User talk:Clindberg

Welcome to the Commons, Clindberg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Question about COM:PUBLISH

Hi Clindberg. I've got a question about COM:PUBLISH#United States that perhaps you might be able to answer. There's no rush, but I thought you might know the answer. My reading of the section is that distribution of a copyright work constitutes publication as long as the intent is to further distribute the work to perhaps a greater number of people. Perhaps I'm totally misreading that, but I'm wondering how such a thing might apply to a photograph taken by a professional photographer of an individual that is solely for individual private use. The individual might show the work to their family and it might be passed down from generation to generation, but I'm wondering if the original act of the photographer giving a copy of the photo to the subject of the photo constitutes first publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Probably. The sale of copies is (and was) usually publication. That may not hold for something like paintings or statues, but should for photographs. But unless in writing, the photographer does retain copyright usually (at least since 1978). There may be some sort of implied license, though. Like many things, copyright probably "works" in these cases by never really being enforced -- if a photographer were to sue someone he took pictures for, they could lose a lot of future business from others. As such, not much court precedent over stuff like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. The particular file that started me think about this is Commons:Deletion requests/File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg, and part of my concerns had to do with whether the photo would be considered "published" and with the way in which the uploader was claiming that the photo had been released to them for publication purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI (piers in Seattle)

Correcting an edit of yours. The history of Seattle in the Gold Rush era is really complicated. I've been sorting it out. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Great, thanks. I think I copied categories from a another photo which showed the same pier, without truly knowing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

These piers have been really hard to sort out. Working on it at en:Talk:List of structures on Elliott Bay#Piers_A,_B,_and_C. I'm Coming to believe there were two successive similar-looking but distinct piers named "Pier B" (with a much more distinct pair of piers named "Pier A"). - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at COM:VPC#PD-Art for File:Kapodistrias2.jpg?

 You are invited to join the discussion at COM:VPC#PD-Art for File:Kapodistrias2.jpg?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clindberg. I'm wondering if you could take a look at this and see if there's some way to relicense the file. I'd like to get one more opinion if possible before starting a DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

File:The Path to the Stars, by K. E. Tsiolkovsky, English transl., AD0644808.pdf

Hi Carl, Could you please confirm the license of this document? There is no copyright notice, so it could also be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Also I couldn't find a category for the translator. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: When were the originals published? If during the author's lifetime, then it should be fine as {{PD-Russia-1996}} (or {{PD-Russia-expired}}). If first published posthumously, it could get dicier. The PD-USGov license is good for the translation (and sure it's PD-US-no_notice too), but we need a license for the original as well. I'm not sure Commons has an equivalent of s:Template:Translation license, but probably should. It may have been taken from a collection published 1960 in Moscow, and in fact there is some introductory text with that date in there. In fact... it seems Moscow published an English version that year, but it's a completely different translation. Heh, there is a version on archive.org as well, with no copyright status mentioned. Moscow published a Russian version at the latest in 1964, though probably earlier as well. I'd have to guess it was a collection of previously-published works, but I'm not completely positive on that, and the introductory text might technically still have a U.S. copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I used {{PD-old-70}}, but I assume that it was published in Russia during its lifetime. What would be the status of the original if published in Russia between 1928 and 1935, i.e. what was the duration at that time? Yann (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It was still 50pma in Russia in 1996, though I think posthumous works got 50 years from publication. So published before 1946 would be fine. Retroactively restored to 70pma in 2008, though that would not have affected his works published in his lifetime (since he died 1935). But the 1960 introductory text is probably still under copyright in Russia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and technically {{PD-old-70}} does not give the U.S. copyright status of the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I removed the introduction, and changed the license to {{PD-Russia-1996}}. Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction

Hi, This is another publication by the same agency. However the Russian author seems to be still alive. What's the copyright status of the English translation ([1], [2])? May be it could be uploaded to the English Wikisource. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how. Original published in 1962 it looks like. The US and USSR had no copyright relations at the time (USSR joined the UCC in 1973), and the original was probably no-notice anyways. But that had to have changed in 1996, meaning the copyright would have been restored, unless it was also published in the United States at the same time. Will be fine in the U.S. in 2058, but sounds like it could be under copyright in Russia for far longer than that. I guess could look into the publication history of the original -- I presume it was published in Russia, but maybe it was published elsewhere too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I understand that it was OK before 1996, but it was restored by URAA. Thanks for your answer. Yann (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Publication at creation when an image is found in the wild

Publication at creation when an image is found in the wild. See comments at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:John_Nicholas_Luff_(1860-1938).jpg and express your opinion either way. RAN (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• See this set of deletion nominations by the same person, arguing that we have to prove earlier publication in Russia. These are early images republished more recently. Russia appears to default to the URAA and Berne definitions, and I don't see any case law disagreeing with what "made public" means. Some countries distinguish between "creation" and "made public": Commons:Deletion requests/Russian copyrights. Express your opinion either way. --RAN (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked, can't spend long at the moment, but if that same image was European I'd have voted delete, since there is no way to know it was anonymous without at least some older publication info to see if an author was named or not. Without it, those need to wait 120 years, often, and Russia is now no different (and even worse since they have "rehabilitated" authors which get longer than 70pma sometimes). However, "made public" is not the same thing as "publication" -- in the EU, "making available to the public" also includes broadcast or public display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)