Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/11

Copyrightability of the Commons logo

There is a request to put a PD template to the Commons logo (thus deny its copyrightability) at File talk:Commons-logo.svg#Edit request. I invite opinions because this can be controversial. whym (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Johnson Publishing Co

Shot in the dark here, but does anyone have info on the copyright/renewal history of the Johnson Publishing Co? They were most famous for publishing Jet and Ebony magazines and other periodicals aimed at African–American audiences; the company wound down a few years ago and their huge archives, including tens of thousands of seminal historical photographs, were jointly acquired by the Getty Research Institute and National Museum of African American History & Culture. I have zero clue whether they followed formalities and submitted renewals, but it's such a famous collection I assume someone here may have done some digging before. Absolutely no worries if no one knows! Most of the institutions that own images from the company say there is an active copyright for the company's works but I assume that's just deference to the rightsholder.

This was sparked by looking for images of Ronald Stokes for the Wikipedia article for the sculpture series Lynch Fragments. Found quite a few images of Malcolm X protesting the 1962 killing of Stokes by police and acting as a pallbearer at Stokes's funeral, most of which are sourced to Johnson publications. The image that made me think to dig deeper and ask here is from the Saint Louis Museum of Art (fair warning, this image contains a very distressing representation of Stokes after an autopsy, link). 19h00s (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this was covered recently in a DR, see[1]. They were religious about their copyrights, although they do seem to have missed copyright renewals on most of the 1956 issues of Ebony, see [2]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that was simpler than I expected! Thanks Nard :) 19h00s (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what is simple there Johnson didn't publish only Ebony, there was Jet, Hue, Negro Digest, there is no issue renewals for those, there was also Tan magazine I can't find any renewal for it either.

I was also looking at other black magazines that are more rare today and have no big scans archive like Ebony, there is no renewals for Sepia or Brown magazine and from the few issues that are archived some by that company (Good Publishing Company/SEPIA Publications) they seem to have no copyright notice at all except for Sepia magazine itself, Example:

Hep magazine 1971

cover https://megalodon.jp/2025-1027-0515-47/https://www.ebay.com:443/itm/167429532157

title page https://megalodon.jp/2025-1027-0515-49/https://i.ebayimg.com:443/images/g/VssAAOSwMIln8KQr/s-l1600.webp

Bronze Thrills - 1976 no notice https://archive.org/details/bronze-thrills-v-25n-11-1976-11.-good-d-m-ia/page/63/mode/2up

Jive magazine - 1958 appears to have no notice https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/jive-negro-magazine-vol-feb-1958-4724642958

Brown magazine January 1954 invalid notice  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Related: Do we need to make our own scans of PD publications like newspapers, or can we use any we find as it's public domain material? I realize this is rudimentary but better safe than sorry. Specifically thinking about the Nation of Islam newspaper Muhammad Speaks - @999real, funnily enough, I notice you actually just created a category for this publication. I found a bunch of scans of old copies of the paper, but I'm not sure if they're OK to upload. I'm specifically hoping to use one of the front pages that covers the death of Stokes; those front covers became quite famous after Malcolm X and others were photographed holding them in protest in the months after Stokes was killed. 19h00s (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, If the content is in the public domain, a scan will be in the public domain, whoever made it, per {{PD-scan}}. Yann (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I was scraping all the issues from Jstor (here) but the quality in that archive is much better  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think these were uploaded by someone connected to the NOI or a descendant of someone who was, they have special issues that JSTOR doesn't. And yeah I saw the JSTOR versions and was disappointed by the quality, then did some more searching and found these versions which are way better. Thanks y'all! 19h00s (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, how can i use a image for an article?

I'm trying to upload an image for an article, but it always gets deleted, i am a brazillian and beginner, i don't know how to do that. AloneSlk (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Olá, AloneSlk! Entendo que você está tendo problemas com o upload de imagens no Wikimedia Commons, e como iniciante, isso pode ser confuso. O motivo pelo qual suas imagens estão sendo deletadas é que os uploads para o Commons precisam seguir regras estritas de direitos autorais: a imagem deve estar em domínio público (ou seja, livre de direitos autorais) ou você deve ter uma licença explícita do detentor dos direitos autorais permitindo o uso livre.Para mais detalhes, recomendo ler estas páginas em português:

• Commons:Licenciamento – explica as licenças aceitáveis.
• Commons:Copyright_rules/pt – sobre normas de direitos de autor.

Se a imagem for de sua autoria, você pode liberá-la com uma licença livre, como CC-BY-SA. Se precisar de mais ajuda, pergunte aqui ou na página de discussão do Commons! -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Obrigado, mas tem como eu usar essa imagem só pra esse artigo em especifico? AloneSlk (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

DMCA takedown/s addressed to other sites but include links to Wikimedia

See, for example, this. It was sent by "Remove Your Media LLC" (on Behalf of Crunchyroll) and addressed to Google LLC. Dated November 1, 2025. Here are some of the details under the "Copyright claim 3" under which wikimedia is mentioned:

Desc: "Copyrighted Japanese anime merchandise owned by Crunchyroll LLC. Pursuant to 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii) the official website for 'Dr. Stone' includes a commulative episode list at the below url:"

Orig URL: "store.c[redacted]l.com - 1 URL"

One of the alleged infringing URLs: "upload.wikimedia.org - 5 URLs"

I'm not sure if it's Commons or one of the other Wikimedia sites (enWiki etc.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You can request a one-time link to a full view. In this case, it's utter slop; it's not copyvio, it's not cosplay or something we could debate about, it's a bunch of US magazines published before 1930 and copied to Commons. I'm guessing the works mention Dr. Stone and the senders didn't bother looking at the context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/The_Billboard_1919-11-29-_Vol_31_Iss_48_%28IA_sim_billboard_1919-11-29_31_48%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Men_of_progress%3B_biographical_sketches_and_portraits_of_leaders_in_business_and_professional_life_in_and_of_the_state_of_New_Hampshire%3B_%28IA_menofprogressbio00hern%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/The_Billboard_1920-05-22-_Vol_32_Iss_21_%28IA_sim_billboard_1920-05-22_32_21%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Chicago_medical_review_%28IA_chicagomedicalre41881chic%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/The_Glendale_Evening_News_1923-05-02_%28IA_cgl_004984%29.pdf

--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Another one: this. Sent by Buteor.com (on behalf of e____) to Google LLC on October 20, 2025. Some salient points:

Desc: "Removal of explicit non-consensual material DMCA protected by "ONLYFANS.COM" paywalls system. Legal notice on my client's page."

Orig URL: "o[redacted]s.com - 1 URL"

One of the alleged infringing URLs: "upload.wikimedia.org - 3 URLs"

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, if we search Google with site:upload.wikimedia.org "onlyfans", it returns 3 urls of pdfs, two of which mention "onlyfans" [3] [4] and the third one is of a 1909 book [5] which contains the passage "Chinese gentlemen and their clerks are vigorously fanning themselves, [...] A Chinese not only fans his face, but opens his long silk tunic and fans his body". -- Asclepias (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias copyfraud in this case, like what is stated on w:en:Digital Millennium Copyright Act#Criticism. The Lumen database should include the status of whether the online host provider responded affirmatively or negatively. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there no provision penalizing blatantly frivolous takedown demands? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is, but someone affected (usually the victim of the false demand) has to actually pursue it in court. Unfortunately, that rarely in practice happens. Seraphimblade (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

British Pathe clip from South Africa copyright?

File:Assassination attempt on Hendrik Verwoerd 2.jpg (ignore the deletion, that was me being stupid) is taken from a newsreel that has been unambiguously released into the public domain. However this British Pathe clip [6] seems to contain the same clip as the newsreel. Given that this has much higher quality, I believe a Pathe employee produced the clip, which was subsequently copied by Universal (presumably with permission). Given this info:

• Should we presume that the release into the public domain by Universal is legally valid?
• If not, is the Pathe clip PD in the US by virtue of copyright notice and renewal shenanigans, much like early AP photos?

Based5290 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It sure was nice of them to "release" something into PD that was already PD, due to no notice... If it was first produced by Pathe, it wouldn't be PD in the UK, it's not even 70 years old yet. But if simultaneously published in the US and UK, it would be PD at least in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

According to the National Archives,

"MCA/Universal donated the collection to NARA in 1970, and deeded the collection’s rights and title to the United States Government in 1974, although the films may still contain material which is protected by copyright or other proprietary rights and restrictions." [7]

Which was not a release to the public domain. The template PD-Universal Newsreel may be confusing copyright held by the government with public domain. Still, individual items may be in the public domain if they did not have a copyright notice and they were published by Universal as their own works or with the permission of the copyright holders. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The Paoay Church Symphony of Lights.jpg

Can we host File:The Paoay Church Symphony of Lights.jpg? Is the still image of the lighting show not infringing on the lighting organizers' copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, lighting like this can only have a copyright in France. Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Logo Handball World championship

Hello,

I want to upload the following Logo from the 2025 IHF Men's U17 Handball World Championship to use it in my German Wikipedia article: https://www.ihf.info/competitions/u17-men/10169/1st-ihf-mens-u17-world-championship-morocco-2025/216491 Is this allowed? The Logo is also used in the English Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_IHF_Men%27s_U17_Handball_World_Championship#Final_ranking Balou20 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, This logo is under a fair use rationale at en:File:2025 IHF Men's U17 Handball World Championship.png. It is certainly complex enough for being under a copyright in Morocco. So it can't be on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Odpowiedź urzędu na petycje

Jak zrobić odpowiednią licencję do pliku https://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Plik:9997_ORG.1520.2.2025_odpowiedz_na_BIP_bez_danych.pdf ? Zgodnie z polską ustawą o prawie autorskim, pisma urzędowe są domeną publiczną zaś anglojęzyczny użytkownik Wikimedia Commons prosi o uwzględnienie licencji na commons Argonowski (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How should I license this file? It is a letter from a Polish government agency, and such letters are in the public domain under Polish copyright law Argonowski (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the licensing, and added appropriate categorization and English language description. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is also File:9998 skan ORG.1520.1.2025.pdf. I suppose the same license applies. Please also add categories there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I applied the closest category I could find, Category:LGBT-free zone declarations in Poland. Not 100% right but close enough for people who care to find it. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Conflicting copyright of video game

File:Chaotic Rage - Beta 18 Screenshot.jpg

The uploader (and developer) says it's Creative Commons 3.0 and yet the GitHub lists the license as GPL-2.0 license

Which license should take precedence? Trade (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is conflicting, the uploader can license their game under GPL-2.0, while they license the screenshot under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding to this; both licenses are compatible with Commons regardless, though it is better to include both, with clear labeling as to what license applies to screenshot and the content. Actually, since the image has already been uploaded, I can do that myself. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearer guidelines of fictional character fan art

Fan art of fictional characters seems more strict in terms of copyright compared to fan art of live-action characters, with the former constantly getting deletion requests, both successful and unsuccessful. I think we should establish clearer guidelines so that there wouldn't be that many debates. Maybe add more examples in the COM:FAN page other than Harry Potter? (say, Mario, as another example) Or info about the difference between derivative and transformative works? Or a dedicated COM:Transformative works page? (seriously, how is this not a thing yet) I'd gladly contribute myself, but I don't think I have the full understanding of it. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Questions about PD-KPGov

First, sorry to using translater. In {{PD-KPGov}}, It is written as follows:

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that this work might not be in the public domain in countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term and have copyright terms longer than life of the author plus 50 years. In particular, Mexico is 100 years, Jamaica is 95 years, Colombia is 80 years, Guatemala and Samoa are 75 years, Switzerland and the United States are 70 years, and Venezuela is 60 years.

However, it seems that no United States public domain tag can be used to tag North Korean material. Because it's public domain and Article 12 of the Copyright Act of North Korea, it is explicitly stated that there is no copyright for materials published by government agencies. Government data templates from other countries do not contain this provision; only North Korea does.

when I go to Category:PD North Korea government, no material displays the United States public domain tag. Do I have to tag all materials? Klgchanu (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Upload content with No-AI training license to commons

I Know CC license with NC and/or ND are not acceptable on Commons, also GFDL only license are not acceptable if this work are licensed on or after 15 October 2018 and it is not a content that is extracted from GFDL software manual, but what about content that explicitly allow commercial free use but don’t allow AI training on that content, it is ok to upload to Commons? 6D (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Not OK to upload. Commons licensing requires that files be usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". Omphalographer (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between CC-ND license and license that don’t allow AI training? 6D (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as Commons licensing is concerned, nothing. Neither license is permitted here. Omphalographer (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I know images with this license are not permitted on Commons, but what is the main difference of the two licenses (CC-ND license and license that don’t allow AI training)? Also, does CC-ND license allow AI training? 6D (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Any files uploaded to Commons must be usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose"; AI training is one such purpose, restricting it would violate the terms. ND licenses don't allow any derivatives to be made; again, this goes against the terms. Files that have either license are incompatible with Commons. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think an image I found on commons isn't actually copyright-free

I was searching "Djo" here and found File:Joe Keery "DJO".jpg, which is not only a very professionally posed and edited photo, but was the artist's Instagram profile picture for a time. With how much trouble I've had finding photos for a related band, my gut tells me this might not actually be free or taken by the user and they just uploaded it anyway. Is there a non-invasive way to check? Or a way we're supposed to bring up discussion for it? I don't want to falsely report, but I also don't want anyone else on the internet to use it in the event its not actually free.

(update: also found the album cover File:DECIDE.jpg)

(EDIT: i added a speedy deletion thing to the album page and it looks like someone's gone ahead and put one on the first one too, so im assuming this is the correct way to go about it?) Devonias (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Devonias I'm the one who added the speedy deletion request tag. It's a right thing because: a) the uploader claimed the image as their own work (false authorship claim), and b) the image got registered in the reverse image search results of Google Lens. The earliest instances were January 23, 2025 uses of the image in the FB page and Instagram account of the artist. We cannot safely assume that LuisArig (talk · contribs) is someone working under the artist, considering their user page is blank and has no public disclosure on their ties with the artist (if this is the case). Such disclosure is also needed to avoid any needless claims of conflict of interest. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh good, thank you! And extra thank you for explaining everything! Devonias (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Closing this now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 03:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Musician copyright vs label copyright

I want to upload the album "The Angel, The Demon," by Cacola. All the songs from the album have been uploaded on Cacola's Newgrounds page under a CC BY license. However, the album is also available on Bandcamp under the Business Casual label, who set the license to "All rights reserved". I feel like the artist officially releasing his works under a free license has more weight than their label assigning copyright (likely automatically, since this is the default license on Bandcamp), but just in case there are some nuances, I'm making a post here.

I'd also like some info on the album cover, since it seems to be different enough to count as transformative and not derivative, but that is better discussed in the #Clearer guidelines of fictional character fan art post, which I made yesterday with no replies so far. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you give a direct link to where the band has stated that they are releasing the album under a CC-BY license? Because the Cacola's Newgrounds page you linked to says "All rights reserved" at the bottom, and when I click the YouTube link there, I also can't see any indication of CC-BY. Nakonana (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The licenses are stated on each respective song (here are pages for The Angel and Lit Fuse for example). Also, it's CC BY-SA, not CC BY; still okay for Commons, though. The "All rights reserved" at the bottom is the copyright of the website Newgrounds. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

Is it common practice for Bandcamp to sell albums for $0? If not, then I'd consider the stated price of $0 as confirmation that the album is available under a free license, i.e. CC-BY-SA. But we might need to know under which version of CC-BY-SA. Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the licensing section links to CC-BY-SA-3.0, so that part is cleared, too. Nakonana (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Protogen and compatibility with CC

In Category:Protogen, there are five pieces of artwork (per the finickiness of COM:COSTUME I shall ignore the photographs), three CC-BY-SA, two CC0. However, I have my concerns as to if (some) derivative works are compatible with free CC licenses and the definition for free cultural works in general.

Finding usage terms for protogens was a little tricky, but i am led to believe that this website is the official hub for protogen info, as it's linked on the ZOR FurAffinity page, which is ran by "Koinu [the original author of protogens] and staff". In this info page lies the Protogen guide, which features an FAQ section that states the following:

"Public use/features of Protogen in artwork, media, books, games etc is fine with no royalties or specific permission required. A royalty would only be arranged if the works by Cool Koinu are being resold / used for profit. You retain all rights to your artwork/product and by featuring Protogen you have agreed to the community creation guidelines."

A restriction on commercial use would be in violation of the Definition of Free Cultural Works, the guideline Commons uses (and the reasons that CC-NC and CC-ND are forbidden from Commons), particularly The Freedom to Distribute Derivative Works. Additonally, the Protogen Guide mentions "restricted" traits which would seem to not meet The freedom to use and perform the work, but whether or not these restricted traits are binding to the actual usage terms or are simply out of "respect" for the creator is somewhat vague ("Restricted traits on the other hand are more about respect for Cool Koinu as the creator of the species as well as other original species creators within the furry community. We also don't moderate those outside of our official hubs, but we kindly ask that you refrain from breaking these more than the non-canon traits.".

With all this information, it would seem that artistic works featuring protogens would be disallowed from Commons, however, copyrightability and COM:FANART should always be considered. I personally think that Protogens in their classic, canonical form (that are also called Protogens would be copyrightable or at the very least be deemed suspicious per the Precautionary Principle. various non-canon and/or "restricted" Protogen depictions would have to be reviewed case-by-case. Additionally, CoolKoinu (the aforementioned author), is Australian (1, 2), so copyrightability laws of Australia would also have to be considered. This is where my knowledge falls short, ergo my desire to ask this in village pump before any DRs. I would greatly appreciate if someone with sizable knowledge of Australian copyright law would contribute to this discussion. As always, thank you for your time. Cawfeecrow (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Crest of INA.png, File:Badge of the Indian Air Force.png, etc

So the current licenses on these files are obviously nonsense, but before I tag them as {{Logo}}, I'm wondering if there's any chance these might be public domain or otherwise freely licensed as Indian government works. I've seen some Indian government works are freely licensed, but COM:INDIA isn't particularly helpful. @Ksh.andronexus has uploaded a ton of Indian military logos/badges under the same obvious nonsense licenses, so they might all have to go. Jay8g (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, In addition, File:Indian Embassy in Argentina.jpg is unlikely to be own work: small file, no EXIF, and I doubt this user went to Argentina to take only this picture. Yann (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The files mentioned, uploaded by me are digitally enhanced and redrawn representation derived from publically available references of the Indian Armed Forces, for the sole purpose of educational and encyclopeadic representation within Wikimedia projects. It does not support, claim, imply or stimulate any official status or authority of Government of India or it's defence services.

I acknowledge that the underlying insignia is protected under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; however the Act's scope pertains primarily to commercial or misleading use, NOT to accurate descriptive or informational deceptions used in an educational and non-commercial context such as Wikipedia. This work is NOT a reproduction of an copyrighted file but a faithful artistic redrawing, produced solely for identification purposes.

While precedents exist on Wikimedia Commons wherein comparable protected insignia, military symbols and official emblems of US and the Commonwealth countries exist when used solely for identification, historical, and educational documentation. In the same spirit, I request the file to be retained under a educational and illustrative rationale. Further the images are technically under the combination of tags {{PD-India}}{{Indian Army}} {{Indian navy}} while similar tag DOES NOT exist on commons for Air Force.

However, if Commons policy ultimately decides that holding such insignia contravenes free licensing requirements, I request that the file to be transferred to the appropriate Wikipedia project under fair-use grounds, rather than deleted outright, given it's clear contextual relevance and informative necessity.

Also the Emblem of Indian Air Force if gone would affect a ton of Wikipedia articles. Ksh.andronexus (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If the the uploaded images were drawn by the uploader after the general design, I don't see that the license would be wrong. Per Commons:Coats of arms, each different rendition typically has their own copyright. If these were someone else's drawings copied here (or started with someone else's drawing then enhanced some but there is still some of the original drawing remaining), then yes they would be a problem. But you would need to show that, and otherwise any new creative expression would need to be licensed. You would have to compare versus an original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Passport cover images

The English Wikipedia article en:List of passports is pretty much one big gallery of photos/scans of passport covers. Most of the images seem to have been uploaded to Commons, and many are uploaded under under claims of "own work" with COM:CC licenses, which seems odd given COM:2D copying; File:Rwandan Passport.webp, File:Madagascar passport.webp, File:Azerbaijan Passport.svg, File:E-passport of Bangladesh.png and File:Diplomatski Pasoš Srbije.png are some examples of such uploads found just by random clicking. It's possible that some of the files might only need to be relicensed, but most of the "own work" ones probably need to be assessed. Can anyone think of an efficient way to do this or does each file need to be DR'd individually. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

DR'd individually in the sense of going through a deletion request? If so, then I'd say no. I didn't click all but most of them seem to show

1. text that is below the threshold of originality (COM:TOO and {{PD-text}}).

2. state symbols, which in most countries appear to be exempt from copyright.

3. official documents issued by states, which also oftentimes are exempt from copyright.

There may be a few exceptions (or not). Nakonana (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Relicensing might be necessary, however, in case of SVG files those might actually be own works because they are not photos but, if I'm not mistaken, created with software by the uploader. So they are own works or derivative works of things that are likely in the public domain. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The Azerbaijan one seems to have used the vector from File:Emblem of Azerbaijan.svg, just recolored, which is probably below the threshold of originality (as is the rest). But, there is always gray area around TOO, so I'd be loathe to remove a self-license, provided the rest is documented. So there may be some technical relicensing file-by-file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Image tag when not found at source

What is the correct tag to be placed on a file when it has a stated source but is not available at that source? E.g. File:Cristina Gherasimov official portrait.jpg, File:Alexandru Munteanu official portrait.jpg. Gikü (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The images on the website seem to be derivative versions of the portraits you linked. It is likely that the portraits can be found on the other pages of the website (probably on subpages of the linked source). The portraits may have also been featured in an earlier revision of the page, in which case they could potentially be found with Wayback Machine. Don't place any tags, just try finding the actual source and replace the current one. Regardless, this is definitely a genuine photo from the government (with the website even using derivative versions of the portrait) so it is not a copyright violation. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried what you suggest, I myself was involved in importing portraits of these newly appointed ministers. I recognize that the small circular crops that we can see now on the Government site are derivatives of the photos on Commons, but I have not observed the full pics at any moment on the site, neither could I find a webarchive version. I have tagged the images with {{LicenseReview}} and I will await a LR-er to take a look. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverse image search reveals that there were usages of those images on other websites 4-5 days before they were uploaded to Commons: [8] [9] [10] [11] Nakonana (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and reviewed the licenses. General consensus on Commons has typically been that when something is licensed (or becomes PD), other crops or higher or lower resolution versions are fair game, since they fall beneath the COM:TOO (this can be debatable for certain edge cases but the corners of these photos do not seem particularly above the TOO to me). -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 03:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting unwritten rule I had not known about. Thank you @Nard the Bard. Gikü (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright declaration of consent

I've contacted a copyright holder and they seem open to putting a section of their database under a free license. Given that this is a large collection of images and not individual ones, would sending an email to the appropriate permissions wikimedia email still be sufficient (there's no link to be given)? Also, they seem to have a pre-filled letter; can this substitute the template given in Commons:Email templates? Bastobasto (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I would presume there is nothing magic about the email template, it's just intended to spare people from each having to draft their own letter. And as long as it is clear what materials are covered, I would expect it to be OK, but really questions about VRT should be at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Anyone (like me) not on the VRT can only guess at how the VRT will handle something. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Dashcam copyright?

File:UPS Airlines Flight 2976 moments before crash.png is sourced to a dashcam and tagged with PD-automated. I know that previous wording of PD-automated included dashcams, but it no longer does. However, I don't think there's been a discussion here centered on just dashcams, so I'm looking for some thoughts for future reference.

Personally speaking, I lean towards PD in this case. There are much fewer creative choices one can make about dashcam video compared to bodycams. The only creative decision I could conceivably see in this video is the driver stopping the vehicle, but it's hard to say that that's creative. Based5290 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Bedivere (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is also File:UPS Airlines Flight 2976 crash still.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I was coming here to ask about this. Doesn't the person operating the vehicle, regardless of intent, mean there is human input in capturing the video? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Human input for dashcam videos? Perhaps, but quite certainly not of the creative kind or above any relevant threshold of originality. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It may actually be enough. There are several dashcam videos registered with the Copyright Office. A simple search of "dashcam" in the online USCO search returns a number of videos that would seem to be simple dashcam footage that happened to capture something interesting. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't this agency also register copyright for things that are clearly below TOO (like textlogos?). I think I remember that there have been instances like that. (was it maybe regarding the Tesla logo...?) Nakonana (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are many things registered with the USCO that, if they went to court and were fully adjudicated, might be ruled un-copyrightable. But under US law, the existence of a registration puts the entire onus on the re-user to fight the claim; courts are directed to automatically assume that a registration implies the work is copyrighted. And there are several recent registrations for dashcam footage, so presumably the USCO would continue to grant registrations to such works. 19h00s (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

And I believe what you're referring to re: Tesla is the DMCA takedown they sent last year over several of their "T" shield logo variations. WMF only removed one requested file as it was the only one registered with the USCO - it was the most complex variation on the shield logo, with several additional shading elements that seem to have pushed it above the ToO under USCO's analysis. 19h00s (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was figuring since w:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices only refers to pre-position cameras, which doesn't apply here since the vehicle is not pre-positioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Can the US Gov have special permissions for their photos?

@EF5 recently found File:May 3, 1999 Moore F5 tornado.jpg over on a verified U.S. Government Flickr account (Flickr upload here). The Flickr license is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. After some investigation, I found the original publication of the photo here, on an August 2001 archives NOAA website, attributed to Mike Eilts, the-then assistant director of the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory. Noting NOAA-use of the photo here, three years after the Flickr upload.

I know various government agencies have warnings/alerts regarding their photos, like {{PD-LosAlamos}}, {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, {{PD-NWS-employee}}, or {{PD-USGov-NOAA-GLERL}}. So, is the Flickr upload confirmation regarding special perms/a warning for the image? If Yes/No, how should the Flickr warning be displayed to the public if the image is kept on the Commons? WeatherWriter (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• It's unlikely the assistant director of NSSL took this image on duty. That plus the timestamp (to me) indicates a personal camera took this. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:May 3, 1999 Moore F5 tornado.jpg. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think it being a “personal camera” means it wasn’t taken by the NSSL while monitoring the storm. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • FWIW, from what I've seen in the past, photos like that rarely originate with NOAA employees. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Possibly AI-generated images that are likely derived from copyrighted works

• File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg
• File:ĐB Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg
• File:ĐBQH Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg

I couldn't find these images elsewhere using Google Lens. The first's EXIF data says Made with Google AI. The third has a watermark pointing to this government portal. How should these be handled? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg exif literally says made with Google AI. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

File:The Mother's Love "There was no room for them in the inn." (From the painting by Lawrence Bulleid).jpg

Can someone please review this? I've done what I can to help the uploader, but a more experienced person is needed. Thank you for your time. Geoffroi 21:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What's to help with? Looks fine. (I didn't examine the history; I assume there was some issue in the past.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to tell the uploader it was ok for sure without getting a second opinion. Geoffroi 23:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

FoP-Uruguay again

Freedom of Panorama: Between Copyright and Enjoyment of Cultural Heritage, by Beatriz Bugallo (Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de la República, Uruguay). Published on: 28-10-2025.

Per the abstract (translated version, with underlined emphasis added by me):

Freedom of panorama is an exception to economic copyright of copyrighted works located in freely accessible public spaces. It seeks to balance social and cultural interests with the interests of creators. Its regulation is fragmentary in comparative law, since it is not especially enshrined in international regulations, and the States that regulate it do so with variations. Its growing regulatory provision is a consequence of the technological evolution in the possibility of reproduction and public communication. In the digital environment and due to the different economic activities affected in the cultural, touristic and educational fields, it is increasingly important to consider its regulation. We propose its concept, foundation and historical origin as a starting point. By means of a selection of comparative law experiences and a survey of aspects of diverse normative scope, we present the existing range of its regulation. Guidelines are included as a proposal for its inclusion in Uruguay.

The part that I highlighted seems to imply that there is no valid FoP in Uruguay (notwithstanding our interpretation at COM:FOP Uruguay). The Uruguayan chapter of Creative Commons is also of the view that FoP is not recognized in Uruguay, and that's why they are repeatedly calling for its introduction in that country.

Some past discussions on Fop-Uruguay: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Statues images and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06#Renewed review of Uruguayan FoP.

Here is the link to the full paper of Bugallo (2025), which is in Spanish. Pages 48–49 mention about Uruguay's FoP status.

Excerpt in Spanish

Algunas legislaciones no hacen referencia al tema. En Argentina la ley 11.723 de 26 de setiembre de 1933 y sus modificaciones, no hay referencia expresa. Tampoco la hay en la ley 9.739 de 17 de diciembre de 1937 de dere-chos de autor y conexos, y sus modificaciones, en Uruguay. Cualquier uso que quiera realizarse y que esté relacionado con reproducción, comunica-ción pública u otro derecho de explotación del autor requiere la autoriza-ción del titular del derecho, sea el arquitecto o cualquier otro a quién se los haya cedido, a menos que se aplique otro tipo de excepciones previstas. En un caso uruguayo se filmó una pieza publicitaria al aire libre en una calle, delante de un muro que tenía un graffiti visualizable libremente – típi-co uso comercial -, sin requerir consentimiento del autor. Si bien este tema no fue el centro de la discusión (la discusión versó sobre la atribución de autoría al reclamante), como no hay ninguna referencia en la ley respecto de este tema, en definitiva, se consideró que era ejercicio de derechos pri-vativos del autor y se fijó una suma como indemnización por el uso no con-sentido (Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022). Según las disposiciones del Derecho comparado que contemplan la libertad de panorama, podría haber sido o no admitida como excepción (creo que mayoritariamente no comprendida por su dimensión teleológica). Este tipo de conflictos no son difíciles de encontrar en la juris-prudencia de distintos países. En EEUU, donde la ley referida a la protección de las obras arquitectónicas consagra expresamente excepción de panora-ma limitada y que se interpreta además según la regla del fair use o uso justo, se había presentado antes un caso relativamente similar al uruguayo. Se trató de un artista plástico contratado para realizar una pintura mural en un parking, la cual fue fotografiada por un tercero y utilizada para avi-sos publicitarios de una empresa. El autor reclamó que no había autorizado el uso y la empresa demandada contestó que como se trataba de una obra visual incorporada en obra arquitectónica estaba comprendida en la excep-ción. En definitiva el tribunal actuante entendió que si bien un parking se puede calificar como obra arquitectónica, la creación visual objeto de la litis no era parte funcional del parking, sino independiente de él. De esta forma, no podía incluirse en la excepción que hubiera permitido el uso a la deman-dada (Falkner v. Gen. Motors LLC, 393 F. Supp. 3d. C.D. Cal. 2018) (Bugallo, 2025)

Re-mentioning everyone mentioned in those two older discussions: @Ganímedes, Leiro & Law, and Clindberg: from the 2011 discussion at FoP talk page, and @Ruslik0, Bedivere, and Ymblanter: from the discussion in June this year. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Some addition: Bugallo (2025) proposes (on page 53) a sufficient FoP to be applied in Uruguay, either following the German or the Andean Community models (both balanced according to Bugallo (2025)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the tag links to a version of Uruguayan law, the one which the articles states has no FoP provision, yet article 45.8 seems to be directly on point. It's possible the qualifier at the end (left the private domain) is fuzzy enough that it should be made more clear in the law, but to state there is nothing at all in the law seems incorrect. Unless that section has been removed more recently, or the author was looking at an earlier law which did not have it. Does the document discuss that article in particular? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg the document doesn't discuss the article, but I have a stronger feeling that 45.8 isn't a valid FoP, but more of an exception that guarantees free uses of works of art that are already outside the private domain (in other words, copyright has expired). This webpage (by IMPO Uruguay) is explicit in its Q&A explanation:

¿Qué usos están permitidos y no son considerados reproducción ilícita?
Los llamados usos “libres”, no considerados reproducción ilícita son:...
8. La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que hayan salido del dominio (propiedad) privado.

In their version, it's legal to reproduce works of art in public spaces provided they have "left" the private property domain. (Property, in the sense, intellectual property). There is no logic for equating "private property" with ownership, considering that works inside museum indoors also fall under this exception (yet museum indoors are typically privately owned).

The document itself mentions a Uruguayan case law concerning the inclusion of an outdior graffiti in an advertisement. Case file: Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 (English translation by Google: Civil Appeals Court, 3rd Division, Judgment 44/2022 of April 21, 2022). Per the author of the document, the case mainly concerned on "attributing authorship of the claimant", the case concluded with "a sum awarded as compensation for the unauthorized use". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to tell this too: The Article 45.8 in the Uruguayan copyright law has been intact since the law first came into effect in 1937. No revision has been made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg. Here is the link to the 2022 court casefile from Uruguay mentioned by Bugallo (2025). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's only allowed if the copyright has expired, then it wouldn't need a special clause in the law. I certainly don't speak the language and there may well be a reason, but there should be a discussion as to that clause specifically as to why our interpretation is wrong. I can't see the link you posted, but the court case described seemed to be for a film, whereas the clause's permission is limited to photographs. Secondly, the court case seems to have been mostly about attribution, and did not address FoP, per the description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems the website doesn't post the casefiles in dedicated webpages and instead reliant on providing content while still using search. Here is the link to search. Search term is Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 Tovagliare Note the website doesn't allow copy paste options. The relevant casefile to be selected from the search is "44/2022 DEFINITIVA - Tribunal Apelaciones Civil 3ºT° - PROCESO CIVIL ORDINARIO". Case name: "REOLÓN, GUZMÁN C/ BANCA DE CUBIERTA COLECTIVA DE QUINIELAS DE MONTEVIDEO".

The summary (in Spanish) is: Revocando la sentencia impugnada en cuanto desestimó la demanda y en su lugar se condena a la demandada a pagar al actor la cantidad de $ 40.000 por concepto de lucro cesante, y el importe de $ 160.000 por concepto de multa, cantidades éstas que deberán reajuste de conformidad con el DL 14.500 y generarán intereses legales desde la exigibilidad hasta su efectivo pago.
La Sala coincide con el apelante en cuanto a que la exigencia de que el autor de la obra estampe en la misma su nombre completo constituyó un error de interpretación de la normativa aplicable al caso, que no tomó en consideración la normativa internacional que inspira nuestra ley, así como el principio del informalismo, conforme al cual el autor puede identificarse con su nombre, firma rúbrica o símbolo.
El Tribunal entiende que la reproducción de la obra del accionante por parte de la demandada sin su previo consentimiento, resultó ilícita, por lo que corresponde ingresar a examinar la pretensión indemniztoria formulada.

Some salient points in the appellate court's ruling

▪︎ The defendant's claim on the graffiti's lack of protection was overthrown (being an illegal work doesn't deprive the artist of his copyright).

▪︎ The defendant indeed failed to attribute the artist in the advertisement, despite having been contacted by the plaintiff (the artist)

▪︎ (Here is one thing that may change our perspective on Uruguayan FoP) the court also ordered the defendant to pay 40,000 Uruguayan pesos (that's distinct from 160,000 Uruguayan pesos of fines). The 40K payment is for the lost profits due to the defendant's unauthorized reproduction of the graffiti. The court explicitly ruled on the unauthorized inclusion of the graffiti in their advertisement.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The attribution is a moral rights issue, not economic right. Or maybe failure to attribution makes it an economic right violation. Anyways, the clause in their law does not allow inclusion by video, just photograph, so this does not directly address it anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure how "official" is the opinion of Creative Commons Uruguay. I'm not sure if it's or not a Non-Profit Organization, a government Organization or simply enthusiastics of the free culture. At least one of the members seems to be a lawyer, but there are musicians, psychologist, sociologist, etc. With that said, not much I can add to this topic. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of old Bangladeshi (East Pakistani) Newspapers

I’ve recently got digital copies of The Daily Azad newspaper of Jan-Feb & Jul-Aug 1952. It’s an important historic paper, especially related to the Bengali Language Movement, and the newspaper is now defunct since 1990s.

Before I start uploading, I want to confirm is it OK under Commons policy and current Bangladeshi copyright law to upload newspapers published before 1964?

From what I’ve read in the Bangladesh Copyright Act (2000, now 2023) and law firm summaries, corporate works like newspapers are protected for 60 years from the year of publication. That means issues published before 1964 should already be public domain.

For old newspapers, my understanding of copyright as follows:

1. If the writer was not employed by the newspaper: copyright lasts for the author’s lifetime + 60 years.
2. The newspaper’s layout and design (excluding text and images) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication. Reference
3. If someone writes something in a newspaper as part of their employment, the copyright belongs to the newspaper company. Reference
4. The editor of a newspaper is not the copyright owner. Reference
5. If the report was written by the newspaper’s own staff — being a corporate work — copyright lasts for 60 years from the year of publication. This means that all original photographs and staff-written reports published before 1964 are now in the public domain. Source: Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh
   (Note: The Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023 does not explicitly state that a corporation’s copyright expires 60 years after publication. but the previous Copyright Act 2000 states, "Term of copyrights in works of local authorities.⎯ Copyright in the work of a local authority shall, where the local authority is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following year in which the work is first published."
   According to 2023 law:
   1. The law says that if the author is known, the term is 60 years after the author’s death for literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.
   2. For anonymous authors, films, sound recordings, photographs, digital works, government publications, and international organizations, copyright lasts 60 years from publication.
   3. Since newspaper reports are generally not authored by individual editors or writers but by the organization, they can be treated as corporate works.
   4. Although the law doesn’t specifically mention Bangladeshi corporations, based on law of 2000 and and the legal opinion in the Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh — my conclusion is that the term is 60 years from publication.)

Arguments against say that if any article was written by an outside author (not staff), it might still be under “life + 60 years.” But The Daily Azad was mainly staff-written, and the paper closed long ago.

So, before I do the uploads, I just want to ask: Would you consider 1952 issues safe to upload as public domain?

Thanks for any thoughts. I just want to make sure it’s OK before I start. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment After reviewing the above comment and the relevant laws of Bangladesh, it appears that newspapers published 60 years ago are in the public domain.
  However, since they were published during the East Pakistan era, the interpretation under Pakistani law is also a relevant factor.≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 13:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @MS Sakib It is not a relevant factor. East Pakistani works published during the Pakistani era are still Bangladeshi works because East Pakistan is Bangladesh now. So it doesn't matter. The newspapers were published from Dhaka which is now in Bangladesh. Pakistan has no authority over Dhaka. Mehedi Abedin 13:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  
  I do believe rule of land applies here. Copyright law 2023 applies here as Dhaka is part of the Bangladesh now.

  Regardless of "Rule of land" vs "Rule of time", I want to cover my bases. The relevant law at the time of publishing these newspaper was British India copyright law 1914 (Pakistani ordinance was issued in 1962)

  If rule of time was to apply here: according to 1914 law

  1. Newspapers are explicitly defined as "collective works" along with encyclopedias, dictionaries, year books, reviews, magazines, or similar periodicals.
  2. For collective works, there's a special provision: any agreement by an author regarding assignment of copyright doesn't apply to "the assignment of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work or part of a work as part of a collective work".
     In simple terms, The work of an author cannot be published outside of the work without his/her permission if the work is collective work. The work can be PD as whole work but his work can not be published separately if author's copyright has not been expired. (This provision only applies to non-staff reporting or work)
  3. Where the author was in the employment of some other reason under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of· any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar Periodical.
     TL;DR: Copyright of staff reporting is held by the newspaper; not the staff reporter.
  4. When Owner is a body corporate, "the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts". The copyright term of corporate work is 50 years after publication.

  Tausheef Hassan (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Anything that was still protected by copyright in Bangladesh in 1996 would have its US copyright restored (Commons:URAA), and Commons requires works to be free both in their source country and the US (Commons:Licensing). URAA-restored 1952 works would enter the public domain in the US at the beginning of 2048. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig so, yes or no in your opinion? Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes or no to what? To uploading to Commons: No. Unless we delete them again immediately and add the files to an undeletion category like Category:Undelete in 2048 (assuming they're not still protected in Bangladesh by then). --Rosenzweig τ 10:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your clarification Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Saudi Photos platform

The official licensing announcement document

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) recently announced the Saudi Photos platform, which states in it's terms that "the media content on this platform is available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. Under this license, all media content published and owned by SPA on this platform may be utilized across all media outlets, online servers, or other informational platforms, and creatively reused without restrictions on the volume of materials or duration of use."

I noticed that a number of users were uploading images from this platform, so I created {{Saudi Photos platform}} with tracking category (79 files).

Any suggestions, comments, or feedback? The platform seems to contain hundreds of great images. --Alaa :)..! 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The Arabic Wikipedia community informed at w:ar:special:diff/72389097. Also ping @Dyolf77: one of the ar-N sysops at Wikimedia Commons --Alaa :)..! 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They are only about 10 years behind Iran..  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@999real What is the reason for this comment? And what does "Iran" have to do with the above topic? I still assume good faith. --Alaa :)..! 08:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you think? Iranian news websites started releasing all their content under a free license 10 years ago  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to them, and this is a positive step that we hope all countries of the world, from east to west, will follow. --Alaa :)..! 17:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@علاء seems a good start. Will it also mean that Saudi Arabia may become more "open" in terms of licenses that are friendly for commercial reuses and reuses on IT/digital/new media soon? For example, concerning the unrestricted pictorial and photographic reproductions of recent buildings and sculptures in public places without needing licensing permissions from the architects, sculptors, and artists of the said landmarks, or the so-called Freedom of Panorama which Saudi Arabia currently lacks right now? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, JWilz12345. I have the same questions as well, so I think the answers to these questions should be left for the future to see, but it seems that "maybe" the future is better. I don't know if the Saudi Wikimedia User Group can answer them? --Alaa :)..! 15:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Image Upload Query

Hello! I'm new to the wikipedia community, and I'm trying to make a wikipedia page for the Soviet 130mm S-70 Cannon, but I'm unsure about the image I found for it. Could I have some help determining if I can upload it? This is the link with the S-70 details: [12] Admiral Orazark (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any indication of a Creative Commons license on this website and/or the websites it references. The images might be in the public domain but to establish that we'd need more information on the images than the website provides.

I guess we don't have any images of that cannon on Commons yet? Somewhere in those categories maybe:

• Category:Self-propelled artillery at the Tank Museum, Kubinka (the website you linked has one image that was taken in this museum)
• Category:Self-propelled artillery in the Patriot Museum Complex, Kubinka
• Category:130 mm artillery
• Category:Tanks of the Soviet Union
• Category:Automatic cannons of the Soviet Union
• Category:Cannons in Russia
• Category:Cannons

Nakonana (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are those the correct categories?

• Category:Object 260
• Category:IS-7

Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked around and couldn't find a direct reference or separate cannon image anywhere on the commons yet, that's why I tried to find a good outsource for the image. It's unfortunate that the images are undetermined; I'll try to do some digging with lens, but I don't know if I'll find anything. Thank you anyway for your time, I apologize for taking it up. Admiral Orazark (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Simon Dwain Kalavazides

This is my first time reporting an issue on Commons, apologies for any breach of etiquette. This user's contributions seem very problematic to me. They were brought to my attention from an edit request at an en.wiki article. The lead photo featured the subject making a rude gesture (and was claimed stolen from its actual owner), so when I searched Commons to see if an alternative was available, I discovered this account that has uploaded numerous photos of the subject, taken over the span of many years, and all licensed as "own work" with the caption "When I met <subject> at <place>. I have cropped myself out." And they have done so for many other subjects than just the one. It seems likely to me that they are all improperly licensed. Please let me know if there's a more suitable noticeboard or action I should take. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Judging by his Instagram[13], I've reached the opposite conclusion, it's probably a real person who has the hobby of meeting celebrities. Commons policy requires anything that has been published somewhere else first needs permission from COM:VRT. If you find any specific files that meet this criteria, it would go further to bolster the case these are copyvios. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well I'll be. Apologies for not digging deeper, but thanks for looking into it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lesley Joseph 2025.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wenzel Wirkner 1864- - Klid v horach - Horska idyla.jpg

Any idea why the files from this DR were redeleted? The summary just says "A Deletion Request" which is vague as hell... DMCA maybe? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That does seem odd. The "Undelete in 2018" category was removed when that happened. Seems like they should be restored, unless they were made/published after 1930 (in which case they would still be under U.S. copyright most likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The deleting admin is still active. Pinging @Gbawden: . Nakonana (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Léna erred here. When removing Category:Undelete in 2018 on 1 Jan 2018, probably Category:Undeleted in 2018 should have been added and the files should have been undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by NGCZ. I did a bulk delete which is why it just says Per a deletion request. Gbawden (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gbawden: If that's the case, it looks to me like you linked the wrong DR in the log, so that would have been very hard to guess. Let me know if you think I'm misreading. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense then. Deleted for reasons other than copyright, really. Unsure if there is a way in the future to get the DR linked in the logs somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Only way to do that is to undelete & redelete. Might be more useful to add a permalink to this discussion than just a link to the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Canadian FoP and interior photographs

File:Playhouse Cinema Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Concession Stand.png shows the concenssion stand of the en:Playhouse Cinema located in Canada. COM:FOP Canada states there's freedom of panorama for buidlings and other architectural structures under Canadian copyright law, but it makes no mention specific mention of photos taken inside such structures, and there doesn't appear to be any copyrightable elements in the photo that wouldn't meet the definiton of incidental/de minimis per COM:CB#Museum and interior photography. Is this photo OK for Commons as licensed or does it need another license (e.g. {{FoP-Canada}}) for the photographed interior? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Whether there is FOP or not for interior photographs in Canada doesn't matter in this case. Whatever would have a copyright is not sufficiently prominent to be an issue. All artworks are de minimis, and the rest is utilitarian. Yann (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

File:James D Watson crop.jpg et al.

Looking for a sanity check before I cause a disaster. This and the related versions are getting a lot of eyes at the moment because of the death of the subject.

The problem is that this is tagged as an official work of the NIH but it doesn't seem the NIH took the photo. What appears to be the original source identifies it as Courtesy: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Now, CSH undoubtedly makes use of a boat load of NIH funding, but it is not a government organization; it's a private non-profit. I've run into this before with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which similarly takes a lot of government money, but is actually run by UT–Battelle, a non-profit.

The NIH source identifies the Watson photo as "freely available and may be used without special permission." But as we all know, simply saying something is free in a non-descript way doesn't constitute a specific rationale for why it's free, and doesn't amount to a specific license.

I'm sure nominating this for deletion will cause a stir about Commons meddling and being nit picky, but unfortunately that doesn't have any bearing on whether the image is actually free and properly licensed. GMG^talk 13:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You're sane, don't fret. Looking at the file and links, I'd agree with you; works by CSH are not automatically PD and certainly aren't NIH works, and the genome.gov link is way too vague about the freeness. This will probably cause some arguments and folks may try to dig up more sources, but barring major conflicting info I'd agree these should get a deletion nom. 19h00s (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I updated File:James D Watson Genome Image.jpg with an archive.org link and links to the copyright pages. genome.gov's copyright page at the time said to obtain permission for third party works, but this particular image said permission was already granted. Not an NIH work, I also changed the license. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

uncredited OSM tileset use Category:Maps_of_exclaves,_enclaves_and_salients_of_the_United_Kingdom

I have just discovered the various maps such as File:Exclaves_Derbyshire.jpg. These appear to be photographs (!) of a monitor displaying old openstreetmap tiles, with an overlay showing pre-1844 county borders. credited with source "Wikimapia Historical Counties Map With Exclaves" and "Historic County Borders Project". At the very least they need an OSM credit, is my understanding. Having done a bit of cursory checking I'm not able to find these boundaries on wikimapia either, although i'm not super familiar with that site. Thoughts about what should be done about this would be welcome. The uploading user appears to have retired only a few months after these were put up, five years ago. Morwen (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable Source?

Is this page on the Supreme Court of India website an acceptable source for an image to be added to Commons? I ask this because I've seen other officeholders from the Indian Government have their pictures used on Wikipedia. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for it, but there appears to be no GODL release or anything of the sort. Indian government works are not automatically freely licensed, so unfortunately, probably not. Based5290 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

US paintings 1930-1955

Hi, What is the best license for these artworks, e.g. File:Untitled (Mt. Denali in Summer) by Sydney Mortimer Laurence, c. 1920-1940, Anchorage Museum.jpg. I mean for US artworks from after 1930 who author died before 1954 (1955 next year). There are either published without a notice and/or without a copyright renewal (therefore {{PD-US}}), or unpublished (therefore {{PD-US-unpublished}}). It is difficult to know for sure the publication history, except for famous painters. So what is the best solution? Yann (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think most other editors here are not going to like my answer. My take is if the art is "out there" (which it is since we have the art available), then it was probably published, but you still must do the due diligence of searching the Copyright Office filings to ensure it was never registered. You can never assume publication without notice, unless you find an art catalog or similar that lacks it. As you said, proving publication for some of these works is very burdensome, also the transitional rules for unpublished works 1997(1997 date only applicable for foreign works)1978-2003 are especially ridiculous (copyrighted until 2048). Again, I think some editors would object to my take, they want you to prove publication. This particular work seems especially troubling, as you don't even have a firm date when it was created/published. Therefore, whether it's actually PD is very debatable. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: The whole point is that, if the painting was not published, then it is in the public domain per {{PD-US-unpublished}}, as I said above. If we know the date of publication, it is easy to check for copyright renewal. I think that most of these paintings were published, even if it cannot be proved. So my question is, where we should use {{PD-US-unpublished}} which is true for all unpublished works, or {{PD-US}}, which is the most likely copyright status, even if we can't find the exact detail. We have the choice between an always-true license for unlikely situation, or an uncertain license for the most likely situation. Yann (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This particular work has some problems. If created between 1920-1930, and either published, or unpublished until 2003, then ok. If created 1930-1940, and published, possibly ok, depending on notice and registration/renewal. But if first published 1978-2002 you have a huge problem. From 1978-1988, notice was required (though omission could be cured by registration within 5 years), and the term is life+70 or until 2048, whichever is later. If first published 1989-2002, notice was optional, but still the term extends to at least until 2048. Which is why I said, your best bet is to assume publication, and focus on searching for a copyright registration. Proving publication can be very hard, as a lot of the primary places this would have occurred (art catalogs and the like) are not available online, but stating you have searched the copyright records and didn't find a registration is a firm step you can do.

To answer your question as to when to use PD-US-unpublished, this would only be a specific case, the artist never distributed copies of the work to the public, or it was a private commission and not reproduced until 2003. Some works this is easy to prove, Mark Twain famously hid his autobiography, and his heirs chose to publish it to take advantage of the transitional copyright rules, otherwise it would have immediately fell into the public domain.-Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: Registration is meaningless for such works, unless they were first published between 1978 and 1989. If they were *renewed*, then yes that could be an issue. If they were published though, they needed a copyright notice on the painting or frame. Determining publication for paintings can be extremely difficult, mainly because there was no set definition of publication in the U.S. at the time, and different courts had different standards. Unless there is some documentation that a painting was kept by the artist's family for a long time, we generally do assume publication around the time they were made (most works were made to be published). Given all the gray areas, there can be lots of theoretical doubts on such works, but the standard is significant doubt -- that would probably need some specific information that a painting could really have been first published between after 1978 (and before 2003) for an artist who died in 1940. That is exceedingly rare. You can throw theoretical doubt on a great many works here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was trying to convey this. Unless the work was bought for a (very) private collection or held in storage, it was effectively published. And you do raise a valid point, for pre 1964 works we only have to worry about renewals. Related DR for a work that falls into this category.-Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically, publication without notice overrides renewals -- it became PD immediately regardless of its current status. Granted, the copies without notice did need to be distributed. In general though, I don't like deleting where lack of information on U.S. publication status is the only doubt. If we do get some concrete publication information, we should of course follow that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Embedded YouTube videos

The Serbian military at vs.rs has generously licensed all the content on their website under a CC-BY license, as seen in the terms and conditions. They also publish a large amount of 'video-news', some of which might be nice to get on to Commons. However, while 'on their website' in spirit, the videos are technically embedded YouTube videos from their channel. The videos are theirs, and considering they used to upload them directly, it's obvious they upload them to YouTube for convenience, but they don't have a CC license on YouTube. Would these videos be ok to use? If not, how would I go around getting permission to use them if I ever need one? I don't need a full release, so is it just enough for them to send VRT an email saying 'we consider YouTube videos embedded on our website to be on our website'? JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If it is clearly their content and they clearly grant a license, it doesn't matter that they post the permission on a different site than the content. However, you'd need to explain the situation in the "permission" section of the {{Information}} template and should certainly tag with {{LicenseReview}} so that a license reviewer can sign off. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is that simple. Putting this example in other terms, we can consider an English Wikipedia article containing a mixture of fair use images hosted locally and freely licensed images hosted at Commons. Both the fair use images and the freely licensed images have separate sets of terms that are available for people to access. Does the presence of the freely licensed content overule the terms of the fair use content just because they are displayed on the same web page? Similarly, I think we would need an explicit statement to say that the website licence also applies to the embedded YouTube videos, which have their own licence terms already.

As an addition, I have run a machine translation on the terms of use for that Serbian website and it says, "The content on the site is available under the conditions of Creative Commons Authorship 3.0 Serbia license, if not otherwise indicated". The presence of that last statement would appear to exclude the YouTube videos, as they are otherwise indicative of a different licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't read Serbian, and I also don't know exactly what page is being discussed for what videos. I was going by JustARandomSquid's statement (possibly false, per From Hill To Shore)t that they "licensed all the content on their website under a CC-BY license". If that is not the case, we would certainly have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid, I think it is best to just contact the website to ask for clarification, since the license status for the YouTube videos is not clear, as others pointed out above. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's very much what I was afraid of. What would I say in the email? Would they need to forward their reply to VRT? Kind of new to this so bear with me JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid Please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party#If you need to obtain a license for copyrighted work, hopefully this should answer your questions. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wappen Schützenverein - Tell Reidelbach

Kein eigenes Werk, aber: Reicht die Kombination aus Form, Schrift und typischen Symbolen für Schöpfungshöhe? - No own work, but is it enough for TOO? GerritR (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Selbstantwort, damit die Sache nicht automatisch archiviert wird. Meinungen, bitte. GerritR (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not consider this below threshold of originality. But this is always a bit subjective. I, myself, could not easily make such a design, it would undoubtedly look different. You can look at COM:TOO Germany for more examples. Ellywa (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia:en:File:Conservatives logo.svg

File was removed from Commons in 2022 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservative Party UK Logo 2022.svg) but since then UK TOO has risen significantly (COM:TOO UK) and I believe it would fall under it now. Any advice? Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The tree is not a simple shape, so it may exceed TOO-US and have a thin copyright. Glrx (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah even in America the tree would be on the edge. Text styling is regarded more simply than any symbol/shape. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

R/place copyright

What circumstances would have to occur in order to take a screenshot of r/place (disregarding UI)? As in, given that most people only contributed a few pixels to the project, does that mean that nobody owns r/place, Reddit owns r/place, or that EVERYONE who contributed owns at least a part of r/place? If it’s the latter, do they still own copyright even after their placed pixels have been overwritten, and what is the best way to contact EVERYONE? And finally, looking at the canvas at a whole, at what point in the timeline does it start being original and not just a mess of unoriginal colours? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN _{wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo} 22:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anohthterwikipedian: Sounds like you are speaking of something where Commons' precautionary principle means we could not host it. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

EU Parliament copyright

Are images created by the European Parliament that are available at the European Parliament multimedia page free use as an Attribution-only license on Commons? If they are, is Template:European Commission the correct template to be using? Because, as I understand it, the European Parliament and European Commission are not the same thing and therefore have different copyright policies, like this EU Parliament notice DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/10#European Parliament images and the many past discussions also linked in that thread. The summary is the copyright status of EP images is currently "ambiguous". Their wording of their legal notice appears to be incompatible with licensing requirements of Commons, while others said it could be due to a mistranslation. Currently, Commons are still hosting many EP images, most of those that were nominated for deletion were deleted, but some were kept. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, the consensus on EU Parliament images seems to be that where the usage terms are marked with "Identification of origin mandatory", that marks them with Attribution-only licenses, and therefore commons-compatible. So I'm tentatively uploading MEPs portraits with the Template:European Parliament tag keeping in mind that two such tags have existed and been deleted previously DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Review request

Kindly review File:Adelaide Airport old international check in terminal.jpg, which is claimed to source from an Australian news outlet in which the website is paywalled. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Of course I don't have access to the paywalled site, but the combination of unknown author, paywalled site, and CC-0 seems unlikely, at best. Uploader has had a fair number of files deleted as copyvios. I'll start a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Are composite outdoor information boards in Germany FoP-eligible or not? (Maps + photos + graphics + text)

I would like to request clarification about a possible ambiguity in our copyright/FoP policies regarding composite outdoor information boards — i.e. signs that combine text, photographs, maps, graphics, and designed layout, and are permanently installed in public space (e.g. touristic or educational information panels). The German version of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter (section “Anzeigetafeln und Schilder”) contains the following passage:

“Als Faustregel gilt, dass detaillierte Informations- und Aufklärungsschilder […] fast immer urheberrechtlich geschützt sind und Fotos davon normalerweise nicht akzeptiert werden können. […] 2D-Kunstwerke sind in den meisten Panoramafreiheits-Ländern in der Panoramafreiheits-Ausnahme enthalten, aber nicht in: […]. OK: Text ist enthalten in der Panoramafreiheits-Ausnahme von […] Deutschland […].”

English translation:

“As a rule of thumb, detailed information and explanatory boards […] are almost always protected by copyright and photos of them usually cannot be accepted. […] 2D artworks are included in the freedom-of-panorama exception in most FoP countries, but not in: […]. OK: text is included in the freedom-of-panorama exception of […] Germany […].”

The potential ambiguity is the relationship between these two statements: Initial rule:

Detailed information boards (with maps, photos, graphics, layout, longer text) are normally not acceptable due to copyright.

FoP exception:

The FoP table seems to indicate that in Germany both
– 2D artwork (column: “2D works”) and
– text
are covered by FoP.

Because information boards typically contain both 2D works (maps, photos, graphics) and longer text, it is unclear whether Germany should be read as an exception that does allow FoP-based uploads of such boards, or whether the initial “not acceptable” rule still applies to composite informational panels regardless of FoP. My question about interpretation of these rule:

• How should this be interpreted according to current Commons policy and practice?
• Are detailed information boards located outdoors and permanently accessible in Germany considered FoP-covered (as 2D artwork/text), or are they still not acceptable on Commons due to being composite works?

So the resulting question is: Can an image like this Example published on Wikimedia Commons? Any clarification or link to previous consensus discussions would be very helpful. Thank you! August (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The standing practice, as far as I'm aware, is to accept such kind of imagery under German FOP rules. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the previous comment. But could someone please help me with a verifiable clarification?

I am not looking for personal impressions (“as far as I’m aware…”), but for either

(a) a link to an existing Commons policy page,

(b) a previous consensus discussion, or

(c) a specific deletion review / admin decision

that clearly states whether composite outdoor information boards in Germany (signs combining text, maps, photos, graphics and layout) are or are not covered by German FoP under Commons rules.

At the moment, I only see two plausible interpretations of the policy text, and I do not want to rely on assumptions. If there is an established practice or a policy-backed interpretation, I would really appreciate a concrete reference.

Thank you very much! August (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A relevant link would be COM:FOP Germany (and its subsections). There is also a plethora of FOP DR in Category:German_FOP_cases/kept, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berlin-Steglitz Gutshaus Steglitz Tafel.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stuttgart SI Centrum Informationstafel 2003.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spanisches Kreuz Pforzen schild.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mykonos restaurant plaque.jpg. That would be ample enough to corroborate "standing practice", I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Christmas tree and de minimis + other possible copyright issues

Earlier this month, I took a photo of a Christmas tree that contained multiple copyrighted works (found here). Should the file be uploaded, would it meet the de minimis guidelines and what other copyright-related issues would it encounter aside from freedom of panorama? Looking forward to your comments. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ianlopez1115 i'd rather say no. Almost all of the ornaments are non-traditional designs, most noticeably Labubu characters. The SM Megamall management even labels the Labubu-themed Christmas tree as "Pop Mart Christmas tree. See also this When in Manila article. Very likely, only SM has the licensing clearance from the Chinese toy company (w:en:Pop Mart) for them to use their characters in Christmas tree designs, and we can only take photos of the trees for personal uses. Freedom of Panorama is irrelevant (even if one day it is introduced here), because it is very likely the Pop Mart-themed tree won't be exhibited there either on a long-term or on a permanent basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by user:Remilio27

File list. This user started uploading files in September 2024. At first he gave the source of the images and then claimed that they were published under CC0. I have checked File:Les grandes étapes de la règlementation sur l'eau en France et dans l'UE.png, the source says for this image "© Office français de la biodiversité / Réalisation Matthieu Nivesse (d'après OIEau), 2018". For File:Lac de Montbel.jpg, the source web site is the French newspaper Libération. I cannot find any mentioning of CC0 there.

Several files say "Uploaded a work by Etat français from Etat français, donc libre." ("Etat français, donc libre" means "French state, thus free") but the license given in the file description is about US employees and their free work. I am not aware that this rule also applies to French government employees, but since we do not seem to have a respective license to choose, I guess not.

From 15. November 2024 on, he claimed that all uploaded images were "own work". But at least four of them are not, since I found them on newspaper websites with different photographers name. This is actually how I came across this issue, I was reading up on a topic and wanted to use the images in an article. For those images I started a deletion request. But putting in deletion requests for each individual of the files does not seem to be a reasonable way. How are cases like this dealt with? Skopien (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Skopien: If you believe that the user's work is repeatedly problematic, and you have tried and failed to solve it by discussing the matter with that user yourself, then that is really a matter for COM:AN/U rather than COM:VP/C, even if the problems are copyright-related. Just make sure that if/when you start a thread at COM:AN/U, you notify them on their user talk page (as explained there). - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers! I'll try the user discussion page first and then AN/U, I guess we can close here, but I do not know the correct template for that on Commons. Skopien (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyrightability of AI works in Austria, Hungary and Türkiye

I will probably try to research this separately since someone is appealing a keep I made to a DR about an AI-generated file that is still in use across multiple Wikipedias. The sources seem to be from websites or authors in Austria, Hungary and Türkiye so I figured I might as well ask here to get some answers quicker about whether AI works can be copyrighted in those European countries. Abzeronow (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Turkey is not really European, it's rather a country of Asia. Its capital Ankara is certainly not on European soil. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Though geopolitically it is European and part of Western realm (Asia is considered the Orient or the East). NATO member and member of the Council of Europe. No Asian country is a member of NATO. I also treat Cyprus as European too because it's a member of both CoE and EU. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

But European (more specifically: EU) law does not apply to Türkiye. It might have very different regulations than Austria and Hungary. Nakonana (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There is some previous discussion on the meaning of country of origin for an AI-generated work: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/04#{{PD-algorithm}} revisited. My opinion is that we should follow only US law for Internet-published works, since country of origin is impossible to define rigorously. In practice, since Internet-published works are pretty much never old enough to be expired in any country, they fall into three categories:

1. Created with non-trivial human input, freely licensed: OK worldwide since free licenses generally do not have a geographic restriction.
2. Created with non-trivial human input, not freely licensed: Not OK.
3. No non-trivial human input (e.g. graph of factual data or AI-generated image): OK in the US and many other countries but not all.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2016 World Series.svg

I'm not sure what to do with this file? It's currently having a duplicate version in enwiki (en:File:2016 World Series logo.svg), which is currently fair-use. But in Commons, it has another license. Is this logo accepted on Commons? Nvdtn19 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I tagged the fair-use file on enwiki for speedy deletion under enwiki's F8 criterion, it should be deleted soon if I'm doing this right. HyperAnd (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that the MLB logo is in the public domain, nothing else there approaches TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What license does this image fall under?

Hello. I am trying to upload an image from a correspondence from the First World War. I know that the work is under the Open Government License (https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100055225595.0x00001d?utm_source=testpdfdownload&utm_medium=pdf&utm_campaign=PDFdownload) so it should be can uploaded. I have already discussed this image here on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#Image_under_two_different_licenses. Now I am trying to upload it and I don't know which CC-BY license it falls under. Can you help me? Timixion (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Timixion, please use the {{OGL2}} license template. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Flickr Public Domain but All Rights Reserved Watermark

I uploaded this image because it was in the Public Domain on Flickr (see here). Then I noticed the "All Rights Reserved" watermark on the image. Which takes precedence? Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be a case-by-case judging. Here, I'd say that it will be the PD mark which takes precedence. Check the licensing history provided by Flickr, and you'll see that it was licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 on the upload day. But soon after (~20 minutes), if got switched to the PD mark. So, I'd say that the intention was the declaration as PD. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of manuscript scans?

Hello! Copying a question I first raised at en.wikisource: I would like to start a transcription project for Le Viandier at Wikisource. The hosting database (BNF) states that commercial use (I assume of a scan itself?) is prohibited, which would suggest on first glance that it could not be uploaded to Commons. However, because of the age of the work (14th-15th century), I am fairly certain that the text content (and potentially a simple scan) of the book is in the public domain. I took a look at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, but I still am not quite sure whether uploading this PDF to Commons would be allowed—could someone confirm here? Thank you! —Kittycataclysm (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

PD-Scan is the template you would want to use. I don't see any reason why you couldn't upload this. Abzeronow (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: The BNF claims a copyright on anything and everything. These claims are nonsense. This has never been under a copyright, as it was created before the concept of copyright was created. Scanning an old book doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Yann Thank you both! I will move forward with uploading this. Kittycataclysm (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it proprietary?

1930 PD Felix for comparison

File:Felixhead.gif seems like it is proprietary. If it can be PD because of 70 years or something like this (I doubt it), it is certainly not gpl+sa? DustDFG (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a derivative work of the modern (1950s) version of Felix the cat, which is copyrighted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Felix the cat.svg. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: The file was nominated for deletion back in 2008, but was kept. According to en:Felix the Cat and Commons:Character copyrights#Animation Origin, the character's original imagery entered into the public domain well before the file was uploaded in 2008, but the name is still trademarked. Commons isn't really worried about COM:TRADEMARK when it comes to the content it hosts. As long as the character's imagery is in the public domain, it's OK for Commons to host. As for the licensing of the file, you can't create a new copyright for a public domain work if what you do is really nothing more than a slavish reproduction of the original work; however, I think you can incorporate a public domain work into a new creative work to create a derivative work, and you can claim copyright over the new work. Maybe that's what the uploader did in this case and in the sense created a piece of COM:Fan art per COM:CHAR. Now, having posted that, if this file is of a more recent still copyright-protected version of the character, then perhaps the original DR decision to keep was incorrect; the existence of multiple versions of the character wasn't mentioned in the 2008 DR and there's no mention of the 2008 DR is the 2022 DR for the file that ended up being deleted; so, perhaps nobody connected the dots until you posted here. The file could be DR'd again and the concerns about this be a more recent version could be pointed out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I originally nominated it for deletion in 2008, funny. Anyway, everything up to 1930 is PD now in the US, and here's a 1930 Felix for comparison. I'd say this version is fine. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Are images and videos of North Korean weapons systems or military parades in the public domain?

Dear community.

This question has been on my mind for about two weeks now. It's about whether images and videos from North Korea depicting weapons such as missiles, vehicles, or other items, or even videos of military parades, are truly in the public domain? The license used for these images and videos is {{PD-KPGov}}, but upon closer inspection, this license does not mention images in this sense. Furthermore, it requires an additional license for the United States, which cannot be provided in this case. It also mentions other countries where the material may not be in the public domain. As I interpret the license, such photos or videos do not fall under 1. Documents for state management, 2. Current news, or 3. Information data. The suggestion was made to open a thread here so that more users could comment on the problem. What I expect: A consensus should be reached that the license and also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea should be adjusted accordingly. The aim should be to make it easier in the future for such material to be deleted more quickly, or to allow it to be uploaded to Commons with a clear conscience.

I would like to invite the following users to participate in the discussion: @Klgchanu: who uploaded the files and videos, @King of Hearts: , which converted my speedy delete requests into normal delete requests or restored files upon request under COM:UNDEL, @Yann: , who has speedy deleted some files in the recent days, and also @Namoroka: , who the following mentioned at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea: To summarize, documents for state management, current news or information data, and notifications created after February 1, 2006, cannot be used commercially and should be removed from Commons. e.g. And regardless of above, videos, photos, and other content from Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Korean Central Television (KCTV), or other similar government agencies have always been protected by copyright. e.g. That is exactly how I feel in this case and the problem is being discussed there, but no result has been reached so far.

Further links

Open deletion requests in this regard:

Note: The videos are from YouTube and they have no YouTube license.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:KN-25 TEL.webp (A webp extension suggests that the file was not extracted from the linked video as indicated, but rather originates from some website.)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jong Un Oversees Test-fire for 600mm Multiple Rocket Launcher.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-20.jpg (We have the same problem here. It's an Allamy stock image.)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-18.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:First Test-Fire of New-Type ICBM Hwasongpho-18.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miltary Parade Marks 80th Founding Anniversary of WPK.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Hardware Exhibition Defence Development-2024.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-11E.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-19.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:최신형대륙간탄도미싸일《화성포19》형시험발사 성공적으로 단행.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:화성-16나형.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:미싸일총국 신형극초음속중장거리탄도미싸일시험발사 진행.webm
• External link: http://kcna.kp/en (Which contains the copyright notice: 조선중앙통신 Copyright © 2000-2025 by www.kcna.kp)

Let the discussion begin. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion. My thoughts are as follows:

I saw a similar discussion taking place at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea, but there seem to be some differences.

Although copyright fees are technically being paid to North Korea, it is also true that the money is frozen in court due to the ban on remittances to the North. However, in practice, only one news agency (YNA) actually pays copyright fees to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). Other news organizations do not pay any copyright fees at all and still use the photos.

Even YNA, the only outlet that pays copyright fees, does not pay for photos from Rodong Sinmun, even though those also require copyright payments.

Ironically, there are cases where the North Korean government has used photos from South Korean news agencies without paying any copyright fees.

(They stated: “We used a photo, which is a still frame from videos reported by various global media such as NBC in the U.S., Fox News, and Reuters in the U.K.”)

Due to the closed nature of North Korea, it is practically impossible to raise legal copyright claims.

Lastly, uploading photos of North Korean weapons is done to help readers understand the articles, not for any other purpose. If I were a reader, I believe it would be much easier to understand if images of the weapons were included.

Klgchanu (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Klgchanu. Thank you for your quick reply. Your desire to illustrate an article is perfectly understandable, as you want the readers of the article to be able to visualize the weapons. That's precisely what Wikimedia Commons is for: hosting free media so that language projects can use it to populate their articles. Wikimedia Commons isn't just for Wikipedia, though; anyone can copy a link and embed it on their own websites. Even news portals use images from Commons for their articles and label them accordingly. However, this is not the real problem; Commons only hosts material whose origin can be clearly proven and correctly licensed, which, in my opinion, is not the case here. However, I am happy to be convinced otherwise. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If the issue is just illustrating the English-language Wikipedia, the best solution is probably en:Wikipedia:Non-free content; if the illustrations are crucial to the article, they should pass muster. Some other languages, but not all, also allow have similar policies. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: As I see it, the uploader is primarily interested in adding images to koWP and possibly also enWP. The Korean Wikipedia also allows fair use material, but the right to upload files must be applied for there; see ko:위키백과:비자유 저작물의 공정한 이용. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

That's right. Some images are non-free contents and have already been uploaded. However, during the upload process, the upload was made at a low resolution, making it impossible to properly understand the appearance of the missile. The Korean manager has been advised that it seems military equipment so can possible to upload as a free contents.

Klgchanu (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Klgchanu: But that's exactly also the practice followed by the English-language Wikipedia. The image is reduced to low resolution, making it pointless to copy it from there, as it's only meant to illustrate the article. Commons was ultimately chosen because it was about achieving a higher resolution and if I understand right, because an manager (administrator?) suggested it could potentially be free content and should uploaded to Commons.

It would be helpful if you could bring this discussion to the attention of this Korean manager. They are welcome to comment on it here. Just use {{ping|Username of this person}}, and they will receive a notification that they have been mentioned here on Commons. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. @앵무:

Klgchanu (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Since it seems like he hasn't replied, I'll continue talking.

This is a bit of a different story, but if change the licenses for those files to YouTube licenses, will there be no issues?

Klgchanu (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. A YouTube license is only valid if the video material is marked accordingly on YouTube. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 03:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction on US patent text + illustration copyright in templates

It has been thoroughly debated in the past (1, 2, 3) whether text and images in US patents are copyrighted. As far as I can discern, no consensus has been reached. The debate lies in whether all patent text/images are able to be uploaded, or only ones before March 1, 1989.

Currently, Template:PD-US-patent and Template:PD-US-patent-no notice contradict each other. The former reflects the interpretation that all patent text/images are free to upload, while the latter states only ones before March 1, 1989. Template:PD-US-patent had the "before March 1, 1989" stipulation until Dec 2013, just prior to the second discussion I linked in the first sentence of this post.

In addition, I am confused as to why both templates exist given that I believe all patents lack an individual notice, so wouldn't both templates apply to the same set of pages, or am I missing something? Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue of "notice" is not relevant for anything published on March 1, 1989 or later, when U.S. law adopted the principle that anything copyrightable is copyrighted upon creation. Lack of notice upon publication before that would be (on its own, not even involving the question of any special status for patent applications) a basis for a published image to pass immediately into the public domain (though from 1978 on there was some chance of remedying that within five years). - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

So Template:PD-US-patent-no notice should be used for any patent images before March 1, 1989, and the other should be used for images after? Plighting Engineerd (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be my guess as well. - Jmabel ! talk 07:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, my point about the templates contradicting each other still stands, as Template:PD-US-patent says "In general, the contents of United States patents are in the public domain", while Template:PD-US-patent-no notice says "This only applies to images published before March 1, 1989. Patents published after that date are most likely copyrighted". Plighting Engineerd (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

UK Government flickr images that were freely licensed

I found this photo on UK Government's flickr page. The photo was uploaded to flickr in 2021, although it was free licensed (CC BY 2.0) in 2022, a new license CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 has been used since 2024. There is a Template Flickr-change-of-license, but according to the description it only covers files that have already been uploaded to Commons. Are images like this allowed to be upload to Commons? 源義信 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• You can upload it. Flickr does show under "license history" that this used to be cc-by-2.0. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 01:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• @源義信 and Nard the Bard: I do not believe that is correct. As Template:Flickr-change-of-license says, "You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish," and it would appear that they have done exactly that. No, that would not retract our right to retain any copy was already here, but in this case there is no such copy. - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  As I understand, the work on flickr is the same one as when it was free licensed (they didn't change anything about the work itself), so it's still free licensed since the license is non-revocable. 源義信 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If there is no existing copy here, then we cannot host new images from Flickr that are now in unfree licensing despite being freely licensed before. The license history feature is only good for file license reviewers who need to verify that an unreviewed Flickr image was freely licensed on the date it was imported here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

As my understanding, when I download the photograph now, since the photograph itself hasn't been changed, it's still the one that was and is (the licenses cannot be revoked) free licensed. Then what's stopping people from uploading these works to Commons? 源義信 (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If I have a picture and give it to "Person A" and say, "You can share this with as many people as you want for free and I can't revoke your licence" then Person A is free to share the file as much as they want. If I then give "Person B" the same picture and say, "You can share this with any people you want but for non-commercial use only. I can't revoke your licence." then Person B is limited in how they distribute the picture. It doesn't matter if Person A has a more flexible licence, Person B was given a more restrictive licence. Technically, Person A could choose to give Person B a copy of the picture with the more flexible licence (as it is distributable and can't be revoked) but until that happens, Person B only has the restrictive licence.

In this scenario, Flickr is Person A but they have also received a copy of the picture and restrictive licence given to Person B. Flickr has then chosen to respect the creator's decision and distribute the picture to future users with the more restrictive licence. Flickr could choose to offer the file under either the original licence or the more restrictive licence but have chosen to use only the latest licence offered by the creator.

If this was for your personal use, you could download the file and say that you received the image under the original free licence (I doubt anyone would be able to check or even care). However, Commons is a freely accessible service with time stamps that can be compared to the time stamps in the licence history shown at Flickr. It will be clear that we received the copy under the restrictive licence and are pretending to offer the file under the version of the licence we didn't receive. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• 1st of all we have the record directly from Flickr that it was released under the license we are not even depending on the Internet Archive or anything.

"Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License". They did not stop distributing it all together they just changed the license. If you have to prove that you downloaded the file at the time it was under a particular license for that license to be valid we may as well say that all Creative Commons Licenses are revokable.

More importantly the UK Government Flickr page states "All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0"  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   13:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The people who manage those images make things complicated.

For example, if we look at the most recent photo ukgov/54923177416 of that flickr account, its EXIF states: "Usage Terms - This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." and "Copyright Notice - Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence". If there was only the "Usage Terms" paragraph, the reader might conclude that it is "otherwise stated" and that the image is not under the OGL. But the "Copyright Notice" paragraph states clearly that the image is under the OGL. So, even the EXIF is self-contradictory. And then the flickr page tags the photo as licensed under CC BY 4.0, which could also be interpreted as "otherwise stated" to exclude the OGL. What is a potential reuser supposed to conclude? In that example, given that the copyright holder is the same entity that should ultimately be in control of the flickr account, it could be reasonable to conclude that the CC BY 4.0 offer, issued when the photo was published on 2025-11-14, entirely supersedes all incompatible licensing statements of the EXIF, written when the photo was digitized on 2025-11-06, and thus the file can be uploaded to Commons under CC BY 4.0. That flickr file may or may not be reusable under the OGL, but it's not necessary for Commons to determine that, as long as the CC BY 4.0 license is actually validly offered and can be used.

The situation is different for the photo ukgov/51270790865 in the question above. Its EXIF states the usage restrictions "Usage Terms - This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form.", but it does not mention the OGL. However, the OGL is mentioned on the "About" page of the account: "All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." There is again the clause "except where otherwise stated". It is clearly "otherwise stated" in the EXIF of the photo. It is also "otherwise stated" by the CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 tag on the flickr page of the photo. So, in the present state of this photo, the information seem at least consistent on this point: this photo is not currently offered under a free license at this flickr source. The photo could have been copied from that source while an offer of a CC BY 2.0 license was in effect at that source, between 2022-12-03 and 2024-08-14, with the same reasoning as above, i.e. the specific CC BY 2.0 offer, while it was in effect, superseded the EXIF information. But not after 2024-08-14, when the copyright holder stopped to offer new CC BY 2.0 licenses at that source. The photo might still be available under the free license from other sources, if such other sources themselves had validly obtained the photo while it was offered under the free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Court filings - United States - Universal Life Church

I am here at Wikimedia Commons village pump asking for opinions about copyright ownership of state-level United States published court records. It is hard for me to categorize the various sources of these documents, but the collection is 100-200 documents, written in different courts throughout the United States, and in various legal circumstances. I do not know where to begin to look for precedent in how Wikimedia Commons views copyright of such things. If someone thinks that these could be in Commons, what advice do you have if I were to upload a few of these and ask for more comment with live examples?

The nonprofit organization at the center of all these cases is the Universal Life Church (ULC), which sponsored the lawyers who advocate for the right of ULC ministers to officiate weddings, despite the ULC typically not hosting a physical brick and mortar church building geographically in the administrative district of the wedding. The ULC would assign a Creative Commons license to any of these documents, if relevant.

Here is the collection of cases

• https://ulccaselaw.com/universal-life-church-legal-cases/

Common elements of all these documents is that they are public legal filings. Differences in these documents is that they all come from different legal jurisdictions, and that they are different types of documents with different types of authorship including plaintiff/appellant/defendent/appellee exchanges, statements of the opinions of state-level attorneys general, or final rulings from judges. Besides the cases here I have more similar.

These documents are interesting and in-scope for Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and Wikidata, and I am not proposing to indiscrimately collect legal documents in Commons. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The ULC started in 1962, so I'm assuming that these documents are all post-1963 and US. Court rulings are going to be PD anywhere in the US. At the state level, that's all I think is going to be automatically public domain. Anything the ULC is willing to license us is of course fair game. Then pre-1978/1989 works are going to usually be public domain for not having a copyright notice, though there will be some question of publication. Formal statements from political figures are likely to be, "we came up with this post-it note through discovery" probably not. (1978-1989 has rules that let works without notice cure the lack, though they're unlikely to be invoked.) After 1988, the rulings from judges are will be PD, and I would argue for statements of attorneys general as statements of law to be public domain. Otherwise, various documents that come up in court aren't generally going to be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thanks, I knew some of this but somehow with this in front of me I forgot much of it. Yes, US works before ~78 with no notice are PD on that rationale. I will check to see if I can find an existing Commons template about US court documents being in public domain. Thanks for the opinion about attorneys general - that makes sense that they would be comparable to judge's statements. And yes, I will check them to see if they contain notes or other works from outside the court, which may not be PD. I really appreciate this answer, this is great. I will take it slow and get a few up for consideration. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Appropriate CC licence given for this picture

File:Bathyscaphe Trieste 2025.jpg Hello, I just noticed an previously uncategorized picture of a replica of the bathyscaphe Trieste. But I have some doubts whether I can implement it in Trieste articles without creating trouble. It is mentioned in the description section that the copyright holder Enrico Halupca wants to get a more restictive CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence applied. And so now I am not sure whether I could use the picture of this replika without risking copyright infringements. What do you guys think about it? Cheers Yeti-Hunter (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There's actually no proof of a Creative Commons license at all. The uploader does not seem to be the photographer (they entered another "user's" name in the author field*) and while the author's name is in the exif data, there's no copyright statement in the exif data. So where did the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license claim even come from?

*One could argue that uploader "HEnrix" = "Enrico H", but idk if it's a safe statement. To be fair, Google Lens doesn't find any matches, though. Nakonana (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Enrico Halupca is a professional photographer and historian. Googling his name gives nothing but results about this Trieste replica, apparently he's the face of the exhibit. I've argued to keep photos like this before, when first publication seemed to be on Commons, and the user asserted they were the photographer. However, the inconsistent naming and licensing, and the fact that he hasn't explicitly stated he's the photographer, gives me red flags. I wouldn't necessarily nominate it for deletion right away, I'd leave a note on his talk page on the Italian Wikipedia and wait a few days, but ultimately without more info (at the very least a clarification on the intended licensing) it will get deleted. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

He published a book about the bathyscaphe[14]. However, I can definitely find his name in publications that are not related to the replica; the issue is just that Halupca is from the Italian city that shares the name of the bathyscaphe, that's why one might get the impression that it's all about the bathyscaphe when in fact it's about the city of Trieste instead[15]. Nakonana (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

OS maps from NLS

As I understand it, the OS maps available on the NLS website are out of copyright, therefore {{PD-OldOS}} is appropriate.

However, all the maps I remember checking on that site are labelled 'CC-BY', which links to this:

CC-BY. You are welcome to use some images displayed on the Map Images website for commercial, non-commercial, educational and private purposes under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence.

Use is conditional on provision of attribution. Please apply the credit line 'Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland' wherever you re-use map images. If you create derivative work, the documentation of your work must contain this attribution.

For online publications, we request that your attribution includes a link to our Map Images website.

Is the second paragraph a legitimate requirement? And does an en:wiki page that uses (all or part of) such a map count as a derivative work? If so, does the NLS credit need to be applied to that page (how?) or does the credit in Commons suffice? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Verbarson They have created a webpage with a useful summary of the copyright situation of the maps they provide. Government maps are Crown Copyright, so can be uploaded under {{PD-UK-Gov}} or {{PD-OldOS}} (effectively the same licence template) after 50 years. Commercial maps are protected for publication +70 years. Maps credited to an individual are covered by author's life +70 years. For maps that are out of copyright, you could upload them here with the relevant PD-tag and ignore the requested attribution statement; however, there is little harm in adding the requested text into the source or permission field alongside the PD-tag (it acknowledges where the file came from without forcing reusers to copy the same attribution statement). For the maps still in copyright but available under CC-BY, you would be required to add the attribution statement to the Commons file. Where you use a Commons file with CC-BY on Wikimedia (including en:wiki), the text contained in the Commons file page counts as suitable attribution. People who use a CC-BY file outside of Wikimedia would need to find their own method of giving the requested attribution. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: thank you. That was the page I was quoting from, and I appreciate you clearing up my confusion. I think it is quite proper to acknowledge the source in Commons, even if the image is PD, but I was worried about extending it to the Wikipedias. Thanks again. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hidalgo Street (Manila) photo from 1920s postcard

File:Calle Sebastian Calle Hidalgo Manila.jpg needs an accurate license tag. For sure, Sarahli777 (talk · contribs)'s usage of commercial Creative Commons license is incorrect. Existing online searches show the postcard image dates to circa 1920s and is currently kept under the collection of Ayala Museum Diorama Book.

Possible scenarios:

• If the postcard was first published in the Philippines before 1972 without copyright notice or with copyright notice (if registered during 1920s) but failed to renew the notice by 1960, {{PD-Philippines-1972}}.
• If the postcard was first published in the United States before 1930 (not the Philippines), {{PD-US-expired}}.

One thing is for sure: the uploader's commercial CC license is blatantly erroneous.

Mentioning here the recent contributors of w:en:Hidalgo Street article since 2020 (excluding blocked users) for their insights/comments (only pinging those who contributed to the enWiki entry more than once): @Irishandys, TypicalPinoyWikiUser, Johnpaulo5860, and Jb tomorrow: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Irishandys (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Another Hidalgo image

File:Calle Sebastian Manila, Philippines.jpg, a colorized version of an old image seen on this Reddit post. Ping @Francinehihao: (the uploader). For sure, the commercial Creative Commons license isn't applicable to the old image (not sure if colorization generates new copyright, though).

For the old image, same as my concern above (over the 1920's postcard "File:Calle Sebastian Calle Hidalgo Manila.jpg").

I suspect there are dozens of old images of the Philippines with wrong licensing tags (many with commercial Creative Commons licensing attached despite either in the public domain or unfree/copyrighted). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Foto austauschen

Hallo, ich möchte ein bestehendes Foto (Hint Horoz) gegen ein aktuelles Foto des Tieres austauschen. Foto ist von mir selber gemacht, aber ich kann es nicht tauschen.. Kann kein Englisch und bräuchte Unterstützung. Danke im Voraus Andihaller (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Kommt drauf an. Wenn es dasselbe Foto ist wie File:Hint horoz.jpg, nur in besserer Qualität, dann klicke auf "Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" auf File:Hint horoz.jpg, und das wars. Wenn es ein anderes Foto ist, dann lade es unter einem anderen Dateinamen hier auf Commons hoch (von dewiki aus ging es ja nicht) und ersetze danach den Link auf de:Hint Horoz. --Achim55 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Danke für deine Info. Also das Foto hab ich schon mal geschafft hochzuladen. Aber ich finde nicht den Link auf wiki.de um das alte, gegen das neue, Foto zu tauschen. Muss ich noch was beachten? Andihaller (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim55 (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Vielen Dank Achimm55 Andihaller (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Toilet ToO

• File:America (Cattelan) top view.jpg
• File:America (Cattelan) top view (cropped).jpg
• File:America (Cattelan) side view.jpg
• File:Gold-colored toilet.jpg

Bit of a funny ToO/sculpture question here. Maurizio Cattelan's sculpture America is an 18 karat gold, fully functional toilet. There are multiple editions of the sculpture, one was exhibited at the Guggenheim in New York before later being stolen while on view at Blenheim Palace. Another edition is currently on view and for sale in New York at Sotheby's. I truly can't tell if this is just an exact replica of a preexisting, commercially available toilet, or if it's a unique design. I'm also not sure if that matters. Any thoughts on whether photos of this sculpture (listed above) are OK to keep? All 4 images were taken in New York, so no FoP if the work is copyrighted. Thanks for any insights! 19h00s (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

"Fully functional" hints at that being a utility object... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Something can be fully functional and still be copyrighted, not every object with a function is purely a functional object. But it seems to be your assessment that this work has no decorative or otherwise creative elements to push it above being purely functional. 19h00s (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Gonna go ahead and add the Template:Useful-object-US tag to these unless someone chimes in with different analysis. 19h00s (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ZLG Atzendorf

Another sports logo from Germany - above or below TOO? - Springt diese Kombination aus Form, Farbe und Schrift über die Schöpfungshöhe? GerritR (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Bulk-correcting false license

Files that are shown in this search query all have a wrong license. I think all of them should have the CC-BY-4.0 license set as is standard for most files by OWID. Maybe it would also be good to notify repeat uploaders of these files with wrong license via some talk page message so they don't continue setting wrong licenses to the files.

Could somebody correct them?

Maybe info on how to do such or request such bulk-corrections may be good to document somewhere. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: This sort of thing is pretty easily done with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

How? When I on that search results page go to Tools -> perform batch task to open VFC and then select search query and, because it has my username in that input box instead of the search query of the search, paste search query into it, it doesn't show any results to run custom replace on. Additionally, I don't know which licenses people selected so it should custom replace all license tags – if this indeed works with VFC maybe somebody here has the regex for that. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You have to click go on Special:Search

/==\{\{int:license\-header\}\}==\n\{\{.*\}\}/g

 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily presume that all of the licenses are in a "license-header" section and that no other templates are in there; I think that particular regex could get you in trouble.

When I've done this, I've usually expected to do a few passes with VFC, looking through the search results for licenses that are present, and knocking out one license at a time (or a few at a time if I can find a good regex, e.g. \{\{PD-[^[}]*\}\} should get every sort of PD without catching anything else). After each pass, there should be fewer search results. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's a problem that VFC doesn't work in MediaSearch and even not in special search except if one opens a new tab to Special:Search and then opens it from there. Your regex worked on all but a handful of files which e.g. were marked as Own work or missing infobox template. Will fix these at a later point. Jmabel, OWID files generally only have one license template but using this regex for other cases could be a problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Now all files are fixed. The search query now returns no results. With new uploads of course some files may still get the wrong license again and it's unlikely anybody will check the query again. I'll put something in my notes to check the search query again at some other time. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for review

To interested users based in Belgium or possibly Benelux area, kindly review all of the images under Category:FOP (tagged with {{FOP}}). These apparently show stained glass windows in the city of Gent. Unsure if those are eligible for {{FoP-Belgium}}. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JWilz12345, I am not planning to review these images. And possibly this will not help either, but of interest perhaps. The discussion about FoP in Churches in the Netherlands did not lead to consensus. I asked for advice from a lawyer, @Arnoud Engelfriet, who kindly invested some of his time, but his advice was contested by some other Wikimedians. You kind find the discussion here: [16] Stained glass in other public buildings then churches might fall under FoP. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we should disregard opinions by non-lawyers when we have a lawyer's opinion. It always surprised when people pretend to know more than the professionals. Yann (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If they are an intellectual property rights lawyer, and familiar with the laws of the country in question, sure, but I'm pretty comfortable saying that if you grabbed (say) the average American lawyer and asked them something about (say) copyright in Communist-era Romania, they would know less than several dozen of the regular participants on this page. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel here. Disregarding non-lawyers just because you have an opinion from a lawyer is a bad idea. In my day job I deal with lawyers quite frequently and they are just as fallible as any other human. In my own field of expertise (not copyright) I regularly advise and correct lawyers who misinterpret my subject area. A lawyer with suitable experience can provide a persuasive argument but that doesn't automatically invalidate all other opinions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ellywa I'm convinced on the applicability of church interiors under Dutch FoP (and possibly Belgian FoP since Romaine said in a past discussion that Belgian FoP is similar to the Dutch rules concerning public space and non-modification rules), as long as the church interior is always open during worship services and that there are no restrictions in visiting indoors (like what JopkeB inferred in the discussion you mentioned.

However, I doubt the stained glass art photographed by Cesarine132 are located inside churches. Many of the images have source stated as "Dienst Bevolking (voormalige openbare bibliotheek)". I'm not sure if it implies the images were obtained from the library or depicted stained glass inside the said library. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

According to COM:FOP Belgium, "an explanation that was attached to a draft version of the freedom of panorama provision stated that the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public. According to the explanation, if a work of art is situated inside a building that is not permanently open to the public, then the artist may not have expected public exhibition of the work." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

So there is a difference between Belgium and Dutch FoP. As far as I know: In the Netherlands FoP also applies to freely accessible public buildings that are not PERMANENTLY open to the public, like public libraries and town halls. And apparently in Belgium FoP does not apply to those buildings. JopkeB (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

John Tewell images

We host a couple of vintage photos of the old Philippines under the collection of the late archivist w:en:John Tewell. However, perhaps some or most may not be his photos. As stated in the enWiki entry of him, "His interest in collecting Philippine heritage photographs began in 2008 when he discovered an album of 1930s portrait photographs in an antique shop in Ermita, Manila. This purchase marked the beginning of his systematic collection of rare and vintage photographs related to the country's history and culture." (cited source) This hints he just acquired or bought these old vintage photographs that were previously kept in private collections (like the Quiapo antique shop).

This may mean one thing: that several (if not most) of his collections are "unpublished" (confined to private collections), and were first brought to public exposure due Tewell's efforts. The complicated history of the Philippine copyright regimes (as outlined in COM:Philippines#General rules) blurs the copyright status of possibly unpublished works from the Philippines.

Another complication is, if some of the old photos had originals or copies previously published elsewhere (if in the US, more lucky due to {{PD-US-no notice}} if assuming the pre-1977 originals or copies were not registered in the US).

I'll ping some Pinoy wikimedians (who have been familiar with WikiCommons' licensing policy) for their insights/opinions. @Longcake Higad, Aristorkle, Pandakekok9, Howdy.carabao, and Ianlopez1115: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Additional mentioning, @Kemerutbarurut: (who created the enWiki biographical article), for their comment or insight on the matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Added comment: Act 3134 of 1924 (the older copyright law between 1924 and 1972) is silent on unpublished works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg scan of 1912 book cover

Hi folks, I suggest that the front cover to Michael Field's book Poems of Adoration (designed by Charles Ricketts and published in 1912 by Sands & Co., London & Edinburgh) be added to the Wikimedia Commons, as it is a strikingly beautiful design and would make a good addition to the Wikipedia article on Michael Field, demonstrating the authors' religious devotion as well as the visual aesthetics of their fin-de-siecle community. The Project Gutenberg edition of the book has a good quality scan located here: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61070/images/cover_lg.jpg Is that acceptable within the copyright policy? Phthoggos (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Phthoggos We appear to have it already (though with an inconveniently placed barcode) at File:Poems of adoration (IA poemsofadoration00fiel).pdf. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to upload a clean version of the cover, you can store it in Category:Michael Field (author). If Charles Ricketts was the designer of the cover, the correct licence template would be {{PD-Scan|PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1931}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

California DMV copyright?

I noticed that the California DMV has a copyright notice on their page, and their driver handbook is under a CC license. However {{PD-CAGov}} makes no mention of the DMV being able to claim copyright. Does anyone know how I would be able to check if works by the California DMV are actually copyrighted? Based5290 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, convenience link: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/copyright/. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Most website automatically stamp every page with a copyright notice. --RAN (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Logo of internet radio station

Anyone can help and give their assessment on the logo of the internet radio stationiPartyRadio and if its eligible for Commons? It does not meet threshold of originality to me. Please note that the wordmark iPartyRadio is currently under registration with the US Patent Office. Thanks! 90snls (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

US based company. The US have a quite high threshold of originality. The logo appears to be a text logo per {{PD-textlogo}}. Nakonana (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

+1, Feel free to upload its logo carrying PD-textlogo tag. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

COM:FOP Vietnam - Should it be date of publication, not date of upload?

Per COM:FOP Vietnam: Freedom of panorama is " Not OK: all uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam, uploaded on Wikimedia Commons from 1 January 2023 onwards."

However, it seems to me that the important date should be the date of initial publication of a file, not the date it was uploaded to Commons. For most own work, this would be the same, but in the case of files like the one at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum (26936780921).jpg, the file was uploaded to Flickr in 2016, and only moved to Commons in 2023. The 2016 date should be what we use to determine whether it falls under the old laws or the new ones, because that's when copyright was set.

Should we tweak the language to reflect that? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this would be the only acceptable language. If this is not true, then we would have to delete all pre-2023 Commons uploads relying on FOP Vietnam, since they cannot be freely reused on other websites and therefore cannot be considered to meet the Definition of Free Cultural Works. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Are circuit diagrams below TOO?

I've found this image on English Wikibooks, and am considering whether it should be exported to Commons. The question is: are educational circuit diagrams below the threshold of originality in the United States? JJP_Master (she/they) 02:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say one that simple certainly is below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What about this one? b:File:Mesh1.png JJP_Master (she/they) 19:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. The key question would probably be: would anyone else diagram this significantly differently? If not, then it is probably below TOO. Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The annotations there—"loop1", "loop2", and "I₁", "I₂"—would probably be a more likely issue than the completely conventional circuit diagram. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you. I'd like to ask about just one more: b:File:Electronics TTLNOTPRAC01.PNG. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd expect that to be below TOO. Certainly without the colors it would be, and it's hard to see how adding color to highlight something would push it over the line.

In case I haven't said this: TOO is always a judgement call. My opinion is just that: my opinion. Someone else might disagree, so please do not be offended if you upload these and they are later deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel For the Mesh1.png, I would agree the Loop1 & Loop2 parts might need professors to check whether simple or not, the 1k, 2k and 3k parts (probably also affects the R1 within Electronics RC01.PNG) may be likely. As for third one (Electronics TTLNOTPRAC01.PNG), do we have ideas whether the "sun"-like icon on middle-right is simple and commonly used, as well as the center circle that contain middle left dash, middle pipe, right-top slash and right-bottom arrow? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The middle circle is a standard way of representing a transistor. I don't know the "sun"-like icon in terms of its use in a circuit diagram, but is certainly too simple to copyright in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Airplane liveries and COM:De minimis

Hello,

I'd like to gather some input about COM:DM in relation to airplane liveries and possible copyvios. We have some categories like Category:JA604A (aircraft) in R2-D2/BB-8 livery and Category:Aircraft with a Planes (film) livery. The planes depicted do have some copyrighted art on them, a Star Wars Droid for the first and characters from the animated movies Planes / Planes 2 for the second collection. I don't think that there's another "saving grace" like FOP or another copyright limiting statute applicable. I know about the bullet points in COM:DM#Guidelines:

• the file is in use to illustrate X
• the file is categorised in relation to X
• X is referenced in the filename
• X is referenced in the description
• X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
• from other contextual clues (e.g., by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.

It's irrefutable that the categorisation is in relation to the protected X, and the filename and descriptions also quite often contain something along the lines of Star Wars or Planes. Additionally, in can be inferred that this kind of pop art livery is a prime target for planespotters, so the "contextual clues" are also prominent. On the other hand, I did some kind of test for myself. I know that we're using a rule of thumb (or the admins in DR do) that says "If a casual onlooker won't notice the absence of the copyrighted element, then it's likely De minimis (which works well when comparing to the different law excerpts given on the DM page). So, I used the category slideshow and tried to simulate myself being a casual onlooker - I came to the conclusion that e.g. on File:All Nippon Airways, Boeing 767-381(ER), JA604A (23802227733) (cropped).jpg, the Droid near the tail is discreet enough to get overlooked by such a casual onlooker. Can I get more input for that analysis, if I'm right in concluding "De minimis is applicable"? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For most of these, I think de minimis would apply. When the images are cropped specifically to show the livery and it's mentioned in the file description or title (e.g. File:LN-RCY Boeing 737-800 SAS.jpg), it's probably not de minimus any more. Nosferattus (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

That being said, if the promotional livery truly is de minimis, the image should not be categorized based on its presence. Omphalographer (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a keystone of my problem, yes. But right now, I'm a bit reticent in flooding the DR queues with these images, si I'm asking here for more opinions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

De minimis or not, it would seem to be incidental, as it is unavoidable when making a photograph of the plane. Much like the Ets-Hokin decision, a photo of an entire bottle is not derivative of a label on that bottle (in the U.S.), even if copyrightable -- it would be a photo focusing on the label itself to cross that line. Stuff like this would seem similar to me. This aspect is mentioned on the COM:DM page even if technically a different situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

PD-scan and a slightly 3D book cover

Is the PD-scan tag correctly used at File:Holiday (Frank) spine and cover.jpg? Asking because the publisher's logo being engraved into the cover rather than drawn on it is making me have second thoughts over uploading this. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The book was published in 1923, so it is out of copyright in the US whether it is 2D or 3D. The book's category says it was published in the US, so there shouldn't be any other country's copyright issues involved (such as the lifetime of the creator of the logo). I'll leave it to others whether there is a specific issue with the PD-Scan template. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: presumably he was not doubting the PD status of the book, but of the scan.

@Prospectprospekt: I think that is still close enough to being 2D that there could not be a U.S. copyright, at least, on the scan. This tiny bit of relief is no different legally than if something had been printed on cloth. If it's photographed at an angle that is perpendicular to the page, and the relief is not significant, there should not be any new copyright generated, so PD-scan should still apply. - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I may be overthinking this, but would the inclusion of the spine create a problem? Many of these "cover and spine" scans exist on the internet, of which I've uploaded this and others here, here and here. I'm worried that the gap between the cover and spine is also 3D and the spine may not be on the same level as the cover. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Presumably, the majority of these scans digitising books will be using some form of mechanical process. Either a flatbed scanner or a camera fixed in position above a flat surface. The operator would then move the book onto the surface to create the scan. I'm not sure what elements of originality would be possible there beyond deciding to scan the full visible surface or part of the surface. Even if there is a 3D element, the image produced would be identical on any similar scanner using a flat surface. If these were photographs of a book taken from some distance, where the camera operator could choose to alter the angle of the camera, you could perhaps argue some elemnt of originality (the changing lighting and shadows across the 3D surface). For these images of books taken on a flat surface, I don't think it would pass COM:TOO. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt: Yes, you are overthinking this. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to Remove the Inaccuracy Tag Regarding Copyrightability of Chinese Currency RMB — Copyright Rules Page

Previous Discussion: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/06#Copyright_status_of_Renminbi

Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#四、货币的版权保护 (Mainly in Chinese)

For a long time, Liuxinyu970226 has claimed that the design of the Renminbi (RMB), the currency of China, is copyrightable because the Measures for the Administration of the Use of Renminbi Designs (人民币图样使用管理办法) states that any use of RMB designs must be approved by the People’s Bank of China, the central bank. I do not intend to deny the copyrightability of RMB designs, but I would like to discuss the exact legal basis for such copyrightability.

I have found several administrative penalty cases showing that individuals who used designs from copyright-expired RMB series (e.g. the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd series) were punished under the Measures for the Administration of the Use of Renminbi Designs. I believe these cases indicate that the Measures impose non-copyright-based restrictions.

For example:

(Chinese, original)

温州市苍南县市场监督管理局苍工商处字字〔2016〕第414号：2013年6月份，当事人温州市八方印业有限公司受北京东方龙文化传播有限公司的委托，承接加工含有人民币图样的中国铁通《第一二三套人民币电话卡》印刷制作业务，具体数量没有确定。2013年9月1日，在未有中国人民银行委托授权的情况下，应客户的要求，通过公司自有印刷设备，擅自予以打样中国铁通《第一二三套人民币电话卡》中的第一套电话卡，共三款，每款30张，后因印制的充值卡版面错误，所印制的面卡全部作废而停止。2014年9月3日，现场存放的CPT版和一张样张被本局龙港分局检查时发现。其未经中国人民银行批准擅自加工含有人民币图样的中国铁通《第一二三套人民币电话卡》，其行为已违反了《中华人民共和国人民币管理条例》第二十七条第一款第（二）项之规定，属擅自制作人民币图样的行为。

(English translation by machine)

Document No. 414 [2016] issued by the Cangnan Administration for Market Regulation, Wenzhou City: In June 2013, the party, Wenzhou Bafang Printing Co., Ltd., commissioned by Beijing Oriental Dragon Culture Communication Co., Ltd., undertook the printing and production of China Tietong “Phone Cards of the First, Second, and Third Series of RMB”, which contained RMB designs, with the specific quantity not determined. On September 1, 2013, without authorization or approval from the People’s Bank of China, the party, at the client’s request, used its own printing equipment to proofprint the First Series phone cards (three types, 30 copies each). Due to errors in the layout of the recharge card, all printed cards were scrapped, and production stopped. On September 3, 2014, during an inspection by the Longgang Branch, a CPT plate and one sample were found on site. The company had processed phone cards containing RMB designs without approval from the People’s Bank of China, which violated Article 27(1)(b) of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Renminbi, constituting unauthorized production of RMB designs.

There are nine more similar cases. See Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#四、货币的版权保护.

I would like to reiterate that I do not intend to deny the copyrightability of RMB designs; I only hope to clarify the correct legal grounds for it.

Therefore, is it possible to remove the tag of inaccuracy regarding the copyrightability of Chinese RMB from the Copyright Rules Page, so that the page can accurately reflect the position I have argued and no longer present it as inaccurate?

By the way, Liuxinyu970226 believes that this issue needs to be discussed in more wikis because removing the tag would have a significant impact and may be opposed by other wikis. However, I do not think that is the case. This matter concerns only the Chinese currency and does not affect the treatment of currency designs from other countries. So I have opened the discussion here to seek further opinions.

@Liuxinyu970226, Wcam, BrightRaven, Jianhui67, King of Hearts, Minorax, Shizhao, VIGNERON, DannyS712, WhitePhosphorus, and Njzjz: Notifying users who are in previous discussions — my apologies if this notification causes any inconvenience. Teetrition (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Those Gen. I through III RMBs, while most of them are indeed public domain in China due to expired by years, they are most likely still copyrighted in the United States unless if you can really give evidences why they can be {{PD-EdictGov}}. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226

You mean the Chinese administration punished those people because RMB designs are copyrightable in US?

Sorry, I really don't see why the Chinese administration should take US copyright law into consideration. If Wikimedia Commons takes the copyright laws of all countries into account, does that mean the Chinese administration should also consider every country's copyright law? Haha. Our focus here is simply on whether this Measures (管理办法) constitutes a non-copyright restriction or not. Teetrition (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Teetrition No, but for Gen II, per zh:第二套人民币:

“

其中3元、5元、10元券是在苏联印制，中华人民共和国与苏联交恶后，因为印版留在苏联，且在新疆市场上发现大量在苏联印制的3元、5元和10元券人民币，为免发生意外，因此中国人民银行在1964年4月14日突然宣布，苏联印制版3元、5元、10元于4月15日只收不付，至5月15日全部废弃，停止收兑。

”

lit.

“

Of which the 3¥, 5¥ and 10¥ banknotes are printed in USSR, after PRC and USSR became hostile each other, as print plates are still kept in USSR, and due to many USSR-printed 3¥, 5¥ and 10¥ RMB banknotes found in Xinjiang markets, the People's bank of China therefore, and suddenly announced on 14 April 1964 that to avoid accidents happened, the USSR-printed 3¥, 5¥ and 10¥ RMBs are received but without payments since 15 April, and abandoned on 15 May, and no more cash in allowed thereafter.

”

This at least give me enough caution that not all of Gen II RMBs are made in China, some affected shall really be USSR productions and hence, to be considered copyright status via COM:USSR Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 I don't think that is a matter. It's hard to imagine the Chinese administration and the Measures considered the fact concerning USSR. Even though, what about Gen I and III? There are also cases punishing people only used Gen III w/o prior approval. See 恩平市市场监督管理局恩市场监管横陂处字〔2019〕2号. Teetrition (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Non-copyright restriction legal basis is better for Wikimedia Commons somehow than copyright restriction argument.

For people who want to use designs of RMB (gen. 1 to 3) in China, they will know it's not OK to use them w/o prior approval even though their copyright expired. But how about telling them the Measures is a copyright restriction? Someone may think it's OK to use designs of RMB (gen.1 to 3) then because of copyright expiration. Teetrition (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The key issue is whether the Measures constitute a non-copyright restriction — which is a legal question, entirely independent of Wikimedia Commons policy. How could a platform policy possibly affect the legal nature of the Measures? Teetrition (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Romania copyright template

At {{PD-RO-photo}} I want to change ""According to the Decree no. 321/1956 of June 18, 1956" to "According to the Romanian Decree no. 321/1956 of June 18, 1956". The template currently doesn't mention Romania until the bottom of the template. Any objections? It may be obvious to people adding the template because of the template name, but seeing it displayed it isn't obvious the country is Romania. RAN (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Your proposed change sounds correct to me. - Jmabel ! talk 06:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Done! --RAN (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of photograph in The Sketch with unknown photographer

I came across a photo of golfer Elsie Corlett in the 9th October 1935 edition of UK magazine, The Sketch. Hoping to add this photo in her wikipedia page (since she doesn't have one), I was trying to find out the photographer to check if the photo would still be in copyright or not. However, I could not see any credit on the page (and don't have access to the whole edition so cannot see if there is any credit listed in the inside page for example). I'm hoping someone could advise me of the copyright status of such a photo.

I have asked in Wikimedia Media copyright questions and was directed to here. Whether this is a UK copyright issue (where the magazine was published) or a Wikipedia servers location issue.

Any advice would be welcome. PitterPatter533 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this photo will be copyrighted under URAA until January 1, 2031. After that date you may be able to apply {{PD-UK-unknown}} if the photographer truly is anonymous. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking for clarification on Smithsonian's "open access" images

I had planned to upload some images from Smithsonian's "open-access" images website (https://www.si.edu/openaccess). Their home page and FAQ's page state that all of the open-access images are CC0 (https://www.si.edu/openaccess/faq).

However, after reading their "Terms of Use", I'm really confused. It says they can't guarantee that their CC0 images aren't free from other rights: "The Smithsonian does not guarantee that all Content marked with the CC0 icon is free from rights other than copyright, including rights held by third parties, or that use of such Content might not be subject to other laws, such as rights of publicity or privacy" (https://www.si.edu/termsofuse).

This doesn't make sense (to me). What does that mean for uploading here? How are people supposed to know what other rights/limitations are attached to the images? And why are they listed as CC0 if they're not in fact without limitations on use?

Any clarification would be appreciated. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@BetsyRogers: Commons is mainly concerned about the copyright of the content you host; the "other rights" the Smithsonian is referring to sound like non-copyright restrictions. It's unlikely that a file will end up being deleted from Commons for such a reason, but it could be of a concern to you as the uploader and those reusing the content out in the real world. If, for example, you enter into some kind of agreement with the Smithsonian in which you agree to abide by terms set by the Smithsonian, a failure to do so would be a issue between you and the Smithsonian. Similarly, reusers of Smithsonain content could still be held responsible for making sure they do so in accordance with these "other rights" as explained in COM:REUSE. As the uploader of the file, you could provide a link to these "other rights" in the file's description or use a template like the ones in Category:Restriction tags: it's considered good practice when you're aware of them. You're unlikely, though, going end up to penalized by Commons if you don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

As for rights of publicity or privacy, if you think an image you upload may raise concerns on that front, it is usually a good idea to mark it with {{Personality rights}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

But how would I know about any other rights if they're not specified? That's what I don't understand. On the main page for Smithsonian Open-Access (linked above) it just says "Welcome to Smithsonian Open Access, where you can download, share, and reuse millions of the Smithsonian’s images—right now, without asking." There's no mention that there might be unknown exceptions to that.

If I hadn't gone digging around to find the Terms of Use (which most people don't do) I never would've seen the "non-guarantee" disclaimer. It sounds like they're saying they can't guarantee that their open-access images should actually be considered open-access.

Or is this just a "CYA" disclaimer in case they inadvertently host an image that ends up having other rights attached? BetsyRogers (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It's really just a CYA, as well as a reminder that there are types of rights and restrictions beyond copyright (e.g., publicity rights, etc.) that could impact to what extent and in what contexts you can re-use the works freely. 19h00s (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

As for non-copyright considerations, you would know pretty much exactly as much (or as little) as in a picture you took yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 07:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Re-users need to know other laws applicable to them -- we can't know all laws in every area, though do try for some warning templates in some situations. When Commons says "public domain", they really mean strictly as it relates to copyright, not any other rights -- so unless being here actually violates some of those other laws, it should be OK. Commons has a similar CYA statement -- Commons:General disclaimer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of Thai scouts flags

Category:Flags of Thai Scouting consists of some very sophisticated images that are clearly above threshold of origin. Assuming that these are the correct flags, should they be allowed on Commons? {{PD-TH-exempt}} only allows for government work. When I look at their regulations, Thailand's National Scout Committee is established by the government, headed by government officials, but is considered "a state agency in which is neither a government agency nor a state enterprise under the law on budget is procedure and any other laws". -- 痛^Designism (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I believe at least some of these contain only non-copyrightable variations on things that are old enough to be in the public domain. E.g. it would surprise me if there were anything copyrightable about [[:File:Flag of the Scouts of Nakhon Chai Si.svg] or File:Flag of the Scouts of Udon.svg. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is the line between fair use and not eligible for copyright?

How short does a text have to be before copyright is no longer applicable? I was thinking of adding an image that compares how some (print) encyclopedias have formatted their cross-references. Could I use photos of single words? Could I include the adjacent (non cross-referenced) word? Are the line below too short for copyright, or would they be fair use and not elligble for an image on the Commons?

• "wuxing, translated as ☞'five agents' or 'five phases';"
• "☞donkey, grapefruit, knees"
• "(SNPs); [☞'SNP'] on one chromosome or part of a chromosome"

Rjjiii (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

In court :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Lol. Fair. I'm just going to use an older public domain book. Rjjiii (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, in the U.S., some of Ashleigh Brilliant's aphorisms have been successfully defended as copyrightable. These are typically sentences about 7 words long. However, the court decision was based on the fact that they were, well, brilliantly concise, and were therefore eligible for copyright despite their brevity. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

telif hakkı olup olmadığı kesin olmayan fotoğraflar hakkında?

nasıl görsel ekleyeceğiz? Kalkanzade (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kalkanzade: Hi, If the copyright is uncertain, the picture is probably not OK for Commons. But without any more information, it is difficult to say. Do you have any example? Yann (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Merhaba, bu mecrada yeniyim ve hiçbir bilgiye hakim değilim. Örneği sana nasıl ulaştırabilirim? Kalkanzade (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

(reading via Google translate) @Kalkanzade: if it is already online somewhere, you can provide the URL of the relevant web page. If there are multiple images on that page, be clear about which one you are referring to. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

STANAG copyright

§ 15 of C-M(2002)60: "All NATO information is subject to the provisions of the NATO Public Disclosure Policy (PO(90)32(Revised)) which provides for the disclosure of historically significant NATO information to the general public". (http://web.archive.org/web/20250824111916/https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/12/pdf/C-M_2002_60_ENG_NHQP1131668.pdf)

Now all the non-specific current NATO standards can be downloaded freely from the NSO website (example: STANAG 2116: NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel (Ed. 7) )

Unfortunately, not all old NATO standards can be found freely available. Some of them can be found on military websites of NATO states (example: STANAG 2116: NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel (Ed. 5) ))

One of the old standards is available on a resource for exchanging PDF files, but it is inconvenient to use there. I posted it on Wikimedia and listed all the information I could find about it: File:STANAG_2116_(Ed._6),_NATO_Codes_for_Grades_of_Military_Personnel.pdf

Formally, it is protected by copyright (in the new standards, the copyright sign is clearly indicated; here only the designation NATO UNCLASSIFIED), but I do not see any restrictions from NATO that would not allow it to be used, because this is unclassified information. Did I describe everything correctly?

P.S. We're talking about older versions of STANAG, which don't have the © sign. Regarding the newer ones, which do have the © sign, there are no questions: as far as I understand, they can be posted on Wikimedia, but with the {Attribution} indicating that the copyright belongs to NSO. Moreover, the new unclassified standards don't have the NATO UNCLASSIFIED label. Since it does exist, I found the regulation on NATO documents with this classification and quoted two paragraphs from it: (1) that NATO has two types of unclassified documents; (2) how documents marked NATO UNCLASSIFIED are distributed (in one case, this classification must be retained). Since such a requirement exists, I cited it, and it seems that this closes the matter. But I'm not a lawyer, and there's a nuance here: NATO is not a governmental organization of a specific country, but an international military organization in which the United States plays a leading role.JurKo22 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons files must be free (free licensed or public domain). Unclassified is not the same thing as free. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and that's why it was important for me to correctly indicate the terms under which this information is being distributed. A colleague pointed to this source (https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/use-of-nato-content-and-brand), and I took everything relevant to my case from it (this isn't a photo, video, article, or map, so I omitted those points when describing the licensing terms). JurKo22 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, maybe you misinterpreted the notion of free content and/or the mission of Wikimedia. For details, please see:

• en:Free content
• Commons:Licensing
• Commons:FAQ.

Also, please note that the template "Copyrighted free use provided that" (used on the file linked above), which begins with the statement "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that", cannot be used to include restrictions incompatible with free use and licensing policy, and is deprecated. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that, but then the question arises of what to do with the old materials. JurKo22 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: The file "STANAG 2116 (Ed. 6), NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel.pdf" cannot remain with a non-free licensing. It must either get a justifiable free content tag or be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern! Please answer this question: which of the author's rights is violated by publishing this document here? Yes, it is not absolutely free: it cannot be sold, it cannot be used against NATO (but it can be used for objective criticism), its content cannot be changed, etc. But it is here solely so that readers of articles on military topics, especially articles about this standard, can access its contents free of charge in a convenient way, including offline. I have listed verbatim all the permissions and prohibitions granted by the copyright holder to this document, as well as all the nuances of its use, indicating the source of this permission and the date of this permission. There is just one caveat: the document is not taken from the NATO website. But I have a licensed copy of this document, officially "purchased" by me (a standards site "sold" it to me for 0.00, as they had no right to charge money). I compared them and saw no differences other than those introduced by the site that "sold" me this document (I put it in quotes because I didn't pay a cent, and therefore this can't be considered a sale). I agree that this document is more appropriate on wikisource.org, but it can't be uploaded there (I just tried), because it already exists here. JurKo22 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@JurKo22: which of the author's rights is violated by publishing this document here? None. The reason Commons cannot host this is not because it would be illegal, but because it would be against policy. Commons hosts only documents that can be reused by anyone (including in works that are produced for a commercial purpose) and which allow derivative works. Those are matters of Commons' policy, not of law. They are why we cannot accept works that are licensed only under a licence like a CC-NC or CC-ND license. Yes, we could do so legally, but it would not our policy to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we're getting our concepts mixed up. (A) I didn't place this document under CC-NC or CC-ND. (B) Commons.wikimedia.org contains copyrighted files posted here with usage restrictions. (C) What permission are we talking about? Should a NATO summit convene and vote on whether Wikipedia can host the outdated NATO standard? Should the parliaments of all NATO countries ratify this decision or not? Please forgive the sarcasm, but in my opinion, the requirements look similar to these. I was given information from the NATO website—I quoted it verbatim. Perhaps one point is unnecessary, but it's better to be on the safe side. Here are all the points except for the one that clearly doesn't apply to this standard:

(1) No material produced by NATO is to be sold, used for outside advertising or promotional purposes of any kind. (2) All content taken from NATO and republished must be clearly credited or sourced to NATO. (3) Photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use" to members of the press, academia, non-profits and the general public. (4) No material is to be used in programs, articles or online publications of any kind that defame NATO or its member countries. (5) Material is provided, free of charge, for use in objective and balanced content, even if at times the end products may be critical of NATO. (6) In instances where a member country is criticized, NATO wishes it to be made known that it does not associate itself with the contents of the article, publication or broadcast. (7) NATO reserves the right to request the removal of NATO copyrighted material from any externally created content. (See: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/use-of-nato-content-and-brand)

I was told that the template is outdated. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, only a Ukrainian copyright expert: I don't know the nuances of any given country's copyright laws. I know that Wikipedia primarily follows US law, but it does take into account the laws of the country where a given document was created. I also know that all current NATO standards, which can be downloaded from the specialized NATO website, bear the © symbol. This symbol is missing here, and that's an important point. JurKo22 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@JurKo22: Just how do you think "No material produced by NATO is to be sold" differs from "no commercial use"? - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Answer: sale is a specific case of commercial use. Ukrainian law lists the following types of use of copyrighted material: 1) publication (release); 2) reproduction by any means and in any form; 3) translation; 4) adaptation, adaptation, arrangement, and other similar changes; 5) inclusion as a component in collections, databases, anthologies, encyclopedias, etc.; 6) public performance; 7) sale, rental (lease), etc.; 8) import of its copies, copies of its translations, adaptations, etc. Some of these types of use can only be commercial (sale, rental). If the sale is made for 0.00, then it can formally be called a sale: a sale is when I take at least one cent. Likewise, if the rental is made for 0.00, then it is no longer rental or leasing. JurKo22 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Now let's look at what I did: I reproduced the text and included it in the database. All of this is free. Translating it into another language would have been possible, but that would have meant creating a new work, which is only possible with the copyright holder's permission (I didn't see either an explicit permission or an explicit prohibition). So I only did what didn't require permission, but I alerted other Wikipedia users that the copyright holder had granted permission. This is a matter of en:Crown copyright: it doesn't allow translation. JurKo22 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@JurKo22: I guess you can post walls of text here to your heart's content, but the fact remains that if the offered license says is not legal to sell a copy of something, then it is not considered free enough for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Then only three questions arise: (1) is it possible to leave what has already been done; (2) is it possible to do something similar in the future as it is done now; (3) if so, under what conditions? JurKo22 (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• This particular work *might* be ok, as it is a revision of a pre 1989 work originally simultaneously published in the US without a copyright notice, with minimal changes, despite the 2010 date. But in general, the NATO license is not free enough for Commons, see[17]. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the information on the licensing terms of NATO information: everything related to this standard will be described in its licensing terms. JurKo22 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks again for the information from the NATO website. Now I know what to write in such cases (I'm omitting the paragraph about maps, but including everything else). I need this because I edit military-related articles and try to ensure the reader can immediately see the text in an easy-to-read format. Although this case may not technically fall under copyright, it's better to always use the standard text from the NATO website and there won't be any problems: Wikimedia is a non-profit organization, and the information is used for the purpose of informing the general public, as stated in one or another unclassified NATO standard. JurKo22 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm planning to upload several regulatory documents from the armed forces of Canada, Australia, and other countries, but it's easier: these are official documents of government agencies in those countries, so they're not protected by copyright. I was also faced with the dilemma of which license to upload under (I specified it incorrectly at the very beginning). Now I can upload even with the copyright symbol, but you must include all the terms of use and indicate the source of these terms. JurKo22 (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, it's not that simple. The United States puts the work of the federal government into the public domain, but the works of the Canadian and Australian governments are under a 50-year Crown Copyright, so newer works can't be uploaded here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for this detail; I didn't know that. I'm a Ukrainian copyright expert, so I'm well-versed in the nuances of copyright law there, but I might not be familiar with the nuances of copyright law in other countries. I thought that in Canada and Australia, government documents aren't protected like in the US, Ukraine, and Russia. JurKo22 (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  As I see it, materials can be posted here, but you need to indicate the conditions under which permission is required and under which permission is not required. (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/intellectual-property/crown-copyright.html) (https://www.defence.gov.au/copyright) JurKo22 (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no free license there. Material cannot be uploaded to Commons with those terms. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You're right: I'll be uploading future documents to wikisource.org, where they're more appropriate. This one can't be uploaded there anymore (I just tried), because it already exists here. JurKo22 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't. In general, the only works that should be uploaded to the English Wikisource are works that are in the US public domain but not PD in their home nation. Wikisource does not accept abandonware or any form of fair use works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone involved in this active discussion. I don't want Wikipedia.org to have any problems, but I'd like to draw your attention to the en: Abandonware article, as it's a relative reference: it's an outdated standard and is only valuable historically, for tracking what and when changed in the standard's revisions. Here's the main article about the standard: en:NATO military rank codes. As you can see, the article has a very strong source base: everything is described as accurately as possible, primarily from regulatory documents. Until recently, the 6th edition of the standard wasn't there; more accurately, it was an unapproved version, i.e., simply a draft. In this case, my interest is the readers' right to the most reliable and readable information possible in this and similar articles. JurKo22 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Chappaquiddick incident by UPI.jpg

File:Chappaquiddick incident by UPI.jpg has been uploaded to Commons under a {{PD-US-no notice}} license. The photo is credited to UPI and wire service photos such as this from this period can be tricky to assess. Assuming the copyright holder is UPI, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility that the original photo sent out over the wire to various media outlets did include a copyright notice, and, therefore, this release of the photo would be considered "publication" under US copyright law at the time. So, even if the photo did appear in one or more newspapers without an individual notice for the photo itself or in a newspaper without its own copyright notice the paper as a whole, it still could be considered protected under US copyright at the time, couldn't it?

I'm not so sure it a good idea to rely on archive sites like en:Newspapers.com as sources for wire service photos such as this simply because there's no way to know what type of contract a paper might have entered into with UPI for the photo. If this is still protected and assuming the name of the photographer can be figured out, then photo could still be protected per 70 years p.m.a. If it's considered a en:work for hire, it could still be protected until January 1, 2065 (95 years + 1 year after first publication). FWIW, the same photo can be seen used here by en:FOX News and here by en:Der Spiegel, and both sites attribute the photo to en:Getty Images. Another UPI photo of the Chappaquidick site shown here taken a few days after the incident shows a clear watermark and is being licensed by UPI from its official website, which kind of makes me feel that this particular one also could've had a copyright notice that newspapers left out when using the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You can see the previous discussions like Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#h-Copyright_for_wire_photos_published_from_1963-1978-20250214230200, Special:Diff/425814117#File:Campus_Guns.jpg. I have never seen a copyright notice on a UPI photo you can see a copy of this one here. If UPI had some contract that newspapers should include a notice it was clearly ignored by mass number of newspapers for decades, According to cases like Letter Edged in Black Press vs Public Building Commission of Chicago after repeatedly tolerating publication without notice it cannot be claimed to be unauthorized  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   09:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you've literally just proved it was sent out without notice. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 11:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

UPI sent copies to many, many newspapers. When it's a small percentage that don't have copyright notices -- and by 1969 most did -- I don't think even a fair number would make any difference. The law seems to allow a "relative few" copies without notice without losing the copyright. I think court rulings, from memory, have put that line somewhere between 1 and 2 percent. But, if the newspapers were instructed to have a notice, I'm not sure their failure can actually cause a loss of copyright. For a copy distributed by UPI themselves, the notice would have to be there. When it comes to wire photos though, I do wonder about the technicalities. The law requires actual distribution of copies without notice -- something that is technically published, say by offering for sale, but where no copies were actually distributed did not lose its copyright. For copies printed at a newspaper office and kept private to them, I'm really not sure. If UPI actually sent out these physical copies, then sure that is fine. On the other hand, there certainly does seem to be a place here where the notice could have been added, and is not there. That physical copy linked above clearly existed in 1969, but not quite sure its provenance -- it may have not actually been distributed until much later. On the other hand, sending the photos to clients should be publication, and if there was a place for a notice, I can see the argument that it should have been there. If the caption was added by a newspaper and kept private, then I'm less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Star Wars Stormtooper cosplays

What's the current situation in regard to Star Wars cosplay of Stormtroopers? Is that kind of motif rather governed per COM:COSTUME and predominantly deemed OK or is that a case of depicted models and thus a possible copyvio? I'm quite sure that there were some discussions, examples, essays and helping texts around, but I forgot where. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• A UK case ruled that Stormtrooper helmets (and possibly by extension the rest of the armor) was uncopyrightable as the armor was functional, covered only by a 15 year design right in w:Lucasfilm_Ltd_v_Ainsworth. Note the court declined to rule on the copyright status of the Stormtrooper gear in other countries, stating only that it was legal in the UK. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 06:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Clindberg: Could you help me with some infos? I wonder whether:

  • "Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California gave summary judgement in favour of Lucasfilm, awarding USD $20 million in compensation." is a sufficient robust case law to say that Stormtrooper stuff is copyright protected in the US (quote taken from en:Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth).
  • if you happen to know some online resource to read the actual ruling. There are some references here: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2005cv03434/173747 but the website of the United States District Court for the Central District of California itself gave me a 404 when I wanted to access it before writing this. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Summary judgements aren't binding law for other cases, they just mean the plaintiff stated a bare minimum case and the defendant failed to object or appear. I'm pretty sure we have a Mike Godwin rule for cosplay in effect here at Commons, as well. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the Spiderman and Pirates of the Caribean things by Mike Godwin are linked at COM:COSTUME. But: isn't Mike only a lawyer? I fear that a judgement, even a summary one, made by an official, sworn judge, will trump any lawyer opinion... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure a summary judgement means anything for other cases. It's used when there is no disputed facts, so there is no real ruling or decision from a judge that can set a precedent -- everything the plaintiff says is accepted as fact without analysis. That said, yes I'm sure that in order to make stormtrooper costumes, you need to get a copyright and trademark license to do so. Many costumes are more just clothing and thus utilitarian, but masks are not so they are more likely separately copyrightable. But on the other hand, you really need to have a photo focusing on the copyrightable aspects -- the Ets Hokin decision when the photo is of a larger subject it's not derivative of unavoidable parts, probably comes into play quite often. I'm really not aware of a photograph of cosplay ever being the subject of a copyright case -- most are probably fine. It may be more an issue when a photo is really focusing on the costume in particular, particularly the mask which is more like a sculpture, and not really the environment the people are in, which is more a possible issue. 2014-04-26 C2E2 98 (14046601602).jpg and maybe a couple of others, for example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Disney sells licensed replicas of this helmet/armor now. Plus you can still buy the public domain version from the UK. So it's not accurate to say the cosplayers all illegally made whatever they're wearing. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sheesh! "[A summary judgement is] used when there is no disputed facts" - then it's an undisputable fact that the Stormtrooper cosplays are copyright protected and thus unfit for Commons, isn't it? As it stands now, Lucasfilm won their case and got an affirmation of them being copyrighted, and that was a summary judgement, so an undisputed fact per Carl... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  An undisputed fact is not an indisputable fact. It is a fact that was not disputed. If Lucasfilm didn't contest a fact, then it was not in their interest to challenge. If someone without a large legal team specialized in the case didn't dispute a fact, it's a lot more possible to be in error. Cases are lost all the time because a particular issue was not brought up in a timely manner, and unknown number of cases were lost because the lawyer didn't know they should bring up an issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  And COM:PRP does forbid us to dispute such a fact established before, even if it may be disputable, doesn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Restored logo

Hello; I amatorially made a digital version (with color) of the logo of the italian political party Democrazia Proletaria (Proletarian Democracy); taking inspiration from a photograph in which the logo can be seen behind a politician (Luigi Cipriani) from that party.

Can I upload the file I made or is it under copyright since I didn't make the original logo? Firedbolt (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The logo there looks like mostly an arrangement of PD elements. I'm not sure how that sits under Italian copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

So what do I do? Firedbolt (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Firedbolt: basically, you have three choices. (1) You wait for someone here to actually express an opinion, rather than just make a remark as I did, (2) you upload on some license/PD basis you think is reasonably OK (including using "permission" section of {{Information}} to give your explanation of why you think it is OK), or (3) you don't upload this to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Are World Inequality Database data graphics in the public domain?

WID was added to Commons:Free media resources/Datagraphics but as far as I can see they failed to put the graphics under a free license like CCBY (and it's not unlikely nobody has asked them about it so far). For now, I just moved it under a section "Resources that do not specify a free license".

Are these or many/most of these data visualizations indeed clearly in the public domain ({{PD-map}} and {{PD-chart}})?
Prototyperspective (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Website footer says "Our charts, articles, and data are licensed under CC BY, unless stated otherwise." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Really? I can't see this in the footer – are we talking about the same website?: https://wid.world Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at https://ourworldindata.org/ - the first entry on the page to which you linked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This PDF (and thus the charts in it) has an "NC", non-open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; so far I would conclude that the resource would be best to remove from that page again. Maybe somebody here could address the idea of using the charts on the page anyway with {{PD-map}} and {{PD-chart}}. I don't know when this can be used and avoid using a license not specified by creators of complex graphics. Imo one could with modern methods probably easily create CCBY data graphics based on the data they published but I have not much of a clue when it comes to the graphics they produced. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Non-free logo

I'm looking to include this logo (from here) in an infobox for a Wikipedia article about the organization. From my limited understanding of the non-free policy I think this should be permissible, but I don't see how to upload legitimate use of non-free work in the Upload Wizard. Is there another process to use? Thanks! Placeholderer (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair use is not accepted on Commons, you will need to locally upload this file to Wikipedia. You could also use the template {{PD-textlogo}} as simple text logos are usually ineligible for copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, assuming it's about the English Wikipedia: go to en:Wikipedia:File upload wizard and select the non-free option. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: your logo should qualify as simple text, as hinted to by Nard. It's most likely not protected by copyrights. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Placeholderer: I'm going to slightly disagree with what's been posted above about the logo being too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. Since the organization the logo represents is based out of South Africa, COM:TOO South Africa would be applicable in addition to COM:TOO US. While I can see how this would be PD-textlogo under US copyright law, I'm not sure the same can be said for South African copyright law, particularly how South Africa's TOO is described by Commons. So, it might be better instead to upload this locally to English Wikipedia under a en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly license since English Wikipedia is not really concerned or as concerned about South African copyright law as Commons is. The other option of uploading the logo locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content would work if you're planning on using the logo for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the Women For Change, but no such article currently exists. If, on the other hand, you're looking to add the logo to a subsection of another article which mentions the organization as part of the encyclopedic coverage of a broader subject, then I don't think you'll be able to justify such a non-free use in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm working to create the article (it's a WIP in a browser tab currently), and it'll just be in the main infobox—but I've already uploaded it to Commons. Shall I nominate it for deletion? Thanks for the notice Placeholderer (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

("uploaded it" referring to the logo) Placeholderer (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Frames with PD-Art

Hi, In the cases of Category:Judgement Day - Wassily Kandinsky and Category:Two Squares - Wassily Kandinsky, should I remove the frame, or are they acceptable with PD-Art? Here the frames have matching colors with the paintings, which seems to be on purpose. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

In the specific case of Two Squares, it probably isn't necessary to remove the frame, as the frame is almost entirely flat (2D). The problem is with 3D frames where choices in lighting are important. Those choices then impart a degree of uniqueness and originality to the photo, potentially attracting copyright protection for the photo itself. I'm not sure about the case of Judgement Day. Nosferattus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Just the other day, I had a discussion with a museum curator and they said, they were so happy to be able to show a certain artwork still in the original frame. In the case of your two Kandinskys we can actuelly see that the artists took special meassures to properly frame his artwork. So the artworks would be mutilated in my eyes by cutting them out of their frames. The Centre Pompidou does take photocredit ("Centre Pompidou, MNAM-CCI/Jacques Faujour/Dist. GrandPalaisRmn"), but the mere reproduction even of the frame doesn't create a copyright of its own accorrding to Article 14. of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The thresholds have been raised after this directive. Wuselig (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

2019 Guinean law

I have updated the entirety of COM:CRT/Guinea. (edit). Some of my insights:

• As Bsslover371 said on COMTalk:CRT, there is inconsistency on the word of the number and the numbers in the articles about the terms, like "soixante-dix (80)". I'm confident that they shortened the term, though, since other references to the terms are always written as "(70)", like under the second paragraph of Article 95: "Les expressions du patrimoine culturel traditionnel dont les auteurs individuels sont inconnus mais pour lesquels il y a tout lieu de penser qu’ils sont ressortissants de la République de Guinée, appartiennent au patrimoine national. Il en est de même des expressions du patrimoine culturel traditionnel dont les auteurs individuels connus sont décédés depuis plus de soixante-dix (70) ans."
• Speaking of the "patrimoine culturel traditionnel", the new provisions on the Guinean cultural heritage are more restricted now. Article 99 speaks of the creation of derivative works of Guinean traditional cultural heritage. Guinean citizens can freely make derivative works, but foreigners must seek authorization from the Guinean Ministry of Culture to freely make derivative works of Guinean traditional cultural heritage. The fees to be collected from the foreigners are going to be divided between the Guinean Copyright Office and either the collector (if there is no arrangement) or the creator (if there is arrangement).
• It doesn't matter if the creator or author of the work of traditional cultural heritage is still living or have died for less or more than 70 years. A Guinean work falls under the traditional cultural heritage if it is exclusively made up of "elements characteristic of the traditional artistic and literary heritage of Guinea, or works created by individuals recognized as fulfilling the traditional artistic aspirations of that community. These works include, in particular, folk tales, folk poetry, folk songs and instrumental music, folk dances and performances, as well as artistic expressions of rituals and folk art productions" (Article 95). The restrictions on derivative works of these - imposed on the foreigners - prevail whether the artist died less than 70 years ago or more. Quote from the same article: "The same applies to expressions of traditional cultural heritage whose known individual authors have been deceased for more than seventy years."

Ping users from both Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Guinea and Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory#Nouvelle loi for their comments or insights: @Aboubacarkhoraa, DarwIn, Aymatth2, and Bsslover371: .

No retroactivity according to Article 126. Here is the to the WIPO copy of the Guinean law (in French only). _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour @JWilz12345.

Merci pour vos explications supplémentaire sur cette loi guinéen.Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Aboubacarkhoraa (I'll also seek opinions from other users whom I mentioned).

Should we create a new COM:Non-copyright restriction template for images of objects of national cultural heritage of Guinea? The template will warn foreigners (like many of us) to not create derivative works of the images, due to possible "extraterritorial" application of the law (the restriction on derivative works specifically targets foreigners, not Guinean citizens). Similar to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}/{{Soprintendenza}} (both of which target Italians' domestic uses of public domain landmarks and monuments), perhaps the name of the tag is {{Guinea-traditional-heritage-foreign-disclaimer}})? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour @JWilz12345

Je vais te demander de me laisser quelques instants. Nous sommes en contact avec les autorités et je vais leur demander de m'aider à interpréter ces questions avec leurs spécialistes notamment le Bureau Guinéen des Droits d'Auteurs (BGDA) et l'Office National du Cinéma, de la Vidéo et de la Photographie de Guinée (ONACIG).

En plus (@JWilz12345, DarwIn, Aymatth2, and Bsslover371: ), je souhaite recueillir toutes vos questions pour les soumettre ensemble afin d'obtenir des éclaircissements qui nous permettront de mieux comprendre cette loi. Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is my suggested wording for a non-copyright restriction template that may be imposed on all uploads of Guinean national cultural heritage and traditional expressions here, uploaded on or after June 7, 2019 (the date the law was adopted as per inserted comment at the bottom of the last page of the WIPO Lex's French copy of the law). Similar to the wording at {{Soprintendenza}}:

This media file – published on or after 7 June 2019 – shows an object or work from Guinea that imbues "the elements of the traditional artistic and literary heritage of the country, or works created by individuals recognized as fulfilling the traditional artistic aspirations of that community." Under the copyright law of Guinea (2019 version), Guinean citizens have unrestricted rights to create derivative works of such cultural objects or works, but foreigners should obtain necessary authorization from the Guinean Ministry of Culture if they desire to create derivative works of such cultural objects or works, and possibly payment of relevant fees to the State.

While Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States of America and is not required to follow non-US rules that do not concern copyright, Wikimedians and Internet users in general who are not citizens of Guinea (regardless of their location of online access) are cautioned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local Guinean law. See our general disclaimer for more information. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depicted work, whose artist or last-surviving artist has died for more than 70 years.

It is of course a question of how Guinean courts and authorities will enforce their law extraterritorially (given that only foreigners are not allowed to freely create derivatives of Guinean cultural heritage works). If they indeed have the way to enforce it outside their country, it is also a question if a photo or video of a Guinean cultural object (in public domain) constitutes a derivative work by itself and hosting of such media files by Wikimedia (despite this prospective template attached to those files) is already a breach of Articles 99-101 of the Guinean copyright law. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Undelete and speedy deletion

Is it possible for users to set a undeletion category for a file while also nominating it for speedy deletion for copyvio? Trade (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: if that is your intention, add an overt link to the file in the undeletion date category. You'll see a ton of these in Category:Undelete in 2029. (Anything else will get lost when the file is deleted, if there is no DR to categorize.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

King's flag for Australia

What is the copyright status of the flag designs in this FoI request (PDF reply viewable as HTML at [18])?

My thought are that while it is a new design, it comprises six heraldic symbols and a border which are presumably PD-old, and their 3×2 arrangement is too simple to copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ned Mamula, U.S. Geological Survey

Hi all,

There is an image of Mamula on his USGS staff profile, located at https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/ned-mamula. The USGS' images policy states that "the content of most USGS websites is in the U.S. Public Domain ... [copyrighted materials] are generally marked as being copyrighted." Because there is no indication on the webpage that the image does not belong to the USGS, one would think it would fall under PD-USGov.

I happen to have also noticed that a picture posted by a private company (his former employer) from before he was a USGS employee uses the same background, leading me to think that the images are from the same photoshoot. In that case, the photo on his USGS profile would not be in the public domain because it was not taken as a USGS staff image.

Can the image on his USGS profile be uploaded to Commons if it has not been listed as anything other than a public domain photograph?

Thanks in advance for helping clear this up! BhamBoi (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

US public hearing in public domain?

Is a public video of a public hearing by the U.S. government's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Committee on Oversight and Reform's Task Force in the public domain?

And what about a public video of a public hearing by a subcommittee of the U.S. government's House Oversight and Accountability committee?

If both or either is, which license tag to use?
Prototyperspective (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "public video"? The PD status depends on who filmed the video - if it was, for example, C-Span or a news organization, then it's not public domain. If the House Committees filmed and released the videos themselves, then yes the videos can be categorized as PD US Gov. The content of the video doesn't matter, you can make copyrighted video of Congressional Committee hearings if you're not a government employee and you have access to the hearing/permission to film. It's the creator of the video that matters. 19h00s (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean that the video is available to the public, intentionally so and released by the respective government org. The videos are featured on the gov website for the hearings and were posted on the Web by the GOP Oversight account. So it seems the videos are in the public domain. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If it was initially published by the government then it is public domain, but "GOP Oversight" sounds like something partisan. Can you link the "gov website" in question? Much easier to discuss specifics than possibly ambiguous phrases. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the above information I just uploaded the two files I was talking about: here and here. If there's an issue, it could also be raised there. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Are machine-translated text covered by PD-algorithm

https://web.archive.org/web/20121129042959/http://www.seo-translator.com/machine-translation-no-copyright-on-the-result/

(please ignore the spammy website name) I am curious to know if the conclusion here is in accordance with Commons policy Trade (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There will usually be copyright on the result from machine translation because there was copyright on the original work. Machine translation won't produce a new copyright, but it won't remove the one that was there. It's likely to be apply more broadly than generative AI, since all any user who didn't write the text is doing is hitting a button. From one perspective, the prompt is trivial; from another the "prompt" is very non-trivial and clearly copyrightable, but the users of the translation software usually aren't the ones who wrote the "prompt".--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Images for Saskatchewan Provincial Police from newspapers

Hi! I'd like to add some images to the Sask. Provincial Police article.

Third image on this cite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-government-to-look-into-creating-provincial-police-force-for-the-2nd-time-1.6234231

First image on this cite: https://paherald.sk.ca/museum-musings-saskatchewan-provincial-police/

Image on this cite: https://esask.uregina.ca/entry/saskatchewan_provincial_police.html

Two of the images are from the Sask Archives Board/ the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan. I'm not sure about the other. As far as I can tell Canadian copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. Any insight as to if any of these images are allowable? Thank you in advance! ConfidentBobcat (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Old Canadian photos were only copyrighted for 50 years, see {{PD-Canada}}. These images are safe to upload. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 05:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the quick reply! I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps I should have been able to find that myself... Thank you! ConfidentBobcat (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Ludwig von Baczko portrait

I've just created a stub article on enwp for Ludwig von Baczko, and was hoping to add this portrait local to dewp. The artist isn't currently identified on the file page, I'm pretty sure this is Friedrich Wilhelm Bollinger (1777–1825), but if not, what would the relevant license template be (the current one prevents the Commons Export tool from being used). There's also a higher resolution scan of the same copy of the book (both are from München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) on MDZ (the dewp scan is from Google Books, and not great quality). After working out the correct license to add, would it be better to upload the MDZ copy here, and leave the dewp file where it is, or update the license on dewp, and export it here? ‑‑Yodin^T 12:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The German Digital Library (Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek) confirms that the author of the image is Bollinger: they have two images [19] where the first one is the one you want to upload and the second one is the one with author information. So, this should be {{PD-Art-100}}. Nakonana (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Or {{PD-old-auto-1996}}. And the version that is of better quality is the preferred version for upload. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Good find, thanks! I'll use that as the basis for a new cropped version, and try to get the dewp version moved to Commons after the license change has passed pending review there. ‑‑Yodin^T 17:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Bauhaus garden

Hi, What is the proper category for Bauhaus garden for these files? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd guess the photos were taken in the garden of Bauhaus Dessau. Nakonana (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bauhaus Dessau. Nakonana (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• File:Nina Kandinsky and Gertrud Grote in the Bauhaus garden in Dessau.jpg
• File:Mrs. Guggenheim, Vassily Kandinsky, Hilla von Rebay, Solomon R. Guggenheim in the Bauhaus garden in Dessau.jpg

Air traffic control recordings below TOO?

Title basically. They're entirely automated, the people recording them record everything, the words being uttered certainly have no artistic merit...

Would they be ok to upload? JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, see similar discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/01#Air traffic control recordings & TOO. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

pd-scan or pd-map or both?

What to use for File:1927_Aŭstralio_-_lando_kaj_popolo_(mapo).jpg? PD-scan? PD-map? Both? DustDFG (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• I updated the tagging with author death dates and PD-map. Looks fine to me. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on photographs of identifiable people

I have contacted the photographer of this picture and they are willing to release it under CC0 CC BY-SA 4.0 via VRT. However I am unsure on what actions are needed regarding the rights of the subject of the picture, Ari Lemmke, in order for the picture to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. See also my proposal on how to approach this, which got no replies. It's moon (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that it was already published in a magazine, I cannot imagine any reason to need a release from the subject of the photo. (In any case, there is no copyright issue here, which is what this page is for.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It's moon (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Colosio murder

The video of the Colosio murder was apparently published on public domain ([20]) (PGR desclasifica el video completo del asesinato de Colosio- Grupo Milenio) but i don't know if uploading the video. ಠ ಠ 18:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• We have the {{PD-MX-exempt}} tag but this only applies to text files, not videos. The Attorney General website you linked to doesn't seem to have the video, only files from the case. The second link you provided is a news report with the video in it but this is copyrighted by the news agency. To upload the file, you'd need two things, 1) better proof that the video was actually released as public domain for copyright, and not just released for public use (which can be tricky, you'd have to prove there's zero restrictions on re-use, which is usually not the case and 2) a version of the video with nothing else added, no news report, no logo from the news station, etc. Hope this helps. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I tried to put the link but it was blocked. Milenio noticias article it's about the declassification of the video, the video maybe isn't on the public domain. ಠ ಠ 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review of File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy.jpg

In 2013, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy.jpg was reasonably closed by User: Fastily as delete due to lack of consensus that a permissive enough set of laws applied at that time. A decade later, I think the basis of one of the key concerns has become moot: even if it was published in the US with all formalities in the mid-1920s, it's now {{PD-US-expired}}, which was not true at the time of the discussion. The remaining dispute is about the country of origin, to determine the other governing law. There is evidence it was published in Sweden in 1925, and there does not seem to be a dispute that if that were the original publication it would be PD there as well.

The image was taken by a German photographer who died in 1974. User:Adrian Bunk's final statement, "failed to provide proof that the image was not published first in some country other than Sweden...The photo might have been taken in 1924 in Germany and published in a German newspaper at that time.", seems an impossible prove-a-negative standard to meet in general for anything from a century ago, and it would have to prove it was first published there. Conversely, the nature of the publication gives great reason to think the publisher would have access to create a then-contemporary image for its own purposes. If Sweden is the country of origin, then it doesn't matter for Commons hosting purposes whether it was also published in a place with a more restrictive law.

Could I get some current analysis of whether this image can now be hosted on commons? DMacks (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Materialscientist, the other editor involved in that discussion. DMacks (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and so have undeleted the photo as being public domain in both Sweden and the US. Abzeronow (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't prove a negative like that. If someone wants the file deleted, then show an earlier publication in a non-Sweden country. We can always re-evaluate if more information comes to light. But for now, the license seems the most reasonable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all! DMacks (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright on pictures printed in newspapers

I'm confused about the use of pictures of singers, musical artists etc. that are included in newspaper articles about them. Is there any general rule that can be applied? For example nothing at all can be clipped and reused from newspapers?

Can newspapers of a certain age be clipped and used? For example, old than 25/50/75 Years?

Many of these pictures were originally sent of by management of booking agents specifically to promote the artist. There were no restriction on the use of the pictures as they were pay-for-work bookings. I have a hundred or so original pictures like this, mostly purchased through https://historicimages.com.

I'm willing to update a number of pages that are poor quality and would like to include a picture. Any guidance would be helpful. Cathcam (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cathcam: No, there is absolutely no general rule. There are different rules for different countries and different eras. To give you some (partial) idea of how complicated it is just for the United States, have a look at Commons:Hirtle chart, and that doesn't even get into the issues of what constituted publication, notice, etc., let alone a myriad of subtler issues.

If you can say what country or countries the images were created in and/or originally published in, and approximately what dates, there is a much better chance that someone can give you at least an indication of what criteria to consider. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Verifying the license of my uploads

Fellow editors, I would like to request a speedy verification of the license of some files I uploaded just now, namely File:Poecilia butleri male female.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri male.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri male and female.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri in an aquarium.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri copulation.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri aquarium.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri group.jpg, File:Poecilia butleri trio.jpg, and File:Poecilia butleri female.jpg.

The copyright holder has released them under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International in a Facebook post at my request (which, as I understand from this discussion, is sufficient evidence of permission).

Unfortunately, instead of writing the permission in the caption, the copyright holder did so in a reply to my comment, and so I am effectively outing myself. I would like to remove my comment (which will, in turn, remove the license comment from the Facebook post) as soon as the license is verified here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Surtsicna, I reviewed them all since you already posted here publicly. In the future, you may want to consider contacting COM:VRT by email to review the images, which should provide more privacy than in here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, @Tvpuppy. I suspected that there was a more sophisticated way to go about this. Is it okay if I now remove the comment (and thus the license tag at the source)? Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, feel free to remove the comment in the post. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

DR review request

Could an administrator take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF5 east of Parkersburg.png which opened 27 October 2025? The uploader removed the DR tag from the file (File:EF5 east of Parkersburg.png), but the DR is still marked open, so I do not know if that caused it to get missed/overlooked in DR lists. Noting that I am the editor who opened the DR. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter I'm not an administrator but I have restored the deletion discussion notice on the file. However, I don't think that has had an impact on closing the deletion discussion. The backlog currently goes back to July 2025 but your request is only from October 2025. The deletion will be closed in time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

PD statues of old scanned aerial imagery (NOAA)

Hi! I would like to ask if PD-USGov-NOAA applies to 1950s Hawaiian islands, [21], 1940s Guam, [22]. Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• I highly doubt *anybody* except the United States government was making aerial photos of Guam and the Hawaiian Islands in the 1940's and 1950's. In fact, 1944 aerial photos of Guam are incredible, the US retook Guam from Japan in August 1944. Unless Japan took them (which is improbable), it is almost certain USG took them. Of course, NOAA didn't even exist then; the US Army likely took them, but for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  For wartime imagery, there is a definite possibility that other allied powers may have been involved, as ships of the allied fleets were often detached to support US operations. Many British Commonwealth ships carried a small number of reconnaissance aircraft, making aerial imagery possible even without an aircraft carrier. However, the US would be the most likely authors given the scale of military deployment in the area. On the balance of probabilities, I'd assume any images in this area were US military rather than allied military, unless further evidence emerges. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I checked some of the Hawaiian photos, and they are captioned "USN". -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you both for your answers. I asked NOAA's Office for Coastal Management, too. She approved that there are no copyright restrictions on the imagery, "but specific data sets may request attribution" (a statement that can be found here and there). All the best --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)