[Foundation-l] Commons copyright violotion and OTRS

[Robert Scott Horning]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>> On Commons, if you think there is a copyright tag you can throw on 
>> images you think are in dispute, which is the {{Copyvio}} tag, and 
>> any user can add that onto the image.  You don't need to be an admin. 
>> Please make sure you put in a reason on the image page when you think 
>> there is a problem, or try and contact the user who uploaded the 
>> content (to be kind to a potential new user who thought uploading 
>> random stuff from web pages was appropriate).  The tag will get 
>> flagged to a category which the admins on Commons check very 
>> regularly, and will delete if it is against Commons policy.
>>
> Hoi,
> In this case Commons states that it is public domain. There is this 
> user who has just another WW II website and is the opinion that we 
> copied his website. I am not completely aware of how these things are 
> done on Commons and, I do not agree with some of the procedures that I 
> do know. The thing is with OTRS, I am not just some user. By notifying 
> me of this issue the gentleman may think he is talking to the WMF 
> itself while in fact it has nothing to do with the nl.wikipedia. So 
> the issue is also a bit bigger than just this and that is why I ask 
> for some guidance. 

What needs to be done here is to research exactly who may be correct. 
 Many WWII photographs are likely to still be under copyright (the 
life+75 rule has not gone into effect yet, or the 100 year rule... 
depending on what copyright laws you are using, and was published after 
1924 when prior copyright had entered into public domain) and my gut 
feeling is that it is likely to be a copyright violation.  When I throw 
stuff onto Commons, I make extra sure that I cite exactly where I got 
the image and what the terms and conditions of that image were.  Too 
often an assumption was that it was on a government website, therefore 
it is 100% legal to put on Commons.  That is rarely the case.  Images 
without a specific URL to where the image was uploaded from (making it 
easier to check PD status) or a specifc statement from the user claiming 
to have scanned in a photograph in their possession (or have taken it 
with their own equipment) I find highly suspicious.  Images that simply 
have {{PD}} and no other comments I find especially suspicious.  They 
may be public domain images, but there is no basis to confirm this fact.

One way to also check on this is to do a Google image search.  This 
would at least try to see if similar photos are on other websites and if 
the person who is complaining is making a stink about copyright on 
something they don't own (such as some people I've seen claim copyright 
on Wikipedia content and then ask for Wikipedia to remove it).  I 
wouldn't spend too much time trying to track down an image in this 
manner, however.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning