Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

{{FoP-Taiwan-disclaimer}}

Is this template valid? Apparently used to tag images of works of art from Taiwan in which their designers or artists "waived" their rights to claim copyright if the photos of their works are commercially used (?). No image uses this template as of this writing. See recent changes at COM:FOP Taiwan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, this should be renamed as {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}, on the same pattern as {{Copyrighted free use}}. Technically this is not a Freedom of Panorama exemption, since FoP is only a legal privilege given by law. The waiver from the artists constitutes the precepts of the CopyrightedFreeUse template, not the FoP law of Taiwan (no disclaimer provided under Article 58). Ping @Teetrition: (who was one of the involved users in Taiwanese FoP discussions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've noted the changes at COM:FOP Taiwan, and it seems doubtful that any artists would actually use this disclaimer. Teetrition (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Teetrition I may boldly move the template title by myself, to {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}, if no one opposes. "BUMPING" this again to prevent bot archiving. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Support move, so the name will more clearly reflect the template's content and purpose. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Info I restored this from archives. I believe there is not yet enough consensus. "BUMPING" to reset archive countdown. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Info restoring this again from the archives. BUMPED. I don't believe a consensus has been reached, whether affirmative or negative. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any opposition (lack of participation in the discussion might indicate lack of opposition to the proposed fix). Nakonana (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-1978-89

As was recently discovered and laid out plainly in this deletion discussion, there was a November 1981 ruling about audiovisual works that said:

In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work.

What this basically means is that our template {{PD-US-1978-89}} should be modified so that it's made clear that "untitled motion picture[s] or other audiovisual work[s] whose duration is sixty seconds or less" that were made after November 1981 have different rules, and should be used far more cautiously (if uploaded at all). As was mentioned in that discussion also by Clindberg:

[...] to show "published without notice" is extremely difficult given that federal regulation. That is the critical part here, to me. They were undoubtedly published, and I'm satisfied that a registration was never filed, but unless we can identify actual physical copies without a notice, copyright may not have been lost [...]

A number of commercials and other videos under 60 seconds made after November 1981 have been added to Commons over the years because the omission of this legal matter in our template, as well as at Commons:Hirtle chart and other policy pages that discuss specific US copyright terms, misled uploaders into believing that these were in the public domain. This is why I believe that some kind of comment on this should be added to our template and other places, though I can't modify the template because that requires admin rights, so I'm thus requesting it be done here.

Pinging everyone involved in that discussion: @SomeFancyUsername, ZigZagTheTigerSkunk, Nard the Bard, 999real, and Clindberg: SnowyCinema (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We can keep all commercials made before November 1981 like Fred the Baker, Wilkins and Wontkins and more. They are undoubetly in the public domain. Because they , Works made after that after 1981 like Arnold escapes from Church can also stay because it is more than 60 seconds.

However, i am still questioning if commercials made after November 1981 are REALLY under copyright or not..? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, as far as I gathered from all this discourse, the commercials could be in the public domain, possibly, but we could never prove it or disprove it, because proving it would require getting access to the physical master tape of that commercial, which is extremely unlikely for a Commons editor to be able to do. Perhaps a picture of that tape was posted online in some cases, or something, and could be used as evidence? Well, anyway, it's not really safe for us to assume a public-domain status on works like that given the ruling. (Isn't it kind of messed up that it was rigged so only the corporations who would own the tapes can produce legal evidence of their own products being copyrighted or not? Ha!) SnowyCinema (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

So stick to commercials made before November 1981? Tbh, those master tapes are pretty much lost or destroyed.. Making it a mess. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much... SnowyCinema (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

okay.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• I don't like using Energizer Bunny as an example, an actual court ruled it was under copyright. Other commercials without litigation might indeed be PD. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, like Ronald Mcdonald and Wilkins and Wontkins. Those commercials are indeed public domain, i and 999 alongside Gilimaster was the one who did find out Wilkins and Wontkins are public domain tbh. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Technically, it was not ruled. That implies that one party claimed it was PD, another party claimed it was not, and the judge looked at the evidence and made a decision. Rather, that part was not in dispute so it would just be assumed to be copyrighted (which it probably was; companies were a lot more aware of copyright by the late 1980s). And at the time of the lawsuit, Eveready could have registered it (among other actions) to recapture if it was lost. But probably still not a good example -- if they actually do have a character copyright, that muddies the waters too. Even if a particular commercial is PD, if a character copyright had been established previously which was still under copyright, that commercial is a derivative work and still not OK to upload. Commercials from before the character got established are still OK. That should be rare for commercials. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  at least with Ronald and more, we know when they first appeared and their debuts had no copyright. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Just to make positively sure, am I understanding the situation behind under-60-second videos from after 1981 correctly, or are there any nuances I'm missing? If we were to update our template and project pages on copyright, how should that be done? Any opinions on the wording? Do we need a new template like {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} for "Video under 60 seconds, between Dec. 1981 and Feb. 1989, proven to have no notice on the master tape" (which I think should almost never happen...but maybe there are cases)? Is VPC the right venue to ask for this kind of thing, or would there be a more surefire way than this to get the modifications done? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I don't think we need a new tag. It's more that the "no notice" situation for {{PD-US-1978-89}} is near impossible to determine for audiovisual works of less than sixty seconds published November 1981 or later, due to the regulation. So we just need to update the documentation on that tag -- that tag remains the one to use, I think, as that is still the PD reason if valid to upload -- we just need to make sure that audiovisual works sixty seconds or less published 1981 or later do not qualify for that tag, thus there is no PD tag to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the best venue to sort this out. In my opinion, the proposed {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} is worth creating only if we really think there is any prospect of using it. What is probably more important would be to link permalinked or archived version of this discussion at Template talk:PD-US-1978-89 and possibly add a concise mention of the issue in Template:PD-US-1978-89. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say at least a concise mention on Template:PD-US-1978-89 is definitely called for, or else users are likely to continue to mistakenly add more short videos from 1981–1989 that would fail this legal test. Other copyright templates have similar notices about these kinds of edge cases (some of them would be far more bloated from theirs than this case would be, see Template:PD-RU-exempt for example). At least if it's on the template and someone adds a short film from 1985 anyway, the template itself can be cited in discussions. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This only applies to shorts under 60 seconds afaik. More than 60 seconds if published are likely to be allowed on Wikimedia and are safely PD. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: It's probably easiest to keep the explanation at {{PD-US-1978-89}} concise if we create {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} (or maybe call it {{PD-US-short-film-1981-89}}, since anything over a minute can just use {{PD-US-1978-89}}). Do you want to take a shot at creating this new template? - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Apologize for the late response as I thought I'd already responded to this. To be honest, I am myself less concerned about the creation of {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} or whatever the name would be, and much more concerned about the concise blurb that should be created at {{PD-US-1978-89}} warning uploaders and downloaders about the 1981 federation. As is done in many templates, I would suggest a short sentence or two about it with File:Dialog-warning.svg to the left of it, and a link to the legal statute referenced. I think we will need to update Commons:Hirtle chart and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States as well, probably with more detail than the template's blurb provides. Are we at a stage where this is possible to do? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: The main reason I want us to create {{PD-US-short-film-1981-89}} is so that {{PD-US-1978-89}} can refer to it, and keep its own explanation concise. If you want, I can take on this whole thing, but I have a lot else on my plate and am also going to spend much of tomorrow in transit, so it won't happen as soon as if someone else gets it started.

Yes, probably deserves a small note at COM:Hirtle chart. I'll do that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is a new tag, it would only be for the years 1978 to 1981. Short films in the 1981-89 range mean we cannot determine "no notice" so are ineligible for either tag -- they are not PD most likely. I think I would just add a short note to PD-US-1978-89 that short films from November 1981 and later do *not* qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: no, the new tag would be for the rare case where you actually had your hands on the distribution media.

But if you think you can edit {{PD-US-1978-89}} to explain this situation without horribly bloating the template or creating a distinct template for that special case, please go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You mean the ones under 60 seconds right? Sorry i'm just confused.

I think any post November 1981 short films more than 60 seconds are allowed on Wikimedia but would require big search through copyright records. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Clindberg: Thanks for all the continued discussion around this. I think we can just add a sentence of two to the current {{PD-US-1978-89}} template and then we can call it a day for now, IMO. What do you guys think? SnowyCinema (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: So propose a wording. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry for the late response. I'll get to the wording today. (Mostly leaving a note here in the hopes that the bot doesn't archive this.) SnowyCinema (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Clindberg: Okay, so here's my proposed wording:

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and February 1989, inclusive, without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art after 1977.

Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (70 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macau), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.

Note: For works published after November 1981, this does not apply to untitled motion pictures or other audiovisual works that have a duration of sixty seconds or less, as a copyright notice on the master tape/film leader satisfies notice requirements (37 CFR § 202.2(c)(8)(ii)). Additionally, this does not apply to audiovisual works distributed to the public for private use after November 1981, where there is a copyright notice placed on the permanent housing or container (e.g., VHS case) ((c)(8)(iii)).

The added note at the end about containers was something else I found when looking through the same act of law, which we should probably also mention in Commons:Hirtle chart. Change it up how you'd like. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd probably rather a short note with a link elsewhere, where we can explain it. It's a very small edge case, and is more about notice placement than the copyright rule not applying -- the problem is the fact of "published without notice" in the first place is basically impossible to determine. Just trying to think of the best place to link to, and where to document that stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We could put all that in a noinclude section, so it comes up when you look at the template page, but not when the template is displayed. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Work created by terror group

What would the copyright status of a work created by a terror group be? Would they still be entitled to protection under the law? I'm specifically trying to upload a still from an ISIS video. If so, which template should be used? –DMartin (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

As a matter of practice, ISIS copyrights are unenforceable in most of the world. The exception might their country of origin, however, and as a matter of law, copyrightability isn't affected by your actions or politics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dmartin969. I think this subject has been discussed here a VPC several times before and those discussion are probably buried some where in the VPC archives. I think, in principle, anything considered to be a creative original work these days becomes eligible for copyright protection as soon as its transformed into some type of tangible medium and distributed publicly. I'm not sure the intentions or motivation of the copyright holder (author) of the works matters. So, perhaps the copyright holder of an ISIS video isn't ISIS so much as it's the individual who took the video. Now, of course, it's probably unlikely that anyone engaged in criminal activities or terrorist activities for such a group is going to go to all of the trouble of copyright formalities or enforcing their copyright, but I guess the possibility of such a thing could be argued to exist per COM:PCP, which means such content is probably not OK for Commons unless released under a free enough license by its copyright holder. Even if such content was ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law due to some US statute, it might be eligible for such protection under the copyright laws of its country of first publication, which could be a problem for Commons per COM:PUBLISH. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

This has less to do with intention and more to do with: If a copyright is unenforceable does it still exist? Trade (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

If Hitler's works can be copyrighted, then any criminal's works can be copyrighted. The copyright of Mein Kampf expired in 2016 (see BBC). Nakonana (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hitler had a traditional publisher through traditional legal channels in a legal system that was continued by the current German state. Not so for ISIS. My view is it would almost certainly never be enforced and I'm not sure if the copyright could even exist but it isn't safe enough to upload anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of copyright being bound to having an official or traditional publisher. Even unpublished works are protected by copyright. If I'm not mistaken, US courts occasionally rule that a perpetrator loses the copyright protection to anything they publish about their crime. So it's clear that even works by criminals have copyright and that the copyright would be enforceable (if the court wouldn't cancel it with such decisions). Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

[1]. Nakonana (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in those laws about the existence of the copyright though -- just who owns it, or at least the proceeds. The copyright still exists and is exercised, just that the proceeds go to the victims. Violations are still violations. A criminal organization cannot hold copyright (they are not a recognized legal entity), but individuals can. The authors would be anonymous, and effective orphan works immediately, but... that is still different than public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing permanent about them being unenforceable. To go back to Mein Kampf, the Bavarian government claimed copyright and permitted only very limited publication. It's possible that they could have their rights transferred to a government or an institution that would try and control them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Supposedly we would accept such works, I see a big issue defining "terror group". Yann (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Paravent, Composition sur fond marron - Fernand Léger.png

Hi, Is this acceptable under PD-Art? Yann (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I remember about 20 years ago we deleted an image of a cave painting becaue the surface wasn't perfectly flat. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 13:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A great classic. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paleo ptg lascaux unicorn.jpg. "Photograph of a rock". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

And this one? Yann (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

nota bene and besides the PD-question

Another version (eventually the "original" work, 201x275) is held by the fr:Musée national Fernand Léger under the title

Queue de comète sur fond marron

See: Fernand Léger: 1881 - 1955 ; Staatl. Kunsthalle vom 24. Okt. 1980 - 7. Jan. 1981. Berlin, 1980, p. 305; p. 312; p. 605

The paravent could be a copy by the artist.

The commons-object should be renamed before "deleting" it, for example to

Fernand Léger Queue de comète sur fond marron Paravant C. 1930

Goesseln (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is from where it was copied. Now museums and other institutions often claimed a copyright when there is none. Léger's works entered the public domain less than 3 weeks ago. Some websites may not have yet updated their copyright information. Yann (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

NOAA library confusing rights statement

NOAA's library has an online copy of a book published in 1985 about a series of public artworks at a NOAA facility in Seattle. Their online catalogue says the book is public domain (they weirdly link to the Creative Commons PD-zero "license" instead of just saying "Public domain). But the actual book was published by an alternative press in Seattle in association with NOAA, and it has a clear copyright notice for the publisher (download PDF from the catalogue link above). I'm not sure if I'm missing something here or if the NOAA library staff made a mistake when cataloguing this. I would love for this book to be PD so we can use the photographs, which were made for and first published here, but it doesn't make sense as the book seems to have been a work created for the federal government, not by the federal government. Any thoughts? Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Any work by a Federal government employee can not be copyrighted. The primary text was written by a National Endowment of the Arts employee it would seem, and a couple of the forwards by an NOAA employee. One of the forwards was made by a city government official though, and apparently most of the photographs were also made by a different city employee. (Three pages of photos were by two other people, and their association is not named.) So I would say the bulk of the text is fine, but the photos are not.

There is a clause in the law (17 USC 403) which invalidates a copyright notice if it is partly government work and does not includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title. But, there is a page giving the association of everyone involved in the project (outside of three pages of photographs), and the authors are all named, so that probably qualifies in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

"forwards" => "forewords"? Or something else?

If a Seattle city government employee did this in their working capacity, copyright would probably be administered by the Seattle Municipal Archives, who are very liberal in granting licenses. It would be worth contacting them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly I think the only Seattle government employees involved were those who wrote the forewords; but thank you for this suggestion, because I found several photos of the site in question in the Seattle online archives (unfortunately they didn't photograph the Scott Burton works I was looking for, but they have some great related PD images nonetheless).

I'm still baffled by the NOAA library rights statement - there's even a copyright *registration* for the essay in the book (TX0001715777), registered by the small press that published it. NOAA's library has a whole explainer on their use of the Creative Commons PD-0 mark (which they only apply to works they say are government works), so it was definitely intentional. I emailed them to ask for clarification (maybe the press folded and NOAA bought the copyright just to release it? who knows) but I imagine I might not get a quick reply. 19h00s (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

An unfortunate conclusion (though a very quick one by government standards): The book was mislabeled in the online repository created by NOAA's library. They told me they'll be adjusting the rights statement momentarily.

As disappointing as that is, it's also a perfect example of the kinds of errors we should keep our eyes peeled for when dealing with large amounts of ostensibly PD content found in government sources. Everyone makes mistakes, including government librarians and archivists. 19h00s (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

COFAVIC logo

Kind regards. I wnted to ask if this logo [2] was simple enough as text and geometrical shapes, or if the circles surpassed the threshold of originality. Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's a company from Venezuela, but we don't have information on the threshold of originality in Venezuela, see COM:TOO Venezuela. (However, I'm not 100% sure whether I'm looking at the correct company[3] because their logo looks different. The logo of the company I linked, I'd say would probably be below the threshold of originality; it's similar to the one example we have listed at COM:TOO Venezuela.) Nakonana (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks :) It is an NGO, if it helps, and the same one from the link. The logo that I linked is older, as the current one seems to be more complex. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Does the government edicts doctrine apply to official government symbols, whose designs are prescribed by law?

The government edicts doctrine states that laws, administrative rulings, judicial decisions, and ordinances of any government are ineligible for copyright in the United States.

I'm asking whether a government emblem (in this case, File:Emblem of India.svg), whose exact design is prescribed by law, is in the public domain in the United States as an edict of a government. The wording of the relevant Indian law is "The State Emblem of India shall conform to the designs as set out in Appendix I or Appendix II," and the file is an SVG reconstruction of the Appendix I emblem. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

If the description in the Appendix I/II is purely textual then I think that yes, it is an editc of the goverment. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The Appendices to the edict consist of images of the emblem. The emblem is described in general terms in the body of the edict, but not in sufficient detail to recreate it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

To me, if a graphic representation is actually in the law, then yes. It can still be possible to make copyrighted derivative works -- for example a vectorization may have enough copyrightable expression in the choice of vector points, if done by a human. So it does not mean that any drawing of the design is PD -- just that one particular drawing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for admin intervention in a frivolous deletion nomination

I’m requesting admin intervention regarding this nomination for deletion. The nomination is based on an incorrect “outside scope” claim, which doesn’t hold up under the Commons:Project_scope policy as the file clearly falls within Commons’ educational and historical scope. Additionally, the nominator has engaged in disruptive behavior, including the repeated baseless removal of most categories. Since frivolous (arising from confusion), please consider removing the nomination for disruptiveness. InOrIsTr (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Could someone with +admin on wikidata comment on the nature of InOrIsTr's deleted edits there? DMacks (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Found what I needed from the public logs. DMacks (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I see at least one clearly incorrect cat you have repeatedly tried to add. Category disputes do not affect whether an image is in scope and have no effect on AFD, so there is no basis for rejecting the AFD on these grounds. Good faith discussion of the educational value of an image, and the nature of the image and its subject as relevant to our hosting the file, are specifically what an AFD is for. DMacks (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

If categories are irrelevant here, it’s unclear why (1) they were counted in the log, and (2) only the (one!) category I added was noted, while the nominator’s repeated mass removals of obviously pertinent categories were not addressed at all. Even if categories were mentioned to illustrate a point, focusing only on them, while ignoring all the other issues raised in my request, is confusing. I had hoped for unbiased guidance that fully considers all points raised in the above request, so that the file can be properly evaluated without unnecessary misrepresentation of its quality by hanging frivolous tags around. InOrIsTr (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wikipedia:File:Liberal Party of Australia logo.svg to be moved to commons under {{PD-text-logo}}?

Take a look at the file, you would see that the logo itself seem to be simply made out of text and shapes. This may be eligible for either uploading it as a free file on Wikipedia or be straight up on commons!

But I may be wrong on that one, so feel free to correct me on that one!

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope! Threshold of originality in Australia is very low. So simple logos that would be PD in the US are copyrighted in Australia, so cannot be uploaded onto Commons. Bidgee (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

So, upload the image as a free file only on Wikipedia's side? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

On en-wiki, yes. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do that GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist: I suggest you use the license en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for English Wikipedia and not Template:PD-logo. The syntax would be {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia}}, and you can use en:Template:Information for the file's description. Use can also add en:Template:Insignia as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist: I posted about this is more detail on your English Wikipedia user talk page, but a PD version of this logo already exists on English Wikipedia; so, your upload just created a redundant file that now needs to be dealt with. There was no reason for you to reupload the same file under a different file name since the licensing of the other file could've simply just be changed to "PD-ineligible-USonly". It looks like another English Wikipedia user did exactly just that after your post and the other comments given above, and nobody seemed to notice the redundancy until after you uploaded your version of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

BOLD Systems image

Here is the image, a moth towards the bottom of the page. Usually a license is specified. This one doesn't. Leave it and don't upload in an abundance of caution or can you see with better clarity what the license is for this image? Rjgalindo (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a license, but you could contact the license holder[4] and ask him to either specify a CC license on the website or to sent an email to the COM:VRT if he's willing to release the image under a CC license. Nakonana (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Ukraine FoP

COM:FOP Ukraine seems to imply that Ukraine's freedom of panorama disallows commercial reuse for publicly displayed creative works, and, thus, photos of such works aren't OK to upload to Commons. Is my understanding of this correct? If this is really the case, I'm wondering how this might apply to a photo such as en:File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, which is currently licensed locally on English Wikipedia as {{PD-UA-exempt}}. The {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} licensing provided for the photo seems fine, but the copyright status of the photographed monument is unclear. Is the monument's design and text simple enough to be ineligible for copyright protection under Ukrainian copyright law? Would it be too simple under US copyright law even if protected in the Ukraine? The latter could help in determining whether to treat the file locally on English Wikipedia as either non-free content or as public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The Commons PD-UA-exempt-template has more bullet points listed than its enwiki version. Maybe the uploader was going for a "below threshold of originality"-rationale per the Commons template? ("photographs not featuring signs of originality (are not photographic works)") Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't notice the difference between the English Wikipedia and Commons versions of that license. However, even with that last bullet point, I'm not sure the Commons version would still be applicable. That bullet point, at least the way I'm reading it, seems to mean that photographs which are merely nothing more than a slavish reproduction (i.e., COM:2D copying) of someone else work aren't in and of themselves eligible for their own copyright protection.

A photo of a 3D work typically is assumed to involve an element of creativity that's sufficient enough to warrant copyright protection for the photograph itself given the various factors the photographer (either consciously or subconsciously) takes into account when taking the photo. If this photo would've been a straight-on photo of just the monument/wall, then such a photo probably could be argued to not be eligible for its own separate copyright protection, but that's not really the case here. The other thing is that the photo that was uploaded is acceptably licensed; so, its licensing isn't really the issue per se. The issue is whether the monument itself, the text on the monument, or both are eligible for copyright protection (in a manner akin to c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs). If none these things are eligible, then this is probably more of a case of {{PD-simple}} than {{PD-UA-exempt}}; if one or more of them are, then photo would be a COM:DW and the copyright of the monument/text itself would matter.

Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this here is that the copyright status of the local file is being discussed on English Wikipedia. One of the participants in that discussion posted that this is (to paraphrase) just a wall with some words in two languages on it. If this assessment is accurate, things are fairly easy to resolve, and the file can be tagged for a move to Commons. If, on the other hand, it's not accurate, then the file's not OK for Commons and probably is also not OK for English Wikipedia (at least as currently licensed) since en:Template:FoP-USonly doesn't seem to apply here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Questionable Japan copyright claim

Hey all. I came across this image from enwiki. Upon seeing the images, they interested me so I clicked on this one - which brought me to Commons where I saw the following:

The current copyright template on the image ({{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}) states the following:

This is when the photograph meets one of the following conditions:

1. It was published before 1 January 1957.
2. It was photographed before 1 January 1947.

I can't see any evidence on this file's infopage specifically that it was published before 1 January 1957 - and given the date of the incident that caused this irradiation (March 1, 1954), it is impossible it was photographed before 1947. The source given was a book published in 1987 - as confirmed by WorldCat for the ISBN referenced. I don't have access to the physical book to confirm, but I'm posting this on the assumption that is the accurate (and earliest) source.

I'm unsure if this image may have been published in another work before 1957 - for full disclosure, other images on the page have other dates and sources (examples: 1 and 2) which claim to be published at a time for which the PD-Japan-oldphoto would apply to them - but this image is a different source from much later. And in any case, if it was published earlier (and thus is eligible for the tag), the source needs updating to reflect that - however, it's almost certain that such a source (if it exists) is going to be a physical copy and likely not digitized, thus difficult to find (at least for me).

I'm posting here to request more eyes - especially from those who are more experienced with Japanese copyright laws and/or may have some better insight into sources from this time that may have published this image before 1957 thus making it PD still (i.e. just needing the source to be updated). I figured better to ask here rather than just starting a deletion discussion - apologies if that would've been better.

Regards, - berch Berchanhimez (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The file name and author parameter in the file description indicate that the photo was published in the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun in 1954. The 1987 book that is named as the source for the photo is seemingly titled "Photojournalism", so I'm guessing it is a book about photos that are used in journalistic works like newspaper. Therefore I'd assume that the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper is probably the original source of the photo and the first place where the photo was published. Nakonana (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The file description infobox has also a "Note" parameter at the bottom that says 増田三次郎は第5福竜丸事件の被害者の1人。毎日新聞社の吉村正治が撮影。 (Google translate: "Sanjiro Masuda was one of the victims of the Lucky Dragon Nr. 5 incident. Photographed by Masaharu Yoshimura of the Mainichi Shimbun.") so that confirms that the newspaper is the original source rather than the 1987 book. Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw that too, but if it was actually published in the newspaper at that time, then the source should be updated to reflect that - ideally with details of the publication (such as at least the date it was published in the paper). As of right now the "Source" parameter just gives the paper as the source but doesn't confirm it was actually published in the paper in 1954. Failing that, I believe COM:PRP may come into play - as it's possible this was an image taken by a photojournalist but not actually published at the time. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This news website also sources the photo to Mainichi Shimbun. Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The original appearance in Mainichi Shimbun should be mentioned in the description and/or permissions section of {{Information}} but unless you had your hands on a copy of it (or at least a reliable online scan of it), it is not your source, it is your source's source, or maybe even further levels of indirection. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Technically it is already mentioned in the Information template (in the "Note" parameter at the bottom in Japanese), I quoted it above. Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Portal (sculptures)

I took the liberty to contact the people behind the famous art installation of modern era, through the contact form at their official website.

Very soon, I got a decent response from them. The response reads (with some redactions by me):

Hi <redacted>,

Thanks for reaching out.

Yes, Portals are copyrighted works of art, but we are generally fine with people sharing images of them for non-commercial use, including on Wikimedia Commons.

If you have any further questions, just let me know.

Best,
<redacted>

Apparently, Portals are copyrighted artworks and people can only share the images for non-commercial use. Perhaps understandable, considering that the team behind the Portals is based in Lithuania, where free use of public landmarks is not allowed.

Two of the Portals are in Ireland and Poland, both permitting Commons-suitable FoP (COM:FOP Ireland and COM:FOP Poland). The other two at the moment are located in Lithuania and in the United States, both not providing full FoP especially for public art.

Anyway, in response, I have suggested them of sending correspondence to COM:VRTS so that the VRT can validate the permission. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The limited noncommercial license they're offering wouldn't be sufficient for Commons anyway. Probably not worth engaging further unless they've indicated they're willing to offer a more permissive license. Omphalographer (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I also have doubts about the copyrightability of these as sculptures vs. useful objects under various countries' ToO standards (what are they if not just utilitarian, circular video screens with a camera?). Though the footage captured by the Portals and livestreamed onto the screen seems copyrightable in the US to me based on all the other recent discussions about "automatic" works of video (a person installed the Portals and chose the framing, the videos are not free of human creativity). 19h00s (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@19h00s@Omphalographer at the very least, the images of the New York Portal focusing on the front screen at Category:New York–Dublin Portal must be nomimated for deletion, due to both no Freedom of Panorama for non-architectural works and the possible ToO on the video footage itself. Category:United States FOP cases/deleted shows that images of Chicago's Crown Fountain were also removed in the past, though Crown Fountain case was in the form of video projections. But still, US FoP does not extend to creative video projections and video footages permanently exhibited in public spaces. The same will be treated to the Lithuanian copy of the Portal. There are no images of Vilnius Portal as of the moment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Crown Fountain is a rather different case; the video projection in that work is a fixed set of prerecorded videos deliberately created as part of the sculpture, whereas the projections in Portal are a live stream from the "other side", not a work created by the artist. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun copyright

Looking for some confirmation on the PD status of an issue of the Baltimore Sun. A comment by @999real on the main VP sparked this for me. Seems like the Baltimore Sun didn't add notices to their print newspapers throughout most of the 20th century. I was hoping to use a photograph from the December 7, 1986 issue - there's no notice that I can find in the digitized newspaper on Newspapers.com (I have access via Wiki Library), and I didn't find any renewal or registration for this date of the paper or under the photographer's name. Am I good to assume it's PD? I just wanted to double check as this is a pretty recent work that originates with a media company with a vested interested in preserving their own IP, wasn't sure if I was missing something right in front of me. Specifically looking to use the photograph of artist Scott Burton published for the first time on this page of the paper. 19h00s (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Took a look at all the files in the Baltimore Sun categories, seems like my assumptions are correct. Thanks 999real for the comment that showed me this! 19h00s (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Virginia National Guard

Hello! Wanted to get some other thoughts on these Flickr posts by the Virginia National Guard. They are tagged with a CC-BY-NC license. They're from the Virginia Guard Public Affairs, but that is just the "command information, media relations and community relations support for the Virginia National Guard".

But as works of the National Guard wouldn't we consider them public domain? What do people think? The images in here would be very useful for documenting the recent inauguration of Abigail Spanberger as Virginia's Governor. SDudley (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sanity check on La Grande Voile by Alexander Calder (1965).

Recently I took a few photos of the sculpture en:La Grande Voile (The Big Sail) by en:Alexander Calder in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I see that there are a few photographs of it already on Commons, but when I search for copyright status, I see "fair use" and copyright claims to Alexander Calder or the Artists Right Society and so I feel a bit cautious about uploading my photographs. Anything actually solid about whether it is public domain by formalities, or still under copyright by the estate of Calder. Abzeronow (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright for publicity photo

How do I fill in the copyright information for a publicity photo given to me by an actor who is the subject of the actor's wikipedia article I am updating. The photo was commissioned by the actor from a professional photographer whose business it is to create these portraits for a fee. It has not, so far, been published anywhere. The actor owns the copyright. Professional film actors freely provide such photos to be used wherever they can be published> MarthaAnsara (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)