Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 27



File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Based on the below discussion, there seems to be some disagreement on whether this image falls into the public domain in the United States. With no definitive agreement on the copyright status, the best practice is to have the file as non-free until such a time the copyright status can be proven one way or another. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Licensing rationale given is "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin"."International aspects", however, says that "a work that is not copyrightable in one country (even if that country is its country of origin) can still be copyrighted in other countries". The file appears to have been downloaded from somewhere (perhaps an official website) and then uploaded to Wikipedia by the uploader, but no link (source page, etc.) is provided so that its public domain status can be verified. Just requesting clarification of its copyright status. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know the source but the police star was published in the Icelandic Law Gazette, regulation 1151/2011 (there's a better version of the image in the PDF). Cannot determine if the exact source is from there although it does seem that the image in question is a lower quality version. Regulations are specifically exempted from copyright in Iceland (Article 9 of the Copyright Act). This may or may not provide an answer regarding the international aspect. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does article 9 of the Icelandic copyright act apply to images in acts? In many countries, such exemptions only apply to the text of the act but not to any included images. The wording at c:COM:CRT suggests that the exemption only might apply to text. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The question if Article 9 applies to images has not been answered in court nor via any administrative decisions, as far as I know, so there's nothing definiate. Note that Article 9 does not specifically refer to text. I would think that any image which holds any significance at all to the content, even in the smallest degree, of any work in which Article 9 applies to, would too be exempted. At least according to the spirit of the Article. The text of the regulation even specifically refers to the image. If this interpretation would hold up in court, I cannot be sure. If we are still unsure, I can ask the ministry for their view regarding images. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Silly questions perhaps so please bear with me. Is Article 9 only in Icelandic? Does the Icelandic Government provide official translations of its Acts in English? Is ":c:COM:CRT#Iceland" a user translation or an official translation? While it is true that neither "text" nor "image" appear in "Acts, regulations, administrative provisions, court rulings and similar official documents, as well as official translation of such documents, are not copyrighted", it seems to me that "written content" is what is being discussed. Isn't an act, regulation, etc. essentially an official representation of some content in written form? An official document may or may not include an image, but it has to have text because no text means no document, right? Therefore, the word "text" does not need to be specifically mentioned at all. An "image", on the other hand, is not something that an official document absolutely needs to exist. If images were also intended to be covered under Article 9, then it seems necessary to explicitly state such a thing in order to avoid any ambiguity, right? I am not claiming to be an expert on copyrights, but that's just how it seems to me. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Icelandic law is written in Icelandic. If there is any discrepancy between the original Icelandic text and a translation of it, then the original Icelandic text takes precedence. However, in Nordic law, presumably including Icelandic law, the main thing is not how the law is formulated but what the lawmaker intended. Therefore, it is often necessary to read other background documents such as propositions to the parliament in order to tell what the law is supposed to mean. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification . - Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Article 9 states: "Laws, regulations, government orders, court rulings and other similar documents, that are not made by the public, are not protected by this act, nor the official translation of such data." (Lög, reglugerðir, fyrirmæli stjórnvalda, dómar og önnur áþekk gögn, sem gerð eru af opinberri hálfu, njóta ekki verndar eftir lögum þessum, og ekki heldur opinberar þýðingar á slíkum gögnum.) User translation. No official translations. It's not copyrighted. Argument invalid. Hopper1010 (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional information . Does "not copyrighted" mean under Icelandic law, in other countries, or both? If it can be copyrighted in other countries, even if it's not copyrighted in Iceland, then it I think it might not be acceptable for use on Wikipedia as public domain per "Wikipedia: Public Domain-International aspects". Just trying to clarify this. Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not an official translation. The ministry has published a translation into English and Article 9 is translated as: "Acts, Regulations, administrative provisions, court rulings and similar official documents are not subject to copyright according to this Act, nor are official translations of such documents."
 * Asked the ministry for their view and they were not ready to specifically answer the question regarding the copyright status of images within material which otherwise falls under Article 9 except to refer to a Bill which later became law. The Bill was an implementation of an EU Directive 2003/98 regarding re-use of government data. Said Bill says that if an employee produces work which obviously will be published, the copyright goes to the agency (except the moral rights). Regarding the International perspective, the rights to use such images should then be roughly the same as within the EU. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks taking the time to do all of that. I have a question about the sentence Said Bill says that if an employee produces work which obviously will be published, the copyright goes to the agency (except the moral rights). The Bill doesn't say "if an employee produces work which will obviously be published, this work cannot be copyrighted". On the contrary, the Bill seems to imply that such work can be copyrighted, but the ownership of this copyright is transferred from the employee who created the work to the agency to which the employee belongs. I don't read Icelandic, so I can't say if that's exactly with law is supposed to mean or what the lawmaker intended. If I'm getting this completely wrong, then I apologize in advance. Does this Bill mean such images cannot be copyrighted within the EU? If it does, then does that mean such images cannot be copyrighted in non-EU countries as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not directly in the Bill, but rather background information and/or the interpretation of the one who proposed it. It's not strictly legally binding so there is no direct statement in Icelandic law which states that the copyright transfer has taken place, but rather what the practice has been.
 * The Icelandic Copyright Act is rather unclear regarding matters like this, most likely because court rulings regarding copyright matters are not commonplace in Iceland and the state wouldn't risk bringing attention to these details. The ministry avoids providing general answers regarding what Article 9 covers except that it does certainly cover texts. They don't want to give a definite general answer regarding other types of information and documents except it would be covered by the provisions in the Freedom of Information Act regarding re-use of information. Since the re-use provision is an implementation of an EU Directive, the interpretation would be the same or very similar to the one in the EU. If we want to be sure if it's safe to include the images in Wikipedia, based on such interpretation, we'd need to seek the advice of a copyright lawyer.
 * I could, in theory, send a FOI request for a copy of the image from the regulation and see if they state a copyright owner or not in the response. If not, either the state owns it in which case I would be free to use it while it doesn't infringe on the moral right of the author; or if it doesn't state a third party owner, they provide information about the author and re-use is restricted without a permission from the author. In either case, we should (hopefully) know the copyright status of the image in question. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the very detailed reply. From reading the above, it sounds like the copyright status of this image is unclear. Images in official Icelandic Government documents may or may not be "public domain" per Article 9, and the government is being vague on this matter by design; Therefore, the only way to find out for sure is either ask a copyright lawyer, send a FOI request to the Icelandic Government, or do both. That's quite different from the 100% certainty implied in licensing rationale "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin" given for this file when it was uploaded, isn't it? If there is any doubt at all regarding the image's copyright status, then how does that affect its usage on Wikipedia. Should the image be left as is? Should the image be removed? Should the image be tagged with a npd? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the licence status is not clear enough. Other material originating from Iceland marked with the same licence status needs to be checked upon in light of this discussion. At best, the licence on Wikipedia should be fair use. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK . What happens next? The two of us agree that it's public domain status is unclear; however,, who uploaded the file, may still strongly feel the opposite. What is the next stage in this discussion process? Do we just wait until an admin closes it?
 * If the image's "public domain" status is determined to be unclear, then pd-because should not be used. Should non-free gov or non-free symbol be used instead? Which rationale should be used, symbol rationale or Non-free use rationale 2? WP:TAGS/FU and CAT:NFURT, however, can only be used when the image in question satisfies all of the criteria in WP:NFCCP beyond a shadow of doubt, right? Personally, I'm not sure if it satisfies Nos. 1, 8, and 10. So should further discussion of this and other images uploaded using the same licensing be continued here or be moved to WP:NFCR? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well,, we would either need to re-licence it or request for it to be deleted. pd-because wouldn't work because we can't be sure it's PD. I would say it can be justified to say it's fair use and since non-free symbol is closer to its actual usage, my vote would be to prefer that template. I agree it would not satisfy requirement no. 8. Regarding no. 10, it seems like only the uploader currently knows since we don't know where it's originally from even though we know where to get another copy. Technically, the text with the regulation can be used to make another image although I don't think it would produce a similar enough if the author didn't know how it should look like. In that sense, I think we can satisfy condition no. 1. Under these conditions, I vote for deletion request. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . If the image does not satisfy "WP:NFCCP" no. 8, then I don't think it can be used on Wikipedia even as a "non-free symbol" regardless of whether it satisfies nos. 1 and 10. That, however, is something that probably should be discussed in more detail at "WP:NFCR" after this discussion has been closed. For what it's worth, my purpose in listing this file was not because I am in someway biased against it and wanted it deleted; It was just to ascertain its copyright status. We seem to agree that it is not clearly PD, but Hopper1010, based upon their latest reply below, still seems to strongly feels that it is. Now, I guess it's up to the admin who processes the close to determine if a consensus has been reached or if further discussion is still needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna argue anymore. This is just stupid. One last thing... Copyright act; "The provisions of the first paragraph of this Article shall not apply to computer programs and databases.]1)" Have fun with your biased argument. Hopper1010 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic law only applies to Iceland and is null and void outside Iceland. It is unclear how countries interpret such statements about government works in the laws of other countries. Commons typically accepts files which are exempt from copyright in the source country under such reasons, but it is as far as I can tell untested if this is correct. There is a statement somewhere on a U.S. government website which states that PD-USGov doesn't necessarily apply outside the United States. I think that this statement was added there because someone in Japan found that it was unclear if PD-USGov was valid in Japan and therefore asked the U.S. government for permission to use some material.
 * Under Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, you may not take into account the laws of other countries, unless an exception is listed in the Berne Convention itself. One such example is the rule of the shorter term, which states that countries no longer have to protect works if the work is in the public domain through expiry of a term in the source country. It is unclear if works which are in the public domain in Iceland for this reason are in the public domain through expiry of a term or for a different reason. I'm only aware of one court ruling about the interpretation of the words "through expiry of a term": the French supreme court ruled that works which are PD-US-not renewed aren't in the public domain in the United States through expiry of a term but for a different reason, and all such works had their copyright restored in France when the United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989, unless a different reason such as PD-1923, PD-old-70 or Anonymous-EU applied. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia: Public Domain-International aspect, the example provided in there suggests that it refers to public made (i.e. made by the member of the public), however, it isn't made by a member of the public, made by the government, it CANNOT be copyrighted. Hopper1010 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:ParishP P1010001.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:ParishP P1010001.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Photo of text published 1975; no reason to believe it's PD. moogsi(blah) 01:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kapil Dev Pledges.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Kapil Dev Pledges.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears to be a copyvio from here: http://www.mohanfoundation.org/activities/MOHAN-FoundationDr-Sunil-Shroff-Founder-Trustee-invited-to-UNISCON-2014-at-Airport-Authority-of-India-Delhi-1250.htm EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PH 1998 Rose Parade Float.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:PH 1998 Rose Parade Float.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Non-free parade decorations. Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * View - Reasoning ... -- Wapacman (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)I own the photo. This image will not show up anywhere online because I own the photograph, unless nominator for deletion can prove that this image belongs to another person, then the image should not be deleted. What is the evidence that this image was taken by someone else?
 * However, you did not create the parade decorations. You can't take photos of other people's parade decorations. Compare with for example Korean War Veterans Memorial. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a float in a public space, the image was taken by the photographer. Not a copyvio and not a derivative work. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the uploader created the decorations. You can't take photographs of items in a public space unless the items either are buildings or are in the public domain. This is not the case here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851, specifically where I note that Wapacman has uploaded copyvios using image manipulation tactics to prevent automated or semi-automated discovery of those copyvios, and then gone on to claim they were his own images. Per the precautionary principle articulated at Commons, we should consider all of Wapacman's uploads tainted from a copyright perspective and subject to deletion. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Aaron Tveit suit.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Aaron Tveit suit.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image quality suggests a screen capture. Eeekster (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Shop 'Til You Drop logo Pat Finn Era.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Shop & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * At best a derivative work. Eeekster (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.