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.

Do we actually have to provide evidence of publication for pre-1989 no notice works?

Because I've seen multiple deletion requests close as keep due to it "probably" having been published, even when it is exceedingly unlikely that it was prior to 1989. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Probably" for something "exceedingly unlikely" is a problem, but that is a matter of facts, not policy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Each case is unique. If the person requesting the delete is out "dragon slaying" (See here for definition), then caution should be exercised. First of all, request to whoever posted the word "probably" to justify their statement and at the same time, check their posting record to ensure that they are likely to read your posting. Remember, the image might have been posted in 2010 and the person who posted it died in 2020. Put the request on the image Talk Page so that everybody can see it. There might be a good reason and it is not unknown for somebody to come back five years later and make the same request. If it is on the talk page, they will avoid making a fool of themselves.

On the other hand, if you have good reasdon to believe that the image was not published before 1989 AND IS STILL IN COPYRIGHT, you should post your rationale rather than just saying "I don't believe that". Martinvl (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that people can just assume that it was published then and not have to provide proof; how am I supposed to prove it wasn't when there is no proof of when it was published at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As Martinvl says, this always comes down to cases. There is no point to discussing this in the abstract. If there are particular images in question, let's focus on those, not on an impossible abstraction. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel For the one that bothers me most is File:David koresh.jpg. It was produced in 1987, but was not published then.

Mugshots were not usually published at the time, unless in a newspaper. I checked every newspaper article that covered Koresh pre-Waco (there weren't that many), and while there were photos of him printed, the mugshot never was until 1998 (and the places where it is included say it was first published in 1998!). Yet, it was kept at DR as "1978 and February 1989 no notice and no registration", but we have no evidence of where this was first published or if it was or without notice, despite no keep votes.

I could understand assuming if there was reasonable precedent, like say a poster in a series of a posters that were likely distributed, or something like that, but it happens with individual photos where we don't know that they were published at all.

So, can I just take any photo and assert that it was published and I get away with that? Really? Because that seems to be the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: As I'm sure you know, having participated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:David koresh.jpg, that is a really tricky one on several counts. Nearly all of the complexity is because it is a mugshot, so (at least on the basis of this example) this appears not to be nearly as general an issue as your initial remarks implied.

1. I presume we can all agree that when the mugshot was taken, it became available for newspapers (or, really, anyone) to use, and that the McLennan County Sheriff's Office did not engage in the then-required formalities for a U.S. copyright. If making the mugshot available constituted publication (I personally have no opinion either way), the it is PD on the basis stated by Abzeronow when he closed the DR. His closure is terse, but this appears to have been his reasoning.
2. It is possible that all mugshots in the U.S. are public domain. Certainly some people quite knowledgeable about copyright believe this to be the case; as far as I know, the matter has never reached a courtroom.
3. Failing that, it is possible that Texas's own specific policy with respect to use of mugshots may be liberal enough to make them "free enough" for Commons, even if the counties hold copyrights. Again, I don't have a decided opinion, but I could imagine a reasonable case; as far as I can see, the only real question would be the degree to which they allow derivative works, which seems unclear to me.

In any case, I do want to address one other remark in the DR (not yours): The worst part about this is that other people think this image is public domain because we said it is. If that's the worst, then that's a good reminder that this is more a detail of Commons policy than anything with legal consequences. As far as I can tell, the only possible copyright-holder is the McLennan County Sheriff's Office; clearly, they have no interest in enforcing their copyright; so the consequences of mistakenly believing this is in the public domain are not much. Losing a bar bet? Being mildly embarrassed over a misstatement? Clearly not "facing legal consequences."

Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Why can we assume that the McLennan County Sheriff's Office did not engage in the then-required formalities for a U.S. copyright?

2. I believe this but Commons consensus comes down against it every time.

3. We have time and time again deleted mugshots from Texas, every single discussion we have had on this count comes down to not free.

It was kept due to formalities, so point 1, your other two points have nothing to do with this. "Clearly, they have no interest in enforcing their copyright", COM:PCP. So apparently the consensus is yes, anyone can assert that anything was published and it will be kept. What fun. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel essentially sums up why I closed it as I did. Mug shots were circulated, McLennan County Sheriff didn't bother to copyright it because it was not in their interest to, they wanted it publicly available. Pre-1989 mugshots are basically almost always public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Circulated among private people does not mean published! COM:Publication. Publication means to the public, and the American legal definition of publication only counts public circulation. This was not published until 1998, they had no reason to publish the mugshot of a small time criminal until he became famous, which was in the 1990s. Most mugshots are never distributed to the public.

It would have been in their interest to copyright it, obviously, this image has commercial value.

Not true, most deletion requests on pre-1989 mugshots have closed as delete. This is quite inconsistent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Read the page you linked to. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." So when they offered the mugshot to the press, they were publishing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes They did not offer it to the press. That does not happen with most mugshots. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

They did not offer it to the press. That depends what you mean by "offer." Of course they didn't phone up newspapers and say, "We have a mug shot here of some guy you've never heard of, picked up on a relatively minor charge. Want a copy?" But they did (and do) have a general policy that mug shots are available to the press. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's going to depend in part on the type of media. Something like a newspaper or a poster has almost certainly been published, since that was the purpose of creating the work. A photograph in isolation is more questionable, since it might have been part of a personal collection. Omphalographer (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that with a poster or a newspaper it is inherent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with Jmabel's and Abzeronow's assessments. I also think that ridiculous requirements beyond significant doubts—which are made here—are disruptive, and not useful for Commons. Yann (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Abt Garhammer.png

Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Abt Garhammer.png - hier hat der Entscheider die Zahlen in der Grafik mit dem Alter der Grafik verwechselt und damit eine Behaltensentscheidung begründet. GerritR (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Es wäre einer schnelleren Beantwortung deiner Themen dienlich, wenn du diese auf Englisch formulieren könntest. Commons ist ein sprachübergreifendes Wiki-Projekt, daher ist - trotz der weiten Verbreitung von maschinellen Übersetzern - Englisch als allgemeine Arbeitssprache üblich. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Aber ich glaube, GerritR hat Recht. @TheImaCow: did you presume that the date in the image is the date of the image? Gerrit is pointing out that is not likely, and I agree with him.

Unless something else is going on here, the question would next be: when does this illustration of the coat of arms really date from (and, ideally, who drew it)? From the look of it, it could be any time from 1900 or so to the 1960s (imaginably outside that range, but I don't think so). Lacking a source it is hard to make an intelligent guess, and uploader JPGARHAMMER hasn't been heard from in several years. Also, while File:Wappen Abt Georg Garhammer Prüfening 1448 Nachcoloriert.jpg (same uploader) is claimed as simply "own work," it is clearly derivative of this file. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wenn es sich wie auf w:de:Garhamer (Adelsgeschlecht) beschrieben um das persönliche Wappen von "Abt Georg Garhamer" handelt, der im 15. Jdh. gelebt hat, wieso sollte sein Wappen dann erst später entstanden sein? Selbst wenn es sich um eine Nachzeichnung des Wappens handelt, entsteht dadurch ja kein neues Urheberrecht. ~TheImaCow (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Die Grafik hat eigenständige Schöpfungshöhe. GerritR (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The blazon would date to the 15th century, but blazons aren't copyrighted. The copyright issue is the date of the emblazon: the particular rendering of the blazon. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Löschantrag neu gestellt - Deletion request again. GerritR (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

PD picture on a non-PD article

Hello: I was planning to add a picture that was taken circa 1880s and is found at the second page of this article:

• https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol10/tnm_10_3_15-48.pdf

According to the article, published 2000, the photograph was taken circa 1880s. It says, below the photo

Figure F: Gaius Samuel Turner, farmer, shipbuilder, trader, lumberman, quarry owner, railway promoter, Liberal-Conservative ML A for Albert 1878-1892, b. 1838. d. 1892, circa early 1880s.

Source: Courtesy of Kathleen Turner, Edmonds, Washington, United States.

Now, could I just crop the picture out of the article since it definitely fits PD-old since it was taken before 1931, but it's in a 2000 article and it was given to possibly by the heir of the image. Can someone help me? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that it is a work of Canadian origin, the photo would be public domain there per {{PD-Canada}}. However, we also need to consider the status of the image in the US.

The chart at COM:US instructs us that for a work of "unknown or corporate authorship" created before 1978, but published between 1989 to 2002, is copyrighted until minimum December 31, 2047. If this image was first published in that 2000 article, then the photo is copyrighted until December 31, 2047.

However, per COM:Canada, if we can prove the photo was published in Canada at least before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice (or 1964 without renewal), then it would have also fallen into the public domain in the US per {{PD-1996}} (anonymous works in Canada are Create + 100 years). – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

More precisely on that last paragraph: it would have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. upon publication without notice, or upon non-renewal and would never have had its copyright restored (since URAA would be irrelevant for a work already out of copyright in Canada on 1 January 1996). the same logic would apply for most other imaginable places of first publication. So finding any publication without notice before 1 March 1989 would be very good. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• I loaded the image for you: Gaius Samuel Turner (1838-1892) portrait.png, it can be added to the Wikidata entry now. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Convenience link: File:Gaius Samuel Turner (1838-1892) portrait.png.

  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): do you have evidence that "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal" or are you just asserting that? - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is a commercial photographer image, and under USA copyright case law, the image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the photographer, circa 1880 in this case, not just appearing in a book, or magazine, or newspaper. You also lose your right to claim a copyright 120 years after creation, the maximum lifespan of a human. See: {{PD-US-unpublished}} --RAN (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I won't argue against the former claim, but to be clear, PD-US-unpublished only applies if the photo was never published before 2003. The photo is known to have been published in 2000, as shown above. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Government photos in India

File:Commonwealth Games closing ceremony picture.jpeg this photo isn't the work of Flickr's user, but, in accordance with EXIF, was made by governmental photographer. Whether such photos are licensed under OGL-India (as other governmental works)? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Evelino Ucelo, the photo indeed comes from PIB which publishes indian govt images, and the license is {{GODL-India}}. I tried to dig in PIB archives but couldn't find this image. Maybe they never published it and somehow this landed with the flickr user. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Flag of Dominica - country flag still under copyright?

Tl;dr: Does the flag of Dominica count as an "applied art" for copyright purposes and/or is it too simple to be copyrighted?

Some concerns about whether the flag of Dominica is copyrighted

The public domain justification on File:Flag of Dominica.svg does not seem to be valid? The design is more elaborate than a usual national flag, and as such may merit copyright protection as above the threshold of originality. Some context: the current licensing tag used on the Commons page is {{PD-Dominica}}; the designer Alwin Bully died in 2023; and the flag was created and adopted in 1978. As it was created and adopted in 1978, we can consider this the year of publication. So which of the criteria in PD-Dominica is meant to apply here? Let us go point by point as presented in the order of the template, and see which criteria fits: Bully is known as the author; it is not an anonymous work. Applied arts are defined as "arts that apply design and decoration to everyday and essentially practical objects in order to make them aesthetically pleasing". Wikipedia gives the examples of architecture, fashion, utilitarian household objects. How would a flag design fit into this as a 2D graphical work? Nevertheless, this is the only criterion which would ensure the public domain status of the flag, as it ensures the copyright would have expired in 2003. The URAA can be ignored as the file was first uploaded in 2005, and therefore {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} applies. The flag is typically attributed to Bully as the single author, so it can't be classed as a collective work. Does "audiovisual" mean "audio or visual" or "audio and visual"? If the former, then the copyright should expire 2029 in Dominica. If the latter, then it is irrelevant. Wholly irrelevant Assuming none of the above applies, this point ensures copyright protection until 2094(!) Wholly irrelevant Bully's Wikipedia article says he was employed as a teacher at Dominica Grammar School at the time of the flag's creation. The school is stated to be a "Public School Government School". Given his job at the govt school and the fact that the govt adopted his flag the same year he designed it, it is credible to believe this is a "work created under the direction of the State". Even so, this ensures copyright until 2044. Wholly irrelevant For obvious reasons, deleting a country flag from Commons is very bad news. Such flags are very widely used across many Wikimedia projects. This is a difficult situation, but we may be saved by point 2. Flags are of course graphic design, but they also serve a practical utilitarian function of identifying the national origin of particular things, such as flags on ships. Alternatively, one can dismiss the design as too simple for copyright protection, but in my opinion it's quite difficult to say that even under US copyright law. I would like to know what others think.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 23:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 this seems to be the same issue with that of Vanuatu. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/06#Vanuatu flag for the discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't consider the flag design could be considered a legal document due to its official adoption... Most governments already have the same kinds of provisions although Dominica's Commons page doesn't elucidate on the matter. I will hold off on advancing a deletion request unless there is a clearer argument for copyright protection. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this work in the public domain in my country? template

this template is not exactly very accurate

take https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm as an example

as far as i can tell, this would also be pd in canada, china, india iraq, iran, malaysia, new zealand, pakistan, peru, the philippines, venezuela and vietnam due to them following publication + 50/other years for cinematographic works and them expiring (with no retroactive restoration)

its likely pd in japan (complicated) and turkey (assuming no retroactive restoration)

however all are classified as not public domain according to the tag

also i think the list of countries/territories listed is not large enough Noob282 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The tag says:This work was published in 1928 and is now in the public domain in areas where the copyright term of audiovisual works is 95 years or fewer since publication.. Where is the problem you are writing about? Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

i mean the one at the bottom Noob282 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The {{PD-in}} template is problematic. It may be better to remove the template as it is not really accurate for this file.

Many countries use the rule of the shorter term, and it is therefore in the public domain in those countries for that reason. However, the PD-in template does not consider this. The rule of the shorter term has a bunch of traps, such as not applying if the work was published in the country within 30 days from the first publication of the work. Usually, we don't know where it was published within 30 days, and the template does not seem to provide a way to supply this information, should it be available.

In some countries, the copyright may expire a certain number of years after the death of the longest living author, but the author of a film is ambiguous: one country's laws may stipulate one list of people, while another country's laws stipulate a different list of people. Therefore, you need a per-country death year of the author, which the template does not currently support.

For example, under Swedish law:

• The rule of the shorter term applies, unless one of the authors was an EU citizen or Swedish resident, or it was published within 30 days in Sweden. The first Swedish publication seems to be in 1930, so not within 30 days. Probably the rule of the shorter term applies.
• If the rule of the shorter term does not apply:
  1. w:Copyright Duration Directive Article 2.2: "The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." This seems to mean 70 years after the death of Ub Iwerks (died 1971): PD in 2042.
  2. w:Copyright Duration Directive Article 10.1: "Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State." The old copyright law stipulated 50 years after the longest living co-author, but now you have to check the death year of more people. Probably you have to include at least all of the people currently listed on the file information page. The longest living seems to be Wilfred Jackson, who is listed as an animator. He died in 1988, so PD in 2034 under the old law, unless there are even more people than those listed on the file information page who have to be considered. This is shorter than the new law, so the new law would then apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Could we just add a mention about the rule of shorter term? This would cover most cases. Otherwise, I am not opposed removing it, as we are not supposed to provide legal advice. We could instead add a link to a dedicated page, where a lengthy explanation would be possible. Yann (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also the problem that the template does not handle films very well as the list of authors depends on the country, and the list of authors often determines the copyright term. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That's why I suggest to move all this information to a separate page, where these details can be expanded (and translated). Yann (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Exorcist steps plaque.jpg

Is File:Exorcist steps plaque.jpg OK for Commons as licensed or does the copyright status of the plaque (image and text) mean it needs the COM:CONSENT of the plaque's copyright holder per COM:DW and COM:FOP US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Permission is needed; I've nominated the file for deletion. -Consigned (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Exif data says "Software used: Instagram"

See File:Goat meat soya.jpg. Does that mean, the image was taken from Instagram? Or does Instagram have some feature to take/edit photos? Nakonana (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana Yes, that metadata indicates that the photo was edited by Instagram, and the overlay on the photo in the top right corner confirms this. This is probably from the "Stories" feature, which has an option to save the edited photos locally when you post them. Usually, images that are downloaded from Facebook/Instagram have the FBMD metadata string, rather than the "Software used: Instagram", but I can't say for sure. Neither indication can truly tell us for sure whether the image is someone's own work or if they found it somewhere else. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Found the source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=24330301023284266. Name matches. Omphalographer (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the source! Also thank you @AntiCompositeNumber for the clarification because I couldn't find anything with reverse image search and wasn't sure whether the EXIF data is an indicator for a copyvio or not. Nakonana (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention this on the file talk page to protect the file from any unjustified deletion requests or is this too close to outing territory? Nakonana (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

possible copyright issue with Arco da Calheta Civil Parish Coat of Arms.gif

Hi all! I'm primarily an editor from english wikipedia. I've recently found File:Arco da Calheta Civil Parish Coat of Arms.gif from scrutinizing AtlanteanAstorian's LLM-generated edits at en-wiki. From what I can gather with Google Translate, it seems that the author of the work didn't copyright it with CC-BY-SA 4.0.

There's also a lot of other files like File:Fajã_da_Ovelha_Civil_Parish_Coat_of_Arms.gif that are similarly licensed, come from the same author, has been uploaded by User:AtlanteanAstorian, and doesn't seem to be copyrighted with CC-BY-SA 4.0 ~2026-36983-09 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a mess. Judging by that page, (1) the uploader AtlanteanAstorian corresponded in Portuguese with the owner of the site from which this comes, Sérgio Horta, who is also credited as author. (2) Sr. Horta gave a permission that was not couched in terms of a CC license, but is broad enough. (3) AtlanteanAstorian took it upon themself to call that a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license (whereas {{Attribution only license}} would have been more appropriate). Also, they gave no indication of the appropriate attribution which, judging by the reproduced correspondence, would be the page of origin on heraldicacivica.pt, not the the name Sérgio Horta. Since that page is not even indicated on the Commons file page, there is almost no way anyone can correctly conform to the license. (4) The correspondence should, of course, have gone through VRT; it did not.

In theory all of this can be solved, but this was terribly handled, and unless someone takes on sorting out the mess, we are liable to have to delete this and every other similarly uploaded file. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I need to note that, I've figured out how to check their uploads and it's the same mess of "bad copyright info", for example, this one or that other one, or this image of a medal pointing to legislative text, or the first images uploaded by them, which also don't indicate permission and so on and so forth ~2026-36983-09 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

So even more of a mess. I see that AtlanteanAstorian was active on en-wiki as recently as about 6 weeks ago, so there is some chance they will help fix the mess. Otherwise, it looks to me like there might be a lot of files here to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Tons of possible copyright violations

I came up across a prolific uploader Кіріл Єлисаветградький, and after he created an article on SR Wikipedia, I checked several images he uploaded, and most of them were copyright violations. Also, lot of pictures in Category:Nikolay Trubin seems copyvios as well. Some of pictures may be theirs (e.g. modern picture of a grave), and I will continue checking his contribs, but would like to solicit help from more experienced users to weed out his contribs. Ђидо (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

EBBA Files

Hello! I wanted to some files from the English Broadside Ballad Archive (EBBA) since they're in the public domain. I'm just making sure they're viable since EBBA's license say they are CC-BY-NC 4.0 but they're just photographs so I think PD-Art applies there as well. What do you think? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

(I assume the missing verb in "I wanted to some files" is "upload".) Without seeing any example of what you want to upload, I can't see how anyone else could meaningfully say more than you have already said. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that! Here are some images from the EBBA catalogue I wanted to upload here:

• https://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/20857/album
• https://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/31034/citation
• https://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/20801/image

Here are some examples of what I mean, I meaning to upload some more, but I wanted to make sure they're in the public domain. Sorry for the inconvenience... DoNothingEveryday (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoNothingEveryday: Assuming you are talking strictly about the image files, and that they are (as they appear to be) from old broadsheets, then those are certainly public domain, and any copyright claim is ridiculous. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Will upload them now DoNothingEveryday (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Does South Africa now have Freedom of Panorama? If so, what are the perimeters of it?

User:Michaelgraaf says in an UDR that this court decision https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2026/26.html means that South Africa has FOP. @Discott: I haven't seen any news idea that seemed to indicate that South Africa has any sort of FoP so I'm interested in hearing from those in the know in ZA if it has indeed joined the ranks of yes-FoP countries, or if this is still a country in which we're still pushing for FoP? Abzeronow (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow I think close but not yet. As per updates from Discott, the bill will return to the parliament to tweak one section that was found unconstitutional: subsections 1-5 of Section 12(D). See also the statement from one of the bill's supporters, COSATU, and this resource from the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance.

In any case, the FoP provision remains supposedly intact, as the meta:Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendment Bill states it is under Section 14, which is not one of the provisions Ramaphosa contests.

Per the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance, the court struck down Section 12(D), subsections 1 to 5 because they believed it "constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property. These provisions enable the wholesale copying of textbooks by educational institutions under loosely defined conditions, failing to adequately define "commercial purposes" or specify which institutions qualify. The Court held that this improperly shifted the state’s burden to fund public education onto private authors, disrupted normal market exploitation, and conflicted with international copyright law." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow & @JWilz12345, great question, especially following the recent Constitutional Court ruling. Sadly this ruling does not, yet, mean that South Africa has Freedom of Panorama or Fair Use (we currently have the more restrictive Fair Dealing instead). Both are in the Copyright Amendment bill but have not yet been gazetted into law (still awaiting signing by the presidency despite it sitting on his desk longer than any other bill). The long time it has taken the president to sign it into law, thereby violating the constitution, is why this case was taken to the Constitutional Court, something lead by our friends at Blind South Africa. So what does this finding mean for us? Well it means that everything in the bill is constitutional (except subsections 1-5 of S12D on some educational exceptions). This is good news because it means that both Freedom of Panorama (something no one objects to) and Fair Use (something big corporate in South Africa objects to) are constitutional. This matters because the presidency's argument for not signing the bill into law has been reservations about the bills constitutionality especially with regards to Fair Use. The bad news, what this likely means is that the bill will probably need to go back to parliament for redrafting to remove these problematic sub-sections. In this current parliament the politics to get this done do not look great sadly. At least anytime soon. The bill might get scrapped and we will need to start again or it might get spread through parliament or the bill might get signed into law as is with these subsections being ignored. Its really hard to tell right now but if I was forced to make a guess I would wager that the bill will be sent back to parliament again. Either way, we need to continue to put pressure on the South African presidency to get this done. --Discott (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Film

Hello, just wondering whether anyone could confirm whether this film and its three sequels are in the public domain. There are stills in all of their commons categories which say its copyright has not been renewed but I am unsure whether the score/the illustrations at the start change anything. I've not been able to find anything in commons policy specifically regarding public domain films so if anybody knows of something to read and could shoot it my way, that would also be great, thank you. Paccyd33 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment In the U.S., most studio-released stills from that era are in the public domain (often they were not copyrighted at all, and very few were renewed); most films from that era remain copyrighted. - 17:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps still was a poor choice of worlds, a few of them are stills but there's quite a few screenshots from them invoking Template:PD-US-not renewed. Paccyd33 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The 1945 film seems to be in the public domain. Commons:Character copyrights says that there's no renewals for earlier Dick Tracy appearances, so it should be clear. I suspect the later three are in the public domain, but that's when the renewal books printed by the Copyright Office stopped being alphabetized, which makes really hard to be sure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Argentine de facto FoP likely OK with one caveat

Previous recent discussions:

• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12#Argentine_architecture_now_object_of_copyright
• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/09#Argentina_and_Building_Interiors_(covered_under_de_facto_FOP_or_not)

Pinging all participants of the previous discussions: @Abzeronow, Clindberg, Cambalachero, and Asclepias: .

I found an online copy of the 2nd ed. of Dr. Emery's book on Argentine copyright law: on Scribd. This is the 500+ pages version. The quote on reproduction of buildings is now at page 67, as opposed to page 40 from the first edition (via COM:FOP Argentina citation). To quote in full:

Como se expresara (ver § 11) se ha admitido pacíficamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos del autor. Frente a esta aceptada situación de hecho, se debe concluir que lo que la ley protege es la originalidad en el dibujo, el croquis o el modelo y la facultad del arquitecto de autorizar o prohibir las reproducciones de estas exteriorizaciones por terceros.

Google Translation: "As stated (see § 11), it has been generally accepted that buildings may be reproduced through paintings or photographs, without this reproduction being considered to infringe the author's rights. Given this accepted factual situation, it must be concluded that what the law protects is the originality of the drawing, sketch, or model, and the architect's right to authorize or prohibit reproductions of these representations by third parties."

This quote relies on the important excerpt from Section 11 of the book, found at page 65:

Con respecto al derecho de reproducción del dueño del edificio que se encuentra adornado con pinturas murales, el dueño del edificio podrá lucrar con fotografías de todo el conjunto edilicio, pero no con reproducciones individuales de las obras. Así, por ejemplo, el propietario de Galerías Pacífico tiene derecho a reproducir su cúpula dentro del conjunto arquitectónico, pero no las obras allí contenidas en forma individual; esto no sucede con respecto a la cúpula del Teatro Colón, ya que toda ella es obra de Raúl Soldi.

Google Translation: "Regarding the reproduction rights of the owner of a building adorned with murals, the owner may profit from photographs of the entire building complex, but not from individual reproductions of the artworks. Thus, for example, the owner of Galerías Pacífico has the right to reproduce its dome within the architectural ensemble, but not the individual works contained within it; this does not apply to the dome of the Teatro Colón, as it is entirely the work of Raúl Soldi."

In a nutshell, it is accepted in Argentina that building owners can reproduce the buildings their own through photography and sell their photos even without permission from the architects. However, only pure architecture can be exploited. Murals, frescoes, and any artwork that is integrated into the buildings are not exempted from copyright and must not be photographed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Presumably, few images we would be concerned with are by the owners of the buildings, so I'm not sure how that last is at all germane. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No, Dr. Emery's opinion is crucial here. The building owner here represents the user in the context of copyright. He can only freely reproduce through photos the building he owns, as well as parts of the building like the dome, walls, columns, et cetera. He has no right to reproduce artworks associated with the building, though.

Inferring from this, we can say the uploaders/Wikimedians/other users can reproduce Argentine buildings, like w:en:Teatro Colón and w:en:Galerías Pacífico, even without permission from the architects. They can freely distribute and make a profit from their photos. However, File:Sala Principal Teatro Colón.jpg is an infringement, as it is a work of Raúl Soldi (as Dr. Emery points out). Possibly Category:Interior of Teatro Colón needs to be reviewed, as well as Category:Interior of Galerías Pacífico that may show the murals, artworks, and architectural elements that are not really works of architecture. Dr. Emery's opinion contrasts with the American decision on Leicester, which denied copyright claims of artists of artworks that became integrated with the buildings. As of this writing, I'm going to nuke the entire Category:Murals of Galerías Pacífico as a whole, as an obvious infraction of Dr. Emery's legal opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murals of Galerías Pacífico. I excluded images that do not show specific murals. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In my conclusion and opinion, I think we can accept de facto Argentine FoP as valid, using Dr. Emery's analysis, until an Argentine high court overturns the de facto legality of reproducing buildings through photography. This might be the most practical approach, IMO. I'll also edit COM:FOP Argentina after the archival of this thread to include salient points of my interpretation of Dr. Emery's conditions (including non-inclusion of individual artistic works that are either attached to the buildings, like murals, or integrated into buildings, like gargoyles and stained glass artworks). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is exactly the discussion here? That FOP in Argentina covers just generic architecture and not works of art is the standing written rule, and it has been for some years. Cambalachero (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cambalachero confirmation of Argentine FoP, and taking into attention Dr. Emery's notes on works of art that are either attached to or integrated into buildings, like murals in his example. We may extend it to include wall paintings, stained glass artworks, gargoyles, and other works of art that are either attached to or integrated into buildings. This somehow makes architectural Argentine FoP slightly restricted than the architectural US FoP, because the American Leicester court ruling dictates even works of art are covered by the pictorial exemption (US FoP) if those are integrated in the architecture as part of the architectural work's plans (no separability). Dr. Emery's opinion may mean similar legal privilege doesn't apply to the Argentine FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Mistagged license, potential copyright violation?

I spotted an edit that added the file File:Odeon Jan 1960.jpg. The image is tagged "own work" with a Creative Commons license, but the edit that added it instead indicates that it's taken from a 1960 issue of a British newspaper. What's the right process to follow here? I asked the user a question on their talk page, but since they haven't edited in a couple of years I don't know if I'll hear back. I don't know if I should go straight to deletion or adding a template first. The closest template I found, Template:Wrong license, didn't quite seem to fit this case. Vlcice (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vlicie: looks to me like it should be nominated for deletion as a copyright violation. I can't see any likely basis on which a UK picture from that date could be in the public domain, and certainly the license isn't valid. (This upload was the only Commons edit DaimlerSleeveValve ever made.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I've nominated it for deletion. Vlcice (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this in the public domain?

This is just a self-explanatory question I had from May 2026-me's hallucinations from enwiki. So here goes again: The tech store near me seems to not have the new M4 iPad Air, and I only ever noticed because some Salebot1 socks were invading the page, and iPad Air (M4) is the only iPad page that has no photo of the pad. Wondered if this is in PD as I'm just too lazy to check the license. And that photo clearly, adequately shows the M4 iPad Air. SimpleObjects-9ei (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The source web page credits the photo as "Photograph: Luke Larsen" without any mention of a free license - so no, I don't see any reason that would be in the public domain. Omphalographer (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Free depictions of non-free works

The "policy" Commons:Free depictions of non-free works runs counter to our existing copyright policies and to a basic understanding of copyright law. This article was seemingly created without any community discussion by a few users. At the very best, sections of this article just reiterate existing policies.

This policy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding - that the author of a derivation of a work releasing their derivation under a free license makes the combined derivative work free. This is not how copyright works, if copyrightable elements of the original work exist in the new work, the work is a derivative work and is still imbued with the original copyright.

The only effect releasing the derivation of the work under a free license does is that it does not add any additional copyright. Importantly, the author is not actually releasing the work as a whole under the free license, but only the copyrightable elements that they added through their derivative. They would not be able to release the whole work under a free license if they are not an authorized representative of its owner, so claiming that they have is false.

In some cases, you may able to make "fanart" if that fanart includes only generic elements that are not individually or collectively copyrightable. An example: File:P Harry Potter-icon.svg. However, this is already discussed at length in COM:FANART. Further more, this "policy" is specifically about works that are legally derivative works, i.e. they contain copyrighted elements of the original.

The example cited in the lede of this policy is blatant nonsense: While SpongeBob SquarePants is protected by copyright, this specific depiction was officially released under a free license by Nickelodeon.

If this were actually true, the SpongeBob character design in general would actually be under a free license as this would be only way to ensure that all the copyrightable elements in that image were under a free license. Such a thing however would a be quite a bold move, which would surely be accompanied by an official announcements like this.

Does this seem too good to be true? Well that's because it is. SpongeBob has obviously not been released under a Creative Commons license. The justification for this is that a single YouTube video on the Nickelodeon YouTube channel was marked as having a "Creative Commons" license.

Uploads of YouTube videos and posts to social media platforms are often delegated to specialized social media PR firms who are most surely not granted the rights to all of the client's intellectual. Even if they are done in-house, the representatives posting these are not authorized rights agents and their individual postings are not overseen by legal teams. Any license they claim that goes beyond what the company has actually granted is legally void. Just because they are an employee does not mean they have any kind of authorization to license any copyrights - just like how if I get a summer job at Disney World, I do not have the right to vote at the Board of Directors' meetings.

Finally, this so-called "policy" and its associated templates mention Freedom of Panorama, but this is already covered by COM:FOP and its extensive existing templates. ~2026-37112-12 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37112-12: since you basically do not cite a single statute, court case, or even article by a lawyer, nor do you present any evidence that you are a lawyer yourself, I don't see a lot of reason to take any of this particularly seriously in terms of changing policy. In several discussions I have had with people from WMF legal, I have repeatedly been told that Commons' current positions with respect to copyright law almost always strike them as very conservative, probably more conservative than necessary. This makes me extremely skeptical of any argument to make them even more conservative, especially one that seems most likely to be a layperson's extrapolation from a moderate level of informal legal knowledge.

To be clear: I am not a lawyer myself, but I don't see anything at all unreasonable about assuming that someone within an organization (or operating on behalf of that organization) who publishes a work for which that organization owns the rights has apparent authority to grant a license to that published material. If the organization rapidly retracted that, I'd be willing to take seriously the possibility that it was done in error and would not rely on that license but with that exception, if we can't rely on that then we can't rely on any organization publicly granting a license for any content. I am confident that it is possible to grant a right to a derivative work that relies on content from a larger work without granting rights to the underlying larger work, as long as you have the relevant authority to make such a partial release. A common examples of this is licensing (or releasing into the public domain) a film trailer, which does not affect the copyright status of any elements of the film that are not contained in the trailer. And it entirely reasonable to me that if you hold a character copyright, you can release specific materials that use that character, without losing any other rights over that character. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"if copyrightable elements of the original work exist in the new work, the work is a derivative work and is still imbued with the original copyright" — but only in degree that was included in derived work or representation. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The lede of the linked page rather reads like a "VRT-case without the need of an actual VRT-ticket". It says that the files are released under a free license "by the copyright holder", not by some third party who created a derivative work. So, basically, if the creator of Spongebob publishes a drawing of Spongebob on their website under CC license, then we're supposed to use {{Free depiction}} on the file page if we upload that drawing to Commons. This does not make the Spongebob character or its design free of copyright or CC-licensed. It only means that this one particular drawing of Spongebob is CC-licensed. Any other drawings of Spongebob are still copyrighted with "all rights reserved". Nakonana (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I broadly agree that Commons is too trusting of licensing choices made on social media by companies and subsidiaries. Social media staff (or, as is often the case, social media contractors) are rarely authorized agents with the legal authority to release their company's content freely. And when we're dealing with subsidiaries, there's even less clarity, as we don't have any way to ensure the subsidiary was legally authorized to release its parent company's content (short of reaching out to the parent company and getting confirmation, which, as we all know, often doesn't end with a satisfactory answer or even any answer at all). I recognize that this is controversial and would have many unintended downstream consequences, but I don't think we should take these kinds of licenses at face value (specifically freely licensed content published on social media from large companies or subsidiaries that otherwise do not license their content freely, and which have not made any formal statement/announcement about their licensing policy).

I've raised this all before in various venues and have gotten intense pushback. But I firmly believe it's a problem, as demonstrated by the numerous instances of large companies confirming that they did not want to license their content freely and that their subsidiaries/partners/contractors did so without authorization or intent.

I also agree that the "Free depictions of non-free works" page has some issues, but this is not generally the place to discuss that; it would be more appropriate to have that conversation on that talk page. And to be clear, that page is neither a policy nor guideline for Commons, it's simply an advice page with information about a specific application of copyright principles, as far as I know. 19h00s (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. And more broadly: if an image is on Commons with a Creative Commons license, users outside Wikimedia should be able to take that as a signal that they can reuse the image freely, for any purpose - including commercial use! - so long as they comply with the license. And for these sorts of files, I don't think that's something we can be sure of without a more explicit, deliberate release of rights than a license selection on a YouTube upload. Omphalographer (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Are 120-year-old photos Public Domain in US if they were published in 1936 outside US?

I have a book published in the UK in 1936. Its author died in 1970. It contains photographs from 1886 - 1893. Under UK copyright law, these came out of copyright 70 years after publication, i.e. at the end of 2006. However, as the book wasn't published in the US, it looks to me as though the photographs do not become Public Domain in the US until 95 years after publication, i.e. the end of 2031. Is this correct? RobertSimons (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If you mean Commons:URAA then yes. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If the photographs were first published in the UK in 1936 (and not also published in the US within 30 days), then the copyright (having expired in the UK in 2007) would have received an URAA extension in the US as it was still copyrighted in 1996. This would mean it is still protected in the US until 2031. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Photographs in the USA have had courts declare they are "made public" when they leave the custody of the creator, not just appearing in a book. Some home snapshots may have remained as negatives since creation and remained with the photographer. I would look at the attribution cited in the book, and if they are credited to someone's personal collection, they may have remained not available to the public. I would load them to Commons and let us decide on a case-to-case basis. --RAN (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status and licensing path for Kovno Ghetto photographs of Avram and Emanuel Rosenthal

Hello,

I am preparing an English Wikipedia draft about Avram / Avraham and Emanuel Rosenthal / Rozental, two Jewish children photographed in the Kovno Ghetto shortly before the March 1944 Children's Action.

I would like advice before uploading any files to Commons. I am not the copyright holder and I do not want to upload archival images unless the copyright status or permission path is clear.

The photographs I am trying to evaluate are:

• Avram and Emanuel Rosenthal in the Kovno Ghetto, February 1944. USHMM collection record PA1035323: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1035323
• The related Yad Vashem photo record 4789/1: https://collections.yadvashem.org/api/Names/GetSingleFullDetails?id=52262&lang=en&source=Photos
• Shraga Wainer in the Kovno Ghetto, USHMM collection record PA1037634: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1037634
• Kovno Ghetto Jewish police group with Elchanan Rosental identified, USHMM collection record PA1037636: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1037636

The photographer is generally identified as George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin. The photographs were taken in the Kovno Ghetto, Lithuania, around 1942-1944. The current online copies are held by institutions such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Yad Vashem. Some records credit the photograph to George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin or his collection.

My questions are:

• Is there any plausible public-domain basis for Commons upload for these photographs, considering the date, photographer, location, later publication history, and possible United States / Lithuanian / Israeli copyright issues?
• If George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin is the photographer, would Commons require permission from his estate / rights holder rather than from USHMM or Yad Vashem as holding institutions?
• If USHMM or Yad Vashem can only provide publication approval for a specific article, but not a free license such as CC BY-SA 4.0 / CC BY 4.0 / CC0, am I correct that the images should not be uploaded to Commons?
• If the images are not Commons-compatible, would the safest route be to keep only external links in the Draft article, and later consider one local non-free image on English Wikipedia only after the article is accepted into mainspace?
• Is there any existing Commons precedent for George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin Kovno Ghetto photographs that would clarify the correct licensing approach?

I have already contacted Wikimedia VRT, and they suggested asking this question here. I would appreciate guidance on the correct Commons approach before taking any upload action.

Thank you. Markas.krasovskis (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

(1) it depends; (2) if the rights weren't transferred, answer is "yes", otherwise permission from institution is required; (3) yes; (4) yes; (5) I don't know. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The text in the first link clearly identifies George Kadish as the photographer. Zvi Kadushin might own copies of the photo but that wouldn't make him the copyright holder in most cases. So, assuming that George Kadish is the copyright holder, things get tricky for Commons because he lived until 1997 and most countries offer copyright protection for the duration of the photographer's life plus another 70 years after the photographer's death. To my knowledge, this is the case for all countries of the European Union (with some exceptions for "simple photos" here and there), and Lithuania is a EU member and the country of origin here. PD status is extremely unlikely, I'd say, and the safest route would be to seek permission / clarification regarding the copyright holder. Nakonana (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Zvi Kadishin might actually be something like a pseudonym of George Kadish going by the wiki article and Wikidata entry.

And we have a photo by George Kadish on Commons: File:Workshop in the Kovno Ghetto.jpg. The source website of this photo says, that this photo is in public domain (but not sure on what grounds exactly). Nakonana (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Uncertain about copyright status of an image of a coin

Hello, can anyone help with me licensing this (link) image of a coin from the Ancient Greek temple complex of Lykosoura? I know the coin itself is out of copyright, it is the image that concerns me. The coin is in the Numismatic Museum of Athens, inv. no. NM 1911 2ΛΒ 19. And the article whence came the image uses © to refer to the image. Does it mean it is not in fair use? Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

We do have a help page: COM:Currency - as a standard, imagery of coins are seen as images of 3D objects, not as a 2D reproduction (as e.g. images depicting banknotes and paintings from Old Masters are). Thus, such a photo gets a copyright assigned to its photographer: photos of coins are copyrightable and would need a license from the photographer (and, if applicable, from the coin designer too). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Photos by the Quezon City Government

[Reposted from the Teahouse, as suggested by another editor]
Hello, I just saw someone else (not me) upload a pic from this Facebook album under the PD-PhilippinesGov licence.
This is what the licence says:
This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of their regularly prescribed official duties; consequently, any work is ineligible for copyright under the terms of Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended, unless otherwise noted. However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws. (Emphasis mine)
I would love for the photos here to actually be under PD-PhilippinesGov, because that would mean a lot of these Filipino celebrities would finally get lead images or better ones. For example, the lead image for Angela Ken right now is extremely dark and blurry, you can't even see her actual face.
But yes, do you think the licence applies here? I think it does. The photos are from the Quezon City Government page. The "as a part of their regularly prescribed official duties" part is a bit murky, as LoveL4ban is a university Pride Month event, not a political one. However, I think the photos are a part of the local government promoting the city.
The post also mentions that several local political figures and organisations gave speeches at the festival such as Risa Hontiveros, so I guess that's why the government photographers were there as well.
Please let me know before I upload anything myself. If the licence is valid, it would be really great for these Filipino celebrities in need of good pictures. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

On one aspect of this: how do we know that these photos were taken by government employees? - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Which photos are in question, anyway? I found [1], but they don't precisely match the album.

I'd also point to this and this (cites this) which discussed (inconclusively) the assertion that local governments are instrumentalities of the national government. There's probably a body of Philippine law that settles this, but I wouldn't know where to look for it. TheFeds 22:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

revision proposal on {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}

I'd like to invite you to Template_talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto#The_condition_must_be_corrected. Thanks in advance. Mzaki (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Environment and Climate Change Canada Data Servers End-use Licence

Hi, I was looking to upload an image generated with MSC AniMet, but ran into some confusion with the license. The underlying data products (in this case GDPS) uses something called the Environment and Climate Change Canada Data Servers End-use Licence, version 2.1. It appears to be the same as Template:OGL-C, with two modifications. Section 3 provides additional guidance on how to attribute multiple sources along with Environment and Climate Change Canada, without changing the terms. The more significant change is in section 2 (changes in bold):

   2. You are free to:
   
   Copy, modify (see note), publish, translate, adapt (see note), distribute or otherwise use (see note) the Information in any medium, mode or format for any lawful purpose.
   
   Note: In the case of weather alerts (i.e. watches/warnings), any information shall be reproduced in such a way that there is no alteration of the content or intent of the alert.

Searching the village pump archives, the only relevant topic I saw mentioned was regarding moral rights, and that the added clause may fall under that, but I'm unsure if this qualifies as a free licence. Thanks! Racer J77 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It strikes me as a naïve modification, very poorly drafted and ultimately counterproductive. They probably mean well, but the implementation leads to considerable ambiguity, not to mention that it cedes many of the benefits of standardization. I think they are supposing that this is a substantive term of the copyright licence, and thus that it would be a violation to alter the content of the alert. Though you ordinarily would have the right to do so (particularly for legitimate purposes), by accepting.the licence, you agree not to. For the purposes of weather alerts, I think that makes it non-free. For other things, to the extent it directly reproduces OGL-C, I guess it's still free, but for Commons purposes, I don't think we should be in any hurry to embrace licences with clumsy carve-outs. I don't think it resembles a moral right that exists independently of the agreement between the parties. TheFeds 20:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s what I was concerned about. I might contact ECCC to see if they can explicitly license the non-alert content under OGL-C, but for now I’ll hold off from uploading the images. Racer J77 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the tool, but do you think that the output represents a derivative work of some copyrighted original? Or, for example, is it creating an image from uncopyrightable facts (e.g. the numbers corresponding to a meteorological reading)? They may not own any copyright in the output, because if the input is your query + uncreative data + their code, and the output is an image that does not include that code, it seems like they have no copyright to licence. (Maybe you do, if your query is copyrightable.) They could theoretically refuse you permission to use the service if you do not agree to their terms, but whatever copyright does or doesn't exist upon creation of the output won't change because of that. TheFeds 01:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The tool basically lets you overlay ECCC meteorological/climate data onto a map, so you can create an image or animation with it. Since it comes out of their forecast modelling, I don’t think it would count as an uncopyrightable fact?

I looked into a bit more, and the GDPS data is actually available via the Open Government portal, where it’s licensed under OGL-C. It seems the approach they’ve taken is “since GDPS data could be combined with alert data into a single map, we’ll relicense all outputs of this tool under something new.” Or that’s what I thought until I also found Weather Alerts under OGL-C on Open Government, which means all the underlying data is freely licensed. The one thing that stands out is the generated map includes the ECCC logo as a form of attribution, so that may be why they’ve chosen this route? But now I feel that it shouldn’t be a problem to try to switch back the licence. Racer J77 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)