Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09

Is this Videogame disc cover copyrightable?

Hello, so I have this picture alternate pic of the Blu-ray of EA Sports FC (FIFA) 25, and I noticed that the design is incredibly simple to be copyrighted. Blank white background with very thin lines, both the ESRB, PS5, UltraHD Blu-Ray AND EA FC logos are already in Commons and the legal text doesn't have any originality. Does this make the blu-ray disc elegible for commons under "PD-Scan|PD-textlogo"? Hyperba21 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hyperba21: the design of the disc itself is probably OK if you crop out everything else in either photo. {{PD-ineligible}} {{Trademarked}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Images from Flickr that are from eBay

Hi. I recently uploaded some files from Flickr that happen to be edited with eBay ImageMagick. One example being File:1908 one penny token, Haggi Chapter No. 14, Royal Arch Masons, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (19089221742).jpg (where I assume the photograph would be copyrighted even if the coin isn't since it's a photograph of a 3D object). Not that I think it means anything either way but the Flickr user is from Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is the same place the coin is from. So my question is how do we know who actually owns the copyright to the photograph in such an instance? I could see the Flickr user owning it. Since, at least in the example, the coin from the same town where the guy lives. Who knows though. But then I don't think it's worth second guessing random Flickr users for know reason either and, assuming the licenses is bad, wouldn't that be on them for Flickr (eBay?) washing or whatever anyway? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that the Wystan account seems to offer "licenses" on work not even plausibly theirs (https://flickr.com/photos/70251312@N00/19842089002, https://flickr.com/photos/70251312@N00/19251428158) I don't see how we can trust any license from that account. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll have to nominate the images from them that aren't clearly PD for deletion and have the account added to the black list. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1905 Isle of man photo

File:Kitto Family.jpg is a 1905 photograph, uploaded by User:Harvey Milligan in 2017—with a CC licence—as "own work". This is clearly unfeasible.

I have tagged it, for now, as {{UK-PD-anon}}, based on Commons:ISLE OF MAN ("The Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown dependency... The relevant copyright law is The Copyright Act 1991, as amended up to the Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2013. This act replaced the United Kingdom's Copyright Act 1956"), but what should be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your assumptions are here about prior publication. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Kiyosumi-shirakawa Station flickr photos

Hi there, I don't usually talk here but I needed a question answered regarding COM:FOP Japan for an article I am currently writing on Wikipedia. I had previously asked this question on the Wikimedia Discord but didn't really get an answer. So I am currently working on the w:The Exit 8 article and I wanted to use a better image of w:Kiyosumi-shirakawa Station to better represent the talking points in the article. I didn't feel the Commons had what I needed so I checked on Flickr and found these two images labelled 清澄白河駅_蛍光灯 and 清澄白河駅. They are pictures of passageways in the station which featured irregularly fixed lights similar to an event that appears in The Exit 8. They have the correct CC licenses to be uploaded to the Commons, but what I was more concerned about was the lights as according to the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation (at least, that's what I have seen here and here, the lights were part of a public art installation at the station. Now according to FOP Japan it states:

for artistic works: Not OK {{NoFoP-Japan}} except in cases governed by Article 46. for buildings only: OK {{FoP-Japan}}

But I just wanted to know if these images could still be uploaded as the pictures are of the whole hallway and those are the only lights keeping that hallway lit or is it's access blocked because of the lights. Thank you in advance to anyone who has commented, Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• I’m not familiar with copyright laws in Japan, but the issue seems to be whether the specific arrangement of lights is copyrightable in Japan (above the threshold of originality in Japan).
• According to COM:TOO Japan, it appears that some “artistic” utilitarian works are not considered copyrightable. That section references a court ruling which Furby toys are not copyrightable in Japan due to it being a “industrially mass-produced utilitarian article” and “to which its artistic effects and techniques have been applied for utilitarian purposes” (quoting a translation at p.27 of [1]).
• Clearly, this arrangement of lights serves a utilitarian purpose, and there were artistic effects and techniques applied to the arrangement. However, I’m not sure whether the artistic effects and techniques applied (being placed irregularly) contributed to its utilitarian purposes (illuminating the passageways).
• So, in my opinion, I couldn’t say whether these images are fine to upload or not. Apologies for not fully answering your question, but maybe someone more knowledgeable in Japanese copyright laws can help determine whether this is below or above TOO in Japan. Thanks.

Tvpuppy (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Permission for "free license" use of games by Team Cherry

Hi, I recently noticed that the FAQ page for Australian video game developer en:Team Cherry says that they grant "free license" (including monetization) for use of their games in creation and publishing of content. Is this sufficient for screenshots of their games to be considered free use, like the permission granted from File:Overcooked 2 loading screen.jpg? Thanks, ScalarFactor (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScalarFactor: my read is that if you take that page as a whole, it's not quite free enough. What they offer is generous, but I think not free enough for Commons.

Still, given the spirit of it, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get them to offer some images under a CC-BY 4.0 license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on this. The FAQ page states it only grants the “free license” to game owners and press, which it appears doesn’t includes usage at Commons. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Derivative work using ArcGIS as a tool, OpenStreetMaps as the base layer, and USGS as the data source

I have several maps that I created before I understood how to use GIS well and they are rightly being taken down. I think that by using the guidelines of ARCGIS and OpenStreetMaps that it is permissible to post the map printouts. I have performed all the analysis of the various user agreements and can provide that if necessary. While I don't care about personal attribution since I only use a username, I think it is appropriate that I enter the "own work" checkbox with explanations in the section provided. Thank you. Deanrah (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Content from OpenStreetMaps should be tagged as {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}. I don't know a lot about ArcGIS, but I presume that it is involved only as a tool, and no attribution to that is legally required, though it would be appropriate to add {{Created with ArcGIS Pro}} to the description. And, yes, if there is enough work of your own involved to be copyrightable, you should probably give an appropriate CC license.

I assume that when you refer to "the 'own work' checkbox" you are talking about UploadWizard. Yes, that is probably the easiest way through the Wizard if it is your chosen method of uploading; just go back at the end to fix anything you couldn't do with the wizard. - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel -- I referred @Deanrah here regarding this file. The issues I brought up with Deanrah (which were not addressed here, and so far have only been addressed through an AI-generated wall of text that they have since removed from their user talk page) are that (1) the file is tagged as "own work" without crediting the actual sources or including the proper license tags, and (2) the file itself claims copyright from "Esri contributors", Esri, and Microsoft, which may not be freely licensed. I asked Deanrah for clarification regarding the Esri and Microsoft copyrighted items, but have not gotten an answer. Jay8g (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All of which is very confusing.

@Deanrah: do you care to explain? - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Jay8g said that I was rude to show my entire analysis, so I took it down. Would you like to see the full analysis or a summary? Deanrah (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is the file that I have made as a beta that I asked help with evaluating since I did not understand the copyright problems with the base layer when I originally took screen shots of a couple of dozen maps of this data set. They should be taken down.

(map illustration)

It was made with ArcGIS as are many other files in Wiki Commons (search "ARCGIS"). It uses a background map that comes from Open Streetmaps. It uses a USGS data set. ArcGIS generated the attributions on the printout. I think it would be instructive to set standards for using ARCIG maps given the ease of using that tool. However, I have plans to move to QGIS which is a clunky open source version. Deanrah (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So, as I said above, the map from OpenStreetMap must be indicated as using {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}.

It looks like ArcGIS is not involved only as a tool if its output is attributing Esri and Microsoft for content. Do you know what comes from those sources? - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The ArcGIS FAQ says "When an ArcGIS Online basemap is used in printed materials such as books, articles, brochures, and research papers, attributions must be provided on or near the map or image that includes the ArcGIS Online basemap." Ersi owns ArcGIS. OpenStreetMaps uses Bing (owned by Microsoft) as basemaps in its open source work. Do a search on ARCGIS to see how many of the maps in Commons must come down if this is not allowed. Deanrah (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So it sounds like this from ArcGIS effectively an attribution-only license. Does this image use an ArcGIS Online basemap (you haven't shown the OpenStreetMaps map, so I have no idea if any other basemap is involved)? That would presumably entail something like {{Attribution only license|text=This incorporates an ArcGIS basemap.}} in addition to any other necessary licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There are 83,000+ images that use ARCGIS in Wikimedia Commons. Deanrah (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The same page gives an example attribution of "Maps throughout this book were created using ArcGIS software by Esri. ArcGIS and ArcMap are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri software, please visit www.esri.com." That doesn't sound like a free license to me, but I could be wrong. It seems like that page is talking about academic attribution, not copyright status. Jay8g (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this a copyright violation?

The Roskilde museum states that photos taken in the museum must not be used commercially without permission. [2]. I believe, but do not know for certain, that File:Krummträ.JPG is a photo of a display in that museum. The lines drawn on the timber to show how a shipwright would use the raw materials to make parts of a ship are clearly a creative work by whoever prepared this exhibit.

Who should investigate this?

Could someone ask the museum to waive copyright for this picture? How would we find someone in the Wikipedia and Commons community who has a useful relationship with the museum to make the approach? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It is actually a copyright violation, I think, but not because of these museum rules. These are a COM:Non-copyright restriction, but the drawings and explanatory texts are copyrightable. There's no suitable COM:FOP Denmark that would allow the hosting of this image. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The interpretative signs could easily be cropped out of the photo. The wood itself and the markings on it seem unlikely to be copyrightable; the markings are purely utilitarian in nature, not a creative work. Omphalographer (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more about the status of the marks on the wood. This sort of thing is often illustrated in books on maritime archaeology and in every case, the precise detail of the markings are the whole object of the illustration. Put another way, the intellectual input of the person who drew the lines is absolutely key. Ignoring this would be like copying one of the illustrations out of the major textbook Steffy, J. Richard (1994). Wooden ship building and the interpretations of shipwrecks (5th printing ed.). College Station: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781603445207, a source of many illustrations very similar in nature. The fact that these lines are drawn on wood rather than on paper should not confuse us. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Krummträ.JPG. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Epstein files release from House Oversight Committee

Are the files released a couple of days

1. Trustworthy that they are authentic files from DOJ? (since they're shared in Google Drive and Dropbox and not on a .gov website)
2. If so, I believe they fall under Template:PD-USGov-DOJ, wouldn't they? (If not, the broader PD-USGov should do it, which altho is overcrowded)

Link: https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-epstein-records-provided-by-the-department-of-justice/ -- DaxServer (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is safe to presume that the documents come immediately from DOJ, but that doesn't meant that they won't contain copyrighted materials. For example, if the infamous "birthday book" is in there, the government certainly has not copyright claim on that. Similarly for anything else copyrightable and not created by a government employee. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a +1 to Jmabel's reply. Each file needs to be examined individually; there's no way the entire cache of documents/images/media is PD, only the materials created by a federal employee. 19h00s (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmabel @19h00s. Yes, as you observed correctly, some docs are not created by USGov. It'll be painful, if not impossible, to review the whole lot when someone wants to upload. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking to upload logo: do you think it's PD-shape?

I think that w:en:File:Las_Vegas_Aviators_Cap.png could be a simple enough color/shape/text logo to upload here but wanted to run it by some other users to see if they agree. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn

Hello! I recently sent an email To Gunther Fehlinger-Jan if he agrees that his work can be classified under Creative Commons. He said yes, and I sent him the VRT release, alongside the link to the photo I uploaded here. File:Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Will I get to know if it was approved?. He has already publicly shown great happiness that he has finally gotten a photo on his own wiki page. Right here

Thank you for your time

Best regards

JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome @JonasJorgensen4, if you didn’t get a reply here from someone in VRT, you may want to ask this again in Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ill wait a few days, if I dont get any, ill ask them.

Thanks for your time JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@JonasJorgensen4: This was uploaded only today. VRT has a weeks-long queue. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

O dear lord. I do hope mr Gunther sent in the proper details then JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Well I just checked, it got confirmed by VRT so JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Photo of Joanna Penson

https://gdansk.gedanopedia.pl/gdansk/?title=Plik:1_Joanna_Penson.jpg if i were to add this image to wikimedia would it be fair use Brewling (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There's not fair use allowed on Commons. And I do not think that this image could be used under the EN-WP fair use provisions, as it's seemingly not irreplaceable by free media. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Page Commons:Free depictions of non-free works

What is the actual relevance for that page and its contents? Is that a policy or guideline in the making, an essay, something else? It claims "Current consensus holds that unlicensed derivative graffiti is not covered even in jurisdictions that otherwise grant commercial FoP to two-dimensional artistic works. (DR1, DR2)", but this contradicts the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg, for instance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The conclusion of the Alan Kurdi Graffiti DR (of which I closed) was that the graffiti was not a COM:DW of the photograph. Whereas the other DRs were DW of copyrighted characters. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the Alan Kurdi decision was that the graffiti was not a derivative work of the photograph in the first place, despite looking similar. It was a copyrighted painting which was photographable due to FoP. So, that was rather different than unlicensed usages of copyrighted characters, which are fairly obvious derivative works. Derivative works of photographs are a far more difficult area than derivative works of paintings or drawings -- the visible content is often not part of the photographic copyright. It's certainly possible to make a drawing which is derivative of a photograph; it's also quite possible to make a drawing of the same subject which is not derivative. It's pretty impossible to make a drawing of a cartoon character which is not derivative, on the other hand. There are not many court cases over FoP to begin with, and edge cases like FoP of unauthorized works are probably completely untested. But, using FoP as a backdoor to depict an otherwise copyrighted work, which was in place illegally in the first place, does seem to rub the community the wrong way (particularly when it comes to things like copyrighted characters). I think long ago we did delete a photo of an unauthorized copy of Picasso's Guernica in Spain, as well. Every situation could have some details that could affect that -- always hard to say for sure. I'm not sure if that page is supposed to be a policy -- don't think that was ever voted on -- but more seems like an essay summarizing the results of DRs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

CCTV and Iryna Zarutska footage (public domain question)

At what point does editing CCTV footage (which typically has no copyright due to its lack of human author) create a derivative work that is eligible for copyright protection? After the recent killing of Iryna Zarutska, editors have uploaded screenshots and video described as CCTV footage of death. These two videos are used in the English Wikipedia article, but both show some degree of editing (cuts, freeze frames, color shift, zoom, cropping, and a logo):

• File:Man murders 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Irina Zarucka for no apparent reason in the Charlotte, North Carolina subway.webm
• File:Man murders 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Irina Zarucka for no apparent reason in the Charlotte, North Carolina, subway.webm

Do these changes amount to enough for copyright protection or is the "Author: CCTV" in the description correct? Rjjiii (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Marianne Bielschowsky

Hey guys, I uploaded File:Marianne Bielschowsky 1939.jpg yesterday. Per the source, [3], the copyright conditions are: No known copyright or other restrictions on use exist in this image. Permission to use this item for any purpose, including publishing, is not required from the Hocken under these conditions of use.

I don't exactly know what license this translates to. The description currently says it is missing a source. Useful info: Taken in 1939 in Spain. Anyone know what the issue is? jolielover♥talk 10:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the website is incorrect- if it was taken by her or her husband, then it's still under copyright in Spain- if it was taken by someone whose identity is not known, then it would probably not be copyrighted in Spain, but would still be copyrighted in the US, for a decade at the least. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. I uploaded a local, enwiki version. Should this be deleted then? jolielover♥talk 11:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, if it's in fact under copyright. I have started a DR(deletion request) for it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The photo looks like a professional studio photo. The fact that the source of the copy does not mention, or does not know, the author does not necessarily mean that the author is unknown. But after diligent research, the author may indeed be unknown or unidentifiable. Not sure if the year 1939 is a guess or if there was information on the reverse side of the copy. If information about the date is there, there could also be information about the author or the studio. If the photo is really from 1939, or if it is from between 1939 and 1948, then it would likely have been taken in England. And possibly published there. If 1939 is a guess, the photo could be from later. It looks later than the 1936 identity photo from Spain [4]. For the internal policy of Commons, that would probably mean to apply the copyright conditions of the United Kingdom, the country likely associated with the photo. The mention of "no known copyright" by the New Zealand source of the copy may just mean that the photo, as a photo taken before 1944, would not be under copyright in New Zealand, without implying anything about copyrights in the United Kingdom, the United States or other countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way, it's unlikely that it would be free of copyright in the US. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

About the technical aspect of your question, the missing source warning was displayed because with the PD-author template you forgot to start the parameter with "1=" when inserting that particular string of characters. The template interpreted that as an absence of parameter. Anyway, in this case PD-author is not the right template because that source website is not the author and not the owner of the copyright and it cannot release a copyright that it does not own. It uses the photo as copyright expired in New Zealand. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Mute audio

Could someone here help me mute a video with copyrighted audio? The rest of the video is otherwise free Trade (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop? - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

US Military images with different usage terms in EXIF metadata vs current license tag

I came across this interesting image of some Mazda racing automobiles on a US Marine Corps Air Station installation (Marine Corps Air Station New River to be precise):

While adding the additional categories, I noticed the usage terms in the EXIF metadata: "NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE". Interestingly, the picture was originally imported from a US Marine Corps media website with the PD-USGov-Military tag. But this is in complete contradiction with the EXIF metadata. Also, the image is not available anymore from that source (maybe because the Marine Corps media unit noticed they published a picture that shouldn't have been public ?)

Since it is unclear which usage terms apply (EXIF metadata or imported license tag) I thought it was best to raise the question here. I already tagged the picture with a Disputed and License Review needed template. Could someone point me to a more specific template/category for US Military images if I encounter more in the future ? Or do I just use the same templates as in this instance ? Btrs (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Works of the US government are not copyrighted. If this was a photograph by a Marine photographer doing their job, then it doesn't matter whether it was approved for public release or not, we legally can keep it. There could be copyright issues in nonUS government works included in the photograph, there could be ethical issues, but the US government has no right to license its work or use copyright to prohibit its reproduction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

At the time it was created (2010), it appears it was not meant for release. At some point it was clearly made available to the public on the internet (~2012) by the United States Marine Corps via their website. Someone might have just forgotten the change the EXIF metadata, although there's a chance it could have been an error. Regardless, its not a copyright issue as a US Government work. PascalHD (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Argentina)

Hey! I found the current new logo of the Supreme Court of Argentina, from their official website https://www.csjn.gov.ar/. Am I allowed to upload this to use on the articles of said court?

Image: https://www.csjn.gov.ar/imagenes/logo_CSJN_top5.png Rubiserr (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't access either the root Supreme Court website nor that png link, can others?

Update: Just tried using a proxy and it worked... strange. Maybe it's some DNS or whitelist (region restricted?) problem. Reepy1 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if meta:Be bold applies to stuff like this? As in, is it accepted if someone uploads, presuming it's public domain etc, then someone disputes later? Reepy1 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons specifically and overtly does not have a "be bold" policy. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

PNG image above consists of File:Coat of arms of Argentina.svg which is out of copyright, and text, meaning the only copyright we have to deal with is literally just text (if we don't count putting those two things together as copyrightable work).

COM:TOO Argentina says there's no threshold of originality in Argentina, meaning even text logos could be a problem.

License on (old logo?) File:Corte suprema argentina logo.png claims it is out of copyright because it's old.

I might be completely wrong on this, I'm a random user. Reepy1 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Illustration of Josipina Eleonora Hudovernik by Saša Šantel copyright

Is this illustration (inncorectly stated to be illustration of Marija Hudovernik.) of composer Josipina Eleonora Hudovernik by artist Saša Šantel protected by copyright? Saša Šantel died in 1945, so his work become public domain in Slovenia in 1995 (Slovenia upholded the old Yugoslavian law of copiryghts lasting for 50 years after death of author until March 1996.) Ihana Aneta (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bud Hobbs

Link to the original discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#c-Marchjuly-20250910125300-Kingsacrificer-20250910090800

Basically, I want to add a photograph of Bud Hobbs on his Wikipedia Biography page. He is a musician who passed away in 1958. There are no CC licensed images available on the internet based on my search.

I figured, as he is dead for so long, that I can use one of his non-free images in Wikipedia on account of fair use. But @Marchjuly suggested in the discussion above that given his time of death, the currently available images online may be wrongly copyrighted, and hence I should reach out here for experts to assess the copyright of those images.

Would be eager to be guided on the subject matter.

Links to the available images:

1. Find a Grave page
2. Discogs Artist page
3. Audio CD on Amazon
4. Last.fm page
5. A Rock & Country Encyclopedia
6. an unofficial Youtube Video of one of his songs

Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads review of User:Mhmmdihsn

Hi. Could someone review the uploads: Special:ListFiles/Mhmmdihsn. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like copyvios to me, starting DR. Thanks for the tip! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

though some are too simple for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

considering their lack of response to talk page messages, would a IDHT block be in order? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

James Walkinshaw congressional portrait

Relating to File:James Walkinshaw.jpg. The image was taken from here, which notes: "Image courtesy of the Member". Yet the metadata seems to imply that "Damien Salas/Office of the Clerk" created it yesterday, 2025-09-10. I assume if the image was really created by Damien Salas, then it would be PD. Is there a chance that it wasn't, and would that change the copyright status? I'd also like to point out this excerpt from the XML file that may be downloaded from the above link, particularly the usageRight tags:

<name>W000831_001</name>
<assetType>Image</assetType>
<contentUrl>
/bioguide-published/assets/68c1bd4ca929c5b98220e069.jpg
</contentUrl>
<creditLine>Image courtesy of the Member</creditLine>
<accessionNumber>PA2025.09.0001a</accessionNumber>
<usageRight>Import to Congress.gov</usageRight>
<usageRight>Restricted</usageRight>
<uploadDate>2025-09-10T14:04:20.870</uploadDate>
<uploadDateISO>
Wed Sep 10 2025 18:04:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
</uploadDateISO>

--WrenFalcon (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday was Walkinshaw's first day reporting to work in Congress, it makes sense that the photograph was made in the last 24-48 hours; it also had to have been made after he reported to Congress as he's wearing his Congressional pin, which they only get once they report for their first day. It almost certainly was made by Salas, whose team is responsible for making the official portraits of members of Congress on their first day or week. I would go with the metadata on this one. The "courtesy of the Member" language is likely just an oversight because Walkinshaw or his new staff sent the photograph to the Congressional admin team responsible for the Bioguide website, as opposed to Salas sending it directly. I can't imagine someone other than Salas or another Congressional staffer would be on-site to take the member's official government portrait on their first day. 19h00s (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

NC licensing?

Is the license on File:Neglinka007.jpg compatible with Commons? The uploader has several uploads seemingly with the same license. Nakonana (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It is only allowed because the photo was uploaded in 2008. For new uploads these license combination is not accepted anymore. GPSLeo (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Nakonana (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There must be a way to call a notice if the NC-GFDL combo is chosen, with the notice stating that this combo is only valid for files uploaded prior to the said date, with a link to the discussion concerning this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that would be helpful to avoid confusion. Nakonana (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• That's not right. This particular file has this licensing because of the GFDL migration, but it's not correct to say a new file couldn't explicitly have GFDL and another unfree license if the uploader wanted. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Are Fandom images allowed?

I was searching through the Sidemen Fandom on a Zerkaa page. In the bottom it says all content is CC-BY-SA licensed.

I wanted to ask whether this means that all images uploaded on that page, and other similar pages, can be uploaded in Commons? Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the license statement only applies to text within the articles, not images. See COM:FANDOM. Only images that have another explicit license template can be reuploaded here (e.g. this photo and the screenshot of the file page on Fandom). S5A-0043🚎 09:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, Fandom is not well-monitored for copyvios. It is no more of a trusted source than "some guy on the Internet". - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The soundtrack of Night of the Living Dead

The Wikipedia page for Night of the Living Dead says that "[m]uch of the soundtrack had been used by previous films." The footnote for that sentence goes on to list a number of cinematographic works whose soundtrack the creators of the film borrowed from, namely the TV series Wanted Dead or Alive, the episodes "I Remember a Lemon Tree" (RE0000458541) and "Bullets Cost Too Much" (RE0000377846), as well as the movies Teenagers from Outer Space (copyright not renewed), The Devil's Messenger (copyright not renewed, however it is a derivative work of the TV series 13 Demon Street) and The Hideous Sun Demon (RE0000361389). My concern, as you have probably already realized, is that portions of the soundtrack are still copyrighted due to statutory copyright being first obtained in other places. If that is the case, then we may need to selectively mute portions of the film. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Copies of Night of the Living Dead have been produced, and television stations have aired the show for many years as a work in the public domain. This has stood up to scrutiny in court when the creators of the film filed lawsuits to get back the copyright in some way. I don't see anywhere where a DVD, VHS, broadcast, or streaming service has muted portions of the film. Rjjiii (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The potential copyright for the soundtrack likely lies not with Image Ten but with Capitol Records, the owners of w:en:Hi-Q (production music) who I'm assuming licensed parts of that to Image Ten. The problem is that in Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. and Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., the Second and Fifth Circuits held respectively that a copyright notice with the name of a licensee was sufficient to secure copyright for a licensor, even though technically incorrect. Assuming that the contents of the music library remained unpublished unless incorporated in a film, a part of the soundtrack could have been first published in a film with said type of copyright notice whose copyright was then renewed, making it still copyrighted.

Also, I can't find any case law regarding the film's copyright. What are the lawsuits that you are thinking of? prospectprospekt (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Image Ten, Inc. v. Walter Reade Organization, Inc. and later Dawn Associates v. Links Rjjiii (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The former is about breach of contract and the latter is about unfair competition and copyright infringement of a phrase found in Dawn of the Dead. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

De minimis in videos

Is there a de minimis for the length of a copyrighted work that appeared in videos? For example, if a copyrighted work is the main focus of the video, but only for just a few seconds, does de minimis apply? What if the whole video was couple hours long, does that matter in this case? I was just asking because of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Killing of Charlie Kirk. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guideline for that. But, if I'm not mistaken, if you upload a video to Youtube with, let's say a current pop song as background music, then Youtube permits around 10-15 seconds of copyrighted audio without treating your video as a copyright violation. But I'm not if that's (still) true. Might be a starting point to figure out what length might count as de minimis, though. Nakonana (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

5 seconds, actually, per a tweet from their official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1162064808830627840?t=5QgqEGbJSiz4tNps6Fn_sw&s=19 as of 2019. Nakonana (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

But these are fair use policies and has nothing to do with de minimis. I would say a copyrighted work full frame in a video is never de minimis. An example for de minimis in a video could be an interview where there is some music from the background audible. GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with GPSLeo. Plus, if something copyrighted is intended as a focus of attention, then it cannot possibly be de minimis. Druation, size, etc. do not even enter the matter (though whether it is legible does). - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to say something like Jmabel already did. A reasonable baseline for De minimis reviews can IMHO be taken from an amalgamation of COM:DM France and COM:DM Germany. Both rundowns describe an inclusion of copyrighted works as being De minimis when they do not have any importance whatsoever for the photographic work taken as a whole; the included work shall not have any meaning related to the content of the photo or video, no influence on the message of the photo or video and not deliberately being used as part of the scene as it is framed (on the contrary, if it's seeable as a [slight] nuisance, then its inclusion may be DM). Of course, any inclusion of a protected work under the De minimis limitation statute must be small in size, so that this inclusion cannot serve as master for work copies. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that, except for two points: (1) "small" => "small or well out of focus". (2) Not sure it needs to have "[no] importance whatsoever". Consider Molotov Man. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer images from

http://digital.bib-bvb.de/view/bvb_mets/viewer.0.6.5.jsp?folder_id=0&dvs=1757833545426~875&pid=16068031&locale=en&usePid1=true&usePid2=true

to Wiki Commons? Sir Edward 2 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As this is a work created more than 120 years ago, it can be presumed to be public domain. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Mugshots from law enforcement agencies

Hello,

I encountered a mugshot from one of the 9/11 terrorists in the recent files (File:Majed Moqed 2.jpg). Allegedly, it was sourced from the FBI (the given source page was dead when I looked at it, an version from 2006 did not actually hold this image, but a different one; versions from 2016 and 2024 were dead, too). I'm harbouring doubts that this and the other mugshots in Hijackers in the September 11 attacks were actually taken by US government officials (and then, most likely not someone from the FBI, but more likely the TSA or CIA), the quality of them is much too disparate (sharpness, noise, coloured or not). It's much more likely that they were sourced from passport scans or the like, even though some of them carry a watermark of "government exhibit". All things considered, this seems to be a case of "Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. For example, government publications may include works copyrighted by a contractor or grantee; copyrighted material assigned to the U.S. Government; or copyrighted information from other sources."

While I also strongly doubt that anybody will sue or ask for image removal from abroad: should we delete those images as they infringe upon our licensing policy to only host free works? Or is this alleged appropriation of foreign IP rights by the US government sufficient for the licensing? This question, expandable upon other police mugshots is indeed only about how stringent we shall implement our own policies. Please share your opinions! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

were actually taken by US government officials (and then, most likely not someone from the FBI, but more likely the TSA or CIA) -- I suspect neither of them took the photo because the depicted guy died on 9/11, so how would investigators have taken such a good quality mugshot of a person who died in an airplane crash? Nakonana (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

An occasion could have been when the individuals entered the States (and a TSA agent made photos), or when some intelligence officer conducted interviews abroad. But these are surely only marginally realistic options, other sources are certainly more plausible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

South Korean state media may be free content now but login required

Hi everyone,

The South Korean government (via KTV) has launched the Nanuri Portal (nanuri.ktv.go.kr), where a large collection of state media videos are being released for public use, probably under {{KOGL}}.

• According to the official press release (in Korean), about 30,000 clips are being opened first (from ~750,000 total), with KOGL/public-use labels attached to each video.
• Downloads are supported in 1080p MP4.
• However, the site requires account registration with a (presumably) Korean phone number, which makes access difficult for many editors here.

Another issue is that the Nanuri portal distinguishes between ‘personal,’ ‘media,’ and ‘government’ members. It’s not clear which category Wikimedians would fall under. Uploading to Commons is arguably more than ‘personal use,’ but we are not traditional press or government either, so clarification may be needed.

I’d like to ask: How should we handle confirming/reviewing licensing for KOGL-labeled videos when access is login-restricted? Should we ask/wait for easier access, or is there a way Commons can verify the KOGL labeling (maybe similar to Commons:License review)?

I haven't created an account (yet).

This is (kind of) a continuation of an earlier discussion:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#File:President_Yoon_Suk_Yeol_Declares_Emergency_Martial_Law.webm_+_Potential_upcoming_South_Korean_state_media_free_content

Thanks! Reepy1 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that they made this an option but typical of the Korean government, they make it an absolute nightmare to deal with. Normally we would deal with this using something like Commons:License review, but most license reviewers won't get to see it if its blocked behind a phone number. I do have a Korean phone number, but its not very realistic either that me and the few Korean admins/ license reviewers would have the ability to go through the potential 750K files that might be uploaded to Commons. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. Takipoint123 (💬) 03:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

+ For those unfamiliar with how Korean services work: you can't use any phone number. It MUST be a +82, Korea-based phone number which is tied directly to your national identity number (I.e. you must have a phone number from a Korean telecommunications provider). So if you're not a Korean national or foreigner with a registration number, you are out of luck.--Takipoint123 (💬) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That certainly does make it difficult for a non-Korean national to review these files. Hopefully the Republic of Korea also clarifies what kind of usage conditions are under this portal. Abzeronow (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's KOGL, it is likely that the site will also have ND or NC version of KOGL files (Type 3 and 4), which is not allowed on Commons. Personally think the only solution to this issue would be to continue the existing workflow of getting VRT confirmed for files that don't specify KOGL licenses: ideally, we would get confirmation for an entire category of files (e.g. like Template:Korea.net). There is realistically no way to incorporate Nanuri into our LR workflow, considering the size of the Commons Korean community. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just used a Korean phone number (not sure if foreign numbers work, the text box imply Korean phone numbers only but not sure) and managed to get an account without having to verify any identity. So it's not that kind of registration we worried about. I just put a fake name and it worked.

More findings in other reply... Reepy1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Foreign numbers won't work. There isn't even an option to put a country code. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can inquire them about expanding to foreign phone numbers at some point, if we feel the need to do so someday. This will make Commons:license review easily possible. I'm actually not sure about the phone number having to be tied to national ID, not familiar with that. Reepy1 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just logged in and some contents (stuff in front page etc) are labelled with {{KOGL}} Type 1. The >3 hour news broadcast download that includes Yoon's martial law declaration (https://www.ktv.go.kr/news/latest/view?content_id=716002, this is outside of Nanuri, publicly accessible which still (wrongly) says copyrighted; uploaded then deleted to commons before here File:President Yoon Suk Yeol Declares Emergency Martial Law.webm) is under KOGL Type 2, which has a non-commercial requirement, presumably because it's part of the news.

I suspect the actual broadcast of the martial law declaration would be {{KOGL}} Type 1, but we may have to enquire with KTV, or even the Presidential Office, to be sure.

w:Korean News are not labelled with any KOGL yet from a quick look. Reepy1 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Idea: let me see if there are potentially any content that includes the martial law speech that's under {{KOGL}} Type 1... Reepy1 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't find it for now, there's a lot of content, I have a feeling it doesn't exist but anyone who manages to find Yoon's martial law speech under {{KOGL}} Type 1 will be greatly appreciated by me, please tell me if you do. Reepy1 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well besides martial law etc, again, there seems to be a lot of content such as State Council (i.e. cabinet) meetings (most contents with the current president I think?) that are under {{KOGL}} Type 1. Might be of note in the future, such as when events under the current gov't is documented in Wikimedia Projects. I think Commons has a lot of equivalent material from the U.S. White House.

Many old stuff are under KOGL Type 2-4 or even no KOGL license though. They are probably working on it, not sure if it will be under {{KOGL}} Type 1 though.

As for license review in the future, maybe we'll have to set up some internal VRT-style check for a case-by-case basis, going to be extra work for the admins though. Not sure if enough content will be relevant enough for upload in the future though. Reepy1 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Side note to express my frustration: US gov't works are under {{PD-USGov}}, but in South Korea, despite there being a similar law (Article 24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act), it seems like in practice, both the gov't interpretation and Wikimedia consensus is that a KOGL license is separately needed to enforce Art. 24-2. Also see: {{KoreaGov}} for 24-2 that is not explicitly under {{KOGL}}. Reepy1 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I pondered this a lot when trying to figure out if Yoon's martial law speech was free content here, the law states all works made entirely by the state (i.e. gov't) are free content under 24-2, but gov't practice and Wiki consensus may differ, which is why I made discussions and inquiries, leading up to this etc. Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO Wikimedia consensus is correct. While government owned workd are free, other factors involved include works that can be asserted by outside factors like contractors or legal exceptions which specifically make the copyright status non-free unlike the US government (e.g. state secrets or those pertaining to privacy). This is why Template:PD-KoreaGov is only used for works that are almost certainly held solely and their copyright exerted by the Korean government, such as official seals/insignias/logos or certain legal documents. KOGL is used to make our lives easier in that we KNOW the government and its contractors WANT us to use it. Without KOGL, everything would be a guesswork and most government files wouldn't be hosted here. Takipoint123 (💬) 18:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wondering how KOGL relates to Art. 24-2 though. Are KOGL Types 2-4 not completely free because the content isn't completely state-owned, or are they completely state-owned under 24-2 but have restrictions? If it's the latter then 24-2 by itself becomes (even more) useless to us...

From your post, it seems like it's the former. I think maybe there's some subsidiary regulation that defines 24-2/KOGL works, think it was this, but I think I'm done reading laws for now: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulLsInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000216859 (in Korean) Reepy1 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

KOGL claims it's legal basis is Article 24.2. As for why there's non-free license types is because 1. They do whatever they want 2. Some sort of legal exception applies against the commercial portion. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Website also has state visits Reepy1 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The main problem is that the Korean government has included not only KOGL Type 1 but also Types 2, 3, and 4 as part of its public works open policy. These are used interchangeably without clear distinction across diffrent platforms, which only adds to the confusion. The registration wall for the new website further complicates the situation. Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness.--Namoroka (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed to Namoroka. While the initiative is a good step forward, I don't expect that they are completely willing to release their entire collection of government images, videos and other content to free culture, commercial-friendly licensing. In fact, two of their public monuments/statues, despite being probably funded by taxpayers' money, is unfree for commercial use and distribution, and commercial use requires permission from the relevant cultural ministry. I don't expect the real sincerity of Seoul in promoting free culture in that country pretty much soon, from commercial Freedom of Panorama to the 100% release of all their archives and media either to public domain or to commercial-type CC licensing. (disclaimer, I'm not a Korean user). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, this (probably) happened because the President stated these KTV contents are (now) free content under §24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act back in early July. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202507091104001 (Korean article). So I think there might be some intent, implementation may differ (like this case) though. Reepy1 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Translating the article (using Brave browser's translation feature)... there's some inconsistencies. First to second paragraphs: In the future, videos produced by KTV (National Broadcasting Service) will be freely available to anyone without being subject to copyright. The President's Office issued a press release on the 9th “to fully open the video works of KTV, a state agency, for free use by the public and the media”. KTV is a public broadcaster operated by the state. But for the sixth paragraph: In the future, based on the principle of Article 28 of the Copyright Act ‘publicized works may be cited within a reasonable scope and according to fair practices for purposes such as reporting, criticism, education, and research’, the government will ensure that all media and new media can be cited and utilized fairly. The President's Office reported that it plans to open KTV video works for this purpose. "Reasonable scope and according to fair practices" seems to contradict "freely available to everyone", since if you're releasing your content freely (like under commercial-type KOGL CC licensing, which is Type 1), you should not expect that uses must be limited to fair uses like criticism, research, and education. Such licensing also allows derivatives from the videos (like screenshots) to be utilized in commercial products (e.g. T-shirt designs), advertising, and for-profit vlogs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I just saw a photo of that King Sejong statue (it's related to US news right now, can share if appropriate/curious), and got reminded of this again...

Just did a Google search, for the w:Statue of Yi Sun-sin, because it was being used for "parodies" and "caricatures", the author registered copyright, and later the author transferred copyright to Seoul gov't, and the royalties are "used to help the socially disadvantaged", according to this. Reepy1 (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 so it seems it's now illegal to use the statue in parodies? Well, SoKor seems to be placing too much restrictions over monuments that were funded by the people (not by the artists or architects), in my opinion. At the very least, Denmark handles the parody freedom prudently. Like both Japan and Russia, Denmark only grants liberal panorama exception to images of architecture, not including monuments. The heirs of the sculptor behind the Statue of the Little Mermaid once slapped Berlingske with lawsuit, but they were ultimately defeated by the Danish Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the newspaper. It has been considered by Berlingske as "a victory for the satirical freedom" in political cartoons and caricatures. In a nutshell, in Denmark the artists or their grandchildren have no rights to restrict satirical/parodical uses of the public monuments they designed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the Koreans might view those as exceptions to freedom of parody as they are the most revered persons in Korea.

Whether or not this is justified, I don't know. Reepy1 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, maybe there are different ways to deal with disrespect of these persons other than copyright, I don't know. Reepy1 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You'd use defamation against living persons but deceased persons generally can't be defamed (not sure in Korea) Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like there are laws for defamation against deceased persons in Korea but the government or any person cannot sue, only descendants. Reepy1 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

(when I say Korea I mean South Korea) Reepy1 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 just a question, are there any laws for defenation against living persons there? COM:CSCR#South Korea does seem to imply restrictive use of images of almost everyone. Is this perhaps one reason why some images are not Type 1 licensed because they depict "sensitive" figures or objects in SoKor? (Instead, Types 2-4 licensed?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard some people think defamation is used excessively in S. Korea, so yeah, your guess seems grounded. Reepy1 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 perhaps "sensitive objects" include the buildings and monuments themselves, making SoKor an outlier among all East Asian countries (having most restrictive law and rules, prohibiting all types of commercial uses of works permanently placed in public spaces). Mongolia just slightly liberated their rules in 2021, now permitting reasonable uses of buildings and 3D artworks, as long as these are not reproduced in exact 3D reproductions that are for direct or indirect commercial use (see COM:FOP Mongolia). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Curious; if the Seoul govt owns copyright to the Yi Sun-sin statue, if it releases images of the statue under permissive licenses, does that mean we can use such images on Commons despite lack of freedom of panorama? I'm looking on the copyright registry to try and confirm the owner but their search engine is so poorly designed I can't find the entry lol... grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon there is a similar case (see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-07#File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg). Requested by @Nonabelian: , but I had some reservations, considering the ministry of culture (which holds the sculptural copyright on the statue) not permitting any commercial exploitation of the publicly-funded monument without formal permission from them, even if the Flickr account of the representative agency released the image under a commercial-type CC license. In my opinion, the court would recognize the parent ministry's commercial use restrictions more than the CC licensing on the Flickr image given by the representative agency. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, interesting read. It's a bit too much for me to research at moment. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Where can I see if a picture is a free use?

I'm trying to make an page for Le Sserafims Hot, Ep in Finnish Wikipedia. I don't know if I can upload the album civer Nokotiinus (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nokotiinus: assuming "civer" means "cover", you almost certainly cannot upload that to Commons. You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, especially the section Understanding copyright - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You can't upload to Commons, but you might be able to upload on Wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree-albumcover Reepy1 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Motion Picture Copyright

Hello! I noticed a movie from 1914 was uploaded here in full. That movie of course is public domain given its age. The problem is is that the source is given as a home media release by a for profit company. Surely taking their restoration of the film is a copyright breach. Here is the file in question.File:The Lumberjack (1914).webm Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Restoration is not generally copyrightable in the US; it has to be creative work, not merely reproducing something someone else has done, i.e. the original film. And I'm not sure what restoration you're seeing there? Seems like a pretty direct scan of the film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The scan was done by a for profit company so I thought they may have rights to the specific copy of that film. Not the print but any clean up work or digital restoration they did to it for release. Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@You're apparently thinking about the effects of the en:Sweat of the brow doctrine. This doctrine is not really widespread in modern copyright laws, AFAIK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• The USCO rejected "restoration" as a new creative work because the goal was to be as close as possible to the original, but allowed "colorization" of black and white films, since the colors chosen were "creative". https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/history/mls/ML-366.pdf

アニメなどのロゴの著作権ってどうなってるの？

日本語で失礼します

まず謝りたいことがあります

無断で3点のロゴをアップロードしてしまいました、申し訳ありません

さて、本サイトにある、アニメなどのロゴは「図形やテキストのみであるコトによりパブリックドメインとなっています」がこの基準とは何か詳しく教えてください

またコレに関して著作権者の許可は必要か教えてください

返答お待ちしております H2-T2 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for a brief English reply, but these might help you:

COM:Threshold of originality/ja

COM:Copyright rules by territory/Japan/ja#独創性の水準 Reepy1 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Atoms for Peace speech

Are the audio and transcripts of the Atoms for Peace speech OK to upload? I performed a possibly flawed registration search, which turned up nothing. JayCubby (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status and eligibility of the old World Trade Center logo.

I recreated the old World Trade Center logo and uploaded it to Commons under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license, here. I originally researched the eligibility of logos to be copyrighted and came to the conclusion that they are not, so I chose the CC0 for people to not have to worry about crediting my recreation.

On September 11th, it got the speedy deletion notice for lack of permission from the copyright holder. After asking around and a lot of reading, I decided to send the probable copyright holder, the PANYNJ, an email asking them about the status of the logo. They responded in a very concise manner. Here's the main part of the response (everything else is email formalities and a link to the 9/11 Museum):

"Thank you for contacting the World Trade Center. Due to intellectual property rights, we are not authorized to grant any kind of design licenses for the Twin Towers at this time."

Being a bit confused by the vagueness of "we are not authorized to grant any kind of design licenses for the Twin Towers at this time", I sent a detailed email asking for guidance to commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org. What they told me is to just "prove that the logo is in the public domain", otherwise I "can't grant it a license", which didn't bring as much clarity into the issue as I had hoped, so I'm now asking here.

Does the logo and its recreation in question fall under the threshold of originality, making them uncopyrightable? What is there to grasp from the PANYNJ response? Does it bar any depiction of the Twin Towers from being used under a free license, forbidding them all from Commons? FenX2016 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@FenX2016 per enwiki, it was first used in 1993. If it was indeed first published in 1993, then it is automatically copyrighted from the moment of creation, but we all know that US courts and US Copyright Office typically reject copyright eligibility of many minimalist logos (see COM:TOO US) that are mere geometric shapes or typefaces, setting a very high bar of creativity required to gain copyright protection. Another question: are you also referring to the actual buildings themselves? The port authority has no rights whatsoever, more so the heirs of the deceased Japanese architect who authored the buildings, since all buildings can be exploited as per Sec. 120(a) of the US Copyright Code (the architectural Freedom of Panorama). More so, all buildings completed before 1990 are completely in public domain, because the 1990 AWCPA which granted copyright protection for architectural works did not retroactively restore the architects' copyrights on all existing buildings during that time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not any sort of legal expert, so I never meant to specify what part of the logo was copyrightable or not! I just relayed what the PANYNJ told me so that one of the much smarter people here could elaborate on what it would mean for this particular case.

Because of that, my only concern is whether or not any part of this logo potentially makes it all protected by copyright. Which now leads to the question of the logo's copyright eligibility under the threshold of originality. So... is it complex enough to be copyrighted or is it not? FenX2016 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/World_Trade_Center shows 3 WTC logos including a twin towers logo used 1989 to 2001. The newer 2014 logo is below TOO-US, but I would not claim the 1989 logo is below TOO; it is either above or too close to the line to be sure. Glrx (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That looks to me to be well above TOO in the United States.

Also: Pinging @JWilz12345, I doubt that Minoru Yamasaki, born in Seattle, Washington, graduate of Garfield High School and the University of Washington, and an active opponent of the internment of ethnic Japanese in the U.S. during World War II, would have appreciated being called a "Japanese architect". We would not call Frank Lloyd Wright a "Welsh architect". - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I stand corrected. (Perhaps because I am accustomed to the Philippine immigration laws, in which citizenship is only possible either by blood [at least one parent is a Filipino] or by naturalization [with hefty naturalization fees]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thanks. As you can imagine, in our current politics this is pretty fraught. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've speedied the 2001 logo. Bedivere (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

DigitaltMuseum, Category:Photographs by K.W. Gullers, and CC-BY-SA 4.0

License reviewing had me stumble upon File:NMAx.0016423.jpg and a bunch of other files in that category sourced to the Swedish DigitaltMuseum. The images on the DigitaltMuseum site have something that say they are CC-By-SA 4.0, but K.W. Gullers died in 1998 and there is no indication about this collection that the copyright was ever ceded to the various museum institutions to license those images. The other collections involving this artist have conflicting licenses, like CC-By-NC-ND. I am suspect to think that this is some kind of accidental license laundering on the museum's part, but wanted to get second opinions before I email them for more information or DR these files. Sennecaster (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

UN report covered by PD-UN-doc?

Is this UN report covered by PD-UN-doc? It does not, so far as I can tell, have a document symbol, which is the main category from ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, but I wanted to get others’ opinions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: would you know? - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf is currently listed as PD-USGov. While the redactions may be the work of a federal employee, the contact book obviously was not. However, I believe that this is still PD due to Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Can someone double check this interpretation, and if it is correct, does anyone know the template for this kind of situation? Based5290 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The arrangement seems to be alphabetical. So, such arrangement is not original. The element that might distinguish the contact book from the directory is the existence of a selection. The court observed that the directory simply listed the telephone subscribers, so there was no original selection (if any) and it could even plausibly be said that there was no selection at all because the publication was required by State law. For the contact book, there was certainly a particular selection of which names were selected. The crucial point is to tell if that selection would be considered original. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• I’m not sure what the utility of this file is. I’ve seen the full version, without redactions, on-line, so I don’t know why we have a redacted version. As it is now, it’s raw text in PDF form and therefore out of scope. I also think that there’s enough selection to be copyrightable, but I think that’s a closer call. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias @TE(æ)A,ea. I've nominated the file for deletion, since it's PD status seems suspect. Based5290 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I need assistance with the "Release Rights" section of some images I wish to upload.

I recently took some screenshots to use as sources for this section of this article en:Sky Kid#Other appearances in media and the "I don't know if they are free to share" button said to ask for assistance. What do I do? SpyroFan123 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@SpyroFan123: could you be clear about what these screenshots show?

You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, but this may be a tricky enough case that that introduction may not go deep enough for this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The page I wish to add these screenshots to has these bullet points

"In Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies, the narrator frequently spends his time in a bar named "Sky Kid"."

And

"In Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, the character Chopper has a poster with Red Baron's aircraft on it in his room."

The screenshots I've taken are from the games' respective cutscenes showing the aforementioned bar and poster. SpyroFan123 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You are likely trying to upload non-free images for Wikipedia. If so, it cannot be done here on Commons. You can ask for comments at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by OneUnknownDude

User:OneUnknownDude has uploaded a bunch of files from https://gahs.edu.ge claiming they are licensed under CC0. However, I see no such notice on the website. Can someone experienced with checking copyright verify these claims? Thank you. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus "gahs.edu.ge + own involvement" makes no sense as a source. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@OneUnknownDude: can you explain what is going on here? For example, at File:All-GAHS ICYS team in 2025.jpg you say the photographer is unknown, but then you claim to be the copyright-holder offering a cc-zero license. To me that makes no sense at all. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Since they haven't got back to us, should we nominate the files for deletion? I'm not sure how this works on Commons very much. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: Yes, nominate for deletion, we have no evidence of the claimed license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

- OneUnknownDude @childrenwilllisten Yes just go for it. Nominate all 3 pictures. Guess I will just publish the article (when I do) without pictures and that's all.

When can we assume anonymous author?

RAN has repeatedly used a rationale in DRs that I disagree with, most recently (that I've seen) at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clémence MOSSÉ.png. Basically, his argument (RAN, please indicate if I'm mischaracterizing) is that once we've done due diligence, if we cannot find original publication and cannot otherwise find an author attributed, we may assume an anonymous author and use a tag such as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. I say that we need at least some sort of evidence for the author being anonymous (typically, early anonymous publication), not merely the absence of evidence to the contrary, and that in a situation like the one described we need to wait until 120 years from creation, then use {{PD-old-assumed}}. In my view, RAN's argument amounts to saying that in any jurisdiction that allows anonymous works only 70 years protection starting from creation, we may apply that whenever we cannot determine authorship, and that the 120 years required for PD-old-assumed applies only to the case of a known author with an unknown death date.

There is no point to he and I repeating this disagreement on multiple DRs, and I would prefer some sort of determination about the argument in general. Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• A combination of Tineye and Google Image search looks at 14 billion images. It is impossible to prove a negative by the constraints of logic. The best you can do is perform due diligence. The argument is always if you just look under one more rock, you may find what you are looking for, but looking under 14 billion rocks represents the limits of trying to prove a negative. Most copyright jurisdictions allow a clawback from the public domain if a creator is discovered and the copyright term is still active at less than 70 years pma. We have always honored that rule, even when an archive claims that an image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• There's at least two interrelated issues here:

1. If we don't know where or how an work was first published, we cannot and should not make licensing statements which make specific assertions about its publication, e.g. that it was published anonymously or without a copyright notice. All we can say under these circumstances is that the origin of the image is unknown.
2. Independently of this, the fact that reverse image search services like Google Images or TinEye cannot find an image does not mean that the image is an original work, that it was previously unpublished, or that it was published anonymously. These services are notoriously unreliable; I've frequently had them fail to find images which are offered for sale on stock photo sites, or which have been posted on large public image galleries. Their failure to find a source for an image should not be treated as indicative of anything.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• If you don't know the original publication of a work, it is very hard to clearly say anything about the copyright status of the work is. How can we assume it's an EU work at all?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  A French midwife in the first half of the 20th century was most likely photographed in France, or in one of the other countries sharing a border with it. Googleing "Clémence Mossé" brings up a mention of her in https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/126221146.html#dbocontent : Im Juni 1936 auf dem von der Reichsfachschaft organisierten Internationalen Hebammenkongress in Berlin zur ersten Präsidentin der International Midwives Union (IMU) gewählt, nutzte Conti dieses Amt als Propagandaplattform für das „Dritte Reich“. Von 1942 bis 1945 amtierte sie in der Nachfolge des Weltverbandgründers Frans Daels (1882–1974) als Generalsekretärin der IMU und verlegte deren Geschäftsstelle gegen den Willen und hinter dem Rücken der Präsidentin Clémence Mosse (gest. 1949) von Gent nach Berlin. This places a probable place of work of C. Mossé in Belgium (Ghent). So the EU assumption seems valid.

  But I don't think that {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is something can can be easily and broadly used, if at all. The template claims, and that fits with the statutes as far as I know them:

  To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions:
  1. published over 70 years ago, and
  2. the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.

  That alone, and the policy Commons:Project scope/Evidence mandates that indeed a negative proof is needed before relying on the actual PD statute. COM:PRP comes on top. So, while I know that logic doesn't show for negative proof, the law, our policies and our layman's summary in the template in my opinion mandate exactly that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's a fairly specific licensing template, but there are some common cases where it can be applicable - news photos, maps, and incidental illustrations in books are three big ones. Omphalographer (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't even limit this template quite as far a Omphalographer, let alone Grand-Duc. I'd say that if we can find what appears to be the original publication of the photo (typically, publication very shortly after it was taken) and there is no photographer credit, then the burden would go to proving that the photographer later became known. But if the earliest publication we can find is years (in this case, decades) after the photo was taken, and it seems plausible (in this case, highly probable) that the photograph had prior publication, them we know exactly nothing about whether the original publication gave a photographer credit. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• The template has two requirements:
  1. Age: Published more than 70 years ago. So we would need to prove that it was published at least 70 years ago. If we can't find evidence of a publication which took place more than 70 years ago, then we can't use the template. For Commons purposes, there is also a requirement that the file must be in the public domain in the United States, which normally extends this from 70 to 95 years.
  2. Anonymity: This means that it is not possible to identify the author. On the Internet, you can often find photos which have been taken from an unspecified source without crediting the author, but this does not mean that the author is anonymous. If the author has once been known, he can't become anonymous, so you must check the original, unspecified, source.
• If you identify a print of the photograph which can reasonably be argued to be the original print, and the author isn't credited, then you can in my opinion assume that the author is presumably anonymous. However, if the original print is unidentified, we should not make assumptions about the author's anonymity.
• In some cases, we need further checks. For example, if the photo is credited to a news agency such as AFP, then the photo probably appeared in multiple newspapers at the same time, and then there is a risk that some newspapers credited the photographer and that some other newspapers did not. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, While we obviously can't assume that all images on the Internet published without naming an author are anonymous, in this case, it is quite safe to assume that the author is unknown and will ever be. I also run a search on Google and Tineye, and I could not find anything. It is also very reasonable to assume that it was published around the time of creation unless evidence shows otherwise. Anyway, there is no significant doubt, which is the standard for deleting copyright violations. Yann (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Cover of And Their Refinement of the Decline

Would the cover art be okay for uploading to Commons because of TOO? Dentsinhere43 (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dentsinhere43: doesn't say what country, but if it's U.S., yes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Veterinary X-rays in the United States

What would be the status of the X-ray images on this page? Do we need permission, or are they ineligible for copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging, it should be fine in the U.S. No explicit court case, but Copyright Office guidance explicitly states X-rays will not be granted a copyright registration, and it would take a court to overrule that (unlikely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Image with copyright but organization is OK

I've contacted a person from an organization sharing a file with this note:

"[organisation] Limited, 2020. All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as the copyright of [the organisation]"

a member from this organisation is OK until it is mentionned but not have time:right to send Wikimedia email.

What am I supposed to do ? Thibaut.leroy (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of what you wrote here is unclear (might you be able to be clearer in a different language?) but the quoted phrase isn't anywhere near sufficiently free for Commons.

You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Similar DRs with different result (COM:TOO UK and Stik graffiti)

File:Graffiti in an alley down to Silver Street - geograph.org.uk - 3452553.jpg

One of the kept files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik

Last month I submitted a few DRs about Stik graffiti, two of them in the UK. Photos of graffiti in the UK are typically not allowed per COM:FOP UK, but this graffiti is basically stick figures (very simple). Files in one of the DRs were mostly kept as below COM:TOO UK while those from the other were deleted, though the complexity of the art across the two DRs is very similar, so we have an inconsistent result.

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik (7 of 8  kept as below TOO, 1 deleted)
2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik in London (84  deleted)

Could others please take a look and advise on how to resolve this inconsistency - should the deleted files be requested for undeletion, or should the kept files be DR'd again, or something else? (BTW I posted about this here last month before submitting the DRs but didn't get any responses. Pinging closers @Infrogmation and @Blackcat.) -Consigned (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The UK has a rather low TOO, however, the TOO was recently made higher, iirc. It might be worth checking what the exact recent changes to the UK's understanding of TOO were and whether they might have any implications on this graffiti. Going by the old TOO regulations, I'd say they'd need to be deleted, but I don't remember how high the TOO was made now. Nakonana (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright rules of which country?

Would you clarify when we look at copyright rules, which country's copyright rules shoud we refer to?

For example, if I took a photo in country A, with the subject of an artwork that was created in country B by the artist with a nationality of country C, which copyright rules apply? Country A/B/C's or all of them? Onthewings (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Onthewings: Hi, The only thing which matters is the country of first publication. For an artwork displayed in a public place, that's easy. For an artwork kept in a private place, it may be published in a different country than the one it was created: the place where it was first displayed to the public. For your picture, if you first upload it to Wikimedia Commons, the country which matters is USA, where Wikimedia servers are located. Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yann Thanks for the answer. Please allow me to ask another question to make sure I understand correctly.

In another scenario, for example there is a sculpture first published in a country. It was fully protected by the country's copyright law (no FOP etc). Then, the sculpture was transported and permanently placed in a public space in the UK, where sculptures are covered by FOP. Are we allowed to upload photographs of that sculpture in the UK to Wikimedia Commons? Onthewings (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that should be OK because the picture of the artwork is taken in UK, where FOP allows publication under a free license (assuming all conditions are met: permanent, public place, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. In that case what matters is where I took the photo (UK) instead of where I publish the photo (Wikimedia server in USA)? Onthewings (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Onthewings: For the FOP aspect, what matters is the law where the photo is taken and where the object is located. In your example, that’s the UK, which allows FOP for sculptures permanently in public places. So a freely licensed photo taken there is fine under UK law, even if the sculpture came from a country without FOP. On Commons, such images are accepted if they’re free in both the country of origin and the US. Since the US only has FOP for buildings, Commons uses {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to flag that reuse in the US may be restricted (but not really that widely used). (And just to correct a common misconception: it’s not about "servers in the USA". The WMF is US-based, so US law matters, but Wikimedia runs infrastructure worldwide.) For FOP, the relevant law is where the photo was taken. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the main servers are in USA. That may not be applicable for Wikimedia, but I was able to use the shorter duration of copyright when renting a server in Canada. Yann (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Decorated sculpture trails

Regarding Category:Decorated sculpture trails, I believe most photos there were taken when the sculptures were temporarily exhibited in public prior to the auction, which decides who will get the sculptures and where to put them. Here is a Wikipedia article about one of such trails in the UK.

I wonder whether the photos are acceptable in Commons as I believe for example the UK FOP covers only works permanently placed in public spaces? Onthewings (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Country of publication and copyright for works created in the United Arab Republic

Hi. I was just looking through some files in Category:United Arab Republic and it seems like the licensing for them are all over the place. Since the United Arab Republic was a union attempt between Egypt and Syria, North Yemen, and Iraq depending on the years it was tried. My inclination is to say the proper licenses for works created during the republic would be "PD-Egypt", since they were the main country involved in the unification attempts, but I'm not really sure if I'm correct or not. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a copyright guideline for the United Arab Republic either. So does anyone know what license, or licenses, would be correct? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW I removed some pictures from Category:United Arab Republic which probably belong to Category:United Arab Emirates. Yann (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads from HighHeist

HighHeist (talk · contribs) has uploaded several logos for various Indian television stations. They described them all as own work, with is clearly false. My question is if these logos are simple enough for COM:TOO India to apply? Ravensfire (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

WBNX-TV and License Washing

Hi all. I noticed File:Tyla in 2025.jpg on the main page of enwiki, and caught that it happened to be from my local affiliate for en:The CW, which happens to be en:WBNX-TV. I noticed that the source video was listed as CC-BY, and I was able to verify that the source video showed the same license. However, it appears that everything on their YouTube channel is licensed CC BY, including nationally broadcast TV shows that are not typically released under a free license. I'm wondering if we're looking at another case of the Vogue Taiwan issue. Any input folks may have would be greatly appreciated! Phuzion (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Phuzion I think this is less complicated than the Vogue Taiwan issue, since Vogue Taiwan was releasing content fully owned by their parent company (or other subsidiaries) under CC licenses, but in this case WBNX-TV is simply releasing content that doesn’t appear to be owned by them or their parent company under CC licenses.

For example, File:Tyla in 2025.jpg is a screenshot from the Jennifer Hudson Show. The show’s connection to WBNX-TV is very minimal, as the show is only partly owned by a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery, and Warner Bros. Discovery is only a minority owner of The CW, which owns WBNX-TV. So, I think it is very unlikely that WBNX-TV are authorised to release such content under CC-license, so I think you can safely nominate this and other similar images for deletion. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Tvpuppy, although this is essentially the same issue as Vogue Taiwan. WBNX-TV definitely does not have authorization to release those videos under a free license, just as Vogue Taiwan didn't have the right to release Condé Nast's original content under free licenses. This is just another case of a faraway subsidiary assuming they own the rights to content they're re-publishing from their corporate owner, which is almost certainly an incorrect assumption. I would only trust a free license from WBNX's YouTube if the content in question originated with WBNX (e.g., their local newscast or other content created by WBNX). 19h00s (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Nominated the file for deletion per recommendations. Thanks for the help! Phuzion (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Nominated another 22 images from WBNX-TV. Phuzion (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Contradictory deletion nomination results on US passport photos

Recently the deletion request I initiated for the Tupac passport photos has been closed as "keep". I nominated those for deletion because an earlier deletion request for a passport photo of Ross Ulbricht was closed as "delete". These are contradictory deletion outcomes as both concerned passport photos of U.S. citizens. There are also the discussions for Janis Joplin's (delete) and Andrew Anglin's passport photo (keep). Thus we are forced to make a decision between:

1. U.S. passport photos are public domain
2. U.S. passport photos are not public domain

Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How are passport photos taken in the United States? In Sweden, you go to a police station, and then the photo is taken by a policeman (so the photo is always a government work). Is this also the case in the United States; that is, can {{PD-USGov}} be used for passport photos from the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had one taken by the post office once, but you can also supply your own. Unsure about old ones. There is very little variation/creativity on such photos, as the angle and the cropping are usually roughly all the same. There are gray areas of threshold of originality, and if something was considered published or not (important for U.S. copyright yet difficult to determine). Not surprised people come down on different sides of those, and it's just about impossible for there to be a copyright case on them, and there could be different situations for different ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In theory anyone can take them; requirements are rather specific.

• Color photo 2 x 2 inches in size, printed on thin, photo-quality paper.
  • Before circa 1980, they required black and white instead.
  • In recent years (don't know start date) they offer the alternative of color JPEG image between 600x600 and 1200x1200 pixels, with a square aspect ratio and a file size between 54 KB and 10 MB.
• Between 1 inch and 1 3/8 inches from the bottom of the chin to the top of the head.
  • Presumably the same ratio to file dimensions for a JPEG.
• Taken within the past 6 months at time you apply for passport, "showing current appearance."
• Full face, front view with a plain white or off-white background.
• Cannot have a smile that shows teeth.

Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you think these photos surpass the COM:PCP to be kept? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Passport photos need a free license. In the US, they are privately made; the government only gets the use of the photo rather than the copyright. For me, the debate is who owns the copyright: the photographer or the subject. I lean to the latter as the photograph would be a work for hire, but there is seldom a written contract where the photographer transfers the work. Skill is involved. I just got my driver's license renewed at the DMV, and the person running the camera was giving explicit posing instructions about tilting my head and where I should be looking. There may be requirements, but there is still some level of creativity involved. Glrx (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Conversely, for passport photos before 1978, the passing of the photo from the photographer to the subject, and thence to the State Department may well constitute publication, and certainly no copyright notice would be present, so quite possibly these would all have passed into the public domain for being published without notice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

1943 title page for Talking to India

en:File:Talking to India.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a non-free license, but it seems too simple to be eligible for copyright in the US per COM:TOO US. I'm curious though as to whether it might also be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the UK based on the UK's new TOO. Even if that's not the case, perhaps the book itself is now PD for some reason per COM:UK because of its age. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, The cover is probably OK, but the book is not in the public domain, as en:E. M. Forster died in 1970. Yann (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. Based on what you posted, I'm assuming a {{PD-text}} license is probably OK for both the US and UK, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• COM:UK#Typographical copyright indicates that there is a typographic copyright which expires 25 years after publication, but that has obviously already expired. Furthermore, I would think that the title page is normally not created by the author of the book and the person who created the title page is probably anonymous, so any copyright in the title page would have expired 25 or 70 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Stefan2. Based on what you posted, it appears the title page could be no longer eligible for copyright protection for two reasons: COM:UK#Typographical copyright and COM:UK#Unknown author. What licenses would you suggest using in the first case and in the second case? In the "unknown author" case, though, I'm wondering whether the page would've still been protected on the UK's URAA restoration date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if there is a copyright tag for the UK typographical copyright. For the 70-year term, use {{PD-UK-unknown}}.

  For the United States, use {{PD-ineligible}} or a variant of that copyright tag. As it is below the threshold of originality in the United States, you don't need to consider the URAA stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Bodycams and PD-automated

@Trade recently added a statement to {{PD-automated}} stating this template doesn’t cover bodycam footages. I know from past discussions that there wasn’t any clear consensus on whether bodycam footages are copyrightable, so I wanted to ask here again for other’s opinion on the added statement on the template. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It's long been an unwritten rule not to use PD-automated on bodycams and for us to delete such videos and screenshots. It's possible we have just never declared it an official policy

As for the DRs i was waiting for

Commons:Deletion requests/File:(Explicit Violent Content) Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing the Nova music festival area on 7th October.webm before taking any action against those Trade (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

For the DRs that voted kept it's worth keeping in mind they either had very fed participants. In other cases, most of the vote keeps were people engaging in personal attacks against the nominator --Trade (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• One problem with the template is that it doesn't properly address differences in national law. For example, under Swedish law, the only requirement is that the photograph has a producer, in which case it is automatically protected for 50 years from creation. Originality is only a concern if you still seek copyright protection after more than 50 years from creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  No one is stopped from making changes that adresses differences in national law Trade (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  So how do this work with CCTVs in Sweden? Trade (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  As long as the photograph has a producer, the copyright expires 50 years after the photo was created. I don't know who the producer is in the case of CCTV. Maybe it is the technician who last pressed the on/off switch. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just flagging that we previously went through a similar discussion on CCTV/automated camera videos a few months back, might be some useful insights in there. 19h00s (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Either we are allowed to host CCTV footage or we are going to have to delete hundreds of videos and screenshots. There's no compromise to be made here Trade (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality of logos

The shield in this logo appears to be something that is beyond "simple design" to qualify as public domain, but not so certain that I wanted to get some opinions before proposing deletion. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for VP/C rather than the now-open DR? - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , Easy on acronyms and abbreviations which took me a moment to decode. This discussion at Village Pump/Copyright was started 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC) by me as a broader discussion by me to really get a good idea of the boundary between simple and complex. Someone else filed a Deletion Request 3 1/2 hours later on the same file at 19:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC) which is beyond my control. So I'm not sure why you're asking the question? Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking why there was any reason to continue discussion here, given that there is now (or, more accurately, was at the time of my remark) an open DR. That DR has now been resolved. Again, is there anything that needs to be discussed here that was not covered in the DR? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

In broader picture, Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States shows nVidia logo is copyrightable but the Subway and Geek Squad ones aren't. At first sight, I'm not quite grasping what makes the nVidia one at the threshold. For those that haven't been through court/administrative dispute, how do we go about what's above below threshold for Wikimedia upload purposes? Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, partly informed by rationales given in court rulings. This is almost all case law, not statute law. Even actual copyright lawyers will sometimes disagree; because of the precautionary principle, we try to set Commons' threshold relatively near the low end of the gray zone. I am sure our decisions are not completely consistent over time, but I'm also sure that the consequences are not enormous (having a particular logo hosted on Commons or not is not of enormous importance). As far as I know, we've had few, if any, takedown notices for logos that had had any scrutiny. As in most things related to copyright, Commons tends to stay in a range that most copyright lawyers would find conservative. (Compare almost any other media site on the web that accepts user uploads.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

We have actual rulings on the Subway and Geek Squad logos. Nvidia logo does not have an official ruling, which means we use editor consensus, which as Jmabel pointed out runs rather conservative. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Uluru

There has been some media attention recently (e.g. [5]) concerning photos of Uluru. Essentially, you need a "media permit or license" to "capture, use or create images,footage, recording, artwork or likeness of Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park for commercial or public purposes" [6], or you face fines.

For existing photos, they must be "reviewed and approved by the Media Office before use". These permits/licences are valid for 10 years, after which you apparently have to reapply. They also have a broad ?request? to not "capture or use existing images or footage of people climbing, the base of the climb, the chain on the climb or views from the climb, including from the top of Uluṟu."

Can any media depicting Uluru or the national park be included on here? Even on Wikipedia, CC-BY-NC would seem to not be permitted, as you need a licence for "public purposes". 128.250.0.194 11:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an example of a Commons:Non-copyright restrictions (unless you can show me where in their copyright law they literally copyright this mountain). Commons generally permits this type of photo, with a warning. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Looking at Template:Australian Commonwealth reserve, it seems insufficient, as restrictions are not merely on commercial purposes, but "commercial and public". It may need to be edited, or another template made for gradations of restrictions. 49.183.93.101 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Are these in the public domain?

This is about two files - one of which I'm about to upload and the other that has already been uploaded.

The file that hasn't been uploaded yet:
This is the file I'm planning on uploading: https://x.com/MatPatGT/status/1932458863619404194/video/1
I would like to upload the audio of this video. I believe it is in the public domain as the video is formatted and angled in a way that makes it seem like it was originally recorded and published by a congressperson. However, I am not sure if that applies to videos, and if it doesn't, please let me know.

The file that has been uploaded:
This is the file that has been uploaded: File:Matpat aurafarming cropped even more.png
While I do believe the file was formatted very badly and uploaded by a careless contributor, what I also believe is that this was taken by a congressperson - possibly the same congressperson who took the other photos that have been uploaded here. What I'd like for this is a source to attach to the file, although I'd probably want to verify the source first. Regardless, it seems like a safe file to me and, if the file really is in the public domain, I might consider replacing the image in MatPat's Wikipedia infobox with that image, as I believe it is the best recent file of him on commons. I changed the license from a CC0 license to a PD-Congress license earlier tonight and I do believe I was correct with that change.

I would like to know if both of these files are in the public domain - if they are, I will upload the former while the latter's info can be cleaned up. If not, the latter can be deleted while the former will not be uploaded. I am making this as I believe this will require some form of discussion. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see any evidence here that any of this media was actually made by a member of Congress or a federal employee. Press events like the one pictured are attended by many different people whose photos would not be PD, including press, Congressional campaign staff (not federal staffers), outside partners (like MatPat and his entourage), or members of the public. Notably, MatPat tagged several large companies in his post, presumably because they are involved with this effort; how do we know that YouTube or Jubilee didn't send a photographer or set up the livestream to ensure the event was documented and well-covered? MatPat posted the video and photograph himself, it was not posted by a federal source; we'd need confirmation of some kind, whether that's an original image source or a photo credit listed in another place, to show that it was in fact a federal employee who made the photo. I also don't really understand what you mean when you say the photo is angled in a way that makes it seem as if a member of Congress took it, but I could just be misreading that.

From where I sit, Commons:PCP would necessitate deletion of the photo and no uploading the other media unless/until we have a definitive source on who made the images/video. 19h00s (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Which is what I was hoping could be found.

The reason why I believe these were made by congresspeople were because of files such as this, which have similar camera quality. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, that image sourced from Rep. Yvette Clarke changes it a bit for me. It's very possible that the images came from Clarke's office, but we'd still need confirmation I think. And I apologize for my "don't really understand" comment, I more meant that I didn't see the connection between the angle of the image and it being made by a member of Congress or their staff, but after seeing the photo's from Clarke's office I see what you mean. 19h00s (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully someone will be able to determine this soon. I think we're getting closer to finding out these files are fine to be here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: I found out where the latter file came from. It came from the same Tweet the video came from. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Right now, however, we are still determining whether or not they came from a congressperson. While I personally believe that that is the case, it is not definitive and that's why I'm forwarding this to the village pump. Sorry if I say things that don't make the most sense, by the way, English is not my first language. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I nominated this file for deletion. There is no evidence that the license is valid. If the author is unknown, how could we know? Yann (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Images Published by Sri Lankan Army in July 2009 (Subsequently Deleted from their Website)

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (2 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (4 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (5 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (3 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (6 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions (Homeguard & Jihad) Hand Over their Weapons at Kattankudy on July 4, 2009 1.jpg

Appendix 2: In response to a government-declared amnesty on July 4, 2009, several Muslim militant groups in the Eastern Province surrendered dozens of weapons

These 6 photos were released by the Sri Lankan Army as part of a press release on their Website. [7] The thing is the Sri Lankan Army deleted those photos but once they had uploaded those photos.[8] The footer of the Sri Lankan Army Website says:

© Reproduction of news items is permitted when used without any alterations to contents and the source. All Rights Reserved. Ministry of Defence - Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Did I amend it to the copyright tag? (CC0) Zero Public Domain, "No Rights Reserved". I don't know which License is appropriate for it. Also AFP used these exact images but it doesn't seem like they asked for copyright permissions?[9]

What do I do now? If I wait it out the images will be deleted in 6 days. Wikipedia Commons is asking me to provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Then update the tag with on file description page. This is really complicated for a noob like me.

The Images are being used for the following page: [10] {{Permission pending|year=2025|month=September|day=28}} RajaRajaC (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@RajaRajaC Do you have permission to upload these photographs? As you have mentioned, the footer states these images are non-free (“All rights reserved”) and no derivatives allowed (“without any alterations to contents”), so they cannot be uploaded to Commons, hence should be deleted. Please read Commons:Licensing for more details. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will delete it then. How else am I supposed to give readers context? Can I use it on just on vanilla Wikipedia? Which License should I select if I can do that? RajaRajaC (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

On en-wiki you might be able to upload one such image, at low resolution, under the policy laid out at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Beyond that, I'm not sure why images would be needed for "context", but if they are relevant, you can refer to them with external links. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd do with the one upload. Is there an embed feature on Wikipedia? RajaRajaC (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@RajaRajaC: Not sure what you mean by an "embed feature." Embed what in what? - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Potential Nirvana photo

Hi all. I am currently trying to find a free or otherwise public domain of Kurt Cobain and/or his band Nirvana. The current photo on Cobain's Wikipedia article is unsatisfactory, and the latter's article uses a fair use image. There is a very short window of time between 1987 (when Nirvana formed) and February 1989 (when US copyright laws got stricter) where photos of the band could have been published without copyright notice and without being renewed, thus being in the public domain in the US.

I have found one such potential photo, the Love Buzz cover art. This is the packaging of the band's first single released in 1988, and as can be seen on the gallery, there isn't an explicit copyright notice on the jacket itself. Both photos on the front and back are rather blurry, so their usefulness for illustrating Nirvana or Cobain is debatable. There are primarily two issues relating to the copyright, the first is that the vinyl itself does contain a copyright notice reading "Produced by Jack Endino ©+℗". The second is that the photographer, Alice Wheeler, appears to indeed have registered the copyright for "Nirvana first photo sessions" in 1993. However, this record appears to only claim photos created in 1989, whereas the Love Buzz cover was released in 1988.

Does the above issues prevent scans of the cover art from being uploaded to Commons as {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-US-defective notice-1978-89}}? Howardcorn33 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no copyright notice in this Discogs page containing scans of the vinyl record, so I think it should be fine. But I'm no expert on US copyright law, so another opinion is preferable. Bedivere (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Only one way to find out. Upload it and see if someone deletes it :) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

btw @Howardcorn33, Tracy Marander (the former girlfriend of Kurt Cobain) took several photos, some of which have been published. They were not registered [11], none of them. If you can find some pre-February 1989 shot of Marander, then you might be lucky. I found some October 1988 pictures, and another ones from the same timespan on Reddit, but that might not be the best of sources. Good luck. Bedivere (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've uploaded it here: Nirvana - Love Buzz Big Cheese front cover.jpg Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh it appears a second free Kurt Cobain photo exists, which I've now uploaded: Photo of Kurt Cobain from US Embassy in Bern (cropped).jpg Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume Howardcorn33 meant to link File:Photo of Kurt Cobain from US Embassy in Bern.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Question about collective works published before 1978

Would a collective work whose only copyright notice bore the name of an author of a contribution have the copyright to the rest of its parts not forfeited? The Copyright Office's Jaws decision seems to suggest yes, since it goes great lengths to emphasize that the Jaws novel is not a collective work. I'm asking because this is directly relevant to Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Power Broker book cover.tiff and the copyright status of File:Houseboat Days - Ashbery.jpg. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment clearly talking only about U.S. even though that is not stated. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection

The problem is that a number of files within this category (and it's subcats) are incorrectly tagged (and have been since upload).

Fae was undertaking a curatorial task using tools they had authored until they left, due to specifc Commons contributors offensive and inappropriate attempts at humor (as I recall it).

This has sadly meant that for over 4 years, Commons has potentially been hosting signficant material it should not have been, if it's own policy was being applied.

What is needed is a contributor copyright investigation, even though the vast number of these files would prove to be acceptable by Commons policy standards. It is the minority of files which taint the entire upload. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

When doing this, remember that a fair number for which the claimed basis for PD is wrong are still fine under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this position. Specifc groups of content of concern are Contractor reports (post 1989) , co authored papers, and library holdings that aren't federal works. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Music videos

Sooner or later, people probably should check whether music videos posted under CCBY can be licensed that way for both music audio and the video. It may be the case it's often just for the video if the file was released by the music video director in which case the audio would have to be muted I think. If the audio is also CCBY, then it would be good if the audio was extracted and uploaded separately. I thought about doing so but noticed this current state of ambiguity. Two example music videos are File:Alcest - Les voyages de l'âme (Official Music Video).webm (not on vimeo anymore so you need to view the archived source) and File:Robin Schulz - "Sugar" - Director's Cut.webm (856 M views; note that the video license is not CCBY on YouTube). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Somalia

Hello. I'm requesting for someone to update COM:SOMALIA and possibly some related pages. Accordingly, their intellectual property office reopened in 2019 and resumed operations in 2021. It also means PD-Somalia is no longer default, as it is now possible to register copyrights of Somali works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

{{PD-Somalia}} may need to be discussed and, possibly, deprecated in favor of {{PD-Somalia-no notice}} and {{PD-Somalia-expired}}, considering that the copyright office is now operating again. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ping two participants of the first discussion at Template talk:PD-Somalia for some comments: @Geni and Wikiacc: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Cemeteries and freedom of panorama in Finland

Hello everyone, I have a picture of a Jewish cemetery in Helsinki ready for upload. Reading the freedom of panorama page for the country, i.e. it's mostly restricted to buildings, I have a doubt: Would tombstones be considered 'sculptures' and therefore not be allowed? I do see other pictures of cemeteries in Finland on Commons. In this case one of the tombstones in the picture has a bit more of, say, design to it. Many thanks in advance for your time and help, Sjenghai (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• The law excludes commercial art like tombstones, and forbids "sculptures (non-commercial only)". --RAN (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. I won't upload the picture then until FOP were to change in Finland. Best regards, Sjenghai (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Sjenghai wait, are the tombstones recent creations? If the designers of those have died for more than 70 years, then you may upload images of them as satisfying public domain (see COM:Finland#General rules). "Copyright subsists until 70 years have elapsed from the year of the author's death or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, from the year of death of the last surviving author." In this case, the author is the sculptor or tombstone designer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  The tombstones are of people who passed away in, mostly, the 1990s so that wouldn’t apply here. Many thanks for the additional clarification and help nevertheless! Much appreciated, Sjenghai (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Noted, very unfortunate. Anyway, you're welcome! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, tombstones with only text or standard religious symbols may fail to pass Commons:Threshold of originality and therefore be free. Pere prlpz (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Pere prlpz perhaps {{PD-structure|FIN}} will work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Portraits from EC Audiovisual service

This came from Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inga_Ruginienė_2025.png, but in that case EC isn't the owner. The uncertainty is about portraits the EC owns like File:Visit of Carolina Barco Isakson, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the EC.jpg. The EC audivisual service's license says "CC BY 4.0 licence, with possible exceptions of parts containing personal images". Stricken. See my reply to Tvpuppy

Commentary about the GDPR and Polish law differ from the definition at COM:PERSONAL, saying "personal images ... the appropriation of a person’s likeness" or "The personal image is defined ... as: The image is a fixed set of physical features typical for a particular person enabling the individualisation and recognition of that person."

This could affect all portraits under Special:Search/"https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/". How should we deal with the phrase "possible exceptions of parts containing personal images"? 173.206.37.177 18:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, according to the statement you linked, isn’t the quote “…CC BY 4.0 licence, with possible exceptions of parts containing personal images…” referring to specific video files, so not related to images or portraits? Tvpuppy (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "referring to specific video files, so not related to images or portraits" means. File:Visit of Carolina Barco Isakson, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the EC.jpg was always an image. Its source links to the "Conditions of Use" I quoted.

File:Inga Ruginienė 2025.png was originally a video, and a commons user extracted a still. But a video is just a series of images (frames).

I just re-read the licensing page. Skipping over private individuals, the next part appears relevant: "• Moral rights, publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights, such as image rights are not covered by the reuse decision. ... [Per RAN's comment, this bullet is about personality rights not copyright] • For any commercial or promotional uses of content depicting public or individual persons, or for any use not authorised by this copyright notice and the terms of use accompanying each individual file, we strongly recommend to you obtain a prior authorisation from the rightsholders." I'm now also worried this part goes against COM:Commercial. 173.206.37.177 18:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You said “This could affect all portraits”, and I’m saying that it appears you have misunderstood the license page. The full quote on that page states, “All other kinds of videos available on this website may be edited and re-used in line with the provisions of CC BY 4.0 licence, with possible exceptions of parts containing personal images or third party works”. So, it will not affect all portraits. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I struck that part to focus on File:Visit of Carolina Barco Isakson, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the EC.jpg. How should I interpret "Restrictions ... content depicting public or individual persons ... recommend to you obtain a prior authorisation from the rightsholders. ... [only] where none of the specified restrictions and/or specific cases apply, ... CC BY 4.0"? 173.206.37.177 20:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, along the lines of RAN's comment below, perhaps the phrase "strongly recommend" means a non-binding or optional condition so not a real "restriction" that limits the CC BY 4.0 at the bottom. I hope this is what the EU thinks. 173.206.37.177 19:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• As worded it appears to be a cautionary statement about terms of use in countries with "personality rights", which do not override the CC license. For instance we cannot use a photo of a prime minister and use it in an advertisement where the PM is endorsing a product or service. --RAN (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploading an alternate print of a negative?

BEGIN moved from Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Somewhat recently (2023) an alternate print of the famous File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg photograph was published [12] in the journal "Holocaust and Genocide Studies". This print is in the possession of the United States Holocaust museum ([13], archive link[14]) and was probably photographed/scanned by the authors themselves since the museum itself does not host a digitized copy. An additional digitized copy of higher quality was published in 2024 ([15]) in an article by welt.de ([16]).

I want to upload this alternate print to Wikimedia commons but I am unsure about the copyright situation with this image. The original print seems to be part of the public domain due to being published in the US between 1930-1977 without a copyright notice. I am wondering whether the public domain status also extends to this alternate print, since the exact photographic reproduction of a work in public domain is not protected by copyright (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp). The key question seems to be: Is the alternate print considered the same work as the already published print or not?

The alternate print shows a larger section of the image (two additional soldiers watching are visible) and is of higher quality (buildings in the background of the image can clearly be seen) which is why I think it is relevant to upload this print. Since the copyright situation for the two scans of the images should be the same I would choose to upload the scan by welt.de due to its higher resolution Veryspecific (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Veryspecific: subtle questions about copyright are much better asked at COM:Village pump/Copyright. Mind if I move this there? - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No, go ahead. Veryspecific (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

END moved from Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Veryspecific: Yes, if the original picture is in the public domain, any new scan will also be. Yann (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not a new scan. It's another old print, from the same negative, but showing more of the image then the version we already have.

The question, I suspect, is what is the publication date for those additional parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would this print have a different copyright status that the one we already have on Commons? Even if it is scanned from a different print, I don't think that changes the copyright. Yann (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would it inherit the publication date of a print of part of the negative? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Surely the creative work is the photograph, not the print? The photographer is credited as the author, after all. Omphalographer (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally, but weirdly if it's significantly differently cropped it doesn't quite work that way. Consider a more extreme case: imagine that in 1950, someone published a detailed map of the United States, ran an ad for it showing the Florida portion, failed to get the formalities right, and the Florida portion fell out of copyright in the U.S. The rest of the map would not lose copyright.

Assuming there was anything copyrightable in the portions that had not lost copyright in the current image, the same considerations would apply. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Does this still apply when the cropping does not significantly change the photo? In this case the crop concerns only the edges and the "essence" of the image is the same for both prints. Veryspecific (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"does not significantly change the photo" is supposition. On what basis is it supposed? Why do we want the new version, if it is not significantly different? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that something that is relevant from a historical perspective is not necessarily relevant from a copyright law perspective. 13:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Veryspecific (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do we want the new version, if it is not significantly different? Because of its higher quality. I think we'd still be happy with the new version even if we'd only crop out and upload the part that we already have without the "new" stuff that can be seen at the edges of the new version. And the crop that we have is PD, right? To go with Jmabel's example: if we can't have the map of the whole of the US, we'd still be happy if we could have the same map of Florida that we already have but in better quality. So, are we allowed to upload the map of Florida in better quality at least? Nakonana (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case, when was the whole photograph first published? The well known version is not the whole photograph, so its date of publication presumably cannot be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know 2021, as stated in the original question. Veryspecific (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you suppose that is the first publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I was mistaken, 2021 was the date when the picture (along with the rest of the documents) was donated to the US holocaust memorial museum. 2023 is the actual date it was first published (in a paper titled "“The last Jew in Vinnitsa”: Reframing an Iconic Holocaust Photograph" [17]). Veryspecific (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Same point applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have searched and found no other publication of this image between 2021 and 2023. Veryspecific (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For those interested, there's an article about this image, with another version of the "new" print, here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/02/historian-uses-ai-to-help-identify-nazi-in-notorious-holocaust-image

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

So you don't think that the new image that's cropped wider is in the public domain, but do you agree with the other people here that an identical crop of the new print (that is higher quality) would be in the public domain? Veryspecific (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure who "you" is, but that's exactly what I think. Copyright involves creative expression of ideas. Once an image is legible, quality of reproduction doesn't normally enter further into the issue. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say any of that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I read too much into your questions but since the new print was only published after 2021 it isn't automatically in the public domain like the original print was (due to the fact that that one was published between 1930 and 1977 without a copyright notice). I therefore took your questions to mean that you don't think that the new and the old prints count as the same work and that therefore the new print that was cropped wider wasn't automatically in the public domain. Veryspecific (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Again: What makes you suppose that 2021 or after is the first publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Because the description of the item on the website of the US holocaust memorial museum states that it was only added to their collection in 2021 and because the paper from 2023 describes the new print as a new discovery. And unless you expect me to prove a negative this should be sufficient. Veryspecific (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Order of elements in a U.S. copyright notice?

A contributor has uploaded a screenshot from a 1967 U.S. film with the claim of "Public Domain due to defective copyright notice", apparently on the grounds that the film's credits say "Aries Documentaries production copyright © 1967" when the uploader believes the correct sequence of these elements should have been "Copyright © Aries Documentaries 1967". This seems a pretty contrived argument to me. The relevant legislation appears to be the subsection of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Practices dealing with copyright notices for motion pictures published between 1964-1977:

2122.6(B) Notice Requirements
The copyright notice for a motion picture or other audiovisual work may consist of any acceptable form of the word “copyright” or the copyright symbol, along with the name of the copyright proprietor and the year date of first publication. Generally, it should be embodied in the motion picture or filmstrip, preferably in the title frames or near them, or embodied in or after the closing credits, and should be clearly visible when projected or broadcast. For more information about copyright notice requirements, see U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES Chs. 4, 8.2, & Supplementary Practice Nos. 18, 19, 27, 29, 35 & 37 (1st ed. 1973), available at http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap2100/doc/appendixA-noticerequirements.pdf.

Looking at that 1973 appendix, there is a subsection 4.2.5. Dispersed Notice. (Unfortunately it's a poor scan with some words cut off in the right-hand margin of the PDF, but I think it reads as follows:)

I. Standard form of notice
a. The three elements of the notice ("Copyright" or "Copr.," the symbol ©, the name of the claimant, and the year date) should be given together as a single continuous statement.

II. Where elements are separated.

a. General rule. Where the elements of the noti[ce] are all present but are separated, the notice [may] be accepted as long as it is reasonably clear that the name is that of the claimant and the date is the year date of copyright ...

b. Separated name.

1. Where the separated name is the only name appearing on the same page as the rest of the notice, it may be accepted as part of the notice.

In other words, the fact that the copyright holder's name appears immediately before "copyright © 1967" (rather than after it) is irrelevant, and the claim of "defective copyright notice" is a questionable one. Thoughts? Muzilon (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with your conclusion, the uploader is really stretching the definition of "defective" far beyond its intended meaning. AFAIK there has never been any requirement in re: the order of elements in a copyright notice in the US. 19h00s (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've seen similar arguments here regarding newspapers where the date (e.g. "October 1st, 1980") appears at the top of the masthead, and the words "© Acme Media" appear at the bottom of the masthead. Some uploaders have claimed "Oh, but the copyright notice should have said "© Acme Media 1980". Muzilon (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, this is less straightforward to me. On the surface, this would appear to be a clear issue as the relevant statutory language requires that the copyright symbol/phrase, owner's name, and year appear as a single continuous statement. But I have no idea how the USCO or federal courts have ruled on this issue in the past, there's a chance that format/style of notice has been deemed acceptable. Separately, I also do not know the legislative history of notice format requirements, so I do not know when the "single continuous statement" requirement was added, which would impact the cut-off date for examining notices with this requirement in mind. 19h00s (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not defective 2205.1(E) "Likewise, a year of publication that is prominently displayed elsewhere on copies or phonorecords may be acceptable if it is an appropriate date and if it can reasonably be considered part of the notice. For instance"... "the year of issue for a periodical, even if the date does not appear on the same page as the rest of the notice."  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 999real - there's your answer, Muzilon! Hopefully that makes deletion requests on these types of files easier, I can imagine there might be a number of files with similarly incorrectly reasoned license templates related to this issue. 19h00s (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing because the w:Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (which is technically a policy manual rather than law) does say the copyright notice "should be a single continuous statement" - but then goes on to make an exception (or leeway) for "Dispersed Date in a Notice",[18] as 999Real has pointed out. The Compendium also refers to the actual statute 17 U.S.C. § 401(b) (incorporating the Copyright Act), which does not stipulate a "single continuous statement" as far as I can see. Muzilon (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: discussing an ongoing DR here without linking it amounts to forum shopping. This is presumably about Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Finley.png. If you were going to discuss it somewhere else, you should have made a brief, neutral statement of the issues at hand and directed people to the discussion already going on, not start a second parallel discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Actually, that DR was closed before I started this thread. I was surprised by that Admin's decision to "Keep" the screenshot with the assertion that there is "no valid reason for deletion". I'm not sure that Admin is correct, but before I appeal his decision I thought I'd seek further advice here. Muzilon (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

PS. Lest I be accused of "forum shopping" in regard to the related issue of "dispersed copyright notice" in newspapers, there is an active DR currently going on at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meg Tilly - The Record (1985).jpg. Muzilon (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

that DR was closed before: OK, so you weren't forum-shopping the DR, but you were still forum-shopping the issue. You should have linked the DR. Thank you for now linking the other one. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree -- I see nothing which mandates the order of the elements. If the three elements are there and next to each other, that even seems to qualify for the recommended "single continuous statement" (which itself is not a requirement, but a recommendation in order to avoid gray areas and having it deemed invalid). And the Compendium has several examples where if the copyright word or symbol is there, and the other two elements are obvious even if separated, it will often be accepted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of March 1941 of Luftwaffe image

Hi folks!! I have this image located on page 22 of [19]. The image was taken by a Luftwaffe reconnaissance flight in March 1941. The site was subsequently bombed. I'm currently unsure about the copyright status of such images. I've had a chat with User:Marchjuly today at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright on Luftwaffe images and he identified "property as spoils of war angle" as a possible avenue for the image being in public domain and suggested posting the question here after having a look at the policy articles. Certainly it seems to be true in the US case but is it the case that the UK government took a similar approach by seizing such property as spoils of war and making the image public domain? As is an annoted intelligence photo taken by Luftwaffe Command Staff Ic/II, it would have been seen as a valuable items. Thanks.Scope creep (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Does nobody have any idea about this? Scope creep (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Hi, This is certainly in the public domain in Germany, which satisfies one of Commons conditions. The trickier issue is the copyright status in USA, and whether URAA applies or not. We have had discussions about such images, and the result was not clear. Personally, I would accept this, but others may disagree. Yann (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann. Does that mean I can upload as a public domain image? And concomitantly, what licence would I use for this, for example if I uploaded to Commons? Scope creep (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

template:PD-EU-Anonymous should work as a license. The URAA has provisions to prevent Nazi works from regaining copyright and while this photo may not fall 100% in the wording of the law it is doubtful Nazi copyrights are enforceable in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 11:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: "The URAA has provisions to prevent Nazi works from regaining copyright...": do you have something citeable on that, because this comes up often, and different admins seem to make different determinations. Just last week an image was deleted that I certainly would have wanted to keep, on the basis that because of where/when it was taken it couldn't have been in American hands before the end of the war and therefore the Alien Property Custodian was irrelevant. If what you are saying is true, it should have been kept. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

[20] To be eligible, a work must meet all of the following requirements:

1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country.

Is modern Germany the legal successor of Nazi Germany or not?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• This work appears to be public domain in the US. I've uploaded File:Treatment by United States of World War I and II Enemy-Owned Patents and Copyrights.pdf which is an excellent law review article written in 1955 explaining the issue. I've also found 2 higher quality scans of the image at [21] and [22]. Both of these can and should be uploaded here. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  @999real The Federal Republic of Germany is the successor to the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich (and absorbed the German Democratic Republic in 1990). There's ample legislation and material to read: en:Potsdam Agreement and en:Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany are prime candidates for a first read. Due to the fact that the Allies didn't destroy and take over all governmental structures in Germany during the occupation (local governmental bodies like Landkreise - Counties - or municipalities and their mayors often simply carried on and over before and after VE day), the scientific consensus is that the Federal Republic carried on the statehood legacy of the previous German state(s). This is also evidenced by the fact that the Holy See and Germany both assume that the en:Reichskonkordat is still in effect.

  About Nazi copyrights, something to read for Jmabel et al.: en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Wartime copyrights and en:Office of Alien Property Custodian. As far as I understood the matter, IP rights that were seized by the US during or as result of war weren't returned, so only US rights apply (IIRC that's why there are templates around warning about any use of these media on DE-WP, as it could be a possible rights infringement). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Grand-Duc: Scientific seems a questionable word here. Certainly it is 'Wissenschaftlich, but scientific is narrower. Probably scholarly.

  Nothing in your links that I don't know. If we had evidence that U.S. forces had obtained this image before the German surrender, then the U.S. copyright case would be clear-cut on that basis. However, I have seen nothing solid either way as to whether that affects the status of intellectual property obtained after the end of hostilities. - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've seen some good arguments here that basically all U.S. copyrights of WWII German material were technically owned by the property custodian regardless if actual copies were actually obtained or not. Non-government works were returned to their owners but if the copyright was still owned by a government, that may be a reasonable path to take, for the U.S. side at least. The entire point of that exception was to not suppress such works under copyright reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like VE day is the cutoff: en:Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917#Germany has it that "Sanctions were lifted in 1946 by Executive Order 9788 and the Office of Alien Property created in the Department of Justice. As Germany was judged to have a primary role in starting both world wars, the United States policy was to confiscate and sell off German assets that Germans acquired before 1946." That executive oder is from the 14th of October, 1946. Even in the light of COM:PRP, I'd say it is sufficiently safe to assume that military imagery, especially material produced by aerial reconnaissance, was seized by the Western Allies until then (if only to deny the access to the communists). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  What if the image fell instead into the hands of the UK? Or the USSR? (Etc., but those seem the main likely cases.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean exactly by "fell instead into the hands of the UK?" (I'd add Canada and France, too). Do you mean that the imagery was only in the hands of officials of those countries and never shared among other Allies? Or do you mean that only the troops doing the actual seizing of the folders, crates or whatever material object containing the imagery where from the respective militaries? In the latter case, if it ended somehow in US hands, then US rules would be enough.

  I can't form an informed opinion about any potential USSR situation yet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Copyrights are owned territory by territory. The U.S. can only control the copyright inside the U.S. In time of war, all foreign copyrights are basically seized. Thus, they are conceptually owned. Private copyrights were returned but not governmental ones. The UK did something similar, which is independent of the U.S. (no matter who actually seized the material), and whether they are under copyright in the UK depends on changes there (arguably not). Or Russia (that depends on their own laws). The APC situation only affects the copyright status inside the U.S., not the country of origin or anywhere else. See the arguments of Benjamin Miller and others at:

  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Non_policy_based_closure_decision
  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Alien_copyright_works
  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Alien_copyright_works_(resumed)

  It's very arguable, as something like this was the entire point of that exception. I would not keep it if it's not also PD in Germany, but I would not delete solely under the URAA -- the burden of proof is a bit different there, where you have to show the copyright was indeed restored, and I'm not sure that's easy at all. I don't think it's worth deleting over. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'd really like us to create a page—at least an essay, but ideally a guideline—expressing what seems to be a consensus here that for German government works from the Nazi era, URAA would not typically apply. I have definitely seen a fair number of files be deleted on the opposite assumption. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Was there even a US copyright for this photograph in 1941? A notice and registration would have been needed for that I think. If no copyright existed, none could have been owned/vested by the Alien Property Custodian. That in turn would mean the URAA restored the US copyright in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm honestly not at all sure that is the way that materials captured in the war and occupation have been treated by the courts. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Are there any pertinent US court decisions, and if so, what do they say?

A while ago, I found this: PLUNDER AND RESTITUTION: Findings and Recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States and Staff Report from December 2000. In chapter 3, titled Assets in the United States, there is also a section called Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, in which it says that “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. Vesting being what this process was called in the WW II era. Which contradicts the claim above “that basically all U.S. copyrights of WWII German material were technically owned by the property custodian” and “In time of war, all foreign copyrights are basically seized.” --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This reading, although technically correct, feels like it shouldn't be. Commercially exploitable copyrights, and particularly the royalty rights, were "vested" (seized) by the APC. Any military photographs seized by the Army are similarly treated as PD by NARA, although they have been careful to draw a distinction with images that were not taken as military spoils[23]. For the most part copyrights owned by the Nazi government are treated as "de facto" public domain in the US (The English Wikipedia seems to liberally apply Template:PD-US-alien property to these images without worrying about URAA, and adds a warning not to upload to Commons if they are possibly still in copyright source country). The 1941 military photo that is the subject of this discussion is over 70 years old in Germany, and appears to be PD there. And no US court has ever enforced a copyright on Nazi military photographs. Probably because the German government has never tried to enforce such a copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I have suggested the other approach, that they are not eligible for restoration if Nazi Germany was never an eligible source country. I know there is a treaty between Germany and the US from 1892, the question is if the US considers Nazi Germany as a valid successor for the treaty to apply to them.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It does. --Rosenzweig τ 15:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what this document is supposed to show. We know the 1892 treaty is valid for Germany today, the question is if it was ever valid for Nazi Germany.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it have been? The German state from 1871 to 1945, called Deutsches Reich, was the same state all the time. It was a parliamentary federal monarchy at first, then a republican federal state, and officially that did not change in 1933. The constitution still existed, but was sidelined by emergency laws. And according to the German constitutional court, the current German state is still identical with the Deutsches Reich from 1871, just with a new name and new constitution. Which makes sense, because a lot of laws from that time are still valid. As is said 1892 copyright treaty. --Rosenzweig τ 15:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)