Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06

Contestation

je viens de decouvrir d'une personne avait utilisé ma photo personnel sans autorisation, et je n'arrive pas a la rejoindre ; je voulais savoir comment puis-je la trouver ou contacter? la personne porte le nom du compte Shehuhikmah94 Raccih (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Raccih: Bonjour, Ça dépend des circonstances et si vous voulez vraiment contacter cette personne dans ce cas-ci. En théorie, si l'utilisateur a contribué relativement récemment, la manière habituelle de contacter un utilisateur d'un site Wikimedia est d'écrire un message sur sa page de discussion. Si l'utilisateur a fourni une adresse de courriel, il est possible aussi d'utiliser la fonction «Email this user» («Envoyer un courriel») qui se trouve dans la colonne des outils lorsque vous êtes sur sa page d'utilisateur. Toutefois, dans le cas particulier de la personne que vous mentionnez, Shehuhikmah94, il n'est pas certain que vous réussissiez à la contacter par ces méthodes, puisqu'elle n'a été présente sur ce site Commons que brièvement il y a plusieurs années, en 2020. Elle avait téléversé seulement deux fichiers, dont un a été supprimé, comme on peut le constater dans ses journaux d'opérations. L'autre fichier, encore présent, est celui-ci. Cet utilisateur a aussi été présent en 2020 et en 2021 sur le site de Wikipedia en langue anglaise, où il a tenté de créer quelques pages, qui ont été refusées par cette Wikipedia, comme on le constate sur sa page de discussion de cette Wikipedia. Si vous tenez absolument à tenter de contacter cette personne, vous pouvez essayer les méthodes ci-dessus, mais vous n'obtiendrez pas nécessairement de réponse de sa part puisque ses comptes n'ont pas été actifs depuis plusieurs années. Mais demandez-vous d'abord si vous avez vraiment besoin de la contacter. Ça dépend ce que vous voulez dire par «avait utilisé» et si votre problème est relatif à Wikimedia ou pas. Par exemple, si le problème est qu'il y aurait ici, sur le site de Wikimedia Commons, une photo sans autorisation, vous pouvez demander la suppression de cette photo, si vous dites de quel fichier il s'agit et d'où provient la photo et que vous expliquez en quoi exactement consiste le problème. Si votre problème est une utilisation à l'extérieur des sites Wikimedia, c'est différent. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Raccih and Asclepias: apologies here for a foreigner's question: does ma photo personnel here mean that Raccih is the photographer or the subject? - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's unclear as it would be in English with "my personal photo". It could be one or the other or both. That's why I suggested to the person to specify what exactly they mean. Given that not much is known about the other user nor about what photo it is, the photo in question could be a copyvio, or a violation of personality rights in a non-public context, or out of scope, or any combination of that. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't know if the question has something to do or not with the file uploaded by Shehuhikmah94, but anyway that file is a photo that was on the social media of the subject. So, possibly copied from there. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Marsha P. Johnson Image

Hi! I'm currently working on an article on the Wikipedia side and would love to use this image of Marsha P. Johnson for it. However, I'm a bit unsure about the PD justification and am wondering if anyone has any insights on what its copyright status might be. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any confirmation at the original source that the photo is PD. The photo needed to have been published without a copyright notice before 1989 in order to be PD, not simply printed once without notice. I'm not sure if Hank O'Neal (the photographer) made that image as part of a published series, but we would need confirmation that it was indeed published without a notice before it can be hosted on Commons. Given the annotations by Allen Ginsberg on the back of the photograph as described at the source, it may have been published; but those also could've been the annotations of a friend on an unpublished image. The auction house that was selling the image described it as part of an "archive", which could also imply that the works were unpublished. We need more info for any sort of decision imo. 19h00s (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agregar LicenseReview a las fotografías que están al Dominio Público

Buenas, se puede agregar el témplate {{LicenseReview}} a las fotografías,logos,etc. que han pasado al Dominio Público por ejemplo como este (File:Logo White House (USA) 2025.png) ,para mi opinión agregar este témplate (LicenseReview) fue buena idea?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

LicenseReview is for when a license specified on an external website needs to be checked by a license reviewer. It's usually not for PD works, as such evidence needs to be supplied with the upload. Or in the case of something like that, it's pretty obvious just by looking at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Scans of UK passport covers

Hi, What is the copyright status of these? Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Passports of the United Kingdom was closed as kept, but DeFacto has pointed out that the UK Gov document [1] says The Controller of His Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), who manages Crown copyright, must give permission before a British passport and the Royal crest image on the front of a passport can be reproduced. What do you think? Yann (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

UK crown copyright would expire after 50 years. When was the first passport with that particular rendition of the crest? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a slightly more detailed document by the HM Passport Office regarding this issue: [2]. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Flickr photos with non-compatible terms in description

Hi, we have hundreds of photos like File:Del. Joseph McNamara, SOTC 2024.jpg from Flickr accounts like Glenn Youngkin and Virginia Office of the Governor that were uploaded to Flickr with {{Cc-by-2.0}} but their description on Flickr (and copied over to Commons) includes non-compatible terms like the following:

Please note that these photos are for personal use only. If posting to social media or sharing the photos, the following byline must be used: Official Photo by Lori Massengill, Office of Governor Glenn Youngkin.

^ Special:Search/"Please note that these photos are for personal use only" finds 1,989 files with this language

Some contain additional disclaimer such as

If you share them with friends or family, make sure to include the disclaimer below:
These photographs are provided by The Office of Governor Glenn Youngkin as a courtesy and may be printed by the subjects in the photograph for personal use only. The photographs may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated, or broadcast, without the written permission of the Governor's Office. These photographs may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, or promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the Governor, the First Family, or the Commonwealth of Virginia.

^ Special:Search/"The photographs may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated, or broadcast, without the written permission of the Governor's Office" finds 1,464 files with this language, overlapping with the above

My hunch is that the uploader to Flickr did not understand the terms of the CC license when they selected it, so I was thinking of creating a DR with the hundreds of photos in question, but I figured I'd ask here first. Thoughts - does the Flickr license override the description or vice versa? -Consigned (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned have you tried emailing them for clarification? Perhaps they thought CC was "copyright controlled" or "copyrighted (2x)" instead of Creative Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

On top of that, Virginia is not among the states that release their state works either in PD or in copyright-free CC licensing (COM:CRT/US#US States). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned: When the specific terms are in contradiction with the CC license tag, the writer did not have the intention to offer the CC license. There is no free license. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compete to Win, Richmond - 1-23-23 - 067.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compete to Win, Richmond - 1-23-23 - 075.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned As a counterpoint: Considering that they maintained both the exact same license and the same wording across uploads throughout Youngkin's governorship, with multiple photographers' works released this way, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the license usage; it does not seem like a one-time mistake that was made by someone careless with the drop-down menu. There is the option to fully copyright works, which they did not choose. If a public-domain release is irreversible, and if the licensing choice was so consistent, I do not see how release terms can override a clearly-and-consistently-chosen CC tag. (I'm not an expert, and @Asclepias seems to have provided evidence of precedent on this, but I wanted to add my two cents.) Packer1028 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the language in those restrictions seems more geared to non-copyright issues -- even if public domain, you can't use images to misrepresent things, or use them to suggest endorsement (those are publicity/personality rights etc.). Some of that may be boilerplate they post elsewhere, without considering the copyright license they put on it. But, a little of the language does directly relate to copyright. Normally I'm pretty leery of a specific statement on the page, but if that statement is pasted in many other places for their material, it's a harder question if it trumps the explicit copyright license they put on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If nothing else, the copyright status of a work licensed as "CC but it's for personal use only and you must contact us in writing before looking at the image" (or whatever) seems dubious. Even if the Creative Commons license technically renders any license riders ineffective, the fact that the author included this language at all renders their licensing intent unclear - per COM:PCP, we should probably treat this as non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The restrictions of that flickr account contradict practically all the principles of free licenses, including: use for any purpose, use by anyone, modifications allowed, no further permission required. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Photographs of people have a lot of other restrictions on them -- that is mostly reminding you of that. Political figures are probably mostly attuned to those, and that is most of what the restrictions are talking about. "Free" here just means you can use it without violating copyright -- many uses of those photos would violate publicity rights even if public domain from a copyright perspective. You can also violate laws if you modify stuff but represent it as being the original, if it's damaging somehow -- that again is mostly what the restrictions are about. But, the broadcast stuff is more directly copyright. It seems like the same generic boilerplate copied from www.governor.virginia.gov, where there is no free copyright license (though has a pointer to Flickr). I've seen similar wording at times on PD-USGov stuff (though the broadcast and "not otherwise reproduced" goes a lot further here). The question is if it's a significant enough doubt, or more theoretical, given that a presumably competent legal staff has placed a CC license on it after all of that. Normally I would say yes that an explicit license clouds a CC license, but if this was just straight-up copied from the web page without thinking about the copyright license, I'm less sure in this particular case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question here is: are we concerned with what is legally defensible, or do we wish to defer to a someone's more restrictive but unenforceable intent? The fact remains: they posted publicly with an irrevocable license. Legally, that would presumably be something any reuser can hold them to, as long as the reuser honors the terms of the license. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

According to this VPC discussion, the additional terms would constitute a separate license, so the CC license remains valid. However, I wonder what would happen if I were to release a work under a license where "This License constitutes the entire agreement" language is not present and included those terms. Would that also be considered multi-licensing, since by specifying the name of the license I am treating it as a separate thing? prospectprospekt (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

1991 Polish newspaper photo

Does this photo (https://mieszkaniec.pl/henryk-machalica-mieszkaniec-nr-7-1991/) of a Polish actor published on this Polish newspaper in 1991 fall under PD-Poland? Lemonix1004 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Taxidermist works

Would the work of a en:taxidermist be something considered eligible for copyright protection? Could there be creativity involved in the way the work (e.g. an animal) is posed or otherwise costumed? For example, would File:Cocaine Bear, Kentucky for Kentucky Fun Mall (cropped).jpg be a derviative work in which the photgraphed stuffed bear is eligible for copyright protection? I tried Googling it and found what appears to be a US court case saying such works can be eligible for copyright protection here, but I can't read the full page without registering for the site. There's also File:Primate Taxidermy, Rahmat International Wildlife Museum and Gallery.jpg showing various monkeys. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: See also Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Taxidermy and Category:Taxidermy-related deletion requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Taxidermy is, in essence, a rather morbid sort of sculpture. While the animal's skin isn't a copyrightable work, there's plenty of creative work involved in posing it. Omphalographer (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Article 32 of the North Korean copyright law and government works

Concerned page: COM:CRT/North Korea

There has been a heated deletion discussion over whether to keep the North Korean national anthem (Aegukka) on Commons for two months at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aegukka - National Anthem of North Korea.wav. I have seen several deletion requests of this file mostly concerning Article 12 and the URAA, but I discovered that Article 32 of the North Korean copyright law also has a special provision for documents and says: "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner...when a copyrighted work needed for state management is copied, broadcast or used in compilation". This would make the national anthem and other government works copyrighted free use. This is similar to Template:PD-IDGov because it allows reproduction and broadcasting of works without explicitly mentioning the public domain.

Other than the national anthem, my question is which government works are covered by this law. Article 12 clearly exempts documents for state management that are made without commercial intent, but unlike Article 12, Article 32 seems to cover at first glance all works needed for state management, regardless of purpose. Although there are copyright notices placed all over government websites, since the North Korean government heavily relies on state media propaganda to maintain control over the country's beliefs, Article 32's provision allowing works needed for state administration is possibly a loophole. I would like further discussion on this issue. VTSGsRock (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That gives the state itself the right to violate copyright for its own purposes, but doesn't make something free for everyone else. It clearly states that a work is copyrighted; it just makes a form of fair use that the government can use it if they deem it necessary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation is just the same as Carl's. It is a fair use/fair dealing clause or an exception that the North Korean government can use copyrighted works only for the purpose of "state management". It is not relevant for Wikimedia Commons because: a) we aren't part of Pyongyang regime, and b) media hosted here must be reusable for everyone for any purpose, not only for managing the states, be it North Korean government or governments of all countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, since there is definitely a reduced relative clause in this sentence of the English translation of the North Korean law. When the relative clause is added, the text would read "when a copyrighted work that is needed for state management is copied, broadcast or used in compilation", which would imply that works that are needed for government activities can be used freely. This is probably the most accurate reference since a very similar translation appears in WIPO Lex: "when a copyrighted work needed for the state management is copied, broadcast or used for compilation" VTSGsRock (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That's still the same thing. It makes that one particular use (by the government) OK, not any use by anyone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock assuming that it is indeed a possible valid copyright exception/limitation, I doubt that their national anthem qualifies as a "work required for state administration" (in this site, the translated term is "state administration"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

For reference, here is the complete translated version of Article 32 as per Law and North Korea, by Daye Gang.

Article 32 (Use of artistic works without permission)
Cases where artistic works are used without receiving the permission of the copyright holder are as follows.
1. In cases where artistic works have been reproduced or translated to be used by an individual or within the scope of family
2. In cases where places such as libraries, literary archives, museums, memorials reproduce artistic works to preserve, display, peruse, or lend
3. In cases where artistic works are reproduced, broadcast, or adapted for school education
4. In cases where artistic works required for State administration are reproduced, broadcast, or used in drafting compilations
5. In cases where an artistic work is to be introduced by broadcasting it or publishing it in a  newspaper or publication
6. In cases where an artistic work is quoted
7. In cases where artistic works are performed for free
8. In cases where artistic works installed in public places are reproduced
9. In cases where artistic works are sound recorded or reproduced in braille for blind persons

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Trying a different route: North Korea's first copyright law dates to 2001. The text of the law does not appear to show retroactivity. This Yonhap source (cited on enwiki article concerning their copyright law) claims there were no copyright laws in the North Korean civil law system prior to the enactment of their first-ever copyright law. Does that mean, all North Korean works are unprotected in North Korea before 2001? (Trying the similar logic as the copyright histories of the US, the Philippines, and the UAE, where some old works are automatically PD due to being unprotected and not given protection by newer, non-retroactive laws.) Though there a complication due to a 1996 court ruling (apparently by a South Korean court) that was criticized due to overstepping of South Korean copyright law outside the territory of SoKor, to include works from North Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a great and clever idea, since there aren't any provisions that specify retroactivity (e.g. one that says that all works published before the law was made will be protected)! This is unlike Poland, the EU or Uruguay (funny enough, the name coincides with the URAA itself while Uruguay took away public domain works twice in 2003 and 2019), where massive amounts of public domain works have been taken away by provisions. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock some caution is still adviced, though. Having no explicit retroactive provision doesn't mean that all prior works are magically in PD. If you haven't read it, I suggest reading the thread I started above, concerning the same issue for pre-1990 Chinese works. It appears that a single, simple clause magically slapped copyright to all Chinese works (as long as the author/s arent yet dead for more than 50 years), and this retroactivity was supported by Chinese court rulings. See COM:China: "The rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations as provided in this Law, of which the term of protection specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of this Law's entry into force, shall be protected in accordance with this Law." (Art. 55 of their first [1990] law) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The same clause still exists under Article 66 of the current/2021 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Clindberg: regarding the possible default PD status within NoKor of North Korean works made before 2001. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

North Korea's URAA date is 2003, so such work would would be restored in the U.S. as of then anyways. They were under no obligation to restore their own works, but the U.S. was. Also, for a sound recording, it also matters when the sound recording itself was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Their first copyright law was in 2001, and doesn't seem to show some sign of retroactivity. I assume that pre-2001 works are also unprotected in the US since they weren't protected in NoKor on the URAA date. Or is there something that US terms are restored to foreign works that are PD on the URAA date due to being PD in the involved foreign country? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The URAA did not restore works if they were public domain through expiration of a term of protection. They do restore works if they were never protected at all in their source country (such as below the source country's threshold of originality, but above the US'). North Korea is also under obligation to restore all foreign works to Berne minimums, just not their own. Unsure if they actually did, but it may not be worth it for other countries to press that matter with the WTO (when the U.S. tried to get away without doing that after joining Berne however, it was an entirely different situation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock: seems Aegukka (the National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) has no chance of being hosted here. Even if it were not protected in NoKorea, it is protected in the United States due to URAA. Worse, the audio file under deletion discussion may be considered as a sound recording, eligible for more complicated US copyright terms. Final nail in the coffin for Aegukka. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

*sigh* VTSGsRock (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: JWilz12345, turns out that we were wrong about retroactivity for the whole time. In a lawsuit on the copyright of North Korean works in Japan, the Korea Film Export & Import Corporation tried to sue a Japanese film distributor over the use of North Korean films, including one film made in 1978. Furthermore, the second plantiff (referred to as X2) made an agreement with the Ministry of Culture that confirmed the copyright to the films. Although the case result was that North Korean works are not copyrighted in Japan (which is irrelevant anyways because Commons is hosted in the US), the case shows evidence that the North Korean government doesn't treat pre-2001 works as PD. The final nail in the coffin has been sealed. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg I'll also correct the part that I added on COM:CRT/UAE concerning pre-1993 works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Carl, this fact may affect several non-architectural Philippine works made before 1972, since several are unprotected due to lack of registration (formalities existed until November 1972, per COM:PHILIPPINES#General rules). It seems, Wikimedia Commons-wise, being public domain by default in the source country is worse than being public domain due to term expiry, due to URAA. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This stuff is rarely if ever tested in court, but when a copyright owner had no chance of protection, I think it's likely that the U.S. would consider a work restored. If it was PD due to the copyright owner's own inaction, that may be an entirely different situation. They were given the opportunity of a copyright term and basically declined it. That may count as expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg you mean, if (assuming) a pre-1972 Philippine work is unregistered, it is counted as "expired" under US URAA rule? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible to say with any certainty, but I'd lean that way yes. The term of protection was available and the copyright owner chose not to use it, so it made the term zero or very short or whatever the formalities were. (Which were of course inherited from U.S. law.) The URAA seems fairly clear that they will protect works above the U.S. threshold even if they were under the source country threshold. It does not say explicitly what would happen in a situation like North Korea. In the end, a judge would have to interpret the wording is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection with regards to the particular situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Bundestag Image Database

Many of the works - though not all - in the Bundestag Image Database ([3]) have the licensing text "This image may be used for private and commercial, non-advertising purposes. Use of the image on social media is permitted." (example). Some do not have this text, instead saying "This image may only be used for private purposes, as well as for the purposes of political reporting or political education. Use of this image on social media is prohibited." (example), which is clearly unacceptable for Commons. So my question is, is the first one Commons-acceptable? It explicitly states commercial use is allowed but also non-advertising which I am confused by. And if so, what would be the license? Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment nothing in that explicitly authorizes derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I took a look through the database's terms of use. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 seem to indicate broad derivative use is not allowed beyond technical edits; 3.3 specifically says "More significant edits to an image are generally not permitted, particularly via drawings of the image, rephotography, colour changes, cropping or the use of montage techniques.". Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload this on wikicommons?

So, recently I've decided to upload photo from one of the scientific journals and it states that it is under a CC-BY license, but when I go to the RightsLink site it still requires permission (?), it also states that: "Note: This article is available under a Creative Commons License. Please return to the article and check the Copyright Information at the end of the article to clarify which Creative Commons License this article is published under and whether permission is required. Please see the following link for full details of license types: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/". Should I still upload it?

P.S. Here is the link for the article and its corresponding RightsLink site:

1.https://molecularcytogenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13039-015-0142-7#rightslink

2.https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?title=Cytogenomic%20delineation%20and%20clinical%20follow-up%20of%2010%20Brazilian%20patients%20with%20Pallister-Killian%20syndrome&author=Larissa%20Sampaio%20de%20Athayde%20Costa%20et%20al&contentID=10.1186%2Fs13039-015-0142-7&copyright=Costa%20et%20al.&publication=1755-8166&publicationDate=2015-06-26&publisherName=SpringerNature&orderBeanReset=true&openaccess=true

NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You can use this article under terms a CC-BY license but if you want a different license you should use the RightsLink site. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

So it means that I can upload photo from this article without getting in trouble? NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly no copyright-related issue. Figure 2 (the photograph) certainly would need (at least) to be tagged with {{Personality rights}} and might violate Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. You won't "get in trouble" over this, but I cannot guarantee that the photograph would not be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I usually tag photos with an identifiable person with a personality rights warning.

Thank you for the clarification! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Toicon fandom series and possible derivative works

I am in the process of adding more images to Category:Toicon fandom series icons as many of the icons listed at https://web.archive.org/web/20201031052506/http://www.toicon.com/series/fandom (the site is currently defunct, so I am using an archive) are not listed there. All toicon icons were released by the copyright holder (Carol Liao) under the CC BY 4.0 license; however, most icons in this series derive from some element of pop culture (film, television, music, video game, etc.). Some icons depict enough creative elements from the underlying work that they would constitute derivative works; whereas, others may be permitted based on the rule that alternative depictions of an idea (without copying from a specific depiction of the idea) are permitted on Commons or because they derive from {{PD-textlogo}} elements (see further information at COM:FANART).

The main question for this discussion is this: which icons from this set should be disallowed as derivative works and which should be allowed as simply alternative expressions of ideas or as depictions of simple logos? (For example, the icon for "to uncover" should be allowed as it is similar to File:Bullwhip and IJ hat.jpg; and, the icon for "to defend" should be permitted as it depicts the PD File:Captain America Shield.svg.) Before anyone asks, this discussion may also be used as a starter for DRs for some files already in the category. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this Doctor Who image derivative?

File:The Silence (11030194386).jpg is a photograph of a Doctor Who character created in 2010. It was taken at a temporary, paid exhibit. Is it a derivative work? Is it appropriately tagged? Thankyou, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Are 10 musical notes of an ancient Russian telephone ok

I know, weird title, though I'm mostly referring to a Demoscene production for an ancient telephone: AONDEMO.

The YouTube video linked has been uploaded by the author and is tagged CC BY, and features chiptune music driven by hardware similar to a PC speaker.

While I'm aware that YouTube videos tagged as CC BY are OK on Commons, my question is if the 10 notes originally coming from the phone's firmware might make it a derivative work, therefore violating COM:DW?

It's probably worth mentioning that most of the music is original content while the jingle only plays for like three times, though IDK if there's anything like COM:DM for audio. At the worst, I could try muting those portions myself, though I don't really know how to do that losslessly. SergioFLS (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There might be more DW issues in that demo video: At 01:37 the demo features part of the theme song from the Knight Rider series. (Even visually at 01:37, the demo appears to replicate the light sequence from the Knight Rider car "K.I.T.T.", see here for comparison). The video might include further melody bits from other songs/soundtracks, too. Nakonana (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

FlickreviewR 2 reviewed bogus licenses

Hi, I found out that FlickreviewR 2 reviewed bogus licenses, i.e. {{PD-US}} for a recent image from Europe. This should not happen. So is the license at the source valid? Yann (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The photo on Flickr is attributed to "The Chancellery of the Prime Minister / PAP S.A" and marked as Public Domain, however, on the official website of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, photos by the The Chancellery of the Prime Minister / PAP S.A are marked with a copyright icon, see: [4]. The Flickr license seems questionable. Nakonana (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Although, they also have a Creative Commons note on the website here that says: "All content published on this website is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 PL license, unless stated otherwise." Not sure if copyright is transferable according to Polish law. If it was Germany, then the copyright would remain with the photographer and the council couldn't just license the photos easily as creative commons on behalf of the photographer.

Either way, the Flickr license is still bogus because "Commons Attribution 3.0 PL" is not equivalent to "Public Domain". Nakonana (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

"Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material.." Copyright not being transferable doesn't mean you couldn't authorize someone else to license it.

"If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a) , keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties"  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Category talk:Screenshots of Paint.net

Wouldn't the images in this categorie be fair use, not Creative Commons? It seems like they should be hosted on their respective projects (Wikipedia, etc.) instead of on Commons. The screenshot of Paint.NET on the English Wikipedia article is fair use, as well as the images for many other software articles. CoolDino1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: Category:Screenshots of Paint.net - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It used to be under MIT license a long time ago see Template:Paint.NET  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so that means that screenshots of version 3.36 and earlier are all right, correct? CoolDino1 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Massachusetts government copyright

The file File:John O'Keefe.jpg is currently listed as {{PD-USGov}}. I don't believe that's correct, as everything I can find indicates that this was created by the Boston Police Department, which would be a state agency, not federal. It does look like Massachusetts government works can be PD, but only if held by the Massachusetts Archive, if I understand correctly, and I cannot find that photo in their collection. Would tagging this as {{PD-MAGov}} be appropriate, or is it nonfree? Seraphimblade (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Is not the Boston Police Department a municipal agency? Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, hence why it's state. Municipalities are state subdivisions. Seraphimblade (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked because as written in {{PD-MAGov}} municipalities are excluded. Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Municipal governments are not legal subdivisions of state governments in that sense, in the same way states are not legal subdivisions of the federal government and thus federal PD status does not apply to states. And as Ruslik points out, the MA statute explicitly addresses municipal governments, of which the Boston PD is a part. 19h00s (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I missed that (though actually, municipalities are entirely subordinate to states, contrary to the way that states are not entirely subordinate to the federal government, since they're actually given various authorities by the Constitution, but some states do similarly give various levels of autonomy to municipalities. But they don't have to). That said, since this looks to be clearly municipal, looks like MAGov is not an option here. Thanks for catching the part I missed! Seraphimblade (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of descriptions for images from Flickr

Hi. A month ago I imported some images from a Flickr stream. A good percentage of them, including this file have extremely long descriptions. As well as the text "Copyright 2017. Some rights reserved. The associated text may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of Steven R. Shook." I know on Flickr's end that the images are released under a free license, but I can't find anything saying that the accompanying file descriptions would be and it seems that at least Steve Shook thinks his writing is copyrighted separately from the images. So does anyone know how exactly it works? Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1, that seems to be the implicit perspective of Alexwlchan, the tech lead at the Flickr Foundation, based on some of his responses at Commons talk:Flickypedia. For instance, the reason that CC0 licensing for captions cannot be applied to the import of descriptions is that "The title and caption not being auto-loaded is an intentional choice – metadata on Wikimedia Commons has to be CC0 licensed, but there is no license for metadata on Flickr. We tried to be very cautious to avoid license washing of metadata." (source; caption here refers to the descriptions themselves). This was raised before; see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Are we allowed to copy descriptions from Flickr? and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/07#On descriptions of Flickr imports (the latter of which, I personally raised). The prevailing view right now is that the file descriptions on Flickr have the same licensing as those of their associated image files. Of course, having an official response from Flickr or an explicit copyright page on Flickr concerning the licensing of Flickr uploaders' descriptions is more desirable.

If Flickr's perspective is the same as Alex's, then we have a problem for Commons description pages of millions of Flickr-imported image files (including hundreds that I imported). Massive suppression of revisions must be made, if ever. This is, considering that the Flickr image licensing does not apply to descriptions, and those descriptions are "unlicensed" by default. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Yikes. It sounds like something that should have been dealt with in the beginning but just wouldn't be practical to fix now due to the scale of the issue. Although really, it sounds like something should be done about it if descriptions are in fact copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: we need at least some official response from Flickr itself regarding image descriptions (or what Flickr calls "captions" of their images) before proposing any drastic action. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

But be aware, though, that shorter descriptions may be OK if those are below the threshold, as {{PD-text}}-type descriptions. Some Flickr uploaders also copy-pasted Wikipedia excerpts in verbatim to be used as descriptions for their images.

You may want to inspect the original source of the verbose description of the image you're referring to, and see if it originated from an unlicensed source. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I wasn't planning on removing the descriptions if there's no consensus to. But removing the longer ones just to be on the safe side seems like a good idea anyway regardless of if Flickr ever says anything about it or not. Although I'm still not planning on doing that at this point either. At least it's been talked about and there's a reasonable argument for keeping the text until someone from Flickr clarifies things. That's the important thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of situations where copying metadata from Flickr is clearly not problematic: e.g. people copying their own content from Flickr, copying U.S. government content from Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Banknotes of Serbia

I don't think that Category:Banknotes of Serbia fall under {{PD-SerbiaGov}} no where in the official gazette does the government give a picture of how it would (i.e. description of 200 RSD bill, description of 100 RSD bill or description of 2000 RSD bill) instead it created by Institute for Manufacturing Banknotes and Coins – Topčider. No.cilepogača (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so either, at least going by the wording in the template. Although Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Serbia says it applies to "state symbols." But the template doesn't say that and including money in it seems like a stretch anyway. There's also the same issues with stamps of Serbia BTW. People on here tend to take any general license for government works and apply it to stamps and/or currency regardless of if the law specifically says they are PD or not because "state symbols" or some similar clause. I've never been a big fan of it myself but then mass deleting thousands of images for no reason wouldn't be a great alternative. So I don't know. It's one of those things like my conversation with JWilz12345 above this for file descriptions where the issue really should have been dealt with years ago but realistically is to widespread now to do anything about. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I found an actual legal act restricting reproduction of bank so here is a translation of the part I think is relevant.

Decision on the conditions under which banknotes and coins may be reproduced

1. This decision regulates the conditions under which banknotes and coins issued by the National Bank of Serbia in accordance with the Law on the National Bank of Serbia may be reproduced.
Banknotes and coins referred to in paragraph 1 of this point include both those currently in circulation and those withdrawn from circulation but still within the legal exchange period.
2. The reproduction of a banknote or coin, or part of a banknote or coin, refers to its electronic image or image created on a surface, where the general impression is that the item resembles the banknote or coin as defined in point 1 of this decision.
3. Banknotes and coins may be reproduced if it is clearly evident that the reproduction is not an actual banknote or coin referred to in point 1 of this decision, especially in the following cases:
[...]
– when the reproduction is electronic and the resolution does not exceed 72 dots per inch (dpi).

It also says that you can't reproduce a banknote or a coin if it damages the reputation of Serbia or the National Bank.

No.cilepogača (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status confirmation (directed from Teahouse)

Hello. I was directed here from the [Teahouse]! I've uploaded an [image] to Wikipedia for a draft I am currently working on. It is a screenshot of a page of a book written by Charles de La Roncière called 'Le Flibustier Mystérieux: Histoire d’un trésor caché'. La Roncière himself died in 1941. The book is written in French and was published in France in 1934. The screenshot I took is of a digital copy of the book hosted on [Flipbuilder] I assume that as 70 years have passed since the author's death in 1941, the book would be in the public domain, at least in France. I am unsure about the USA or if it would be acceptable on Wikipedia currently. Basically I am just double checking this can be used on Wikipedia without violating copyright! Thanks! 11wallisb (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

(I did originally post on the Teahouse, but was directed here! I hope this is okay! For some reason I am unable to reply there currently?) 11wallisb (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think these symbols and letters are even copyrightable. --Rosenzweig τ 21:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I would normally be more certain, however this specific one is a huge question mark for me. From my research, in the US, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 made many works from before 1964 and after 1929 copyrighted again. This novel was published in 1934 by Le Masque, Paris, a publishing house of cheap fiction. The particular copyright they imparted on their published works is not something I have been able to find unfortunately. However, as La Roncière passed in 1941, copyright would have lifted from 'Le Flibustier Mystérieux' in France in 2012. My question mark is in regards to its copyright status in the US. 11wallisb (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: I think that these symbols and letter are too simple to have a copyright, in both France and the US. --Rosenzweig τ 21:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Thank you for clarifying. I think that is definitely the logical assumption to the symbols and letters on the image itself. My concern would then shift onto the book they are apart of as a whole. 11wallisb (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these derivatives?

Category:Internet memes by decade of introduction has very few files with none illustrating most of the even the most notable major Internet phenomena. Now the 2 only free-licensed illustrations of the This is Fine meme may get deleted but is an unworried mammal sitting in a room of flames, with reference to the meme in the title, a "major copyrightable element" (thus derivative work)? Maybe there's some copyright experts here who know more on that. From Derivative work:

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.

Prototyperspective (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these derivatives of what? I'm not familiar with the original meme image. Copyright does not protect an idea, and "figure sitting at a table in a fire" is pretty much an idea, not expression, which is more in the actual details drawn or photographed. But, if you put some other copyrighted figure sitting in the chair, it's derivative of that even if not the meme. You normally have to look at the original, and identify copyrightable expression (above the threshold of originality) that was copied from the original to the new work. I did ask similar questions on the DRs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The original work in question is this comic. Omphalographer (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say no. There are no specific parts of the drawing copied -- that feels more like an idea to me. Duplicating the entire original text may not be a good idea, but one short phrase should be fine. Something like the plot of a story can be copyrighted -- those often have many many particular details -- but the overall genre can not be. For graphic copyrights, you are looking at the copying of particular curves and graphic elements -- that is where the copyright is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Compare the first image with the first frame of the Gunshow comic. There's more than just an idea being copied here - the whole visual layout of the image is very similar, down to details like the doorway and painting in the background and the positioning of the fires. Surprisingly, the AI-generated image seems less derivative. Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the copyright. It's still pretty broad strokes. I mean yes there is smoke on the ceiling and a door, but usually you need to have a lot more specific copying than that. Is there a court case which ruled infringement along those lines? I don't recall any. If just those elements alone are copyrightable, then nobody else can make a drawing of a room with fire and smoke, a table and a door and a window. To me, it's not particularly close -- that's still an idea. You can describe the scene in text, and someone can take that text and make a drawing based on that, and that is a separate representation of the same idea. Similarly, per Commons:Coats of arms, you have a written blazon of the design -- any drawing made of that design is not a derivative work of the written text (they are separate expressions of the same idea), and any two drawings are not derivatives of each other unless they incorporated actual linear parts from the other drawing. It takes a *lot* of small details in say a book plot before it gets obvious that it was effectively copied in another work. It's virtually impossible for a graphic work to be derivative of a literary work -- they are different forms of expression. If there were lots and lots of details copied, it's probably possible for something to be derivative of a particular comic drawing, but there's maybe 3-4 elements, maybe replicated in a very broad way here. Most rooms have doors and windows, etc. I don't think you can copy all of the text from the comic -- that probably is copyrightable as a whole -- but one short phrase should also be fine. You can make references to something else, without actually copying the expression. In the Compendium, part 911, when it comes to characters -- Applicants should not refer to or assert claims in “character,” “character concept, idea, or style,” or a character’s generalized personality, conduct, temperament, or costume. If the applicant uses these terms, the registration specialist may register the claim with an annotation, such as: “Regarding authorship information: Registration based on deposited [pictorial, graphic, or sculptural] authorship describing, depicting, or embodying character(s). Compendium 313.4(H).” In other words, you get a copyright on that particular drawing, but not ideas extrapolated from it. When actual character copyrights get involved, it can be far easier to make a derivative work in these areas, but that doesn't exist here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a great point, and let me add this: when we're discussing whether a file is a derivative work or not, I think we should be making arguments rooted in formal substantial similarity tests to determine if expression was copied, not just eyeballing. With that said, I do have a feeling that the first image is substantially similar but not the second (though again, you may be right that the copying needs to be more concrete). Qzekrom (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that this needs to be made on a case by case basis. This is the purpose of the deletion request as it specifically should address whether the image is a derivative work.

Could I request the discussion be made at the specific deletion request, because that is the ultimate venue that will decide whether they are deleted or not. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, there are already open DRs for the two images: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023-06-29 This-is-not-fine by-David-Revoy.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png. Personally I don't see a problem with an empty Category:Internet memes by decade of introduction - internet memes are intellectual works, often copyrighted or fair use, so it's understandable and expected that not many are appropriate for Commons. Consigned (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The first image probably not. The second one I'd say is a derivative. Although if neither one is then I'd seriously wonder why they are being hosted on Commons to begin with since images like these only have educational value in so far as they suppose to depict the original work of art. Otherwise what exactly is educational here? The concept of a "this is fine" meme? Come on. Is anyone going to argue a depiction of the concept (whatever that means in this situation) of a non-notable meme is within scope? The fact that Prototyperspective or anyone else is claiming the images are educationally close enough to the original meme kind of proves they are derivatives. Otherwise File:This Is Fine (meme).png would just be an image of a dog in a burning building and this discussion wouldn't exist to begin with. Nor do I think the file would have been uploaded to Commons in the first place. But you can't have it both ways where it's close enough to the original to educate people on the meme but not close enough to be derived from it. There's no other instance where that would fly on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Hard disagree, I think the meme is notable; it's been called "the meme that defined a decade." Qzekrom (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Uumm OK. Good for The Atlantic I guess? The arguement here is supposedly that the images aren't based on or derived from the meme to begin with though. The whole thing is "Schrödinger's meme." The images are both close enough to the original to depict the meme but then somehow not enough to be derived from or based on it. Makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

They absolutely illustrate the idea of the meme (one sense of "based on"). They are not strictly "based on" in a copyright sense, which means copying more than de minimis specific expression (conflating those two meanings is what usually gives rise discussions like this). You then added an argument about notability and scope, and the above was a response to that. There are multiple articles from reliable sources on the meme, so it's an educational subject and worthy of illustration. Not all projects can use the actual strip under fair use. I'm leery of using AI in a lot of contexts, but using it as a tool to illustrate a concept could well be fine. We have no automatic policy to delete such works (and if these were in use on a Wikimedia project, they are automatically in scope, so arguing here is moot). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) An image can be close in style or even overall layout, but still not be close in terms of copyrightable expression. Think of it like photography: if I photograph the same person as someone else did, the results might look similar (same subject, same setting) but unless I’ve copied their exact composition, lighting, and angle, it’s still my image. Not a perfect analogy, but the point stands.

The idea of "a dog calmly sitting at a table in a burning room", or more broadly the concept of detached optimism or denial in the face of chaos, is not protected by copyright. What’s protected is the specific expression of that idea in a particular drawing: the particular dog design, the brushstrokes, the exact layout, coloring, and proportions used in the original comic. Any and all depictions of "a dog sitting at a table surrounded by flames" is not automatically the property of the original artist, just as no one owns the exclusive right to draw "a man screaming on a bridge" after The Scream.

Intentional homage, parody, or thematic reference does not equal copyright violation. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I nominated File:This Is Fine (meme).png for deletion not because of it being AI generated, but despite it. There's already established policy and/or consensus on here that unused amateur artwork is out of scope. AI generated artwork doesn't get a special pass from that just because it's created with a novel technology. Sure, there's no automatic policy to delete such works, but there isn't one not to delete them either and I would have nominated the image for deletion regardless. I'm not the one making this about AI. Nor am I acting like the image should be deleted because it's AI generated.

2. Have either one of you heard of [5]? If not, it's a Palestinian children's television show that featured a character losely based on Micky Mouse. Or at least it did until they killed it off supposedly because of copyright concerns. Are either one of you going to argue it would be OK for there to be an American television show featuring a mouse character called "Nicky the Mouse" or something that looks and sounds similar to Micky Mouse? I don't think a random image of "a dog sitting at a table surrounded by flames" would be a durative. A meme of a dog wearing a hat while sitting at a table surrounded by flames that someone specifically says illustrates the "This Is Fine" meme would be. "This isn't Captain America. It's someone who looks 99% him and I'm saying they depict the character" is completely different then in an image of some dude holding a shield while wearing a flag. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Pretty sure you nominated it because it's AI-generated or that this played a major role. And there is no policy against hobbyist/nonprofessional/user-made artworks and lots of them in for example the Fan art categories or generally across the huge Category:Visual arts category where somewhat good-looking modern digital are is pretty scarce and of particular usefulness. The meme is very notable and there are just 2 illustrations of it, making these useful in principle and also because it's one of the only if not the only illustration of a meme made with AI (which is why it was used for quite some while in List of Internet phenomena which further underscores its usefulness) and in an entirely different style (photorealism). 2. Very much doubt that. And it's not a character like Micky Mouse. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure you nominated it because it's AI-generated or that this played a major role. Yet I'm sure if I asked you for evidence of that you wouldn't be able to provide any even though you repeatedly go off about how everyone else makes baseless arguments. And to think, your one of the people who went off about how I should be indefinitely blocked for making things personal. Go figure.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this and talking to you about it is clearly a time suck. So I'm not going to discuss it beyond what I have already. I will say though that I'd probably be willing to retract the DR if you make an actual argument for keeping the image. I'm already leaning that way due to Qzekrom mentioning The Atlantic article and I have absolutely no problem doing that if your willing to come up with more sources and/or an actual justification to outside of making this about me disliking AI. Otherwise I'm done with it since we're just talking in circles at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What about the evidence that you nominated 5 other AI-generated images of mine at the same time and created 2 threads where you complained about specifically AI images / my AI images? I don't go off, I make rational ontopic points. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been on here for 7 years and spent a lot of that time doing deletion requests. How many DRs for AI-generated have I opened in that time outside of those 5? I'll tell you, maybe like 5 or 10 and I nominated plenty of non-AI generated amateur artwork for speedy deletion in the meantime. Sorry, but acting like me opening 5 deletion requests for AI generated images out of the thousands I've done on here for everything else (including non-AI generated artwork) as evidence that I have an issue with AI isn't rational or on-topic. Again though, I'm more then willing to retract the deletion request if you want me to and provide a valid reason. Otherwise I'm done with the conversation. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Doubt there are many users who have opened more AI-related DRs than you. I don't think you opened that many DRs in just 2 days nor a lot of new unrelated discussions. It doesn't matter. It's clear that this was a main issue you have with the image you also named that in the DR rationale regardless what you claim here but that doesn't matter either. I'm done with your walls of text so I won't continue this discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t you just ask me not to make presumptions, and now you are doing the same? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like forum shopping. We now have discussions on VP and on CFD. This seems out of order. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No idea what you mean; including what you mean with CFD. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, wrong acronym :-) I meant the dike deletion requests themselves. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "forum shopping", but I don't think the threads are redundant. VPC serves as a centralized discussion for this topic, while the two CFDs are specific to the files in question. Qzekrom (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine, but there is already an advanced discussion on the two deletion requests and Protoyperperpective is active on them already. I would prefer not to have to restate my detailed reasoning across three seperate forums.

Prototyperperspexyuce is clearly unhappy with the way the discussion is going, so has come here. It is rather unreasonable to make us discuss these specific images on so many forums. If this has a wider discussion about derivative works, there might be a point, but that’s not really the case. I’ve brought to admin attention for review, it might be that admins disagree with me but I think it’s more reasonable to close this thread and redirect people to the deletion discussions themselves. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a complex potentially/apparently difficult copyright question so it's more than legitimate to ask (more) copyright experts about it. Moreover, it doesn't just affect or is about these two files. Also please don't assume things about me and instead consider that this is a complex question with big ramification and asking here makes sense and is I think what this place is partly made for. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I am just giving my perspective on your actions, apologies if they are wrong but that is how it looks to me. I have decided to take the appropriate action, which is to ask for review by the admin group and let them decide what action (if any) to take. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is en:WP:Forum shopping - opening the same topic in multiple places. In the future please follow the recommendation of that page and notify participants of the other discussion(s) if you create a new discussion on the same topic. That's no longer necessary in this case as I've already done so. Consigned (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a super big deal but personally I'll usually wait until DRs are closed to ask questions them in other forums. Otherwise it makes things to hard to follow. Especially if people in the DR aren't notified about it like happened here. But IMO the less forums something is being discussed on at the same time the better. This stuff is hard enough to follow and keep track of as it is already. I don't necessarily have a problem with it as the person who opened the DR though as long as people in the deletion request are properly notified about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't copyright ideas (memes), only expressions of ideas. So I think those images are probably fine. Nosferattus (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Except what you are looking at here is a piece of artwork that has become a meme. The artist has copyright of the image they created, and the image we are debating is a direct derivation of their creative work. We aren’t asking for the idea to be deleted, we are aiming for the derivation of their artwork to be deleted due to copyright issues. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

RFC documents republish to here?

Hi, does the copyright info/notice/license on the IETF's RFC documents is OK for Commons? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Please link to an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Any RFC that have this copyright notice:

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) <INSERT YEAR NAME> IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

publication of this document. Please review these documents

carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must

include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as

described in the Simplified BSD License.

Other notices, like RFC 1918:

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the

Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

RFC 2474:

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

Does this consider OK for Commons?

(Sorry for broken formatting, I copied from the RFCs directly.) DinhHuy2010 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not OK for Commons. What led you to think it might be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

??? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Does it mean it {{Template:Copyrighted free use}} DinhHuy2010 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, this is not an acceptable license for Commons. Please read through COM:L to familiarize yourself with which licenses are okay to use. Nowhere in this text does it say that it is allowed to use the work for any purpose (including commercially) and that it is allowed to create derivatives of the work. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Why??? What about BCP 78, Simplified BSD License and "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."...

What wrong with the licensing/copyright statement????

(pinging @ChrisiPK @Pigsonthewing) DinhHuy2010 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, “unlimited” distribution is not enough, since it is just one of the required conditions for Common uploads. It also needs to allow derivatives of the work, commercial use of the work and the license must be perpetual and non-revocable. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

what about BCP 78? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The title of BCP 78 is “Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust”, and as the title and section 5.4 of BCP 78 suggests, the rights granted within the document is only for the IETF Trust and IETF participants for use within the IETF Standards. It does not apply to uses outside of IETF, so it is not related to the use of them here in Commons. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Could it possible (in theory) to ask IETF [Trust] permission to relicense to a license that it OK for Commons? (pinging @Tvpuppy)

May be Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder apply??? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You can ask. Be sure to ask for an open licence, not just "use on Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not even sure that IETF would be able to grant that license. They are in any case unlikely to be willing to grant that license. Reading BCP 78 and related policies, they always stress that they only ask contributors to provide sufficient rights to IETF so that they can use the content in their RFC process, while all other rights are reserved. So even if they agree to publish the content under a free license, it would require careful reading of BCP 78 to understand whether the original contributors even gave IETF the right to do that. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks you!

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. DinhHuy2010 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

DinhHuy2010 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Would this be public domain in the US?

I'm writing an article on Kathinka Kraft and the only free image I can find of her is in Kraft's memoirs Et og andet fra min tid : erindringer, the book is public domain in Norway according to the Nasjionalbut I've noticed on the PD Norway tags it says it has to be in public domain in the US also. According to COM:NORWAY, a Norwegian work is public domain in the US if it was in the public domain before the URAA restoration date in 1996. As the book was published posthumously in 1938, I am unsure if it can be uploaded according to the rules. Kraft died in 1895 and Arthur Skjelderup, who died in 1943, provided some extra biographical details to the book, so I'm unsure if he counts as a co-author. Spiderpig662 (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a photograph; it's going to have a separate copyright from the book. ChatGPT puts Norway going to life+70 on July 1, 1995, which means if that was the first publication and the photographer is anonymous, it would have left copyright in 2008. Unless you can find a previous publication of the photograph or the identity of the photographer, I think it would be copyright in the US until 2034.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Kathinka Kraft was born in 1826 and died in 1895. The photograph was probably taken in the 1870s or 1880s; it looks like a studio photograph by a professional photographer. Per COM:Norway, “Under the former photo law, protection ended 25 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years had passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown. The image is in the public domain if this older term already had expired as of 29 June 1995.” It's rather likely that a photographer who took a 1895 (or earlier) photograph died in 1979 or earlier, so the photograph was likely in the PD in Norway in 1996. From a US standpoint, the photograph was probably published when sold to the commissioner by the photographer (see Carl Lindberg's contribution in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg). I'd say you can upload the photo with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. --Rosenzweig τ 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this template acceptable?

I recently created a template specifically for dustjackets published in the US before 1978 without a valid copyright notice. It is currently located at User:Howardcorn33/sandbox/PD-US-dustjacket. The text is based on the text on the permission section at File:The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1st ed dust jacket cover).jpg. Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a more useful template would be one for book covers more generally. Since from what I understand, they are usually are copyrighted separately from the book just like dust jackets. It's kind of pointless to have a template specifically for dust jackets when book covers in general have their own copyrights though (that's assuming I'm correct of course). --Adamant1 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: do you have any citation for attached book covers having separate copyright status? I wouldn't expect that: what's magic about being on the outside of the copyrighted book? Whereas dustjackets are physically separable. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe just in the sense of the writer of the book usually not being the one who drew/created the book cover, which is usually the job of an artist. So, the copyright for the book cover art would be with the artist, while the copyright for the text in the book would be with the writer. Nakonana (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: From what I understand the copyright for a book is usually retained by the author. Whereas the cover art is either owned by the publisher or artist. This site (which is supposedly ran by lawyers) says "A book cover has its own copyright protection, which is separate and in addition to the copyright protection for the book itself." Also, this website says "In both traditional publishing and indie/self-publishing, the cover art is a piece of intellectual property separate from the book itself." Createifwriting.com says "Most cover designers will retain the copyright of the cover and license it to you for use for your book cover design only and anything related to the promotion of the book. Very few designers offer what is called work for hire." Etc. Etc. I think you get the point. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Still, that copyright would normally appear on the copyright page of the book (just like anything else in the book might have separate copyright) whereas I believe that before 1978 you needed a separate (usually minimal) notice on the dustjacket. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel The Jaws ruling was about a paperback with a non-separable cover. IIRC it mentioned that the books' copyright did not extend to the cover, which would require its own... however, a copyright internal to the book would suffice for attached covers. But it still needed a separate notice in either case. (reference) PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, clearly: a distinct copyright-holder means a distinct copyright notice. But I think that is a separate issue from the dustjacket issue, no? - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I think it's separate but related. You asked "do you have any citation for attached book covers having separate copyright status" so I thought I'd answer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

We have {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}}, which is what I've been using for post-1929 dust jackets that I've uploaded. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I was simply not aware of that template before. It doesn't clearly say "this dustjacket is in the public domain," like the template I made. Shouldn't it be more explicit? Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've made this variant which blends together both templates: User:Howardcorn33/sandbox/PD-US-dustjacket-2 Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've now boldly updated the license template so that its more clearly a license template. Howardcorn33 (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

2016 Trump portrait

Should File:Portrait of President-elect Donald Trump.jpg be deleted on the basis of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump? --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The Library of Congress states it has "no known restrictions on publication". I think it is fine. Bedivere (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently in April 2017, it said the same thing. So on that regard, the situation hasn’t changed since the DR. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we are on the same terrains as the 2025 inaugural portrait. The photographer most likely, if not obviously, made the portrait under some contract, then the White House liberated the picture (as it can be extracted from the archived 2017 website) under a Creative Commons Attribution license. CC or PD (based on the Library of Congress note), I think it is undoubtedly free. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an OTRS member, but according to the linked DR, doesn't OTRS have evidence that the White House did not have permission to liberate the picture under CC license (and that it isn't PD-USGov)? If the White House publishes a photo I took without my permission, that doesn't make it CC or PD. It sounds like the photographer's agreement with the White House did not allow re-licensing. All that said, it seems like the above deletion would have better been dealt with via DMCA and WMF legal than OTRS. Consigned (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

CC0 or not

Hi! On this page https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_706503 there is a notice about CC0 but I'm not sure if it is only the metadata or if it is also the photo. Perhaps a native English can have a look? MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Logically it applies to the photos. Metadata themselves lack originality. Ruslik (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

per https://www.si.edu/Termsofuse the photo doesn't appear to be marked with CC0, only the metadata. Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

[6] makes it pretty clear: CC0 is for the metadata, for the media themselves the terms of use apply, which restrict usage to "uses consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act." --Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Ruslik, you've got the technical possibility to write quite long texts into relevant EXIF or IPTC fields. It's not too far-fetched to assume that you could reach the realm of copyright protection doing that; imagine a poetic description in the metadata of a scan of a painting, for instance. Of course, the usual technical data fields aren't creative; but you can't say that metadata are never copyrightable. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

On that website, when the CC0 icon is displayed with the specific photo, next to its upload icon, then the photo is CC0. When the CC0 icon is not displayed with the photo, then the photo is not CC0. One must be careful on some pages where apparently some photos in a series may be CC0 and others not. For example on this page, where the first photo and most others have the CC0 icon, but the second photo does not have it. (By the way, the non-free photo seems the one that was uploaded to Commons here. It should probably be replaced in the en.wikipedia article with one of the CC0 photos.) A mix of free and non-free photos in a series exists also on some other websites, for example inaturalist. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

 Question @Asclepias:Buenas una pregunta,en esta imagen que publiqué por ejemplo (File:Black airplane 3 icon.png) pero según el sitio web en iconsdb (https://www.iconsdb.com/black-icons/airplane-3-icon.html) en la parte de la imagen abajo aparece claramente la licencia:This icon is provided as CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication, es posible agregar CC0 si la imagen aparece esta licencia? AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Question about bot response to photo upload

Hello, I uploaded a photo yesterday to Wikimedia Commons that was forwarded to me by the person who took the photo, and who just today submitted a copyright release under CCA Share Alike 4.0. I received a bot message that says I have not provided enough information and it may be deleted, although I completely filled out the template form for the upload. I am completely confused and don't know where to go from here. There are so many different instructions and directions and it's hard to tell which one applies to this situation. Help please! 2601:204:4000:9780:B538:BC56:73E:C1B8 03:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you aren’t logged in, so I don’t know which image you are referring to. Can you perhaps provide a link to the image? Tvpuppy (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Even without that, I'm going to make a guess: you may have missed step 12 of Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload). There is a known deficiency in the UploadWizard, and no committed date for when it will be fixed. This has created a problem for a lot of uploaders of third-party material. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Magazine covers with unidentified co-credit

Sorry if this post is off-topic. It might be too obscure of a query. The following link is reachable at Ref 137 at the WP article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433019298268&seq=1189. I was wondering for awhile about the significance of the "+ A.C." on the cover. Is A. C. someone who assisted Martin in the cover illustration? The odd thing is that if one scrolls up a few pages, the same "+ A.C." initials are on the June, July, and Aug. covers. They are all by different artists. So maybe "A. C." instead of an unknown name stands for something else. Some guesses of mine are "Artist's Copy," "Art Department Copy," or an in-house or staff artist named A. C. JimPercy (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

separate category for PD-ItalyGov?

Here there is a discussion on the topic. Friniate (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Four Japanese statue files under Category:FOP

To users who have access to info on the sculptural age and origins of the Japanese statues, kindly review these four files. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this text copyrightable?

I came across this image of computer-generated text written in the Langdi script, an extinct script. Is this image copyrightable? If not, what licence should one use if uploading it onto Commons? MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a basis on which that could be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Spanish freedom of panorama and today's POTD

I was somewhat surprised by today's picture of the day, File:Oratorio de Santa María Reina y Madre, Málaga, España, 2023-05-20, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg, showing a church ceiling painting in Spain by a living artist (Raúl Berzosa Fernández (Q20013463)). The painting is not in the public domain, and I don't see any VRT tags on the file page.

Instead, there is the tag {{FoP-Spain}}, claiming that “The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 35.2 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, which states that: Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.”

The way I interpret that law is that it covers works located in public outdoors (parks, streets, squares, other public thoroughfares), but not inside buildings (public or not). The map in Commons:Freedom of panorama also shows Spain in light green color for a simple OK, not in the dark green color for OK, including public interiors.

Am I missing or misinterpreting something? Does Spanish fop cover indoor works after all? Or is the {{FoP-Spain}} tag just wrong for that file (which would ultimately mean it needs to be deleted)? Pinging @Poco a poco: as the uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 06:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is some minor reservation at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oratorio de Santa María Reina y Madre, Málaga, España, 2023-05-20, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg though; ping @BigDom: who uttered the reservation. See also Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 5#does FOP in Spain also apply to interiours of public buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Just seen the ping, thanks for letting me know. I don't really have anything more to add; I raised the query at FPC, everyone ignored it and I forgot the whole thing ever happened. Reading the FoP-Spain text again today I still think it's very possible that indoor works are excluded, but we would need someone more versed in Spanish law to confirm one way or the other. BigDom (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, yes, right, I took that shot. How couldn't I photographed that awesome fresco, when I saw it? In fact, I upload pictures from everywhere and cannot give a clear statement whether we have an issue here (although I'm Spaniard). Poco a poco (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping @MarcoAurelio: who has an essay on Spanish FoP (User:MarcoAurelio/FoP-ES). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There is not much interest in this topic apparently ... --Rosenzweig τ 06:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The image must be nominated for deletion. Nail in the coffin: from Marco Aurelio's userspace page which I mentioned: "The only court opinion I could find addressing that concept is one from the 28th Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid (Judgement no. 95/2014 dated June 16, 2014; AC 2014\1573; ECLI:ES:APM:2014:11756) which held that a public thoroughfare is a space in the public domain suitable for pedestrian perambulation and/or motor vehicle circulation." Note: pedestrians and motor vehicles. So, outdoors only and not indoors.

Furthermore:

"The 15th section of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (Judgement no. 147/2006 dated March 28, 2006) held that Article 35.2 does not apply to the works located indoors of a church (in this case, photographing protected works the interior of the Barcelona's Sagrada Familia Cathedral is not covered by FoP)."

So, that's it. Church indoors are DENIED, courtesy of a court case files. The POTD file must be nominated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Nicaragua

2020 version of their copyright law. Virtually unchanged (if comparing it to COM:Nicaragua), with same 70-year terms and restrictive FoP (personal use of images of public landmarks only), but with one apparently new clause: clause for protection of folklore (COM:Paying public domain, so to speak). CRT page needs to be updated to reflect on this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done updating. It seems it's not a domaine public payant regime, so to speak, but a conditional use clause that only grants reusers of traditional folkloric expressions the right to freely use them in derivative works as long as the manner of usage, the title of the public domain work, and the region of origin of the underlying work are mentioned. A non-copyright restriction, but it's better to have it mentioned in the CRT page.

Additionally, it already exists in the 1999 law, so not a new one. Closing this thread now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 00:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I found an AI promo of a show, but is it public domain?

There's a web series online called The New Norm, and the show's promo was made with AI, however the voice acting isn't (except Elon's, who's is AI). Even though AI is public domain in the U.S (which is where the show is produced) I figured I'd ask to make sure it's public domain to avoid a potential copyright violation. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The texts are presumably human, which is more of an issue than the voicings of them. There are probably some visuals in there that would be PD (but possibly not in scope, unless to illustrate the show itself), but the video as a whole, not. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the text is ineligible for copyright, as it consists only of simple geometric shapes or text and does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection.

Also as for the scope, the file can be added on the show's wiki page as "Official promo for the show".

What do you think? CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@CMBGAMER 2018: There is a lot of text here, mostly in the form of dialogue, enough to be copyrightable as such.

Sure, you can't copyright a word or two, as would be in a logo, but (for example) plenty of plaques have enough text to be copyrightable. This is well over that threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Question about {{YouTube-change-of-license}}

It wasn’t clear to me from the wording in {{YouTube-change-of-license}}, but do we allow files to be uploaded to Commons after the youtube channel removed the CC license from the video?

The file in question is File:2022-08-02 重要貴賓機場迎賓直播.webm, which the archives shows there was a CC license initially, but I noticed the CC license was removed before it was uploaded to Commons. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The media in question must be CC licensed at the time of import. If not, then it must be nominated. The template text is clear. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

And what is supposed to be the reason for this? Creative Commons is clear, their licenses are not revokable.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   13:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@999real only for the copies or reproductions of the file when it was under CC licensing. If the author chose to stop distributing the original media under that license, that original can no longer be derived from. The existing copies of the original stemming from the CC licensing era can still be derived or distributed. See Carl's comment at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/07#Higher-resolution after Flickr licence change. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly not the same case as there when there was 2 different resolution photos. I don't know why we only link the Creative Commons FAQ instead of the legal code. Section 7. b. of CC BY 3.0 states clearly that the license lasts for the entire duration of copyright and cannot be withdrawn, without mentioning anything about they must be "copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license" like the FAQ does  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree this is a nuanced area, and as Clindberg noted in a related Flickr case, there's no one-size-fits-all rule. But I think there's a strong argument for this file being acceptable under Commons policy, provided certain facts hold.

Per the Wayback Machine, the video was clearly offered under a Creative Commons license at a specific point in time. While the video itself was not archived for playback, the license statement appears in the metadata of the archived YouTube page (title, description, and license field). That constitutes a public distribution under a CC license—i.e. "this video (with this ID) is distributed under license X"—even if the actual media file is not downloadable via Wayback. Also, we can never prove when --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, we can never prove when a user chose to download their copy prior to upload here... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to not upload works that are not currently being distributed under a free license. The CC licenses do note that authors have the right to stop distributing works under the license -- which they did. Anyone who copied it during that time, their license is perpetual yes. Copying off an archive site is fuzzier, but the archive site did copy it while licensed, and we'd be copying it from them. There is a reason why we have a license reviewer verify the license at the time for other works. I just don't like taking advantage of the Flickr license history function, or the Internet Archive, to copy something the author has stopped distributing. You can argue we are not yet a licensee until we validly copy it from a licensed source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If Internet Archive has made a copy of the work itself (i.e. we are not using it solely to verify the license of a file downloaded from some currently unlicensed source), then I don't see any legal issue with us copying it from IA. This is different from using license history to copy a work that the copyright holder is now distributing under a non-free license. If there was a legal issue with us copying from IA, then there is also a legal issue with third parties copying from Wikimedia Commons after the original source goes down. This would be a massive violation of free content principles, so that fact that we have a license review process and don't delete existing files after the source goes down must mean that licensees can continue distributing CC works without the consent of the original copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I agree with you that there is no legal issue here, but there may reasonably be a question of courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Is your ethical concern over the use of automated scrapers to indiscriminately archive free content? Otherwise, I don't see how this is different from Commoners importing large amounts of Flickr files, to be preserved for posterity regardless of what happens to the Flickr original. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unethical, I said it was discourteous. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, courtesy doesn't have much of a place in policy, outside of a few exceptions like COM:CSD#G7 or w:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. You or I could, of course, choose to refrain from taking actions that we individually find to be impolite. But if somebody else does it, there is no basis for deleting it unless this form of courtesy is made explicitly a part of policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy as an alternative, have you tried emailing the alleged copyright holder, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (ROC)? It's worth trying to request/convince them to (re-)relicense their YouTube media under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I will send them an email and try to see if that can be done. I can imagine it will take a while for them to reply, so if I get anything back and this thread gets archived, I will update it in the file talk page. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Publicar el escudo de armas del Tachira

Buenas se puede publicar el escudo de armas del Tachira en Venezuela como este (https://bitacorasamisan.blogspot.com/2013/01/heraldica-tachirense-escudo-del-estado.html?m=1) el primer escudo (con color) fue pintado por Marcos Mariño en 1914 pero falleció en 1965 pero el primer escudo (sin color) fue creado en 1878 ,es posible publicar con template {{PD-Venezuela-old}}?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

El escudo de 1878 no puede retener derechos de autor.

El de 1914 no hay derechos de autor en los EEUU (publicado antes de 1930).

Para el de 1914, la situación en Venezuela es menos clara. La unica posiblidad perteniente en {{PD-Venezuela-old}} para perder derechos de autor sería "La obra estuvo sujeta a la ley de 1928 pero no cumplió con los requisitos obligatorios de registro y depósito dentro de los tres años desde su publicación, y fue publicada en 1960 o antes," y yo no tengo ningún idea como verificar registraciones (o ausencia de ella) en Venezuela.

Pero en 2026, será 60 años después del muerto de Marcos Mariño, y se le permitirá {{PD-Venezuela}}. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:En EEUU en que template se utiliza para las fotografías (como esta) publicado antes de 1930?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{PD-US-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Porque 2026?? Según la calculadora era (1965+60=2025)? Osea estamos en 2025? AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Porque los derechos de autor siempre expiran al final del año calendario. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

US Passport Photos

Heya folks, the perennial issue of US passport photos came up again. Here's a link to the inconclusive last discussion and the deletion nomination that prompted this post. Thanks to anyone who weighs in! Bremps... 03:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Polar Logo 2012.png

I have a hunch that the File:Polar Logo 2012.png trademark isn't actually CC BY-SA. I don't know if maybe it's PD-textlogo or if it should just be deleted (or moved to Wikipedia to use only under fair use or the like). -- PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is a Above TOO ,the symbol of a Polar is not simple, need to transfer a Wikipedia (English) as Fair-use (google translato). AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@PeterCooperJr AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Mathematical genealogy tree

Hello !

I have a quite precise question... I already asked the question on the french village pump, people weren't sure and I was sent here. You're my last hope. I made a page french page for Lusitania (mathematical society), a Moscow school of mathematics active between the 1910s and 1930s. It had a major impact on the history of Russian mathematics. In particular, it is interesting for understanding the filiation of ideas in different subfields. A family tree, nicknamed “Luzin's Tree” in honor of one of its founders, can still be seen at Moscow University. It is displayed on Файл:Luzin_Tree.jpg, but this file is only usable on russian WP. This tree is taken up schematically in several scientific articles on the history of maths. First in celui-là (p.8), then in this book (chap.8) which simply repeats the other diagram, adding a name (without quoting the first article). I wrote to one of the authors of the book (the only one still alive...) and he said he'd put the image on commons. But he's old and seems to have trouble using his computer. I've had no answer for 2 months :/

My question is: what is the status of this diagram? Considering that it comes from a supposedly collective work in the 20s~30s, with no clear author, and that the diagram has been reposted from scientific article to scientific article, I'm a bit confused. As it's quoted every time people mention Lusitania, I think it's very relevant to put it in the article (in one form or another). Can I just vectorize it myself (but it's a lot of work...) and upload it to Commons? I'll take any advice :)

Best regards, Entropy fighter (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If published in 1920s, it will be in public domain in USA now per {{PD-US-expired}}. In Russia under the pma-70 rule its status is less clear. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Though, if the work is anonymous, then {{PD-Russia}} will apply making the work public domain in Russia as well. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

For information, the short discussion in French is at Commons:Bistro#Droits d'auteurs peu clairs pour "L'arbre de Luzin", in case someone wants to look at the questions discussed. As I observed there, the user who uploaded the file to ru.wikipedia estimated that the original work was from the 1960s or 1970s. That seems more probable than the 1920s-1930s. The year of the original work can make a difference for its copyright status. The work is a sort of tree of intellectual filiation. Just like a genealogical tree, the year in which the tree was made cannot be estimated from its oldest members. But it might be estimated from its youngest members. By looking at some names near the middle of the tree, we can find for example Самарский (1919-2008) and Костомаров (1929-2014). Their careers were apparently circa 1950-2000. There are also other people after them. So, the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s may be possible for the work. Another question is to determine to what extent the 2003 and 2009 diagrams, published in the 2003 article and the 2009 book, are or are not derived from the original work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Asclepias for the clarification. Indeed, the photo from the russian article is of very unclear status. I'm more interested in the diagram. I tried to remake it myself on a vectorised way, but it's just so much work... and if it's gonna be refused in the end, I'd rather not do it. Entropy fighter (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If a reproduction in diagram, by you or someone else, of the original work, although with the modification of the style, is still a derivative work of the original work, then it is important to date the original work, at least approximately, to know if it is under copyright or not and to know if the modified version can be freely published or not. If the original work is under copyright, which seems likely, then the question is if the modified version is a derivative work of the original. So, there are at least two questions. 1. Is the original work under copyright? 2. Is a modified version, such as a reproduction in diagram, a derivative of the original? To conclude that the modified version can be freely published, it would be necessary to arrive at a negative answer to at least one of those two questions. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the information in this tree cannot have a copyright. Ideas and raw data cannot have a copyright. Now the design of the tree might still be under a copyright. But recreating the tree with another design should be OK. Yann (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: I disagree. The claim of who influenced whom is not a simple fact, and when you put several dozen such linked claims together you get a pretty complex intellectual construct. You can't copyright ideas, but a reproducing all of the information in a chart like this gets into the realm of paraphrasing an entire literary work, which is clearly a copyright violation.

(Now, if the copyright is expired, we are on a perfectly good footing.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think we are going to discuss what is a fact. Would this be different if it were a simple genealogy tree? Or a biological tree about species? Yann (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Simple genealogy: absolutely. Species: if there is strong agreement among scientists, yes. Conversely, if something like this were a radical re-clading, expressing one particular scientist's theory, possibly not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"strong agreement among scientists": I don't think this matters for copyright. Whether it is a one-man idea, or a commonly accepted idea, it is still only an idea. Only the representation of the idea can get a copyright. Yann (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

It matters in terms of whether it is "fact". For example, I cannot copyright a listing of the Beatles' songs in chronological order, but if I were to make up a list of the Beatles' songs in terms of quality, by my own standard, most likely I could copyright that list. - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the latest author deathyear that guarantees their works are US-expired?

For a work with an unknown date of publication or even publication status, but a known author deathyear, what's the latest deathyear that guarantees the work is expired in the US? Based on COM:HIRTLE, I think it would be NOW - 95 - 120, but I wanted to get a check on that. My logic is that a work posthumously published would be copyrighted for publication+95, but an unpublished work lapses after, at the latest, 120 years, so publication would not (I would think) regenerate copyrighted status at that point. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually since we're indexing from the date of death, I think it would be NOW - 95 - 70. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

According to {{PD-US-unpublished}}, all unpublished works from before 1905 are in the public domain. Yann (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: that is if the work is known not to have been published before 1978 and we don't know the creator, but the question was about known author death date and unknown publication history. Let's breaks that down to cases.

• If the work was first published before 1930, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is in the public domain.
• [Edited, per Prosfilaes below] If the work was first published 1930 - 1977 1995 in a country where the URAA restoration applies (without simultaneous U.S. publication), and was still in copyright in that country in 1996, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is copyrighted in the U.S.

• If the original country of publication had a rule of p.m.a.+70, this would mean that posthumous works published in this period by authors who had died in 1926 or later would still be copyright in the U.S. Similarly for other durations; in the few countries with p.m.a. + 100, that would be 1896 of later.
• (There are some edge cases here of countries where the URAA restoration date was later than 1996, I'm not going down that rabbit hole here.)
• Note that if the other country's laws did not take author death date into account, you can have cases here where author death date is irrelevant, the work is still in copyright.

• [Deleted, per Prosfilaes below] If the work was first published 1978 - 28 February 1989 in a country where the URAA restoration applies (without simultaneous U.S. publication), and was still in copyright in that country in 1996, then if author died in 1954 or earlier, the work is now in the public domain, otherwise not.
• I believe URAA restoration is the only case where copyright history in another country is relevant to copyright status in the U.S. For further cases, we can ignore copyright status in other countries.
• [Edited, per Prosfilaes below] If the work had its first publication 1930 - 1977 2002, and U.S. relevant requirements for notice, registration, renewal were met, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is still in copyright.
• If the work had its first publication 1930 - 1977, and URAA restoration does not apply and U.S. relevant requirements for notice, registration, renewal were not all met, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is public domain.
• [Edited, per Prosfilaes below] If the work was unpublished at the beginning of 1978 2003, and the known author died in 1954 or earlier, the work is now in the public domain.

The known death date gets rid of some of the miserable cases, but as you can see above there are some pretty extreme ones still left. There are still a couple of cases where the author death date does not guarantee the work is in the public domain, unless we can also guarantee that it was not published as of 31 December 1977, and others where this is only true for an author death date of 1925 or earlier. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's right generally, but there are exceptions with shorter duration for some types of works and for some countries (e.g. photographs and/or films). Yann (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Wouldn't those all be special cases of the URAA restoration situation (out of copyright before 1996 in original country of publication, so restoration does not apply)? - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

There are cases where copyright expired before 1996, so URAA does not apply (Poland, Russia, Japan, etc.). Yann (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. So what would apply there is to fall back to the case where foreign copyright is irrelevant, and (if published 1930 or later) it falls back to whether it conformed to U.S. notice, registration, and renewal. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you're missing a case; a work first legally published in 1978-2002 is under copyright for the longer of life+70 or 2048. There's some sort of common law rules about how unpublished copyright could be lost, but a bunch of Mark Twain works were published in 2001 by copyright holders and are in copyright until 2048.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: you are correct, I missed that case. So "author death date is irrelevant, the work is still in copyright" case applies to those as well. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Which presumably also means I had "If the work was first published 1978 - 28 February 1989 in a country where the URAA restoration applies" wrong, because these would all still be in copyright.

I'll add/correct above. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please let me know if anything is still missing. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth analysis, Jmabel. It's certainly more complicated than I hoped, but I'll see if I can use any of the cases you identified. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

PD-US-no notice

Buenas ,que pasaría si el logo o imagen publicó en 1973 pasará al Dominio Público sin la noticia del copyright ,es posible agregar el {{PD-US-no notice}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Teoreticamente, sí. Es casi imposible para logos de la mayoría de países distintos de los Estados Unidos, por razón de restauración de derechos de autor de la URAA en 1996. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Según en el anterior Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#Restaurar el logo del Movimiento Al Socialismo (Venezuela) el logo fue publicado en 1973 pero el logo fue expirado bajo la ley anterior ({{PD-Venezuela-old}}) en 2023 (ósea 2024) antes de que el Congreso derogara la ley anterior (50 años) para que creara la ley actual ({{PD-Venezuela}}) (60 años) pero este logo fue publicado en 1973 antes de que el Congreso creara la ley en 1993. AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Si el Congreso no derogará la ley anterior ,el logo pasó al Dominio Público de Venezuela en 2024. AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Todo esto no tiene ninguna importancia para los derechos de autor en EEUU. Lo único que importa para determinar los derechos de autor en EEUU es que se publicó originalmente en Venezuela después de 1929 y que yo tenía derechos de autor en Venezuela en 1996. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Osea no se puede publicar (restaurar el logo) en Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No, hace 2069. - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22 no sé bajo qué precepto el logotipo habría expirado por una ley no vigente al momento de su creación. Realmente estás malentendiendo la situación de las obras que podrían haber expirado hasta la fecha URAA. Para eso sirve la plantilla Venezuela-old, nada más. Si los derechos de una obra no habían expirado al momento de la derogación de la ley de los 60, no aplica bajo ningún concepto esa ley sino la nueva Bedivere (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Ok con respecto a este (File:MAS.svg) cambia de categoría de undeleted en 2033 a Category:Undelete en 2069 (osea 1973+95+1=2069 como {{PD-Venezuela}}+{{PD-1996}}) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22 Puedes hacerlo tu mismo. Bedivere (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Flickr account and licence laundering

I believe the flickr account rds323 does not have the rights to licence the images uploaded and this is a case of licence laundering. See this [7] flickr image which is clearly copyrighted to Dan Heller.

File:WTC 7 rubble.jpg was uploaded to flickr in 2018 but this image exists online earlier [8]

Some of these uploads have been relicenced as PD based on them being created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, although I have no idea why images of the 9/11 attacks would fall under that. One of the images is even featured File:Explosion following the plane impact into the South Tower (WTC 2) - B6019~11.jpg

I haven't done a full investigation as I am a bit busy at the moment but I believe most files uploaded from this flickr account are copyright violations or incorrectly licenced. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this copyrightable?

Does this meet the threshold of originality to be copyrightable? Wowzers122 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO, yes. The original credit mentions even "visualization" contribution by a third party. Why not ask them directly for permission (https://www.criticalthreats.org/terms) ? --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

People are scary ;-; Wowzers122 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The particular placement of the boxes, sure. Could you show the same information arranged differently? Possibly, though if it's not purely factual and may be the opinion of the author, the choices of the organization or particular boxes might also be copyrightable -- that's a bit harder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

are the works of george orwell in the public domain in the us?

orwell's works are in the public domain in the uk, where copyright is life + 70 years. are they public domain in the us? wikisource:Author:George Orwell says no, but someone on the talk page said that

The Bern Convention specifies that if a book is published "simultaneously" in two nations, nations that subscribe to the convention must honor the EARLIER entry into the public domain, that is, that nation must put the work into the public domain at the same time as the nation of the two which places the work in the public domain the SOONEST. Nineteen Eighty-four was published in the month of June 1949 in BOTH the USA and the United Kingdom, so the work is classified as having been published "simultaneously" in both nations...

is that correct? ltbdl (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The US did not apply this rule of the shorter term. 1984 did get a copyright renewal in the US https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog/R641953  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ltbdl: See also meta:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

They are in the public domain in the United States if they were either

• published before 1930, OR
• published between 1930 and 1963, with the first publication being in the United States (first publication within 30 days counts), without a proper copyright renewal.

There are some works by Orwell that were published early enough that they are in the public domain in the US, but most of his works aren't.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"Type of Work: Music" in copyright renewal

Hello, I'm looking at cover art of w:I_Am_the_Greatest_(Cassius_Clay_album) (1963), there is a renewal by Peter Matz as "Type of Work: Music", did this cover album art or not?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This copyright record is only for the musical composition, not the album cover. It didn't cover the recording, either (as recordings were not covered by U.S. federal statutory copyright at the time). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Free depiction in German-language Wikipedia

Should we allow the use these files of free depictions of non-free works within German-language Wikimedia projects. Unless {{Urheberrechtlich geschützt}}. Absolutiva (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Absolutiva: What is the question exactly? Commons makes its own policy, which allows hosting files that are free in the U.S and their country of origin. And de.wikipedia makes its own policy, which, for its own reasons, does not allow the display of some such files there. Neither Commons nor de.wikipedia are likely to adopt the policy of the other. It would be impractical for Commons to remove files every time a local project decides to have a more restrictive policy than Commons. Changes to the policy of de.wikipedia must be discussed on de.wikipedia. Or maybe I misunderstood your question. What do you mean by "free depictions of non-free works"? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think they mean stuff like Category:Files from the official Cartoon Network Scratch account which contains free depictions of normally non-free works, probably. HyperAnd (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Those files are free licensed with CC BY-SA 2.0. Such free licenses are in principle usable worldwide. The template "Urheberrechtlich geschützt" is not meant for free licensed material. If the question is if those files may be used in de.wikipedia, an actual answer can only be given by de.wikipedia. But normally, validly free licensed files are supposed to be usable. Unless de.wikipedia decides to disagree with the decision of Commons to consider those files as validly free licensed. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it allowed to use these files of free depictions of non-free anime on Japanese Wikipedia? Absolutiva (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

To ask if something is allowed or not on the Japanese Wikipedia, please ask the question on the Japanese Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg is uploaded under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license but I'm concerned about the validity of this. It's not claimed that the image was created from a blazon but from here and is therefore a derived work. The UK Supreme Court was only established in 2009 so this isn't a case of this being an old badge copied. This is a logo to which UK Crown Copyright applies and the Royal Arms, or Crest at the top are never covered by the UK's Open Government Licence even if that were applicable to the rest of the design. Nthep (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This Youtube account with 855 videos

Dear Admins and Trusted users,

I was about to review this CC BY 3.0 image here: File:Kate bush 1978 1.png when I noticed that the Youtube source account has 855 videos all licensed freely with a cc by 3.0 Youtube license. Is this possible or is this account commiting a major copyright violation. There are about 7 videos from this account on Commons. When I was about to review the video, I did not receive a warning. I don't know the account user. If this is a Youtube washing account, then it should be blacklisted. Any views anyone? User:Krd, User:Rosenzweig or someone else. I am not an Admin. Something does not smell right but as I said I don't know this Youtube account. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Does the Youtube account hold the copyright to this freely licensed 1975 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A OR this freely licensed 1985 video with Donna Summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3il35ewe0zo ? It does not feel right, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Watching the DAC clip all the way through, the narration ends with "Channel 8 News". WFAA's film archives are held by Southern Methodist University. While they have released plenty of clips online, I've never known any which have been released under a CC license. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It would appear to me that this channel is just a collection/archive of television clips. I don't think the uploader is the original copyright holder for any of this content. The about section of the channel sort of implies this and doesn't admit to actually creating or owning any of the content. Whichever TV stations these clips originated from would likely hold the copyright. For an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFv3aB6JtJI - This clip is from The Wil Shriner Show, 1988. Perhaps the uploader recorded the clip back in the day and thinks they can license their own recording? PascalHD (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment – Just added this user to Commons:Questionable YouTube videos, just in case. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

From the channel description: "All content legitimately exhibited under Fair Use terms and Creative Commons license. Copyrights in all content, both video and sound recordings, acknowledged and attributed accordingly." So, in short: they don't understand copyright law, and none of the licenses on their channel should be treated as valid. Omphalographer (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Can Admin User:Krd or User:Rosenzweig or User:MGA73 add this account to the Commons:Questionable YouTube videos list? If the source account could be added to a blacklist, that is sufficient...but the 7 videos from this account should also just be deleted ASAP if possible. I am not an Admin. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Please create a deletion request for all these videos. Yann (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have already updated that list to include this account. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Yann or User:Rosenzweig,

• I have nominated all 7 images for deletion. Please add the source Youtube account to Commons:Questionable YouTube videos Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Already done. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank You JohnCWiesenthal and Yann for all your help here. I am not an Admin, just a trusted user and don't want to edit this list on my own in case I make a mistake. Kind Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

just a note - the Taste of Kiwiana channel appears to be operated by the same person. applecuckoo 09:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Footage of Elon Musk's gesture may be public domain

Footage of the Presidential Parade following the inauguration (where Elon did the gesture) was filmed by employees of the government at Washington D.C.'s Capital One Arena. Therefore, it is public domain under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Therefore, we do not need a GIF of the gesture marked as "fair use" on the page, we can use the footage from that video. However I wanted to come here and make sure. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a timestamp on the video that you linked, where Elon does the thing? Hyperba21 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's at 1:41:42. If it's public domain, we should add Elon's full speech on the page, along with a time stamp of the gesture on the file caption. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the "T" watermark on the video? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It is the symbol for Trump and Vance's inauguration. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Not that symbol. The "T" watermark. Can it be a logo of a private Trump entity, possibly meaning the video was created and produced by that private entity? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Where do you see the T? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not a watermark on the actual video, that's the YouTube channel annotation - Trump's account has a little "T" logo projected on the bottom right of the video when you're watching on desktop. But this is indeed the Trump campaign account. 19h00s (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Bottom right corner of the video. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I was watching on mobile. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you confirm that it was indeed a government employee who produced this video? The account is Trump's own YouTube account, not the POTUS/White House account, so this may have been produced by his campaign team, a member of his non-government staff, or an outside contractor. That's not normal - usually it is indeed federal staff who produce/coordinate all this - but what about this presidency has been normal? I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump's team demanded that an outside firm/agency handled the filming of the inaugural. Do we have any proof that it was filmed by federal employees? 19h00s (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The federal employees attended the arena for the presidential parade and filmed it as well as took pictures. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to my question - how do you know that federal employees made this video? If this video were posted from the White House account, I would have way less doubt, but it was posted to Donald Trump's own YouTube. 19h00s (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Trump was inaugurated as president, what he does is filmed by federal employees, that's why I believe they were involved. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's dubious, but I get your point PDF08. Tweets and truthsocials by Trump as president, for example, are considered PD. But since we can't say Trump produced this film himself, published on his official YouTube, it is more doubtful. Bedivere (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask admins and see what they think. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to know who made the video. That youtube channel has a lot of fair use on it. So you can't say that being posted there is a sign of original authorship. It's not enough that gov employees were there or were making videos. You need to know who made this one. GMG^talk 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I am an admin, PDF08. Bedivere (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, alright PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

AI depictions of non-free works (Crash Bandicoot)

This continues off of the New Norm discussion earlier, which was concluded to be inelegible due to the writing and VA being human-done - may I post officially-made AI content by corporations of their IP if it appears to not have significant human authorship? My particular sight has been on promo images made by Activision to test responses to possible Crash Bandicoot mobile games, the only things that look human-made (to my eyes) are the logos, which could be easily cropped or blurred out if they're even elegible for copyright at all.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/activision-apparently-using-ai-art-to-float-concepts-for-guitar-hero-crash-bandicoot/ RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, they are derivative works and should not be uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

And it's unclear to what degree, if at all, these images are actually computer-generated. That they're AI content at all is speculation. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Secret Invasion intro screenshot AI.jpg (closed as delete). Omphalographer (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. And even if the artwork was proven to be AI-generated, the underlying copyright of Crash would not allow the file to be uploaded here. Bedivere (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright query

Following this recent deletion of a photo of a poster for Aberystwyth Comedy Festival that had been used on the cy-wp article for the festival, I went back to check the article again and found that File:Arad Goch Gwyl Gomedi.jpg is still in use there. This feels like it's still a derivative work of the sign/poster depicted, but I'm less confident as to whether there's a copyvio issue here, given that most of the poster is just text. I'd be interested to know what others think about whether this is problematic or if I'm just overthinking! Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Wales is part of the United Kingdom, right? The UK have a quite low threshold of originality. Nakonana (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, okay... Thank you for pointing that out! So does that mean it's likely that the original work (ie. the poster) is subject to copyright and therefore the derivative work wouldn't be allowed? I hadn't considered typographical copyright, which (I'm assuming?) would apply to at least the text portion of the poster, including the typeface... And I hadn't actually heard of database right, so I'm not sure how far it extends; would it include the programming information for the festival, as displayed on the poster? (I'm so glad I asked here rather than just nominating the file for deletion, as I would definitely have been out of my depth!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Micronesia

Relevant page: COM:CRT/Micronesia.

WIPO database provides for the 2014 version of their Copyright Act. Can anyone check the important details of the said act and if it affects our coverage of Micronesia in any way? On immediate inspection, it is like a carbon copy of the former US copyright regime before 1978/1990 (mandatory registration, and no protection for architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I propose two new templates relevant for Micronesia, since it appears their copyright regime is like the United States before 1978/1990.

We have {{PD-Micronesia}} today. Perhaps we need to have: {{PD-Micronesia-no notice}} (similar to {{PD-US-no notice}}, for unregistered ones) and {{PD-Micronesia-architecture}} (similar to {{PD-US-architecture}}). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

About {{Mehr}}

Hello,

I noticed an inconsistency in the source referenced by {{Mehr}}. The Arabian page of mehrnews.com does indeed state the CC-By-SA 4.0 licensing in the footer, as does tehrantimes.com. But when you switch the language to English on "Mehr", the footer statement becomes "© 2017 Mehr News Agency. All rights reserved". Are we still safe in trusting the Arabian version? I tend to say yes, but I still want to ask. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It turns out that Mehr used to have a copyright notice until the license changed to CC-BY-SA in mid-January 2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20190101080410/https://www.mehrnews.com/ had a generic copyright notice dated from 2017, so Mehr News forgot to update the copyright text on the English site. VTSGsRock (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

FBI Wanted Posters

The FBI have along history of using photos created by people other than the agency in their wanted posters. How should Commons deal with this copyright issue? Trade (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

FBI website's legal disclaimer link directs me to this page, in which the copyright policy is stated as (quote in full):

Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the Department of Justice as source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below.
If a source other than the Department of Justice or other federal government agency is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. Please note that some photos, graphics and other materials used on this website are copyrighted. For information on materials generated by external entities with Department of Justice funding, please refer to individual component policies. This copyright notice only pertains to the Department of Justice website.

It seems to imply that generally, websites of DOJ and its attached subordinates (like FBI) are PD by default ({{PD-USGov-FBI}} or {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}), but that doesn't mean that every image on their site/s is PD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

While many FBI wanted posters are hosted on official government websites and may include public domain elements (like the poster layout or text), this does not automatically make every image within them free of copyright. In most cases, the source photo was not created by a U.S. federal government employee, but rather obtained from third parties (relatives, news outlets, etc.). The FBI's use of such photos does not strip their copyright. As such, unless there's clear evidence that a particular photo was taken by a government employee or explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license, we must assume standard copyright protections still apply. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

From this legal disclaimer it specifically state that everything is public domain "unless otherwise indicated." the FBI posters never state where they gathered the images from, just a poster with images and information about the subject. The second half then states that if material on their site does cite a source, then you have to get permission from the place they originally got it from. If this is the case and no sources are given, then this disclaimer by definition means the posters are in the public domain does it not? DigitalPhantoms (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that any agency cannot license the photos of someone who they published an wanted poster for (unless they somehow have escaped custody) Trade (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Flickr statement vs. Metadata

Hi!

I would like to upload this and this image showing a well-known musician of Hof who unfortunately died recently. The files on flickr are marked as CC-BY-2.0, which is fine, but shows BY NC ND 4.0 in the EXIF metadata. How to deal with it?
Thanks :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Theoretically, the Flickr licenses should override the EXIF statement. It's obvious that the photographer did some processing in raw format, most likely to achieve the B&W coversion (the 240 dpi resolution that's stated in the EXIF is the default value in Adobe Camera Raw). As far as I know, Adobe Lightroom is also a photo management tool (not only a raw converter) similar to Adobe Bridge, meaning it should offer the possibility to edit EXIF and IPTC fields as was consciously done here. But it is also a conscious choice to set licenses on Flickr uploads, and that is a more recent choice than the filling of metadata fields (the latter is done at any time between creation and upload, the former after the upload).

Nevertheless, in such a situation of conflicting information and possibly conflicting author intent, grabbing the image without asking first is, while most likely legal, not courteous and may not be the best practice four our community. @Gnom: could you eventually confirm this? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

A lot of people are unaware of EXIF data and, unlike Commons, Flickr does not present EXIF data at the UI. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

With the exception of date of file creation, location info, and a few other fundamental parameters of EXIF. Copyright fields aren't included in the Flickr UI. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Flickr user IS obviously aware of EXIF, as he modified them with Lightroom or Adobe Bridge (using IPTC fields like "Usage terms" is nothing that can be done in-camera); and you need two clicks (Show settings - Show EXIF) to get EXIF displayed in Flickr (as the Lion did, obviously, otherwise he wouldn't have know about the NC-license). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Some higher-end cameras can be configured to inject EXIF data into all photos taken with the camera. We've occasionally seen photos with clearly incorrect photographer/copyright information in the EXIF data, probably because a professional photographer sold their camera without clearing that configuration. Omphalographer (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not only higher-end cameras can do this, at least entry-level Canon DSLR too, here's an example from my old EOS 500D: "Author = Photographer: S. or H. Busch-Paulick / Copyright holder = Copyright:S. & H. Busch-Paulick". Normally, I change it to only my name (like here), but it happens that I forgot this step before an upload. It's configurable using the Canon software bundled with the camera. But: you can't program IPTC fields like these directly in-camera:

City - Hof

Country - Deutschland

State - Bayern

Creator Tool - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)

Label - Lila

I copied these from the first Flickr example in the opening post. That's why I'm saying that Mr. Patrick Findeiss (cf. "Copyright Notice - © Patrick Findeiss") is aware of the metadata and made a conscious choice to provide some, using his Adobe software. There's also an e-mail adress from Google provided in these metadata, so anyone interested in the imagery could actually write him for license clarification. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

In this case, I would say that the photo is licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Gnom (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers ;). I may reach out to him, then we have a clear statement about the status of the files (if doubts may occur later etc.). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

New Cuban copyright law from 2022

• Relevant page: COM:CRT/Cuba

The page needs to be updated, as a new Cuban copyright law from 2022 has been published in the Official Gazette several years ago. The text is at https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21621.

• Article 72 (general term): The economic rights regarding a work last for the life of the author and 50 years after his death, except in the cases provided for in this Section. (unchanged)
• Article 73 (anonymous): The economic rights regarding an anonymous or pseudonymous work shall last for 50 years after its publication, provided that the use of the pseudonym leaves doubt about the author's identity or the identity has not been revealed. (unchanged)
  • If before the expiry of the aforementioned period the author reveals his identity, the duration shall comply with the provisions of Articles 72 and 74, as the case may be.
• Article 74 (audiovisual): In the case of works regulated in Article 13, including cinematographic and other audiovisual works, the period referred to in Article 72 begins to run from the death of the last surviving co-author. (practically unchanged since the 1977 law didn't have a separate term for audiovisual works)
  • In the case of works regulated in Article 14 (if it is a collective work without attribution to the individual authors), the period is 50 years after their disclosure.
• Article 75 (photographs): The economic rights of a photographic and applied art work are protected for 25 years, counting from the creation of such works. (unchanged)
• Article 80 (computer software): The economic powers regulated in this Law regarding the computer program and application have a duration of 50 years from the date of disclosure. (new term)
• Article 81 (databases): The economic powers regulated in this Law on databases have a duration of 20 years from the date they have been put into circulation. (new term)
• Article 82 (calendar year). The duration of the economic powers established in this Law shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the death of the creator or the lawful disclosure of the work, as the case may be. (new provision)

The perpetual copyright for works by legal entities has been removed. Furthermore, freedom of panorama has been maintained under Article 86.2 (d), removing the restrictions on exhibitions and museums: "It is also lawful and does not require any authorization or remuneration, but it does require reference to the name of the creator...the reproduction by any means, except that which involves direct contact with its surface, of a work of art of any kind displayed in a freely accessible public place" VTSGsRock (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

About User:SuperSkaterDude45

Hello,

I saw a recent upload by SuperSkaterDude45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user which I deemed problematic. I went on and began to review his most recent uploads. When I got back to File:Miguel Ángel Cottón Pumas UNAM.jpg from 2025-06-01, I was already at 7 DR out of 9 reviewed files, Special:Diff/1041006922/1041010709 (diff to the daily DR listing page). In my opinion, he's interpreting public domain regulations in the Americas in a (too) lax way, using social networks (Facebook, Twitter) as sources and evidence for publications and PD status. I'd like to invite some scrutiny over these proceedings and a discussion whether this is a sound behaviour and acceptable on copyright grounds. I'm not convinced that it's with the purview of COM:L and COM:PRP. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Most of the uploads that you have tagged for deletion have largely been that of smaller clubs of decades past in countries that don't tend to focus on clubs that tend to have an exclusively local following in countries that don't have the most readily available access. Naturally, this results in social media posts tending to be the only available sources of a direct scan of images otherwise found in dedicated blogs (to which I'm also assuming you deem unreliable) to said clubs. This is only reinforced as even through the use of several image searches with different indexes with nearly all of the files you've filed for deletion yielding the same results of said social media post or displaying results of entirely different players of the same era. Naturally, if there were better sources, I'd use them but going off of the precedent you want to establish, this leaves a lot of files of more niche subject matter to essentially never be uploaded on Commons for an unreasonably long amount of time.

You can label my interpretations as being "too lax" but I am following the example that has been set to me by various other contributors throughout the past few years of uploading files on Commons, especially when some of your own deletion reasons lack certainty of the copyright laws of other countries such as your citation for the deletion of File:Bonavena Ramírez 1985.png where you state that The use cases of the claimed PD statuses aren't applicable as far as I can tell. despite the PD-Mexico template directly stating that anonymous works are considered to be PD until the author comes forward with this especially being the case after I had directly cited a news publication that used the same image you're currently attempting to delete. I could point out other flaws in your arguments such as say for example how other sources I've found for File:Plaza San Martín 1970 (2).jpg tend to be either other social media posts or forum posts as well as other equivalent images such as this and this that are dated as being either of the same era or decades prior that would still put it within PD-Peru-photo, giving an estimate that would still put the image at PD-Peru-anonymous but I want to see what others have to say before I add on to my previous comments. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, about "lot of files of more niche subject matter to essentially never be uploaded on Commons" - that's a consequence of a strict application of the precautionary principle, our mandatory prerequisite of commercial usability and the result of works being orphaned, yes. You cannot assume that stuff like author attributions not visible on the Internet don't exist. Especially for sports subjects, there could be very well be newspapers in microfilm archives holding information relevant to the copyright status that were never digitised and made available online. For the concise example of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bonavena Ramírez 1985.png, you provided a link to a news outlet (MSN, aggregated from en:El Universal (Mexico City)), claiming it didn't "cite no author nor publisher". The credit line of the image says "Muere leyenda del Atlante / Foto: Especiales", which is IMHO a huge hint that the journalist Édgar Luna Cruz indeed actually had clues about the image author or provenience. By that alone, the assumption of an anonymous work is not valable any more, I think, at least not in the light of the precautionary principle.

For "I want to see what others have to say before I add on to my previous comments" - me too; I hope for a good participation in this redactional quality assurance work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: In the article you've seemingly attempted to cite (Orphaned works), the majority of its contents are largely through a more Western point of view that doesn't exactly give specifics on third world countries with other language Wikipedia's usually being a translated version of the few general paragraphs of the main English version. I'll state this again, comparisons to other photos of the era from more reliable sources can at the very least give a rough estimate of a definitive time frame and thus, meet eligibility for both PD in their home nation as well as in the US. Furthermore, if you're aware that a majority of these images are direct scans from, in your own words, newspapers in microfilm archives, why is this conversation even being held in the first place? This is especially odd since a majority of Argentinian and Peruvian sports images are sourced from the magazines El Gráfico and Ovación respectively with more niche images and teams typically being direct scans from local newspapers that don't have an internet archive for the public to use on their own free will and volition unlike major publications such as the South China Morning Post and The New York Times. Hence, this is why a majority of these images tend to be from social media posts that are direct scans from said publications. Again, you could say that these are precautionary principles (which doesn't make much sense for reasons I have already cited) but to state that none of the images you have filed for deletion aren't at least within the general time frame of the aforementioned templates for PD status is quite absurd, especially since I highly doubt that there were many people in Peru that had readily available access to color film in the early 1970s.

As per your second argument, this is purely reliant on speculation with no actual basis as typically, if a known author is found of a work, the publisher is at the very least credited with this especially being the case for obituaries. For example, this Der Spiegel article announcing the death of German footballer Volker Graul cites both the photographer (Horst Müller) as well as the publishing company of the image used of Graul (IMAGO). If either of these were known prior to the publication of Ramírez's obituary, I can assure you one of the longest running newspaper companies in Mexico would've already given the proper attribution needed in order to use the image in the first place. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the typo in the orphan works link. I may answer later to the remainder. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I still maintain that "rough estimate of a definitive time frame and thus, meet eligibility for both PD in their home nation as well as in the US" is a thinking fully incompatible with COM:PRP. Using estimates for determining a PD status is actually a valid thing in our project, but only if there's a safety margin. This is exemplified with out templates {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}, which show for an assumption of expired copyrights, but only with a 50 YEARS margin. You claimed a PD status for File:Hugo Madera.jpg and that this one was produced between 1970 and 1979. The needed limiting date for PD there is 1972-02-20, so forget about safety margins, it's even possible that the PD limit wasn't even reached!

Incidentally, my wife is an actual journalist trained and employed at a local publisher, so I got first-hand experience in seeing how screwed-up attributions often were (wrong names, to archives without stating individuals despite them being known...). Hence, your argument about "one of the longest running newspaper companies in Mexico would've already given the proper attribution" is moot; the line "Foto: Especiales" is more of a hint meaning in fact "Photo: Courtesy of XY" in similar cases.

I concede that your way of thinking is totally fine for private publishing venues like blogs et al., where you're free to ignore a small residual litigation risk. But it's unfit for Commons, where the policy is to COM:CARES even about these small residual risks of rights infringements, and to avoid them. This often entails an inability to host images, but we can't do much about this. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Right, but your statements are usually just exclusive to say, Cuban players and even then, no one is truly certain of specific dates due to information regarding 1970s Cuban footballers generally being scarce for reasons that I think are obvious to many here. Once again, sourcing for images, especially those of sports, are largely from at least some news local publication as once more, I highly doubt that football officials just allow any random Joe to invade the pitch to take a photo shot of players from angles that only official photojournalists are normally only allowed to take. Further arguments for the verification of the dates can also be seen with other reliable sources corroborating the same general dates that give eligibility for the files falling within the required dates. For example, this article details on the career of Juan del Águila's career with CNI de Iquitos largely being derived in at least in the 1970s with {{PD-Peru-anonymous}} still being applicable due to again, the lack of information pertaining to both the photographer and the publishing studio of File:Juan del Águila Salazar 1974.jpg as well as all of the 1970s being covered before Peru joined the URAA in 1996. This is still applicable if hypothetically, the date wasn't exactly 1974 (which doesn't correlate with team images of later years used in reliable sources but I'm making this argument for the sake of the criteria you've established).

I am saying this with no intentions of ill will, but this is largely purely anecdotal evidence that wouldn't be appropriate for use in say, a discussion in the English Wikipedia. If a secondary source was used to describe the aforementioned that would be something else entirely but the lack of any definitive source nor rationale for a given author nor publishing company like in the Der Spiegel article I've cited earlier makes me less inclined to believe that the author has the sufficient information for proper attribution for the following:

Considering that most reliable sources derived in Latin America typically use images sourced from blogs or social media posts such as for example, this El Comercio article detailing the biography of Peruvian footballer Pedro Aicart using an image directly from a blog about retro Peruvian football, this just further inclines me to believe that the El Universal article I've cited is another one of those instances due to again, the lack of a readily available internet archive for local newspapers based in third world countries with inconsistent internet access. This also being assuming said publications are still operating as of 2025. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You've introduced {{PD-Peru-anonymous}} in this thread, good. Then, you talk about the improbability of "any random Joe to invade the pitch to take a photo shot of players from angles that only official photojournalists are normally only allowed to take". I totally follow you there. But the template states several prerequisites for that a work can be considered anonymous. I strongly doubt that imagery produced by professional photographers can fulfil them at all! For us at Commons, it's sensible to assume that newspapers have some kind of records on who provided what and it's not sensible to assume that there were no registration at all, maybe in some almanach for a jubilee or whatever - I reiterate again: COM:CARES, COM:PRP, COM:L are the framework on which we have to operate. I doubt that one can demonstrate the applicability of "XY-anonymous" templates only by online searches, possibly from abroad. You've got to get your feet on the ground and search through local physical archives to get a level of certainty where it becomes reasonable to assume anonymity of the photographer of any work to be hosted on Commons! What somebody does on social networks, especially from countries where, I surmise, the awareness towards copyrights is low, is not to be replicated here, on Commons. Policies and guidelines forbid it.

Newspaper editorial departments and publishers can often get away from copyright infringements, simply by healing the error after the fact and paying fees due. The compagnies are likely already allocating budgets for this. Copyright laws show for this possibility and there are such disclaimers on a lot of publications, something along the lines of "Great care was taken to determinate and contact all rights holders. That was not successful in all cases. In case you have legitimate claims, contact the editor to settle the matter." But that is not a course of action for us, we've got to clear the rights situations before any rights holders put forth a DMCA takedown, for instance.

For the record: I was surprised by Yann's quick action lately, yes. I would have preferred a thorough discussion involving more people than both of us beforehand. But apparently, he was convinced by my arguments and not by yours. So, while I totally agree that you're not intending to do harm to the project, I think that your interpretations of these PD rules from the Americas are flawed or biased towards a (likely non-existent) admissibility for Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Since I've previously begun using the template, I've always used it whenever it met the two set criteria of how the work failed to mention the given name of author and if the copyright had been registered in the National Copyright Registry by 1996 (when again, Peru joined the URAA which extended copyright protections from 15 years to 70 years). Reading the official PDF provided on Commons also largely reaffirms these two as being the major criterias Unfortunately, the framework you're proposing is rather unreasonable as not only are again, is this significantly more doable for 1st world countries as opposed to their 3rd world counterparts given that a majority of Commons contributors are based in the US but also how I'm certain even physical archives of 3rd world publications aren't as readily available as you make them out to be. Sure, you can make the argument of say, me directly contacting the accounts for what original source scanned the image from so that I can give more direct attribution and sourcing which is fair although this also varies as some of the accounts I have posted from have remained dormant for several years with this especially being the case for countries where internet access is not only inconsistent but also heavily restrictive such as in again, Cuba.

As per your second series of arguments, you'd think that a major club such as Barcelona would've already made a series of legal complaints with this especially being the case since not only do European countries take copyright a lot more seriously but also how a majority of these official photographs are usually by a major photographing company with this especially being the case for stickers of the era. I doubt a potential significant copyright violation like that can be let go by simply by healing the error after the fact and paying fees due considering how protective said companies tend to be over their intellectual property to the point where some of these images can't even be used for files exclusive for the English Wikipedia such as almost every image from IMAGO. Taking these restrictions in mind, these potential issues are significantly more consequential than what you're attempting to depict it as. Finally, haphazardly filing eleven additional files for deletion for quite literally no reason with some of them somehow having even weaker rationale than your first bunch with this conversation even coming close to reaching to a consensus doesn't exactly bode well with me when all I'm really asking for is a centralized conversation here. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you compare your Special:ListFiles/SuperSkaterDude45 against the DR opened? I went down from youngest towards older uploads. I hope that you have noticed that I'm not against your work, there are several uploads for which I do indeed not harbour sufficient doubts about their admissibility here, e.g. File:Rua Líbero Badaró 1977.jpg. But with Jmabel's and Yann's postings here, I felt confident enough to put more of your uploads for definite scrutiny, hence some more DR.

BTW, as it stands, Commons is indeed rather operating on first-world standards in copyright matters. Only because getting certainty about (copy-)rights is factually nigh impossible in some countries does not mean that uploads to Commons are possible under our standing policies. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Question, what makes that file different from the other ones? Is it because of the Brazil template? I mean, it fulfills all you relatively lax qualification for deletions when it comes to the sourcing. Just because other contributors express mild support, doesn't mean you can now file more DR because you have a hunch feeling, especially when again, my aforementioned arguments directly conflate with deletion requests such as with File:Raúl Giustozzi River Plate.jpg where despite clear sourcing from various sources on his tenure with River Plate as well as the latest year still falling safe within {{PD-Argentina}} with the latest year being 1976, you still file it for deletion for... reasons. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} refers to the creation of a photograph; the example being documentary in my opinion. {{PD-Argentina}} on the other hand refers to a publication of a photograph! A creation date can be gauged by the depicted scene (you've got to look for technical devices and vehicles, clothing and so on) and is easier taken out of sources than a publication date. For File:Raúl Giustozzi River Plate.jpg, the general appearance is that of a lithograph printed on paper used in books, for instance, it's not a glossy postcard nor newsprint (I saw images of a similar printing quality in illustrations in books printed between ~1960 and ~1985). Images taken for books can be published much later than the date they were shot as the editing processes of books may be slow. So, it's up to the uploader to demonstrate a valid publication date, until it's done, a brash PD-Argentina claim is misplaced.

And yes, I'm taking the media appearance into account when reviewing files; several files you uploaded were clearly scans from photo prints with creases and scratches, where I assumed that they may have been postcards. Others were clear scans from newspapers, the crude image raster was evident. The framing and possible posing of the motifs is also relevant. Any of these small indices combined may lead or not to the decision of opening a DR, everything can be a hint for determining a creation and publication history. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: So in summary, your arguments largely boil down to personal preference and interpretation with little reasoning nor basis to objective facts and dates which is something that I had previously thought we could come to a consensus to. Not even prior editors that I've engaged with have even told me your statements should be applicable when it comes to which files are allowed on Common. Also, if we were to go by technical devices and vehicles, clothing and so on then your rationale for deletion has even less basis if we were to go by the kits used in just about every image as I highly doubt that say, the jersey used in File:Raúl Giustozzi River Plate.jpg was the same kit used in 1977, especially when again, you compare and contrast with similar images used by reliable sources (with all the other aforementioned arguments I've made still applicable here. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What did I say to give you this impression of "arguments largely boil down to personal preference and interpretation with little reasoning nor basis to objective facts and dates"? It's the complete opposite. I clearly said that "it's up to the uploader to demonstrate a valid publication date" (as for PD-Argentina cases); it should be clear that I'm arguing for a stringency in providing data and facts in order to determine PD statuses. But these datasets should be clear-cut (ISBN + page numbers, DOI, concise links, you get it?) and not some wishy-washy excerpt of random social media cruft. To gain knowledge about a creation history of a photo in the absence of concise data, you could use several proxies (appearance of the image, motifs, background features...) for that. Your Raúl Giustozzi image does not really need such roundabout ways. The creation is plausibly dated, but {{PD-Argentina}} mandates "Date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it." This is currently not the case, information about a publication is absent, so the usage of the PD claim is not valid.

Provide publication dates for PD-Argentina claims and any other where it's relevant, give the largest amount possible of information for any other PD case, plan with safety margins around PD dates and you would be safe from copyright-founded deletion requests. Not doing that is quite a sloppy work, I think and makes your uploads liable for deletions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: I'll reiterate: This is the very first time I've seen any other contributor on Commons present the very arguments you are currently making for eligibility for uploading in commons. Furthermore, the datasets you have listed are largely once more, significantly more suitable for first world countries that are more likely to have internet archives at their disposal. The criteria you're also attempting to establish would also significantly reduce files that were already uploaded years ago. I'm not sure about you but trying to scour the internet for a specific source (that may not even be digitally uploaded at all mind you) just for this standard to not be applied to other contributors as a majority of my uploads are largely similarly structured to older posts that have been up for years with absolutely no prior qualms. I'd give more specifics such as say for example, the source of File:László Harsányi 1978 Media Archive.jpg being a direct PDF scan of the original source, but I'm interested in reading your inevitable response to this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

My response is, after doing the work that YOU should have done: the attribution to the San Diego Sockers" is likely wrong, on the source PDF at page 2, there's a photographer named: "Ron McClendon". It's sensible to assume that he made the pictures displayed in the PDF. Then, the probability of a copyvio grew, as there's a copyright registration from 1983 for a NASL player manual, see https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_16703089 (I admit, that's after when the soccer player went back to Europe). This means that you absolutely cannot be sure at the moment that the photo never went into a copyrighted publication. If people with experience in judging US copyrights come forth and say, "it's OK", I can likely trust them, but you're currently not worth this trust, not with how lax an attitude you displayed towards copyrights. You should maybe admit that there are difficult areas to get illustrations for (these third world countries with fragmented and analog archives, if there are archives at all) and that there will be areas where illustrations found aren't fit for Commons. For EN-WP, you can easily fall back on fair use, which is not possible here, as you surely know (Commons:Fair use). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Not sure what's up with the sudden increase in personal attacks towards me, but please, relax. Anyways, for this particular instance, this is largely based on files within Category:Los Angeles Aztecs 1979 media guide. There are separate media archives per season as the site in where I had even found the PDF had. At the end of the day however, these are largely your own personal preferences with prior uploads that had underwent similar deletions stating otherwise. I'm ultimately going to wait and abide on a consensus by a series of different contributors rather than appeasing a singular editor whose criteria for inclusion isn't used by even other users that have filed DRs on prior uploads. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: You came into my mind as fellow Wikimedian here with relevant language, good communication skills and experience. Could I ask you for your opinion about our arguments? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Grand-Duc is mostly right. SuperSkaterDude45 has uploaded quite a large number of copyright violations with bogus license, so a formal warning is quite needed. Yann (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but my main opinion here his that you've both gone on at great length and provided no summary of what you are saying, and I'm not slogging through it. At a skim: the precautionary principle does, indeed, mean that there are a lot of subjects where we end up not being able to get photos that meet Commons' criteria. Given our intent to host only material that is clearly "free content", we end up being way more limited than most other websites. I routinely upload images to my own Flickr account or (when I was doing one) my own blog that I would not upload to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Aye, then I will try to sum up my ideas, Jmabel.

• I looked through 10 recent uploads of SuperSkaterDude45, 10 of them claimed to be PD due to various laws in the Americas.
• I challenged these PD opinions, making 7 DR while reviewing these 10 files, as I think that SSD45 is too lax, too lenient in his interpretation of PD rules:
  • Three examples:
    • File:Hugo Madera.jpg is said to be PD, but its creation and publication date is IMHO by far not long enough ago to fulfil {{PD-Cuba}} without further evidence
    • File:Juan del Águila Salazar 1974.jpg is said to be PD, but there's not information provided that the prerequisites of {{PD-Peru-anonymous}} are fulfilled, beyond a Facebook posting.
    • In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bonavena Ramírez 1985.png Yann got already convinced by my argumentation and deleted the file for failing the {{PD-Mexico}} prerequisites.
• Our discussion here has two opposite poles, mine can be summed up to that a positive demonstration of PD status by virtue of having anonymous creators is not doable by online searches and that the remaining uncertainty makes such files unfit for Commons per COM:PRP and COM:CARES. SSD45 says the opposite. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Demonstration of anonymity is usually very difficult, barring that you can find a clearly initial publication that didn't credit the work to an individual but rather to a collective entity, e.g. a press agency or a postcard company. Even then, it's possible that the author becomes known. Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

    @Jmabel: You'd be correct if we were referring to say, files using the {{PD-Mexico}} template due to authors coming back (although it should be stated that a majority of these scans are from some form of professional sports magazine/newspaper that are difficult to track down due to being in a third world country), however a file such as File:Juan del Águila Salazar 1974.jpg also qualifies for {{PD-Peru-photo}} considering that both the publication date (1974) and corresponding uniforms are given with the template being applicable with {{PD-1996}} due to Peru initially only giving a 20 year protection for photographs with authors before joining the URAA in 1996, ideally making this image PD in both Peru and the US. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

    • That last (Peru) may be fine; all I'm saying is that if you have pictures that would be PD only if they are anonymous (because otherwise photographers' lifetimes come into play), you actually need some proof of anonymity, not just "I don't know who took it." - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

      @Jmabel: All of my latest uploads use anonymous templates if the original source and other websites I run through multiple search engines that also include those used in their original countries. Some files that were marked for deletion in this latest wave such as File:Sporting Cristal 1980 (2).jpg are even sourced from official websites where no author is credited. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

      • But surely that website is not the original published source of that photo from 1980. It's perfectly possible either (1) that they knew they had reproduction rights (which doesn't give anyone else reproduction rights) or even (2) that they had the photo and did basically no diligence of their own about who took it, figuring they'd get away with it. We've seen more or less the latter happen with agencies of the U.S. government, libraries in several countries, etc. The existence of one reuse that fails to acknowledge a source does not make the work anonymous. I've caught websites, newspapers, magazines, TV stations, even a U.S. congressional office, and a moderately big-budget French film violating my own copyrights this way literally dozens of times, and it would be unlikely that I've found even 10% of the times someone has used a photo of mine without naming me, since there is not a lot to actively draw my attention to work where my name isn't there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

        @Jmabel: Wouldn't this just make a majority of recent uploads of Commons that aren't directly an own work eligible for deletion then? The source for the image is directly from the club's website and considering the current financial troubles of the Peruvian Liga 1, I highly doubt that one of their biggest clubs wants to enter into further legal troubles. Whilst the aforementioned scenario you've mention can be rather commonplace in the internet nowadays, if multiple sources generally give zero information on an image that has entered publication for around 45 years that has likely came from some official collective press that hasn't cited a photographer, especially when you consider the financial and geopolitical status of Peru at the time.

        Either way, I don't even see the point in even bothering trying to even present my arguments on this website anymore considering that they ALWAYS fall on deaf ears with just about every editor on Commons seeking to go on a report spree my uploads and restrict on which templates that have been previously been considered fine for me to use, I can even still use anymore. This has led to me strongly considering either retiring from Commons on my own volition for a long time or make VERY sparse contributions moving forward as it has been made apparent that I can't even do ANYTHING here anymore. It doesn't help administrators just abide by nearly every DR my account has faced with zero question nor challenge with every undeletion request I make always being ignored once I present an actual argument for PD status or just so there can be further rationale for my inevitable indefinite block. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

        Hi SuperSkaterDude45, if you feel like the entire community is against you, it seems like a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY situation; you might find the suggestions at that link useful. The reality is that Wikimedia Commons has stricter copyright practices than almost anywhere else on the internet, as explained by the policies/guidelines COM:PRP and COM:CARES linked above, and this means that a lot of potentially useful but potentially unfree content can't stay here. You've done good work in gathering this content but unless it's proven to be free, Commons is not the right place to store it. Hopefully you can continue to contribute content that meets the Commons guidelines. Consigned (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Renewed review of Uruguayan FoP

• Involved: COM:FOP Uruguay
• Original text: "La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que las obras de que se trata se consideren salidas del dominio privado."
• "The photographic reproduction of paintings, monuments, or allegorical figures exhibited in museums, parks or public walkways, provided that the works in question are considered to be outside the private domain."
• For the law itself, this (1937 law). The 2003 and 2019 versions did not alter the Article 45(8⁰) clause in any way.

I have been "uncomfortable" at this Uruguayan panorama clause. Creative Commons Uruguay chapter hints (in their two articles from 2016, here and here) that there are no clear panorama exception rules in that country, and it's technically illegal to distribute their architecture and monuments freely, which somehow contradicts what is claimed under COM:FOP Uruguay. CC Uruguay had been campaigning to introduce FoP in their country since 2016.

I begin to suspect that the unclear wording which was debated here before may actually mean that it's permissible to use paintings, monuments and allegorical works exhibited in museums, parks, and public thoroughfares if those works have left private domain (thereby, in public domain). Means, out of copyright. It's just against proper reason that works inside museums can be freely exploited (if that is really meant under Uruguayan law based on our comprehension).

On top of that, it can be noted that there are mentions of "dominio público" in the law, which may be the inverse of "dominio privado". This page also gives a bird's eye view of the law, and when I Google Translate-d the clause given there, it states "The photographic reproduction of paintings, monuments, or allegorical figures exhibited in museums, parks, or public walkways, provided they have left the private domain (property)."

La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que hayan salido del dominio (propiedad) privado.

— From https://www.impo.com.uy/derechodeautor/

So perhaps, is Uruguay lacking any real and valid Freedom of Panorama after all?

Ping users who participated under Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Statues images: @Ganímedes and Clindberg: . Ping also the user whom Ganímedes (formerly user:Andrea) inquired on Spanish Wikipedia regarding this: @Leiro & Law: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

In your interpretation this provision of the copyright law will be reduced to virtual nullity as you already do not need any special permission to reproduce the works that are in public domain (by definition of public domain). Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, in the sense that there should be no special permission in reproducing already-PD works. Yet we can also notice the constant calls of some advocacy groups there to "introduce" Freedom of Panorama and other copyright reforms there. ProEVA (Programa de Entornos Virtuales de Aprendizaje), in 2019, released a statement calling for the participation of public stakeholders in their copyright reforms, cautioning approval of measures like extension of copyright term to 70 years (which seemed to have been approved as seen at Com:Uruguay) while lamenting on the "absence" of many important exceptions, one of they cited as absent in the law was Freedom of Panorama (together with exceptions that are crucial for educational sector and libraries). In the 2021 stakeholders' meeting organized by DATA Uruguay, which was participated by librarians, civil society orgs, educators and others, Freedom of Panorama was among those exceptions to copyright that were being pushed for introduction in their country. It seems apparent that in Uruguay, the Article 45(8°) doesn't appear tp be a true FoP clause after all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting approach to the "private domain" concept of the law. I think we need some more context, though. Based only on the article, I could interpret it either way (works already in the PD are FOP-eligible, or works that somehow are in the public domain, as in public spaces, physical places, are FOP-eligible). Bedivere (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere or another thing, works whose physical ownership have been transferred to the "public property domain" (if we are going to base on the interpretation provided by Uruguay's "Centro de Información Oficial" site). In other words, the ownership has been passed to the public (like museums owned by the people or government, buildings owned by the government etc.). This may complicate things, as there must be a resource or website that details the ownerships of each of Uruguay's landmarks one by one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not see buildings mentioned anywhere, they should be still safe to photograph and to license the photographs under CC-BY-SA? If this is the case I would say Uruguay has FoP (with possibly some restrictions). Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter perhaps the default rule applies. Creative Commons Uruguay chapter has considered the lack of valid FoP in Uruguay as incriminating photography of buildings too (see the links to their 2016 Spanish-language articles I shared above). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing has changed. My confusion still exist, but the only thing I can refer is the comment of 31 May 2011 (UTC): "I asked about this in Wikiproject:Law in es:WP. They told me than there´s a mistake in the text: it is not "sólido" (solid) but "salido" (out) see here. The user check the original law written in 1937 see here. An interpretation could be: "está permitida la reproducción de obras que se expongan en los susodichos sitios (museos, parques públicos, etc), salvo que éstas pertenezcan a un particular y los derechos de propiedad intelectual no hayan caducado." In other words, it is allowed to take pictures of buildings, squares, museums, etc. The exception come when this things belongs to a private owner ("particular") and still have the CR (75 years after death, etc.). So yes, there is FoP in Uruguay for public places. Cheers." But the user was a law student, so no clue about his accuracy in this matter. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. So I had a read of the Law N.° 9.739 available here. The wording "dominio privado" ("private domain") is only used in that numbering, so the only possible way to interpret this is constrasting it with the "public domain", widely used throughout the law. Furthermore, the first article states "Esta ley protege el derecho moral del autor de toda creación literaria, científica o artística y le reconoce derecho de dominio sobre las producciones de su pensamiento, ciencia o arte, con sujeción a lo que establecen el derecho común y los artículos siguientes". "Recognizes [authors the] right to domain the productions of their thoughts, science or art". Their private domain. So, when the law states "No es reproducción ilícita: [...] La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que las obras de que se trata se consideren salidas del dominio privado", it seems clear to interpret it as meaning that it is not illegal to reproduce works, monuments or artworks exhibited in museusm, parks and public walkways, as long as they are in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I've read again this 2016 article by the CC Uruguay chapter. It seems a bill that contained the alleged FoP provision was passed in their Senate, but there's no trace of the FoP clause in the latest amendment (2019-20) of the Uruguayan copyright act (perhaps either the final reading of the Parliament or the Uruguayan President himself killed Freedom of Panorama clause down??). It's becoming more evident that there is no recognized FoP there, plus the not-so-surprising opposition there. The article mentioned about an alternate proposal supported by three anti-FoP groups there – AGADU, FEUU, and Cámara del Libro – seeking to restrict FoP to non-lucrative uses, but this alternate proposal was fortunately rejected by the Senate. (Though as I said, no trace of the supposed FoP clause in the latest amendment law.) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Crosswiki fair use of logo image

The Israeli NGO Bimkom has a page in both the Hebrew and English WPs. The Hebrew page displays an image file (Bimkom.jpg) of its logo as "fair use" but the file exists only on that page and not in WikiCommons. My queries:

• Can this be added to the WD item as the Statement field:Image?
• Can it be used on the page in the EN WP

Clarification and instructions are appreciated! -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

About EN-WP: You might find answers in en:WP:FAIRUSE, a local upload for the relevant wiki page there could be possible. Wikidata is AFAIK depending on Commons for media displays, and Commons forbids fair use (COM:FAIRUSE), so you can't add it there under fair use assumptions. But: he:File:Bimkom.jpg may pass as {{PD-Textlogo}}: does it contain anything graphic? It looks like there' only writing in it, in Hebrew, Arabic and Latin script. That would be allowed on Commons and then usable across all Wikimedia projects. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that logo seems to be very simple and definitely textlogo would apply. Bedivere (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support importing the logo. COM:TOO Israel states that a contemporary court ruling applied the American Feist decision in one of the cases, veering Israel away from British to American threshold of originality standard. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Poliovirus Video

Hi all!

I'm new to contributing content to Wikipedia. After my recent upload to update and upgrade the video found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Polio I was flagged for copyrighted stock images.

I went ahead and recreated and drew all of the illustrations on my own and updated the video.

Before I make another series of uploads to Wikimedia Commons, could someone please let me know if I meet all of Wiki's criteria/guidelines for video submissions?

Here is the new video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnok3AGgFWU

If there's further adjustments to be made, I'm happy to make them. I just want to make sure I satisfy all of the guidelines set by Wikipedia!

Thank you! Mermory (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If the illustrations are all yours, I see no problem in uploading the video. Bedivere (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Magali Plovie

Hello, I just created the German article about Magali Plovie, and during my research, I came across this image on Flickr. I'm not very familiar with the 2.0 license under which the image was published, but based on Flickr's description, it should be permissible to upload it to Commons, right? Before I upload it, I wanted to make sure I'm not committing any copyright infringement. Thanks! Carolus requiescat (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found out by myself. Thank you nevertheless! Carolus requiescat (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

that picture is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC, so it can't be used on Commons. I suggest reading Commons:Licensing or, in your case, the German translation at Commons:Licensing/de to get a better understanding of this. Since you've already solved your problem, I'll close your discussion for you. applecuckoo 07:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: applecuckoo 07:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Film Star Kiều Chinh.jpg

Can someone review this 2022 uploaded image from the early 1970's and determine if it is PD South Vietnam or a copyright violation? If it is OK, please pass it. If not feel free to file a Deletion Request. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Flickr is not even the source of this Commons copy. As can be seen in the description page history [9], this image, uploaded in 2022, was correctly sourced as extracted from Vietnam Magazine, 1971, page 30 of the magazine (page 38 of the pdf), from Google books. That real source was replaced with the false flickr source only four days ago [10] by a relatively new Commons user.

2. The flickr account has a different copy of the image. The flickr account is a collection of images from various sources, not own works by the owner of the flickr account, and the particular flickr album is a collection of publicity photos, music album covers, etc. The CC BY 2.0 license at the flickr copy is useless.

3. The uploader of the Commons file, who correctly sourced the image from the magazine, used the template PD-South VietnamGov in relation with the magazine. That may or may not be adequate for works created for the magazine. But the photo being likely a publicity photo from a different original source, that template probably cannot apply to it.

-- Asclepias (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, at present Commons still has some 193 files [11] actually sourced from the flickr account 97930879@N02 and automatically marked as reviewed by the flickr review bot because of the bogus license at the flickr account. Other files were deleted and at some point the flickr account was blacklisted. A real review of the remaining files would be useful. Most may be subject for deletion or of unknown status although some might be PD. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks Asclepias I will ask that it be deleted as an image from a blacklisted flickr account. I just ask because somehow there was a PD South Vietnam license on Commons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:MGA73,

Unfortunately, I will be away on Saturday. If you wish to file a mass Deletion on 193 images files here on Commons that were passed by the flickrbot but come from a blacklisted account, please go ahead as I don't have the time to do this. As Asclepias says, the source flickr account is but a collection of images from various sources, not own works by the owner of the flickr account, and the particular flickr album is a collection of publicity photos, music album covers, etc. The CC BY 2.0 license at the flickr copy has no value at all. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Ugh... I always struggle with mass deletions and I end up doing them manually. Hopefully someone can help out here. --MGA73 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: As long as you have a search that will find the files to be DR'd, or if they were all uploaded in sequence by the same person, it's pretty easy to do a mass DR with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Flight information region boundary maps

This is a cross-post from the main Village Pump page.

I have put together a set of maps of ground-level flight information regions encoded in GeoJSON, and I was wondering if they would be suitable for addition to Wikimedia Commons. The base map I used for this project was this, which is licenced under CC-BY-4.0, and then I verified as much of the boundary data as I could by consulting the aeronautical information publications of each country. Wherever the AIPs called for international boundaries to be followed, I used data from OpenStreetMap to fill those in. I have already added the boundary data for one FIR, Gander Oceanic, at Data:CZWX.map, but I have had to hesitate when it came to adding the rest, because looking in the AIPs might raise some questions over copyright. Would you be okay with me adding the rest of them, or would they belong somewhere else? -- Denelson83 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I had suggested to Denelson83 that he bring the question here, because it is a little tricky whether those boundaries are simply uncopyrightable facts or whether some copyright might be involved. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Boundaries themselves are not copyrightable - but collections of coordinates can enjoy a limited protection via database copyright.

• If you digitize coordinates directly from a copyright-protected map (which is a visual database"), to create your own representation: you violate copyright if you are trying to reproduce the original map to a recognizable degree: reproducing the style or the look+feel. Also, if there is a close replication of really all coordinates but an own style. A practical example: this (if indeed copyrighted as the DR claims) would also violate copyright if a user "remade" the map as an SVG by exact vectorization of all lines. On the other hand, this is an amateur map with own style and not a CopyVio - even if the coordinates of the thick black lines had been directly lifted from an official document like the first example. This is just a short summary of map copyright for context.
• If you have access to an entire proprietary database (limited CR protection of ~15 years, depending on your jurisdiction), you cannot export the data (to a geoformat like Shape/JSON/KML etc.) and then import the data into Commons... but as you describe it, that is not the case, either.

Instead, you assembled the coordinates either yourself or directly from that OS website, right? After copying/digitizing the data from that open sourced map, you only verified (the rough location of each coordinate pair) with those official (=copyrighted) maps, and then placed the information on top of another open sourced map. If that is as you say, I see no database copyright violation, since you are the author of the new database. --Enyavar (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I used the map from observablehq.com as a base map, and had to make sure that all the coordinates I was seeing in that base map were accurate. I was told to look in the countries' AIPs to make that verification, as in make sure that no FIRs' boundaries had been redefined since the observablehq.com map was created. But then the question is where did the creators of the map on observablehq.com get their data? It had to come from somewhere. -- Denelson83 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Image by an unidentified photographer in 1938 in Freetown, Sierra Leone

I am not sure, if this image if is in PD. According to its publication by Christraud M. Geary, a leading scholar on such photographs, on p. 18 here, it was taken by an unidentified photographer in 1938 in Freetown, Sierra Leone. This is corroborated by this publication, p. 14. The copyright in Sierra Leone expires after 50 years. Currently, this image is held at the is held by the Myrta and Emory Ross Collection of African Photographs at Syracuse University. Thanks for any useful information that might answer this doubt. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

State and municipal flags of the Federated States of Micronesia

Hello. There are flags of municipalities of the Federated States of Micronesia (second-level administrative divisions under states) uploaded to Commons, some taken from Flags of the World. The FOTW ones are credited under Eugene Pravec (the creator of the images on that site) while others are under the uploaders on Commons. Mwoakilloa's, which I uploaded, is credited under the Mwoakilloa Municipal Government but simple geometry template (I take responsibility if this is incorrect). While these flags are verifiably used, I have so far not been able to conclude on the copyright status of these without contacting the municipal governments.

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Federated States of Micronesia says that 'any work of the Federated States of Micronesia Government' is public domain; does that extend to state and municipal governments? As I was writing this I also noticed that the state flags are inconsistent; Yap's has no listed author at all, Chuuk's is credited under the author (as is the old Pohnpeian flag, while Pohnpei's and Kosrae's have both the actual designer of the flag and vectoriser, using the PD-self template.

Could anyone please help with correcting the copyright statuses of these, or clarify if I am getting anything wrong? See this list on Wikipedia for the flags in question, though there are raster variants of the state flags on Commons too. Infrish 2 (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Andy Warhol's soup cans (was: Licensing verification)

File:Campbell's Soup Cans by Andy Warhol.jpg was uploaded yesterday and inserted into Wikipedia article space. Is its claimed PD-US-not renewed/cc-by-2.0 licensing correct.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

We have two more photos of these paintings in Category:Campbell's Soup Cans and have also deleted several files showing them over the years. MOMA and Campbell's Soup Cans (Q2697937) say they are copyrighted. Is there any evidence that they are in fact PD-US-not-renewed as claimed? --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, MoMA is probably relying on the Warhol Foundation's claim of copyright, not their own analysis/research.

The uploader appears to be correct that the paintings in the image are indeed the same set that were first exhibited at Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles in 1962 (Warhol made many additional versions of his soup can works as both paintings and prints, but we can rule out the possibility that the pictured works are from a later version/set). Unclear if the works sold at that specific show; is the offer of sale enough for publication?

I have never seen the back of these paintings (nor could I find a photo with a cursory Google search) so I don't know if they truly lack a copyright notice, but I've also never been clear on whether the notice needs to be on the front of 2-d works of art like this - I've always just assumed that the notice can be anywhere on the work, even the verso.

But if there is indeed no notice on the paintings, and if the exhibition in Los Angeles counted as publication, and if the uploader/others were/are unable to find a renewal, then it would seem they're PD.

Late addition: Didn't think about the Campbell's of it all. Not sure how their IP plays into this situation; I believe Warhol got permission to make these works originally, but I have no idea what kind of agreement might have been made re: ownership. The uploader says they couldn't find a renewal under Campbell's name either, so it might be a moot issue. --19h00s (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagging in @Toohool as a courtesy as the uploader! 19h00s (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any Campbell's issue. Likely not copyrightable in the first place, published without notice anyways, de minimis in the paintings even if it was under copyright, and the design dates from long before 1930 as well so it's expired. The paintings come down to whether the they were legally published before 1964, which is very possible but a thorny question, and can be possibly be different based on judicial circuit and precedent court cases. Before 1976, Melville Nimmer's 1956 distillation of court cases said: The relevant decisions indicate that publication occurs when by consent of the copyright owner the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur. The Copyright Compendium of the era was a bit more equivocal if it was a single painting being sold. Sale or offering for sale of a single copy could be publication, depending upon the intent of the copyright proprietor. When the applicant states that only one copy has been sold, registration will be made if the applicant also indicates that he considers this publication. Post 1978, the 1984 compendium said that a sale of a painting to a private collector was not publication. The reference cited did seem as though the works were up for sale to the general public -- unsure if those were the originals, or a print. But that is a pretty good case for publication. The exhibition alone is not publication, unless they allowed photographs etc. inside (which is hard to know). But the offering for sale, documented in the 1962 newspaper article linked from the image, is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like only two of the paintings actually sold and left the gallery during that exhibition (plus several others that were paid for but bought back by the gallery before being picked up), but they were indeed the originals and they were indeed available for public purchase. It seems like the price on the paintings changed between the article and the show actually opening - they went for $100 each, not $200 as the LA Times says. (Perhaps the works just weren't selling and they had to cut the price). But yes, based on your analysis and the history of the exhibition/sales, it seems like these paintings were all published by virtue of being offered for public sale at this exhibition. 19h00s (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am going to assume all is well, since a lot of eyes have taken a look at this without action or suggestion of action.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will say, I believe this image raises some sticky questions, particularly in re: Commons's/other projects' relationship to GLAM institutions and the art world. To my eye, we have an essentially airtight case for the paintings being PD, just based on the public record alone. But Wikidata had apparently been relying on MoMA's presumption of copyright for years. MoMA almost certainly was just basing their presumption off the Warhol Foundation's claim - there are very few museums that don't defer to the artists/their estates when it comes to copyright. That calls into question the entire idea of using museums as sources for copyright information at all for any recent (past 100 years) works. (On the other hand, there are almost no museums equipped/funded to do the work that LOC is able to do in tracking down authoritative copyright statuses, so I don't exactly blame them for just doing the easy thing; and structurally, it doesn't make sense to tick off artists/their estates by denying them a claim of copyright when you as a museum need them to be willing to loan works/participate in shows/give you donations).

  The second element is this specific artist and the kinds of powerful market institutions that represent this kind of artist (certainly a very small slice of the totality of visual art in the world, but a high-profile slice). If Oldenburg's estate was willing to issue a takedown notice, might the Warhol Foundation try it too? Not raising that as a PCP issue, but genuinely wondering what would happen in that situation. Because it doesn't feel implausible; other estates/foundations have tried similar things in situations just as "airtight" as this one.

  (I say this all with peace and love to GLAM folks, artists, and anyone else; this is a touchy subject, don't want to inflame anything). --19h00s (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  (Understandable if no one wants to open this can of worms, but I fear it will be forced opened eventually if we continue to host works that we determine are PD through clear commonsense analysis but that high-profile artists/estates/museums claim are copyrighted.) --19h00s (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think there's much to worry about. For one thing, works that are PD-US for lack of formalities like this one are still under copyright in most of the rest of the world; Warhol's works are still protected until at least 2038 (50pma) most everywhere. So the assertions of copyright aren't entirely wrong. Also I don't think that identifying these works as PD really has much effect on the market for them. Companies that want to republish or merchandise artworks are pretty cautious about copyright, so they'll still probably seek licenses from the rights administrators, rather than trusting the conclusions of some amateurs on a website.

If they were to send a takedown, WMF tends to not honor it unless there's a credible legal argument behind it. The Oldenburg case isn't really comparable, because the law was on their side (imho); EU freedom of panorama laws don't apply in the US. Toohool (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• @TonyTheTiger and 19h00s: There is a copyright renewal for "Campbell Soup cans : no. SC14.001." by Andy Warhol (Registration Number: VAu000275303; Date: 1993-06-01). However, the renewal says that the work was created in 1964. Nosferattus (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Now that is interesting. The version renewed seems to be a later version of one of the soup can works - which can/version, I'm not sure (there are over a dozen variations, in painting, print, and sculpture form). The medium line is kinda throwing me off; I'm not aware of any Warhol soup can 2-D paintings that were produced on wood.

  What this could be is one of the Campbell's box sculpture-paintings, which would seem to match the medium in the renewal (here's one that seems to match, also in MoMA's collection). But the year on the renewal doesn't match the year on the original soup cans exhibited/offered for sale in LA in '62. 19h00s (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Or possibly one of the can sculptures, like this example in the Chrysler Museum in Virginia? 19h00s (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Neither of those seem especially likely to me. There is a separate renewal for a Campbell's Soup Box, and the renewal mentioned above is for "Soup cans" plural, so the sculpture doesn't seem likely either. The description at https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_1813291 is mangled for some reason. The description in the old database says "Paint + pencil artwork on wood", which I'm guessing is the non-mangled version. I also have no idea which artwork it is referring to. Nosferattus (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Still digging, still can't find anything that exactly matches the description. If anyone has a copy of the catalogue raisonné it's almost certainly in there (not holding my breath that anyone does, that thing is like 6 volumes and costs almost $4k USD for the whole thing). I can take a look next week when one of the libraries with a copy nearby is open. But it feels like it was a work associated with w:The American Supermarket exhibition in '64, or else a one-off piece similar to the painting he made for the Campbell's board chair that same year. And I actually do think the renewal was for a single piece, based on the numbering in the registration - "SC14.001" isn't a USCO number, that's a Warhol/Foundation catalogue number (SC = soup can), presumably it would be ".001-.00X" if it were a set of works. 19h00s (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Toohool Not to put you on the spot but I'm presuming you already did some digging to cross your t's and dot your i's here while searching for a renewal; did you figure out which soup can work was actually renewed, or did you assume the mismatched dates meant it was a nonissue for this file (as I kind of assumed tbh)? 19h00s (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Toohool's original upload said "No relevant copyright renewals were found through searches for "Warhol", "Campbell's", and related terms." So I guessed they missed it somehow, possibly because the registration title is for "Campbell Soup cans" instead of "Campbell's Soup cans". Nosferattus (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not a renewal, it's an original registration. The "VAu" prefix indicates an unpublished visual arts work. So it's a work that was created in 1964, and by 1993 had never been published (at least not in a legal sense). There are a lot of registrations of unpublished works by the Warhol Foundation through the 1990s. Presumably they were trying to protect what they could, since most of Warhol's works had probably gone into the public domain due to lack of copyright notice. It might be interesting to know what that work is; but it couldn't have any impact on the copyright of the paintings that were published in 1962, and whose copyright (if there even were a copyright notice) had expired by 1991. Toohool (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

OK then it seems like we're back where we were before -- the pictured works are PD, the file is allowed on Commons (thanks for looping back, Toohool, appreciate your insights here!). Unless we really need to prove that the above registration is for a different work, I'm gonna go ahead and cancel the library hold I put on the catalogue raisonné (I don't feel like schlepping to LOC unless I really need to).

Happy to let sleeping dogs lie if no one wants to discuss the broader questions this image raises. 19h00s (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

El Salvador

• Relevant page: COM:CRT/El Salvador

Page needs to be updated, new (2024) copyright law now in force. Luckily, FoP provision remains intact under Article 45(f). Still, other provisions may have changed, though. Ping also @Sebastian Wallroth: who posted the update on Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/El Salvador (even if it's possible that there are very few or no page watchers for it). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done updating. Some noticeable points:

• Government works are protected by default. The only "public thing" from them are "documents of a strictly historical nature contained in the National Archives", but the free use right is only granted to "private individuals", so not sure if Wikimedia Commons can benefit.
• A possible red flag on Salvadoran Freedom of Panorama. There was no subheading for Article 45 in the 1993-2017 version of the law, but in the 2024 version of the law, the subheading "Uso personal, académico y cultural de obras sujetas a protección" was added, denoting that all of the free uses under that article, including the Freedom of Panorama clause (clause (f)) carried over from the 1993-2017 version, must be of a "personal, academic, and/or cultural nature". As a media archive and repository site, do we fulfill the last-mentioned requirement of hosting their landmarks and public heritage for cultural purposes?

The 2024 law is apparently retroactive in the context of procedures and actions concerning copyright registrations, as per Article 335. ("Distinctive signs, patents, acts, and copyright contracts registered pursuant to previous laws shall retain the validity granted to them by said laws, but any procedure or action initiated regarding said registrations after the effective date of this law shall be processed in accordance with the provisions contained therein.")

There are no changes in terms and durations.

The updated Salvadoran FoP rule needs discussion. Ping @Sebastian Wallroth: (who posted message on CRT talk page) for an opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JWilz12345, thank you for your efforts. I'm sorry, but my legal knowledge is only sufficient to understand explanations on Commons to a limited extent. I don't feel confident enough to engage in a discussion. Kind regards, --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also mention for their opinions: @VTSGsRock and Clindberg: . This is reminiscent to the questions on the Ecuadorian FoP status recently. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the best expert on FoP since I "specialize" on historical copyright terms (which have changed over time), but I'd lean OK. The definition of cultural use is very broad and is similar to COM:FOP Ecuador before 2016, which had FoP as long as the images were made for disseminating culture (which practically applies to any taking of photograph or video). Because of this I'll assume that FoP is covered by cultural usage. VTSGsRock (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

My hunch, though, is in negative side: purely cultural purpose ≠ free / commercial uses of buildings and monuments. This parallels COM:CRT/El Salvador#Stamps, in which an official email response (see here) asserts Salvadoran stamps can only be used for philatelic, cultural, and educational purposes (informatory media), and all commercial uses of stamps are punishable by Salvadoran law. In the parallel logic, with the 2024 "restriction" (introduced by possibly retroactive law), it is an offense to freely photograph and share El Salvador's buildings and monuments for commercial/lucrative purposes. Nevertheless, I'm waiting for other responses if they have different opinions on this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The FoP provision is different from the restriction on Salvadoran stamps because there is a non-commercial restriction on stamps, unlike FoP, although both restrict use to academic and cultural uses. VTSGsRock (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock perhaps "cultural" use may include lawful commercial uses like dissemination of images in postcards and commercial blogs to promote Salvadoran culture. I'll wait for more opinions, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Questions about a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service video

Hello, I was doing license review and I came across this video:

• File:Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) scolding call in response to Pied-billed Grebe broadcast- Great Meadows NWR, Concord, MA (7245585004).webm

The Flickr source (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) has put the video under PDM 1.0, and the upload-bot has put it under {{PD-USGov-FWS}}. However, the watermark in the video clear states the author is a USFWS “volunteer”. So is the {{PD-USGov-FWS}} template applicable to the video? If it is not, then which license template should it be under? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, let us approach this from a viewpoint of employment laws. If I'm not mistaken, volunteers to some organisation are usually integrated in the chain of command and reporting of that organisation, even if they are not paid for their work. They still take charge of duties for the benefit of the organisation and are likely protected by workplace insurances against bodily harm incurred during working (if applicable). I think that such a person can be seen as being in the employ of the organisation. So, I would assume that a work made by a volunteer affiliated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service falls under the PD tag Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Works that can be freely used for non-commercial purposes only

I'm new to Commons. {{Copyrighted free use}} allows commercial use, but are there any copyright tags to indicate that commercial use is not permitted?I don't speak English very well, so this text is machine translated. OUT is this (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@OUT is this: Hi, non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Commons. You can ask questions in another language. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok.thank you OUT is this (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Public domain - Serbia

The copyright law in Serbia states that "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions" is not copyrighted work. Is the public service broadcaster a state body or a body performing a public function? ImStevan (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

New uploader here, just looking to clarify

Howdy! I've been a Wikipedia contributor for several years but I'm still new to Wikimedia. I've been wanting to upload some images for a while now, but was holding off on doing so as I researched the copyright policy. I believe I've come to some conclusions, but I just wanted to check before I actually uploaded anything to make sure that I am in the clear. All images that I discuss are sourced from newspaper archives accessed via ProQuest.

First, and presumably least contentious, there are a couple images from newspapers in 1929 that I was hoping to upload. From everything I have read, I believe images published in 1929 should unambiguously be in the public domain (and therefore clear for uploading), even assuming maximum possible copyright renewal. I believe the "PD-US-expired" tag would apply in this case? If it matters, the main image I am wanting to upload is a sketch of a canceled skyscraper, although there is an image or two of the construction site of a different skyscraper that I may wish to upload as well.

I was more concerned about a different batch of images. The skyscraper in question was mainly built in 1930, so there are several images in The Cincinnati Post and The Cincinnati Enquirer of the construction process that were published in 1930. If I understand Wikimedia policy correctly, these images would clearly enter the public domain on January 1, 2026 and be eligible for upload, but that's only assuming maximum possible renewal. I manually checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries for 1957-58 (when works from 1930 would have been renewed) and could find no mention of any either newspaper being renewed. There is another image from 1931, which I also could not find any mention of in 1958-59. On a different subject, there is also a photo of an architect from a 1940 obituary in the Enquirer, and again, I found no relevant mentions in the 1967-68 catalog. To the best of my knowledge, none of the photos mentioned here were attributed to a syndicated source. Do I need stronger proof of non-renewal, or would these images most likely fall under "PD-US-not renewed"? Thank you in advance for any advice! Silver181 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

John Mark Ockerbloom has a great resource for this. Cincinnati Enquirer is in the clear until 1964 as nothing was renewed. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/enqohcincinnati Cincinnati Post started to renew contributions for their July 11, 1938 issue, so everything before is fair game. Afterwards, checking the Post's renewals should be done. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/postohcincinnati Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Colorized reproduction of PD original?

If an art-print company takes an old PD black-and-white line drawing and colorizes it, can they claim a new copyright for this derivative work? Asking because a question was raised on the WP helpdesk about this upload: File:Governor John Winthrop. Muzilon (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: If the colorizing is done by a human (not AI) and rises to the level of the copyrightable, yes. The example there looks like the colorization would be copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In the US? The Copyright Office has been really leery of giving copyrights for colorization. They invited public discussion in 1987 before accepting that if you colorized a whole movie, you could claim copyright for that. https://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html quotes them as saying "The overall appearance of the motion picture must be modified; registration will not be made for the coloring of a few frames or the enhancement of color in a previously colored film." I think this would akin to coloring a few frames, and not eligible for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The image is clearly a colorized version of a line drawing originally published in a 19th century work, Cassell's History of the United States. The artist's signature reads "Whymper sc.", so likely w:Josiah Wood Whymper (d. 1903). Although the original b&w image is PD, the immediate source of the colorized image[12] does have a copyright notice. At the very least, the uploader's claim of a "CC-0" license doesn't seem to be quite correct. Muzilon (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Photo of the Millwall FC crest.jpg

Does this file violate COM:FOP UK or is it okay to host it on Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean COM:TOO UK? I don’t see why would this be related to FoP. The logo is surely above COM:TOO UK (which is very low), and per this website [13], the version of the logo was first used in 2014, and the lion design in it was first used in 2007. So the logo is most likely still copyrighted and should be deleted. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy No, I was referring to FOP. It's clearly above COM:TOO UK so the question is if it is copyright exempt because of FOP, since it's a photo. If not, then it can be speedily deleted as {{Logo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. So no, this is a 2D “graphic work” and it is not allowed under COM:FOP UK. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Philippine copyright guide chart similar to COM:Hirtle_chart

I revised the copyright chart based on this discussion. Please tell me if there are any problems with it. Thanks. --Aristorkle (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aristorkle how about tables similar to those used under COM:Japan#Terms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Should I add it under the already existing tables? —Aristorkle (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

PD-BrazilGov

Are these correctly licensed with {{PD-BrazilGov}}? Jonteemil (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

These images appear not to be related to the Brazilian government. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tiberio Silva Souza. Jonteemil (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump Truth Social profile pic

Is this depiction of Donald Trump in American flag ([14]) which is public domain per {{PD-USGov}}? Absolutiva (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Depends on (1) Who to the photo; (2) who made this derivate work/design? Not simply on who uploaded the image to social media. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

FOP/TOO Italy

Do I assume correctly that the photographs in this gallery are TOO-Italy, even so there is no FoP exception in Itlay?

• File:Counter balancing Renato Brancaleoni.jpg
• File:Counter balancing Renato Brancaleoni (cropped).jpg

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. Per it:Pietre in equilibrio, this is una forma di espressione artistica consistente nella realizzazione di composizioni fatte con pietre poste in equilibrio una sull'altra, che in apparenza sembrano essere fisicamente impossibili. The key words are "espressione artistica" (artistic expression), meaning that this is intended as creative art (besides being a playful exploration of physics). Seeing this as art is understandable. The artist named in the description is not readily Google-able, though, so there's a chance it's actually the uploader himself. A DR may be in order. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Strike the idea that the uploader himself build these stacks. That's unlikely per Special:Contributions/Sefabetti, on another upload, he wrote another name. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Staking Balancin Gabriele Meneguzzi.jpg is apparently a FLICKRWASH. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: DR for the remaining two uploads, plus one crop done. Thanks a bunch for your input!

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of IUCN species distribution/range maps

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this question! I'm looking to update the distribution/range map for Keel-billed toucan, which currently uses File:Ramphastos sulfuratus range.png. Firstly, this is a .png, so the range itself is pixellated, and ideally there would be a .svg (scalable) version. The main issue is that the data seems to be out of date; according to the 2021 IUCN Red List, the population trend is decreasing and so the range has reduced in size.

With this goal in mind, I looked at pre-existing species range maps, and most seem to cite IUCN Red List data. Commons:IUCN Red List includes a link to IUCN's Spatial Data Download page, implying that (at some point in the past, at least) this data was released under a free licence. However, as the page currently states, "The data are made freely available for non-commercial use, to help inform conservation planning and other non-commercial decision-making processes (see Terms and Conditions of Use)." See also The IUCN Red List Terms and Conditions of Use, updated June 2024.

I'm aware that content licensed for non-commercial (NC) use is not allowed on Commons, so for instance this map can't be directly uploaded. Am I right in thinking that tracing (or even approximating) the distribution regions would make the resulting map a derivative work, and therefore also NC use only and not allowed on Commons?

This question also extends to non-IUCN spatial data, for instance derived from maps published in non-free-use journal articles. If the only part of the map that is reproduced is the spatial data (ie. species distribution/range), with no transfer of any stylistic elements aside from that, is the resulting map classed as a derivative work? My gut instinct says that it will be, but I just want to check before I embark on trying to find a Commons-friendly source for up-to-date distribution maps. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

In case it helps, the potential derivative work would be an .svg version of this map: keel-billed toucan range no labels.png (Google Drive). The range has been traced from the IUCN map but no stylistic features have been replicated. As mentioned above, I'm assuming that because of IUCN's non-commercial limitation on usage of their data (not just their graphics), this wouldn't be allowed on Commons, but it would be great if someone with more expertise/experience with copyright issues could confirm that this is the case. Thank you! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Logo de ChatGPT

Buenas administradores, una pregunta el logo de ChatGPT (File:ChatGPT-Logo.svg) esta por debajo de Umbral de Originalidad (below TOO) o encima del Umbral de Originalidad (above TOO) en Estados Unidos (USA) porque no sabemos si ese logo es un tipo de cuerpo geometrico? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This question is important because point 3 of the license ("The ChatGPT mark should not be featured more prominently than the user's own company name or marks") is probably beyond what is allowed by the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and point 6 ("We may terminate permission to use our Marks at any time, and usage must stop promptly.") says that it's revocable. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Flagging that I asked this back in March and only got one response, saying it's above ToO in the U.S. 19h00s (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying that @Glrx was also on the fence about ToO in this case but recommended a PCP deletion. I should've reread that archive page more closely! 19h00s (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt: those would presumably be restrictions based on trademark law, not copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Buenas ,ya comenzé el DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChatGPT-Logo.svg). AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The license is a trademark license; that is irrelevant. Less sure on the copyright. But... it's really one graphic shape repeated in a non-original way. I'm not sure that one shape is enough for a copyright. Compare some decisions by the Copyright Office: [15][16][17][18][19] . Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Before the source country established copyright relations with the United States

For this part of {{PD-1996}} The U.S. only became a party to the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989. Some countries signed Berne Convention before like Libya on Sept. 28, 1976 and didn't have any other copyright relations with the United States. So which date is actually "before the source country established copyright relations with the United States" for Libya? March 1, 1989 or Sept. 28, 1976?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The earliest URAA date is January 1, 1996. It would only be different if the source country first established copyright relations after that date. While the U.S. joined Berne in 1989, it did not restore foreign copyrights to Berne minimums as required by the treaty. The URAA was the result but it did not take effect until 1996. The U.S. would not have had copyright relations with Libya until 1989 really -- don't think Libya ever joined the UCC. Libyan works were not protected at all before 1989, and while their works were after that date, they were still fully subject to the U.S. notice and renewal requirements for works published before 1989. They would have remained PD in the U.S. until the URAA took effect. So for that part, the answer would be 1989. If a country only established relations in say 1993, I'm a little less sure -- but that seems to say anything published before 1993 remained unprotected in the US until the URAA; only unpublished works (where the Berne country of origin was not yet set) could have had protection. After the URAA date, the URAA restorations happen at the same moment relations come into effect (meaning the vast majority of PD works in that country at that moment remain PD in the US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:PD-NL-Gov

This depreciated license template currently redirects to Template:PD-NL-Gov/en. But the Dutch version {{PD-NL-Gov/nl}} remain, it needs to be deleted/depreciated. It was nominated for deletion after 12 years ago, see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en. Absolutiva (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

KG Steel logo

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de KG Steel como este (http://www.kgchem.co.kr/eng/contactus/family.php) fue creado en Corea del Sur (South Korea) el logo es por debajo del Umbral de Originalidad (below TOO)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Translated Work

I had previously uploaded a translated work here: File:The 'Gang of Four' Sabotaged the Campaign to Learn From Tachai in Agriculture in a Vain Attempt to Restore Capitalism.pdf. I'm sure the translator's copyright is okay, but my issue is whether the writers of the original, presuming it existed, have copyright claims. Please let me know. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The description states the original document was authored by the Taning County CCP Committee. Per the discussion in Chinese Wikisource in wikisource:zh:Template_talk:PD-PRC-CPC#中共地方委员会的其它文件, their opinion is that the documents by local CCP committees are not copyright-exempted under {{PD-PRC-CPC}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the PDF is now deleted, so I wanted to add that the original text should enter PD in China in 2027. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: : You say 2027, is that because fifty years would have passed, and hence {tl|PD-PRC}} would apply?? I may start uploading things over 50 years old. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-PRC}} would apply since it is a organisation work and in 2027 it will be 50 years after it was published. Also, just a reminder, when you upload PD works from China, just make sure it is also in PD in the US as well. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Backrooms images

We have a couple of backrooms images hosted under subcategories of Category:The Backrooms. Those images are alleged to be under free CC licensing from the fandom wiki dedicated to this Internet phenomenon. However, does this CC licensing extends to the underlying photos used in the Backrooms images?

For example, File:Skin-Stealer OG.jpg is technically a derivative work. We can treat the image of the supposed monster as freely licensed, created by the uploader from the fandom wiki, but how about the image of the lobby/room? Is that image own work of the Backrooms wiki uploader? Is that image derived from freely licensed media files here (on WikiCommons) or from Flickr/elsewhere? If both aren't the case, is the lobby image computer generated by the Backrooms wiki uploader? Or, (the COM:PCP side or the worse case) is the image grabbed somewhere on the Internet and edited by Backrooms wiki users to add the image of the monster, and released under a free CC licensing on their fandom wiki?

Unless there is an explicit statement claiming that the source image of the room/lobby is freely licensed, we cannot be sure if the image can be freely hosted here on WikiCommons. Both COM:EVIDENCE and COM:PCP warrant transparency on the sourcing of the images, as well as the underlying works, as much as possible. I'm going to open the discussion here before making any possible action (like COM:Deletion request). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The underlying photos are CC0; they were released by the original photographer (!) at https://archive.org/details/backrooms-photos. However, the background image used in File:Skin-Stealer OG.jpg does not appear to be among those photos, so its copyright status remains unclear; I'd recommend a DR.

That being said, some cleanup here may be in order - starting on the Wikidata end, where there are entities for dozens of minor entities in that work (e.g. levels, creatures, etc). I'll follow up on that over there in a bit. Omphalographer (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer I agree that the original Backroom image is CC0 based on the licensing given by the copyright owner (Bob Mazza) as per IA's Nimaid. I'm talking about the other images that apparently do not use the images from Mazza. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the other photos I saw seemed to be either plausibly self-authored (e.g. File:Backrooms Wikidot Logo.png, File:Backrooms Visualized.jpg), or attributed appropriately to an author (typically a Flickr account, e.g. File:Underground area of condominium.jpg). There might be some exceptions but they didn't seem to be pervasive. Omphalographer (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done nominating the Skin Stealer image for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it okay to change the license of file:Intel Spiral.flac to PD-music-ineligible?

In 2017, the United States Copyright Office registered a copyright claim to the 1994 sound recording of the "Intel Spiral", as it "contained a perceptible and sufficient amount of creative production authorship." However, registration was refused for the underlying musical composition, a perfect octave followed by a four-note arpeggio, as it was below the threshold of originality.

Trade (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the current license should be left in place. While the musical composition in the abstract may be PD, Qzekrom's rendition of that composition as an audio file is nonetheless a copyrightable work, just like the official recording by Intel. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Library back up project

These files are uploaded in Library back up project. Besides them, More copyright books was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This problem must be solved. Biáng (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Biáng: Hi, You can simply nominate them for deletion, and add the DR in the appropriate "Undelete in ...." category. Yann (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

However, The number of books that to be inspected their condition of copyright is over a million. I can’t finish this by myself. Additionally, some of libraries don’t allow to use their own resources for free. For example, Waseda university library requires a fee for using their contents on business (please read this Japanese page). For these reasons, it seems that we must delete files by their sources firstly. Biáng (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Biáng: We don't care what other sources say if the works are in the public domain. For that, all we need to know are the author's death and the date of publication. We can create mass-deletion requests if we have these information. All files should have a category for the author. Then it is easy to delete a whole category. Yann (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. I wanted some collaborators for deleting files that violate Copyright, but I found it difficult. Biáng (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Or add the filenames to the specific categories of Commons:Library back up project/deletion requests and nominate the files for speedy deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fox-Howl.ogg

File:Fox-Howl.ogg

The sound effect in question.

Reposting this from Wikipedia's Copyright Questions:

I don't know where the sound originated from exactly (as that seems lost to time, though it was in many early Disney movies/shorts) but I definitely know that User:LokYYs did not create it, as this sound effect has been used in media since the 1940s. Currently you can license the sound from Sound Ideas. The original file name is "ANMLWdog_Coyote_HB02-78-4" and is on Hanna-Barbera Sound Effects Library disc 2. I don't think Wikipedia has the legal right to use this sound on their page, but I'm not entirely sure what to do about it. Thank you. Migsy1 (talk) Migsy1 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. The discussion can go on there. Bremps... 22:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these photos properly licensed?

Hi, I was redirected to this page. May I verify with you guys that these photos are properly licensed on Wikimedia?

• File:Cupofjoe-auroramusicfestival-2025-multo-screencap.jpg
• File:Vivoree Esclito in March 2025.jpg
• File:Maris Racal 2024.jpg

I'm used to seeing the "This file is free to use" golden banner. How do I know that these files have been properly licensed? Thanks so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

File 1 and 3 seems to have been taken by the uploader. I dunno how file 2 is supposed to be free Trade (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Have Files 1 and 3 been verified as Own Work? Also, the owner of File 2 said he'd sent the email to Wikimedia already, so I was wondering what was up with that. It usually gets tagged within the same week of uploading, if there's no license evidence. Bloomagiliw (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You are the one who uploaded file 2. Shouldn't you know yourself if the license is valid? Trade (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually, when I upload a file and know that the owner of the photo has sent an email, it either shows the golden banner saying that the file has been verified to be free or immediately gets flagged (i.e. failed verification). :)

Neither of those things happened this time. As you can see, that photo was up for months without getting flagged. I knew that the owner of the photo told me in private correspondence that he'd sent the email. He had successfully provided a valid license for another photo, which you can see on that actress' page.

Bloomagiliw (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bloomagiliw you haven't tagged the description page of images with pending permissions with {{subst:PP}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rail tickets of China all with wrong copyrights?

Category:Rail tickets of China all with wrong copyrights? I think so, all the uploaders are pretending they have copyright on their tickets. Are the tickets copyrighted? Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The copyright, if any, belongs to the issuing company or government. But there is certainly no copyright on simple tickets like File:1995年柳州铁路局季节上浮票.jpg. Only tickets with a complex artistic design would have a copyright, i.e. File:密云北站站台票.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Translated Work from over 50 years ago

File:Party, PLA Strengthen Sinkiang Militia-Building Work.pdf

Okay, I have uploaded a translated work published by the US government from a China PRC source in Mandarin over 50 years old. I believe I have met the copyright for both USA and China, let me know if I'm wrong. Now I'm wondering if there's an issue because it was digitized by Google. Here's the statement I see that they write:

"Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

 Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images." https://www.hathitrust.org/the-collection/search-access/access-use-policy/#pd-google

So, does the upload satisfy China and USA copyright rules, but not meet Google's rules? Or is this okay for Wiktionary?? If you're interested, I want to upload this because it contains a relatively rare geographical term in it that I am documenting for Wiktionary- 'Chiehshih'- see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chiehshih. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The exact copies produced by Google lack originality and are uncopyrightable. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous NZ photos from 1950s?

I am not sure about the large batch of b&w New Zealand newspaper photos from the 1950s (depicting w:Sir Edmund Hillary et al.) uploaded by this contributor, which lack any PD-US tag. If published anonymously in the 1950s then the images probably entered the public domain in New Zealand 50 years after publication (i.e. from the year 2000 onwards), but I suspect they would remain copyrighted in the USA until 95 years after publication - meaning they're not eligible for Commons until 2045 at the earliest. (At any rate, the images would not have been PD in the country of origin in 1996, which seems to be key year for URAA purposes.) Muzilon (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That analysis sounds correct. This all of course assumes that NZ is the relevant country of original publication for those photos. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the images have been sourced from the NZ National Library, which in turn credits NZ newspapers like the Evening Post. The National Library itself also has a notice forbidding commercial use and derivative copies of the historic images hosted on its website, although this may be w:Sweat of the brow territory. Muzilon (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright in Serbia

The copyright law in Serbia states that "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions" is not copyrighted work. Is the public service broadcaster considered a state body or a body performing a public function? ImStevan (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

DM or not?

The image concerned is File:Zc museum 7.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a good test is to see if the image is still useful if the copyrighted material is blurred. If it's not, then it should be deleted. Bremps... 22:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd nominate the file for deletion. The photograph on the bottom is way to visible. To the point that someone could easily crop it to create a duplicate. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Not de minimis. This image is of a group of photographs on display in a museum. The interpretive text is not the focal point of the image; the photos are. Omphalographer (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done nominating for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagging for archival.

This section was archived on a request by: 09:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Commissioned works and work for hire agreements

Having the precautionary principle in mind, do we require creators of commissioned works to prove that they did not enter into a work for hire agreement? If the answer is "it depends", then where should the line be drawn?

These questions are related but different to one I asked on the VRT noticeboard; I'm asking here because I asked this question on Discord and obtained two contradictory answers. I'm trying to obtain permission for the original Kind of Bloop cover art; I initially told its creator that if they were paid, then I had to also seek permission from the person who paid them, the idea behind this being that if both released the same work under a free license, then it would not matter who owned the copyright. But on second thought, it's very likely that the cover art's creator was not an employee, but the possibility still remains that they signed a WFH agreement. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how this is much different than the possibility that the author of any given work might have granted an exclusive license to someone (with or without the transfer of copyright) that contradicts the granting of a free license. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The original Kind of Bloop album art is unusually problematic because it is likely a derivative work of Jay Maisel's photography for Kind of Blue. Obtaining permission from the pixel artist is probably not sufficient. Omphalographer (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The cover art seems to be only a derivative of Maisel's photograph as published on the Kind of Blue album cover, so whatever copyright Maisel asserts on his work should not be an impediment. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Er... seems like the copyright owner of that photograph would be the one that matters. If Maisel sold his copyright to the record company, it would be them. If just partially licensed, then the photographer likely still owns the derivative rights for other uses. Plus of course, the copyright of whoever pixellated it, unless that was done via algorithm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The only ways for the album cover to still be copyrighted are 1) if Columbia Records' publication of Maisel's photo was unauthorized or 2) it was somehow restored by the URAA. My question is solely about obtaining permission for the derivative work; I would request that you at least pretend that the underlying work is PD or does not exist at all. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah OK right, it was 1959. Unsure if the phonogram renewal would apply to the album cover, I have my doubts. On the derivative work, it would come down to the agreement between the parties, which we would not know. They could have agreed to make it a work for hire, or it could simply be licensed meaning the original artist retains the copyright. Or there could be an exclusive license, which would basically mean two parties basically each own parts of the copyright and you may need permission from both. It may be easier to start with one party (the artist maybe), and seek their permission, and also enquire as to the agreement such that you would need permission from the other party instead (or in addition to). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

(Regarding your second sentence, you might find Jefferson Airplane v. Berkeley Systems, Inc. (holding that the copyright registration of a sound recording does not encompass the accompanying album cover) to be of worth.) prospectprospekt (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Under what circumstances would the absence of any of that information be grounds for deleting a file? prospectprospekt (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification regarding DR for {{Non-free graffiti}}

A discussion has been opened (by me) regarding the possible deprecation or deletion of the {{Non-free graffiti}} template and a review of the related guidance at Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti, in light of specific court rulings that may affect Commons' handling of graffiti-related content. Comments are welcome: here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

For info, the template has now been deleted, and I was bold and adjusted the wording of COM:GRAFFITI. However, please help me ensure the wording is correct. As a second step, we should probably go through past DRs where the files were kept due to this template. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

COM:CUR Taiwan

This section was recently changed so it currently states all banknotes and coins of NTD (New Taiwan Dollar) are OK to be uploaded (previously it was  Not OK). I have read the previous discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes, but I still don’t fully understand the copyright situation of them.

So, I want to ask is the current statement correct that NTD banknotes and coins are OK to upload to Commons? (Pinging @Zy26 who changed it to “OK”, and @Liuxinyu970226 who added the “Not OK” mark originally) Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Did this user read ticket:2020051710002624? See also zh:Talk:新臺幣#c-Hamish-2020-05-17T11:15:00.000Z-Liuxinyu970226-2020-05-05T11:34:00.000Z:

“

本地合理使用吧，開放宣言不適用紙幣和硬幣圖檔，而且著作權法適用。--Hamish論 2020年5月17日 (日) 11:15 (UTC)

”

I would suggest to revert Zy26's edits as Central Bank Act didn't exempt them from copyrights Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, Thanks User:Liuxinyu970226 for bringing me here. I am not in OTRS now but I can still recall something related to this, and the answer from me is Not OK, at least as of 27 June 2020. For now, from my point of view, I endorse Liuxinyu970226's suggestion after looking into Copyright Act of Taiwan. I'll prepare a detailed thinking after I complete my other stuff. Hamish (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified VRT noticeboard. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

VRT agent (verify): As someone with access to the relevant VRT tickets, I can confirm that the Central Bank has previously clarified, both in 2014 and in 2020, that the images of NTD banknotes and coins are considered protected under the Copyright Act of Taiwan. These statements are consistent and unambiguous about the Bank’s position that copyright applies to the visual elements of currency, and that their Government Website Open Information Announcement (GWOIA) does not apply to banknote or coin imagery.

This latter point is worth emphasizing, as some users previously assumed that {{GWOIA}} could cover currency images. However, the Central Bank has explicitly stated that this open data policy only applies to certain content such as policy texts or employee-created photos published on their website, and not to money or the designs on it.

Because of this, and in line with how we treat similar currency cases on Commons, I believe the earlier  Not OK guidance was more accurate. The recent edit asserting that all NTD currency is in the public domain (due to Article 9 of the Copyright Act) goes beyond what has been confirmed either in law or by the Central Bank. While there may be debate about whether banknotes fall under the "official document" exception, there is no formal ruling establishing that all visual elements of the NTD are therefore public domain, nor has the Central Bank endorsed such an interpretation.

Unless a reliable third-party legal source or a court decision supports this new interpretation (or explanation by the user who made this change why this is correct), I would suggest reverting the change and restoring the  Not OK status. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Central Bank has the authority to make definitive legal interpretations, I trust their clear and repeated statements over a single bold, undiscussed change and interpretation by one editor. Until there’s broader consensus or third-party legal support, we should avoid overturning established guidance. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like we have a prompt VRT agent, I'll state in short. IMO, I trust myself, from the above "本地合理使用吧，開放宣言不適用紙幣和硬幣圖檔，而且著作權法適用", the central bank must have said that the Act applies to banknotes and GWOIA does not (confirmed above). For the banknotes, they are made up of patterns, words, artwork and etc., so I even consider it's an artwork, and the Article 9 of Copyright Act of Taiwan("Act") only exempts "公文"/"其他文書"("scope"), which I think we should interpret to document mainly presented by text. Although there may be a consensus that the NTD is in the type of scope, the copyright of the artwork on notes is still protected and NOT affected under Article 9 of Act, as the issuer officially clarified that the GWOIA does not apply to the banknotes, I have a reasonable assumption that artworks are under no business license, Derivative works of non-free content are not allowed here, hence not ok.

FYI: "文書" is also translated to "text" by Ministry of Education, Taiwan. [20]--Hamish (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy and fellow editors: Thank you for raising the question about the copyright status of New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) banknotes and coins. I’ve reviewed the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes, as well as the subsequent comments by @Liuxinyu970226, @Hamish, and @Jonatan Svensson Glad, including the VRT agent’s input. I’ve also reviewed the key 2021 document from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO, Email 1101217[21]), which provides critical clarity on this issue.

I updated the status to OK based on the 2021 TIPO document, which clarifies that NTD banknotes and coins, as official documents under Article 9 of Taiwan’s Copyright Act, are not protected by copyright as a whole and are in the public domain. This means full images of NTD banknotes and coins can be freely uploaded to Commons. However, individual designs (e.g., portraits or landscapes) may be copyrighted under Article 5 if they are original artworks, requiring permission for separate use.

Here’s how the TIPO document responds to the concerns raised:

Central Bank’s Claims and GWOIA

@Jonatan Svensson Glad noted that the Central Bank stated in VRT tickets 2014050810011876 (2014) and 2020051710002624 (2020) that NTD images are copyrighted, particularly the visual elements, and cannot be used commercially without permission. This likely refers to individual designs that may qualify as original artworks under Article 5 of the Copyright Act. The Central Bank also clarified in the 2020 ticket that their Government Website Open Information Announcement (GWOIA) does not apply to currency images, only to policy texts and employee-taken photos. However, the 2021 TIPO document, from Taiwan’s official intellectual property authority, outweighs these earlier claims. It states that NTD banknotes and coins are exempt under Article 9 as official documents created by public officials, contradicting the Central Bank’s broader copyright claims. TIPO’s interpretation is more authoritative than the Central Bank’s, and the TIPO document relies on Article 9, not GWOIA, making GWOIA irrelevant.

Definition of “Official Document” (公文)

@Hamish suggested that “公文” (official document) in Article 9 refers to text-based documents, not visual artworks on banknotes. The TIPO document explicitly includes NTD banknotes and coins under Article 9, indicating that “公文” covers currency as a whole, not just text. This supports the OK status for full images.

Lack of Court Ruling

@Jonatan Svensson Glad also noted there’s no court ruling confirming NTD’s public domain status. While true, the TIPO document is an official interpretation from Taiwan’s IP authority, sufficient for Commons’ purposes unless contradicted by a higher authority (e.g., a court). It provides a reliable third-party source supporting OK.

Individual Designs

The TIPO document agrees that specific designs on NTD (e.g., images of a person or a mountain) may be copyrighted under Article 5 as original artworks. Cropped or modified images of these designs are  Not OK for Commons without permission from the copyright owner, but full banknote or coin images are fine under Article 9.

Conclusion

The current OK status is correct for uploading full images of NTD banknotes and coins, as they are public domain under Article 9, per the 2021 TIPO document. However, we must warn users that individual designs may be copyrighted.

I encourage @Tvpuppy, @Liuxinyu970226, @Hamish, @Jonatan Svensson Glad, and others to review the TIPO document (below) and share feedback. Let’s work together to ensure the guidance is accurate and clear. Thank you for your input! --Zy26 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

按著作權法第9條(下稱本法)第1項第1款及第2項規定，憲法、法律、命令或公文，不得為著作權法之標的，復按中央銀行法第15條第2、3項規定：「本行所發行紙幣及硬幣之面額、成分、形式及圖案，由本行擬定，報請行政院核定之。本行應將紙幣及硬幣之規格於發行前公告之。」依上述條文規定，中央銀行所發行之新臺幣，如認其係屬公務員職務上制作之文書或處理公務之文書，則屬著作權法第9條第1項第1款所稱「公文」，除其他法令有特別規定外，任何人均得自由利用之，不涉及著作權的問題。惟縱使認新臺幣紙幣不得為著作權之標的，然如其上各別圖案構成本法第5條所定著作，而非前述公文時，欲單獨利用該圖案仍應經各該著作權人同意或授權。[22]

@Zy26: the currency items themselves are not copyrightable per TIPO, but the same agency also states that the designs embodied in the items are copyrightable. However, since those embodied designs or artworks are copyrightable, does that make the currency items derivative works of copyrighted artworks or designs? How does the Taiwanese law treat the publication of copyrighted artworks in documents? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The 2021 letter from TIPO does clarify that New Taiwan Dollar banknotes, as official documents, are not protected as a whole under Article 9 of the Copyright Act. However, it also emphasizes that individual visual elements—such as portraits, landscapes, and artistic designs, may still qualify as protected works under Article 5. That means while the documentary or administrative nature of the banknote might be exempt, the embedded artworks are not necessarily free to use. Since these designs are not merely decorative but are often the creative work of artists under contract, they retain their own copyright status.

Under Commons’ policy on derivative works, any image that includes protected elements, whether or not the full object is exempt, must not be hosted unless all components are clearly in the public domain or freely licensed (unless de minimis). So even if the banknote as a document is not protected, the presence of copyrighted designs within it makes uploading full images legally and policy-wise problematic. Until a court ruling or official licensing makes the situation clearer, the safer and more compliant status would be not OK for full banknote images. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on my native understanding of Chinese, I think "如認其係屬" of what TIPO said is implicting "if it is recognised that.....", that means TIPO didn't define the notes are 公務員職務上制作之文書或處理公務之文書, and "公務員職務上制作之文書或處理公務之文書" is the scope of the Act above exempts. I don't translate it to avoid potential misunderstanding. (Amended)Anyway, if DWs on notes passed the local copyright test, we still need the consensus to "recognise" that notes are the scope mentioned above, but I don't really think that can pass. --Hamish (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, the TIPO's 2021 statement only suggests "任何人均得自由利用之" (lit. every peoples are feel free to use it/them), but not "任何人均得自由改作之" (every peoples are feel free to modify the works). I'd love to consider sending a separate inquiry to TIPO for clarification. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I already sent. Hamish (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26: For reference, your "conclusions" are therefore disputed above. That said, unless and until if TIPO published any clarifications that why derivatives of NTDs are allowed regareless of copyright status, their statement doesn't really qualify for general "Public Domain" as defined by Berne Convention, but rather a facet of CC BY-ND (means, that you're feel free to use, even for commercial purposes, but not allowed to modify and distribute your derivatives without separate, case-by-case consents). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345, @Jonatan Svensson Glad, @Hamish, and @Liuxinyu970226: Thank you all for the excellent and detailed follow-up points. This is exactly the kind of rigorous discussion needed to ensure our policy is accurate. I'd like to address the very valid questions raised about derivative works, the interpretation of TIPO's language, and the scope of "free use."

My core position remains that full, unmodified images of NTD banknotes are OK, and this is based on a careful reading of the authoritative TIPO interpretation in the context of Taiwanese law.

On Derivative Works and the Publication of Artworks in Official Documents

This is the core of the issue, raised by JWilz12345 and Josve05a. The question is: if the individual designs are copyrighted, doesn't that make the full banknote a non-free derivative work?

My argument is that under Taiwanese law, the act of incorporating these designs into a banknote—which is legally defined as a "公文" (official document)—changes the status of that specific version of the artwork.

The government did not simply copy and paste existing art. For the 500 NTD note, they entered into a formal contract with the photographer, Mr. Zhong. Crucially, this contract granted the government the right to modify the original photograph for use on the banknote.[23] The final image on the banknote is, in fact, different from the original photo. This means the government legally created a derivative work.

This legally created derivative was then published as an inseparable part of the banknote. According to TIPO's interpretation of Article 9 of the Copyright Act, the banknote as a whole is a "公文" (Official Document) and thus "shall not be the subject matter of copyright" (不得為著作權法之標的).[24][25][26] When a work is published as an integral part of a public domain official document, that specific manifestation of the work enters the public domain along with the document itself.

This is distinct from simply publishing a collection of copyrighted photos in a government report. The banknote's design is part of its legal specification, mandated by the Central Bank Act to be drafted, approved by the Executive Yuan, and publicly announced.[27][28] The artwork becomes part of the "law" of that banknote. While Mr. Zhong's original, unmodified photograph remains his copyrighted work, the modified version on the banknote is part of a public domain government document. Therefore, Commons is hosting the public domain document, not an infringing derivative work.

On the Interpretation of "如認其係屬" ("if it is recognized that...")

@Hamish makes an excellent point about the conditional phrasing in the 2021 TIPO letter.[29] This is standard language for an administrative agency providing a legal interpretation; TIPO is not a court and cannot make a final judicial ruling. It is explaining the legal framework that would apply.

However, we have more direct guidance from TIPO. On their official website's FAQ page, they are much more direct. When explaining that "公文" are not limited to text, they state: "舉例來說，新台幣的圖案...都是屬於「公文」的一種，不受著作權法的保護。" ("For example, the designs on the New Taiwan Dollar... are a type of 'official document' and are not protected by the Copyright Act.").[30] This is a clear, non-conditional statement from the competent authority, using the currency as a direct example. This confirms their consistent position that the banknotes fall under Article 9.

On "自由利用之" (Free to Use) vs. "自由改作之" (Free to Modify)

@Liuxinyu970226 correctly notes the TIPO letter says "freely make use of" but doesn't explicitly mention modification, leading to a CC BY-ND concern.

This concern arises from a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be "not the subject matter of copyright." Under Article 9, it's not that a limited license is granted; it's that no copyright exists in the first place.[31][32] If there is no copyright, there are no exclusive rights to reserve. This includes the right of adaptation (改作權). The term "自由利用" (free use) is a general term encompassing all forms of use that would otherwise be restricted by copyright, including modification. If the law intended to create a "No Derivatives" restriction on a public domain work, it would have to be explicitly stated, which it is not. The work is simply outside the scope of copyright protection entirely.

The Precedent of Japanese Currency

This approach is consistent with how Commons handles similar cases. For example, Japanese currency is considered OK because its designs are published as official notices, which are exempt from copyright under Japanese law . Taiwan's legal framework, where currency designs must be formally "announced" (公告) as part of a public, official process, is directly parallel to the Japanese case. Adopting a similar stance for Taiwanese currency ensures consistency in our application of copyright principles.

Conclusion

The TIPO interpretation, being the most recent and from the most authoritative body on Taiwanese copyright law, should be our guide. It clarifies that the banknote as a whole is a public domain "公文". The government's actions in legally acquiring and modifying the source artworks before incorporating them into this public document mean that the full, unmodified banknote image is not an infringing derivative work.

Therefore, I maintain that OK is the correct status for full images of NTD banknotes, with a clear note of caution that separate use of the individual design elements may be restricted.

Thank you again for this crucial debate. --Zy26 (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

For the section about derivative works, I think it is important to also mention Article 6 of the Copyright Act, which states:

「就原著作改作之創作為衍生著作，以獨立之著作保護之。衍生著作之保護，對原著作之著作權不生影響。」

“A creation adapted from one or more pre-existing works is a derivative work and shall be protected as an independent work. Protection of a derivative work shall not affect the copyright in the pre-existing work.” Tvpuppy (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting Article 6. This is a crucial point, and it perfectly supports the distinction I've been making.

Article 6 confirms that the copyright in the pre-existing work (e.g., the photographer's original photo) is not affected, which is precisely my position. The original artist absolutely retains their copyright. My argument is that the derivative work itself—the version legally created and integrated into the banknote by the government—becomes part of an official document ("公文") which, as a whole, is explicitly excluded from copyright protection under Article 9.

This article helps clarify that important separation between the status of the original work and the status of the final, state-issued document. --Zy26 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

---

With all due respect, are you using LLM? Hamish (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Zy26's comments above look rather either ChatGPT-like or DeepSeek-like. I would again suggest a revert on their CUR Taiwan section's edits due to potential copyright violations. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I use tools for translation, editing, polishing, etc. but I don't know if they can be considered large language models. Is this relevant to this question? --Zy26 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26 Yes, because such sentences are not your original texts but generated from 3rd tools, which may sometimes vary copyright concerns since such long texts aren't "simple works". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't use ChatGPT or DeepSeek. Will using DeepL, Grammarly, ProWritingAid, or Microsoft Word cause any copyright issues? --Zy26 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26 Better to not use them on such serious discussions as Grammarly is a Proprietary software, and Microsoft Word is a Trialware, both aren't freewares, for ProWritingAid, its Terms of Service§4.2 told me that Use of our content without our express prior written permission is strictly prohibited. As for DeepL, their Terms and Conditions gave worldwide rights as non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, which may sometimes meant to be revocable, the situation if their rights violate COM:L or not would need separate discussions, but I would rather avoid from directly using DeepL-generated texts here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. The core issue is whether text contributions to Wikimedia are licensed under CC BY-SA. I am fully responsible for all content I submit, ensuring that it is original or an authorized derivative work approved by me. Whether written with pen or software, the ultimate copyright responsibility lies with me as the editor. The tool I use does not change this fact. If you have any questions about the copyright of a piece of content I edited, we can discuss the specific content itself, not the writing tool I used. Can we get back to discussing the content itself? --Zy26 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to reply Zy26's opinions, for 'On the Interpretation of "如認其係屬" ("if it is recognized that...")' para., they describe my point as "excellent", I appreciate and assume that they agree with the translation, afterwards they indentified TIPO's email as interpretation & explaining the legal framework. Shortly after that, they quote TIPO's FAQ page, in which directly confirms the notes is exempt scope, as a reference to state notes' copyright status, why the same agency used two different way to describe the same thing? As Zy26 said, it's not court and even court's ruiling can be appealed, so I think we should comment out TIPO's email or FAQ. Hamish (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Reverting the edit per the position of the Central Bank. The only exception to it seems to be if the design isn't "original" enough to be copyrighted but such cases are already covered by regular de minimis laws and the same could be applied to the copyright of essentially anything on here. Obviously un-original designs aren't copyrightable. That's really relevant to the broader question of if bank notes and coins of Taiwan are copyrightable though and it seems as if they are. No offense to Zy26's, but their follow up comments just seem like personal interpretations of the law that go against the clear statement by the Central Bank. So the edit should be reverted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Morally  Support as said and per several individuals above, nothing else to reply. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Thanks for your response, and for ringing the bell on the Central Bank’s statement—I hadn’t found it until you mentioned it. I now find the copyright statement in the English version of the Central Bank Virtual Money Museum’s FAQ page[33]: "All formats and images are protected by copyright… any use of New Taiwan dollar images in commercial advertisements or products may infringe the Central Bank’s copyright…"

However, I find it interesting that I can’t find a similar copyright statement in their Chinese FAQ page[34] or anywhere else. This makes me wonder: why would the Central Bank Virtual Money Museum’s English and Chinese FAQs differ so much on such a critical point? Does this mean that the statements in the Chinese version and other places have been updated or revised, while the English version here has not yet been updated?

This discrepancy deserves further investigation, especially since we rely on the detailed and consistent guidance from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) as the primary authority on Taiwanese copyright law for our shared policies. I have already sent an email to TIPO to ask whether this English version of the FAQ is consistent with current copyright law. I hope to receive a reply soon. --Zy26 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I have received a reply from TIPO for the email I said "If they confirmed notes are in the exempt scope", and they wrote as "依本局歷次函釋(90年3月15日智著字第09000011490號函、電子郵件109021及電子郵件1101217)，有關中央銀行依中央銀行法所發行之新臺幣，如屬於公務員職務上製作之文書或處理公務之文書，則屬著作權法第9條第1項第1款所稱之公文，除其他法令有特別規定者，任何人均得自由利用之，不涉及著作權的問題，如您欲進一步確認，建議可逕洽中央銀行。". Demonstrably, they neither define nor confirm notes are in that scope, instaed they used "如屬"(if it is in that scope) again and asked me to send my enquiry to the bank. Then, as the bank said they are protected by the Act, CUR Taiwan is  Not OK.--Hamish (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

OK sir, reverted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26: I have received another reply from the Bank, provide as is. Thank you for your email dated July 3, 2025, regarding the use of New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) banknote images. Please be informed that the use of banknote images requires prior approval from the Central Bank. However, it is unlikely to be approved for commercial use due to concern about potential illegal use. Your understanding on this matter would be much appreciated. I consider those two emails can fully address my opinion, but I still wish to know if you have got any other official perspectives. --Hamish (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)