Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
2. Have you read the FAQ?
3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Polish newspaper article from 1937

Hello, I'd like to upload a photo of a newspaper article from 1937 that my father had. The article describes an airplane accident that my grandfather Jerzy Gablenz (1888-1937) perished in. I'd like to understand how I can legally add this document to page: pl:Katastrofa lotnicza pod Piasecznem. According to a quick search in Google... Under the copyright law in effect in Poland in 1937, a newspaper article entered the public domain 50 years after its publication. The Polish copyright law of March 29, 1926, was in force in Poland at the time the article was published. The law stipulated a 50-year term of protection that began at the time of publication. The 50-year period began in 1937, therefore the copyright expired on December 31, 1987. As of 2025, the article has been in the public domain for many years. In 1994, Poland passed a new copyright law that retroactively extended copyright terms for some works. However, this did not revive the copyright for works that had already entered the public domain under previous laws. Thank you, George Gablenz George Gablenz (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If everything you say is accurate, then this should be in the public domain, but I'm not sure if we have a relevant template. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Who can I follow-up with that can tell me whether a relevant template exists, or can be created? Thank you. George Gablenz (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can use {{PD-Poland}} provided that there was no copyright notice attached to the photograph. This is explained in the text which is generated by the tag. Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl: {{PD-Poland}}, as written, is specific to photographs. This is a newspaper clipping. It the template is to be usd for that purpose, it should be expanded to be more inclusive. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to take into accout both US and Polish copyright laws. Under US laws, any work that was published between 1930 and 1965 has entered the US public domain unless the protection was renewed wthin 28 years of publication. I think it safe to say that newspapers did not renew their copyright protection. Under Polish law, if the author is known, then copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death (good luck finding that!). If however no author is mentioned, then copyright lasts for 70 years from publication. Thus, if the newspaper article does not have a known author, it is out of copyright, otherwise you need to find when the author died. The relevant copyright tags are {{PD-anon-70-EU}}} (if the author is not known) or {{PD-old-70}} if the author is known and died on or before 31 December 1955. In addition, you should use {{PD-US-no notice}} (unless the newspaper is known to have established a US copyright) and the {{PD-Poland}} in respect of any photograph (especially if the photographer is creditied). Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl: Under US laws, any work that was published between 1930 and 1965 has entered the US public domain unless the protection was renewed wthin 28 years of publication: that is only true of works that were first published in the United States, totally irrelevant for a Polish newspaper. What would matter (under U.S. law) for any Polish newspaper in the era we are talking about is whether it was still in copyright in Poland on 1 January 1996. If it was, then under the URAA the U.S. would grant it copyright protection for 95 years from its initial publication.

But I think you are either missing my point in my prior post here, or that your last response was a non sequitur. My point was that if {{PD-Poland}} is not specific to photographs, then it should be reworded. Right now it begins, "This photograph is in the public domain because…" and continues, "…all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad)…" If the same rules apply to written works, it should say so; if different rules apply to written works, we probably need an additional template. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights tells me that the since the newspaper article to which you are referring was in the public domain in Poland in 1996, it remained in the public domain in the United States as Poland did not have any reciprocal agreements with the US until 1996. There is nothing in that article about the retrospective extensions of copyright in Poland applying in the US. I deduce therefore that even though the retrospective application of copyright applied in Poland, it did not apply in the United States. I suggest therefore that you apply the PD templates and wait for somebody to complain. Martinvl (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl: In short, you are either still missing the point of what I posted, or rejecting it without directly addressing it. I'm done saying my piece here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Or, you know, the US had a bilateral copyright agreement with Poland in 1927, Poland signed UCC Geneva in 1977, which the US had already signed, and the US signed the Berne Convention in 1989. 1996 has nothing to do with the relations between Poland and the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: it is the relevant date for URAA restoration of U.S. copyrights for any countries that were signatories of te Berne Convention at that time. (Sorry to come in here again, but this was an entirely different point.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Air traffic control recordings below TOO?

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

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

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

pd-scan or pd-map or both?

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

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

Clarification on photographs of identifiable people

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

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

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

Review of File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colosio murder

The video of the Colosio murder was apparently published on public domain ([1]) (PGR desclasifica el video completo del asesinato de Colosio- Grupo Milenio) but i don't know if uploading the video. ಠ ಠ 18:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Canadian Crown copyright

A professor of intellectual property law, quoted by the Supreme Court of Canada, observed that "what exactly Crown copyright covers is unfortunately murky". In a recent deletion request, a user raised the question of Canadian Crown copyright, which may be examined in light of the 2019 decision of the Supreme Court in Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., [2019] 3 SCR 418. I do not necessarily expect that many users of Commons will find interest and time to read the decision of the Supreme Court, but it would be helpful if even a few users read it and can offer their opinion on the matter and contribute to the definition of some consensus on what Commons can interpret as potentially included or not in the notion of Canadian Crown copyright. Beyond the file under discussion in that deletion request, and beyond works from the same source, the interpretation, broad or narrow, of what circumstances can cause works to attract or not a Canadian Crown copyright can have an impact on the understanding of the copyright status of works made available through entities of the eleven declinations of the Canadian Crown, the eleven governments, provincial and federal. There are also some comments on this page. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Duncan Cameron appears to have assigned his ordinary copyright (PMA+70) to the LAC. This is not analogous to the situation in Keatley, where land surveys are published through a formal scheme with the government. The LAC owns the copyright, and may even be first publisher on some of the photos (but were they really? He was a photojournalist, so many of his works may have already been published), but without a formal scheme in place like the land surveys, I don't think this transforms the copyright. But, as I said, LAC owns the copyright, if they want us to have his image, they can release it under a suitable free license. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• That's an interesting court case, thanks. It appears that Canada still has roughly the wording on what works have Crown Copyright as the UK Copyright Act 1911. The UK got even a bit more aggressive with their definition in their 1956 law, but scaled it back to be more similar to PD-USGov (mainly works created by employees) in their 1988 law, which is still current. It appears that Canada did not make that 1988 type change, and still has the "published by" criteria from the older UK laws. The cited ruling constrains that some, where it can still include works published by the government, but only ones that filled some particular public purpose, if not actually authored by a government employee. In that case, much like the UK, it would seem the government is able to hold normal copyrights transferred to them, as those are not in the definitions of what makes work be Crown Copyright. On the other hand, the current Australian law *does* seem to say that works transferred to the government do change to have Crown Copyright terms -- so it may not be universal among Crown Copyright countries. Given that though, donating materials to the National Archives would not seem to come under the definition, so would still seem to have their normal copyright. But, it would mean the National Archives could then decide the license -- and the source page for that says there are no restrictions on use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If I may add related observations:

• Yes, in Canada, it's not at the moment of the donation to the government that a work acquires a Crown copyright. It is its publication, under the control of the government, that causes a work that was under ordinary copyright to acquire a Crown copyright, from the moment of that publication. That was already the case, but the Supreme Court restates it explicitly in this decision. The difficulty is to determine what exactly constitutes a publication under the control of the government. Applying the Copyright Act literally, the government could acquire a Crown copyright on any work created by anybody, merely by somehow causing it to be published. In the Keatley case, the judges of the Supreme Court basically wanted to partly limit the scope of Crown copyright by devising some additional requirement.
• In that case, the judges were split into two groups who proposed different criteria to achieve that. For the judges in the majority (4 of the 7 judges), a work acquires a Crown copyright when, at the time of publication, the government has a sufficient degree of control of the work and over the publication. For the judges in the minority (3 of the 7 judges), to acquire a Crown copyright, a work must serve a public purpose such that the government must ensure the accuracy, the integrity and the dissemination of the copies of the work. In Keatley, the land surveys met both tests. They were held by a government entity and there was control on their publication, which satisfied the judges of the majority. They served an important public purpose, which satisfied the judges of the minority. As a result, all judges agreed on the conclusion that the works had acquired a Crown copyright, but the two groups disagreed on the test to apply to reach that conclusion.
• But what happens when a work meets one test but not the other? In particular when a work meets the test of the majority (a sufficient degree of control) and does not meet the test of the minority (a sufficient public purpose). That is the situation that we will likely encounter often. It may be the situation with the photos by Duncan Cameron. Library and Archives Canada apparently has full control of those photos and of their publication. The conclusion seems unescapable that this situation meets the test of the majority (a sufficient degree of control). However, the photos probably do not serve a public purpose that would require that the government must ensure that the copies are accurate, integral and disseminated. They probably do not meet the test of the minority. The solution may be to apply the opinion of the majority and not the opinion of the minority. If the photos by Duncan Cameron were under a Crown copyright that began when the government archives published the photos (i.e. made copies available to the public), that Crown copyright likely expired in 2021 (assuming that the archives made copies available to the public in 1970 soon after the acquisition).
• Quick note: At Library and Archives Canada, the "restrictions on use" relate to things other than copyright, such as conditions required by the donors. Unfortunately, free licenses are not offered by Library and Archives Canada.

-- Asclepias (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I missed that the public purpose was a minority. The ruling then would be on the sufficient control over publication. That is not that far from the older UK Crown Copyright definition, which sucked in quite a lot of works. It's a bit on the edge though, as it would be safer if both tests are passed -- but it would probably take another case with a bit different circumstances though override that, as that is the best guidance we have. I still don't think that applies to the donation of works to the Archives, though. Many of those works probably had been previously published, and any library could hold them -- not sure the Archives being chosen for that changes them to Crown Copyright. I do have to disagree on "restrictions on use" though. The statement under that for the entire collection specifically talks about reproduction. In the case where the Archives owns the copyright, they are the ones who decide what the restrictions on use are. Maybe the donor wanted them freely available, but those statements seem directly in line with a copyright license. They have a separate section for "restrictions on access" which is the policies for actually seeing the physical items; "restrictions on use" would seem to be more about the copyright itself, to me. Donors don't have to transfer copyright, so can certainly restrict via that mechanism. But in this case it seems explicit that the Archives are the copyright owner, and a restrictions on use coming from them would seem to be a copyright license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Large amounts of (potentially) pirated content being hosted on a user page??

I suspect this is a digital archive for someone, like they're using it as storage rather than other storage providers; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Atlasowa/New_video2commons/2025_June_1-10 This is the page i initially found, i was attempting to find all instances of a song and came across this, with multiple full episodes of The Amazing World Of Gumball just here.

User:Atlasowa/New video2commons heres the entire list, it feels like a rabbit hole.

Is this sort of thing allowed? It seems like its violating alll sorts of copyright law, but then again i see lots of videos with varying use/significance HyperNover (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@HyperNover apparently, for example File:The Amazing World of Gumball- Gumball & Darwin vs. The Evil Baby.webm, the underlying video is commercially licensed (by Cartoon Network India). I'm not sure if CN India has authorization from their parent firm to release the cartoon works into free culture (commercial-type) Creative Commons licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

One related video was deleted but later undeleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tom & Jerry - Enjoy the Eternal Cat & Mouse Game of Tom & Jerry on Cartoon Network India.webm). I doubt on Cartoon Network India's legal right to commercially license their parent firm's productions, though, considering India remained among the "priority watchlist countries" in 2018. An email correspondence from Cartoon Network's parent firm may be needed to clarify if they indeed gave CN India the authorization, as well as the extent of CN India's rights to relicense the Cartoon Network productions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the user is displaying the videos of Category:Uploaded with video2commons but in chronological order of upload. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I started below: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Cartoon Network India. Nosferattus (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Cartoon Network India

All 4000+ videos posted on Cartoon Network India's YouTube channel are marked Creative Commons Attribution. These include videos of numerous cartoon franchises owned by numerous different companies (Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, Ben 10, The Amazing World of Gumball, Teen Titans Go, Lamput, Kiteretsu, Grizzy & the Lemmings, Batwheels, etc.). There is no way in hell that Cartoon Network India somehow overthrew capitalism and convinced some of the most litigious media companies on the planet (Warner Brothers, DC Comics) to relinquish control of their intellectual property and give away their cartoons for free in perpetuity. Please put on your thinking caps and ask if this actually makes sense. Clearly someone somewhere has made a mistake. If you think that's unlikely, notice that they also consistently misspelled the title of Grizzy & the Lemmings. Clearly this YouTube channel has low quality control and no one has noticed the incorrect license setting. We need to do two things, neither of which I know how to do:

1. Nominate all the videos in Category:Videos by Cartoon Network India for deletion (in a single discussion if possible).
2. Blacklist the Cartoon Network India YouTube channel from video2commons.

Can anyone help with this? Nosferattus (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. To me, this is ridiculous on its face. This does not appear to be a purposeful choice by the actual rightsholder, but rather a designation made by an overzealous or misinformed staffer at a foreign subsidiary, which may or may not have the legal authority to license these videos as such - and that's not a legal authority I believe we should be comfortable "assuming" they had. We need some kind of proof that this was purposeful and authorized by the rightsholder, unlike with individuals, where it's generally safe to assume that any person has the legal authority to release their own work. However, it does appear that all the shows Cartoon Network India has uploaded are in fact owned by Cartoon Network or their parent company, Warner Bros Discovery, some via other subsidiaries (for example: Grizzy & the Lemmings was produced in part by the French TV channel Boomerang, which is owned by WBD; Batwheels is property of DC Comics, which is owned by WBD; and the rights to Tom & Jerry were purchased from Hanna-Barbera by Turner Broadcasting in 1986, which merged with TimeWarner in 1996 and eventually became WBD). 19h00s (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Warner Brothers Discovery's Clip and Still Licensing guidelines and contact info may be of relevance here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I took my own initiative and just sent correspondence to clipandstilldept@wbd.com, in hopes of getting a response from at least one department from WBD. Fingers crossed, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Did you hear anything back? A faster approach might be to repost one of the videos on YouTube and see how long it takes to get it taken down with a copyright strike. My guess is less than a day. Nosferattus (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nosferattus no response from the Clips and Stills Department of Warner Bros Discovery, so far. I don't have an account on YT (and I don't have any plan to create one in the forseeable future). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s and JWilz12345: Since we didn't hear back from Warner Bros (I also emailed them a few days ago), I went ahead and created a deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Videos by Cartoon Network India. Unfortunately, I don't know how to properly nominate all 68 files without doing it manually. Does someone know how to do that? Nosferattus (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

PD statues of old scanned aerial imagery (NOAA)

Hi! I would like to ask if PD-USGov-NOAA applies to 1950s Hawaiian islands, [2], 1940s Guam, [3]. Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Copyright on pictures printed in newspapers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifying the license of my uploads

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR review request

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

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

Cover Pages of Unclassified NATO Standards

There was a recent discussion here about STANAG standards. Following that discussion, I decided to avoid further controversy and instead upload the corresponding obsolete unclassified NATO standards, which are no longer available on the official NATO website (nso.nato.int provides free access only to current unclassified standards and removes obsolete versions/editions), to the English Wikipedia with an appropriate description stating that this file has a number of restrictions, including a ban on commercial use (See: Use of NATO content and brand. www.nato.int (07 August 2025).).

However, there's one problem: I cannot illustrate the cover page of such a standard in Wikipedias in other languages, particularly Russian and Ukrainian, where I primarily write articles. Alternatively, I could upload a corresponding image of the cover page of a given unclassified NATO standard to each Wikipedia, but does that make sense? Can I upload it only once here? Or do I need to duplicate this image in each Wikipedia?

Let me remind you that the title page of graphic images has the NATO logo and may contain an image of the signature (in modern standards, only the logo). JurKo22 (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems the problem has resolved itself: Wikimedia Commons' licensing policy should allow derivative works and commercial use, but NATO prohibits this. Therefore, I'll have to upload the title page to Wikimedia Commons in different languages ​​wherever I or anyone else wants to use it, and describe the permissions and restrictions for this image. JurKo22 (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@JurKo22: might some of those title pages be simple enough to be {{PD-ineligible}}? - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: : Thank you very much for the interesting idea! You're absolutely right: the title page of NATO standards only contains the NATO logo, which is not protected by copyright, and in some cases, the signature of the person who approved the standard, which is also not protected by copyright. The rest is trivial information that is widely known, so it bears no signs of originality and is therefore not subject to copyright. Therefore, the title pages of unclassified NATO standards can be freely posted here. As for the standards themselves, it's up to the English Wikipedia to decide whether they can host the standards if the unclassified standard is no longer available for free download from nso.nato.int. However, NATO has no objections if the standard is distributed unchanged and exclusively on a non-commercial basis by other organizations. NATO maintains that its unclassified information should be open to the public, and if this is the case, then NATO unclassified standards are, in my opinion, acceptable for inclusion on the English Wikipedia if they are no longer available for download from the official website, because this respects the public's right to access open NATO information that is of interest from a military history perspective. JurKo22 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Simplifying addition of copyright tags on public domain buildings from noFoP countries

Context of the discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWilz12345&oldid=1123917503#US_architecture

I'm suggesting a major simplification on adding license tags to description pages of images that show buildings that are in the public domain in their noFoP countries. In my suggestion, only including the license tag of the image itself and the license tag pertaining to the architecture's public domain status in the noFoP country. Here are the following reasons:

• Simplification so that the re-users won't get confused if they come across the licensing tag section.
• In a practical sense, US copyright status on buildings is not a big deal, since US law provides exploitation rights for the general public with no conditions, like the architect or the building designer must be attributed. There are no strong moral rights concerning copyright of physical buildings under US federal law, so technically it's 100% legally safe to host public domain buildings from countries without FoP on Wikimedia Commons without the need to use US copyright tags.
• Prevents overzealous tagging.

Adding US copyright tags is only a big deal when it comes to the US copyright statuses of old photos, old artworks (like paintings and models), old taxidermies, old books, old films, and other old non-architectural works, due to COM:URAA complication. For public domain buildings from countries without FoP, there is no complication under US law. Regardless of copyright status in the US (courtesy of the December 1990 cutoff date under US law), there is full (unrestricted or 100%) exploitation rights through photography, without attribution and moral rights conditions. So again, I propose simplification of tags by only having image license+source country architectural PD status from now on.

See, for example, File:01258jfIntramuros Manila Landmarks Wedding Cars Buildingsfvf 06.jpg (for a public domain Philippine building). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I'm not sure what you are contrasting that to. Your example is already more elaborate than I've seen done on images of older buildings in Romania, which I don't remember even seeing an equivalent of {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. People just indicate the photo license, and it is implicit that if they have uploaded it here they claim either that the building itself is free of copyright, or what is shown of the building is de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I'm contrasting it with the image file descriptions that complicate licensing tags by adding the PD-US-architecture tag, despite images of buildings not being problems under US law. For example, File:Pica Ciamarra.jpg uses a tag that was originally intended for public domain buildings in the United States, not in other countries. Cmadler's intent on creating the template was for its usage on American buildings, not foreign buildings; see this 2012 discussion.

Following my suggestion, PD-US-architecture must be removed, and a relevant PD-Italy tag is retained, simplifying licensing information and preventing overzealous tagging that does not benefit reusers in any way. Additionally, as I said above, there is no legal risk in removing PD-US tags from images of public domain noFoP buildings since the US law does not grant any architectural rights to pre-1990 buildings in the first place (no moral rights for architects under federal US copyright law). Retain {{PD-US-architecture}} for buildings located in the United States. Pinging also @Friniate: who added the PD-US tag to the aforementioned PD Italian building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I would agree that {{PD-US-architecture}} is never needed for non-U.S. photos. Which is a much simpler way to say this, and seems to mean the same thing. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 01:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel yes. That's my point, PD-US-architecture was originally meant for photos of US buildings, not for non-US buildings.

There's no need to provide licensing explanation on US public domain status for non-US buildings with expired copyrights in their source countries, considering that buildings can be freely reproduced in photographs under US copyright law, with little or no conditions (like attribution or "the building must be depicted as it is found there"). In practical sense, there is no legal risk for Wikimedia Commons if we remove PD-US-architecture from photos of non-US buildings with expired copyrights. {{PD-old-architecture}} can be modified to remove mention of PD-US status. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

license template review for Arbeit macht frei (1873)

Hi, there is a previous thread at the main VP: COM:village pump/Archive/2021/11#No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only (Q47530884) but since that was four years ago and I only just now got around to actually uploading file:Arbeit macht frei, Lorenz Diefenbach, 1873.pdf, I thought I would make a fresh thread. Did I use the right template? Arlo James Barnes 12:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it was missing a U.S. tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

King's flag for Australia

What is the copyright status of the flag designs in this FoI request (PDF reply viewable as HTML at [4])?

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

Restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is PD-chem applicable to any structural formula?

So the question is any structural formula is eligible for PD-chem? I mean the template says simple structural formula but what is simple in the context? Is any formula even which involves 200 symbols is eligible for pd-chem or simple has any real "simple" meaning?

EDIT: I am primarily interested in this style of image File:((phenylacetyl)amino)acetic_acid.svg DustDFG (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the word "simple" has not been defined. In my view (for what it is worth) any representation of a chemical molecule that can be represented as a two-dimensional diagram using standard rules (probably defined by ISO) is simple. Therefore anything that cannot be represented in this way is not simple. Do others agree with this? Martinvl (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I am bad at chemistry... By saying two dimensional diagram you mean any diagram of this stye? File:((phenylacetyl)amino)acetic_acid.svg

User:DustDFG (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: Yes, that would be standard. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. "Simple", in this context, is in reference to the style of the diagram, not the complexity of the compound being diagrammed. A diagram like File:Ramoplanin A2.svg should still be PD-chem, for example, even though it's not chemically "simple". An elaborately decorated chemical diagram would not be PD-chem, regardless of the compound it depicted. Omphalographer (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

DustDFG (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload static maps made with MapTiler tiles to Commons?

Hello,

I would like to create a static map (PNG export) using MapTiler Cloud tiles (free tier, API key).

MapTiler states:

• Data: OpenStreetMap (ODbL)

• Styles: CC-BY 4.0

I would upload the resulting static image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and add the usual attribution

"© OpenStreetMap contributors, © MapTiler"

Is this acceptable on Commons?

Thank you! Rajovic (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The copyright is not the problem. But we are not a platform for such large amounts of data and files. GPSLeo (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Are photos of signs are eligible for PD-sign?

Are photos of a sign like this File:Sign-1180324,_Heuston_Station,_Dublin,_Ireland.jpg eligible for pd-sign? DustDFG (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: No. There is enough besides the sign (in this case, a rather interesting texture) for the photo to certainly have a copyright of its own. You could presumably create a derivative work showing just the sign, which would be PD-sign. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

DustDFG (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know why that people upload low quality plane image viewed from satellite from Google Maps?

File:Lockheed Jetstar at Oakland Intll.png is obviously copyright violation from Google Maps (you can even see "© 2025 Google" in lower left and upper right of this image) and this image is too low quality that will not be useful. So, why people are still uploading these image? While many much better alternatives exist such as File: N814NA Lockheed Jetstar NASA (9079513730).jpg 6D (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The copyvio image was uploaded by User:Mynameis676767. Per their username and userpage, I think it's likely just somebody who's either very young or doing some copyright trolling. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Does the low-res image in the public domain force the hi-res version into the public domain?

We encounter this from time to time, has there been a definitive consensus? Does the low-res image in the public domain force the hi-res version into the public domain? We see this with advertisements in Billboard magazine for album covers. We have the low-res advertisement, the higher-res album cover, and the highest-res scan of the negative or first generation print. RAN (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we've generally presumed that, though I'm not sure I've seen the coherent legal argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Resolution is not an intellectual or creative distinction. Color, maybe so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please check PD-textlogo applicability for some Japanese universities

Hi there, I wonder whether the logo (or seal, or symbol) of the following Japanese universities could be seen as PD-textlogo?

• University of Tokushima: https://www.tokushima-u.ac.jp/about/profile/symbol/
• Shiga University of Medical Science: https://www.shiga-med.ac.jp/introduction/logo
• Saga University: https://www.saga-u.ac.jp/koho/UI-guideline.pdf
• Hirosaki University: https://www.hirosaki-u.ac.jp/wordpress2014/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/HIROSAKI_UV_VImanual20220627.pdf
• Seikei University: https://www.seikei.ac.jp/university/common/img/logo_footer.svg

JULIANISME (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)