Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05

Copyright status of Australian CCTV footage from Transport for NSW

hello,

I would like to ask for clarification regarding the copyright status of a CCTV image from a Transport for NSW surveillance camera, dated 26 January 2024 (direct link, article source). according to this template, automated surveillance footage might not reach the threshold of originality in some jurisdictions and and may therefore be in the public domain. however, I am unsure whether this would apply under Australian copyright law. is there any precedent or community consensus about CCTV footage from Australian government bodies, especially Transport for NSW?

thanks in advance for your help! GloBoy93 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure there is much precedent anywhere. That tag is under discussion (the U.S. Copyright Office has registered a few security videos as being copyrightable). Australia has a very, very low threshold of originality. I'm not aware of any court cases though.

Request for comments : Unicode licensed data

Hello all, Unicode has interesting multilingual data under a new Unicode licence approved by the Open Source Initiative. This Unicode license states :

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of data files and any associated documentation (the “Data Files”) or software and any associated documentation (the “Software”) to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so, provided that either (a) this copyright and permission notice appear with all copies of the Data Files or Software, or (b) this copyright and permission notice appear in associated Documentation.

We (Lingua Libre/Commons contributors supported by Wikimedia France) would like to import such data on Commons in order to feed Wikimedia tool Lingua Libre. But I'm not jurist. I put in bold the points which seems the most relevant to us : the widely open sharing conditions similar to CC licenses (first bold section) and the second bold section requiring to display their UNICODE license with the data.

Therefor, from my non-jurist understanding maybe adding the UNICODE license text at the end of the Wikipage would be enough to respect both the source's UNICODE license and the host's Commons CC-BY-SA license ? What do you think ? Comments and thoughs welcomes. Yug (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be a free license; it satisfies all the conditions set out in Commons:Licensing. Which Unicode data are you referring to in particular? Omphalographer (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank for your answer Omphalographer. The Unilex project. It provides lists of words like this one which we use to record audio files for Commons and Wiktionaries as in Category:Lingua_Libre_pronunciation-eus.

Wikimedia France is funding a code revamp and we want to move our open lienced lists to Commons so they stays editable in a crowdsourced wiki way. Yug (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

is the english translation of no longer human in the public domain?

see this copyright renewal entry. COM:US says copyright needs to be renewed in 28 years. the renewal was after 28 years and 3 months. is it still copyrighted? ltbdl (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the [actual law] and it says copyright expires after one year if the request is not made in the first 28 years. As this has a renewal entry, I believe they probably filed it before the end of the 28th year and were thus allowed to keep copyright (the three months was probably bcs it took time for the application to be approved). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

darn! thanks. ltbdl (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright laws especially freedom of panorama for embassies, UN offices and other diplomatic areas of land

Hi all

I'm hoping this may have been discussed before. Can anyone tell me what laws would apply to freedom of panorama for photos taken on land which has a diplomatic purpose? My understanding is these places are not subject to the host country's laws. The example I have is a current deletion discussion for UN building taken from within the UN compound in France. France does not have freedom of panorama however my understanding is that the UN building isn't in France and French law does not apply.

• https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_UNESCO_headquarters

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Following research into the legal framework, it appears that French copyright law applies to photographs taken within the UNESCO compound in Paris, including restrictions related to freedom of panorama. Although the compound serves a diplomatic function, it is not extraterritorial in the sense of being outside the host country's legal jurisdiction. This is similar to embassies, which (contrary to popular belief) remain the sovereign territory of the host country. The laws of that country continue to apply, with exceptions limited to those explicitly granted under diplomatic treaties, such as diplomatic immunity for accredited personnel.

The 1954 Headquarters Agreement between France and UNESCO (Art. 5, para. 3) confirms this by stating that "the laws and regulations of the French Republic shall apply at Headquarters", except where overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not appear to address copyright. Accordingly, France's lack of FOP for modern architecture applies, even within the UN compound.

This reinforces the fact that the building is still under copyright (last architect Bernard Zehrfuss died in 1996, copyright expires 2066), and since FOP is not permitted in France for modern buildings under COM:FOP France, therefore, photos taken from within the UNESCO grounds are not freely usable on Commons without permission from the copyright holder.

While some users have drawn analogies to embassies or diplomatic zones, diplomatic status does not negate the applicability of copyright law. I can't find any legal or treaty-based exemption that would override the host country's copyright framework in such cases. The precautionary principle supports deletion in light of this legal uncertainty. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand of previous discussions on this, extraterritoriality doesn't apply to copyright so these UN buildings are subject to French copyright laws. (Jonatan basically ninjaed me here, thanks for laying out why French law applies) Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, do I understand correctly?

1. That French copyright law applies to UNESCO HQ in this specific example.
2. That the laws which apply to embassies, UN compounds etc are agreed by country, rather than a blanket worldwide rule we can apply to all embassies or UN buildings etc. In this example I would assume there is this agreement with UNESCO but also a separate law governing embassies in France.

Is this correct?

Thanks again

. John Cummings (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is correct on both points:

1. French copyright law applies to the UNESCO headquarters. The 1954 Headquarters Agreement states that French law governs the site unless overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not address copyright, so France's lack of freedom of panorama applies.
2. You're absolutely right that the legal status of embassies, UN compounds, and similar diplomatic premises is determined by specific agreements with the host country, not by a blanket rule. These places are often misunderstood as being "foreign soil" or fully outside the legal reach of the host country, but in reality, they remain part of the host country’s territory. The key distinction is that they benefit from certain immunities and privileges, which are granted through treaties or headquarters agreements.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks so much, I'll think about how best to include this information into copyright guidance pages. John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright Law for Text-to-Speech

Hello, People with visual impairments face many challenges accessing Wikipedia articles. In most cases, the audio version of the articles is not available. With the advent of AI tools capable of transforming text into voice (such as ElevenLabs), I think it would be a good idea to conduct a test, starting with high-quality articles and featured articles. Here’s an example from the lead section of the article (in French) on Elizabeth Willing Powel (using ElevenLabs). However, I am unsure about the copyright implications regarding these generated audio files. Does anyone have information on this issue of usage rights? Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

They should be whatever the copyright of the original text is. Automated transformation does not add any copyrightable expression, and in this case sounds like it would pretty much contain all of the expression from the source work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Riad Salih,

ElevenLab and jurisprudence are clear that ML generated transformations are Public Domain. The text being from wikipedia, the audio would be CC-BY-SA as per Wikipedia's license.

An user group interested by this avenue ML speech synthesis is gathering at meta:Wikimedia_machine_learning_text-to-speech_group. Yug (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on images from European Parliament (EP)

Hello, I wanted to ask whether images from European Parliament (EP) is allowed here in Commons. In the copyright notice [1] on their website, it states:

• it “authorized…commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.” Clearly it allows for commercial use, but does the pharse “entire item is reproduced” means their images are non-derivative?

I am asking because me and another user (pinging @PascalHD) were in a discussion whether this portrait of Mark Carney is allowed in Commons since the EXIF data credited EP as the source. PascalHD mentioned that it is allowed by law, but I was confused because in a previous DR, images that were also credited to EP in the EXIF data were deleted. So should these images be undeleted if they are freely licensed by law? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that the law itself does not restrict non-derivatives, only the disclaimer- I think the license is fine as you can't make a copyright more strict later. I also think the images should be undeleted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe I linked the wrong EU law, that one was for the EU Commision. However, I found the law specifically for the EU Parliament - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj/eng. The law is in line with the Commons. Perhaps the template should be updated or a new one should be created specifically for the works of EU Parliament. PascalHD (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I will also add that if you read the Copyright notice for any other language than English (Italian for example;[2]) it states: "...for which the European Union holds rights of use is authorised for personal use or for commercial or non-commercial rebroadcasting, provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected and the source is acknowledged...". My guess is that the English Copyright statement is a mis-translation of this. PascalHD (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected" and "provided that the entire item is reproduced" both sound roughly similar, and both seem to be putting limits on changes and derivatives. Is there a European law which states that a "© European Union 2020 - Source : EP" photo is considered free by our definition? Consigned (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Validity of Heute.at license

File:Papa Leão XIV no dia de sua eleição.png deleted because "Copyright violation: Taken from the Internet"

But the source code of the URL stated says

{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"ImageObject","contentUrl":"https:\/\/heute-at-prod-images.imgix.net\/2025\/05\/08\/a6f622d3-8f8a-4447-8a95-635e657e07a9.jpeg?rect=0%2C157%2C3020%2C1699&auto=format","creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Heute.at","url":"https:\/\/www.heute.at"},"creditText":"REUTERS", "copyrightNotice":"REUTERS","license":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/","caption":"Leo XIV. \u2013 das ist der neue Papst","keywords":"","acquireLicensePage":"https:\/\/www.heute.at\/impressum"} "license":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"

@Bedivere: says that I need to proof that REUTERS released the image in this license, but i think that the statement of whoever published it is enough at least to not be deleted quickly but rather to be discussed. Augustresende (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

URL to independent verification: https://www.heute.at/i/papst-leo-xiv-das-boese-wird-nicht-gewinnen-120107300/doc-1iqold7uh4 Augustresende (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is this on the Village pump rather than a normal undeletion request? - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to know the validity of this argument that Bedivere used in this case. Augustresende (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an undeletion request already, @Jmabel Bedivere (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

When a website put the license attribute in the image tag like this, Google will show it in image results filtered by Creative Commons. Some newspapers use this with all images on their site even that they don't own as a trick just to get more clicks  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hohen Sprenz Kirche Grabplatte Drieberg

Wenn das Foto um 1980 aufgenommen wurde, ist leider anzunehmen, dass die unbekannte verstorbene Person, die als Urheber angeführt ist, noch das Copyright hat. Oder irre ich mich? GerritR (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Wenn der/die Uploadende das Foto der Bekannten geerbt haben sollte, dann würde die Person u.U. die nötigen Rechte haben, um das Foto unter einer CC Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Zum Beispiel mit der Lizenz {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Nakonana (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

PD status of image of Rosa Parks

Hello! I am currently working on updating the Wikipedia page on Rosa Parks to FA status. It has been brought to my attention in Peer Review that the public domain status of this image is potentially questionable. Per the reviewer:

File:Rosaparks.jpg needs better documentation of its PD status. I searched archive.gov for "306-PSD-65-1882" and couldn't find anything. The fact that it is marked "unknown author" casts doubt on the claim; typically US Government photos come with extensive documentation including the name of the photographer.

I also found a discussion about the status of the image here, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to shed much light on the topic. If anyone could help clarify or help find more information on this image's status, that would be great. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Another question: several images, including this one, this one, and this one seem to be marked as "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", but the reviewer has pointed out that it seems as if they were prepared by municipal employees, not federal employees. However, the use of these images is marked as "unrestricted" on NARA, and it seems like they were maybe included in a report as part of a federal court care. What would be an appropriate tag for these images? Spookyaki (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It's highly doubtful those paper forms are protected by copyright in the first place -- it's just factual information at most, and "blank forms" are listed as one of the types of works not protected by copyright, so there is no issue on the form either. If there was a copyright, it would be PD by now as either no-notice or not renewed. Those I would not worry about. The photo of Parks, another matter entirely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a relevant licensing template that could be used for these images then? Spookyaki (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This image is probably {{PD-US}} for publication without a copyright notice, or failing to renew the copyright 28 years after publication. Please note that the original link doesn't work, but the image is available from [3].

I don't think this is from the US government. There is a mention of the Ebony magazine. Copyright notice and renewal should be checked for that magazine. Yann (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, verifying U.S. federal government origin of images related to the civil rights struggle has just become tremendously more complicated because of the Trump administration's purge of many such materials from public display, including on line. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

That said, it is a very unlikely image to have been taken by a government photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I see a copy on NARA here with a note that The copyright for this image is held by Ebony Magazine, and it's listed as "Fully Restricted". So looks like USIA took that from a magazine. It looks like all 1955 issues of that magazine were renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I see... Maybe outside your jurisdiction, but on the Wikipedia side, do you think it could be used in Rosa's article under fair use? There are maybe other pictures that could be used of her in that space, but none that are as clear, as close to the Montgomery bus boycott, and as demonstrative of her connection to the Civil rights movement. I also think it's unlikely that its use would limit that original issue of Ebony's commercial commercial sales. Overall, I just think it'd be a shame to see it go (though obviously it couldn't be used as the FA image). Spookyaki (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. Too bad, so I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rosa Parks in 1955. Yann (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

copyright

I wish to use a family photo of my great great grandparents taken well before 1875 as one of the subjects died that year. Photographer unknown but the photo has been in the family ever since. see here en:Boyup Brook, Western Australia. How do I acknowledge the photo. Petermw2 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

According to your description, you can use any of our license templates (to claim any Publication rights). Otherwise, {{Pd-old-assumed}} is a valid choice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status for images from Erika Szeles and Roza Shanina?

Hello

I wanted to ask if it would be possible to upload pictures of Erika Szeles and Roza Shanina.

There are some of Shanina under Category:Roza Shanina, but my favorite picture of her is missing. The image (I love her smile in this photo). Author is unknown, unless one of you knows more. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Russia-1996?

There are no images of Erika Szeles on Commons, but her photos went around the world in 1956. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3 (on the front page of a Danish weekly magazine). They were made 1956 by the Danish photographer Vagn Hansen. Unfortunately, there is no further information about the photographer here, including whether he is still alive or when he died. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Denmark50?

Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• For Shanina's case: No, there is not enough information about this photo for PD-status. Alex Spade (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• For Erika / Vagn Hansen's case: in 2008 he was 94 years old -> so he was born in 1914 -> as I understand he died in 2014 [4][5][6]. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

A colored version of one of the photos of Szeles is on Ru Wiki[7], but it's marked as a copyrighted, non-free image.

Maybe you could upload a local version on the wiki where you want to use the photo instead of uploading it to Commons? Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello again.

@Alex Spade: Thank you for your detailed information. It's a shame that nothing more specific can be found about Shanina's photo. Regarding Szeles, the question remains how exactly one interprets the description "Note that "photographic works", which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer...". Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Any other opinions?

@Nakonana: I know the colorized version from Szeles, and there are also colorized versions of Shanina's image, but they are derivative works. I didn't want to upload it for a specific wiki, but rather so that all language versions can benefit from it. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Russia's threshold of originality is very low, so there's a high chance that the photo would be deemed original by a Russian court, too, and thus would qualify for copyright protection as outlined by the law. We would need to know who the photographer is and when they died to determine whether 70 years have passed since their death for the copyright protection to have expired. Without this information, we must assume that it's still protected per the precautionary principle. Nakonana (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the answers, I will refrain from any uploads. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Etienne Robial's graphic creations and logos (2)

Hello,

In the discussion page of the deletion request[8], I provided evidence and sources that these graphic creations are indeed protected by copyright, and that the criteria of "simplicity" or lack of "originality" cannot be retained, due to the sources highlighting that in 1984, they were considered avant-garde and particularly original. And at least, if Commons precautionary principle rules applies[9], these files has to be only uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org. Tisourcier (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

They may have been "avant-garde" for the area of logos, but ultimately it's just text and the font isn't particularly artistic or unusual. There have been court rulings that logos that consist of simple text are not copyrightable. The only thing I can think of that might justify a deletion based on the precautionary principle is that the logo is from a country where simple text logos are copyrighted and/or a country with a very low threshold of originality, so that even simple designs are copyrighted, for example a simple Black Square. Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Snippet video of live concert performance

I wrote a featured article about a song some time ago. I'd like to upload a short video I took myself showing it being played as the encore of the group's 2025 world tour, to add to the 'live performances' section of the article. The video consists of about 25 seconds of the song being introduced as the final song, and then about 20 seconds of the song itself, basically just enough for it to be fully recognisable. It there any copyright restriction on uploading a short live-recording of a song that is obviously copyrighted? Obviously the audio quality in the crowd could never compete with the actual audio, and I deliberately only uploaded a portion of the song significantly less than 10% of the full-length. Can this theoretically be uploaded on a Creative Commons licence with myself being the author? And if not, could I upload it under non-free FUR? Thanks. I've never tried to upload video of anything before. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Damien Linnane: Absolutely not possible. If you don't want to take my word and need the reasons spelled out, let me know. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Jmabel: I'm happy to take your word for it; thanks for replying. Just clarifying, would it still not be acceptable under FUR? If not, I might just upload the first half of the video where they just talk about what the encore will be, without any actual music. Thanks again. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Commons does not allow the upload of materials under fair use. Omphalographer (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia. I thought someone here might just happen to know the answer. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Having poor quality audio and video does not give one a pass on copyrights. Even the first half of the video would have a copyright — not just the music and lyrics. So do not upload any part of the video. You have a derivative copyright on your video, but you need a free license from the performers. Glrx (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Damien Linnane should ask on Wikipedia first but I wonder if it could be uploaded there under fair use since it's going to be used in an article. I have no clue what their policy is for music or videos, but this would be an acceptable use case if it was an image. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. FYI, the Wikipedia FUR policy for music is it's OK to upload a portion of a song as long as it's less than 10% of the song length, but I don't know if this also applies to video. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category with movie props from 2001 - Space Odyssey

I harbour the doubt that a lot of imagery in Category:2001: A Space Odyssey - film props and subcats is actually a copyvio when I'm going with Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Movie props, as space suits, spacecraft models and other things are most likely not utilitarian. Am I mistaken or not? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I would presume things like cutlery and functional chairs are fine, whatever drove their design. The space suits are probably OK: I've never really heard of a U.S. case where anything this close to being clothing was deemed copyrightable. Models of spaceships might be problematic: if there's an issue, that would be the most likely. The images of HAL 9000 look awfully simple to be granted copyright: it's hard to imagine what could be copyrightable in File:Stanley Kubrick The Exhibition - TIFF - 2001 A Space Odyssey (15781843143).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Youtube Channel Logos

What are the rules on using channel logos for articles?

For context, I am attempting to use https://www.youtube.com/@kairikibear/, for a draft, and since other channels have their profile picture listed, or a photo of the person, I wanted to double check. Alex.Dybala (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alex.Dybala: The logo there (if I'm looking at the right thing, the manga-ish image of a head) is way too complex and recent to even possibly be in the public domain. There is a small chance you could get the copyright-holder to license it. If you are thinking of getting it onto Commons (which I don't think is very likely), start by reading Commons:Uploading works by a third party.

Assuming you are talking about the English-language Wikipedia, what is much more likely is to get it directly into en-wiki on a non-free basis, and not involve Commons at all. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Logos. NOTE that you cannot upload a non-free logo to use in a draft article. Get the article accepted in en-wiki first, then add the non-free logo. But that is all en-wiki stuff, and any further questions you have about that should be asked there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of Stortinget Portraits

I noticed a lot of Norwegian politicians lack their portraits on Wikipedia. Based on the Stortinget's official website "Portrettene kan lastes ned og benyttes fritt, men ikke til videresalg." which, when translated, means "The portraits can be downloaded and used freely, but not for resale."

Can the portraits from the website then be reuploaded to the Commons based on that statement?

Halikandry (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

That notice isn’t enough for Commons. “Free use but not for resale” is a non-commercial restriction, which conflicts with Commons’ requirement that all files be usable for any purpose (including commercial) under a free license. Because Commons must allow downstream users to redistribute or relicense images (including for commercial projects), a “no resale” clause makes these portraits ineligible for Commons. You could:

• Ask Stortinget for a fully free license (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0) that permits any use, including commercial.
• Host them on English Wikipedia under local fair-use or local-only licensing, if allowed (probably not in case they are still alive)

Until they are explicitly released under a free license compatible with Commons policy, they can’t be reuploaded here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg

Buenas, para los administradores, una pregunta es posible publicar logos,imágenes, etc. que fueron expirados bajo las leyes anteriores por ejemplo como este (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) el logo de Acción Democrática en Venezuela fue expirado bajo la ley anterior (antes de que creara la URAA)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: ¿En que año expiró? En 2006, según el enlace. Claro que 2006 es más tarde que 1996. En 1996, obtuvo derechos en el EEUU por medio de URAA; estos derechos duran 95 años, desde la creación del logo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:OK,como creo nuevo template en caso que que Parlamento creara nueva ley? AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Créeme, si el parlamento venezolano aprueba una nueva ley, alguien creará el template. Pero no le veo la relevancia: si el gobierno venezolano cambia la ley venezolano, eso no afectará los derechos de autor en Estados Unidos, y los últimos son el problema aquí. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Old French copyright law on architecture and sculptures

See my addition to COM:CRT/France for some context.

In a nutshell:

• Before 1902, the French law only protected paintings, engravings, and other assorted literary and artistic works but not sculptures (and architecture).
• Protections were 10 years p.m.a. in 1793–1866, extended to 50 years p.m.a. from 1866.
• In 1902, the author's rights law extended this protection to sculptures, but also including architectural works despite not reflected in the amending law's title. The amending law only explicitly cited "sculptures" in its title and in the first paragraph but the amendment includes "les architectes, les statuaires". This implies the French law treats eligible buildings as equivalent to sculptures, since at most 1902 (so in France, buildings = sculptures, not utilitarian objects). At least, we know one aspect of French opposition to US or UK-style FoP rights: buildings are no different from sculptures in France.
• The 1902 amendment seems non-retroactive (my hunch knly), so all French buildings and sculptures that aren't engravings finished before 1902 are public domain by default (perhaps?). Yet it may no longer be relevant, as it is most likely that the designers of all works made from 1902 and before are already dead for more than 50/70 years.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The EU copyright directive was fully retroactive so it does not matter much what the old laws were (unless possibly longer). They are at least 70pma regardless of what the old laws were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg does that also mean any unprotected work (like, for example, pre-1902 French buildings and sculptures) becomes protected courtesy of the French law's compliance to the EU Copyright Directive? [Provided that the architects or artists aren't yet dead for more than 70 years.] JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct. It just takes one fully retroactive law to render all earlier ones mostly irrelevant. It could still have an effect on the URAA since that law did not happen until after the URAA in France, but that's moot for architecture since U.S. law doesn't protect pre-1990 buildings at all (and photos of architecture are not derivative works there anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Council of Europe logos

I've noticed that logos of the Council of Europe were uploaded locally, except those without lettering:

Former logo (1999-2013)

• 
  Former logo (1999-2013), no lettering
• 
  Current logo
• 
  Current logo, no lettering

Aren't they {{PD-simple}} or {{Textlogo}}/{{Trademarked}}?--Carnby (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• We have File:Logo Consejo de Europa.png, probably others. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Which I see someone has now added above. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

    That was me. Still missing the former logo with lettering (which I suppose it could be uploaded here). Two questions:

    1. may I require a vectorization of the raster logos?
    2. could exact duplicates be deleted?

    -- Carnby (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

    @Carnby: You can upload a vectorization yourself, or request one at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, but you can't require it. Exact duplicates can always be deleted, use {{Duplicate}} (with the relevant parameters) on the page you want to delete. - ~~``

Moved from top of page

https://ru.vikipedia.org<<wiki>><<лицензия>>не совпадаются со современного сайт https://commons.m.wikimedia.org <<Remédio Mário José Manjor>> пользователь Русского Википедия Всемирный Банк страница не удаётся войти ящики учётной записи например пароль нужно характерный совместимость собственно аккаунт для обработки персональных данных пользователь. Возникла ошибки каждый раз пользователь Remédio Mário José Manjor пытается войти него Википедия страница. Но старсная касается читать Русского азбука при подтверждение что я не робот этого обе был прерван до неизвестно способами тогда есть медленно устанавливается что ему есть аккаунта вики точно существует.

Вот что произойдёт не так что явление абонемент двумя языком не являются меньше влияние полномочие тогда есть перевод некоторый время меня не обсуждил что пошёл чем продолжениями буду или будет менять а также передачи кстати заботиться что каждному известно по свои азбука не надо автоматизировать перевозки поэтом чтобы я вынужден что было рано совершали некорректно. Потому что получила уведомление не смогу редактировать аккаунт до один год последние действия, такой совпадение что я иногда не выбрал провести дом Русского язык итак возьму пойму сможем сделать без неё когда это час пересход передачи.

Больше спасибо, Remédio Mário José Manjor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remédio Mário José Manjor (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with Commons or copyright (and Google Translate can't make a lot of sense of it). User appears to have no prior edits on any WMF project. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this message is a confused attempt by the user to report login issues or account access problems, possibly related to Russian Wikipedia and Commons. They mention errors with logging in, CAPTCHA difficulties, and maybe even a block or restriction notice. There's also some mention of language mismatches and licensing confusion, but it's all very disorganized. I don't think this has anything to do with Commons or copyright, and it probably belongs somewhere like the Help desk --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What sort of supposed-to-be-Russian gibberish is this supposed to be? Is that text some sort of machine translation gone wrong? The text says something about being accused of being a bot and tbh this text does read like it was written by a bot (and it was not written by ChatGPT because ChatGPT would have done a far better job in producing a text that actually makes sense and does not look like a mere enumeration of random words). (edit to add: I speak Russian, but the above text doesn't make any sense. It's all over the place, using incorrect vocabulary, incorrect grammar, incorrect orthography, even using differently gendered words to refer to oneself - in one sentence the OP uses male verb forms when talking about their own actions and in the next sentence they use female verb forms.) Nakonana (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This is indeed not Russian, this is gibberish and as such not actionable. Ymblanter (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Licensing tag

I have uploaded a copy of a Sanborn Insurance Map available from the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Sanborn Maps Collection. The LOC says "The content of the Library of Congress online Sanborn Maps Collection is in the public domain and is free to use and reuse." What is the appropriate tag/licensing to use? It is not PD-old, since the file happens to be from 1944. It is not PD-Gov, since the map was not made by the US government. What do I use? TwoScars (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any particular reason why maps published after 1 January 1930 should be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

LOC explicitly says all the material in the collection is PD. LOC (USCO) is the foremost authority alongside the courts on copyright in the US, I would trust their assessment. 19h00s (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Probably the same as the other files in the Sanborn maps categories, such as Category:1944 Sanborn maps, PD-US-no notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@TwoScars and Asclepias: At random, I looked at File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Ashville, Pickaway County, Ohio, 1940, Plate 0001.jpg. The page claims {{PD-US-no notice}}, but that image has "COPYRIGHT 1941 BY THE SANBORN MAP COMPANY" in the upper right corner. The license claim is clearly false. Perhaps the map could use {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but I have not checked for a renewal. Glrx (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I also ran File:Sanborn_Fire_Insurance_Map_from_Council_Grove,_Morris_County,_Kansas,_1944,_Plate_0001.jpg through Google OCR, which found the following strings:

• COPYRIGHT 1937 BY THE SANBORN MAP COMPANY
• ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS
• MAP MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM
• WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE
• SANBORN MAP COMPANY.

Glrx (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

"Not renewed" seems very likely, but someone needs to do the legwork.

Keep in mind, renewal cost time and money, and there is not a lot of market for a 26-year-old map when you have a new one to sell. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the LoC has done the research and only scans maps that have aged out or were not renewed. See

• https://guides.loc.gov/fire-insurance-maps/copyright

So post-1930 maps that were downloaded from the LoC should use {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

The LoC also states that some maps were renewed.

Glrx (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: Very good observation. Apparently the copyright notice is on the first plate of each series. Given that thousands of Sanborn maps were mass uploaded by a bot specially performing that task, I had assumed that the copyright had been verified. It is also confusing that the Library of Congress does not provide the complete copyright information in the section for the Sanborn maps collection, where users are likely to look for that information, but instead provides it in the general section for fire insurance maps. Well, at least that last page at LoC says that the Sanborn maps on their site are either PD-US-expired or PD-US-not renewed, so no copyvios but possibly many pages to adjust (half a million files uploaded by the bot according to the bot operator ? [10]). -- Asclepias (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever is discovered here should be added as a note to Category:Sanborn maps. DMacks (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Licensing tags US for two old Italian photos (Romano and Orlando)

Hello, I'd like to add a US licensing tag to the following two photos:

1. File:Santi Romano.jpg
2. File:Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.jpeg

If I understand COM:TAG United States correctly, Template:PD-1996 is the appropriate tag: in the source country (Italy), the photos were already in the public domain by 1996, as the 20-year term from creation had expired by then. Is this correct?

Also, the date listed for the second photo may be incorrect. If this information is accurate, it should be 1910 rather than 18 May 2016. Should I go ahead and correct it?

Thanks for your help. Gitz6666 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Anything published before 1930 is {{PD-US-expired}}. That is the preferred tag. Otherwise yes if PD-Italy applies, if it was taken before 1976 the PD-1996 is the one. PD-Italy is usually for snapshot-type photos though, not studio portraits. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: And yes, if we know a date with reasonable confidence, correct it. Very often, we get dates of scans or uploads, not identified as such.

• Also useful in this respect: things like {{other date|before|1930}} (which produces "before 1930
  date QS:P,+1930-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1326,+1930-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
  ") and {{other date|between|1900|1914}} (which produces "between 1900 and 1914
  date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1900-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1914-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
  ").

Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. I'll apply the PD-US-expired tag to Orlando's photo, since it was published in 1910. As for Romano, I'll go for the PD-1996. I will also correct the date in Orlando's photo. Thanks, Gitz6666 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of URAA-restored copyright files

Should files with restored copyright by the URAA speedied as copyvios? 2A02:A31B:20DD:6F80:4425:79F0:ED98:FDAA 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's better to have regular deletion discussions IMO, to give room for debate and time to check the several factors there are to be considered when it comes to URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not, they shall be discussed carefully on whether to keep or delete. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

An situtation

So I play IRacing (a paid service) using the ARCA car (a paid add on) on which i created a custom livery myself

I then took a “screenshot” its a photo as defined in iracing and is referred to such in the hobbyist space “sim racing photography” where you manipulate a big set of controls (literally a photographers dream). I assume this goes under de minimus as the background is just racetrack un less NASCAR copyrights the track surface. The model is technically owned by Chevy but i painted over a lot of it Cyberwolf (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The model itself is copyrighted by whoever created it. Also, I would suggest that the rest of the software highly influences how you can take the photo (think lighting, camera angle, color distribution etc.), so the software authors would probably also have copyright in the created image. If this software is not free, I don't think it will be possible to release the image under a free license. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Stock certificate? Police pass?

Any thoughts on this stock certificate and this police pass, both of which are from the SoHo Memory Project. Do they fall below the Commons:Threshold of originality? RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Both appear to be {{PD-US-No notice}} which does not require a judgement call near the edge of TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. File:SWN Goldstein Press Passes.jpg and File:SWN Wollper stock shares.jpg RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Pope Leo XIV video from Kanal13

Hi, We have a copy at File:Newly elected Pope Leo XIV makes first appearance to crowd in St Peter's Square (Kanal 13).ogg, which has a free license at the source, and a number of screenshots. There are claims that part of the video is copied from Vatican News, which is (c) ARR. I think we should decide quickly if the license of Kanal13 is valid, as these files are used on many places. Thanks for your opinions, Yann (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Newly elected Pope Leo XIV makes first appearance to crowd in St Peter's Square (Kanal 13).ogg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leonem XIV - Kanal 13.jpg

Category:Banknotes of Libya

We have a lot of images of Libyan banknotes in Category:Banknotes of Libya. Many of them are incorrectly licensed under a free license. Some have {{PD-Libya}}, but that doesn't really seem to apply. Unfortunately, COM:CUR and COM:CRT/Libya do not have any guidance on Libyan banknotes. In the absence of further information, I would suggest to treat all of these as copyrighted non-free per COM:PCP. Any thoughts? Best regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

One in {{PD-Libya}} is "It is a work created by a legal public or private entity and 30 years have passed since the year the work was created". This sounds similar to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran#Currency where the copyright expires after 30 years  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Attribution vs Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pope Leo XIV childhood home.jpg. What about simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:

• Republication and distribution must be allowed.
• Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
• Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
• The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. @Bedivere: as closing admin.

And a general question to all users: doesn't this template contradict the COM:L policy? 92.243.181.223 07:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It gets into arguable details. "Used freely" is a difficult phrase, as in our case, "free" does not simply mean without cost, but is more about the "freedom" of the file itself -- to not be able to be put back under more restrictive copyright later on. See https://freedomdefined.org . Someone saying "freely" may very well have the first in mind, which is very different. But, "however you’d like" is worded differently -- that directly states any use at all, including republication and modification and distribution and commercial use (usually, commercial use must be explicitly restricted if you want to do that). The perpetual condition is more difficult -- whether a license is revocable by default or not when not explicitly mentioned has come up in some court cases. I believe the rule is that when there is consideration involved, i.e. money or something else coming back to the author, it is by default not revocable (this can differ based on country of course; I'm talking about the U.S.). And I believe that "credit" has been ruled to be consideration in some court cases, though not sure in reference to the revocable question. The {{BSD}} license, among others, do not mention revocability yet are some prime examples of free licenses. The problem with off-the-cuff licenses is that when parsed from a legal perspective, subtle differences in word choice can have large impacts, and they can be very arguable either way, so those come down to community consensus. The WTFPL is considered fine, for example. {{Attribution}} was one of the very early license tags here, and though we greatly prefer a more specific license, we continue to allow that. A custom license means it should get greater scrutiny -- the DR seems reasonable to discuss it. But if that was the exact wording of the license -- I can't see it at the source offhand -- I'm find with the outcome, too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let's forget 'freely', that's not important. What about all those musts, which are not present at the source? 92.243.181.223 08:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a repeat of some concern at Template talk:Attribution only license#Disservice?. Ping also the participants of that thread: @Jean-Frédéric, Wittylama, Kaldari, Christoph Braun, McZusatz, Effeietsanders, KKoolstra, and Botev: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The situation in the DR is problematic. The creator of the file didn't use the wording in {{Attribution}} which I believe complies with COM:L (they probably never read that wording), instead they simply wrote "you may use it however you’d like with credit", which is the example of what not to do in COM:L#Acceptable licenses. I think there's a reasonable chance that they did not fully understand what it means for a file to be released freely by our definition (e.g. republication, derivative, commercial, perpetual, non-revocable).
{{Attribution}} should not be used when someone says "sure go ahead and use my file" - that's insufficient for us. It is appropriate for some other scenarios like those discussed in Template talk:Attribution only license#Disservice?, or if the releaser explicitly agrees to its wording. Consigned (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To put it more simply, I think the file is eligible for {{No permission since}}, in that it is missing evidence "the author agreed to license the file under the given license". I don't think the author's statement "you may use it however you’d like with credit" is equivalent to "anyone may use it for any purpose, including redistribution, derivatives, commercial, in perpetuity" stated in {{Attribution}}. Consigned (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

What part exactly of "you may use it however you’d like" is supposed to be incompatible with "anyone may use it for any purpose"? Also, it was in response to the question "Would you be willing to release it using a Creative Commons license..", so this can also be said to be a permission for them to release it under a CC license.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:999real, do you see clearly how many musts are missing in the response which you like so much? One of two things: either you are wrong, or you declare that Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses should be rewritten. --92.243.181.223 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

What part of "however you’d like" do you think does not include those areas?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

My eyesight must be damaged. If the policy requires that all this must be directly stated, it does not at all resemble that nothing needs to be written, everything is implied, as you claim. 92.243.181.223 14:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The policy does not require them to be explicitly mentioned. Those conditions must be actually present -- that's not the same thing. The word "freely" in the example is critical, as that is a different word choice and can imply restrictions. If a license does not restrict commercial use, then commercial use is allowed. Similar with derivative works, though many seemingly simple word choices can actually imply restrictions. The revocable one is harder, though they explicitly require credit, which can be enough consideration to make it irrevocable by default. Each wording must be taken on its own, to see if there is any meaningful restrictions in the wording. You're usually looking for (possibly unintentional) restrictions on what can be done. Using "freely" and not using something "however you'd like" is muddier. It's hard to read any kind of restriction in that wording, so I'm fine with it. I'm sure there can be some arguments, but you can't just point to the lack of words "commercial" and "derivative works" -- you have to show why some of the required freedoms aren't there in the wording. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Clindberg, it is surprising that you manage to see in the policy what is not there and not to see what is clearly and unambiguously stated there. First of all, the word "freely" is definitely not stated as "critical", since it is accompanied by the words "or similar". Secondly, the words "must" are specifically highlighted in bold. Your statement is an amusing attempt to prove that black is white: to replace the thesis "Everything that is not explicitly permitted is prohibited" with the opposite one: "Everything that is not explicitly prohibited is permitted". Legally, such attempts are null and void. In fact, it is easy to show that whenever these conditions are mentioned in the DR, it ends in deletion:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:SensiQPioneer.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stephanie Grisham's 2013 and 2015 Arizona DUI Mugshots.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sofia Elisabet Spångberg.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sede del Centro de Investigación en Agrigenómica.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cichorium intybus var. foliosum, Witloof, Geotrichum candidum met en donkere laag, praktijkpuntlandbouw.be.jpg and so on.

92.243.181.223 05:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

All of those look correct to me -- those look to be materially different. You have to see what is allowed by the copyright owner. "however you'd like", unless the "you" was addressed to one person in particular, is not limiting anything at all. What would be a use of the picture which would not fall under the allowed scope of "however you'd like" ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Vice versa again. Instead of "You have to see (or to guess) what is allowed by the copyright owner" must be "The copyright holder must explicitly state what exactly is allowed" – that the policy is all about. 92.243.181.223 05:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That is correct -- they must state what is allowed, and not. "Whatever you like" is precisely such an explicit statement, provided it is the general "you". Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

For one, the creator said "you may use it however you'd like", which is very different than "anyone may use it for any purpose". Consigned (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC). Adding: But even if they said "anyone may use it however they'd like", per the policy COM:L that would be insufficient: simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. Consigned (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If they don't have someone specific in mind with the wording "you", i.e. it was addressed to anyone reading it, then no, it's not really different than "anyone". If it was addressed to one person in particular, then yes that is a problem.

---

Update that would probably clarify the issue: [11] --92.243.181.223 16:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Asked so that we can be extra safe. I think the current attribution is just fine though Bedivere (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

How is it different than the example that COM:L gives as being insufficient: simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient ..? -Consigned (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the photographer statement is actually sufficient. But as you point out it does conflict with the example given at COM:L. And then again, the attribution template seems to work fine for this particular image and many others which use it. As Carl points out above, I think the user statement that "I took this photo, you may use it however you’d like with credit" checks out the first three conditions, while the fourth (irrevocability) is probably dubious. So that's why I think the uploader would do a great service by asking the photographer if they can explicitly use a license. Pinging the uploader @Darth Stabro Bedivere (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a problem of this particular image, but rather whether the templates {{Attribution}} and {{Copyrighted free use}} are within our policies or not. Bedivere (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what I stated in the very first comment. 92.243.181.223 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You can see in my response to Сarl that he proved absolutely nothing with his reasoning, rather, he demonstrated its legal inadequacy. 92.243.181.223 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Bedivere, {{Attribution}} is essentially an outdated template, like those incomplete permissions that are forgiven for COM:Grandfathered old files out of respect for the history of WM Commons. I would call using it for current DRs an oversight on your part. 92.243.181.223 07:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with {{Attribution}} itself. If I posted a photo on Twitter with the comment I allow anyone to use this photo for any purpose, provided that I (John Doe) am properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted then someone could upload it here and {{Attribution}} would be the perfect template to use. The problem with the tag is that it's being mis-used in cases where people did not post such a statement, instead they simply wrote the material may be used freely by anyone - if someone simply writes this, it's not appropriate to use a license tag that puts more words into their mouth. Consigned (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Photos of retired bishop Michael J. Bransfield

The WP article on retired bishop Michael J. Bransfield has no photo of him, but an official photo published by the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston (West Virginia) formerly appeared on the website of the diocese

https://web.archive.org/web/20130327140711/http://www.dwc.org/

in the site's banner image.

It also appears in numerous news articles such as

https://wvpublic.org/bishop-bransfield-reacts-to-popes-message-of-a-throw-away-society/

https://x.com/usccb/status/1040194037054169088

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-07/pope-imposes-sanctions-on-us-bishop.html

https://www.laregione.ch/estero/estero/1391446/monsignor-bransfield-e-le-spese-folli

Is it possible that this photo (assumed to be professionally taken and non-free) may be suitable for use in Wikimedia Commons until such time as a free-use replacement may be obtained?

--

Alternatively, can this photo

https://flickr.com/photos/wvumc/8241713697/in/album-72157632165246906

which has a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license, be potentially usable?

Thank you for whatever guidance you can provide. Bistropha (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Please read Commons:Licensing; non-free files or files under restrictive licenses are never acceptable on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bistropha: If you want this for the English-language Wikipedia, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. If you want a better understanding of policy, guidelines, and processes for uploading third-party content on Commons, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not even on the English Wikipedia a fair-use photo of the bishop would be acceptable as they are still alive and a free photo could still surface. Bedivere (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'll keep looking. Bistropha (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Vulgate copyright question

Can this Vulgate be uploaded here? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The UK has a 25-year copyright on a typographical arrangement, so at the very least that has not passed for that particular PDF layout. The preface was new in 2006, so that part is 70pma. Unsure if this is identical to source texts, or if there were corrections made or selections made from slightly differing source texts, and if that particular combination would get a copyright in the UK, which has a low threshold of originality. Bit more dubious on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Street Art Murals in the Republic of Ireland

Per Template:FoP-Ireland works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public are legally allowed to be photographed.

COM:FOP Ireland has more detail for those who wish to review further.

Currently, photographs of Street Art murals in Ireland are being mass deleted (See Category:Irish_FOP_cases) following nominations by User:A1Cafel. Unfortunately, these were individual nominations rather than a mass deletion nomination which would have provoked more discussion around such large deletions. User:TheImaCow commented on this fact.

In light of the fact there are 46 files of this kind up for deletion and a further 296 files which may have been deleted incorrectly; can we please have some serious discussion to verify if photographs of murals in Ireland can or cannot be hosted on the Commons? Because if it's fine, a massive undelete needs to occur. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Krd, and IronGargoyle: , Could you weigh in on this matter as you approved a number of the deletion nominations? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, murals are generally classified as paintings (graphic works), not "works of artistic craftsmanship." The freedom of panorama exception applies to 2D works of artistic craftsmanship, but murals, as standard paintings, are excluded from this exception. "Artistic craftsmanship" is a term used in copyright legislation for works exhibiting both artistry and craftsmanship, including forms of artistic expression beyond the conventions of paintings, drawings, and sculptures. Examples of works granted copyright protection under this category include hand-painted tiles and stained glass. While some murals may involve specialized techniques (e.g., frescoes), most fall under typical painting methods, which do not meet the high threshold required for "artistic craftsmanship" under Irish copyright law. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you. I will add that it isn't easy to find reporting on the concept of artistic craftsmanship in Ireland specifically (the one article I can find is [12]), but the term is used in many countries' copyright acts and the reporting from other countries tends to align with your explanation. Consigned (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Ireland is closely aligned with the UK in this regards in my experience, and therefore I find https://www.dacs.org.uk/advice/articles/what-is-visual-arts-copyright/artistic-craftsmanship helpful here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

We really need to do a better job of defining artistic craftsmanship on this project - Josve05a has the correct answer here, but it's 100% understandable how CeltBrowne came to the conclusion they did. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Head of USCO fired

Not really a question for anyone, but this feels like a possible harbinger of changes - or claims of changes - to the legal regime in the US, particularly around AI-generated works and material. Undoubtedly most of the folks here are already aware, but probably good to keep an eye on this.

The Washington Post (5/11/25): "White House fires head of Copyright Office amid Library of Congress shakeup" 19h00s (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside whether the firing is actually legally effective, the Copyright Office has no role in determining what the law is; only courts actually provide authoritative interpretations of the statutes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I very much am not saying this means the law will change. Just saying it's a possibly big change at USCO that clearly merits some attention. In my personal opinion this won't stand legally, but the courts have proven me wrong a few times this year so it's probably better to keep an eye on this than ignore it. Especially if whoever is chosen as "interim" or "acting" Register has as cavalier an attitude toward legal guardrails as some other new federal agency/department heads. 19h00s (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Council of Europe #2

There are two vector version uploaded locally: former logo (1999-2013) and current logo. May I upload them here, specifying where they come from, with {{Euroflag}} and {{Trademarked}}?-- Carnby (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Carnby: Probably, but I'm not sure. Please don't be offended if the are DR'd for some reason. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Artistic craftsmanship

Since confusion about freedom of panorama for murals in the UK and countries with copyright laws based on the UK's has come up several times (including three sections above this post), I've created Commons:Artistic craftsmanship. I would appreciate it if other people could take a look, make any corrections, and tighten up any overly wordy language. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Since your reply above seemed pretty spot on, I figured you'd be a good person to take a look. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if I added value or not... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel I've made it overly complicated and long now. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You open with ""Works of artistic craftsmanship" are objects with a utilitarian purpose...". Can you substantiate the requirement for utility? Consider this thought experiment: A potter makes a jug as part of an artistic display, which deliberately includes a hole in is base, rendering it unusable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I added that, that wording is simply introducing the page. If you can word it better please do. Consigned (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC). Edit: Actually I didn't add that bit, but it seems to be a reasonable summarization to me, of course improvements are welcomed. Consigned (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Center for Investigative Reporting images

Hello there. Some images, such as Sevlid Hurtić CIN.jpg and Lidija Bradara CIN.jpg from the Bosnian Center for Investigative Reporting, have been uploaded locally on to Wikipedia with the Center for Investigative Reporting license. Also, when you go to the very bottom of the website, it says, translated from Bosnian: "Acquisition of content from the Center for Investigative Journalism is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source www.cin.ba". I am now wondering whether these images can be exported to Commons. Also, it says in the aforementioned images that "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license", but I have been made aware that I can just ignore this redirection as it is used mistakenly on en.wikipedia. Still, I am wondering if the license used on these images is okay for me to go ahead and export them to Commons without the images getting deleted. Bakir123 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

From Commons:Help desk#Center for Investigative Reporting images, I suggested to the user to ask the question here. I think that the main question is if the template Attribution is an adequate interpretation of the permission notice of the cin.ba website. The last part of the question probably just reflects the result of a mistake by the uploader of the files, see the comment at the help desk. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this free use? Photo mainly of a public artwork

File:Hume MRT Station, Singapore (2025) - img 02.jpg - this is a photo mainly featuring part of the official (government-approved) artwork of a train station in Singapore. Could experienced users advise on whether it is free use? Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I'm not expert on the copyright laws of Singapore, but in most countries "government-approved" has no bearing on copyright. Is there something I'm unaware of in Singapore's law on this? - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chainwit.: as uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand, Singapore has a rather open and free FoP (see FoP-Singapore). I've seen older uploads without problems here, as far as I'm aware:

• If you're referring to it as an artwork: other "Art in Transit" (artworks in MRT stations of Singapore) that were uploaded are for example File:NE6 Dhoby Ghaut Art in Transit.jpg, and file:(SGP-Singapore) Marine Parade MRT Station Exit 3 2024-06-23 - 2.jpg. Or other public artworks in general, like File:Singapore Soul (2011) by Jaume Plensa, Ocean Financial Centre, Singapore - 20140609.jpg
• If you're referring to it as the architecture of the structure: Category:Expo MRT Station seems to be the case and it's too allowed under Singaporean FoP.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I missed the point.

-- Chainwit. (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chainwit. I doubt so, unless the artworks are tiles or mosaics that qualify those as "works of artistic craftsmanship". If those works are paintings (by muralists or painters), then those are notOK as Singaporean FoP does not cover flat arts whose artists are not craftsmen (like murals, paintings, and frescoes made of paint, not colored mosaics or tiles). Singaporean FoP was inherited from the British FoP model. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I see. I'm not too keen on these topic either but in that case, it would include the following cases (of "Art in Transit") too?

• photographic artworks: like Bukit Panjang, Dakota
• graphic artworks: MacPherson, Pasir Panjang, and of course our Hume
• woodcut print: like Esplanade (yes, it was made of gigantic woodblocks ref)

Or am I missing the point of the artwork being the main subject in the photograph as well?

Very keen to learn more. Please guide me. Thank you. -- Chainwit. (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chainwit. luckily, the guideline page "Commons:Artistic craftsmanship" has just been created. You may read that. (See also the sections below, especially one concerning Ireland, whose FoP rule was inherited from the British FoP rule. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That sure helps. Thanks a lot! -- Chainwit. (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Chainwit.: - seems like 3D art is permissible under FoP-Singapore but 2D art is not? I'm thinking that File:CC3_Esplanade_MRT_Concourse_Artwork_20210503_151713.jpg / File:NE11_Woodleigh_MRT_Art_in_Transit_20220301_081358.jpg / File:DT19_Chinatown_MRT_Concourse_level_20210101_154922.jpg are permissible under Commons:De minimis but the Hume picture isn't? Starship.paint (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm thinking the same. -- Chainwit. (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Status of UK signatures after THJ v Sheridan

As discussed at COM:TOO UK, the 2023 court case of THJ v Sheridan moved the threshold of originality to a somewhat higher threshold of "author's own intellectual creation". I doubt many signatures would be above this threshold, but the section at COM:SIG UK has not been updated to this effect. Should that be done? And, if so, perhaps we should consider a mass restoration of deleted UK signatures? A mass restoration of logos would not have made sense, because many logos still fall above the relatively low UK threshold, but that doesn't seem likely for simple signatures any more. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Logo de Piedmont Airlines

Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo de Piedmont Airlines como este (el logo fue creado en EEUU)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I put the logo right at ToO-US. It's only 4 lines/quadrilaterals, but those lines suggest a bird. So COM:PCP says do not upload. Glrx (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Como este (File:Piedmont Airlines logo.svg) aparece como PD-textlogo AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Permissions/copyright status for File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg ?

File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg

File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg is marked at "own work". It was uploaded in 2017, with metadata showing it was taken in 2017. It appears to be a photograph of a 1930 poster, with writing in Greek at the bottom. User:Christtwice1 uploaded it marked as "own work", with permissions ... "I, the copyright holder of this work..." I'm not sure if this is a copyright violation or just an unclear attribution. (Note: The uploader has not been active since 2017.) - ERcheck (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It happens a thousand times every day and we can do nothing against it. Many uploaders simply don't understand that making a reproduction, a scan, or even uploading a copy found somewhere online does not produce an own work. The wrong date usually comes from the metadata written by the scanning device. When I stumble across such an image I silently change the date and replace the license with an appropriate PD tag, usually not even notifying the uploader. I never got any negative response for doing so. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Herbert Ortner: yes, as far as that goes. But are you saying that the copyright status of this work is clear? If so, what is that status? - Jmabel ! talk 05:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion copyright status is not clear. I would use PD-anon-70-EU in cases like this but there's no real proof for an anonymous publication (or just an unknown author). That's just closer to the truth than any CC license given by the uploader. This one could be a postcard with the photographer's or publisher's name on the back - we just don't know. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Herbert Ortner: "we just don't know" so under the precautionary principle, we delete. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

In Greece, copyrights last for 70 years after the creator's death. The upload offers no information about the photographer of the original image. Certainly, the original poster was not created by the uploader. As the uploader has not been active since 2017, sending a talk page message inquiring about the origin of the 1930 poster would most likely not be answered. - ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Simple sheet music diagrams

I'm skeptical of the copyright status of simple sheet music diagrams and MIDI files like these:

• 
  Standard ukulele tuning (C6 chord)
• 
  Sequence of intervals
• 
  Another sequence of intervals
• 
  Bass guitar tuning
• Honorable mention: this is a MIDI file, not a sound recording

They're basically sheet music representations of basic musical concepts and, imo, are copyrightable only to the extent that they consist of copyrightable musical works or creative arrangements or embellishments of musical facts (like layout or color coding). Merely representing them as sheet music images doesn't make them copyrightable. Likewise, a sheet music representation of a public domain musical work would be a faithful reproduction, not a derivative work, unless there is creative arrangement or embellishment involved.

The first image borders on {{PD-chord}} as it's a standard C6 chord on a ukulele, but the selection and arrangement involved (representing the same chord on a G clef above a tablature) might push it above the threshold of originality.

The second and third images are basically {{PD-tone row}}.

The fourth image is an arpeggio (possibly {{PD-chord}} or {{PD-musical set}}) but adds red to highlight the notes that are not always part of the bass guitar tuning. This too could be a sufficiently original choice, but I'm not sure.

File number 5 is a MIDI file, so it would only be protected as a musical work, not a sound recording - but it's just a representation of standard reentrant ukulele tuning.

I hesitate to change the license tags out of respect for the licensors' wishes, in case these files are indeed copyrightable, but I'd appreciate any guidance from others here as to whether they are in the public domain, and if so, which PD tags are the best fit for each case. Qzekrom (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Changing the tag doesn't provide much advantatge to Commons, Wikimedia projects or reusers.

• In Commons and Wikimedia projects which free license the media has doesn't matter much. The only difference I'm aware of is that PD images can be used without a link (for attribution) and that derivative works need to cite the original and license accordingly.
• For reusers, the tag doesn't change the status of non copyrightable media. If the file is not copyrightable in the reusers'country, they can use it as PD, no matter what Commons says.

Therefore, I wouldn't change the tag unless I were very sure that the file is PD in all the world, and even then I would see the priority of that task as very low. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The 4th example above might not be "simple" for some countries where TOO is said to be "very low" (a famous e.g. UK). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Logo question

Is this this logo unoriginal enough to be considered public domain? Thanks! Rainsage (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

What country is it from? Nakonana (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

according to the organization's facebook page, it is based in the United States and provides services in Gaza, Palestine. Rainsage (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

For U.S. (which is probably what is relevant) it's near the border, so precautionary principle probably means don't do it without getting a license. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks! Rainsage (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rainsage a version only containing the letters (without the watermelon half) would be PD-textlogo certainly. Bedivere (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Roblox

Is there any consensus about how to deal with Roblox screenshots

I understand that with almost every game Roblox is licensed under a proprietary license. However Roblox is also a game relying entirely on user-generated content. In cases where someone uploads a screenshot of something they themselves have created in Roblox would we be justified in deleting said image? Trade (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Roblox, so I can only speak generally. Per the Roblox terms of service, with some exceptions, users own the user-generated content (UGC) that they make available through the Roblox services. That said, works incorporating pre-existing material (including both derivative works and compilations) are subject to both the copyright in the pre-existing material (owned by Roblox and/or other users) and the copyright in the derivative or composite work (owned by the user).

So a screenshot from a Roblox game should be fine as long as all the visual elements in it are (a) owned by the user, (b) uncopyrightable elements like basic geometric shapes, or (c) released under a free license. The template {{Free screenshot}} has some further guidance on when screenshots are okay. Qzekrom (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of signatures in non-Latin script

It's not clear how COM:SIG Japan applies to File:Signature Hisahito.png, but it's clear that this is almost certainly not the own-work of its uploader Spectra321578 unless the uploader is claiming to be en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino. If it's truly the uploader's own work and they're not Prince Hisahito, it seems that Commons shouldn't be hosting it because doing so would be considered misleading at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The signature is based on his name, what's not clear? This is my own work, why are you butting in? Spectra321578 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it a genuine trace of his signature or an artists recreation Cyberwolf (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

genuine of course Spectra321578 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a grey area imo they traced the signature or photographed the signature which makes them the creator of said image and content but content was originally by someone else so… Cyberwolf (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there is no problem with considering it "free," but it should probably be described as a "traced signature" rather than just a "signature", and both authors should be acknowledged. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

How do you do it interestingly? Spectra321578 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding earlier. I was away from a computer for a the past few days and couldn't respond. Are you en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino? If you're not, then this signature isn't your COM:Own work per se; it's either (at the very least) a slavish reproduction of Prince Hisahito's signature or (at the very worst) a en:signature forgery if you're trying to claim it's actually his signature. Most signatures (typically as the word signature is understood in English) aren't generaly considered creative enough to warrant copyright protection as explained in COM:When to use the PD-signature tag. In some cases, though, such as a signature that's more than simply a person's signed name (e.g. when it's done in en:caligraphy or in this case en:Shodo), it's possible that there's enough creative input involved to push it above the COM:Threshold of originality. In such a case, however, the individual who the signature belongs to would be its copyright holder, which in this case would be Prince Hisahito. So, if you're not Prince Hisahito, you shouldn't really be trying to claim copyright authorship over his signature. On the other hand, if your intent was simply to be your recreation or some kind of COM:Fan art of Prince Hisahito's signature, then you shouldn't have been trying to pass it off as his authentic signature by using it in the English Wikipedia article about him. It has basically zero encyclopedic value to English Wikipedia if it wasn't signed by Prince Hisahito's own hand. It's also questionable whether it has any real education value for the purposes of COM:SCOPE and is not simply just a case of COM:PERSONAL. You've uploaded several other files of signatures (e.g., File:Emperor Shijo.png) and other types of text (e.g., File:Urbi Et Orbi Leone XIV.png) as your "own work", which also have the same problems as this one. You might want to take a closer look at COM:L since you seem to be misunderstanding some important things about Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd note that COM:TOO varies among countries, and in the US, signatures and calligraphy aren't copyrightable. We need to be very careful about being specific about the country in these discussions, because there is a lot of variance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

(Update) This file along with several others by the same uploader are currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Spectra321578. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Is citation allowed in image description?

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it. Question: Is it a COPYVIO to use a short quote from a non-free literary work (e.g. a famous phrase from a novel, a line or several lines from a poem, with attribution to the author and work, of course) in the description of an image uploaded to Commons? Vsatinet (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vsatinet: Typically not (such quotations can sometimes be used on a "fair use" basis, but Commons makes little allowance for any sort of fair use), nor does it seem like it would often even be appropriate to quote something literary here, copyrighted or not.

Can you give an example of where this would be useful? - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. You're right, in the vast majority of cases using quotation or other unusual description is inappropriate for Commons. But sometimes I really want to change obvious and trivial description of the depicted object with something more interesting. In fact it's related to Commons Photo Challenge which is run largely for the fun of the participants.

As for examples let consider such (theoretical) cases: photo of burning paper (there was a challenge dedicated to fire) with description "Fahrenheit 451" (the title of a famous novel by Ray Bradbury); landscape or vegetation of tundra described with lines from poem "Tundra Shadows" by poet and songwriter Alexander Gorodnitsky. And so on. Maybe it's my personal quirk, but sometimes I like such associations and I think it's quite possible to use them where appropriate. Vsatinet (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The content in the descriptions and captions should be free or freely-licensed too. Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia#Requirements of frequently-used licenses states that text in Commons is CC BY-SA and GFDL, and confusingly the Upload Wizard says that text and data will be licensed as CC0, but either way including copyright content could cause problems for re-users. I don't know where to draw the line between providing the title of a book (probably OK), a line of a poem (?), a few lines of a poem (maybe not OK), the whole poem (not OK), but it's generally better to err on the side of caution. Consigned (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vsatinet: Just grabbing a title like that is probably legally OK (pretty much what Consigned said, in that respect), but is usually not what would make a good description for Commons' purposes of discoverability and of clarity as to what the image shows. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned: the CC-zero thing refers to the caption and other SDC. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Frame challenge suggestion: There are a few thousands of years worth of literature that may provide great public domanin captions for photo contest images. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, colleagues. I thought so, but sometimes I want something non-standard. Pere prlpz you are quite right, but I do not look for quotes specifically, they pop up in my mind spontaneously :-). Vsatinet (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Indian army unit X account images

The description of File:White Knight Corps.jpg states it's sourced to "Official Twitter account of 16 corps, Indian Army". Ihaven't (so far) been able to find anything to suggest the image has been released under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} as claimed by the file's uploader. Given that the same uploader has uploaded many other files using this same license and that pretty much all of them have questionable licensing, I think this one might too. However, the difference between this and the others, is that this could be possibly with in the public domain per COM:India#Copyright tags if {{Indian Army}} is a valid copyright license (which seems to be the case per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indian Army) and social media accounts of individual units would be covered by said license. Does anyone have a opinion on whether it would be OK to convert this to the "Indian Army" license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Facebook photo query

The EXIF data for File:Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III during Igogo 2020 Festival in Owo.jpg indicates the photo comes from Facebook. It's possible it comes from this account, which seems to be the account of the file's uploader, but I'm unable to find this exact photo. There are other images of en:Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III uploaded to that Facebook account. Some appear to be "own work", but others are watermarked and look like they probably come from somewhere else; moreover, none of the posts associated with the photos/posts include any references to a copyright license. Is it OK to assume "own work" here or should VRT verification be requested because of Facebook's standard licensing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Contact the Facebook account "figelcon", which is still active. Ask if Figelcon on Commons is them. If it is, then (barring that these were copyvios even on Facebook), we're good. (If you doubt that, then ask them that as well.)

I certainly often upload a given image to Facebook before I upload it to Commons, and I certainly don't routinely add a licensing statement of FB when I do that. I'm guessing that is pretty common. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

About Category:Popular Revolutionary Army

Hello, I think that the imagery in Category:Popular Revolutionary Army with assault rifle silhouettes and cereal ear are above COM:TOO (COM:TOO Mexico lacks content) and should be deleted for being copyvios. Do you concur? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Paw Park (06-12-2021).jpg

• File:Paw Park (06-12-2021).jpg, by Thewideawake1 (talk · contribs).

May be de minimis or not? Need second/third opinion for this derivative work of a possibly unfree billboard or advertising. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Not de minimis. The sign is very clearly the primary subject of the photo; it's the only thing mentioned in the title and description, and the dog park itself is only barely visible around the edges of the sign. Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Done nominating the image.

This section was archived on a request by: 22:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Actualizar el COM:Venezuela

Buenas necesito que algun administrador actualize el COM:Venezuela según el DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg),según el comentario del Usuario Administrador Bedivere indica que existe una ley anterior (antes de que el extinto Congreso derogara la antigua ley para que creara la actual ley osea 60 años después de la primera publicación) (osea antes de URAA) se expiró 50 años después de la primera publicación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ya te dije que lo actualizaría después del 20 de mayo. De verdad no entiendo por qué tanta prisa... Bedivere (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Jajajajajaj 🤭 perdon tienes razón AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No veo qué es lo gracioso aparte de tu majadera insistencia en asuntos que no son urgentes Bedivere (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ada Bursi photographs --> Commons

Are any of the black and white ID style photographs here (on the Turin Polytechnic site) picturing the Italian mid-century modernist architect w:Ada Bursi acceptable for use on Commons? [NB: The Italian version of this page shows 4 photos, while the English page only displays the first (1/4).] Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Imaginably, but they don't provide the information that would let us determine that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Best way to solve? Image 1/4 is presumably the oldest (late 1920s or early 1930s), would it be safe to use that one? Need an image to ID the subject in enwiki article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The copyright term for photographs in Italy is 70 years after the death of the photographer (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy). Therefore, without even knowing the photographer those images may not be in the public domain and therefore they aren't safe to upload to Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. The images are from the Archivio Storico del Politecnico di Torino, which is presumably a public institution ("università statali") of some sort. Is there anything concerning the use of works held in the archives of Italian public educational institutions that might apply in this case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard of anything where an institution obtaining a copy of a photo would change its copyright status. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

See the "Government works" section of the Italian copyright rules, esp. clauses relating to academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character, as well the various clauses about [works] made for the public administration or for non-profit organisations [and] non-creative photographs, etc. If 1/4 is a university ID photograph, then would it not fall under some or all of the above definition(s)? (Bear with me, I'm not an attorney.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you found those images in a university website doesn't make them government works. In fact, if you are right that those images were made decades before Ada Bursi became architect, it's very unlikely that any government photographer took them.

That is, we shouldn't mix "created on behalf of the government" with "there is a copy of the image in a government website". Pere prlpz (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Last shot at this: 1/4 appears to be a typical (for that era) ID photograph of a very young Bursi, so at the very least it is non-creative (which would mean a term of 20 years since creation, per above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Per above, in Italy the definition of non creative photograph is vague but very narrow. If it were a Spanish photograph I'd say it is non creative but for Italy it's not so clear cut. Pere prlpz (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I suppose unless somebody is inclined to pursue this directly with the Archivio Storico del Politecnico di Torino, it's a dead-end then. Too bad, it seemed like a good bet (especially 1/4). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The Archivo is unlikely to have the rights, although it could provide more information.

About the id photo, you can wait for input from somebody mor knowledgeable than me on Italian copyright, or you can research on past deletion requests on similar Italian cases, or, if doubts persist, you can try to upload it and see if somebody requests its deletion. Pere prlpz (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's see. I may just try to use it locally on enwiki with a "Non-free" template (which would be a shame, as it's much preferable to have these things here, as we all no doubt agree). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Google Street View

According to a law journal article, Google Street View images in the US could be public domain, at least if I have understood it correctly. Can Commons allow US Google Street View photos? See here. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It's arguable, since the driver is simply driving on the streets, with the rest being automated. Not sure we have allowed those though. I'm even less sure on the argument about aerial photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly human involvement in the process, unlike a CCTV camera - All the Ways Google Gets Street View Images | WIRED PascalHD (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Hughes article being cited here is essentially an opinion piece, not a ruling. Some of the other positions it takes, e.g. that aerial and satellite photographs are inherently uncreative and should not be protected by copyright, are significantly at odds with the reality that copyrights on this types of images are claimed and enforced. Omphalographer (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Where can we find more information about the enforcement of copyright for aerial photos? Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what makes an aerial photo any different from other photos. I presume they mean methodical aerial photos over an entire area, but you still have a pilot positioning the camera even if everything else is automated. Obviously you can't stop anyone else from making very similar photos but I'd have to imagine they would have copyright on the precise ones they took. I've not seen anything like that in there copyright appeals decisions where they don't give a copyright to a photo. They have given copyrights to security videos. Outside of straight-on photographs of paintings, and things like x-rays, not sure we have any evidence of photos being denied registration. I do see a registration of a "AerPic Aerial Photography", among many aerial photos. I see one registration VA0002409890 which is a set of 744 aerial photographs (750 is the max you can register in one group), with a title of "aerial photographs 2024" and it covering three months. It would help to know what the law journal is basing their opinion on -- were there rejections or a court case or something? Google has registered precious little, and I don't see anything like their street view stuff, but they don't really have to. They certainly have a copyright notice on the aerial photography and street view parts of Google Maps. You'd have to prove that wrong in court. Basically, without some solid backing where a similar copyright got denied by a court or at least the U.S. Copyright Office, I think such things would have significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you for this response. I now agree with you that we should have more solid evidence than the journal's opinion. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Photos in Édith Piaf article

re the (English) Wikipedia article en:Édith_Piaf, the four photos of Piaf from 1950 and earlier all have tags explaining why they are public domain in France, but no confirmation about their copyright status in the U.S. Because public domain images from other countries than the U.S. must meet public domain requirements from the U.S. as well as from their country of origin in order to be considered freely usable on Wikipedia, I'm not certain whether these French photos also meet American public domain requirements- I'd welcome any advice on this. The pictures are:

• File:Piaf Harcourt 1946 2.jpg
• File:Edith Piaf Harcourt 1950 1.jpg
• File:Edith Piaf et les Compagnons de la Chanson.jpg
• File:1951 La P'tite Lili - Théatre ABC retouched.jpg

PS File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg is presumably pre-1925, but does 'presumably' suffice? Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin: is this about the Édith Piaf article in en-wiki or elsewhere? The link you provide is to a Commons gallery page.

I've taken the liberty of turning your mentions of filenames into links. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

All: with apologies; @Jmabel thanks for converting the files to links... yes, I meant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89dith_Piaf (I've tried linking that in an edited version of the original now... Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

& I fixed that to an internal link. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can someone who was more involved in the protracted discussion of Harcourt pictures from this era say whether that ended up with a solid resolution that would cover the fist three here? - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

File:1951 La P'tite Lili - Théatre ABC retouched.jpg should almost certainly be deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by J.B. ARRIEU ALBERTINI. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel thanks for this - file removed, which leaves questions about

• File:Piaf Harcourt 1946 2.jpg
• File:Edith Piaf et les Compagnons de la Chanson.jpg

Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As well as: File:Edith_Piaf_Harcourt_1950_1.jpg and the 'enfant' photograph, File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Ps sorry I'm struggling with this editing box in the mobile interface. Never been here before and it seems thoroughly unpredictable... Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Status of File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg is unclear, and PD in the U.S. seems unlikely to me. "Before 1925" seems safe but irrelevant. Uploader made an obviously false claim of being the author. With no known author, how can we say the author has been dead 70 years? and we know nothing of the publication date, relevant to U.S. copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The three remaining Harcourt deletion requests were closed by Krd on April 7 after no other admin had decided them for over five months (so re-nominating the files seems rather pointless because apparently no-one wants to touch the case). Krd closed them as keep, not based on the merits of the case (because “tldr” – too long, didn't read), but merely because “There appear a lot of votes for keep and no consensus for deletion. If this keep is wrong, please nominate again with summary of prevailing arguments.” So my take on the status of the 1946 and 1950 Harcourt Piaf photos is that they are in the public domain in France now, because of the 2014 French court decision declaring Harcourt photos to be collective works, and those enter the public domain after 70 years. On the URAA date in France (January 1, 1996), they were not yet in the public domain in France – unless you accept the claims that they somehow were in the public domain because the French state released them into the PD after it had bought the negatives in 1989/1991, or that the Harcourt entity which existed at the time released them into the PD. There is no properly documented evidence for those claims however, which is what the deletion requests were all about. --Rosenzweig τ 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt says "The French state bought the photo archives of Studio Harcourt in 1991 and released them under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license". Is this just wrong or am I missing some reason it would not apply here?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@999real: It is just wrong. I have removed that claim. --Rosenzweig τ 15:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should create an index of all the discussions we had about the Studio Harcourt images over the years... I am sure in one of those I contributed, and I think I also followed up with the studio through the VRT ticket system, to clarify the permission, but I might be mistaken there. Ciell (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

At least two (maybe more) should be in the COM:VPC archives, I think were shorter ones at the VRT noticeboard, and then of course the various deletion requests. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, here's my analysis of the VRT permission we received from the Studio in 2010. I think images uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt are covered by the permission we have stored in VRT. Anything beyond those needs to be covered by general copyrights or additional permissions in order for us to host. Their archives were indeed at one point transferred to be kept by the French government, and that is where their copyright status becomes very complicated and statuses unclear.

Imho Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle could apply here. Ciell (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these various thoughts on the matter - precautionarily, therefore, I'll remove these pictures from the article. Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Ocean Infinity images distributed by the NTSB

I want to know the copyright status of these two images [13] [14]. They are distributed by the en:National Transportation Safety Board, so they should be public domain under {{PD-USGov-NTSB}}. However, the NTSB final report and search and recovery report (download link) mentions how en:Ocean Infinity conducted the salvage and took the photos, and the images are listed as "Courtesy of Ocean Infinity". So would the copyright belong to Ocean Infinity or would the images be released under public domain by the NTSB? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The copyright most likely belongs to Ocean Infinity. "Courtesy of" implies the photos were not taken by a Government employee. The US government can and often feature others' works in documents, but that does not automatically release them into the Public Domain. PascalHD (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The Impossible Game text logo and the UK TOO

I would like to upload the text portion of w:File:The Impossible Game logo.jpg (transparent version in the official site at https://impossible.game/1/), although I have some concerns that might make it not allowed in Commons:

• I'm not very familiar with COM:TOO UK. Apparently it's a lot more higher than it was when I first started uploading, though not sure if the black shadow and the thin blue outline make it copyrightable. If it does, would a plain white/black logo make it acceptable?
• I was able to identify the font as Ten by Twenty's Akashi, which according to their own website, all of their fonts there are under the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is a valid license in Commons ({{OFL}}). I'm still not sure if that impacts the copyright status of the logo itself though, since it's not really a generic typeface.
• Would a version with a cyan-black gradient as the background be acceptable as well?

SergioFLS (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Logo de Daewoo

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de Daewoo por ejemplo como este (File:Daewoo logo.svg) ,el logo fue creado en Corea del Sur? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Intel Spiral musical score and sound recording

I noticed that the Intel Spiral (a.k.a. "Intel Bong") has been granted copyright protection as a sound recording in the United States (SR0000787475), but not the underlying musical work (a five-note melody), as noted in this official letter from the Copyright Office (mentioned on COM:US § Threshold of originality).

However, copyright protection for sound recordings in the United States only extends to the reproduction and alteration of the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording—not new, independently created sound recordings, no matter how closely they imitate the original sound recording (17 U.S.C. § 114). So theoretically, it should be possible to create a new sound recording of the Intel Bong from scratch, emulating all or some of the sound design steps in the original one, without infringing the copyright in the original Intel Bong sound recording—at least under US law.

Also, since the composition has been deemed ineligible for copyright in the US, does that mean that an image of the sheet music (available on Intel's website here) can be uploaded here and tagged with {{PD-music-ineligible}}? There might be copyrightable authorship in the visual arrangement of staves, dynamic symbols, etc. that isn't present in what the Copyright Office considers to be the "musical work". Qzekrom (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest someone do their own layout of the (brief) score. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Already done! File:Intel Spiral.svg Qzekrom (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I synthesized my own sound recording of it using MuseScore; sound recording copyrights don't extend to "soundalike covers" under US law, but I don't know if that is true in other countries. That said, while the Intel Bong was registered as a sound recording, it normally appears as part of video advertisements, and sounds accompanying an audiovisual work have a broader scope of copyright protection.

I currently don't have permission to upload MP3s on Commons, but would this be safe to upload here? Qzekrom (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: for variable values of "safe." I don't think you are in any danger from us (the worst that would happen is file deletion), but as you yourself have noted, Intel might have grounds to complain, and I can't predict their mode of complaining. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding MP3 files, it's prefered to use FLAC/Opus instead, if you have access to the raw audio version. There's more info at COM:FT. SergioFLS (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

YouTube licensing

• File:Bruse Wane in 2022.jpg
• File:Bruse Wane In 2022.jpg
• File:BruseWane702x884.jpg

All stem from YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8Lk2Gqz98 according to their upload summary and licensing, but I'm having a hard time finding it on the video itself. I'm looking at another example file File:Brennan Lee Mulligan (on Zoom 2021) 02.jpg with the same style CC claim and I can easily see the license in the description on YouTube itself. Am I missing something, or should these be tagged with something? {{Db-lrfailed}} or can I even use that template without the user right? Would there be a better template? Thanks. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

These videos do not have Creative Commons license on YouTube. I tagged them for speedy deletion you can do this for multiple files with Help:VisualFileChange.js.

YouTube allows users to change the license on videos but Creative Commons licenses are legally not revocable. You can check archived versions of the page, to quickly check the license I right click, view page source, CTRL + F search for "creative_commons" (https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons). In this case I did not find CC license in the archives just information  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I also agree, there is an archive from the same day it was uploaded to YouTube, here: [15]. And I cannot find a CC license there either. So it’s most likely never had an CC license and the screenshots are copyvios. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: You can use the good old template Copyvio. You can add a comment in the parameter, like "no CC license at the source" or something else. I'm not sure about the use of Db-lrfailed, but I think I'd probably leave its use to reviewers. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice everyone, thanks for the instruction. I'll add that to the toolbelt. Cheers, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright registration and an invalid notice if the registration was before the book was actually published

If a book was registered validly with the US copyright office in 1985, but was only published in 1987 and all copies carry an invalid registration (they do not name any claimant), would that repair the copyright notice? I know from 1978 to 1989 you had a 5 year time period to repair an invalid notice by registration {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but the way the COM:Hirtle chart is written, it does not seem to me that this would apply to pre-registration? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Which book? Personally, I doubt I'd touch it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Obscure 80s American occult one entitled The Templar Tradition in the Age of Aquarius. The cover is PD for sure (because it needed a separate notice and one did not exist) but I was curious about the book.

I felt it raised broader questions and I have never seen a prior registration on something with an invalid notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You can register an unpublished work just fine. The federal copyright clock started then. What year was on the copyright notice? Registering before was one step you needed to take to save the copyright, but not the only one. The other steps are harder to prove though. The circular says copyright could be saved if the work was registered before or within five years after the publication without notice and a reasonable effort was made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords distributed in the United States after the omission was discovered. So the earlier registration would serve for that requirement. If just a relatively few copies were without notice, that would also be OK.

The Compendium does say: Separated name -- When copies or phonorecords contain a name, abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alterna­ tive designation of the copyright owner, that is separated from the other elements of the notice, but that could reasonably be considered part of the notice, the notice is acceptable. Where the copies or phonorecords contain two or more names abbreviations, or alternative designa­tions that are equally identifiable with the rest of the notice, the notice is sufficient if any of the names, abbreviations, or alter­native designations is capable of identifying any person or entity as an owner of copyright. If none of the names, abbreviations, or alter­ native designations is identifiable with the rest of the notice, the same action is taken as where there is an omission of the copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. 406(c).

Also: Identity by reference. A notice that identi­fies the copyright owner by reference, such as, for example, "Copyright by author," or "Copyright by the publisher," is considered acceptable by the Copyright Office, if the copies or phonorecords contain a name, abbreviation, or a generally known designation which is identified by the reference as the author, publisher, or other referenced person or legal entity. If no such name, abbreviation, or generally known designation can be identified on the copies or phonorecords, the same action is taken as where there is an omission of the copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. 406(c) and 405.

Is there an author name anywhere on the publication? Even if not this seems difficult to prove, at best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Clindberg "clark" => "clock"? (my first thought was "clerk" but I couldn't make any sense of that.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, "clock". Just fixed that. Well, I guess that was before 1978 -- the 28 year term until renewal requirement started then. Since 1978 it's automatically under federal protection from creation, and the term is based on the author's lifetime, and not date of registration. (Works for hire are still based on date of publication; before 1978 that could mean date of registration if registered as an unpublished work). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg It simply says Copyright 1987, with no author or anything, with no name anywhere near the notice. All of the copies have that error. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there an obvious author or publisher? Particularly one that matches the name on the registration? Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It's right here: https://archive.org/details/delaforge-gaetan-the-templar-tradition-in-the-age-of-aquarius-threshold-books-1987-ocr/page/n5/mode/2up . The name on the registration is Gaetan Delaforge (TXu000246675), and that's the name on the other side of the copyright page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It isn't on the copyright page, though, which is the issue. The above copyright says "but that could reasonably be considered part of the notice, the notice is acceptable." I don't think not being anywhere on the page counts, because you cannot. If it was at the top you could construe that as being "part" of it but without it on the copyright page entirely?

It's also a fake name, but I don't think that really matters. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

en:File:Romani Kids ww2.jpg still copyrighted?

This is a still image from a 1943 movie from Germany. There are no information about photographer at Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. So I wonder if the film is now PD. In the EU it would be PD because the photographer is not disclosed. In the US it could be PD because the US do not like nazi copyright and if the children were used for experiments by the nazis it could be an indication that it was not taken by some random civil person. Any thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked something similar some time ago: see here. Nakonana (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, why do you think that the author is unknown? The source page says the title of the video is "Zigeunerkinder-Dissertation von Eva Justin" (literally: Gypsy children - dissertation by Eva Justin) and the German wiki article w:de:Sinti-Kinder von Mulfingen mentions that Eva Justin created some footage/recordings for her study (relevant text passage: Eva Justins Originalaufnahmen aus Mulfingen; literally: Eva Justin's original recordings from Mulfingen), so that there's a none-zero chance that she's the author. She died in 1966, iirc? I don't know what US copyright law would say about this given her association with nazism, but in Germany her work would be still copyright protected. Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The source page also says that the video came from the German Bundesarchiv (Filmarchiv) and that it was copied from a 16mm Kodak print. I checked the Bundesarchiv (Filmarchiv) and they have footage/recordings by Eva Justin for her dissertation[16]. The material can't be accessed online but the description says that it's a "16mm film" and that it's in color, so that I'd guess it's the same video, which would mean that Eva Justin is indeed the author. Nakonana (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I assumed the author is unknown is because as written on en:Eva Justin she studied the children and the text say that she used the film in her studies. Not that she made the film herself. Also at "Credit" it says "Accessed at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Bundesarchiv Filmarchiv" not "Eva Justin". But I can see that the German Wikipedia mention her original recordings so I agree that it is likely its the same recordings. --MGA73 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Soviet-Russian film status

First of all: I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak any Russian, just as a disclaimer.

Tonight I spent some time checking Public Domain templates, and playing with Deepseek and Gemini to find some Public Domain films, until I reached Template:PD-Soviet and read its Talk page.

It seems clear to me why pre-1973 works had its copyright restored, but I also would notice the discussion was closed in 2006, so almost 20 years ago.

According to sources such as Russian Film Hub:

Public Domain status: Russian law, as read in Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation from December 2006 and in the Law of the Russian Federation of July 9, 1993 No. 5351-1 “On Copyright and Related Rights,” concludes that copyright terminates 70 years from the date of lawful publication of the film work. Based on this, films released over 70 years ago (pre-1950) are now considered to have entered the Public Domain.

In 2006, the +70 years since publication was irrelevant (1930's Soviet works were already in Public Domain because of the pre-1943 rule) but now it's 2025 and, apparently, the law says Soviet films entered PD 70 years after being published. This means 1954 Soviet film, and older, would be now in PD, which is a far more interesting situation than the one in 2006, when the debate was made.

So, prove me wrong: Which is the Copyright status of films made by state-owned enterprises in the Soviet Union? It's +70 since publication or +70 since authors' death? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Sharing some responses from Deepseek:

Okay, let me try to figure this out. The user is asking about the copyright terms for Soviet films, specifically whether it's 50 or 70 years since the author's death or publication.
First, I need to check the provided sources. From the previous answers, the assistant mentioned that Soviet films had a 25-year term from publication before 1973. Then, in 1973, the USSR joined the UCC, which might have changed things. But wait, the user is now asking about the current rules, probably under Russian law since the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Looking at the search results, webpage 1 talks about Soviet copyright law. It says that before May 27, 1973, films had a 25-year term from publication. After joining the UCC, the term became the author's life plus 25 years. But films are often works with multiple authors, so maybe the term is based on the last surviving author?
Webpage 2 discusses Russian copyright law post-1993. The 1993 law extended terms to 50 years p.m.a. and retroactively restored copyrights. Then in 2004, it was extended to 70 years. However, if the copyright had already expired under Soviet law, it wasn't revived. So films that entered the public domain before 1993 stayed there.
Webpage 3 (Wikimedia Commons) mentions that in Russia, the standard term is life +70 years. For anonymous works, it's 70 years from publication. For films, there's a specific rule: if the film was first shown before 1943 or created by a legal entity between 1929-1955 and not shown until 1993, it's public domain. So maybe films from the Soviet era have different rules based on when they were published and who created them.
Webpage 4's history section notes that Soviet copyright terms varied. The 1961 law set the term as the author's lifetime, and republics could set their own terms. Post-Soviet Russia adopted the 1991 law temporarily, then the 1993 law with 50 years, extended to 70 in 2004. But the 2008 Civil Code made the 70-year term retroactive for works that hadn't expired by 1993.
Webpage 8 (Russian Film Hub) states that Soviet films produced by state studios were considered public property, but after 1964, they belonged to the studios. Current Russian law considers films copyrighted for 70 years from publication. So films published over 70 years ago (pre-1955) are public domain.
Putting this together: Soviet films' copyright depends on when they were published and under which law. Before 1973, 25 years from publication. After 1973, life +25 years. Post-Soviet Russia extended terms to 70 years p.m.a., but only for works still under copyright in 1993. If a Soviet film's copyright expired under the old 25-year rule, it stayed public domain. So a film from 1951 would have entered the public domain in 1976 (1951 +25) and remained there. But if it was protected under the 1973 changes (life +25), then the term would depend on the authors' deaths. However, since the 1993 law didn't revive expired copyrights, films already in the public domain stayed there.
So the answer is that Soviet films generally follow the 70-year rule from publication if they were still under copyright in 1993. Otherwise, they remain public domain. But specifics depend on publication date and authors' survival.

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My last question to Deepseek: Which is the copyright term for films made in the Soviet Union by state studios (such as Soyuzmultfilm) before 1963? Take into consideration the changes in property introduced in 1964, and the pre-1973 +25 year rule. Take also in consideration any Russian law which might restore copyright for Soviet films made in the 50s and early 60s

Response

Okay, let me try to figure out the copyright terms for Soviet films made by state studios before 1963. The user mentioned considering changes in property introduced in 1964, the pre-1973 25-year rule, and any Russian laws that might have restored copyright for these films.
First, I need to check the Soviet copyright laws. From the search results, the 1925 Soviet Copyright Act set a term of 25 years from publication. So films made before 1963 would fall under this rule if they were published before May 27, 1973. Wait, the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1973, which might have changed the term. But before that, the 25-year rule from publication applied. So a film made in 1950 would enter the public domain in 1975.
But then there's the 1964 change. The Civil Code of the RSFSR in 1964 stated that films made with state funds belonged to the studios. So films before 1964 might have been considered public property, but after 1964, the studios held the copyright. However, the user is asking about films made before 1963, so those would be under the pre-1964 rules. But how does that affect their copyright term?
Then, post-Soviet Russia introduced new laws. The 1993 law extended copyright to 50 years, but didn't revive expired terms. So if a film's 25-year term ended before 1993, it stayed in the public domain. Later, in 2004, Russia extended the term to 70 years p.m.a., but again, only for works still under copyright in 1993. So films from the 50s and early 60s that had their 25-year term expire before 1993 (like a 1951 film expiring in 1976) would remain public domain. But if their term hadn't expired by 1993, they got the extended terms.
Wait, but the 1964 law might mean that films before 1964 were owned by the state, so maybe they were treated differently. But according to webpage 4, after 1964, films made by state studios in the RSFSR belonged to the studio. So before 1964, they were public property. So films made before 1964 by state studios would be public domain under Soviet law, but after 1964, the studio owned them. However, the 25-year term from publication still applies unless extended.
So for example, a film made in 1960 by a state studio: under the 25-year rule, it would expire in 1985. Since that's before 1993, Russian law wouldn't revive it. But if the film was made in 1965, the term would end in 1990. Then, under the 1993 law, it might have been extended to 50 years from publication (1990 +50=2040?), but wait, the 1993 law set 50 years p.m.a. or from publication for anonymous works. But films are often corporate works, so maybe 50 years from publication. Then in 2004, extended to 70 years. So a 1965 film would be protected until 2035 (1965+70=2035). But if the film's term had already expired before 1993, it stays public domain.
But the user is asking about films made before 1963. Let's say a film made in 1960. Under the 25-year rule, copyright expired in 1985. Since that's before 1993, the 1993 law didn't revive it. So it remains public domain. But if a film was made in 1963 and published in 1963, the term would end in 1988. Still before 1993, so no revival. Therefore, all Soviet state studio films made before 1963 would have their copyright expire 25 years after publication, and not be revived by Russian laws, thus in public domain. However, if a film was published after 1963 but before 1973, say 1970, then 25 years would be 1995. Since that's after 1993, the 1993 law would extend it to 50 years (1993 +50=2043?), but actually, the 50 years would be from publication. So 1970 +50=2020. Then in 2004, extended to 70 years, so 1970 +70=2040. But if the film was published before 1973 but after 1963, the term would be extended.
Wait, the user mentioned the pre-1973 +25 year rule. So films published before May 27, 1973, are under the 25-year term. Those published after would be under life +25, then later life +70. But the 1964 change in property ownership might affect who holds the copyright, not the term. So even if the studio owned the film after 1964, the term was still 25 years from publication for pre-1973 films.
So for films made before 1963 by state studios:
- If published before 1964, they were public property under Soviet law. Copyright term 25 years from publication. So a 1950 film published in 1950 would expire in 1975. Not revived by Russian laws, so public domain.
- If published between 1964 and 1973, the studio owned the copyright, but term is still 25 years from publication. So a 1965 film published in 1965 would expire in 1990. Since that's before 1993, the 1993 law didn't revive it. So public domain.
Unless the Russian laws applied retroactively to works that were still under copyright in 1993. For example, a film published in 1970: 25 years would end in 1995. So in 1993, it was still under copyright. Then the 1993 law extended the term to 50 years from publication (1970 +50=2020). Then in 2004, extended to 70 years (1970 +70=2040). But the user is asking about films made before 1963. If a film was made in 1960 but published in 1970, then it's under the 25-year rule from 1970, expiring in 1995. Then extended to 50 years (2020) and then 70 (2040). But the user's focus is on films made before 1963, so even if published later, the production year is before 1963. But the term is based on publication, not creation. So if a film was made in 1960 but published in 1965, the term is 25 years from 1965, so 1990. If it was published in 1970, term ends 1995. The 1993 law would apply to those still under copyright in 1993 (i.e., published after 1968, since 1993-25=1968). So films published after 1968 would still be under copyright in 1993, and thus get the extended terms.
So to summarize:
Films made by state studios before 1963:
- Published before 1968: copyright expired 25 years after publication, before 1993. Not revived, public domain.
- Published 1968-1973: copyright would expire 25 years later (1993-1998). Since 1993 law extended terms to 50 years from publication, these would have their terms extended to 50 years. Then 2004 extended to 70. So a film published in 1970 would be protected until 2040.
But the user is asking about films made before 1963. So even if published in 1970, the production year is before 1963, but publication date is after. However, the copyright term is based on publication, so such films might still be under copyright if their publication date was after 1968.
But the user also mentioned the 1964 property changes. Films made before 1964 were public property, after 1964 owned by studios. So for films made before 1963, if published before 1964, they were public domain. If published after 1964, the studio owned them, but the term is still 25 years from publication. But if the publication was after 1968, they would benefit from the 1993 extension.
This is getting complicated. Let me check the sources again.
Webpage 4 mentions that under the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, films made with state funds belonged to the studio. So films before 1964 were public domain, but after 1964, studios owned them. However, the copyright term for these films would still be based on publication. So a film made in 1960 but published in 1965 (after 1964) would be owned by the studio, with a term of 25 years (until 1990). If that term expired before 1993, it remains public domain. If published in 1970, term until 1995, so under 1993 law, extended to 50 years (2020) and then 70 (2040).
Therefore, the answer is that films made before 1963 by state studios have varying copyright terms:
1. If published before 1964: considered public property, copyright expired 25 years after publication, now in public domain.
2. If published between 1964-1968: term expired 25 years later (by 1993), not revived, public domain.
3. If published between 1969-1973: term would expire after 1993 (e.g., 1969+25=1994), so under 1993 law extended to 50 years (2019), then 70 years (2039). Thus still under copyright until 70 years after publication.
But the user is asking about films made in the 50s and early 60s. So if a film was made in 1960 but published in 1970, it's the publication date that matters. So even though made before 1963, if published after 1968, it's under copyright until 70 years after publication.
But the user's question is specifically about films made before 1963. So the production year is before 1963, but publication could be later. However, in the Soviet Union, films were typically published upon release, so production and publication years are close. But there might be exceptions.
In conclusion, the key factors are publication date and whether the copyright term expired before 1993. For films made before 1963:
- Published before 1968: public domain.
- Published 1968-1973: copyright extended to 70 years from publication.
Additionally, the 1964 law changed ownership to studios but didn't affect the term duration, which remained 25 years from publication until 1973. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Photographer died in 1894, but publication date is unknown: what's the US copyright status?

The photographer of File:Franz Brentano in Vienna, 1875.png died in 1894. The image currently has the license template "PD-old-70-1923". Is this correct? If not: does it need another tag? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if it had been unpublished before recent times, it is in public domain in USA per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 but the template states that the photo should have "never [been] published prior to January 1, 2003" in order to be PD. Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed: we either need to show that it was published prior to 1923, or wasn't publishd prior to 2003, for it to be PD in the United States. If it was published without a copyright notice and PD in its source country (Austria?) in 1996, we can use PD-1996, but again we would need evidence for both of those. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me that 1875 is not the date of the photography, that's the date of the artifact, which is obviously a publication. And for publication to matter, it has to be be with the permission of the copyright holder, which is deeply unlikely for works generally considered in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Where does 1923 come from in the above?

Luckhardt died in 1894, so it is clearly out of copyright in Austria (p.m.a. + 70)

So the only question is U.S. status:

• out of copyright in Austria before 1996, so URAA restoration does not apply.
• Any authorized publication anywhere before 1930 would mean PD in the U.S.
• If it were first published 1930-1977 with authorization, with a copyright notice and (if 1963 or earlier) with proper renewals then it would still be in copyright in the U.S.
• If it were first published 1978 through 28 February 1989: similarly to the previous point, but with some slack about registration of copyright in lieu of notice.
• If it were first published 1 March 1989 through 2002 'with authorization, then it would still be in copyright in the U.S.
• If it had no authorized publication through 2003 it would be PD in the U.S.
• If it was first published 1930 through 28 February 1989 with authorization but without proper notice, it would be PD in the U.S.

So all the scenarios that could make it copyrighted in the U.S. would require that the first authorized publication was authorized by Luckhardt's heirs more than 35 years after his death (and more than 54 years after the picture was taken); that (unless after 28 February 1989) this first authorized publication of a photo by an Austrian of an Austrian conformed to U.S. copyright law; and that said publication happened before 2003. Seems pretty unlikely to me. I think it is reasonable to assume it is PD in the U.S., barring evidence to the contrary. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we trust a reliable source when it claims that a photo is public domain?

Our source of the photo File:Max Scheler2.jpg is the en:Great Norwegian Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia says that the image is public domain. Can we trust this information or do we need to remove the image if we cannot identify a source where the photographer directly declares the image to be public domain? This issue came up at en:Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Value_theory/archive1#Images,_biblio_and_footnotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The picture is, by force, older than 1928, and en:Great Norwegian Encyclopedia is a reliable source. I'd safely assume it's PD-Old.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

A creation date of 1928 isn't enough to assume PD: we either need:

• A publication date before 1930 -- and photographs are often not published (ie, made widely/commercially available) until long after they are taken.
• To show that it was not published until 2003, and either:
  • That it was created before 1905.
  • That we know the photographer, and they died before 1955.
• Or that it was published without compliance with US formalities, and PD in the source country in 1996.

See Commons:Hirtle chart. The encyclopaedia does not say that it's PD, only that they haven't identified any copyright upon it, and therefore that they assume it's PD, which is far from the same thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Publication though was not defined in the US copyright acts before the 1976 act (which became effective in 1978), so the courts stepped in. Carl Lindberg provides many details in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. One of them is that if the photograph was taken by a professional photographer, usually in exchange for money, then the sale of the photograph to the customer was publication (as far as the US is concerned). --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, old pictures were usually published when leaving the photographer's custody. Since the photographer is unknown, this is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There is Category:PD per authority, where a trustworthy source identifies a work as PD without explaining why, and we simply accept the PD status as long as there is no contradictory evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"public domain" in which jurisdiction? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes a simple reverse image search is helpful. The photograph in question is identified here as a ca. 1925 work by German photographer de:August Sander. So it is a German work, and since Sander died in 1964, it is not in the public domain in Germany yet. The file should be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This changes everything, so Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Scheler2.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion is that the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia is apparently not a reliable source as far as copyright claims are concerned. --Rosenzweig τ 16:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for looking into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Bluto copyright

Hi, Was the copyright of Bluto renewed? Nobody has commented on COM:UDR#File:Blutowindow.png copyright was not renewed so far. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright rules in Japan

I raised a concern regarding the upload of items that are owned by Japanese museums or individuals. see Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Japan. - Wikkyshor (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Status of UK signatures after THJ v Sheridan (trying again)

I brought this up a couple of weeks ago, but it got bumped to the archive without comment. I think it would be a helpful conversation to have. I have pasted my earlier comment below. Please comment if you have any thoughts on this topic. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As discussed at COM:TOO UK, the 2023 court case of THJ v Sheridan moved the threshold of originality to a somewhat higher threshold of "author's own intellectual creation". I doubt many signatures would be above this threshold, but the section at COM:SIG UK has not been updated to this effect. Should that be done? And, if so, perhaps we should consider a mass restoration of deleted UK signatures? A mass restoration of logos would not have made sense, because many logos still fall above the relatively low UK threshold, but that doesn't seem likely for simple signatures any more. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Locally uploaded freedom of panorama images

Slovenia has no freedom of panorama. If I upload an image of modern building or statue locally on sl.wiki and publish it under {{self|cc-zero}}, does the image falls under fair use, which means minimal usage and low resolution file? Slovenian law allows free usage for non-commercial purposes of any kind for such material. Janezdrilc (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The question is best posted on the Slovenian Wikipedia version of the Village pump, if ever there is. There are village pumps in every local wiki websites. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is we have no legal expert so there is a confusion of tolerating full resolution files. What is Wikimedia Foundation general policy on such cases? --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

"Fair use" is a specifically common-law doctrine, and Slovenia is not a commons-law country.

The Slovenian Wikipedia has its own rules for non-free content: sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice. I don't read Slovenian. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Help Reviewing My Uploads (User:Skibjm08)

Hello, I have recently become aware that some of my uploads may not comply with Wikimedia Commons' licensing policies, particularly concerning images of sculptures, branded products, or other copyrighted works. I would appreciate it if someone could review my uploads and advise on any that should be nominated for deletion. My gallery is available at: User:Skibjm08. Thank you for your assistance. I was acting in good faith. Skibjm08 (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the time and inclination to go closely through all of your uploads, but some strike me immediately as problematic:

• File:Johnnymercerawards.jpg
• File:JimmyHawkins.jpg I believe the photo-within-the photo, a still from It's a Wonderful Life, is still copyrighted.
• Certainly File:Soul Statue.jpg is a copyrighted statue, as is PeytonManningStatue18.jpg.
• I don't offhand know the copyright statuses of the other sculptures. If they date from 1 March 1989 or later they are certainly copyrighted in the U.S.; otherwise, could require some research.
• and you would do well to use a Gaussian blur or other means of hiding the extensive texts from museums on files like File:Edthorptrophy.jpg or File:Georgewashingtonshoebuckle.jpg. Note on the latter you would not need to hide everything, but where it gets into copyrightable prose, then you probably should.

Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Flickr and File

File:Chopped_white_chocolate_chunks.jpg gives a dead link for its Flickr source. The file was uploaded in 2009, but the earliest saved page on the Wayback Machine is 2016. In the archived page, the licence is given as nc-sa/2.0/, while the Commons file describes the licencing as simply CC BY 2.0.

It says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 5 May 2010, 15:13 by Mindmatrix. On that date, it was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the license indicated."

Is this a case of the uploader to Commons getting the licence wrong? Or has the Flickr uploader changed the licencing retrospectively? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave I suspect the Flickr uploader changed the license sometime after the file was imported here, perhaps expressing displeasure that their image got exposed in various media and platforms due to having an imported file here, and decided to change the licensing. Nevertheless, the Flickr uploader is too late; CC licenses are technically irrevokable. We have {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks JWilz, I've added the template now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A series of copyvios

A user has uploaded a number of images that are obviously scans from 1989 or 1990 images and not "own work" from 2025, that is, derivative work. The true copyright holder is not named, much less do we have their consent.
I marked the first one or two I came upon as copyvio but have since discovered that there is about 20 of them. Do I have to mark them all individually or is there some sort of batch process? Can someone help with this please? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

"own work" simply means they own the copyright. If they are scanning their own slides from 1990 or whatever, the license is still fine and there are no copyvios -- the uploader is the copyright holder as we generally assume. Only if these were first published elsewhere, which you can find, would there be some copyright issues. I have scope concerns looking through some of those, and quite possibly some privacy issues. There is a batch process for deletion nominations, but not all of their uploads have either of the above concerns. Some are probably fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that reasoning does not make any sense to me. The uploader claims "own work" from 2025, which quite clearly means she scanned the images from somewhere in 2025. I don't see any indication for assuming that she took the photos herself 35 years ago. --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 14:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you see any indication that she did NOT take the photos herself 35 years ago? If so, then Nakonana (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, see below. --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The photos are clearly dated in the filenames and descriptions. The value in the date field is just the date of upload (maybe of publication). It has nothing to do with copyright and does not cause something to be a copyvio. Only the ownership of the copyright matters, and if these are not previously published, then the uploader clearly has access to something nobody else does, and usually that indicates an ownership of copyright. Either they took them themselves, or they are family photos where they inherited the copyright. Either way the licenses are fine and valid. If the latter situation, it can help to use a license tag with "heirs" or mention that, but that is not strictly speaking necessary. "own work" just means they own the copyright, not necessarily that they are the author (though that information is welcome too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

These should be dated accurately, though, even if the most accurate they can do is something liken {{other date|between|1988|1992}}. Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jasmindawes, there is no reason we should be talking about this user behind their back. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

We are not. I addressed her on her German WP talk page. She replied that these are from "family property" which, to me, clearly says that she herself is not the photographer. I assume that she has since lost interest because the article they were meant for has been speedy deleted on the German WP. --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously if she has lost interest we won't sort it out, but if she is still interested and had inherited the rights to these photos, {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} would be perfectly acceptable (in conjunction with correct attribution and dating). - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Nelson Photo News (NZ)

This defunct New Zealand magazine (which ceased publication in the early 1970s) has been digitised by the Nelson Museum with a CC-BY-NC-ND license, which I realise of course is not compatible with Commons requirements. However, a former editor of the magazine has advised me that he is willing to allow two of his own published photographs (which he took himself and holds the copyright for) to be added to Commons. However, he no longer has access to the original negatives - we would have to use the copies from the Museum's website. What's the best way to go about this without argument? Muzilon (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

COM:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of a similar case where a photographer uploaded a photo to Commons that happened to have been published previously in a certain journal. Some Commons Admin did a Google Image Search for the photo, came across the image in the journal online, and "speedily deleted" the photo, saying it must have been 'stolen' from the journal and that the uploader was lying about being the photographer/copyright holder. The photographer then had to argue with COM:VRT before the latter grudgingly approved the upload. I would prefer not to have a similar incident here. Muzilon (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: If the file uses the {{PermissionTicket}} template, it will not be speedy deleted. Nosferattus (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it will be simplest for me to use my own Commons account to upload the two photos with a {{Permission pending}} tag, and the editor/photographer (who doesn't have a Commons account) can then email his 'blessing' to VRT citing the Commons URL's. Muzilon (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality - Felix Gonzalez-Torres billboard

Hi all, hoping for some second opinions on a threshold of originality question. This work by Félix González-Torres - "Untitled" (1989), first published in the U.S. - comprises a billboard with a series of phrases/names/events and dates in white text against a black background. The billboard is super visually simple and most of the phrases are clearly PD (this is from his series of date portraits/date lists), but I'm of the mind that it might be eligible for copyright by virtue of arrangement, similar to certain found-text poetry or other semi-derivative text-based works. Any other thoughts?

Wondering if the images of this work should either be nominated for deletion or re-formatted and integrated into the relevant category for works by the artist under the threshold.

Thanks for any insights! 19h00s (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s: That is a tough one. I would suggest creating a deletion discussion for it. Nosferattus (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nosferattus and anyone interested: Deletion discussion 19h00s (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Can We Upload *my* Logo?

Can We Upload This? This is just an anonymous username (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please have a read at COM:Licensing, COM:SCOPE and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Trademarks. Then, you can ask any question that are still unclear. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

PD-1996

Buenas ,el Template {{PD-1996}} se aplica si las fotografías, logos,etc. pasaron al Dominio Público antes de URAA?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Requiere que retuvo derechos de autor en su páis original de publicación en 1966. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure to understand Jmabel's answer to the question.

{{PD-1996}} se aplica si la obra pasó al dominio público en el país de origen antes de la fecha URAA, que es 1996 para la mayoría de países. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pere prlpz: me siento, la culpa es mía, no leía la plantilla, solamente veía el nombre. Creía que AbchyZa22 preguntó si la restauración de derechos en los EEUU aplica, el revés de lo que preguntó. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Coca-Cola AI ads: screenshots OK?

I'm looking at uploading pieces of the AI-generated Coca-Cola ads, which are covered on the en:AI slop Wikipedia article. This behind-the-scenes video suggests that most of the images were generated entirely using AI; however, there appears to be some human authorship in the videos as a whole:

• Most of the Coca-Cola trucks have logos edited onto them; there's one clip where the Coca-Cola logo is spelled "Coca-Coola" and is right above the wheel instead of taking up the entire side of the truck, which was clearly AI-generated. (Screenshot here)
• The images of Coke bottles were created partly through 3-D modeling, so the rigging is copyrightable.
• The finished ads were made by assembling individual video clips by hand.
• The background music is based on a pre-existing composition and was recorded by humans.

So it seems to me that select frames from the ad would be okay to upload, especially when there is no evidence of human authorship in them. The "Coca-Coola" one would be especially suitable for the article as it illustrates the AI methods used. Qzekrom (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Derivative work involving simple flags and simple texts

A new editor uploaded File:EU-Japan Centre New Logo.jpg for the article en:EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation. The said editor has previously claimed to be an intern in the same organisation. I believe that this logo is in public-domain because EU and Japan's flags are too simple to meet threshold of originality, and apart from that, the only other content in the logo are simple texts. So, what are the copyright tags that this logo should have? —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:EnglishHeritageLogo.svg

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but for File:EnglishHeritageLogo.svg, I'm like 99.99% sure that the copyright tag is wrong. The logo was designed in 1984 by Negus & Negus, a British graphic design firm. I doubt the uploader holds any claim to copyright just because he converted it to SVG. Even then, it would probably qualify for public domain per Template:PD-textlogo, right?  Bait30  ^{pls ping me when you reply?} 18:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

So am I allowed to unilaterally change the copyright tag on the file based on this?  Bait30  ^{pls ping me when you reply?} 21:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bait30: The SVG may be copyrightable, so I wouldn't remove the license, but I'd add the PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

So like this?  Bait30  ^{pls ping me when you reply?} 02:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Photograph made available for the public to download, already uploaded to Commons

Hello. I came across File:Portrait of Cardinal Advincula.jpg, which lists the Manila Cathedral as both source and author and indicates CC Universal Public Domain Dedication as the license.

I verified that the photograph is from a Google Drive link in a Facebook post by the Manila Cathedral. The post says:

As our gift to everyone, here is a link where you can download high resolution portraits of His Eminence.

Does the file indicate the correct attribution and license and/or is permitted to be uploaded in the Commons? P-JR (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@P-JR "As our gift to everyone, here is a link where you can download high resolution portraits of His Eminence." — to what extent does the cathedral administration allows the usage? "Our gift to everyone" seems vague. Can the image be used in for-profit content of vloggers or content creators? Can the image be used on a travel website that makes profit through advertising? Or can the image be reused by advertising firms however they like? COM:Licensing requires media files that can be reused even for commercial reuses by users around the world, especially by all Pinoys with regards to content from the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 I agree with you. In this case, would it be best to clarify with the cathedral administration or the Archdiocese of Manila under what terms the photographs are being released? What process does the Commons recommend for this?

Otherwise, would the file need to be deleted to avoid potential copyright issues? P-JR (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@P-JR the cathedral must send an email to Wikimedia Foundation if ever they agree to have that particular work licensed freely (email address is found at COM:VRTS). However, they can also send an email expressing disapproval to the commercial Creative Commons licensing or public domain licensing, in which case someone who's aware of the content of the correspondence may nominate the existing file for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Email: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

But if the cathedral disagrees, they may send thru: commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org (if they desire to have the existing file here deleted). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Thank you for this guide! I will look to contact the cathedral or archdiocese when I find the time. P-JR (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Médicos Unidos

Kind regards. I wanted to ask if this logo ([17]) met the threshold of originality. I see it consists of the national flag of Venezuela and of text, so I've thought that it would not be protected due to its simplicity, although I wanted to confirm this. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. We have no info on the TOO of Venezuela, but I think this one is good to go Bedivere (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Roger that, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus:La bandera venezolana esta al Dominio Público pero el logo es simbolo circulo significa se puede publicar (Derivative of a PD image is below TOO). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight of the Amazon Queen license

So I've noticed some odd stuff on the screenshot File:Flight of the Amazon Queen.jpg.

• The licensing info is tagged as PD, but looking at the Debian COPYRIGHT file of the game, it never mentions anything about dedicating the game to the public domain, only the build/packaging scripts. If the PD tag is incorrect, how do you handle that then? I don't think it's worth creating a license tag just to be used for this single screenshot, and {{Attribution}} doesn't seem to fit. Any ideas?
• The game seems to be DFSG-approved since it's on the main Debian repositories, although some parts of the license seem a little questionable for me, like 2) says "[...y]ou may charge a reasonable copying fee for this archive, and may distribute it in aggregate as part of a larger & possibly commercial software distribution [...]", it doesn't specify what is a "reasonable copying fee" which could be something less than a cent, IDK.
• And also 3) has "[...y]ou may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes reselling the game as an individual item. […]" I guess that's kind of a similar situation to {{OFL}}? Since the "don't sell the font by itself" was brought up in DR, yet the template was kept.

Any thoughts or clarifications? :P SergioFLS (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

What matters for screenshots is the copyright status of the game assets (sprites), not the code. As long as the assets are released under the same license as the rest of the repository, all is good.

Regarding the SIL Open Font License, the FSF maintains that "a simple Hello World program" satisfies the requirement that the font be bundled with other software if it is sold, so it doesn't really prevent the OFL from being compatible with the open source definition.

(For those not familiar with the term, DFSG stands for Debian Free Software Guidelines.) Qzekrom (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

FOP-US vs US-gov

Which scripture to follow? If you have an opinion, please join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amelia Earhart Statue by Mark and George Lundeen.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Chinese works before 1990

Concerned page: COM:CRT/China.

Upon closer inspection to the alleged retroactivity, the clause quoted on the page only meant that retroactive protection was for works that were still in copyright when China'a first-ever copyright law was enacted in 1990.

It appears the world's most populous country (until mid-2020s) had complicated history of copyright. An informal copyright law existed during the Sung dynasty. The three first official copyright laws were enacted in 1910, 1915, and 1928. When the Communist Party took over in 1949, the 1928 law was abolished, and no formal copyright law existed from that year until 1990, when PRC passed their first-ever copyright law. (read this)

Nevertheless, during 1949-90, informal aspects or copyright prevailed, mainly concerning remunerations between authors and publishers, in the form of administrative orders and regulations. The 1982 Audio Visual Measures stipulated reproduction rights on audio-visual materials and -for the first time in the history of the centuries-old land - permitted judicial action against infringers of protected material. Still, the international definition of copyright did not exist in China until 1990.

Assuming these facts by Yang (1993) are true, here are important questions:

1. Is it possible that all Chinese works before 1990 are automatically in PD, considering that Beijing refused to recognize the copyright law of the Nationalists from 1928, and only started (and enacted) their own copyright law in 1990?
2. Considering that the retroactivity clause quoted at COM:CRT/China is only valid for works that were protected when the 1990 law was passed, it may imply that some works (or categories of works) were protected before 1990. What are those or which categories are those?
3. Is it possible that there may be some parallel situation to that in the US? Considering that (per Yang 1993) informal copyright rules and regulations existed during 1949-90, mainly concerning remunations over uses of literary works and rules governing reproductions and royalties on audio-visuals. Could it be that copyright registration was the norm during 1949-90?

More insights and comments needed. This may mean that we must remove {{FoP-China}} tag from images of many Chinese buildings and monuments (completed before 1990), if these are found to be unprotected works from the beginning. Also, tons of deleted old Chinese photos may be restored as unprotected (unregistered) pre-1990 Chinese works (again, assuming the facts above are true).

Pinging some Chinese-speaking users @Teetrition, Liuxinyu970226, Wcam, Shizhao, 猫猫的日记本, 1969社论, 农业学大寨, N509FZ, 茅野ふたば, HingWahStreet, and 沈澄心: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably @BrightRaven, Jianhui67, Jusjih, King of Hearts, Minorax, Mys 721tx, VIGNERON, Clithering, Hehua, Sanmosa, Ghren, For Each element In group ... Next, Ericliu1912, 暁月凛奈, and 自由雨日: should also be mentioned due to recent likely matter on zhwiki VPC. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A complicated thing is that the ROC government actually moved to Taiwan, instead of being completely dissolved, in 1949, and some works created in Chinese Mainland before 1949 may be distributed in Taiwan after 1949, so the copyright law of ROC should still be in force (unless the copyright has been expired under the copyright law of ROC) for those works created in Chinese Mainland between 1928 and 1949. However, it still implies that any PRC copyright law-related tags should be removed from those works, as the copyright law of PRC is unrelated to those works.

For the works created in Chinese Mainland between 1949 and 1990, as the time gap for copyright law being absent in PRC is smaller than 50 years, the retroactivity clause may have effectively covered the time gap (50 years for legal bodies and organizations, 50 years after death for natural people) for all kinds of works intended to be protected by the copyright law of PRC. This implies that even if we know the absence of copyright law once happened in PRC, it does not change a lot for the current situation. Sanmosa _Outdia 02:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to add more difficulty to the issue: Mao Zedong did establish the current PRC 1st October, 1949, but they had control over areas since the very early 1930s, they proclaimed the Soviet Republic 7th November, 1931 and, even if somebody claims they were rushed then by the KMT, after the long march they did hold control of Yan'an until the PRC was established, and Yan'an was of importance for cultural works then.

I don't have a solution, but just to add more nuances to the debate. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The retroactivity clause could have covered most of these though. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 08:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked Deepseek and it seems like retroactivity happened:

The 1990 Copyright Law (Article 55) didn't require works to have formally held copyright before 1991. Instead, it asked: "Would this work have qualified for copyright protection *if the 1990 law had existed at its creation?"** 156. This is a legal fiction ("as if" principle), not historical reality.

Case Study:Black Cat Detective (1984)

• Creator: Zhu Zhixiang (died 2015).
• 1991 Status: Zhu was alive → hypothetical copyright term (life + 50) was still running → granted retroactive protection until 2065 15.
• Key point: The work didn't "hold" copyright in 1984, but it met the criteria for protection under the 1990 law's standards.

In short: The law created a hypothetical timeline for pre-1991 works. If their "as if" copyright term was active on June 1, 1991, they received protection. The absence of formal copyright pre-1991 was irrelevant to this legal fiction.

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Advertisements on buses in no-FOP countries

We seem to have accumulated a large number (14k+) of images of advertisements on buses. The vast majority of these advertisements are complex enough to be considered creative works, and many are in countries which do not have freedom of panorama for 2D works, including the US and UK.

Which of these is the case?

1. These photos should be deleted if they contain advertisements which are not clearly de minimis. (Cropping is generally impossible, as the advertisements are on the body of the bus, and blurring or pixelating thousands of images is clearly not practical.)
2. These photos can be kept as photos of bus advertisements, but should not be categorized based on the contents of the advertisement (e.g. Category:Film advertisements on buses in the United States).
3. These photos can be kept as photos of buses, but should not be categorized as containing advertisements at all.
4. These photos can be kept and categorized however we wish.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

For the Philippines, I have nominated at least one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:01739jfQuirino Highway Santa Monica Novaliches Proper Quezon Cityfvf 03.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Urgs. I doubt that we can truly work only on those 4 cases... In my opinion, it would rather often be option "1,3", meaning: deletion where the advertisements dominate as in JWilz12345's sample above, and on a case-by-case decision, keeping without ad-related categories (File:5505 NWFB 4X 11-08-2018.jpg and File:5214 at Cross Harbour Tunnel Toll Plaza (20180829104045).jpg could be OK as bus illustrations; n.b. I took them only as examples, not checking FOP rules for their country of origin). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

De Minimis enough?

Hi,

I just uploaded an image and wanted to get an opinion on if it's de minimis enough. I'm worried about the sculpture in the background (the sloping object). The focus is on the informational plaque but I wanted to have a slightly wide crop to have some element of the sculpture visible so you can see the location of the plaque.

Let me know if I should crop it more. Thanks! 9yz (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

We have Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. As you're referencing the sculpture in the description, it'll IMHO fall among the "Maybe" examples in the table below the guidelines. In my personal opinion, I think that the sculpture parts are not yet DM, but I may tend to have a rather strict interpretation of the subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If the sculpture was cropped out, would the image still be in COM:SCOPE? If so, then it's probably de minimis. The sculpture is also only partially visible. And the photo could not be used to depict the sculpture itself (e.g. if you cropped out the plaque and only left the sculpture, then the photo wouldn't be really usable). Nakonana (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It is ok to upload Burj Khalifa image to Wikimedia Commons?

Why many Burj Khalifa images are deleted on Wikimedia Commons? 6D (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The building is still protected by copyright. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content (Commons:Licensing), and there is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates (COM:FOP UAE). --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@6D just like what Rosenzweig said, it is a building that's still protected under copyright. Technically speaking, though, UAE has very limited panorama exception, but that only permits broadcasters (not photographers) to freely showcase or exhibit images of any copyrighted public landmark without permissions from architects, sculptors or other artists who authored those landmarks. So, we cannot accept any good quality image of the world's tallest skyscraper due to unfriendly UAE law. It may be OK though to upload images of general skyline or cityscapes of Dubai in which no single building (or two or three or so...) is the intended subject (that is, COM:De minimis). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Due to the recent nature of many cities in that country, we cannot host 70-80% of that country on Wikimedia Commons, due to unfriendly FoP law of UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It is so funny that Commons can host image of world’s tallest mountain (Mount Everest) but can’t even host image of world's tallest skyscraper (

Burj Khalifa). 6D (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@6D your logic is wrong. Mount Everest is a natural feature, not a work of an architect or artist. Here on Wikimedia Commons, respect to copyrights of architects and sculptors of landmarks from 100+ no-FoP countries precedes the need for supertall skyscrapers.

UAE law remains unfriendly for Wikimedia movement, since their Freedom of Panorama clause is Article 22(7) of their copyright law:

"Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places."

Broadcasting programs, not photographs or even videos of netizens/content creators. Unsure when UAE will be "slapped" with the IT/new media age, since their law was last updated in 2021 (just four years ago). Or, perhaps they do not agree that their art, including buildings, are to be exploited by anyone w/o needing architectural or sculptural copyright permissions, and that's why they retained the severely-restricted FoP rule concerning their landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Template show for unintended copyright violations on recent uploads

Hello,

I cam across some recent uploads tagged {{Mindef}}. Normally, that would be totally fine, but as recent uploads, the needed variable "BY-SA" wasn't set, so files actually under a share-alike condition were stated as CC-Zero. I fixed two of them (Special:Diff/1038278976 and Special:Diff/1038278588). But I do not think that we should falsely advertise files as being more free than they are in reality ASAP. I'm not proficient enough to set up a search query to get all uploads that came in since 2022-01-01 up to now, could somebody help out? Or would that be a bot task (simply add "1=BY-SA" in the template declaration)? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, this needs to be changed. I don’t think it is a good idea to have a default option when it comes to licenses, let alone making the default option to be PD. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is a PetScan query for files with {{Mindef}} in Category:CC-Zero uploaded after 2022-01-01. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked for a bot to do this maintenance: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Remediation of unintended copyright violations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Photo taken by an unknown German officer during World War II

Hello,

I'd like to have an opinion on the status of the photograph on the left of this French newspaper article, the one showing the Morlaix viaduct in the background, in Brittany (France).

This photo was taken from January 29 or 30, 1943 by an unknown German officer just after the Royal Air Force attempted to bomb the viaduct. The officer had the photo developed by a local photographer, Mr. Normandière, who took the opportunity to make a copy for himself. It's this copy that appears today in the press or in the book on this bombardment. I haven't found anything about this German officer. Having had this photo developed by a local photographer, he must have taken it privately. I've just written the article on this bombing on the French Wikipedia and I'd like to use this photo, which clearly shows the failure of this bombing. But what's the status of such a photo, whose author will probably always remain unknown ? TCY (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The photos still remain unpublished because their author have never authorized their publication. Though he may well have been killed in action during the war. This the latter case his works are in public domain in Germany, France and USA. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer. I find it curious that been killed in action during war places the author's works in the public domain. This is not the case in France, where there are even wartime extensions of copyright.

I did some research of my own in the case of an unknown author. It seems that under French law, copyright subsists, but that publication is authorized with the mention DR (droits réservés = reserved rights). A sum must be set aside for 10 years by the publisher in case the author or his successors are found. In practice, this reserve is never set up; only the mention DR with possibly the addition of unknown author is made.

TCY (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

been killed in action during war places the author's works in the public domain — being killed in action is not what would place it in the public domain. The rule is usually that a work remains protected by copyright for 70 years after the photographer's death. If the photographer had died in 1945, then the copyright would have simply expired in 2015 (or 2016) and that's why it would be in the public domain. It doesn't matter under which circumstances the photographer would have died in 1945 — be it by being killed in action or just of natural causes like a heart attack. What matters is the 70-years-after-death rule regarding copyright protection. Nakonana (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

in the case of an unknown author — I think there are some EU-wide laws when it comes to such cases? Are those laws overruled by local French law? See {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Nakonana (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

For anonymous works in the EU, the copyright is now 70 years after publication. If not published in the first 70 years after creation, then the copyright ends then. So if not legally published before 2014, it should be PD in the EU. Some countries could have older laws with longer terms, but not sure that's an issue here. The U.S. term could be longer, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)