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.

Polish newspaper article from 1937

Hello, I'd like to upload a photo of a newspaper article from 1937 that my father had. The article describes an airplane accident that my grandfather Jerzy Gablenz (1888-1937) perished in. I'd like to understand how I can legally add this document to page: pl:Katastrofa lotnicza pod Piasecznem. According to a quick search in Google... Under the copyright law in effect in Poland in 1937, a newspaper article entered the public domain 50 years after its publication. The Polish copyright law of March 29, 1926, was in force in Poland at the time the article was published. The law stipulated a 50-year term of protection that began at the time of publication. The 50-year period began in 1937, therefore the copyright expired on December 31, 1987. As of 2025, the article has been in the public domain for many years. In 1994, Poland passed a new copyright law that retroactively extended copyright terms for some works. However, this did not revive the copyright for works that had already entered the public domain under previous laws. Thank you, George Gablenz George Gablenz (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If everything you say is accurate, then this should be in the public domain, but I'm not sure if we have a relevant template. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Who can I follow-up with that can tell me whether a relevant template exists, or can be created? Thank you. George Gablenz (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can use {{PD-Poland}} provided that there was no copyright notice attached to the photograph. This is explained in the text which is generated by the tag. Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl: {{PD-Poland}}, as written, is specific to photographs. This is a newspaper clipping. It the template is to be usd for that purpose, it should be expanded to be more inclusive. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to take into accout both US and Polish copyright laws. Under US laws, any work that was published between 1930 and 1965 has entered the US public domain unless the protection was renewed wthin 28 years of publication. I think it safe to say that newspapers did not renew their copyright protection. Under Polish law, if the author is known, then copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death (good luck finding that!). If however no author is mentioned, then copyright lasts for 70 years from publication. Thus, if the newspaper article does not have a known author, it is out of copyright, otherwise you need to find when the author died. The relevant copyright tags are {{PD-anon-70-EU}}} (if the author is not known) or {{PD-old-70}} if the author is known and died on or before 31 December 1955. In addition, you should use {{PD-US-no notice}} (unless the newspaper is known to have established a US copyright) and the {{PD-Poland}} in respect of any photograph (especially if the photographer is creditied). Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl: Under US laws, any work that was published between 1930 and 1965 has entered the US public domain unless the protection was renewed wthin 28 years of publication: that is only true of works that were first published in the United States, totally irrelevant for a Polish newspaper. What would matter (under U.S. law) for any Polish newspaper in the era we are talking about is whether it was still in copyright in Poland on 1 January 1996. If it was, then under the URAA the U.S. would grant it copyright protection for 95 years from its initial publication.

But I think you are either missing my point in my prior post here, or that your last response was a non sequitur. My point was that if {{PD-Poland}} is not specific to photographs, then it should be reworded. Right now it begins, "This photograph is in the public domain because…" and continues, "…all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad)…" If the same rules apply to written works, it should say so; if different rules apply to written works, we probably need an additional template. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights tells me that the since the newspaper article to which you are referring was in the public domain in Poland in 1996, it remained in the public domain in the United States as Poland did not have any reciprocal agreements with the US until 1996. There is nothing in that article about the retrospective extensions of copyright in Poland applying in the US. I deduce therefore that even though the retrospective application of copyright applied in Poland, it did not apply in the United States. I suggest therefore that you apply the PD templates and wait for somebody to complain. Martinvl (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl: In short, you are either still missing the point of what I posted, or rejecting it without directly addressing it. I'm done saying my piece here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Or, you know, the US had a bilateral copyright agreement with Poland in 1927, Poland signed UCC Geneva in 1977, which the US had already signed, and the US signed the Berne Convention in 1989. 1996 has nothing to do with the relations between Poland and the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: it is the relevant date for URAA restoration of U.S. copyrights for any countries that were signatories of te Berne Convention at that time. (Sorry to come in here again, but this was an entirely different point.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl, @Prosfilaes

To confirm- the image is a PDF of a Polish newspaper article from November or December of 1937. This is my first attempt at contributing something to Wikipedia and I confess I know nothing about copyright laws. Can someone in this group please confirm what template(s) I am to use or point me in the right direction. Thank you. George Gablenz (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@George Gablenz:

1. It is certainly in the public domain, so it should be fine to host here.
2. I believe we do not currently have the correct template for this, and that either one should be created or {{PD-Poland}} should be reworded to cover this case, but I do not have sufficient knowledge of Polish copyright law to create/modify the template myself.
3. Martinvl apparently believes you should use {{PD-Poland}} even though the wording there refers specifically to photographs.

Unless someone with more detailed knowledge of Polish copyright law (Aymatth2?) steps in to add/modify a template, that is where it stands. - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

On rereading - I agree that {{PD-Poland}} is specific to photographs and yes, we need another template. I have checked and I believe that we can use the template {{PD-anon-70-EU}} in respect of the Polish copyright and {{PD-1996}} in respect of the US copyright. Martinvl (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl and George Gablenz: I'd find that acceptable, too, for this 1937 case. Good call. (George, that should fully answer your concern for this particular file.)

@Martinvl: I guess, also, since anything like this before 1 January 1946 has now passed the 70-year mark, and anything after that is going to be copyrighted in the U.S. until at least 2042 (1946 + 95 + 1) because of URAA (1946 + 50 + 1), we don't really need another template, and can just use the pair you suggested here. Or do you think it would be better to have a more specific template for this? - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that we need another template. If we sit back and look at things, the only reason why we need templates is so that the Wikimedia legal team can tick the box to say that the copyright situation has been checked and that no-one is likely to sue. Martinvl (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. George George Gablenz (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Canadian Crown copyright

A professor of intellectual property law, quoted by the Supreme Court of Canada, observed that "what exactly Crown copyright covers is unfortunately murky". In a recent deletion request, a user raised the question of Canadian Crown copyright, which may be examined in light of the 2019 decision of the Supreme Court in Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., [2019] 3 SCR 418. I do not necessarily expect that many users of Commons will find interest and time to read the decision of the Supreme Court, but it would be helpful if even a few users read it and can offer their opinion on the matter and contribute to the definition of some consensus on what Commons can interpret as potentially included or not in the notion of Canadian Crown copyright. Beyond the file under discussion in that deletion request, and beyond works from the same source, the interpretation, broad or narrow, of what circumstances can cause works to attract or not a Canadian Crown copyright can have an impact on the understanding of the copyright status of works made available through entities of the eleven declinations of the Canadian Crown, the eleven governments, provincial and federal. There are also some comments on this page. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Duncan Cameron appears to have assigned his ordinary copyright (PMA+70) to the LAC. This is not analogous to the situation in Keatley, where land surveys are published through a formal scheme with the government. The LAC owns the copyright, and may even be first publisher on some of the photos (but were they really? He was a photojournalist, so many of his works may have already been published), but without a formal scheme in place like the land surveys, I don't think this transforms the copyright. But, as I said, LAC owns the copyright, if they want us to have his image, they can release it under a suitable free license. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• That's an interesting court case, thanks. It appears that Canada still has roughly the wording on what works have Crown Copyright as the UK Copyright Act 1911. The UK got even a bit more aggressive with their definition in their 1956 law, but scaled it back to be more similar to PD-USGov (mainly works created by employees) in their 1988 law, which is still current. It appears that Canada did not make that 1988 type change, and still has the "published by" criteria from the older UK laws. The cited ruling constrains that some, where it can still include works published by the government, but only ones that filled some particular public purpose, if not actually authored by a government employee. In that case, much like the UK, it would seem the government is able to hold normal copyrights transferred to them, as those are not in the definitions of what makes work be Crown Copyright. On the other hand, the current Australian law *does* seem to say that works transferred to the government do change to have Crown Copyright terms -- so it may not be universal among Crown Copyright countries. Given that though, donating materials to the National Archives would not seem to come under the definition, so would still seem to have their normal copyright. But, it would mean the National Archives could then decide the license -- and the source page for that says there are no restrictions on use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If I may add related observations:

• Yes, in Canada, it's not at the moment of the donation to the government that a work acquires a Crown copyright. It is its publication, under the control of the government, that causes a work that was under ordinary copyright to acquire a Crown copyright, from the moment of that publication. That was already the case, but the Supreme Court restates it explicitly in this decision. The difficulty is to determine what exactly constitutes a publication under the control of the government. Applying the Copyright Act literally, the government could acquire a Crown copyright on any work created by anybody, merely by somehow causing it to be published. In the Keatley case, the judges of the Supreme Court basically wanted to partly limit the scope of Crown copyright by devising some additional requirement.
• In that case, the judges were split into two groups who proposed different criteria to achieve that. For the judges in the majority (4 of the 7 judges), a work acquires a Crown copyright when, at the time of publication, the government has a sufficient degree of control of the work and over the publication. For the judges in the minority (3 of the 7 judges), to acquire a Crown copyright, a work must serve a public purpose such that the government must ensure the accuracy, the integrity and the dissemination of the copies of the work. In Keatley, the land surveys met both tests. They were held by a government entity and there was control on their publication, which satisfied the judges of the majority. They served an important public purpose, which satisfied the judges of the minority. As a result, all judges agreed on the conclusion that the works had acquired a Crown copyright, but the two groups disagreed on the test to apply to reach that conclusion.
• But what happens when a work meets one test but not the other? In particular when a work meets the test of the majority (a sufficient degree of control) and does not meet the test of the minority (a sufficient public purpose). That is the situation that we will likely encounter often. It may be the situation with the photos by Duncan Cameron. Library and Archives Canada apparently has full control of those photos and of their publication. The conclusion seems unescapable that this situation meets the test of the majority (a sufficient degree of control). However, the photos probably do not serve a public purpose that would require that the government must ensure that the copies are accurate, integral and disseminated. They probably do not meet the test of the minority. The solution may be to apply the opinion of the majority and not the opinion of the minority. If the photos by Duncan Cameron were under a Crown copyright that began when the government archives published the photos (i.e. made copies available to the public), that Crown copyright likely expired in 2021 (assuming that the archives made copies available to the public in 1970 soon after the acquisition).
• Quick note: At Library and Archives Canada, the "restrictions on use" relate to things other than copyright, such as conditions required by the donors. Unfortunately, free licenses are not offered by Library and Archives Canada.

-- Asclepias (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I missed that the public purpose was a minority. The ruling then would be on the sufficient control over publication. That is not that far from the older UK Crown Copyright definition, which sucked in quite a lot of works. It's a bit on the edge though, as it would be safer if both tests are passed -- but it would probably take another case with a bit different circumstances though override that, as that is the best guidance we have. I still don't think that applies to the donation of works to the Archives, though. Many of those works probably had been previously published, and any library could hold them -- not sure the Archives being chosen for that changes them to Crown Copyright. I do have to disagree on "restrictions on use" though. The statement under that for the entire collection specifically talks about reproduction. In the case where the Archives owns the copyright, they are the ones who decide what the restrictions on use are. Maybe the donor wanted them freely available, but those statements seem directly in line with a copyright license. They have a separate section for "restrictions on access" which is the policies for actually seeing the physical items; "restrictions on use" would seem to be more about the copyright itself, to me. Donors don't have to transfer copyright, so can certainly restrict via that mechanism. But in this case it seems explicit that the Archives are the copyright owner, and a restrictions on use coming from them would seem to be a copyright license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Large amounts of (potentially) pirated content being hosted on a user page??

I suspect this is a digital archive for someone, like they're using it as storage rather than other storage providers; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Atlasowa/New_video2commons/2025_June_1-10 This is the page i initially found, i was attempting to find all instances of a song and came across this, with multiple full episodes of The Amazing World Of Gumball just here.

User:Atlasowa/New video2commons heres the entire list, it feels like a rabbit hole.

Is this sort of thing allowed? It seems like its violating alll sorts of copyright law, but then again i see lots of videos with varying use/significance HyperNover (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@HyperNover apparently, for example File:The Amazing World of Gumball- Gumball & Darwin vs. The Evil Baby.webm, the underlying video is commercially licensed (by Cartoon Network India). I'm not sure if CN India has authorization from their parent firm to release the cartoon works into free culture (commercial-type) Creative Commons licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

One related video was deleted but later undeleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tom & Jerry - Enjoy the Eternal Cat & Mouse Game of Tom & Jerry on Cartoon Network India.webm). I doubt on Cartoon Network India's legal right to commercially license their parent firm's productions, though, considering India remained among the "priority watchlist countries" in 2018. An email correspondence from Cartoon Network's parent firm may be needed to clarify if they indeed gave CN India the authorization, as well as the extent of CN India's rights to relicense the Cartoon Network productions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the user is displaying the videos of Category:Uploaded with video2commons but in chronological order of upload. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I started below: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Cartoon Network India. Nosferattus (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Cartoon Network India

All 4000+ videos posted on Cartoon Network India's YouTube channel are marked Creative Commons Attribution. These include videos of numerous cartoon franchises owned by numerous different companies (Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, Ben 10, The Amazing World of Gumball, Teen Titans Go, Lamput, Kiteretsu, Grizzy & the Lemmings, Batwheels, etc.). There is no way in hell that Cartoon Network India somehow overthrew capitalism and convinced some of the most litigious media companies on the planet (Warner Brothers, DC Comics) to relinquish control of their intellectual property and give away their cartoons for free in perpetuity. Please put on your thinking caps and ask if this actually makes sense. Clearly someone somewhere has made a mistake. If you think that's unlikely, notice that they also consistently misspelled the title of Grizzy & the Lemmings. Clearly this YouTube channel has low quality control and no one has noticed the incorrect license setting. We need to do two things, neither of which I know how to do:

1. Nominate all the videos in Category:Videos by Cartoon Network India for deletion (in a single discussion if possible).
2. Blacklist the Cartoon Network India YouTube channel from video2commons.

Can anyone help with this? Nosferattus (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. To me, this is ridiculous on its face. This does not appear to be a purposeful choice by the actual rightsholder, but rather a designation made by an overzealous or misinformed staffer at a foreign subsidiary, which may or may not have the legal authority to license these videos as such - and that's not a legal authority I believe we should be comfortable "assuming" they had. We need some kind of proof that this was purposeful and authorized by the rightsholder, unlike with individuals, where it's generally safe to assume that any person has the legal authority to release their own work. However, it does appear that all the shows Cartoon Network India has uploaded are in fact owned by Cartoon Network or their parent company, Warner Bros Discovery, some via other subsidiaries (for example: Grizzy & the Lemmings was produced in part by the French TV channel Boomerang, which is owned by WBD; Batwheels is property of DC Comics, which is owned by WBD; and the rights to Tom & Jerry were purchased from Hanna-Barbera by Turner Broadcasting in 1986, which merged with TimeWarner in 1996 and eventually became WBD). 19h00s (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Warner Brothers Discovery's Clip and Still Licensing guidelines and contact info may be of relevance here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I took my own initiative and just sent correspondence to clipandstilldept@wbd.com, in hopes of getting a response from at least one department from WBD. Fingers crossed, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Did you hear anything back? A faster approach might be to repost one of the videos on YouTube and see how long it takes to get it taken down with a copyright strike. My guess is less than a day. Nosferattus (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nosferattus no response from the Clips and Stills Department of Warner Bros Discovery, so far. I don't have an account on YT (and I don't have any plan to create one in the forseeable future). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s and JWilz12345: Since we didn't hear back from Warner Bros (I also emailed them a few days ago), I went ahead and created a deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Videos by Cartoon Network India. Unfortunately, I don't know how to properly nominate all 68 files without doing it manually. Does someone know how to do that? Nosferattus (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're gonna hear back from WBD anytime soon given the news (the company is splitting its Discovery properties into a new entity and selling its Warner Bros/HBO properties to Netflix, pending regulatory approval). I imagine there's about to be a lot of work for the licensing team as they split up their content and possibly assign new IP ownership. 19h00s (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you think of any plausible scenario in which a staffer would mark all their videos as CC BY SA without intending to do exactly that? Trade (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment It is indeed surprising that these videos are under a free license. They should be contacted to make sure the license is valid, on YT or on https://www.facebook.com/CartoonNetwork.India/. Another possibility is to write to copyright@youtube.com (I did that). But if we don't get any answer, I don't see any reason to delete these files from Commons. There is no doubt that this is an official channel, so we do not have to make a double standard with free licenses. Yann (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I got an answer from YouTube which basically says: If you are the copyright holder, then send a takedown notice (with the form). It is clear that YouTube doesn't care. Yann (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take the same attitude here, though unlike them I think we would do well to add a warning template about questioning the authority of Cartoon Network India to release these. Or we could just delete. But nothing else between seems to make much sense to me. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

If it's under CC law and Warner India released it under then it should be creative commons, so i think we should keep the files.

Also similar situation with NickRewind releasing character depictions and videos under CC, people might take advantage of this for fanworks or some weird stuff.

Also sorry for pinging @Yann Is anything okay btw? Idk why i'm asking this sorry lol ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I dont see what fan works could possibly be done with a bunch of TV clip compilations Trade (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Idk, maybe memes and crap like that. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the thing you propose is the exact thing task already being fulfilled by {{Free depiction (Cartoon Network)}} and {{Official Cartoon Network India YouTube channel}}

Or am i wrong? Trade (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

DR the category. Unlikely that CNI has the authority to freely license the works. The guy uploading files to YouTube would not have relicensing in his scope of employment. Glrx (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Cartoon Network India is offically owned by Warner. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So is WBTV which asserts that the clips are fully copyrighted.[1] Nosferattus (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm.. Seems a bit more complicated than i thought. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Simplifying addition of copyright tags on public domain buildings from noFoP countries

Context of the discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWilz12345&oldid=1123917503#US_architecture

I'm suggesting a major simplification on adding license tags to description pages of images that show buildings that are in the public domain in their noFoP countries. In my suggestion, only including the license tag of the image itself and the license tag pertaining to the architecture's public domain status in the noFoP country. Here are the following reasons:

• Simplification so that the re-users won't get confused if they come across the licensing tag section.
• In a practical sense, US copyright status on buildings is not a big deal, since US law provides exploitation rights for the general public with no conditions, like the architect or the building designer must be attributed. There are no strong moral rights concerning copyright of physical buildings under US federal law, so technically it's 100% legally safe to host public domain buildings from countries without FoP on Wikimedia Commons without the need to use US copyright tags.
• Prevents overzealous tagging.

Adding US copyright tags is only a big deal when it comes to the US copyright statuses of old photos, old artworks (like paintings and models), old taxidermies, old books, old films, and other old non-architectural works, due to COM:URAA complication. For public domain buildings from countries without FoP, there is no complication under US law. Regardless of copyright status in the US (courtesy of the December 1990 cutoff date under US law), there is full (unrestricted or 100%) exploitation rights through photography, without attribution and moral rights conditions. So again, I propose simplification of tags by only having image license+source country architectural PD status from now on.

See, for example, File:01258jfIntramuros Manila Landmarks Wedding Cars Buildingsfvf 06.jpg (for a public domain Philippine building). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I'm not sure what you are contrasting that to. Your example is already more elaborate than I've seen done on images of older buildings in Romania, which I don't remember even seeing an equivalent of {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. People just indicate the photo license, and it is implicit that if they have uploaded it here they claim either that the building itself is free of copyright, or what is shown of the building is de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I'm contrasting it with the image file descriptions that complicate licensing tags by adding the PD-US-architecture tag, despite images of buildings not being problems under US law. For example, File:Pica Ciamarra.jpg uses a tag that was originally intended for public domain buildings in the United States, not in other countries. Cmadler's intent on creating the template was for its usage on American buildings, not foreign buildings; see this 2012 discussion.

Following my suggestion, PD-US-architecture must be removed, and a relevant PD-Italy tag is retained, simplifying licensing information and preventing overzealous tagging that does not benefit reusers in any way. Additionally, as I said above, there is no legal risk in removing PD-US tags from images of public domain noFoP buildings since the US law does not grant any architectural rights to pre-1990 buildings in the first place (no moral rights for architects under federal US copyright law). Retain {{PD-US-architecture}} for buildings located in the United States. Pinging also @Friniate: who added the PD-US tag to the aforementioned PD Italian building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I would agree that {{PD-US-architecture}} is never needed for non-U.S. photos. Which is a much simpler way to say this, and seems to mean the same thing. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 01:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel yes. That's my point, PD-US-architecture was originally meant for photos of US buildings, not for non-US buildings.

There's no need to provide licensing explanation on US public domain status for non-US buildings with expired copyrights in their source countries, considering that buildings can be freely reproduced in photographs under US copyright law, with little or no conditions (like attribution or "the building must be depicted as it is found there"). In practical sense, there is no legal risk for Wikimedia Commons if we remove PD-US-architecture from photos of non-US buildings with expired copyrights. {{PD-old-architecture}} can be modified to remove mention of PD-US status. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As I previously said to @JWilz12345, I'm not against the idea, but it would be necessary to change the wording of templates like Template:PD-ItalyGov to reflect the fact that the US template is not needed for buildings. Otherwise there'll always be users who open DRs claiming that there is no US template and that the image therefore violates US copyright. Friniate (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Friniate no one's going to nominate buildings for deletion using US law as the basis. Based on my observations and experience here, deletion requests concerning buildings always point to non-US rules, not US rules. It's the non-architectural works in which US laws may involve (URAA etc.). Anyway, PD-US-architecture was originally created with the US buildings in mind.

Concerning Italian buildings, I would suggest a separate template, so that {{PD-ItalyGov}} focuses on old photographs and non-architectural artworks. I would suggest {{PD-Italy-architecture}}, which would:

cover PD Italian buildings whose architects died for more than 70 years,

cover PD Italian government buildings completed more than 20 years ago, and

(if there is really a need to take US law into account) a mention of US law on the template, no need to use {{PD-US-architecture}}. Something like: "The depicted architectural work is also free in the United States, because:

if this work was completed before 1 December 1990, this is in the public domain in the United States; and

if this work was completed on or after 1 December 1990, this is covered under the United States freedom of panorama for architectural works.

This should cover previously-copyrighted Italian buildings. PD-ItalyGov needs to be rewritten to state that images of works of architecture must use the PD-Italy-architecture template. This would hopefully maintain the correct use of {{PD-US-architecture}} as envisioned by its creator: only for US buildings and not for any building outside the US jurisdiction.

Realistically speaking, no one's gonna nominate unfree buildings for deletion using US law. Nominations on unfree buildings always concern non-US laws. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Unfortunately I was speaking out of direct experience ;-)

Anyway, do you really think that it is necessary to create a completely new template (with a really big work of substitution, etc)? Isn't it sufficient to add a small phrase concerning US architecture in PD-ItalyGov?

I'm pinging also @Rosenzweig and @Ruthven with whom we discussed the present wording. Friniate (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

For example the last sentence could become: A work may be in PD in the US also if:

it isn't copyrighted in the United States for other reasons. If so, please add a valid US license tag to the photo between those listed in Category:PD US license tags.

For buildings and other architectural works, there's no need to add a US license tag. They are in the public domain if they were built before 1990 or, if they were built afterwards, if the photograph was taken from a public space and in general if they comply with the US FOP. For other exceptions envisaged by the US copyright law, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Freedom of panorama. Friniate (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Friniate PD-ItalyGov is too broad and covers also works of art and photographs that may be copyrighted in the US due to URAA or post-1990s US copyright law rule (70 years p.m.a. for post-1990s authorial works or 95 years for publish/120 years for create). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Yes, I'm aware (although photographs produced by the government are usually in PD for other reasons and I've never seen this template used for them), this is the reason why I'm not suggesting to remove completely the part about US copyright, only to edit the last sentence which talks about buildings. Friniate (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really get why creating a new tag for Italian buildings is a simplification as opposed to having a US architecture tag which most users probably won't even bother to use. And why stop at Italy? Do you want to create PD-architecture tags for other countries too? France? Iceland? Greece? --Rosenzweig τ 12:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig using PD-US-architecture places the images of PD buildings from France, Iceland etc. a category only for PD US buildings, implying that these are located in the US (which is totally false!). My prior proposal is to simply ignore US copyright status of buildings, since the US law is very generous on unlimited exploitations of buildings in the first place and not adding PD-US tags does not place legal risks for Wikimedia Commons in the US. PD-US-architecture was originally made for images of US buildings, not PD buildings of no-FoP countries, as proven by an old discussion archive that I linked here.

Concerning @Friniate's concern that some users will nominate PD images for deletion due to questionable US status, the most pragmatic solutions are: educate those nominators that US law is generous on commercial exploitations of buildings (architects have little moral rights under federal US law) and speedy close the nomination cases as "keep, no valid reason for deletion". Nominators repeatedly nominating buildings for deletion using US law must be given reasonable measure: warning for 1st offense and removing access to deletion tools (VFC and nominate for deletion) in the 2nd offense. Those should teach the erring nominators that they cannot use US law to delete buildings (as I said, US law is generous on unlimited exploitations of buildings).

Very simple: no need to argue on tags, and no need to use PD tags that will only place these foreign buildings in the PD category only for US buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to say this: for second offense to erring nominators, the tool ban is for a day. 3rd offense, three days tool ban. 4th offense, one week tool ban. And so on. Until he/she stops nominating images of PD buildings using US law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Then the simplest solution would be to not use that PD-US-architecture tag. BTW, where does it say that Category:PD US architecture is only for buildings located in the US? As I see it, it is for buildings that are in the public domain in the US. Those could be buildings located in the US or elsewhere. --Rosenzweig τ 13:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:PD US architecture tag is only used by the PD-US-architecture template, currently. No other template utilizes this category, as far as I know. Based from this logic, the category is only for PD buildings located in the US.

By the way, as a pre-emptive measure, I have (at last) added the description for the PD-US-architecture template at its documentation page, with link to the original discussion as the basis. That old discussion involved the creator of this template (Cmadler). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I'm in favour to edit the PD-ItalyGov template, explicitly writing that US license tags are not needed for buildings. Since we're talking about simplifying, I really think that it would be by far the simplest solution. Friniate (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Any option is fine, as long as the images of PD buildings from countries with no-FoP don't end up in the PD category reserved for US buildings only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Is PD-chem applicable to any structural formula?

So the question is any structural formula is eligible for PD-chem? I mean the template says simple structural formula but what is simple in the context? Is any formula even which involves 200 symbols is eligible for pd-chem or simple has any real "simple" meaning?

EDIT: I am primarily interested in this style of image File:((phenylacetyl)amino)acetic_acid.svg DustDFG (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the word "simple" has not been defined. In my view (for what it is worth) any representation of a chemical molecule that can be represented as a two-dimensional diagram using standard rules (probably defined by ISO) is simple. Therefore anything that cannot be represented in this way is not simple. Do others agree with this? Martinvl (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I am bad at chemistry... By saying two dimensional diagram you mean any diagram of this stye? File:((phenylacetyl)amino)acetic_acid.svg

User:DustDFG (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: Yes, that would be standard. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. "Simple", in this context, is in reference to the style of the diagram, not the complexity of the compound being diagrammed. A diagram like File:Ramoplanin A2.svg should still be PD-chem, for example, even though it's not chemically "simple". An elaborately decorated chemical diagram would not be PD-chem, regardless of the compound it depicted. Omphalographer (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

DustDFG (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• You can patent a novel chemical, but the structure should be in the public domain. I have not seen a ruling on solving the three dimensional of complex proteins. --RAN (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload static maps made with MapTiler tiles to Commons?

Hello,

I would like to create a static map (PNG export) using MapTiler Cloud tiles (free tier, API key).

MapTiler states:

• Data: OpenStreetMap (ODbL)

• Styles: CC-BY 4.0

I would upload the resulting static image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and add the usual attribution

"© OpenStreetMap contributors, © MapTiler"

Is this acceptable on Commons?

Thank you! Rajovic (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The copyright is not the problem. But we are not a platform for such large amounts of data and files. GPSLeo (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Why not? We do not have any issue with disk space on the servers, so if it could be educationally useful, it could be on Commons. Yann (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Are photos of signs are eligible for PD-sign?

Are photos of a sign like this File:Sign-1180324,_Heuston_Station,_Dublin,_Ireland.jpg eligible for pd-sign? DustDFG (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: No. There is enough besides the sign (in this case, a rather interesting texture) for the photo to certainly have a copyright of its own. You could presumably create a derivative work showing just the sign, which would be PD-sign. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

DustDFG (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know why that people upload low quality plane image viewed from satellite from Google Maps?

File:Lockheed Jetstar at Oakland Intll.png is obviously copyright violation from Google Maps (you can even see "© 2025 Google" in lower left and upper right of this image) and this image is too low quality that will not be useful. So, why people are still uploading these image? While many much better alternatives exist such as File: N814NA Lockheed Jetstar NASA (9079513730).jpg 6D (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The copyvio image was uploaded by User:Mynameis676767. Per their username and userpage, I think it's likely just somebody who's either very young or doing some copyright trolling. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Does the low-res image in the public domain force the hi-res version into the public domain?

We encounter this from time to time, has there been a definitive consensus? Does the low-res image in the public domain force the hi-res version into the public domain? We see this with advertisements in Billboard magazine for album covers. We have the low-res advertisement, the higher-res album cover, and the highest-res scan of the negative or first generation print. RAN (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we've generally presumed that, though I'm not sure I've seen the coherent legal argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Resolution is not an intellectual or creative distinction. Color, maybe so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think if the color is the natural color it would not be a new creative work. The USCO has awarded a new copyright for some colorized movies because the colors were chosen by the color artist performing the colorization. This may not be the case if the movie was restored to the natural colors based on color film stills, or if the costumes are still extant. --RAN (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any expertise here, but most of the on-Commons precedent I've seen for this is about how this works 'for CC licenses, where we have pretty consistently said that those work this way, because you are providing a license for your copyright, which would be the same copyright as for a higher-resolution version. I believe there have been at least a few cases where we have respected that a licensor is explicit about licensing only a low-resolution version, and do not consider this to also license a higher-resolution version, though I can't readily point and an example.

I believe the situation may be different for material falling into the public domain. If, for example, a low-resolution, half-toned version of a photo was published in the U.S. without notice back in the era when notice was required, I am not at all sure that would place the underlying high-resolution photo into the public domain. Further, I'm almost certain that if a low-resolution reproduction of a copyrighted painting fell into the public domain that way, it would not destroy the copyright of the painting in general. These last two cases seem the most analogous to an album jacket.

But I'd really like to hear on this from some of the people with serious copyright expertise. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

"Further, I'm almost certain that if a low-resolution reproduction of a copyrighted painting fell into the public domain that way, it would not destroy the copyright of the painting in general." if a painting was first published (with the clear consent of the author) as a low-quality scan in an art display magazine or something, and they never bothered to include the notice, I would say that yes, that would make the copyright defective. In practice I don't think that even could be the case because a painting would have been displayed which would count as the original publication, but applying this to paintings is somewhat different than photographs or art meant to be on printed matter from the get go (e.g. album covers), just in how copyright for them was considered.

I would be very surprised if we had ever granted that a difference in resolution can have a difference in copyright, especially if it is to do with licensing because AFAIK CC explicitly says you cannot have license apply to only some resolutions. I would argue the underlying photo falls out of copyright regardless of quality of its first iteration. Even lower quality prints are the same creative work that had the intellectual/creative decisions of the author, and technical quality born of printing processes is not a creative distinction, as much as a copy with a scanline due to printing processes is intellectually different. First publication is first publication. If not, how far does this go? Can a 1200x800 photo be copyrighted while a 1140 x 760 photo is free, when the images are otherwise visually identical, even if the difference was solely born out of technical restriction? If a photo was published in a magazine in poor quality in 1915 but a higher quality negative is discovered in 2025, is any higher quality negative version of this otherwise identical, public domain photo, now a copyright violation because it was "unpublished"? Following this train of logic many high quality old photos pre-1929 are violations, as they they were first 'published' (made available to the public) in poor quality due to the constraints of the time. Is any new higher quality version of any work discovered now a copyright violation?

It would be useful to find American copyright precedent that deals solely with differences in the technical visual quality of the work. There are cases where added color has been copyrighted, but that is a later creative addition as a derivative of the work, not the reverse, so isn't very helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA:

if a painting was first published… as a low-quality scan in an art display magazine or something: quite probably, but, as you note, almost never the relevant case, so I'm not sure why you even bring it up.

AFAIK CC explicitly says…: yes, as DMacks notes below, but completely irrelevant to questions of U.S. law about mandatory copyright notices worked in a past copyright regime. This is not about how CC licenses work.

Can a 1200x800 photo be copyrighted while a 1140 x 760 photo is free: almost certainly not, but also not the sort of case we are presumably talking about.

• But while we are on reductio ad absurdum, consider one in the other direction: painting, record cover, whatever, appears on a wall in the background of a snapshot taken by the artist, so obviously take with their permission. At some point they send the snapshot to half a dozen friends, and of course they don't think to put a copyright notice on that. Clearly the snapshot was immediately PD under the laws of the time, but I really doubt that any copyright of the work of art in the background would have been affected.

Other than your last paragraph, I'm finding it hard to get to the meat of what you are saying because of these edge-case digressions. Jmabel ! talk 06:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You said that if "a low-resolution reproduction of a copyrighted painting fell into the public domain that way, it would not destroy the copyright of the painting in general". Given the word "resolution" I figured photographic reproduction, and I think yes it would.

A private display of a work to friends would not be publication, so that wouldn't be relevant. For a work to be published it must be distributed [2] "to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". If it is an incidental background piece included by accident, that would not be intentionally published with the copyright holder's consent, and also would not count. But advertisements and such are not accidental. Copyright is a mess of edge case digressions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but at least in the CC-licensed arena, CC has addressed this issue in a FAQ: [3]. DMacks (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh. So all CC licenses amount to licensing at all resolutions. (I wish they had made that overt in the language of the license itself, but so it goes.)

Still doesn't answer the public-domain issue, though. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Related, does a cc license from Bundesarchiv prevent us from using a different crop of the same photo, with a tiny additional sliver of a background item that isn't even the point of the photo Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hzr_armistice_1940.png -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: It doesn't prevent us, but it also doesn't allow us. It would let us upload an equivalent crop from the better print, but it can't grant a license for what it doesn't show. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Please check PD-textlogo applicability for some Japanese universities

Hi there, I wonder whether the logo (or seal, or symbol) of the following Japanese universities could be seen as PD-textlogo?

• University of Tokushima: https://www.tokushima-u.ac.jp/about/profile/symbol/
• Shiga University of Medical Science: https://www.shiga-med.ac.jp/introduction/logo
• Saga University: https://www.saga-u.ac.jp/koho/UI-guideline.pdf
• Hirosaki University: https://www.hirosaki-u.ac.jp/wordpress2014/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/HIROSAKI_UV_VImanual20220627.pdf
• Seikei University: https://www.seikei.ac.jp/university/common/img/logo_footer.svg

JULIANISME (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

More:

• Ryutsu Keizai University: https://www.rku.ac.jp/assets/img/logo.svg
• Ferris University: https://www.ferris.ac.jp/images/logo.svg

JULIANISME (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@JULIANISME: I don't think anyone is going to be able to give you a solid answer here. What we've got is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan#Threshold of originality. Beyond that, it's a judgement call. I would say that if you are in doubt, don't upload. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@JULIANISME I agree with Jmabel, there is no definitive way to determine if these are above or below COM:TOO Japan, but I will give my personal opinion here:

• University of Tokushima: Maybe not
• Shiga University of Medical Science: Maybe
• Saga University: No
• Hirosaki University: No
• Seikei University: Likely not
• Ryutsu Keizai University: Maybe not
• Ferris University: Maybe not

If you really wanted to upload these, the best way forward is to just ask for permission from these universities. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

"Ask permission" is a little tricky. Please read at least COM:THIRD#What not to do, and I hope that will inspire you to read the rest of COM:THIRD. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel@Tvpuppy Thanks! I will read these pages again, even though the descriptions about "Threshold of originality" are always not that easy to understand for me... JULIANISME (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone know the copyright status of the video showing the Colosio murder?

This is the video: [4] it is a very important piece of the mexican history, and i want to use the footage on this article: [5] ಠ ಠ 06:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vaquita marina: . Please take a look at COM:YOUTUBE for more details, but there are two things you're going to need to check. The first one is whether the copyright holder of the video (whoever took it) and whoever controls the YouTube channel are the same. If they're not, then you're going to need to figure out who took the original video so that it's copyright status can be checked. If they're the same, then the next thing you're going to need to check to see is what kind of license the video has been release under. If it's release under a Creative Commons YouTube license, then it's OK for Commons; if it's released under a standard YouTube license, then it's not OK for Commons because that license is too restrictive. I don't have a registered YouTube account so I can't check how the video is licensed.

Please understand that all of what I posted so far is just related to whether you can upload the video (or a COM:SCREENSHOT from the video) to Commons. Whether you can use the video or a screenshot it the Spanish Wikipedia article you linked to above depends what Spanish WIkipedia's policies/guidelines regarding image use are. Commons is primarily concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts; the encyclopedic use of the files uploaded to Commons is left up to each of the different Wikipedias to determine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know who recorded the video, that's the problem, the only thing i know it's that the video was published by the FGR. ಠ ಠ 00:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think works published by the Mexican government normally become public domain, do they? - Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what I want to know ಠ ಠ 17:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Virtually everything created in the contemporary world that is imaginably copyrightable is copyrighted. Unless you have some specific reason to think this would not be, it's pointless to request a wild goose chase in hopes of finding some grounds where it would be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

On this link: [6], the article mentions that "La PGR había clasificado el video solicitado por un ciudadano, al argumentar que hacer público su contenido representaba un riesgo.   

Esta persona interpuso un recurso de revisión ante el Inai, pues “el material ha sido objeto de una resolución en materia de acceso a la información”, según el comunicado, solicitud que procedió a favor del ciudadano.", but Also, there is a video on the bottom of the article that was deleted by copyright, which it's strange, considering the thousands of videos uploaded to the web without receiving any copyright claims.

Sorry if my English is bad. ಠ ಠ 07:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Podemos cambiar al español.

Decir que el gobierno no está autorizado a ocultar la información en el video no es lo mismo como decir que el gobierno falta derechos del autor ("copyright"). Ser en el dominio público no solamente significa que el público puede ver/leer/oír. Significa que es "libre de toda exclusividad en su acceso y utilización'.

Y, por favor, discúlpame si mi español tiene problemas similares a tu inglés. Parece que a ambos nos va bastante bien con ambos. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No pasa nada si tu español es malo.

So, which under license i can publish the video? ಠ ಠ 19:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vaquita marina: You, as uploader, would be required to provide evidence that it is either free-licensed or in the public domain. You have provided none, and I cannot find any such evidence myself, so as far as I can see you cannot upload it here.

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico#Government works. It is not clear there whether the 1996 extension of copyright of Mexican government works from 50 years to 100 years was retroactive (I suspect it was, for any works still in copyright in 1996, but I don't know) but either way, this dates from 1994, so it at least has the 50 years protection granted by the law at that time, which would last through 2044. Unless the Mexican government were to issue a license (unlikely), Commons cannot host his video. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking not only about public domain, i'm talkig about all licenses, But anyway, thanks for the article. ಠ ಠ 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I repeat, this article [7] says that: the video was published at the request of a citizen.

The INAI requested to the PGR to publish the video:

[8]

[9]

So, i repeat: which under license i can publish the video?

it definitely seems that the video wasn't published under public domain ([10]). ಠ ಠ 00:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vaquita marina: Again, and this is the last time I will repeat myself: you cannot publish this on Commons unless you can get the Mexican government, as copyright-holder, to issue a free license, and that is very unlikely. No one but the copyright-holder can issue a license. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. ಠ ಠ 19:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Parece que, simplemente, el archivo no puede subirse a Wikimedia Commons. Sin más. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Opinions sought

Do we need to blur the blue mosaic tiles here? Do they present a copyright issue? (United States).

I'd appreciate just an answer rather than someone going and doing this, because I'd like to make my own aesthetic choice about how to blur. Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I was reading the US Copyright Office documents about copyrightablity last night, and ... I don't know. I guess the answer is yes, the irregular blue mosaic tiles were laid down in a pattern by the maker and that would be enough to be copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

My gut instinct was that there's no copyright issue (plain, monochromatic decorative mosaic/glass tiles embedded in concrete [?], compositionally just an arrangement of PD geometric shapes). But then my mind jumps to historical visual artists from the Washington Color School or color field more generally, including Kenneth Noland, Alma Thomas, Ellsworth Kelly, and Morris Louis; their estates' claims on copyright for historical works compositionally similar to (or sometimes even simpler than) this mosaic have never been tested in court, at least not on threshold of originality grounds, as far as I know. (not that those artists' works are in any way some kind of legal precedent, but they raise interesting questions about ToO that parallel well with this mosaic imo) --19h00s (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a ToO issue here, as they seem to be in a random pattern, but it does raise the question of if this counts as "Work for hire" if it was more complex. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: how does "work for hire" even enter the picture? - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Contractors don't normally have copyright agreements in their contract, so if it was above TOO, weather or not it's a work for hire would matter. (doesn't matter here beacuse it's below TOO) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Since the photographer has no connection to anyone with even imaginable intellectual property rights to the mosaic, I still don't see how "work for hire" would enter the picture. You seem to be dealing with a doubly hypothetical case. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

King Charles III coat of arms on UK passports

File:British Passport December 2025.svg appears to be the most recent version of the en:British passport and was uploaded the other day to Commons. The copyright licensing of the file seems incorrect at best since this isn't really the COM:Own work of the uploader, but rather a case of COM:2D copying ({{PD-scan}}); the question then is whether this can be relicensed in way that's OK for Commons. The only really copyright eligible element on the cover seems to the coat of arms (COA), but this particular emblazon of the coat of arms is also not the creation of the uploader but rather the British government or whoever created the passport. The en:blazon of a COA is typically not considered to be eligible for copyright protection since it's nothing really more than a written definition of the COA; an emblazon, however, can be eligible for copyright protection because it's someone's visual representation (i.e., creative interpretation) of a blazon. Unlike in the case of the works created by employees of the US federal government, I'm not sure if works created by members/employees of the British government as part of their official duties are automatically considered to be PD under COM:UK because of en:Crown copyright provisions; so, I'm also not sure if this file can be kept by Commons because it would be considered COM:FAIR use. I'd be interested to here what others might think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue. I actually transformed a photo of the cover by HM Passport Office/PA Media to vector and did some editing. I am not an expert in copyright law, but I believe the new COA artwork should have a comparable status as the previous QEII one. If things get clearer, I’m more than happy to update the licensing status or reupload. Thanks again! Thepekinite (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

foto su commons

salve! il mio nome e giuseppe Martino Di Blasi ho caricato alcuni mie scatti che riguardano momenti della mia carriera scattate dal mio telefonino e già pubblicate sui social, le foto sono libere da copriraght e sono di mia proprieta, sicuramente avrò sbagliato qualcosa nelle diciture e ovviamente con le normative di wiki sono state tolte, ho già inviato email a permession-commons@wikipedia.com spero che li ripristino.mi chiedo adesso: come inserire foto di album di mia proprieta su commons? premetto che foto e master sono stati ceduti a me ne proprietario e sono libero di vendere o diffondere audio e immaggini che mi rappresentano. Ovviamente le foto scattate ai tempi risalgono a una persone deceduta, come potrei inserirli? se commons mi chiede l'autore dello scatto? ho inserito il nome e mi chiede la licenza. come posso fare per evitare le cancellazioni? resto a vostra disposizione Grazie ~2025-38924-68 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

(working mostly via Google Translate) @~2025-38924-68:

1. If you uploaded the pictures, you presumably did so from some account. It would help if you use that account in discussing this, so that an admin can see what pictures you are talking about.
2. You say the pictures are libere da copriraght (which is almost impossible); not only that, but you say sono libere da copriraght e sono di mia proprieta: you are saying "I own the rights that do not exist" (Possiedo diritti che non esistono).
3. Any correspondence that is going through VRT is visible only to the people on the VRT ("Volunter Response Team", Squadra di risposta dei volontari).
4. I wish we had an Italian-language version of COM:THIRD, but we don't. That is the document that explains uploading content where a third party owns the copyright. You might be able to work your way through it with the aid of machine translation, I really don't know.
5. Do also keep in mind that personal pictures are not generally welcome on Commons. Unless you are somehow notable (e.g. there is a Wikipedia article about you, or other significant media coverage), photos about your personal life and career do not belong on this site even if they are OK in terms of copyright. See Commons:Scopo del progetto (in Italian).

Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Unlicensed derivative works of images under a sharealike license

What is the appropriate way of dealing with unlicensed derivative works of images under a sharealike license? Are they automatically assumed to be under the same license? What about wrongly licensed images? Does the original sharealike license make the new one invalid?

Example 1: Unlicensed derivative work of a sharealike licensed character design (Wikipe-tan)

Example 2: Derivative work of a sharealike licensed character design (Wikipe-tan) licensed under CC BY-NC, despite the original being CC BY-SA

Example 3: Derivative work of sharealike licensed character designs (Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan) uploaded to Commons and in public domain despite the original's CC BY-SA license Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

What does Commons have to do with these images? Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

My question was if the images are eligible for Commons. Not going to upload the examples regardless due to project scope, but would still like to know the licensing resolution. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 22:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

First example: An unlicensed derivative work is just that: their use of the underlying work is unlicensed. Since they didn't use its "SA" license, "SA" doesn't apply.

The creator of the original work can sue the creator of the derivative work for copyright violation, but it doesn't make the derivative work somehow automatically licensed.

Second example is a little more complicated, but again it just looks like a copyvio to me. (I don't see the NC license you are referring to, but I'll take you at your word. I don't see any way you can "force" the creator of the derivative work to issue a license, and I don't see any way you can claim a license for their contribution to the work exists when they haven't overtly granted it. If they overtly said somwhere that they were using the CC-BY-SA license (again, I don't see that), then they violated the terms of the license by failing to license in the same manner.

Third example: Clearly not overt about the licensed elements here, those elements cannot be licensed compatibly with the license offered so pretty much like the second, minus any fogginess. @Ruslik0: This one is a Commons matter and unless the licensing situation is remedied retroactively, this should be deleted. But I'm headed out the door right now, so I leave it to someone else to follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Viral licenses are not automatic would apply. HyperAnd (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Changed Italian law

Hi everyone, on 2nd December 2025 it was published a new law which has modified the expiration date of the copyright for "simple photographs" in Italy (art. 47), increasing it from 20 to 70 years after the publication of the photo.
For commons it doesn't change very much: we already delete all photos published after 1976 (1996-20y) since still copyrighted in the US, whereas PD-ItalyGov wasn't affected. But we should nevertheless update Template:PD-Italy and Commons:Italy to reflect the legislative change. Friniate (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this "retroactive", did it revive copyrights? Or is it only for "simple" Italian photographs from 2005 and newer? --Rosenzweig τ 22:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The relevent article of this omnibus law is apparently article 47: Modifica alla legge 22 aprile 1941, n. 633, in materia di diritto esclusivo sulle fotografie 1. All'articolo 92 della legge 22 aprile 1941, n. 633, le parole: «vent'anni» sono sostituite dalle seguenti: «settant'anni». --Rosenzweig τ 22:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And btw, article 92 of the 1941 law says produzione della fotografia, so that should be from creation (not publication) of the photo I think. --Rosenzweig τ 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Articles 73 and 74 law (the closing / final provisions):

(73) Clausola di invarianza finanziaria
1. Ferme restando le disposizioni di cui agli articoli 23 e 35, comma 13, dall'attuazione della presente legge non devono derivare nuovi o maggiori oneri a carico della finanza pubblica. Le amministrazioni competenti provvedono agli adempimenti ivi previsti con le risorse umane, strumentali e finanziarie disponibili a legislazione vigente.

(74) 1. Le disposizioni della presente legge sono applicabili nelle regioni a statuto speciale e nelle province autonome di Trento e di Bolzano compatibilmente con i rispettivi statuti e le relative norme di attuazione.
La presente legge, munita del sigillo dello Stato, sarà inserita nella Raccolta ufficiale degli atti normativi della Repubblica italiana. È fatto obbligo a chiunque spetti di osservarla e di farla osservare come legge dello Stato.
Data a Roma, addì 2 dicembre 2025

I can't see any transitional provision when translating this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig there's no provision about restored copyright, so I don't think so, they would at least need a special provision I think, on it.wiki we're discussing wether it means that post 2004 photos won't enter in PD (which is my guess) or if it's valid only for photos created since December 2025, but here on commons it doesn't matter anyway... You're right about the creation part, my bad. Friniate (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 No no, it literally just changed "20 years" into "70 years", nothing more. Friniate (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Friniate: Why do you think that "here on commons it doesn't matter anyway"? If copyrights were restored, we would have to delete any "simple" Italian photos made after 1955. And as I see it, the law does not say anywhere that the changed duration does not apply to already expired copyrights. Usually such questions are addressed in some transitional clauses/provisions (that's what JWilz was looking for above), but the closing articles of the omnibus law do not address the question at all. Is there some clause in the 1941 law addressing such matters? --Rosenzweig τ 10:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Example here in this 2022 Canadian law, which has a transitional provision titled No revival of copyright: “280 Section 6, subsections 6.‍2(2) and 7(1) and (3) and section 9 of the Copyright Act, as enacted by sections 276 to 279, do not have the effect of reviving the copyright in any work in which the copyright had expired before the day on which sections 276 to 279 come into force.” --Rosenzweig τ 11:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig I was referring to the debate wether this change would apply only to photos after 2025 or to all photos after 2004. I don't see how they could possibly restore copyrights without explicitly writing so.

art. 199 bis says: Le disposizioni della presente legge si applicano anche ai programmi creati prima della sua entrata in vigore, fatti salvi gli eventuali atti conclusi e i diritti acquisiti anteriormente a tale data. trasl. The provisions of this law apply also to the programs created before its entry into force except for the transactions already concluded and the rights acquired before it.

I think that public domain qualifies as an "acquired right". By the way, the italian Constitutional Court has reaffirmed in many instances in other fields that you can't touch the "acquired rights", so I really don't see how they could do that, even less without explicitly mentioning it. Friniate (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Friniate: Per the discussion at it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Arrivederci PD-Italia: scadenza spostata da 20 a 70 anni, I see that apparently you have already involved Wikimedia Italia in some way. Please ask them to explicitly investigate the question which photographs are affected by the changed law (a) created in 1955 and later, b) created in 2005 and later, or c) created on December 18, 2025 and later) and let us know if/when that question is resolved. Thanks :-) --Rosenzweig τ 11:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, In France, a fundamental principle of law is that laws can't be retroactive. That's why expired copyrights are not restored. There is no reason Italian law would differ in that. Yann (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig Yes, I'll do it!

@Yann The same for Italy, this is why I'm almost 100% sure that pre 2005 (or pre 1976 for commons) photos are ok... Friniate (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

In the UK they have that principle too. Still they broke it in their implementation of the 1993 en:Copyright Duration Directive ... So please check to be sure. --Rosenzweig τ 11:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Most of Europe made that change around the time -- that was part of the EU directive, that copyright be restored going forward. It really doesn't break the idea of retroactivity of laws -- none of that made usage while works were public domain illegal; just uses going forward. It does help to have a specific transitional clause, as it's not clear if it only applies to photos taken from now, or existing photos still under the 20 year copyright, or is restoring copyright. However, if they are doing the latter, there would pretty much always be some prescriptions on how that would happen -- existing exploitations being allowed for a period, and things like that. If the law doesn't have anything like that, it's virtually certain there are no copyright restorations. Particularly because these photos have lesser terms than the EU directive, Italy must consider them below the regular threshold of originality, but want to give them some protection (now much longer), but that means they were outside the scope of the EU directive, and that was the only retroactive law I'm aware of in the EU. The question between the first two (existing photos or just new ones) is harder, though. I would probably presume that existing copyrights were extended, but no restorations, barring better information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope in Italy laws with no explicit mention of prior applicability meant the new durations aren't retroactive. In one other country (China), the 1990 copyright law (their very first) was retroactive even if it had no transitional provision, using the copyright term as the basis (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Chinese works before 1990). Teetrition also told me off-wiki (on a social media platform that I won't disclose) that there are legal cases in which works before 1990 were deemed protected by virtue of the durations of the 1990 law, even if there was no transitional clause in that law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

When you first join Berne, you are supposed to retroactively restore at least foreign copyrights to Berne minimums. Some countries don't, and if they aren't called on it, can get away with it. (The U.S. tried and was called on it; the URAA was the result.) Unsure what the situation in China was, but it could have been something like that -- and enforcement was likely lax for a long time too, allowing a long transition. That was also their first copyright law, so protecting existing works (which never had a copyright before) was likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Sorry for any possible misunderstanding in our previous discussion, but there is an explicit retroactivity provision in Chinese copyright law — Article 55. See COM:China#Background, last paragraph. Teetrition (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Italian laws are generally non-retroactive as per art. 11 Preleggi:

Italiano: Le legge non dispone che per l'avvenire: essa non ha effetto retroattivo.

IMO, simple photos taken before 2004 should be safe (but PD-Italy created after 1976 are not PD in the US) Arrow303 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous text from 1955 issue of The Illustrated London News

In 2019, I uploaded a scan of a cover of a 1955 issue of The Illustrated London News. After discussion, it was determined that while the images on the cover were out of copyright, several paragraphs of text may not be. The solution was thus to pixelate the text (which Geraki did excellently) but otherwise retain the image. At the time, Clindberg stated that "If anonymous, the copyright to that text will expire in 2026 (70 years after publication)"—in other words, three and a half weeks from now. I'm posting here to confirm that this is in fact the case. Assuming so, we should be able to restore the original version once the ball drops. Also pinging Ankry, Jameslwoodward, and Elcobbola, who participated in the 2019 discussion. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The text might enter the public domain in the UK in 2026. But I'd expect it would still be protected in the US until the end of 2050 (COM:URAA), and for Wikimedia Commons, media must be free both in their source country and in the US (Commons:Licensing). --Rosenzweig τ 21:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was just the UK side in that discussion. The US copyright of the text would expire in 2051, unless it can somehow be shown to have been simultaneously (within 30 days) also published in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The byline of the magazine contains a defective United States copyright notice. This shows intent to publish in the US. And I'm willing to bet a search will reveal no registration/renewal. Meaning it's public domain RIGHT NOW in the United States. As a work simultaneously published in the US, not only does URAA not apply, arguably Commons can ignore the British copyright as well. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: I'd love that to hold up, but I'm not sure it shows intent to publish in the US (italics mine), just intent to preserve U.S. copyright. Having failed to do that through a defective notice, I think unless we can show they published in the U.S. w are still where we were. - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why a defective US copyright notice would matter; at the time, the US demanded copyright notices for works published anywhere, so any publisher might have been inclined to include one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: exactly my point. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the London Illustrated News was published in New York as well as in London. These ebay listings show the same 18 November 1948 edition published in London (vol 213, issue 5717A) and New York (vol 213, issue 3212A). The location of publication, volume reference, issue reference and date all appear in the footer of the first image in the listings (the red page). US publication was by the "International News Company, New York." This isn't evidence that they continued simultaneous publication into 1955 but they were certainly doing so 7 years prior. The different issue numbers may be useful - could the US version's issue numbers appear in a record of copyrights registered in 1955 (though I am not sure which number it would be at the time)? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

In order to depend on the New York publication, the actual issue in question must be shown to be the one published in New York. There are several (maybe many?) British publications that publish in London and New York (The Economist, for example), but the two editions are different, with different ads and some different editorial material. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the Illustrated London News had a distinct American edition. They were about as old-school as you can get. I didn't know they had also published in NYC, but I can't readily imagine that their market wanted anything other than just what the British got. Not certain, but it would definitely surprise me. (Then again, I'm also surprised they published in NYC.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

White House press photographer usage terms

"This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."

Is there any legal weight behind this or is it just a load of hot air? I am curious which legal acts that would prohibit doing any of these Trade (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: There could be personality rights involved, but such things aren't really a concern of Commons. From a copyright standpoint, I think the photo became {{PD-USGov}} the minute it was published on an official government website. It's possible, I guess, that the photographer might have some separate agreement that allows them to retain partial copyright over their content if they're technically not an employee of the US Federal Government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Torok is the chief official White House photographer. I dont know how "technically not an employee of the US Federal Government" would work Trade (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Also i feel like "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office." falls squarely out of the scope covered by personality rights Trade (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Them saying it doesn't make it law. Governments, too, are at time misinformed about copyright law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know who the photographer is from Adam. I was only trying to point out that if the photographer was someone who wasn't a federal employee but allowed to take the photo and then allowed the White House to publish the photo on one of its social media accounts, then it might be eligble for copyright protection. Since the photographer is the chief official White House photographer, though, any photos they take as part of their official duties are (or at least should be) within the public domain by statue/law regardless of what they might try to claim, right? As for governments being misinformed about copyright law, they also occassionally try to misinform/lie about copyright law when it suits their purposes because they also know most regular people lack the resources to fight them over it. Anyway for fun, I Googled this and the first hit was this which mentions a few cases invloving photos taken by official White House phtographers among other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

COM:WHITEHOUSE. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Richard Poe headshot

I would like to add a headshot to the Richard Poe page. The head shot in question is not only from the official Richard Poe website but on a page set up specifically to download said headshot, i.e., https://richardpoenyc.com//heashot-download/

I would think this should be fine, but it never hurts to ask. DarkWaterEditing (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any statements about copyright or licences. As Richard Poe (Q1663072) appears to be a living individual, the photographs are likely to be relatively recent (created since 1989). They will have obtained automatic copyright protection (probably for life of the photographer plus 70 years). Unless you can find evidence that the photographs were released on a compatible licence or have otherwise been released into the public domain, they can't be uploaded to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Or someone could just ask Poe to release the photo under a free license Trade (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No particular reason to think Poe would own the copyright, but he would presumably know who does. Please see COM:THIRD, especially COM:THIRD#Determining from whom we need a license. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Cocos Islands flag status

• File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Island.png was kept (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Island.png)
• File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.png was deleted
• File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg was deleted (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg)

All three are copies of a 2003 creation. We either delete all three, or keep all three, so we know what to do with them on our wikis. English Wikipedia apparently decided to have its own copy en:File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg, though I'm not sure how vector images fall under "fair use" since their resolution isn't really limited. Ponor (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Info The relevant ToO is Australia, which is low. Abzeronow (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

A better question is, are we as a community really willing to delete a national flag used on hundreds of Wiki pages and templates? Because that seems like the only barrier for deletion Trade (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The first (kept) image is neither {{PD-Australia}} (created in 2003) nor {{PD-USA}} (the file may have been created by a US military person, but that person does not hold any copyrigh). All three copies were at some point used in flag templates (it's the missing images category on hrwiki that got me here), that can't be the reason why we keep them or not. Ponor (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You can make the vector only display at a small size, is usually how it goes on enwiki. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Are age progression photographs considered derivative works?

Consider this scenario: A suspect have been on the run from the authorities for the last ten years. The FBI creates an age progression photo that shows what (they think) the suspect looks like after the ten years have passed since the warrant. Said photo is based on a non-free photo taken by a family member of the suspect ten years ago

Are we allowed to keep the age progression photos on Commons using {{PD-USGov-FBI}}?

Feel free to replace the FBI with any other federal law enforcement Trade (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Need help from WikiCommoners

Hello. I'm requesting the assistance of all WikiCommoners for the deletion discussion I started on Tagalog Wikipedia, at w:tl:Wikipedia:Mga larawan at midyang buburahin/Mga larawang ikinarga ni Dearkuyabimbo (ikalawang serye). The local images in question are images of Miss International candidates from 1960 to 2011 and have no licensing information. Some may either be PD or freely licensed, but help from WikiCommoners is greatly appreciated. Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Indonesia public domain

This file is in the public domain in Indonesia, because it is published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia, according to Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights. Any of the following acts are not considered Copyright infringement: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature; Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made; ... Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of State institutions, heads of ministries/nonministerial government agencies, and/or the heads of regions by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.

But I don't see a freedom to modify the work. What's more, we're explicitly restricted only to reproductions that, in point a, "are in accordance with their original nature", and in point b "take into account the dignity and appropriateness". That's not really public domain, is it? JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

East Haven Trolleys

I am planning to take photos of some of the trolleys in the East Haven Trolley Museum, but are photos of them allowed on Commons, and what about other vehicles? Wobbanight (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Are they actual vehicles or are they "sculptures" / "models"? Vehicles are not protected by copyright, to my knowledge. If there's something written or painted on them, then the text/imagery might be copyrighted, though.

We seem to have a category for the museum and some of its exhibits: Category:Branford Electric Railway Historic District. Nakonana (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Actual vehicles Wobbanight (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Keravnos2.jpg

Chosen licensing (commercial CC) vs. permission (non-commercial). Some discrepancy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 17:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I say "non-commercial" means nothing here. They granted a license that allows commercial use. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)