Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Are circuit diagrams below TOO?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for review

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

Hi @JWilz12345, I am not planning to review these images. And possibly this will not help either, but of interest perhaps. The discussion about FoP in Churches in the Netherlands did not lead to consensus. I asked for advice from a lawyer, @Arnoud Engelfriet, who kindly invested some of his time, but his advice was contested by some other Wikimedians. You kind find the discussion here: [1] Stained glass in other public buildings then churches might fall under FoP. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airplane liveries and COM:De minimis

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STANAG copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This particular work *might* be ok, as it is a revision of a pre 1989 work originally simultaneously published in the US without a copyright notice, with minimal changes, despite the 2010 date. But in general, the NATO license is not free enough for Commons, see[2]. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Tewell images

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

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

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

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

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

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

California DMV copyright?

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

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

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

2019 Guinean law

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

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

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

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

Bonjour @JWilz12345.

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

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

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

Bonjour @JWilz12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logo of internet radio station

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

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

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

Project Gutenberg scan of 1912 book cover

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

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

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

PD-scan and a slightly 3D book cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

(Chinese, original)

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

(English translation by machine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Liuxinyu970226

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

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

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

“

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

”

lit.

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romania copyright template

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

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

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

File:Chappaquiddick incident by UPI.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright status of photograph in The Sketch with unknown photographer

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

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

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

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

Copyright of Thai scouts flags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

telif hakkı olup olmadığı kesin olmayan fotoğraflar hakkında?

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

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

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

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

Star Wars Stormtooper cosplays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restored logo

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

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

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

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

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

Are World Inequality Database data graphics in the public domain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-free logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frames with PD-Art

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

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

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

Undelete and speedy deletion

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

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

King's flag for Australia

What is the copyright status of the flag designs in this FoI request (PDF reply viewable as HTML at [3])?

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

US public hearing in public domain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ned Mamula, U.S. Geological Survey

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

Are machine-translated text covered by PD-algorithm

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

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

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