if there some concrete information to support a significant doubt (documentation that it remained unpublished and was discovered only decades later or something like that). Oh, and an anonymous work is different than an orphan work -- the latter are for works with a known author who can't be tracked down to get permission, or who has an unknown death date, that sort of thing. Those are more problematic; we can't keep a work just because it's orphaned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
French works are eligible for an extra war extension of 30 years if the author "died for France". Are works by anonymous authors who "died for France" eligible for this extension? Even if the name of the author never has been disclosed publicly, you should keep in mind that the author's heirs might know who the author is. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. To get the 30 years extension, the author has to be known. The list of authors who got this extension is published by the French government. In this case, the agency didn't keep a record of who took the picture, and the photographer's heirs certainly didn't know that he took it, otherwise, they would claim a copyright. It is also possible, although unlikely, that it was a "work for hire", and that the agency got the copyright from a contract with the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A work is anonymous if the author's identity hasn't been revealed publicly. However, the publisher or the heirs of the copyright holder might have non-public information which identifies the author. The author would still be anonymous under copyright law (at least until evidence has been presented in court), but the person who owns this non-public information would still be able to prove that the author died for France. Or you could show that the author is either A or B, and that both A and B died for France. There are plenty of situations where a copyright holder might be able to prove that an author died for France even if the author is "anonymous" under copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would dying for France be any different under anonymous rules then just dying? There's a lot of situations where a copyright holder can show the author died recently even if the author is "anonymous" under French copyright law, but the law still only gives the copyright holder a flat 70 years. I don't know French copyright law that well, but it doesn't seem logical that dying for France would matter for a flat 70 year copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A work is anonymous if the author's identity was not made public before the anonymous term expired. The company may possibly have had non-public information, but if they don't make that information public, then it ceases to matter once the anonymous term expires. They may well have gotten the general wartime extensions, but not the 30-year one (which requires an identified author, as it is that person's death certificate which determines if they get the 30-year extension). Once the copyright expires, it was gone (other than the EU directive restorations). The EU directive even has a clause (which I don't think applies in France) which says for countries where a corporation is the initial copyright owner (i.e. work for hire type stuff), then the author must be identified on the initial publication, otherwise they get the 70 year copyright regardless if they make the identity known later on. But ignoring that, the company had only a certain number of years. If it was published in 1914, they might have gotten both WWI and WWII extensions, but even in that case the author would have needed to become public knowledge before 1977 or so. If not, it became (and remains) PD. The EU restorations might have made a difference if it was public knowledge before 1984 or so, but still don't matter if the author becomes known only today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are copyrighted images embedded within pdf files allowed on Commons?
At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Multimedia Vision 2016.pdf, Mike Peel (talk·contribs) covered the copyrighted images with the caveat that the files remain embedded in the .pdf file, and acknowledges "the blanking can be easily undone". Although the quote is "blanking", a more accurate description would be 'covering'. From this freely licensed image, using only Adobe Reader, I am able to make a free content derivative of copyrighted material. Would someone versed in dealing with copyright please take a look? Are we now allowing fair use images on Commons, as long as they are embedded in a .pdf and covered (but still present)? 2607:FB90:2205:5CC8:BCB3:3A37:690A:723706:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem should now be fixed - please can you check the new version I've uploaded with Adobe Reader to see whether this is the case or not? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this condition compliant with commons licenses?
I'd like to get the community feedback about this license. It's popular among some organizations within the government of Spain and I don't know whether its is compliant or not.
It can be found here, here or here. It reads as follows:
Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos del Portal, siempre que se cite expresamente su origen público.
The full or partial reproduction of the contents of this Portal is allowed provided that its public origin (or source) is specifically stated.
That is, it requires that its public origin (meaning that it has been created by government department or agency) has to be stated. Is it compliant? Is it equivalent to any CC license? Best regards --Discastotalk | contr. | es.wiki analysis21:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to notice that, however, IMHO it seems a little bit different from a mere "attribution". It goes further as its "public" status has to be stated and I don't know whether it's "basically an attribution rule". --Discastotalk | contr. | es.wiki analysis21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law is different. Copyright law begins by stating that everything is prohibited. Copyright law then gives some exceptions when things aren't prohibited. Unless one of the exceptions applies, it is prohibited. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither or both
These two DRs had different outcomes upon very similar, if not identical, copyright situations:
Same country (Portugal), similar type of authorship (original work by author deceased in 1998 vs. the same by living author), similar artwork technique and display type (glazed tile panels vs. marble inlaid ceramic), identical access conditions (public transportation concourses, available to any ticket carrying passenger within operation hours). Why the different DR outcome? -- Tuválkin✉09:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some one needs to check this as to if the law covers 2d works; only "architecture or sculpture" are listed in the law so it is not clear if 2d works are covered. LGAtalkedits23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same, but inclining to argue for an undeletion of Files uploaded by Travel Photo Guy: These photos show the tilepanel in such a way that they could be mistaken for illustrations in a book or in posters, not something permanently cemented to a wall. If subway station underground corridors and atria are okay as a «public place» for these, then earthwork retention walls in railway station covered platform concourse are also okay for those (same city, same country, same FoP).
In Portuguese "local público" means simply "public location" — not especifically outdoors nor indoors. I expect legal text to be quirky in defining what "public" means (hence my doubt concerning access restricted to ticker carriers) but not to the extent that outdoorsness is implied with no need for additional wording in that regard.
I have however no experience about copyright law, not my country’s or any others, and I really should leave copyvio reporting for those who have expertise on the matter or who enjoy it. Either way, these two decisions need to harmonized according to the same interpretation of the law text — I hope the outcome can be undelete for the deleted and confirmed keep for the kept. -- Tuválkin✉00:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the view that unless someone can show otherwise, a station is a "public location" and would have filed a request over at COM:UNDEL but for the question of 2d vs 3d works, as I said above the law only mentions "architecture or sculpture" as being allowed, as both are examples of 3d art and a tile panel is a 2d art form we need that part clarified and absent any clarification the result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Metro station Aeroporto (Lisboa) may need to be reversed. LGAtalkedits00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the former Swedish copyright law, it was implied from the words "public place" that the place must be outdoors. In 1961, several copyright laws were replaced by a new copyright law, and the notion that the place must be outdoors has since then been explicitly stated. The laws of other countries might imply that a public place must be a place outdoors, but this probably varies from country to country. Different countries have different legal standards. In Sweden, it is not so important to know exactly how the law is worded, and you should instead mainly consider what the lawmaker meant when writing the law, and you must therefore also consider background literature such as prepositions to the parliament in order to know exactly how to interpret the law. In the United States, law seems to a greater extent than in Sweden to be about pointing fingers at the lawmaker, saying "haha, too bad you can't spell" if you find a typo in the law. I don't know how Portuguese law works. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's some element of legislative intent in American law. But we had perfect legislative noble intent in law some 4000 years ago, then they erected stuff like Hammurabi's stela, so people knew what the laws were without reading the legislative mind. The law should be designed so people can easily and correctly understand what laws bind them, not so that the legislature doesn't have to worry about making clear its intent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question about UK copyright
I'd like to upload the picture of a postcard from this page to illustrate the Wikipedia article w:1906 Dundee fire, but I'm finding UK copyright laws confusing and I'd rather ask for help than risk making a mistake. The postcard was created in 1906, and more details are included on the page I linked to. Is the picture public domain yet? —Mr. Granger (talk·contribs) 17:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Commercial reuse FoP in South Korea, files of modern buildings.
File:Seoul Floating Islands.JPGThis proposal affects files like this one, stunning photo of a great building, but do South Korean FoP rules allow us to keep it?
The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L, we have a whole slew of Category:South Korean FOP cases of where we have had to delete files of modern architecture in South Korea. Our reading of the South Korean FoP rules has set the precedent that files of modern South Korean buildings is incompatible with Commons. I therefore propose the following:
i) We should as a community review our understanding of FOP in South Korea to decide if our reading of the rules is correct.
ii) determine a standard for age, de minimis, and threshold of originality originality for which it will be safe to keep files. e.g. Joseon period buildings should be safe, as would be cityscapes at night where it is impossible to determine the architectural details of individual buildings, however what of buildings which though modern are rehashes with no unique architectural originality.
iii) warn against the loading of files of modern buildings in South Korea.
iv) Having determined a standard for which we can keep or would need to delete a file, make local transfers of those files currently in use in local projects that allow fair use
V) begin speedy deletion of such files, with deletion requests for ambiguous cases, adding them to the undelete in xxxx year in the cases which we can determine.
It is unambiguous that there is no commercial FOP in South Korea. This was established in the court ruling mentioned here. The pictured building was used in advertisements for Kungmin Ŭnhaeng (국민은행, a South Korean Bank). The architect Min Kyu-am (민규암) sued the advertising company, and the court ruled that the building's copyright had been infringed and granted compensation to the architect.
Looking at the South Korean copyright law, I do not see any de minimis exception, but maybe I have overlooked something. If there is no usable de minimis exception, then my interpretation is that we must delete all pictures of recent South Korean buildings, no matter how unimportant they are to the image, as long as you can see anything which is above the threshold of originality.
I am not aware of any cases other than the linked one, and that building looks very artistic. As there are not a lot of court rulings, it is hard to know when the façade of a building is below the threshold of originality.
De minimis exceptions are not spelled out in statutory law, usually -- those show up in case law, and should basiclaly always exist. I would completely disagree with the suggestion that we delete works which are not primarily of the building in question. If you can show a court case which actually ruled that such incidental inclusion in a photograph was still a copyright violation, then I'd change my mind. For one example, France's copyright law has no limitations like that listed, yet courts use a "theory of the accessory" that if something is just an accessory to the main subject, it's not a violation. A photograph of a street was not a violation of a building at the end of that street which appeared in the photo, per one of their rulings. I would never go beyond that for deletions, unless you find actual court cases where such incidental inclusion was an issue. I think cityscapes are always fine, day or night.
However, for photos primarily of a copyrighted building like that above, I would agree. The law is fairly explicit that it is a non-commercial exception only, and that has further substantial backing with that court case. FoP cases usually are generally not speedily deleted as a rule, but they should be nominated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case in some countries, but does not usually seem to be the case. For example, under the w:InfoSoc Directive, a picture is a copy of a work if the picture includes a portion of a work which is above the threshold of originality. A copy of a work can only be used if you have permission from the copyright holder, or if the country where protection is claimed provides an exception for such use. Countries may only choose to implement an exception if the exception is permitted under Article 5 of the same directive, where you can for example find a de minimis exception. The InfoSoc Directive required Sweden to reformulate the de minimis exception, so you can find some discussion about de minimis in the government's proposition 2004/05:110. You can find some discussion about the European definition of a copy in w:Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening if you search for the part about "reproduction in part". At least in Europe, it seems that countries are required to explicitly write out any de minimis exception in the copyright law and that none exists if none is explicitly written out. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons usually leans on the side of not OK when the situation is unclear (or there is simply no statute), but tends to be more lax when uncopyrightability is concerned. For example, reproductions of old artwork are OK even if it's a UK painting digitized by a UK photographer. As for threshold of originality and de minimis, when there is no case law we can study from, we generally use a reasonable interpretation as long as it is at least as strict as US law. Otherwise we'd have to delete pretty much all pictures of human settlements in any country where we cannot find de minimis law. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that is usually the case. Yes, copying just a portion of a work can be infringement depending on the circumstances, but incidental inclusion hardly ever is (those are very different situations). De minimis provisions do not necessarily need to be present in statutory law; they can be applied by judges in case law to give some balance, and not rule infringement in every possible technical violation. In general, we should limit deletions to types of situations which have actually been ruled that way in courts. If you say de minimis "does not usually seem to be the case", then there should be a raft of decisions where people were found guilty of copyright infringement by incidental inclusion of works of the type you describe above, and so should be easy to find. If we can't, then that probably means de minimis exists basically everywhere. So far, I've only heard of the derivative-work-of-building-or-sculpture cases involve situations where the work was the primary focus of the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone can check when architecture was first covered by South Korean copyright law. Buildings constructed prior to that may be fine. --ghouston (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For (iv), it may not always be necessary to rely on fair use. For example, the English Wikipedia allows photos of architecture from countries without FOP for architecture on the basis that they operate only under US law; the English Wikipedia copyright tag {{FoP-USonly}} is used for such images. --Gazebo (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Swedish" photos of Nobel laureates?
Through a discussion in German-language Wikipedia, I came across File:Werner Forssmann nobel.jpg and wondered: It's using the {{PD-Sweden-photo}} template - but I don't see a particular reason to assume that the photo is of Swedish origin at all. It's used by the Nobel Foundation on their website at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1956/ but without any information as to the photo's author or origin. PD-Sweden may very well apply if this is indeed a photo from Sweden and considered a simple "photo", not an (artistic) "work" (apparently a distinction similar to the German Lichtbild vs. Lichtbildwerk). But is it from Sweden? IMHO it's just as likely that this is a photo originally from Germany (where Forssmann was from). I've found a rather inconclusive (kept as "no consensus to delete") deletion request for a similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Steinbeck 1962.jpg. Part of the discussion there was also whether it's an artistic photo or not, but I would like to leave this aside for the moment - let's assume, for now, that all the Nobel laureates photos on the Nobel Foundation's website are simple photographs. But even then: Where there's no information, I think we can't just assume that the photos are Swedish. The Steinbeck photo says now in the description "According to the Nobel Foundation, this image was donated and it's photographer is not recorded in any records" - so I would suppose that such a "donated" Steinbeck photo most likely originated in the U.S. What do you think - would a deletion request for Nobel laureates photos from the Nobel Foundation's website be in order? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin. Sweden is the source country if the photograph was first published here. If the photograph is unpublished, then it is the country of citizenship or residence of the photographer which counts. Under Swedish law, uploading a photograph to the Internet does not constitute publication (and neither does broadcasting it on television nor displaying it publicly).
To comply with U.S. law, a Swedish photograph must have been published somewhere without copyright copyright notice. Note that U.S. law defines "publication" in a different way. As the definition of "publication" differs, the source country (according to Swedish law) may be different to the source country (according to U.S. law).
I don't know where the Nobel Foundation obtains its photographs. The Nobel Foundation might need some pictures of the laureates for the press conference where the laureates are revealed to the public, and the laureates must not be revealed to the public before that press conference. I would assume that it would look very suspicious if the Nobel Foundation were to send a photographer to take photographs of the laureates before the press conference, so the photographs are probably obtained from elsewhere, unclear where. Photos used on the website decades after the price ceremony may of course have been taken by the Nobel Foundation, but they may also come from other sources. I don't know if it is safe to assume that Sweden is the source country of photographs of laureates from the Nobel Foundation's website. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People in the pub
I have taken a picture of a pub interior. In this picture there are people with faces. What is a proper way to share this picture on Commons? Picture taken in the Czech Republic.--Juandev (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Juandev, this depends on context. We don't really want lots of photographs on Commons with blurred faces, it starts to be a bit paranoid. If the group in the pub were happy to be photographed (i.e. you stood there with a very visible camera and everyone was posing) there there is little doubt that this was neither a candid camera event, nor could be considered intrusive. Examples of deleted photographs for intrusion might be people eating a meal in a public place that were unaware that someone was about to take a photo, and was capturing them stuffing a giant pie in their face, or people scantily clothed on the beach who might be unaware of someone in the nearby dunes with a zoom lens as a reasonable expectation of privacy is likely to overrule freedom of panorama. So, a lot of this is your statement rather than black and white copyright law; if these are people who know you, then then is unlikely to be any issue, other situations might result in deletion discussions.
P.S. De minimis is a useful reference if people's faces are not the main focus of the photograph and they are both the general public and any individual is in relatively low resolution were their face to be cropped out from a photo. --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is UN Watch, the original release appears to be here. The video is hosted on youtube under the Standard Youtube License, a Commons-incompatible license. So, if they are indeed the original source of the footage, then there's nothing you can do. –moogsi (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Commons accepts photos of artwork that is covered by FOP (freedom of panorama) in the country where the photo was taken. An issue that would be useful to address is whether FOP applies when artwork is permanently attached to the outside of a vehicle (i.e. a car, train, ship, or airplane) that publicly travels to different locations, such as a Red Bull campaign car, as opposed to being permanently installed in a fixed location. (Presumably, artwork temporarily attached to the outside of a vehicle would likely not be covered by FOP.)
Another issue: If FOP was to apply to artwork permanently attached to a vehicle, would it make a difference if the vehicle and the artwork were originally from one country but happened to be within a different country when the photo was taken? --Gazebo (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think not, most FOP's require the work to be permanently located in the public place (as far as I can recall only North Korea has a FOP that lacks the permanently located requirement), a car is very rarely permanently located anywhere except perhaps when in a museum display. None of the Red Bull campaign car images appear to be permanently located. LGAtalkedits22:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 
On hold
Request Please wait as we are waiting for the WMF input (see below). Jee 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Jee 09:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment As far as I know, the CC-licenses also require the re-user to name the license the work is made available under. That's something we have always neglected for reasons I don't remember, but this seems like a good opportunity to re-think the issue and maybe put an additional notice into the templates. --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
