Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04

Question about copyright

Hello! I'd like to bring my discussion at the English Wikisource for the local users:

Hello! I have this following copyright related question:

In Brazil, in the Law 3071 of 1916, stated the following on Government documents: "Art. 662: Works published by the Federal, State or Municipal Government, other than public acts and official documents, fall into the public domain fifteen years after publication." (Art. 662. As obras publicadas pelo Governo Federal, Estadual ou Municipal, não seno atos públicos e documentos oficiais, caem, quinze anos depois da publicação, no domínio comum. - valid until 1998).

I've found this book, by the Press and Propaganda Department (DIP - see the back-cover) (government office), with speeches by Getúlio Vargas, in Portuguese, English and Spanish (without the translators name). While it is for sure PD in Brazil (both as a government work, anonymous [translations] and life + 70), would it still be PD in the US (as it is without copyright notice, or because if formally became PD in Brazil long before the URAA date)?

And following the question above: a work published in 1962 by the IBGE (government entity), formally PD 15 years after publishing (despise the digitization source attempting to claim restricted and non-commercial use due to the 1998 law, which did not had any explicit retroactive effect [for government works] for neither the 1916 nor the 1973 laws [the 1916 rule for governmental works was kept in the 1973 law]), but the author still below the life +70 years, would still be acceptable for Wiki Commons and Source?

Now, there's this Brazilian Bulletin, published in New York between the 1940s and 70s, by the "Brazilian Government Trade Bureau" (part of the Brazilian Embassy) and without any apparent copyright notice. Would it be PD in the US?

And to finish it: the U.S. Joint Publications Research Service translated some journalistic and political/ideological writings by Luís Carlos Prestes and Carlos Castelo Branco, both writers still decades away of being PD in Brazil. Would it still be acceptable here as PD-USGov, or does it really fails this policy?

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

To close this discussion, this user answered my questions. Thanks everyone! Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Collage and de minimis

Anyone with expertise in copyright issues related to collages and de minimis is welcome to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:NASA Has Pride Across the Universe (SVS14627 - NASA Pride Flag high res).png. Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Aviation Week July 4, 1994.webp

Kindly check if this is really PD/freely licensed or not. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Also: File:0armerhansi (1).webp. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Also: File:I ribelli della Saccisica 2024.webp. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done All tagged. Obviously not own works, so we need either evidence of a free license or public domain (unlikely), or VRT permission. Yann (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Helmet camera footage

• File:A Ukranian soldier correctly guessed a Russian soldier was hiding behind a door.webm

Hello, I’m not sure if this video qualify for {{PD-automated}}. There are DRs for bodycam footages that have been kept before [1] [2], but what is the ruling for helmet cameras? I would say using a helmet cam, the person will have more freedom to express than normal bodycams because they can choose the filming angle, what objects to film and such, but do the argument of “no human input” still apply? Tvpuppy (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, I'm based in safe Germany, so it's easier to think about such matters than in Ukraine. You have a valid point in that a helmet camera offers more freedom for recording scenes in the way the cameraman or -woman wants it, helmet mounts aren't this far away from the freedom of movements offered by hand-held devices (a DSLR you hold on front of your face to look through the seeker is in nearly the same physical position as a helmet camera). So, if e.g. a mountainbiker or diver or parachutist or other sportspeople use a GoPro device to record their activity, then I'd say that they own the copyright by virtue of controlling the recorded setting. But here, we have a first person view of a soldier in action. For this, I tend to follow King of Hearts' opinion in the US Capitol footage DR. There were neither the intent nor the ability to record scenes with human creative input, so there shouldn't be copyrights involved. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, I understand it better now. I will keep that in mind. Thank you for your reply. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe it qualifies. First, PD-automated states, "... because it consists entirely of information produced by an automated system, such as a fixed CCTV or traffic enforcement camera, without human input". The helmet camera is not fixed but rather moves with the helmet; it does not correspond to the given examples. Second, the soldier is providing input: he may hear something that directs his attention toward something. I'm not going to require artistic framing in that situation. Third, I do not see a utilitarian aspect. This is not a security camera looking to identify people at the door. The soldier is trying to capture the drama of the moment. A director could have simulated the scene for a movie. Fourth, the basis behind the PD-automated claim does not have a strong case history. I would much rather see a strong basis such as the camera is worn by a public employee of a jurisdiction that puts the employee's work into the public domain. Glrx (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Tvpuppy, a ping would have been nice here, but I happened upon this, so it works out I suppose.

My own disme is as follows:

• Bodycam footage is apparently PD, at least in that case, as there is no intention to capture a particular scene.
• A helmet-mounted GoPro is not exactly a bodycam, as a bodycam captures the wearer's movement, while a helmet-mounted GoPro captures what the wearer chooses to look at.
  • Here though (and this is where I disagree slightly with Glrx), the soldier in question probably isn't trying to capture a particular scene, the GoPro is instead capturing the movements of the soldier, much like a bodycam. There is no artistic intent or creative input that I can see, though I'm open to a DR.
• I wonder how {{PD-UA-exempt}} plays in?
  • Then again, {{Template:PD-automated}} isn't really well-defined, both on Commons and in terms of CCTV case law in the States.
  • There's this blog post describing how a 'work' is defined. It has lots of cat pictures!

JayCubby (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Jean-Pierre Dorleac.jpg

This image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Pierre_Dorleac.jpg

appears to me to be exactly the same as this image:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/french-costume-designer-jean-pierre-dorleac-wearing-an-open-news-photo/2115108935

I was trying to find out when the photograph was taken so I could add it in a caption in the English Wikipedia article on Jean-Pierre Dorleac. There was no such information on the Wikimedia file page, where the image is credited as the uploader's own work. That seemed questionable, because the image was uploaded in 2016 but the photograph must be at least 40 years old based on Dorleac's age in it. A Google image search led me to the Getty Images page, which gives the totally believable date of 1980.

I have no personal involvement with either image, but I thought I should bring the striking similarity to someone's attention in case it involves a copyright violation.

Thanks. 38.49.72.163 13:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeed. Deleted. Thanks for reporting it. Yann (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:JikjiType.gif

thimb

I came across this because the English Wikipedia claimed it was the actual type used to create Jikji (Jikji Simche) - the earliest known book printed with moveable metal type.

I thought it unlikely that the type would have survived along with the book. The original reference[1] is available at the Internet Archive, and does not refer to the picture at all, merely using it as an illustration (at least on the archive date I was using).

I modified the caption, but I was still uneasy so I dug a little further, this page, which includes an image of a very similar plate. (Note: this image is a reflection of the other, and some of the characters are definitely different. This is probably do to an incorrect reflection to make it readable, but may be due to trying different printing techniques.)

Google translate says: "This work was restored by Mr. Oh Guk-jin in 2001. As the first volume of the metal type edition of “Baekun Hwasang Chorok Buljo Jikji Simche Yojeol” no longer remains, this work is a restored typeface and type plate based on the content of the first volume of the woodblock edition and the font of the second volume of the metal type edition."

I think maybe "recreated" is a better word than "restored". It's also worth noting that volume one might have been woodblock, as "there is an inscription at the last page that the second volume of Jikji [was] printed with movable metal type."[2]

If this plate was (also) created in 2001, then it may well be in copyright.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:52 1 April 2025 (GMT). 16:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems quite farfetched to say this is a 2D work, so we may need a permission for the picture. Yann (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hand traces of photographs, take for instance File:Raspoutine et ses enfants.jpg

There are wider crops of this image available (example), and also this one pencil-drawn trace of the image (the URL in which it was found being here), at a much higher resolution. I feel the trace might be useful, were it not for the potential copyright issue. Is there enough creativity in the hand-trace to push it out of the public domain? JayCubby (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't what could have a copyright here. Yann (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

License laundering and PD-self

What a mess.

My watchlist alerted to changes on File:Galilee to Judea.gif. The changes showed conflicting license claims that the file was both copyrighted and public domain. The file was the subject of an earlier VP/Copyright topic that determined the source file was File:First century Iudaea province.gif uploaded to the en.Wiki by Andrew c under GFDL.

Where did the PD claim from? Looking in the history shows

• addition of {{PD-self}} by Buglover100000

Why did Buglover100000 add that claim? That claim apparently has its origin in a PD-self claim on the source file File:First century Iudaea province.gif:

• addition of {{PD-self}} by Jenhawk777

I do not see why that claim should have been added.

Looking at Jenhawk777's contributions, turns up some edits to File:Antioch Saint Pierre Church Front.JPG, a photograph made in 2003.

• license as PD-US. The file had an existing non-PD license claim.
• change to PD-US-unpublished
• then changed to PD-self
• then removed

Perhaps we should have an edit filter that prevents newbie editors from adding PD templates to files uploaded by others when there is a non-PD license already on the page.

Glrx (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I warned Buglover100000 and Jenhawk777. Yann (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was notified of this and I am a bit alarmed, since I don't remember doing this. I have never uploaded a single image and would have no reason to use PD-self for anything. If I did this, I did so without meaning to! I'm sorry! I don't edit here much. The only time I have ever added a license was when there wasn't one for the US, and what was there seemed to support its addition. I'm glad you caught this, but I am definitely confused! Can you help me understand better what not to do in the future? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

For File:Antioch Saint Pierre Church Front.JPG this is so obviously a modern photo that I can only guess you were trying to indicate the building itself is in the public domain?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Please do not add bogus license(s), and please use the Sandbox for testing. Yann (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to!! I have no idea what happened! I don't understand any of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

hello, that is completely in accurate. what I did was remove the original PD-self tag, since the uploader of that gif was not the creator of the image. the edit history shows this. unless i'm missing or misunderstanding something here? I am, admittedly, new and don't really edit on Commons. I only made this edit after an archived discussion about the source of that file where others found that it had originally been uploaded by someone else. Buglover100000 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

wait, ok, i looked again, i am still confused, but you're right, I guess I did add the pd self? from what I remember, I just brought in the license from the original file this file was a reupload of. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

to be clear, before I made the changes I made, that page falsely claimed that User:JWooldridge was the author and that JWoolridge had released it with a CC 3.0 license, which was totally false - User:Andrew c was the author and was the one who released it with that license. My edit was made in complete good faith, even if I made a mistake. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I realize that my other comments here essentially restate what you said in your original comment. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why you didn't make this change yourself when you helped me find this information in that discussion a month ago, especially since you don't seem to trust "newbies" with editing license information. I saw an inaccurate licensing claim that had been unchallenged for 15 years and my goal was to fix it to make Wikipedia better, and now I'm receiving a vandalism warning for it. You guys are also not being particularly helpful to Jenhawk777 who seems just as lost as I was when I got this notification originally. Forgive me if I find all this a little frustrating. I am definitely going to stick to Wikipedia and avoid Commons going forward. Not going to risk being WP:BOLD here. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not notice the license issue until today, and it took some effort to unwind. You were misled, so your edits were not vandalism. I also doubt that Jenhawk777's edits were vandalism even though they were faulty. My interest is elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to step on anyone. I can see how Buglover100000 was mislead. Instead, I'm wondering about avoiding mistakes such as these in the future. It does not seem right that anyone can add a PD tag to a file that already has a non-PD tag. (I can see sophisticated editors replacing a non-PD tag with something such as {{PD-textlogo}}.) It also seems that only the uploader should add {{PD-self}} because that is nominally the choice of the author/uploader. That may also be true for any CC license. I'm looking for more reliable license tags: if a page has a personal license grant such as {{PD-self}}, then it would be nice to know that the uploader (or a trusted editor) put it there. Glrx (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That's real, and makes sense. It would be nice for there to be a filter to avoid whatever happened to me and Jenhawk777 happening again in the future, I completely agree. Buglover100000 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Me too. Glrx Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping to the worst conclusion first. I appreciate that. I will make sure this doesn't happen again by never editing any media again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:PD-Art (PD-old default)

Hi, BMacZero and I have been able to get this category from around 110,000 to 94,500 in a few days. I think that a concerted effort could get this further down to a more reasonable level. Also more knowledge of language and local laws are needed (see the first 14 files and subcategories). Great way to improve your edit count... ;o) Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile we need to find ways to stop adding files here. Particularly concerning are mass uploads with an incomplete license, e.g. by BotMultichill (File:1873 Beers Map of Part of Flushing, Queens, New York City - Geographicus - Flushing7476-beers-1873.jpg). Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:PD-Art (PD-old default) with "see description" author is a great place to start. These have an author string that's something like "see description" and require human intervention to fill in the author. I have a database of the whole category that I can query and I can use it to make additional helpful categories like that. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Free images on the internet

Can I upload free images from the internet to Wikipedia? Kikikiki.aka (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kikikiki.aka no, technically many Internet images are "not free" for hosting here on Wikimedia Commons. Read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: content that is licensed only for non-commercial or restricted uses, like in the majority of the images on the Internet, are not allowed here. Of course, there are some images that are under free licensing that can be imported here, like a couple of images from Flickr and most images in several US government sites, which are PD by default (exempli gratia, {{PD-USGov}} images).

You can locally upload unfree Internet images on English Wikipedia, though, but you must fully understand w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content house rules there. Fair use images on that Wikimedia website must satisfy all factors under w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy.

Anyway, what website on the Internet are you referring to? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is the image on this page.[3] Kikikiki.aka (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kikikiki.aka: The website states that the images may only used in a way that reflexts a positive image of Fuji City. That makes these images non-free under our definition. Gnom (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I use this image?[4] Kikikiki.aka (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gnom: not only that. Their copyright statement page states their content can only be used in accordance with the Japanese copyright law (personal use and quotation only). They also state (translated), "It is prohibited to use, reproduce, reprint, sell, modify, print or distribute documents and images posted on this website without the permission of Fuji City."

@Kikikiki.aka: uploading on Wikimedia Commons, no. Not only is commercial use prohibited, but also distribution of the images elsewhere. On English Wikipedia, likely no. The majority of the subjects in the images are also available here (like Mount Fuji and its surrounding sceneries). Assuming you contribute to Japanese Wikipedia, I don't know how that Wikimedia site treats fair use images or regulates usages of unfree images. For personal (non-Wikimedia) use, you can. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm you seem to refer to the image on the Japanese stock image site. Claimed usage description (translation): "This 'Free photo material of Mt. Fuji seen from Lake Kawaguchi' can be used by both individuals and corporations. Please use it for creative purposes such as website production, video editing, and printed materials. Commercial use is OK, no credit notation or usage report is required. Processing and tracing are also free. Please select the size from the following and click the download button." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kikikiki.aka while initially OK on surface, there is one red flag. AS per the usage terms of the stock image site, it is not allowed to use the images in "Paid sale of products where the photo from this site is the main component (such as postcards, puzzles, t-shirts, or phone cases with just the photo). Even with minor modifications, this is prohibited." Commons requires content to be licensed even in media like post cards, and this single restriction makes images on that website  Not OK here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not upload it to Wikipedia. Kikikiki.aka (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

if you have not already read COM:L, I recommend you do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not upload it to Wikipedia. Kikikiki.aka (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

WhatsApp screenshot

Hello all,

Does WhatsApp background page is copyrightable. For example:

• File:התכתבות חן בוכריס רפאל חיון 2.jpg
• File:התכתבות חן בוכריס רפאל חיון 1.jpg

-- Geagea (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I would fear so. That would need to be erased. Gnom (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gnom: I'd have said the opposite. Is there some element of that you believe is copyrightable, or are you saying the arrangement is copyrightable, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it could be argued that the background design as a whole is copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it de minimis? The background is not the main subject of the screenshot, is not a purpose of taking it and on the first look I didn't even noticed it. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, the background design takes up about half the image, so we can hardly say it's de minimis, I would say. Gnom (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you are referring to. I literally had not noticed the background design, I thought this was about the icons! Let me see what I can do to suppress that background. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you look at my new version of File:התכתבות חן בוכריס רפאל חיון 2.jpg and see if that is acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I think changing the background with a flat color should solve the problem --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

thank to all. Just want to know if the background page is copyrightable. and from your answer I understand that the answer is yes. I know how to solve it. -- Geagea (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Chilean copyright law: "integrity"

Hello there. I was just revamping a little the Chilean public domain copyright tag in order to make it more clear that authorship must always be acknowledged, despite the work being in the public domain. However, one part of the law seems a little troublesome. Article 11 states that "Las obras del patrimonio cultural común podrán ser utilizadas por cualquiera, siempre que se respete la paternidad y la integridad de la obra" (Public domain works may be used by anyone, as long as the paternity [authorship] and integrity of the work are respected). Previously, in the article 1, it states that copyright comprises patrimonial and moral rights, protecting (among other rights) the integrity of the work.

The concept of "integrity" refers to the moral right of the author to ensure that their work is not modified, distorted, mutilated, or altered in a way that could harm their honor or reputation. This right protects the work’s original essence and the author's vision, even when the work becomes part of the common cultural heritage (public domain). Therefore, even if a work belongs to the common cultural heritage (public domain) (e.g., after the expiration of copyright or the author’s renunciation), it must still respect the authorship and integrity of the original creator. Unlike in some other countries where public domain works can be freely modified (like under U.S. law or CC0 licenses), in Chile, moral rights — especially integrity — remain in force.

The moral rights title, which includes article 14, states that the author (and per articles 15 and 16, its inheritors, as it is perpetual) could eventually oppose any modification, deformation or mutilation of the work "without express and previous consent", meaning these works are never actually in the public domain as it is known and understood in the United States.

As a result, modifying Chilean public domain works could be troublesome, at least within the country. I could not find jurisprudence but it's not like there is much controversy regarding copyright in courts. Bedivere (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: @Racconish: From what I remember, France also has moral rights that never expire. Abzeronow (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

France is not an exception. See Moral rights. — Racconish ^💬 08:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

These are fairly common terms of moral rights -- not particularly special to Chile I don't think. I think any alterations need to be labeled, so a viewer knows they did not come from the named author. In other words moral rights more protects the misrepresentation of a change to an original author -- not sure it comes anywhere near being like being able to prevent a derivative work. The key part is that it should be limited to acts which "could harm their honor or reputation". This is in line with the Berne Convention, article 6bis, paragraph 1: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. I'm not sure that making a derivative work where it's clear that modifications were made by someone else could do that. Basically, this type of limitation exists pretty much in any Berne country. (The U.S. does not have explicit moral rights, though likely claim their general misrepresentation laws cover it enough.) The wording is often conflated with the terminology of derivative works, and has led to far too many deletions, in my opinion. These limitations generally exist no matter what the copyright license says -- they are still "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Images uploaded by LGNSCOMMS

Good day. I'm currently working on a good article review at English Wikipedia for Order of Nova Scotia, and the issue of the images came up. I believe that images of Canadian medals are okay, but in this specific case because these images were prepared by the Lieutenant Governor's office they may be under Crown copyright and they may not have had the authority to release them. The files in question are File:Chancellor's Chain of the Order of Nova Scotia.jpg and File:Order of Nova Scotia Insignia on a bow.jpg, but I imagine that whatever decision made would apply to all of their uploads. I would really appreciate it if someone more familiar with copyright could weigh in on this. MediaKyle (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This is probably going to need VRT resolution, but I'm not very knowledgeable about crown copyright, let alone Canadian crown copyright. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Other participants in this discussion should also consider Commons:Deletion requests/File:NS Platinum Jubilee Medal (back).jpg (another image of a government-issued medal by the same uploader, closed as delete) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:125th Anniversary of Confederation Medal.jpg (another image of a Canadian medal by a different uploader, closed as delete).

I don't think the description of the issue above "because these images were prepared by the Lieutenant Governor's office" is accurate. The issue is not the copyright for the preparation of the images themselves, which appears to have been properly released by the uploader. It is the copyright for the objects depicted in the images, which I would assume (like Canadian coins and stamps) fall under Crown copyright; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada#Currency. David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Medals aren't currency, though. Based on the description of the chain, I would assume both the insignia and the chain were produced by "Pressed Metal Products of British Columbia" and not the Royal Canadian Mint. I was unable to find who created the insignia of the Order of Canada. Maybe this does need VRT resolution, because I feel like a lot of this is based on speculation. MediaKyle (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

From what I can see, at File:Chancellor's_Chain_of_the_Order_of_Nova_Scotia.jpg, it states the medal was made by "Pressed Metal Products of British Columbia". They were a private company, who appeared to have made other medals, insignia and jewelry, notably the Order of Canada (at some point). This company was acquired in 2017 and is now under the control of Rideau Recognition. I believe this is the company that makes all the 'Order Of' medals in the country. The crown copyright would ultimately lie with the Office of LGNS/Crown, as they would have commissioned and designed the medal. Crown copyright extends not just to works created by the government, but ALSO under the control of the government, as per Section 12 of the Copyright Act. This would be in line what was established with the Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. Supreme Court case. Hence, the images are okay as the were freely licensed by the Office themselves. Should still seek out VRT permissions, but deleting the files is a bit extreme IMO. PascalHD (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

question about "victory animation" from old versions of Solitaire (Windows)

Could it be OK to upload a screenshot of the well-known bouncing cards animation from the older versions of Microsoft Solitaire? I mean to crop the screenshot just to show the green background filled with the bouncing cards only (most likely with lower values as their design is quite simple), so no menus, no status bar, etc. I've asked a similar question on English Wikipedia a few days ago but so far nobody answered there Miko101 (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think no- the game, and any images derived from it would be under copyright. The bouncing card is too complex, plus it was an original idea, so it would not fall under any exceptions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, so now I know that I can't make directly a screenshot and upload it here. But how about making a photo of a computer running Solitaire, just like an example of 386 running German-language Windows for Workgroups 3.1 with loaded Program Manager ? Miko101 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Same thing for the purpose of copyright. I'm 95% sure this image also fails copyright, so I nommed it for deletion. Solitaire definitely will, as Windows Solitaire is very distinct looking, therefore way more original/creative than plain icons. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Open source journal question

Are the images contained within an open source journal considered to be under the same license as the journal article itself? The images appear to be otherwise unpublished, given to the authors of the article by a family member of the deceased subject. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The images do not necessarily need to match the same license as the journal- there must be something written somewhere about what the conditions for use are. From what you have written, it might be that the permission was only given to the journal to use it, and not for reproduction of it elsewhere, or perhaps use not allowed for commercial reasons. But needs more info to find that out. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will see if I can find more information about the images. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If it might help, image info is usually underneath the photos, or at the end of the publication/at the end of each individual piece/article in the publication. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Protests on posted signs containing copyrighted images

I'm most often active on enwiki and image copyright questions always seem to confuse me; apologies if this question has an obvious answer. I was recently at the Stonewall National Monument in NYC and took some pictures of postings on signs that the NPS has put up (example of one of these signs here). People have taped up signs, foam lettering, flowers, etc. on some of these signs as a protest of the removal of references to transgender people from the Monument's website. I understand that the images are themselves under copyright and do not fall under FoP in the US, despite being permanently posted. Would the photos I've taken be uploadable under the idea that the photos are of the protests, and that the images printed on the signs are de minimis in the broader context of the postings on the signs? AviationFreak (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

NPS link not working. Says that's temporary, but I'm not placing any bets these days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@AviationFreak: There's no way to judge whether something is de minimis without seeing it. I'd suggest uploading a typical example so we have something to discuss. The worst that happens is that it gets deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Ugh, I pasted twice when putting the link in it seems. Should be fixed now. One of the images is here - is this a likely copyvio? AviationFreak (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That would not come under de minimis, nor would any similar image. Every image is judged individually-de minimis (and everything related to copyright) applies separately, and not in a "broader context". Image is very much a copyvio- I have tagged it for deletion. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Sailor Puck

This user recently uploaded a lot of NFL game programs under CC, among other images, that all appear to by copyvios. Can someone with more experience take a look: Special:ListFiles/Sailor Puck. Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

ObsLogo

Template {{ObsLogo}} is a new license template created by User:Adren~frwiki. To me this template does not seem to meet the requirements of COM:LIC, so I filed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ObsLogo. Please participate in the discussion - there. Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

en:2001 California's 32nd congressional district special election

In this article, election returns from the website Our Campaigns have been used. I would assume this means that the material is freely licensed.

However, in the article there is a photo of the winner, Diane Watson, but none of her main opponent, Noel Irwin Hentschel. There is a photo of Ms. Hentschel on the same Our Campaigns page as the election results. Does Wikipedia's use of the election results on that page mean that the photo also is freely licensed? It seems odd not to have photos of both major candidates. Rontrigger (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Election returns are not creative, and thus are not copyrighted. Photographs are creative works and thus are copyrighted. If Hentschel is notable enough to be in scope and if there is a explicitly freely licensed photograph available of her, then one could be added. Abzeronow (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rontrigger, there are photos of her available in Commons, see Category:Noel Irwin Hentschel. Although the photos are not from 2001, it might still be useful to add a picture of her. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a theatrical picture, though. Her photo in Our Campaigns is professionally done.

I have tried to sign in to Our Campaigns; they claimed to have E-mailed me a temporary password but I didn't receive it. In any case, the site is notoriously difficult to navigate and it's unlikely I'd be able to contact someone who can tell me if Hentschel's photo is freely licensed. Rontrigger (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Movie trailer (Bedtime For Bonzo)

Hello, recently user @Mellydoll replaced {{PD-US-no notice}} on File:Bedtime For Bonzo trailer.webm with "While it is fine to use an image from this film for educational and other Fair Use purposes, his work is not in the public domain. Please see Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series. Parts 12-13: Motion Pictures and Filmstrips Jan-Dec 1951: Vol 5 No 1-2, page 3." It does definitely seem that there was a copyright registration and renewal, but is it for the film only or cover the trailer?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The trailer has no visible copyright notice. Bedivere (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Regional libraries and museums

I'm very active in editing pages that have to do with Nevada, specifically southern Nevada (which includes Las Vegas). However, there are a distinct lack of public domain imagery that is not from the War Office Administration specifically during WWII. However, the UNLV Library has an extensive digitized collection of historic photos in similarly high resolution to the LOC. However, most of it says "copyright not evaluated." Much of what the collection has was donated to do them by prominent families who donated their family photos. Almost none of the photographs have attribution other than that it comes from a collection, and there is no information about whether or not has been published before. In terms of the Hirtle Chart? What do I do?? Any help would be appreciated. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, a good start would be to know the year in which the photo was taken. Gnom (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

These can be rather difficult, due to ambiguities in older U.S. copyright law. The date a photo was taken might matter. The date they were donated to the library, most likely does matter, as do the terms of that donation. Basically, for the U.S. before 1978, the length of copyright depended greatly on the date of publication, not creation. Most works were published soon after creation, but family photos probably were not. There are further ambiguities on what constitutes publication before 1978 -- was the donation itself effectively publication, meaning copyright notices had to be present if that donation happened before 1978, or does the library itself claim continued copyright ownership, and only publication when they made them available online? The most common old definition was when actual copies were distributed beyond a limited set of people, or beyond a limited use, or when there were rights to distribute further -- but that could be subtly different between judicial circuits. If the donation happened 1978 or later, the terms of the donation would have to explicitly assign copyright or the family still owns it, and the copyright term would be at least 70pma if the photographer is known.

If publication was earlier than 1989, the copyright notice question could apply, but not after that. So unfortunately, everything really depends on identifying a date of publication, then checking the Hirtle chart from there. But that is not always easy, and if the Library will try to claim rights in order to sell reproductions, even if nebulous, that can be an additional complication, though from their terms they seem to be adhering to copyright law -- but putting the onus on the end user to guess at its status, as they pretty much state they are claiming fair use of any still-copyrighted materials that they do not own the copyright to.

If photos were taken more than 120 years ago and no author is identified, you could use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Other than that, I'm not sure we can assume publication at any time before donation to the library. From a practical perspective, it's highly highly unlikely that any materials donated before 1964 got renewed, so if we can assume at least that as a publication date, those may be OK. From 1964 through 1988, we could maybe claim "no notice", but that is getting dodgier. If publication only happened when these were digitized, then not sure we can claim any of that. From 1989 through 2002, there is an additional complication that if that counts as the publication date, then the works will not expire before 2048 no matter what, if they were created before 1978. Anything donated since 2003 is almost certainly still under copyright, unless taken more than 120 years ago, or the author died more than 70 years ago. If they have marked something "public domain", I'd say it's OK, since they seem to be pretty careful about copyright. But anything marked "not evaluated" you'd have to take into account the above, unfortunately. The most difficult is determining a date of publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the photographer. I assume many photos in family albums are taken by their friends, who weren't among the donators. For those photos, any publication would not have been lawful, would it? I assume a fair use publication would not invalidate the authors' copyrights. –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of poster board in photo

This photo by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) incorporates a poster board which most likely has its own copyright. However, I imagine that the NRC got a media release from the student or their parent/guardian allowing them to make derivative works, which could have resulted in the poster's contents being sublicensed under CC BY 2.0. Otherwise, the photo may have to be marked as {{De minimis}}. Qzekrom (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

De minimis will be fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thai Book from 1970

Hello, this Thai book about Krabi–krabong was published on the cremation of the author on 21 January 1970. In Thailand copyright is life of the author + 50 years. So it has been 55 years, it should be okay with PD-Thailand. Artanisen (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be in the public domain in Thailand, but then again, for uploading here it should also comply with US public domain rules. I don't think this one is expired yet in the US. Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not have to comply with the US too though. There are many images with PD-Thailand on Wiki Commons. The photo on the cover is from circa 1940. - Artanisen (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Franz Kafka and Klaus Wagenbach

Since 1951 Klaus Wagenbach collected photographs of Franz Kafka and everything that involves Kafka according to the website of the archive.
In Germany in 1983 Klaus Wagenbach published Franz Kafka: Bilder aus seinem Leben and in 1984 it was published in the United States as Franz Kafka: pictures of a life. It is a book with many photographs of Franz Kafka and his life, with many of these photographs being part of Klaus Wagenbach's collection. In the book there is no credit to the people who took the photographs, only to the archives that provided the images. (see credits page)
Assuming Klaus Wagenbach hasn't contacted the photographers to talk about copyright (which is likely, considering there's hundreds of images), is there any way he could have the rights (in Germany or anywhere else) to publish these photographs because he owned the physical photographs? Kafkafan55 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kafkafan55: Copyright generally doesn't transfer with the physical ownership of photographs, copyright transfer is a separate matter. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: another wrinkle with German copyright is that for pre-1995 works, if the author of a work was ever known, the work cannot be considered anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Would German copyright law apply here? Kafka was Austrian-Czech. And all photos were taken in 1924 at the latest. Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The original photographs if made public before 1924 would probably fall under Austrian or Czech copyright depending on where the photographs were first made public. Kafkafan essentially asked a question about German copyright though since Wagenbach had published the book in Germany in 1983. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused about something else. Commons:Publication basically says that publication is "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author". So, for example, if a photograph was taken before 1925 by a family member of Kafka and kept private in the family's collection, is that considered "not published"? If it was only made available to the public in Klaus Wagenbach's Franz Kafka: Bilder aus seinem Leben, is the publication date 1983? But what if Klaus Wagenbach did not ask for consent to the photographer (since there is no credit to any photographer)? Kafkafan55 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

1983/84 was before the 1993 EU copyright directive, before the US joined the Berne Convention and also before the US passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). A lot of those pre-1925 photographs might have been in the public domain in those years in both Germany (copyright had expired – because of shorter term durations for photographs – and wasn't revived until the mid-1990s) as well as the US (the URAA which restored the US copyrights did not exist yet). --Rosenzweig τ 18:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Tvh_komplett_ohne_rand-tshirt_weiss.png

Bringen die modifizierten Buchstaben (T und V) das ansonsten simple Vereinslogo über die Schöpfungshöhe? Oder reicht das noch nicht? Meine persönliche Meinung ist: Keine Schöpfungshöhe. Aber liege ich damit richtig? GerritR (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

M. E. keine Schöpfungshöhe in Deutschland und auch below the threshold of originality in den USA (COM:TOO USA). --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Image of book cover

Hello everyone!! I need some assistance and orientation. Earlier today, I was expanding the article about Os Subterrâneos da Liberdade, a book trilogy written by the Brazilian writer Jorge Amado, in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has a counterpart in the English site, at The Bowels of Liberty. In the English article, an image of the cover of the first volume of the trilogy is feature, and employed under fair use (thus, it has been uploaded at the English website). I would like to find out if I can use the same image (it is a cover in Brazilian Portuguese) in the Portuguese version, and, if so, under what license and tag. The image I'm referring to can be found here. Could you please advise me? I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance. StoryCraftsman (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The term for anonymous works in Brazil is "publish + 70 years" which seems to have passed this year. So it should be good as long as the artist isn't known. I assume the proper template would be "PD-Brazil-media." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there some reason to believe the cover was published anonymously? Often the cover images of books are attributed together with the copyright information for the rest of the book (often on the back of the title page). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@LPfi: "often" in that era in Brazil? - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

No idea. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Works by Odisha Govt

Hello everyone. This concerns Template:GoO-donation under COM:TAG India. This template was used for works by govt of Odisha which are allowed here. In the list of accounts we have Naveen Patnaik's accounts. He was Chief Minister then but isn't now. So shall we remove his personal accounts and add new CM's account in place. Bcoz since he no longer is part of govt, his uploads can't be considered as Odisha Govt works. Please take care of this situation. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

they should be fine up to the point they left office, so I guess clarifying that would do. Bedivere (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

So @Bedivere this needs to be done without delay. Clarification would definitely do it. And also that no more uploads after the day they left office can be considered under this. Also, the second question is, should we add the social media accounts of the new CM? I would request you or someone good at this to do so. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:MCS 1Line col-pos-claim rgb.png

I think that files license is wrong. The source is a website that has "© Copyright" at the bottom. Unless there was a VRT ticket to for it, I don't see where the CC BY 4.0 comes from, since there's no indication that the uploader has a connection with the copyright owner. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This should probably have been taken to Commons:Deletion requests. I think the file is fine due to mostly being plain text- files below the Commons:Threshold of originality cannot be copyrighted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

So the license should be something like {{PD-textlogo}}? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think so, yeah- it was the uploader's only contribution, so they probably gave up and chose cc4.0 by default. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

'Publication without restrictions'

Hi, I'm looking at images on the international Red Cross archive here https://avarchives.icrc.org/ some of them say 'copyright ICRC' but also are labelled 'publication without restriction' does anyone know if that means I could add them to commons? DrawingDays (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

According to "What does "publication restrictions" mean?" on their website "Publication without restrictions: The documents are public, the ICRC holds the copyright and you may download and share the content, as long as you respect the general terms of use." Unfortunately those terms do not allow commercial use which is required by Commons:Licensing  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am updating the spanish version of "Visual Effects" page

Hello everyone,

I am Alexis Rivera, a computer graphics generalist and 3D animator from Chile. I have been watching some videos where spanish speakers talk about special effects, saying they are the same as visual effects, but they are mistaken. So I want to upload an image of Robert Patrick as the T-1000 in its metallic form, but I don't know if this image can be uploaded to Wikipedia. I need your feedback on this, I would appreciate it.

Best regards, Alexis Lazurita (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It can't be used- the movie is still under copyright, and so is any image taken from the movie. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, just saw it also says if it can be used on wikipedia- non-free images are allowed to be stored and used locally on Wikipedia, but not Commons, if they come under COM:Fair use. I don't know if Spanish Wikipedia (seeing as you are from Chile) allows it (it currently doesn't, so probably not), but the English Wikipedia article w:en:T-1000 does use the image of the T-1000 metallic form. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Found the page for Fair use on es.wiki, and they don't allow fair use images w:es:WP:FU. However the spanish version of T-1000 w:es:T-1000 does show a visual effect for the metallic look. File is at File:London Film Museum - Terminator 2 Judgment Day (5754890313).jpg DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Restaurar el logo del Movimiento Al Socialismo (Venezuela)

Buenas por favor agrega la Categoría:Undeleted in 2031 a este logo (File:MAS.svg) removido por Yann ,este logo estará al Dominio Público en Venezuela (60 años según {{PD-Venezuela}}) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not 2031 yet, Commons doesn't need to do this pre-emptively. Ask in 2031 perhaps? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

[5]. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for not checking that it existed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In fact it should be undeleted 2032, as the logo dates (supposedly) from 1971 (the party foundation). I say supposedly because we are only guessing the logo dates from 1971. Bedivere (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Porque 2032 ,era 1971+60=2031 (por calculadora). AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|AbchyZa22} +1 porque cambia al fin del año. Voy a cambiar a Category:Undelete in 2032. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22 can you provide definite proof this logo dates from 1971? Puedes entregar pruebas de que este logo data de 1971? Basta un folleto, lo que sea. Bedivere (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Tienes razón el partido fundó en 1971 (54 años) según Wikipedia en español ,pero la primera aparición (publicación) fue en 1973 abajo en el medio aparece el símbolo del puño del MAS color rojo. 2 años después de la fundación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel we'd have to undelete this one in 2034 actually Bedivere (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: feel free to change accordingly, I'm sure you know how to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

hehehe, for sure 😃 Bedivere (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Was the United States the only country that had copyright formalities?

A lot of older American works are in public domain because the author did not observe certain formalities, such as including a copyright notice or renewing a copyright before it expired. However, I couldn't find much information about formalities in other countries. For example, Commons doesn't seem to have an equivalent of templates like {{PD-US-not renewed}} for countries besides the United States. Wikipedia also treats old foreign works as non-free except those that are unambiguously in public domain due to age. en:Copyright renewal redirects to en:Copyright renewal in the United States, and en:Copyright notice also mainly covers U.S. law.

I do know the 138-year-old Berne Convention did away with most formalities, but there are still some countries that only joined the Berne Convention in recent decades. So I'm curious: were copyright formalities unique to the United States? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

No. The phrase All rights reserved came about because the Buenos Aires Convention required a reservation of rights -- that was equivalent to the U.S. copyright notice. Not all Buenos Aires Convention countries were members of Berne (I think Nicaragua only joined Berne in 2000). Mexico had a registration requirement until the late 1940s or early 1950s. I'm sure there were some others. Berne eliminated formalities in 1908, I think. The U.S. probably had the most formalized though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I see. Do you think it would be worth the effort to research copyright formalities in other countries? For example, would a {{PD-Mexico-not registered}} be useful to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Mexico's old registrations are something we can research very easily. {{PD-Mexico}} has the shorter terms they used to have (and have not had any retroactive laws to change that); that is often enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe the Philippines situation was similar to the U.S. (they were a U.S. colony for about 4 decades), but someone else would probably know more than I do about that. Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel yes, you're right. Until 1972 (when Marcos Sr. enacted Presidential Decree 49 which finally applied the Berne treaty here), the Philippines was adhering to the American-era Act 3134 of 1924, which was heavily inspired by the US law of 1909. See also the Memorandum Circular No. 021-2023, released by our copyright office in 2023 to finally clarify the public domain rules here. See COM:PHILIPPINES#General rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Some old copyright laws of the UK from the 19th century and earlier, like the en:Copyright Act 1842, required that you register your work to be able to sue others for infringement. But that was abolished a long time ago. --Rosenzweig τ 13:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Charles A. Willard.jpg

I need help in proper tagging of this image. I doubt that it is a PD-PhilippinesGov work. Just because it appeared in the website of the Philippine Supreme Court does not mean it is automatically a PD work as a "PH public document" work. I suspect its origin is in the US, proper US tag is required for this. I need help from other editors in proper tagging of this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

It is strange that he is called associate justice. Ruslik (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: "associate" as against "chief". - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Is a vectorized recreation of """game""" box art that simply only contains just text allowed?

Tux, linux mascot

Hi. I am working on a vectorized recreation of the box art depicted in this photograph of the Linux for PlayStation 2 cover hosted on enwiki. I am curious about whether a de minimis copyright exemption might apply in this case, given that the image as a whole basically comprises of nothing short of just text and very simple geometric shapes?

My one concern about it is the presence of Tux (right) in the bottom-right corner of the box art, the version of which is triple-licensed under the public domain under both CC0 (for Garret LeSage's version hosted on enwiki, which I am using in the recreation) and an attribution requirement for Larry Ewing, the GIMP project and Simon Budig, who are responsible for creating the penguin mascot.

At any rate, would it be technically acceptable for such a recreation to be hosted on Commons? Pivotman319 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I believe that either the original box art or a recreation would be acceptable. The Linux logo is available under a free license, the PlayStation logo in the upper right is considered under the threshold of originality, and the remaining content on the box is plain text well under the threshold of originality. Combining these elements does not result in a new copyrightable work. Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The box art is not copyrightable. I'd suggest importing the English Wikipedia image over here, by changing the license accordingly. Bedivere (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get to exporting this tomorrow and seeing fit with a high-rez vectorized copy, then. Thanks, you two. Pivotman319 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Isabel Medina Peralta in 2024.png

hello, i know there are a lot of images from youtube that need to be verified, and i don't know if it's considered appropriate to take a step to request verification of a file, but i recently uploaded an image from a creative commons video posted on youtube that depicts Isabel Medina Peralta, a neo-nazi activist. given that the video is akin to neo-Nazi propaganda, there's a very good chance it will end up striked. so if it's possible, i'd like to request verification of this image, Isabel Medina Peralta in 2024.png, due to its precarious nature. GloBoy93 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@GloBoy93 confirmada la imagen, gracias. Bedivere (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Michael Jackson press photos

Due to the nature of the person and the current discussion at Talk:Michael Jackson, I figured I would invite others to share their opinions on the copyright status and discuss at the respective deletion requests of the following files which were uploaded from Getty Images:
File:Michael Selling Pepsi.jpg & File:Michael Selling Pepsi (2).jpg PascalHD (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The PD rationale is that the photos were published without copyright notice in 1978–1989, but the source is Getty. Absolutiva, how did you come to the conclusion that there was an authorised publication without notice at latest in 1989? Does somebody else have any clue why that would be likely? –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

There are no copyright registrations without copyright notice in 1978–1989, most photographs are public domain in the United States by these unknown authors. It's from the collection of Michael Ochs Archives, not the photographer. Absolutiva (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Where is the full copy actually distributed so that we can see there was no notice on the front or back? Registration was not required, just that there was a notice on copies actually distributed (though in that time frame, a registration is an important step to recovering the copyright if notice was forgotten). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If the pictures were commissioned by Pepsi, they would own the copyright. Quite a likely situation is this case. Yann (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That would depend on the contracts involved. In any event, a copyright notice would tell us the copyright owner, and lack of notice would mean the copyright owner would not matter. Thought we would still need to search for a registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Cornwall Council Open Government License

Hi! I recently added some local councillor portraits (can be found at Category:Portrait photographs of members of Cornwall Council) with a license template I haven't used before and I just wanted to check on a few things before I spend too much time uploading any more.

Template:Cornwall Council links to a page on the council's website which has the phrasing that "Information is generally provided under the Open Government License" but that "Where any exceptions apply to this, we will let you know." - would this be enough to assume that these types of portraits are freely licensed? There are also some portraits which look like they have been taken by councillors themselves, rather than as official portraits - would these also be covered? Thanks in advance! Gazamp (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That suggests the images are licensed under the OPL unless stated otherwise. If these aren't explicitly stated as having another license, I'd guess they are safe. Bedivere (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be helpful to also include a link to the Cornwall Council Publication Scheme document [6], which listed out which information are published under OPL, since it isn’t obvious just from the permit page alone. On a side note, maybe a link to the document should be included in the template instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that's really useful - thanks both! I'll amend the template as suggested to link directly to the document. Gazamp (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Tryst with Destiny.ogg

"Tryst with Destiny" was an English-language speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, to the Indian Constituent Assembly in the Parliament House, on the eve of India's Independence, towards midnight on 14 August 1947.

I have uploaded the file "Tryst with Destiny.ogg"
Please evaluate whether this file has the right to be on Wikimedia Commons with all subsequent rights.

To be honest: I wrote an article in the Russian Wikipedia about this speech and really want this file—featuring this great address—to appear in all Wikipedias and other projects. However, I know there may be legal complications, and I want to be sure that using this file does not violate Indian law.

ps: I don’t speak or write in English. I use DeepSeek for translation. Я говорю, пишу, читаю и тд на русскомя зыке. VladimirPF (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a DR right now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tryst with Destiny.ogg. The file is certainly public domain in India (Nehru has been dead over 60 years, died in 1964). The U.S. status would be a complicated interaction of URAA and the U.S. laws about sound recordings, needs someone more expert than I am. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg

Sure, German law allows FOP application on graffiti, like this one (File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg) and other two-dimensional artworks seen in public. Nonetheless, it's a derivative of an iconic photo labelled non-free (w:File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg), isn't it? Should COM:DW apply? George Ho (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The angle is another, so most details cannot be derivative. Does anything resemble the original photo more than if the graffiti author had taken their own photo at the beach? –LPfi (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The TO said something about an "iconic photo", but it was actually my first time seeing the specific angle of said still. Nevertheless, I recall that several news outlets had photos that are strikingly similar to the graffiti (approx. the same view), using Google, you can find e.g. https://www.collettivoclan.it/la-fotocosa-del-giorno-la-morte-di-alan-kurdi/ . So, I tend to think that our German FOP won't do here, as the graffiti is too close to an assumed protected source. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

If the author has used several photos, without copying details from any one of them, it isn't a derived work (in my understanding). Of course, I cannot know whether it is an exact copy of one of them, possibly one that isn't online – but what are the copyrightable elements? What is here that another author couldn't have done in the same way (personal expression of the photographer)? Angle, lighting, composition? Much of that would be different in the graffiti anyway, and much could have been chosen the same by chance. –LPfi (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A photographer doesn't get a right over the entire scene -- just their very specific photograph of it, including the framing and angle. You would have to be able to identify the specific photograph it was derivative of. Two photographers standing next to each other taking very similar photographs are not derivative of each other, so you would have to be able to identify a specific photograph, and be able to also identify that it's not the same as another similar photograph, to be derivative I think. It's possible but the copyright in a snapshot photograph is really just on the specific framing (likely not replicated here) and the angle. If the photographer sets up the scene, i.e. poses people or items, then it's different. But not snapshots. Making a painting of a scene using photographs as a guide is fine and not derivative, provided they don't copy the details very closely. Finding several similar photos but not being able identify the exact one is more an indication that it's OK, I think. While possible, I think the exact photo would need to be identified for a chance of this being derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: please take a look at these media: https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/av/video-der-vater-von-dem-jungen-am-strand-100.html (singled out photo: https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/wdrforyou/wdrforyou-der-vater-von-dem-jungen-am-strand-100~_v-HDready.jpg), https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Picture-of-Alan-Kurdi-used-in-the-experiments-Note-Picture-by-Niluefer-Demir_fig2_328521095; several other image copies can be found per Google. When comparing it to File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg, it's not only the viewing angle, I think also that the wavelet pattern around the head is quite a unique characteristic (and the foam blotches plus the pant wrinkles too, which are visible on both instances in the same locations), so that we could easily conclude that the graffitto is a copy of this photograph. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Closer, but I don't think it's the same. The foam blotches in front are different, and there appears to be water up and behind the feet in the graffiti, while there's a dry patch in that photo. There are likely many similar photos; those photos are not derivative of each other. It may be there is one in particular that does come closer, but for something like this I'd say it really needs to be a slavish copy of a particular photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"[...]likely many similar photos" is probably disproven by w:Nilüfer Demir#Photo of Alan Kurdi seen from the side and https://time.com/4124895/top-100-photos-of-2015/ plus https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/top-100-photos-2015-alan-kurdi.jpg?quality=75&w=3000 (deeplink). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Then the graffiti artist probably changed enough details to make it not derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Without any of the photos, and despite the foam bloatches, how else would the graffiti artist accurately depict the image of that dead boy lying sideways on the ground? How else would that artist depict the red T-shirt and blue denim shorts? George Ho (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The graffiti artist can use photographs to get an idea of what the scene looked like, and depict that in their own way. That does not cause it to be a derivative work by itself. The question is if they are copying expression -- for a snapshot photograph, that is more the angle and framing, and possibly precise timing. The artist did not copy the framing or the precise timing. The angle is similar, but that is not necessarily enough to make a derivative work. A photographer standing nearby making a similar photograph would not be a derivative work; you'd have to give similar latitude to another artist. The details of the particular photograph do not seem copied to me; the angle of the body is indeed similar but I'm not sure the photographer gets an undisputed copyright on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You baffled me there, Carl: your sentence seems to be totally contrary to the content of COM:DW. Specifically, the explanation of what constitutes a derivative work there does not present itself for saying that changed details make something not derivative. The explanations further down corroborate this, with examples of drawings of Albus Dumbledore and Pikachu given as negative examples. See also Commons:Derivative works#Casebook, and in COM:FAN, it is clearly stated that Commons:Fan art#Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement. I do not understand your opinion of why only a slavish copy can be seen as derivative. Can you elaborate? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It comes down to what constitutes actual copyrightable expression in a photograph. It's not like a painting -- if the original was a painting, where the scene was completely made up by the artist, a similar graffiti like this is an obvious derivative work, and some details changed would not change that. It's just that the photographer does not get the sole right to depict the scene -- a photographer standing nearby making their own photograph would be an independent copyright. What makes that second photograph independent but a graffiti, which differs by probably about the same amount, derivative? You would have to slavishly reproduce the photograph. I'm just not sure the general angle on the body is enough for that. You can certainly make derivative works of a particular photograph -- the Hope poster for Obama was one. But the copyrightable expression in a snapshot photograph is not alway the obvious thing of visual similarity. For another example, I do not believe the US Marine memorial sculpture of the Iwo Jima flag-raising is derivative of the famous photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the likelyhood that w:Nilüfer Demir was the sole photographer present is high. All media outlets trace their imagery about Alan Kurdi's death back to her, after all, her wiki article says that she took a photo series. If anybody else would have happened to make images, this person would most likely have stepped into the public by now, at least to participate in the fame surrounding the even (not necessarily out of a morbid or greed-borne motivation, but simply to tell a story too). Furthermore, I doubt that either shipwrecked refugees or rescuers would whip out their smartphones to snap pictures, they would be preoccupied with other things. I'm not aware of such a second photographer, are you? On the other hand, let us compare the details again between https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/top-100-photos-2015-alan-kurdi.jpg?quality=75&w=3000 and File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg:

• at the head: the small wave breaks on the forehead of the child. A noticeable triangular shadow is present on both sides, the silhouette of it and the wave is really similar.
  • Waves breaking are AFAIK physically basically chaotic phenomena, so each instance of them is unique.
• along the wrist, there are foam blotches arranged in a line on both images. Similar foam patterns are also discernible along the shin and chin.
  • Foam and waves are phenomena that persists for a few seconds maximum (waves) and at most, some minutes (foam). Hence, a hypothetical second photo used as template for the graffito would have had to be taken at nearly the same moment as the Demir image.
• The wrinkles on the pant, the decorations of the shoes and the skin crease of the groin are really similar in both images, again.
• by using these named reference points (forehead wave, foam blotches, cloth wrinkles) and also the angle of the shoe soles, the vantage point of the Demir photo is strikingly similar to the viewing angle of the graffito.
  • A hypothetical second photographer would have had to stand more or less shoulder to shoulder with Nilüfer Demir. This is unlikely by the described circumstances of the shot.

As conclusion: The graffito is by all appearances (COM:PRP) an unlicensed copy of the well-known photograph by Nilüfer Demir and would have to be deleted. Or can somebody refute this deduction? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if they were the only photographer present or not. That does not expand nor contract the scope of their copyright in a photograph. It lessens the possibilities there are other photos out there to be derivative of, for sure, but the question of a derivative work is mainly by looking at the original and the graffiti, and determining if there was copyrightable expression copied.

Most likely, yes the artist used that photo for reference. The question though was specific expression copied. An artist can imagine a similar but different scene, and that would not be within the scope of the original copyright. Yes, there are some similar patterns. The photographer does not get a copyright over whatever particular patterns happened to be there -- that was done by nature. Yes, there is a wave at the head -- it's coming off at a different angle in the graffiti. The wrinkles in the pants likewise are not part of the photographer's copyright. They would be the same for anyone photographing the scene.

In the end, the artist changed many small details. It does not feel to me like a slavish copy of the photograph. Certainly the framing is different. The angle is very similar, certainly. If you think that is enough, that is your opinion -- there are no bright lines here. But the Copyright Office frequently talks about a "thin copyright" where something is on the borderline of being copyrightable -- where only virtually identical copying is prevented, with larger changes meaning it's a different work. They mention this when granting copyright to a logo[7], which cites the court case Satava v. Lowry (summary here). If we would grant a different copyright to a photographer standing nearby (even if there wasn't actually one), we should be granting a separate copyright to an artist who imagines/depicts the same scene, with a similar level of changes. To me, usually the copying is evident in all the small details, and in this case while there are similarities, most of those small details have been changed some. The artist could certainly have changed more, and I can respect differing opinions, but that is mine. I think it's a very borderline thing to file a DR over, particular as it's a photo of a graffiti in place, and not a direct upload from an artist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely with you that the graffiti is not a copyright infringement. But even if the graffiti were a copyright infringement, is a photograph of a copyright infringement automatically a copyright infringement as well? Is it the case that it's virtually impossible to document a copyright infringement because such documentation would itself be a copyright infringement? --Plenz (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

w:tl:Kategorya:NASA images

There are 16 images locally hosted on Tagalog Wikipedia, and all are claimed to be under PD-NASA licensing. Kindly review them all and see if they are eligible to be imported here or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

These images are already available on Commons under the same name. For example, File:SE1994Nov03T.png. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Tagged all of the 16 local files with w:tl:Padron:NowCommons template. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 16:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Public domain tag for item from HathiTrust

There's an image I'd like to upload that I extracted from a public domain document in HathiTrust. What PD tag should I use for the image in question? In case it is relevant, the document is from 1993, originally published in the United States, as a final report back to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The author of the document was not a federal employee. Nolabob (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nolabob: Could you give a link please? Yann (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: It's the figure on page 5 of the document at this link: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210020590277&seq=1 Nolabob (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It says that diagram is from the Denver Water Department, so it is not necessarily in the public domain. You'd have to show that they (Denver Water Department) published it in 1974 without a copyright notice, which is likely but by no mean certain. Then it would be {{PD-US-no notice}}.

My guess is that the main public library in Denver will have a copy of the study and could let you know. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Indonesia Copyright Tag

Hi, it seems that the list of Indonesian copyright tag on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Indonesia does not have a specific tag about copyright exemption of the Article 65 of Indonesian Law 28/2014 on Copyright, which specifically state: "The recordation of Works cannot be carried out for art paintings, in the form of logos or distinctive signs that are used as marks in the course of trade of goods/services or used as a symbol of an organization, business entity or legal entity."

I propose that Wikimedia Commons add a new Indonesian copyright tag about this copyright exemption (public domain) for "logos or distinctive signs that are used as marks in the course of trade of goods/services or used as a symbol of an organization, business entity or legal entity."

The relevant law is available on https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15600 Pp4920 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Article 64, right before it, says that The Recordation of Works and Related Rights products as referred to in section (1) is not a requirement to obtain Copyright and Related Rights. There is an "Elucidation" section as well, where they go over explanatory notes on many articles -- for the one above, they clarify: Recording of Works and Related Rights products is not a requirement for the Authors, Copyright Holders or Related Rights owners. The protection of a Work begins since the Work exists or is manifested and not due to its recordation. It means that a Work remains protected despite being recorded or not. So, the fact they can't be recorded apparently does not mean that copyright does not exist. It seems primarily there to be an official record of ownership, but does not affect the existence of copyright. In fact, the "elucidation" of the term drawings (as a protected work) is: The term "drawings" means, among others, motifs, diagrams, sketches, logos, colours elements and aesthetic fonts. So, logos are pretty explicitly covered as copyrightable works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

1928 photo by Istituto Nazionale Luce

Hi, can someone please tell me if this image is copyrighted or if it can be freely uploaded on Commons? Thanks, Gitz6666 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be

{{PD-US-expired|PD-Italy}}

 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this is OK then. Gitz6666 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

1970s Soviet performances of national anthems.

I basically want to check on this before I nominate a file that has been on Commons for nearly 20 years for deletion. File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga is from a 1977 performance of the 1977 version of the Soviet national anthem. The anthem composition would be free from copyright since it is a state symbol. The performance was done by the choir and orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre and conducted by Yuri Simonov (b. 1941). The source is this recording is the CD “National Anthems of the USSR and Union Republics” https://web.archive.org/web/20160325163946/http://www.hymn.ru/15-union-republics/index-en.html which had a copyright notice of "©1996 Melodiya."

What I basically want to know is if I'm missing some facet of this that would make the Bolshoi Theatre performance free from copyright? Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Alex Spade might know ... --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have planned to make additional PD-Russia-audio template in near future for many similar cases of audiorecords.

The Russian copyright legislation have two branches - the copyright itself (works of arts, literature, and science - chapter 70 of the Civil Code) and the neighbouring rights (rights for performance, audiorecordings, and some others things - chapter 71 of the Civil Code). The rights for performance (for audiorecording) and audiorecording in the US legislation are part of copyright legislation - so, chapter 71 could not be ignored for Commons (as Commons ignores other rights - museum rights, rights for broadcasting of sport events, etc.).

Audiorecording is in PD in Russia, if all next three conditions are fulfilled

1. The original work for performance and audiorecording is in PD, or it is not the subject of copyright, or it is not the result of human creative activity.
2. The performer(s) is/are died and it is passed 50(*) years from performance - in this sentence only human can be performer (* - 54 for performer, who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it).
3. It is passed 50 years from audiorecording - in this sentence any recorded sound is the subject of neighbouring rights - including both sounds of nature (birds, rain/thunder, etc.) and artificial sounds (music, song, speech, foley sounds, sounds from streets, building sites, sports events). Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

So, this record is not in PD in Russia. Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Does (2) include all performers? I assume it may be hard to determine the identities and possible death of them all (for film in Finland, only a few key figures are counted). (1) seems to be covered, and for the rest of (2) and (3), 2028 is not too far away.

Depending on age of Bolshoi Theatre performers at the time, we may have to wait several decennia before we can be sure all of them are dead – but using the threshold of {{PD-old-assumed}}, we would likewise arrive at 2028, which corresponds to performers of 25+ years being 75+ now. Of course, the performers being many makes the odds of somebody surviving higher.

–LPfi (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I've now started a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup. (2) include all performers (singers, musicians, and conductor for an anthem). Yes, it is hard (very very hard), but it is not impossible (there are the archives of the personnel department of the Bolshoi Theatre and the archives of en:Civil registration offices). PD-old-assumed requirements (120 years from creation = 50 + 70 p.m.) are too short for Russian copyright theory. Alex Spade (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

NOAA work as CC BY or public domain?

The YouTube channel of the NOAA research has a video under the CC BY license. But isn't the work actually PD? (PD-USGov-NOAA) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's clear that the whole work meets the conditions of section 105 of the copyright law of the United States, then it is in the public domain in the United States. The NOAA template is missing that precision, which is present in other templates such as USGov, USGov-NASA, USGov-Military, USGov-NPS, etc. Still, on YouTube, the CC free license is better than the default non-free YouTube license. As specified in the the House report extract reproduced in the Wikisource page, about the scope of section 105, "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. [...] There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad." The CC license is useful for reusers in countries, other than the United States, where the work is copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It had always been assumed that the PD status applied abroad, for decades. But, the legislators for the 1976 Act wondered about that, and the Copyright Office thought (due to a particular interpretation of wording in the Universal Copyright Convention) that it actually may not -- thus, they added that wording you quote. Other countries saw that, and it started a couple rounds of inquiries, where there were a wide range of opinions on the matter (some agreed with the U.S., some did not and read that clause very differently, and many somewhere in between). I think it hinged on whether "US Government works" were a class of works unto themselves, or only overall "government works" were their own class of work. The Copyright Office concluded that government work protection abroad may end up being a country-by-country matter, subject to courts there. Since that time, the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, where you can never expect more protection than you get in your own country. Whether the terms of the UCC would still be binding, who knows. I don't think the U.S. has ever tested that in another country. They do have some limited protection over some works they gave in a couple specific situations, I think. So, the 1976 Act added some gray area around PD-USGov, though in practical terms it's still effectively PD, and it may be up to other countries to determine that. Still, an explicit CC license is always a good thing -- no problem putting both on the work if they can both apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: this question is an aside but if under Berne "you can never expect more protection than you get in your own country", how/why does the U.S. grant 95-year protection for works that are out copyright in their country of origin due to the author's death? Is it just that the U.S. is free to choose to grant that under Berne? But then wouldn't any country be free to choose to grant copyright to U.S. gov't works? - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct, you aren't obligated to protect any longer than does the country of origin, but you can. And yes, other countries could certainly choose to do so. Not all countries use the rule of the shorter term (and as you note the U.S. does not). Just was pointing out the situation has gotten even muddier than the muddy conclusion that followed the above declaration in the 1976 law, which was under the belief that the UCC obligated other countries to protect them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this is free?

file:Apocalypse Z The Beginning of the End poster.jpg Hosseinblue (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Screenshots from games are generally not free. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't screenshot from games, it's from imdb and that's a film. I confused how to add poster of a film for free. where can see it's free or not? Hosseinblue (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hosseinblue: IMDB certainly didn't create it.

I cannot imagine any reason it would be free. What grounds did you have in mind? - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hosseinblue: "free" is currently defined poorly at Wikimedia Commons. Here it generaly means "really old or the owner has given up a lot of their rights (licensing)". Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy may help explain that. So to check if it is free, you need to confirm that the copyright holder has released the poster under a suitable licence. That is unlikely in this case.

However, if this is about your fa.wikipedia draft you may be able to upload a copy locally at that project, not here at Commons. Read the fa.wikipedia policy page. It may suggest that only articles can use non-free images, so you will have to wait for your draft to become an article before uploading there. Commander Keane (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "free" is at poorly defined on Commons, even if it may be poorly defined in that particular place. "Free" on Commons means that in both the "home country" of the work (and, yes, there are some very few edge cases where "home country" is hard to determine) and in the U.S., the image is either in the public domain or has what Commons considers a sufficiently free license, basically a license that does not charge money, does not limit derivative works, and does not place restrictions on commercial use, as long as the reuser conforms to the license. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: perhaps it is like oral tradition? I would prefer something written down at Commons:Free so that next time I don't have to visit my archived thread on Talk:Main page to rediscover JeffG.'s useful links only to realise that one doesn't have a Farsi translation so I have to provide my own simple definition in English. You seem like a good candidate to achieve that, and it can be marked for translation. Commander Keane (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused, anywhere it's not free to share and it's be deleted soon Hosseinblue (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hosseinblue: sorry, the discussion got side tracked. Did you read my comment at time 23:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC) above (link)? In summary: yes it will get deleted on Commons, you can try a new upload at fa.wikipedia instead. Commander Keane (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, dear friend Hosseinblue (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Defining "free"

@Commander Keane: the problem with trying to write a concise definition of what we on Commons mean by an image being "free" is that a real understanding requires people to understand a lot about copyrights and a fair amount about licenses, plus a few subtleties about Commons' own policies with respect to the precautionary principle, non-copyright restrictions, etc. That is, I could probably write something in 200 words or less that will let someone who already has a reasonable understanding of copyright and free-licensing make the right decision for probably 98%+ of all possible content about whether it is "free" or not, but there are always going to be tricky edge cases (e.g. photo taken in country A by a person from country B and first published in country C, where all of these countries might have very different copyright laws; portrait where we have to decide whether a moderately out-of-focus painting on the wall behind the subject is de minimis; unusual license that is not among those where Commons already has decided it is "free enough"; the complexity of laws around Freedom of panorama; countries' different laws on transferablilty of copyright). There is good reason why there are sometimes entirely honest disagreements about whether an image is out of copyright, or whether a copyrighted image is freely enough licensed.

That said, my 98% answer is pretty much what I said in the section above; here I've worded a bit more carefully:

• Commons is generally concerned with a work being "free" only in terms of copyright and (if the image is copyrighted) licensing. Non-copyright restrictions such as trademarks, personality rights, or particular countries' bans on particular symbols, will generally be noted with a template, but don't change the eligibility of the image to be hosted on Commons.
• Commons is generally only concerned with a work being "free" in its "home country" and in the United States; it may or may not be free in other countries.
• There are basically two ways for the image to be "free" in Commons' terms:
  1. The image may be free of copyright (loosely speaking, in the public domain, though that particular term is a Common Law concept). Each country has its own pertinent laws.
  2. If the image is copyrighted, the copyright-holder must offer sufficiently free license, basically a license that does not charge money, does not limit derivative works, and does not place restrictions on commercial use, as long as the reuser conforms to the license. Licenses are normally world-wide.

That's the nutshell. The next level of fleshing out would probably be something like the early sections of Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

PD US no notice

Invocation (before 1948)

You may find this work by the artist en:Seymour Lipton (died 1986, PDD 2057) in Commons as PD US no notice, uploaded by Yann Forget. How does that work? Goesseln (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, this is a US publication, and a license was required to be under a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The U.S. does not base their copyright terms on the date of death for works published before 1978. It's possible there are some countries where a copyright would still exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Poster from Dublin, 1881

Is {{UK-PD-anon}} the correct template for File:Irish National Land League poster - 1881.webp, which was published in Dublin in 1881, or should it use an Ireland equivalent? Or is it PD-ineligible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I would think the Republic of Ireland would be the successor as the country of origin. So, {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, or {{PD-anon-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Utilitarian objects in South Korea

I've been recently reading upon the case "The Reds" case in South Korea, which ruled that reproducing copyrightable elements of clothing, even given its utilitarian nature, would disproportionately infringe the intellectualy property rights of the copyright owner. This has two broad implications to South Korean files:

1. The commonly accepted defence of "Ets Hokin v Skyy" as with US copyright law is untenable for South Korean works, i.e. even if the work is utilitarian the copyrighted label should be blurred if the work is from South Korea.
2. Thus, this means anything with a copyrighted label should be given deference to the de minimis principle. This means if someone is wearing clothing with art on it, they should be de minimis (and also means grouping bunch of Xs is also not allowed, which was the focus of "The Reds" case e.g. an image like this). I.e. this would mean a very cautious interpretation of cosplay pictures in South Korea.

I was wondering if this caveat should be added to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea. Would like some input on this matter. Takipoint123 (💬) 21:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Takipoint123, could you provide us with a résumé or translation in English somewhere? That would help getting more opinions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Basically, a brief summary of the case is that the defendant ran a photo library, which consisted of pictures of people cheering for the South Korean football team. The pictures consisted of "Be The Reds" logo, a popular South Korean brand identity often used during World Cup season (unrelated, but the logo is copyright even though it is fully text as it is a caligraphical work in South Korea).

1. The lower court agreed with the defendants as it said that the freedom of expression should be respected for such commonly used national identity; but this was overturned by the higher court (up to the Supereme Court) which claimed that the logo of the clothing were "centered so that it has significant qualitative and quanititative weight" (i.e. not incidentally included/ DM) and that the picture's overall "expressive nature" changes significantly with the addition of the copyrighted material. (Note: South Korean courts use the test of "expressive nature", as in if the expressive nature changes due to the addition of X, it has a "realistic resemblance to copyrighted materials).
2. All in all, they found that the picture was not used in principle with fair use, since the use was commercial; mass reproductions of images consisting of the clothing without the permission of the copyright holder would affect the commercial viability and licensing rights of the copyrigh owner. The court also ruled that sharing these images on public websites would constitute copyright infringement, which if it wer allowed would put "undue burden" on the website's users to verify copyright information (which would also affect uploads to Commons, since by nature it allows commercial reproductions). [8]

Takipoint123 (💬) 22:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Takipoint123 you may add the case in the CRT page of SoKor; salient points must be included in the "De minimis" section. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. Com:SOKor was written quite a while back and it lacks a lot of recent cases (although I wouldn't call 2014 recent...) Takipoint123 (💬) 23:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the images originally were, but if a photographer is intentionally trading off the expression of an included work, i.e. that expression is materially enhancing that of the photograph, it can be an issue. I think the "theory of the accessory" French case did mention that intentionally including a copyrighted work for effect would be a problem, even if it was technically an accessory. And in the US, a fashion photographer who had the model wear a pair of copyrighted fancy glasses was ruled derivative, even though the focus was on the clothing. That was a conscious choice by the photographer to use someone else's expression to enhance the photo. That *may* be what is happening in this case. The U.S. Copyright Office ignores symbolic value, and focuses on if the actual artistic expression was used, but courts don't always divorce themselves like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight! I don't have the actual pictures either, as they were most likely taken down after the judgement. I'm assuming it is a photo like this [9]. In this case, the photographer intentionally made models where these articles of clothing to "recreate the feeling of the World Cup atmosphere." So I think that is what is going on here too. @Clindberg: I wonder how this will affect files like File:Qatar World Cup Gwanghwamun Cheer 03.jpg for example, because it is slightly different in the fact that it was taken in public (i.e. the photographer didn't pay anyone to do this) but overall the centering of the scarf (or banner?) would definitely be a problem because it is so clearly visible. Or perhaps even this File:Sunyang soju 1.jpg, which is directly in line with Ets Hokins but not may not apply in South Korea (this one is fine as its copyright expired, but many other rececnt examples are found). Takipoint123 (💬) 23:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, if the photographer intentionally placed those in the photo, that is well into the danger area. If the logo was very simple, i.e. it wasn't the particular lines that made the logo attractive but instead its symbolic value, it is a harder call. The second photo you have, does seem to be focusing on the banner. The bottle though, if it's taking a photo of the bottle, then it's just taking a photo of the product regardless of what the logo is -- that is incidental. It wouldn't have mattered what particular expression was there. That is more what Ets-Hokin was about -- a logo designer should not get derivative rights over every photo which includes it; there needs to be something of a balance. You need to be able to take photos of utilitarian objects like that, even if someone else placed a logo on there. But, you can take a photo of a crowd without focusing on a particular copyrighted work, and you can definitely arrange people without including such works for effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I'm starting to kind of get a gist of what is going on. So I guess this decision doesn't necessarily go against Ets Hokins (unless a Korean court decies that you can't take photos of drink bottles), but is more on whether if inclusion of something is avoidable/intentional. I guess it makes sense, you don't intentionally put labels on a bottle but in a sense you can choose what to wear. @Clindberg: Sorry to bother you again, you've been great help :) So I'm thinking I should simply add the description of the court decision on CRT SOKOR DM, but this shouldn't necessarily apply to Ets-Hokin, right? Takipoint123 (💬) 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues with uploaded QNews logos

The files:

• File:QNEWS COMPANY LOGO.png
• File:QNEWS LOGO.jpg
• File:QNews Logo.jpg

are claimed to be under CC BY-SA 4.0 from User:Amamgee, but I find that unlikely. They could potentially still be eligible for Commons via {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}, but Australia's interestingly low TOO makes me unsure. Additionally, I have no idea where exactly the user got the images from, so I don't know what to fill in for source if I were to make these changes myself. BlankEclair (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

the rainbow one might be above too, but the others are just two letters. ltbdl (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

BlankEclair: Hmm, there's also File:Q News Logo.png which is sourced to the QNews Facebook page. — ClaudineChionh (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Night Owl: Nationbuilder's Manual

Of all the cover images hosted at Category:Night Owl (book)—are we sure they're Creative Commons-licensed? I know that a VRT ticket was processed for several of these images (User:Krd might know more), but the timeline on this book and its licensing seems inconsistent and confusing.

Evidence

Timeline of our files (as of 18 April 2025): File Upload date Uploader License Has VRT ticket link File:Night Owl Lamentillo.jpg 10 September 2022 Nightowlanime CC-BY-SA 4.0 Yes File:Night Owl - A Nationbuilder's Manual (English - 1st Edition).jpg 4 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC0 No File:Night Owl - A Nationbuilder's Manual (English - Second Edition).jpg 4 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC0 No File:Night Owl - A Nationbuilder's Manual (Edisyong Filipino - 2nd Edition).jpg 4 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC0 No File:Night Owl Bisaya Cover Lamentillo.jpg 20 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC-BY-SA 4.0 Yes File:Night Owl Ilokano Cover Lamentillo.jpg 20 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC-BY-SA 4.0 Yes Other sources on the book: URL Upload date Uploader/author License Notes Internet Archive identifier: night-owl-by-anna-mae-yu-lamentillo-english-edition 24 March 2024 Anna Mae Yu lamentillo Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International (given by IA metadata) / full copyright (said within the scan) Within the book itself (that this is a scan of), it claims full copyright and has no mention of a CC license at all. If IA's license is true now (since this appears to be the latest update on the book's license), this would make any material from the book now incompatible with Commons since Commons does not allow non-commercial licenses. https://www.nightowl.ph/ N/A Anna Mae Lamentillo No apparent mentioning of a free license This is the official website of the book where copies are sold. There appears to be nothing that mentions an unusual CC-BY etc. license across the site.

So, VRT may have confirmed some kind of free license as of 2023, but now the license may have changed again as of 2024 (and the license inconsistently teeter-tottered between CC0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 in one 16-day period in December 2023). For most modern works released of copyright, you can find some kind of documentation of that release online—but, in this case, I can't find any actual history to read as to why this work would be freely licensed, who released that license, or how I can confirm that license is real. Not even a sentence. For all intensive purposes, this book looks very much like a still-sold product with economic value and marketing, so it looks like the kind of thing an author would want to attach a copyright to.

I have no idea if Nightowlanime or Manilajoyride (who both have totally empty talk and user pages here at Commons and never apparently engaged in any public discussions) had any involvement with the creation or copyright-holding of these book covers. And it appears that both Nightowlanime and Manilajoyride are now globally locked accounts, locked for apparent sockpuppet spamming. And I don't know the history behind that, but it draws even more potential doubt into this situation.

This book might be a really interesting window into Filipino politics for us to host in some form, if it was freely-licensed, but the situation seems more complicated than we're presenting it. What are the community's thoughts on these inconsistencies and lack of sufficient information? SnowyCinema (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The copyright owner of a work can release it under as many different licenses as they want  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   00:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to the information page in the book itself, in the excerpt displayed on amazon.fr, the author of the cover is Jethro Razo and any permission for any reproduction of the book (presumably including the cover) must be obtained from the publisher, which is the Manila Bulletin, which seems to imply that the Manila Bulletin is the owner of the copyright (or at least the manager of the copyright).
• The fact that the two uploading accounts are locked, as part of multiple accounts, is cause for concern, but beyond the identity of the uploader(s), a more important point is the identity of who issued the VRT ticket. If the VRT ticket was issued by a verifiably authorized representative of the publisher Manila Bulletin, and if it relates to the three cover images to which it is attached, then the licenses in that ticket (currently two files are tagged as CC BY 4.0 and one file is tagged as CC BY-SA 4.0) would probably be valid for those three files, independently of who their uploader(s) might have been.
• If the VRT ticket additionally identifies the account Manilajoyride as an authorized representative of the Manila Bulletin, then the three other files, those with the CC0 tags, may also be valid. It is very strange that those three files were precisely the three files uploaded on the same date as the date of the VRT ticket but they are the three files which do not have the VRT ticket. The fact that the ticket is dated from the same day as those uploads can pose the question if the CC0 tag was a mistake and the sender of the ticket expected that the CC license(s) in the ticket sent the same day would replace the CC0 tag on those files.
• If the VRT ticket did not identify the account Manilajoyride as an authorized representative of the Manila Bulletin, then the CC0 dedications on the three files without a ticket are unverified and those files should probably be deleted.
• If the VRT ticket was issued by Jethro Razo and he states that he owns the copyright (has not ceded it to the publisher), then that can probably be acceptable.
• You should probably ask at Commons:VRT/Noticeboard and try to obtain as much information as possible about what the VRT ticket says and most importantly if it was verifiably issued by the Manila Bulletin or by Jethro Razo.
• You could also contact the Manila Bulletin to verify if they know anything about all that.
• A a sidenote, two other files uploaded by the account Manilajoyride are described as official portraits (possibly by photographers for the government of the Philippines), which places some doubt on the validity of the claims of "own work" and of copyright ownership and CC0 dedications for those files.
• The same VRT ticket used for the book covers is also applied to this other official portrait, uploaded by the account Banksyfuture. This use of the ticket on this file is bizarre. If the file is PD-PhilippinesGov, then the presence of that ticket on this file seems confusing. That account also uploaded a copy of the book cover from flickr, but it was deleted for copyvio.

-- Asclepias (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias for File:Official Portrait - Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary Commodore Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo.jpg, I have some doubt if this is eligible for the {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} tag. The reverse image search (Google Lens) brought me to a February 2023 Instagram post by Ms. Lamentillo herself (the post), in which she tagged the IG account of the Philippine Coast Guard. While we can infer that a Coast Guard person may have taken the image, it is also possible that she just mentioned the Coast Guard since she is a current "officer of the Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary (PCGA) with the rank of Auxiliary Commodore (one-star general)," as per the English Wikipedia article, and that the photographer may not be someone from the Coast Guard but her staff, which blurs public domain eligibility of the file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

PD-US-1978-89 and Copyright

File:Charles Moses.jpg was uploaded as PD-US-1978-89, presumably given that there was no copyright notice close to the image in this paper. There is, however, a copyright notice on the first page of the paper. Does this count as a copyright notice for the image later in the newspaper, and therefore is this copyright infringement? Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does. For a collective work, a copyright notice on the entire work covers all contained works (other than advertisements), even if it has the wrong copyright owner. See 17 USC 404. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg Perfect, thanks for the swift answer! Sam Walton (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarity of "Threshold of Originality" and "Freedom of Panorama" in architecture

Note I'm pasting this from the proposals page as I was informed that it not a proposal.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarity is needed around the interaction between the principle of Threshold of originality and Freedom of panorama in the area of architecture. The two principles can be in conflict. Editors need certainty. The architecture section of the ToO in particular needs attention. It consists of nothing but 10 images. The only guide offered is "Images which have been kept because of lack of originality or de minimis". One is left to guess which of the 10 images are covered by de minimis (half of them?) and which by "lack of originality". Why is de minimis even involved here? An architectural image can be (A) de minimis and "original", (B) de minimis and "lacking originality", (C) not de minimis and "original", (D) not de minimis and "lacking originality". Each of these four possibilities needs a rule: must be deleted / may be kept. Then there is FoP Situation in different countries. These rules make no reference to ToO at all. What is the interplay between the two? If, for example, the rule in Azerbaijan says that there is no FoP and that it is "Not OK, non-commercial only", then an editor should be able to rely on that clear, unambiguous guide. Instead, it would appear that the NoFoP/Az rule rule may be trumped by ToO if the building "lacks originality". Is that indeed the case? If so, why does FoP/Az not draw attention to that exemption to the general FoP rule and give examples of how it is to be implemented? Finally, who is the arbiter of "originality"? It all seems highly subjective and not at all helpful to editors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

For more examples (and to see the argumentation for keeping/deleting particular images) you can also check out Category:FOP-related deletion requests/kept, Category:FOP-related deletion requests/undeleted, Category:FOP-related deletion requests/deleted, as well as Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/kept, Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/withdrawn, Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/undeleted and Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/deleted. It will still all be subjective, though, because we can't look into the judges' heads who decide on such cases irl. (And even the judges will make subjective judgments in some way; even if backed up with particular law-based argumentation, they still have to weigh which law would be more relevant for a particular case due its particular circumstances.) Nakonana (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The above lists do not offer guidance or rules. Who has the time to trawl through hundreds of decisions, many of which contradict themselves? What is needed is clarity and a workable set of rules. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

ToO remains subjective, even in real-life applications (outside Wikimedia). For example, COM:TOO UK changed recently due to a court decision that uses the European model as basis (but we don't know if UK's departure from low ToO principle or "sweat of the brow" principle will sustain notwithstanding their Brexit from the EU).

Then, we have some ToO from Japan, under COM:FOP Japan, citing an old case file from the Osaka District Court: a building "must have creativity in aesthetic expression in light of the definition of works stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the same Act." So, relatively high ToO for architecture, IMO. Singaporean law is the obverse of the Japanese one: seems to treat structures as works of art too (as architecture), see COM:TOO Singapore.

Two possible hints for the ToO in the Azerbaijani law are under Articles 5 and 6:

"Copyright shall be granted to both disclosed and undisclosed scientific, literary and artistic works those exist in objective form and are results of creative activity irrespective of purpose, value and content, also expression form and method."^{[Article 5(1, first paragraph)]}

"The objects of the copyright are the following:...works of architecture, city construction, garden and park art;"^{[Article 6(1, eighth bullet]}

We can only make speculations until a legal casefile or jurisprudence has been made in that country concerning originality of buildings and architecture. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting about AZ. Would you say that "irrespective of ...value" could be taken to mean that there is a low threshold for ToO in Az? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged I'm rather concerned about "city construction". The Azerbaijani-language version gives a different wording, however: "memarlıq, şəhərsalma və bağ-park sənəti əsərləri;", which Google translates as "architecture, urban planning and landscaping". (This reminds me of the same terms used in the reformed Russian architectural FoP since October 2014). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 17:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload these insignias/emblems?

So there are two things that I need a bit of advice on. Currently, all of these images exist as "external media" templates on wikipedia.

1. Defunct people's armed police/MPS Active Service Forces(PAP units under the command of the ministry of public security) agency emblems. This xinhua article has all of the badges of PAP branches/agencies that became defunct in 2018. Currently the China fire service's patch already exists on commons, however I am hesitant to upload the other emblems since I want to make sure I am allowed to upload them.
2. Chinese navy ship emblems. This article on the Anhui provincial national defense education office website has many chinese navy ship emblems, along with this article on the Guangxi regional veterans affairs department that has the Chinese LHD Guangxi's emblem. I have asked about this before on the wikiproject military history discussion page along with the help desk, where I was advised to just use external media templates instead. However, I would still like to hear advice on whether navy ship emblems fall under Article 5 of the PRC copyright law(which states "This law shall not apply to laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;") or whether Template:Insignia also applies to navy ship emblems, and therefore whether navy ship insignia can be uploaded onto wikimedia commons
3. I have started a topic on Wikiproject military history regarding which version of the PLAGF aviation badge should be uploaded; see full context there

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oops wrong place. Will post this on the help desk instead Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No, this is the right place, as far as I can tell, at least for your first two questions. But they seem completely unrelated to each other and to the third question, which makes it unlikely this is going to lead to a productive discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferrarotti, Silori.jpg

Given all of the watermarks on File:Ferrarotti, Silori.jpg, this photo seems to almost certainly be not the uploader's own work as claimed. Is there a way per COM:ITALY, though, for this to be PD. If it was taken in 1966 (as claimed in its description), it seems too recent to be PD just for its age given Italy's 70 year p.m.a, and URAA date of January 1, 1996. Could there be another reason for which this might be relicensed or does it need to be treated as a copyvio?

FWIW, some of the same uploader's other files seem to have questionable claims of own work as well and they too may need to be given a closer look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"Non-creative" photographs are only copyrighted for 20 years in Italy. It's up to you to determine if this is a "non-creative" photograph but it seems like the bar is pretty low. There's certainly photographs on here I think are creative that other users don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly non-creative. But Duccio55 should not have made the false statement of "own work", and someone might want to look into their other uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed license, etc., for this photo. Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Fotografías de San José Sanchez del Rio

En que año estara al Dominio público las fotografías de San José Sanchez del Rio (falleció en 1928)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Ya son en el dominio público en los países que usan la regla de "70 p.m.a". En los EEUU es más complicado, porque la ley es basado en el año de publicación, no de creación. Si se hubieran publicado antes de 1930, ya serían en el dominio público en los EEUU. Cada año esto avanza un año. - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Bedivere:Buenas por favor remueva esto (File:Martirio de San José Sánchez del Río.jpg) esa fotografía fue creado por el pintor René Martínez Valadez ese pintor sigue vivo según tiene su página en Facebook,ese nombre René Martínez Valadez (texto) aparece la fotografía en Twitter (https://x.com/sachinettiyil/status/1756353970241765855?s=61) aparece el texto abajo de la tumba, el texto es de color blanco dice “René Martínez V.". AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel apparently they were asking when photographs picturing José Sánchez will be public domain. That depends on several factors. The picture you've linked is evidently still copyrighted and have deleted it as requested. Copyright does not expire when the pictured person's rights expire (necessarily). Bedivere (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Ah, de confused me here. I didn't consider that a reasonably experienced user would think the human subject of a photo would determine when the work would come out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, at first read I understood the same as you but then I remembered a couple of days Abchy requested me to delete an image picturing Joan d'Arc because they originally believed it was in the public domain as she was long deceased. (It was not a work of Joan d'Arc) Bedivere (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Image on Flickr marked as "All rights reserved" but should be public domain

Hi,

This image is of Hayrullah Efendi, who died in 1866. The uploader marked it as "all rights reserved", but it is an old photo that should be in the public domain. I can't directly upload from Flickr since it detects the license that isn't suitable for Commons, which is essentially inaccurate. Should I upload this image anyways? Aintabli (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

For sure, if the PD status is clear, go ahead. Bedivere (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Confused by Germany copyright tags

I've uploaded the following image - File:George Gordon.jpg - and I'm trying to find the correct country-specific copyright tag. The photograph has no date on it, but would have been taken before 1870, as the person in the photo died in 1869. It was taken by a named photographer, Carl Hedler, in Frankfurt am Main. When I go to look under Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#Germany, I can't seem to find anything that fits. Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG seems close, but it specifies "if the author is not mentioned on the stamp". Not sure what that means. The photographer/author is known, but not sure what "the stamp" is. I can't find the date of the author's death, but it was almost certainly prior to 1955 if he was an adult running a photography studio before 1870. Do works by German photographers stay out of the public domain permanently if the photographer's name is stated???? Peter G Werner (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany is life + 70 years. There is the generic template for all 70 years countries Template:PD-old-70. I found a page that mentions a Charles W. Hedler who born in Germany in 1834 and worked as a photographer in Frankfurt in 1866. If this is the right person, it can be {{PD-old-70-expired}} because 1834+120+70=2024 or otherwise {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Good find, and thanks! Peter G Werner (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Best forget about {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, that is only for very specific use cases, namely works published by certain public institutions without naming an author. The main use case is stamps (postage stamps, Briefmarken) by the Reichspost or Bundespost (the public institutions). --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Gnom (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

CRT/Tanzania

Hello. I've modified parts of the copyright rules page of Tanzania, based on my closer reading of both the 1999 Tanzanian law and the 2003 Zanzibari law.

Added unprotected works section. Both Tanzania (the former Tanganyika) and Zanzibar default the public documents (laws and decisions etc.) and "ideas, methods, procedures etc." to public domain, but only Tanzania/Tanganyika grants not protected status to news of the day (Zanzibar doesn't).

FoP section: Tanzania/Tanganyika only grants audio-visual FoP, not OK for us (except for audio-visual file types). Zanzibar, no FoP language at all. Most important of all, we have been wrong all the time with regards to works of folklore in their public spaces. Closer reading of the relevant clauses in both the Tanzanian and Zanzibari laws reveals that free uses of such works in photos and audio-visual works in both areas is only for "incidental utilization" (equivalent to "de minimis"), so works of folklore in public should be accessory/incidental/trivial in the files that we host, whether photos (still images) or audio-visual file types. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning all participants of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument to slaves in Zanzibar.jpg: @AFBorchert and Liuxinyu970226: . No usable FoP even in Zanzibar; use of publicly installed objects with expression of folklore is only allowed if the objects are incidental in the photos and even films and broadcasts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thanks for the updates and this notification. The previous text provided a definition of “audio-visual”. This is now gone. Did this happen accidently? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@AFBorchert I removed it, because it should be self explanatory. It only adds more text to the FoP-Tanzania section. Any way, I replaced it with a more understandable text "{{FoP-Tanzania}} can only be used for audio-visual files, not for photographic files." Plus, the template itself bears a warning that FoP-Tanzania is only valid for audio-visual file types (e.g. OGG and WEBM), not for photographic file types (like JPEG or PNG). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I found this explanation helpful as the term “audio-visual” is uncommon and therefore needs explanation. Please restore it. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@AFBorchert restored now.  Done. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! --AFBorchert (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Stan Brakhage title images

I wanted another opinion on how applicable {{PD-text}} is to a set of images. American filmmaker Stan Brakhage made works where the title sequence was scratched or painted directly onto frames of a film strip. I feel like inscribing text this way would still be beneath the U.S. threshold of originality, but maybe it's more complex than "basic handwriting". Examples of what these titles look like: "by Brakhage", Anticipation of the Night, Cat's Cradle, Window Water Baby Moving, Mothlight (hand-painted, not scratched), or 12. hinnk (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

PD-Text is pretty extreme. Lettering is not copyrightable in the US, unless there's something clearly separable from the letters. If you draw ivy growing up the letter, or draw a giraffe in a G, it's probably copyrightable, but if it's just letters, it's not. None of those would be copyrightable independent of the rest of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

See, for example, File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg, which the US Copyright Office refused to register for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your help! hinnk (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

CC attribution w/o such

Is there a template or process to use when a file is licensed {{cc-by-4.0}}, but the uploader fills the |author= with {{unknown|author}}? I added {{license review}} to File:Kristin Goodwin.jpg, but category:license review needed is already 77.2 thousand files deep, not counting its subcategories. Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I happened upon this posting. As I am a license reviewer, I took charge of the review (and archived the page on archive.is, so that the licensing statement is preserved). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Still, the claim at the source is bizarre: "Released under Common Attribution 4.0 | The image on this page is a photo of Kristin Goodwin and has been released to the public domain." So which is it? CC-BY 4.0 (with an unclear attribution) or "released to the public domain"? I think it's pretty safe to have it here (undoubtedly they have a decent understanding with the photographer, and the photographer is fine with the situation), but if it were my upload, I would certainly contact the site via https://kristingoodwin.net/contact/ and try to get this clarified (including, I would hope, clarified on their site).

@Fourthords: the initial uploader Soistafir looks like probably enough of a beginner that I would not expect them to be able to work through the subtleties here yet, so I'd say if you care you are as likely as anyone to be able to make that contact to sort it out better. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, I understood the "public domain" statement as hint meaning that the image is meant for publicity work, usable by the public (unter Creative Commons terms), not as copyright-related statement (that may be corroborated by the blanket "All rights reserved" on the page footer). The opposite in that setting would be an image that is "private", e.g. something in a private album on Facebook. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: In any case, we are faced with the fact that the "C-Level executive and retired Brigadier General" with expertise in "the complexities of" (inter alia) AI and cybersecurity has not done a great job of vetting her own site for clarity about copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That was also an oddity, I thought. I'm worried that this might actually be a copyrighted photo to a studio photographer, but the Goodwin site is washing it into a confusing mix of CC/PD so it's 'acceptable for Wikipedia'; it feels like the sort of advice someone receives when they're paying for someone to work on their Wikipedia article. Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My concern was more about the attribution being required (CC-BY), but no photographer actually being credited. Does |author={{unknown|author}} meet the requirements of CC attribution? Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Crediting it to "Kristin Goodwin" should be good enough for licensing purposes. This is a work originating from the US, so there IMHO aren't moral rights belonging to some author/photographer to be observed, if a natural or judicial person declares themselves as copyright owner, as it is the case here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeking advice how to find usable images

Hi, I'm curious if anyone has any advice on how to tailor one's search for images/photographs to specifically find images which are eligible to be uploaded to Wikimedia.

Any help appreciated. Thank you very much. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You can use the filter option on Google image search. (It only shows up in the desktop version of the Google image search page.) There, you can select to only search for images that have a Creative Commons license. Other image search engines, and image hosting sites, too, likely have a similar filter option. Nakonana (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

When you use that filter on google it will show results with all CC licenses including NC, ND which are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah good to know. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely good to know. Nakonana (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Openverse Zanahary (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: What country, time period, and/or subject are you looking for images of? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm asking in general, but what specifically prompted this question was looking for photos showing the conditions of La Esperanza (prison).

But more commonly I'm interested in photos of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS -- Fars News used to copyleft their website 'till 13 February 2024, see Template:Fars. The IDF tends to release copylefted content, but there's some geoblocking going on, I'll need to see how to get around that. Try and look for CCTV and GoPro footage on the internet, as that is possibly PD. JayCubby (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Faithful reproductions of Catholic (and possibly, other Christian) coats of arms

In light of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Diocese of Dumaguete.svg, this is something that Wikimedia Commons should notice. It appears we don't have a policy (at least under Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter) regarding recent or newer coats of arms of Catholic dioceses and prelates, as well as similar symbols from other Christian denominations.

Ping the two involved participants from the said deletion requests, @GiovanniYosh12 and Abzeronow: . I'll also ping two Pinoy users who were involved in copyright-related discussions in the past: @Pandakekok9 and Howdy.carabao: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why should there be a special copyright policy for images related to Christian denominations? -- Asclepias (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible COM:Derivative work issue, yet we host hundreds of images of such coats of arms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The (visual) representation of a coat of arms, in this case of a bishop or diocese, is based on the blazon (textual description), so technically derivatives of religious coats of arms like the ones myself and @SajoR: create are safe for upload as per COM:Coats of arms. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiovanniYosh12 the PD may be true for coats of arms from governments (state symbols).

Still, I think it's best to ping a veteran in copyright matters here. Ping @Clindberg: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Commons:Coats of arms, the copyright is usually in the particular drawing, not the design. In heraldry, there is usually a written blazon describing the design, and any drawing of it is a separate expression (i.e. separate copyright) of the same idea. If you are very closely following another drawing however, then you can be derivative of that other drawing. So, usually the age of the design is irrelevant, unless there is one particular drawing that all are derived from. But a drawing can't be derivative of a written description. I'm not entirely sure what the nature of this one is, but if it seems to be an independent drawing of the arms, I'd say it's fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Los escudos de armas que realizamos en commons no violan los derechos de autor, son obras que cumplen con la descripción heráldica, son totalmente validas y son estéticamente diferentes a la versión oficial. Cada artista es libre de crear su propia versión siempre que cumpla con la descripción heráldica, por ejemplo si la descripción dice que el escudo debe tener una embarcación de oro y debe tener una sola vela de plata y no indica mas características, cada artista puede interpretar eso de varias formas, aunque en entrelineas se puede deducir que se trata de una embarcación pequeña pues son las que tienen en general una sola vela, pero si el artista quiere poner un galeón o un velero con una sola vela esta en todo su derecho, pues esta cumpliendo con la descripción, ademas la vela puede ser cuadrada o triangular. Recuerdo el caso de un prelado italiano que fue nombrado obispo en Albania, cuando se publicó su emblema, realicé mi propia versión, días después una persona que decía ser cercano al obispo se quejó en la Wikipedia italiana alegando que mi versión era falsa, que tenia errores y que debíamos usar la versión oficial, al final solo hice unos leves cambios estéticos para apaciguar esa persona cuyos argumentos eran ridículos, uno era que la cinta que contiene el lema debe ser de color crema y no blanco. Curiosamente ese prelado fue recientemente elevado a arzobispo y adivinen que versión estética adopto, pues la versión de Wikipedia, la que supuestamente estaba mal. Ademas, algunos de nuestros escudos igualan o superan en calidad gráfica a la versión oficial, o simplemente son mas fáciles de leer, y algunas las diócesis terminan adoptando oficialmente la versión estética de Wikipedia. Hace unos meses hice el escudo de un obispo (no recuerdo la nacionalidad), días después alguien de la Wiki me dejó un mensaje, donde informaban que el obispo les escribió para indicar que el lema de mi versión estética esta mal escrito, que por favor lo corrigiera, lo cual hice, el obispo en ningún momento se quejó de violaciones a los derechos de autor, simplemente reporto un error y eso fue todo. Además, soy amigo de dos heraldistas profesionales italianos quienes por medio de facebook se contactaron con migo, no para indicar violaciones a los derechos de autor, lo que ellos querían era que indicara en la tabla de información del archivo que ellos son quienes idearon y dibujaron la versión oficial, eso era todo. También existen heraldistas profesionales (como este quien diseñó el escudo del papa Francisco) que buena parte de su trabajo se basa en el material de commons, y si no estoy mal, ¿eso indicaría que su obra también está bajo una licencia libre?. --Alejandro Rojas (SajoR) (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: The coats of arms we create at Commons do not violate copyright. They are works that comply with the heraldic description, are fully valid, and are aesthetically different from the official version. Each artist is free to create their own version as long as they comply with the heraldic description. For example, if the description says the coat of arms must have a golden vessel and a single silver sail, and does not indicate any other characteristics, each artist can interpret this in various ways. Although, between the lines, it can be deduced that it is a small vessel, since they generally have a single sail. However, if the artist wants to depict a galleon or a sailboat with a single sail, they are within their rights, as they are complying with the description. Furthermore, the sail can be square or triangular. I remember the case of an Italian prelate who was appointed bishop in Albania. When his emblem was published, I made my own version. Days later, a person claiming to be close to the bishop complained on the Italian Wikipedia, claiming that my version was false, that it contained errors, and that we should use the official version. In the end, I only made a few minor aesthetic changes to appease this person, whose arguments were ridiculous. One was that the ribbon containing the motto should be cream-colored, not white. Curiously, that prelate was recently elevated to archbishop, and guess which aesthetic version he adopted? Well, the Wikipedia version, the one that was supposedly wrong. Furthermore, some of our coats of arms equal or surpass the official version in graphic quality, or are simply easier to read, and some dioceses end up officially adopting Wikipedia's aesthetic version. A few months ago I made the coat of arms of a bishop (I don't remember his nationality). Days later, someone from Wikia left me a message informing me that the bishop had written to them to indicate that the motto of my aesthetic version was misspelled and that I should please correct it. I did so. The bishop never complained about copyright violations; he simply reported an error, and that was that. Furthermore, I'm friends with two professional Italian heraldists who contacted me via Facebook, not to point out copyright violations; they wanted me to indicate in the file's information table that they were the ones who conceived and designed the official version, that was all. There are also professional heraldists (like this one who designed Pope Francis' coat of arms) whose work is largely based on Commons material. If I'm not mistaken, would that indicate that their work is also under a free license?. --Alejandro Rojas (SajoR) (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree fully with the final statement. If a person uses material from Commons he does not have to pay for it. If he incorporates such material into a new product, then they own the copyright of the new product provided that they acknowledge Commons as the source of part of their product. To put this into perspective, if I wrte a book about the Mona Lisa, I have the copyright of the book even if I illustrate it with pictures of the Mona Lisa (which are out of copyright). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Part of the license says: share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original. --Alejandro Rojas (SajoR) (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That is a (very slight) misunderstanding of the meaning of a CC-BY-SA license; the difference is subtle. Let's call the issuer of the original license Party A and the reuser Party B.

Correct understanding: Party B may conform to the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. If they do so, their use is legal, and part of conforming to the license is that any changes Party B makes in their derivative work must be licensed under the same CC-BY-SA license.

Misunderstanding: If Party B creates a derivative work, but ignores the terms of the license (typically by failing to mention the license in their reuse), then that derivative work is automatically released under the same CC-BY-SA license.

Correct understanding of that latter situation: If Party B creates a derivative work, but does not properly invoke the license, then (1) Party A may pursue the usual remedies for a copyright violation by Party B and (2) the initial license offered by Party A has no effect at all on the changes introduced by Party B, if the latter are copyrightable.

If you think it through, that makes sense. CC licenses are not part of copyright law. The fact that a particular license is offered for a work (for which any number of licenses might be offered) does not in any way bring that license into play unless that license is invoked by the re-user. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can a license like "Anyone is free to do anything with this work. No credit is required. By using this work in any way in another work, you agree to release the entire work under the same license and you do not need to state the license." legally work  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@999real: in what country?

I suspect that there are countries (e.g. France) where it is literally impossible to alienate the droit d'auteur, but you'd also have a heck of a time gaining any cash damages from someone for having taken you at your word about being uninterested in enforcing your rights. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know anything about cash damages like that. I mean about trying to find a way to make all derivative works automatically free  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I really don't see how someone can't be recreating an early work that is copyrighted if the coat of arms is an accurate reproduction of the text. Either it's a completely accurate drawing based on the original description in the text, and therefore a recreation of a prior coat of arms that would be copyrighted, or it isn't and the image should be deleted as OOS. Otherwise you'd have to argue that no one ever made a drawing of the particular coat of arms before. Which is far fetched to the say the least. To give an example, if I were to compare this image with this one of the Coat of arms of the Diocese of Legazpi, the only original part for the image on Commons is the crown on the top. So the file hosted on Commons should be deleted. As it's is a recreation of someone else's drawing (that I assume is copyrighted). Or it should be deleted as OOS due to having extra elements that aren't in the original description. Really, why is Commons hosting fan made reproductions of coats of arms when exiting original drawings of them exist anyway? It just seems like a weird loophole to get around copyright issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 With all due respect, one must first be familiar with the rules and traditions of heraldry in order to understand the work we heraldry artists do in Commons. Heraldry, which far predates current established copyright laws, allows various artistic renditions of a single coat of arms as long as it is in line with the textual description that is written in a specialized language called a "blazon" (see COM:Coats of arms and the replies above given by Carl Lindberg and SajoR). In other words, the blazon serves as the blueprint for heraldic artists who will draw a particular coat of arms. The purpose of the SVG coats of arms we design and upload is to standardize, improve and freely make available the said coat of arms in Commons instead of uploading the "original drawings" officially used which are in various artstyles and might be under copyright by their artist. Our work is under COM:LAB and the WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology; the WikiProjects on the same topic in other languages go into greater detail and even encourage the creation of SVG coats of arms (Français, Español, Deutsch).

In the example images presented, the first image is the official rendition of the coat of arms of the Diocese of Legazpi which, although is assumed to be copyrighted under the name of the diocese, is actually an image taken directly from the Facebook page of the diocese converted to SVG and bears an incorrect license and author. The coat of arms file should not have been hosted on Commons due to it being "found on the internet" and is a direct copy of a possibly copyrighted image. The second image is one of the many SVG coats of arms that my fellow heraldic artists and I rendered and uploaded. In this instance, the coat of arms of the Diocese of Legazpi is based on the descriptions given by Mariano Madriaga who originally designed the said coat of arms [10]. Diocesan coats of arms in the Philippines (and in the United States) traditionally depict the miter (not a crown) as an external ornament above the shield to indicate that the coat of arms belongs to a Catholic diocese. However, some dioceses opt to have no external ornaments in their official rendering of their coats of arms, e.g., the Diocese of Legazpi. As heraldic artists trained on its rules and traditions, we know that it's acceptable to include the miter in our rendering of the coats of arms of Philippine dioceses for the sake of uniformity; it's not an "extra element" or a "fan made reproduction", and it's also not for the purpose to "get around copyright issues". GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiovanniYosh12: I actually already knew about all that. Thanks for the needless history lesson though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we at least agree on and have established two things here:

1. Heraldry rules are different from copyright and while heraldry rules might allow for various artistic renditions of a single coat of arms, copyright wouldn't in cases where the coat of arms are similar to each other. In other words, if I create a coat of arms that's exactly like your version that was made sooner, you could potentially sue for me copyright infringement regardless of if the "heraldry rules" allows for it.

2. Some "renditions" of the coat of arms don't follow the descriptions in the original text. I. E. You and other artists who upload their images of the coats of arms to Commons sometimes take liberates to include things that aren't in the original descriptions.

Would you say both of those points are accurate? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: The design represents an idea. The textual description and a drawing are different expressions of that idea -- they are not related, copyright-wise. The copyright in a literal work (textual description) is in the particular words chosen -- not the ideas it describes. You can describe the same idea in a different way and not be derivative at all. It is nearly impossible for a graphical work to be derivative of a literary one (and if the wording is so precise as to not allow variation, then it could well get into the merger doctrine, where if there are limited ways to express an idea then there is no copyright at all). See Idea–expression distinction. We can't copy someone else's drawings, but someone can create an original drawing of the described design. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Sure, but I don't think the versions of the coat of arms are actually that different. Like if two people create a coat of arms based on the same description but one of them adds smoke to the volcano then it's not really that different from the other person's version. Anymore then it would be if say I drew a smiley face on the cover of a Batman comic. Or are you saying that if I did then I could upload the cover to Commons without it being copyright infringement? I ask because the whole idea that these coat of arms are being drawing purely based on original descriptions is laughable at best. Most likely they are using previous images and adding superficial elements to them in Photoshop or whatever. Know one who uploads coats of arms to Commons is hand drawing them based purely on the original the text though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Yes, it is different. If both artists add smoke to a volcano they are still independent, unless one was tracing the particular lines used by the first artist. The expression (and thus the copyright) is in the precise details of the drawing, not the idea of what they are drawing. The design may say to use a ship, or even a sailing ship, but there are myriads of ways to actually draw a ship and those are all independent copyrights. You may more be thinking of trademark, where a generally similar design could infringe. That is different than copyright, however. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Actually I was thinking about the threshold of originality or whatever it's called when you make a durative of something. If you want a real world example to give your opinion on, this image and this one are apparently based on each other and are supposedly the "own work" of two Commons contributors. Although the original design seems to come from this coat of arms from the Archdiocese of Capiz. Although with minor differences.

There's a couple of other versions of essentially the same coat of arms online. All of them obviously didn't turn out essentially the same based on descriptions from a text. So the question would be, who created the original and are the other, newer versions different enough to not be copyrighted. I don't think adding slightly different hair to the kids or changing the color of the cross really makes that much of a difference when the coats of arms are clearly based on the same underlying image. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A derivative work is adding new, copyrightable expression to an existing work. Adding smoke to a volcano is probably one example -- that particular rendition of the smoke may well be copyrightable. Of the ones you mention, the two SVGs on Commons are obviously the same drawing. Rearranging the division on the shield is likely not a copyrightable change (below the threshold of originality), so the copyright belongs to whoever drew the original (even if it was slightly incorrect according to the blazon). Just *maybe* there is an additional copyright on the particular vectorization and choice of vector points on the second one. But, the original author should be credited. There is no copyright relation to the image you found on Facebook -- they are different drawings of the same idea, so they are both "originals". Each drawing has a copyright of its own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: What about this image and the one from the Diocese of Malaybalay? I assume the one on Commons should be deleted as COPYVIO since everything in the shield is exactly the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

...except that it appears the Commons file existed before the Facebook file, so the copying probably went the other way. In general though yes, coats of arms copied from external sites are usually a problem. SVG files are more often authored by Commons contributors, though it's possible to extract vectors from PDF files out there. If a bitmap file has precisely the same layout as a vector .svg from here, it's quite probable that the bitmap was generated from the .svg (or an ancestor vector source). Additionally, Commons SVG authors often copy components from other Commons .svg files (often ones they had done themselves), so it's possible there are still earlier versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to ask about this matter, if the coat of arms that you are mentioning has an original one, and the artist here uploaded an aesthetic version not faithful to the original coat of arms that was adopted later on by the same diocese? will there be any problem with that? CommanderPhoenix (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Clindberg could probably give a better answer to this but at least IMO there would have to be documentation from the diocese showing that's how it happened. Otherwise anyone who uploads a coat of arms could use it to claim the diocese adopted it after they uploaded their image to Commons. I don't personally have an issue with giving the coat of arms from my example a pass because there's evidence that the version on Commons existed first, but that evidence needs to exist and be publicly available. Although really, we don't know if the image from the diocese was just uploaded to Facebook at that point but was actually created before then. So I don't think we should be determining things based purely on when a coat of arms was uploaded to any particular social media account. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

let us say these one are the original one [11], [12], [13],

This is just for further clarifications, I am here to cooperate and share thoughts on how we can work on to help one another. CommanderPhoenix (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Coats of arms are not like logos -- any drawing which matches the blazon (written description) is valid. So, there can be many valid representations of a coat of arms. From a copyright perspective, "original" is any drawing where the particular lines are not taken from another, but drawn anew. The diocese is certainly free to take elements or drawings from Commons, so long as they follow the license. They may have used many different drawings as their "official" one over the years. You actually can't register coats of arms for trademark protection (though you can register them to prevent others from using them in other trademarks). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg

Given the EXIF data for File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg, I wondering whether this file's licensing should at least be VRT verified．The uploader's only edit on Commons seems to have been to upload this file back in 2017; so, I'm not sure whether they even respond if queried to provide verification. FWIW, the same image can be found here on Facebook, but I can't tell whether that use precedes the file being uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There is an email address of the creator in the exif, if someone wants to reach out and inquire about the copyright status/permissions. PascalHD (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It would have to be the same (or higher) resolution on Facebook, and uploaded there prior to the upload here, to require VRT. That may be difficult to determine at this point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Taal lake.JPG

Can we grandfather this file? There's explicit permission in the form of a credit line and verbal agreement between the English Wikipedia uploader and his friend, yet it was uploaded at enwiki on November 20, 2007, almost a year after the cutoff date of January 1, 2007 as per Commons:Grandfathered old files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably not, it seems. VRT was already available in 2006 and the policy is pretty clear grandfathering is not permitted after the cutoff date. Takipoint123 (💬) 10:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Done nominating: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taal lake.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this below COM:TOO Canada?

Just wanted to gain a consensus before I upload this file or not. This image was posted by the Hudson's Bay Company on their Instagram; https://www.instagram.com/p/DI3tUG7RUZ4/#. It could be of value to the Commons as they are going out of business. It does look quite simplistic to me, but I am unsure. Is it below COM:TOO in your opinion? PascalHD (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It's just lines of different colours and the maple leaf which is already PD. Below TOO. Takipoint123 (💬) 10:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio (logos and graphic creations)

Hello happy contributors,

Since the early 1980s, the graphic design of the Canal+ companies and channels has been the subject of spécific artistic trademarked creation, branding and corporate identity conventions, spécial copyrighted fonts and images created by the renowned Frenchman Étienne Robial. All channels and service logos are protected in France, in accordance with copyright law (since the author is still alive and it would have taken 70 years after his death for these creations to be in the public domain).

In addition to copyright protection, all these logos are registered trademarks. Finally, these are not just simple text use but a genuine artistic creation, notably using a specific font, registered under copyright. While uploading to fr.wikipedia.org is permitted, uploading and publishing them on Wikimedia Commons is absolutely not in compliance with current rules. Unless expressly authorized (OTRS ticket validating the authorization of Étienne Robial himself and head of the Canal+ group companies), it is therefore not possible to preserve the dozens of files of this type in Commons at this time. Especially since an alternative is possible at fr.wikipedia.org. Example among dozens others:

• Category:Étienne Robial
• Category:Canal+ France logos

Best regards. Tisourcier (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello again... I need help !

Another contributor has revert my speed copyvio deletion requests for theses files without warning me and choosed to add a wrong category for these files :

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Canal%2B_1995.svg&action=history
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Canal%2B_4K_UHD.webp&action=history

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Canal%2B_4K_UHD.png&diff=prev&oldid=1024892146

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Canal%2B_1995.svg&diff=prev&oldid=1024890858
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_canal%2B_2006.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1024892342
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo-CanalPlus-Covid19.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1024892578
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Canal%2BUHDHDR.jpg&action=history

I'm not very comfortable with mass deletion request (for all logos categories involved of Robial's creations), so if any nice contributor could help me on this purpose, I'd be very grateful. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's a contested deletion, then open up a regular deletion request on the files in that category so there is space for giving arguments, and a documented record as to why (or why they were kept). They are clearly not copyrightable in the U.S., and likely many other countries. France in particular may give copyrights to custom fonts though, so this may be a special situation there. They are among the few signatories in the 1970s to the Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces (which is not in force because not nearly enough countries have agreed), and I do see in this court case they ruled that a font was copyrightable (but not infringed in that case). I'm not sure if a usage of a font can become copyright infringement -- that case was about being infringed by another font, a different situation. The Vienna treaty mentioned above limited the protection to being infringed by other typefaces, not to usages of those typefaces, which I presume Canal licensed in this case. I think UK law is similar in that regard. I think you need to back up your case with that type of argumentation, that it's particular to France but not much wider than that, as most editors are used to looking at logos like that and seeing it qualify PD-textlogo (which it does, for the U.S.). Is there a French case where copying of a logo by someone other than the licensing party was actually deemed a copyright violation of the typeface? If not, then it's not clear that the logo being here is a copyright violation, even though the font itself almost certainly has a copyright in France. Whether French law recognizes a copyright in the rest of the logo, less sure on that, but that is what you may need to argue given other court cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hello @Tisourcier, I wasn’t the contributor that reverted some of your speedy tags, but I had converted the rest of them to this regular DR. I just noticed this thread and I didn’t know about the reverts by the other contributor before, so now I have added those logos into the DR I opened anyways, since they are related to the same topic. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Intention and copyright

I want to address the point about "the Office will focus solely on the appearance or sound of the work" that 19h00s brought up above. (New section so as not to derail the main conversation.) Yes, I know that is the theory, but I'd say it is clearly not the practice. For example, copyright has been granted to Richard Serra works that are visually indistinguishable from ordinary walls. Yes, he made very deliberate decisions about where to place them, but that's exactly what this doctrine theoretically ignores. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

So, funnily enough... I actually reached out to the CO about this specific issue in re: Serra's Tilted Arc. You were the first to spur me to realize that there's a good possibility that registration wouldn't be granted today (don't have the link as that conversation happened long ago now), and eventually it bothered me so much that I just asked the Office. Specifically asked if they had any guidance on the application of the threshold of originality on minimalist, monumental sculptures in the wake of rulings like Feist and Star Athletica, and if there was any correspondence related to Serra's registration that might elucidate why it was allowed. They gave the basic expected canned answer - "Can't speak to specifics or offer any communications, can only point to the Compendium" - but the public info officer hammered two points specifically and multiple times: a) the Serra registration stands and cannot be reexamined in any way other than through litigation and b) the USCO works on a case-by-case system, meaning the registration of one work does not guarantee the registration of a like work. I have to assume that if someone managed to get to court over Tilted Arc, it would be ruled ineligible, but the USCO ruled it eligible at the time. The most important precedent showing it would be ineligible today is, in my mind, Cady Noland's Log Cabin, a work that was denied registration specifically in spite of the artist's intent and conceptual merit (Noland's case has been discussed extensively in copyright & art history academic literature). Anyway this is all tangential so apologies for going long. 19h00s (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Forestry Images

Hi! User:Leoboudv raised a question on my talk page about images from forestryimages.org. Earlier many of the files were licensed CC-BY-3.0 but now they have changed to CC-BY-NC-3.0. Some files on Commons were uploaded with the template {{Forestryimages}} and some without. Some were reviewed and some were not. If the files still had the original license we could have a bot mark all the files for review (or even review them) if they were not allready reviewd and we could have a bot add {{Forestryimages}}. But now the license have been changed it will just mean that the files will be impossible to review. We have users that request license review for files uploaded many years ago even if its impossible to review the files so I'm sure at some point we will see the files end in the license review category.

Per Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Add_an_outcome_of_LicenseReview it is agreed that we need to do something about files that can't be reviewed (I tried to fix the template but per Template_talk:LicenseReview#Outcome I did not manage to get it to work).

I would like to hear if anyone can think of a way to review the files. And if not perhaps we could make a template like {{Flickr-change-of-license}} (or change the existing) saying that the license was changed or that the file was licensed freely according to the uploader but we can't verify it because now all licenses are non-free.

As a minimum we could add a template saying that users should NOT ask for a license review. If for some reason they doubt that the file were licensed freely they should check the file themselves and if thats not possible they ahould start a DR themselves. MGA73 (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: When I reviewed images from Forestryimages.org before the change of license, almost all their images were freely licensed as CC BY 3.0 US. These images are TODAY ALL CC BY NC ND 3.0 at the source but they were previously reviewed as CC BY 3.0 Generic here: File:B alleghaniensis 01.jpg OR File:Tapesia yallundae at Triticum aestivum (02).jpg uploaded and reviewed in 2020 by another reviewer OR File:Popillia japonica (59).jpg as this 2019 image shows which was reviewed in 2023. From the last image, the license was still cc by 3.0 in March 2023 when the reviewer (me) corrected the license and reviewed this last image in 2023. Images uploaded BEFORE 2023 would have been licensed mostly licensed as CC BY 3.0 Generic at upload. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  File:Giant African snails (Achatina fulica) climbing tree trunk.jpg this was still under CC BY 3.0 when I uploaded it on 1 January 2025 (See archived version from December 4 2024)

  At least some of these files are stored in web.archive.org. You need to copy the URL directly from the source link to check the archive because when open the link the URL will be different as the site design and at least some of the licenses changed sometime in 2025  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   02:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I tried with the new url and that did ofcourse fail. Perhaps someone can make a bot that can check if a file exist on web.archive.org and if it does the put the file to a list or in a category. --MGA73 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• PS: Rasbak understands licenses at forestryimages.org I have marked hundreds of images by him but now he has many in the license review category from 2020 especially...before the change of license. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: However, if it is an uploader with just 1, 2, 3 or 4 images on Commons--with one or two from forest images--obviously the best solution is delete. We cannot trust this kind of uploader understands image licenses. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Question Leoboudv have found examples where images from forestryimages.org are also on insectimages.com with the same ID. Can anyone perhaps help create a bot that can take the url https://www.forestryimages.org/browse/image/<ID> and extract the ID and then check https://www.insectimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=<ID> and if that is a valid url then add the file to a list or category? If the image is on insectimages.org with a free license we can just review the image based on that and it will hopefully make the process easier. --MGA73 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: That is one solution...and a good solution. Another faster solution also is to pass uploads of reliable uploaders from forestry images. Rasbak has uploaded thousands of images to Commons from forestimages like this one: File:Puccinia recondita (123).jpg OR File:Melampsora epitea (40).jpg....if that can be done. He has a few hundred--at least--in the license review category from 2020 and 2021-2023 too. User:Rasbak's images here were reviewed between May and August 2023...and not by me: File:Ustilago avenae (47).jpg, File:Tranzschelia pruni-spinosae (31).jpg and File:Melampsora populnea (05).jpg If MGAbot's can do this, it should reduce the number of forest images needing review by 500 to 750 images, I think. What does the community think? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Pikachu stick figure

I made a stick figure Pikachu drawing that I think should be OK here. It's based only on uncopyrightable biological facts (e.g. "Pikachu has a zigzag tail"), and strictly speaking Pikachu isn't a fictional character, so these don't become protectable character traits just because there are characters that happen to be Pikachu (like Ash's Pikachu, Sparky, OCs, etc.). Honestly, the drawing might be below COM:TOO anyway (which is fine). I'd like to get a second opinion before I upload it here, though. Qzekrom (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it meets Common's scope requirements, as it doesn't seem to be educational media (or useful to other Wikimedia projects). Nosferattus (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

How on earth can you say that "Pikachu" is not a fictional character? And how could you say that a Pikachu has any kind of "biological facts"?! In the same vein, one could say that an older duck who makes head-first dives into a basin full of coins, or that a spider bites makes someone wear a red jumpsuit are biological facts. Any depiction of a Pikachu is always a derivative of the Pokémon character. On the other hand, your stick figure is abstracted enough to not infringe on Pokémon copyrights, but that's also a reason to not be in our project scope. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think your argument conflates Pikachu as a species with specific characters in a story. Scrooge McDuck and Spider-Man are indeed characters; the "traits" you described aren't just facts but are essential to the story being told. Likewise, Ash's Pikachu is a distinct character: he stubbornly refuses to get in a Poké Ball, refuses to evolve, refers to Ash as "Pikapi", occasionally shocks Ash, and cried the one time that Ash got turned into stone. Those are protectable character traits for a distinct fictional character that is part of a story.

By contrast, a wild Pikachu that appears in a Pokémon game is an individual Pokémon you can catch, train, and battle with — a "character" in the sense that it has independent existence within the game world — but it has no fixed character traits that contribute to the overarching plot. Its existence is procedural and mechanical, depending entirely on the player’s choices.

Because Pokémon Red and Green (released in Japan in 1996) predate the anime (which first aired in 1997), there were already an unbounded number of Pikachu-individuals existing on game cartridges, well before Ash's Pikachu was introduced as a distinct narrative character. This further limits any claim that "being a Pikachu" is a protected trait specific to Ash's Pikachu's identity.

That said, I'm glad we agree that my drawing does not reproduce any protectable expression from the Pokémon franchise, and therefore is not a derivative work. Only the specific visual design of Pikachu — including the red cheek pouches, the exact shapes of its eyes and tail, and other detailed features — is copyrightable, not the bare facts about its biology and game mechanics. With that in mind, I'd like to bring this discussion back to project scope.

As for educational use: the image could illustrate Stick figure (as an example of recognizable abstraction and of non-human stick figures), or serve as a reusable template in xkcd-style educational diagrams, such as for a Wikibook about Pokémon game mechanics (such as breeding or Electric-type moves). Since a more detailed visual representation of Pikachu would not be permitted on Commons, an abstract representation like this is necessary to enable those uses. Furthermore, this drawing is not "low-quality"; it is intentionally minimalistic, designed specifically to provide an educationally useful template while respecting copyright boundaries.

I would also welcome discussion on a related conceptual question: whether this drawing itself meets the threshold of originality to qualify as an independently copyrightable work, which would determine whether {{PD-ineligible}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}} would be the more appropriate copyright tag. Qzekrom (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that I can follow the opinion that only Ash's Pikachu is a distinct character. I think that every single Pokémon, be it a Pikachu, Bulbasaur, Charmander, Zekrom, Mewtwo or whatever you want, is a copyrighted creation, at least by the 2D and 3D artwork in games, anime and manga. We have Commons:Fan art which seems to go a bit more in-depth about this subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

CCTV in the United States Ineligible for Copyright - A Complete Legal Fiction

The template PD-automated has been turned into something for which there is zero legal justification for in the United States. Any time a CCTV footage or picture in the country takes a shot of something notable, users upload it to Commons, thinking, erroneously, that the picture cannot be copyrighted. That is a complete legal fiction and the usage of this template for images originating in the US should be curtailed and all such images being justified under this template should be removed. Two of the best examples to counter this ridiculous claim are, first, the Andy Warhol movie Empire, which is an eight-hour film that is composed entire of a still shot of the Empire State Building. The second example is Wolfgang Staehles' time lapse work, "2001", that captured the 9/11 attacks. The former has been inducted into the National Film Registry and is under copyright.

There is no legal precedent in the US that CCTV footage is copyfree. Further, the template is now being used to try to claim that bodycam video in copyfree. There is no end to how this template will be abused because there is no clear directive or policy when applying the template. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted. I believe this template should be nixed for any all all use within the US and that those photos and videos currently uploaded under this template should be removed or blanked unless their verified authors upload them themselves. -- Veggies (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In COM:CRT/US, we have a sentence that reads "In the United States, copyright can only be assigned to "works independently created by a human author"[14]." This is corroborated with COM:TOO and COM:TOO US. Your hypothesis "There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted." about the copyright status seems flawed. Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication; by this intent, there's a foundation for copyrights. You cannot go by simple technical characteristics, but you have to consider the purpose and intent of something that may be a copyrightable work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication Sorry but that is a distinction without a difference. If the owner of a CCTV camera decides that their random footage is now (ahem) "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication" who are you to say it isn't and would that suddenly validate their copyright claim? -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. You don't get to take stuff that exists and claim a copyright on it. Warhol intended to create an artistic work from the start.

If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. But those are never the cases on here; the videos are obvious cuts to the video to the parts of interest. Taking a PD movie and making a shorter cut could be copyrightable; taking a PD movie and cutting it to a scene, especially when there's one or two obvious scenes to cut.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. A rock is a natural object. Rocks are not created by men. Rocks existed before humans. There is a natural process by which rocks come about. CCTV videos are not natural objects. CCTV videos are created by people. CCTV videos did not exist before humans. There is no natural process by which CCTV videos come about. You just made my point for me.

If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. That's exactly what is on Commons. Uploaders don't upload the entire CCTV feed, they upload the short clip or still image that they find relevant. Second, you're still presupposing that CCTV video is PD. It isn't. There's zero legal precedent for claiming that it is. -- Veggies (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Rocks are polished by humans, but that's not enough input for the work to be copyrighted. Kinetic sculptures are made by humans, but aren't copyrighted, because they aren't fixed.

It feels like you didn't bother reading what you're responding to in your haste to respond. Turnings hours and hours of film into one work is a creative action. As I said above, making two cuts in the film, one when the action starts and one when it ends, is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to nitpick but recent court decisions would seem to contradict your analysis of “fixed”. January decision by the 9th Circuit found that sculptures or 3d works with moving or manipulatable parts can be eligible for copyright; they compared movable sculptures (in this case children’s toys) to dynamic works like songs or dance and concluded that the movement does not violate the “fixed” clause. Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., et al, 9th Circuit, January 14 2025. 19h00s (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no legal precedent in the US that says that CCTV camera footage is not "created by a human author". A human set up the CCTV camera, choosing camera location, framing, zoom, and potentially other things such as exposure, contrast, frame rate or even lighting. How far are you willing to take this argument? Is a photograph taken with a digital camera created without a "human author" since it was the camera's processor that actually captured the image? What if it was a point-and-shoot camera with all settings handled automatically? What if a tripod was used so a human wasn't actively pointing the camera? What if a delay timer was used (perhaps to eliminate camera shake on a long exposure) so the human wasn't touching the camera when the image was captured? Where do we draw the line? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We can ask the same question of you, about where the line is drawn. If someone builds a trail up a mountain, is that copyrightable? What if someone traverses a trail enough times to make a trail? What if a person leaves a footprint on a trail? If that footprint causes the rainwater to erode the mountain in a slightly different way than it would have, does that make the whole mountain their copyright?

If we want to discuss this, let's talk about what's being discussed, instead of making strawmen. I would argue that it's clear that works made without intent, like those footprints, aren't copyrightable. The question is about automated CCTV footage, whether endless footage taken for those ten seconds a thief comes by is made with the appropriate creative intent to make a copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The Copyright Office has ruled time and time again that works without a human author (the notorious monkey case or AI, in more recent years) cannot be copyrighted. Who would be the human author of a CCTV camera? The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. The brand that made the camera? Also had no input on any creative work. It can't be the person who "set it up", because the monkey copyright suit had a person setting up the image that the monkey took, and yet it was ultimately ruled uncopyrightable due to lack of human authorship, because what made the decision about when to snap the camera and how was the monkey (a non human). Similarly, an AI, even if prompted with creative input, cannot produce a copyrightable work. There is simply no human author in which to vest the copyright here. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. They chose to film, they chose where to frame the camera for creative reasons. There was human input in both cases, in both the original production and in its representation (the time lapse and slow motion elements and such). If CCTV footage is significantly altered in a creative manner after the fact, or edited in a specific way, or there is some especially creative placement of the cameras for an artistic work that could be copyrighted, but that is almost none of these cases, which are almost uniformly security cameras. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. Of course they did. They or an authorized agent of theirs set it up, chose where to point it, and incurred the costs for buying, maintaining, and preserving that footage. We're not talking about "monkey" photos or AI here—stay on topic—we're discussing CCTV footage. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. The very same thing that someone with still-camera footage chooses when setting up, publishing, or releasing their images. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. As I said above to someone else's comment, that's a distinction without a difference. "An artistic reason" is not a pre-requisite for copyright. If I install a doorbell security camera and, inadvertently, end up capturing footage of something unexpected (natural phenomena or some human act), would you demand to know if I had "an artistic reason" for setting up the camera before granting me a copyright? That's risible. -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If your home painters spilled paint on the floor, and you posted a photo to Facebook, and they claimed you violated the copyright on their floor painting, would you think that not risible? Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? In a country with stronger moral rights, you might be enjoined from destroying their artwork they made on your floor. Artistic intent makes a big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? No, because spilling paint is very much copyrightable. My lawyer would simply state, first, that the painters failed to state a claim because they hadn't demonstrated how a photo uploaded to Facebook violated their copyright in any meaningful way. Second, he would argue that the painters were agents hired by myself to do specific work on my property, which did not include painting the floor, so I was entirely within my rights to have them clean the mess up or clean it up myself, effectively destroying their creation, as being outside the bounds of what they were contracted to do. So, no, your analogy falls flat on all counts. You didn't even attempt to answer my hypothetical doorbell scenario because there is no "artistic reason" prerequisite for having a copyrightable work. -- Veggies (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Veggies: I was just thinking about a scenario where someone is taking a photograph on their phone, drops it, and the camera goes off after rolling down a hill. Obiviously there's no human input or "creative process" involved in that case. But is anyone seriously going to argue the person doesn't own the copyright to the photograph? Otherwise, what exactly would be the standard there? How many times the phone rolled before taking the picture? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that De jure, there's no copyright for having an image snapped due to a technical mishap or fluke, your example is similar to the monkey grabbing a DSLR and pressing the shutter. But in practice, that would be often hard to prove. By the way, there's a photographic technique involving setting your camera to triggering the shutter with a short timer (1 to 3 seconds) and then to cast it in the air. After you caught it when coming down, you have sometimes pictures with funny novel perspectives. I would say that this is undeniably a creative process, even if you're using a lot of randomness. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a difference, legally, between the copyright of a picture taken by dropping your phone accidentally versus dropping your phone intentionally? I don't see one. It's still a human act. -- Veggies (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Copyright Office says "An original work of authorship is a work that is independently created by a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." Accidents aren't creative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The laws actually make more or less huge differences between accidents and intentions. See Act of god, manslaughter vs. murder vs. negligent homicide and battery for examples, admittedly not related to copyrights but mostly with human acts. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If you take a picture of a painting, then that photo is a derivative of that painting and distributing it without a fair use justification is copyright infringing. You can argue that you can destroy this copyrighted painting, but if you accept that it's a work of copyright, I'd wait until the court tells you it's A-OK in any country with strong moral rights. If you install a doorbell cam for someone, are you claiming copyright over any of the footage that results? If someone comes out from Lowe's to install the doorbell, does Lowe's have the copyright to all the cameras its workers installed?-Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"Spilling paint" is not copyrightable. Spilling paint is a technique which can be used in the creation of a copyrightable work. There is a difference. Within the context of the creation of a work, a person can spill paint in a way that reflects their originality and control over the creation of a process. But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work There is absolutely nothing in copyright law that necessitates (ahem) "the intentional application of intellectual creativity". If I accidently spill paint on my floor and I think it spilled in a neat pattern, I can cut the floor out and copyright the whole spillage, sell derivate works from it, and zealously protect it as my intellectual property from people who want to duplicate it without authorization. -- Veggies (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The law is very clear about protecting only creative acts. If you accidentally spill paint on your floor, and you're honest about that, then the US Copyright Office won't register your claim of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Because they did not have any input on its creation. Lots of security cameras are remote controlled. There's no way to know on our end which camera footage was or not either. With body cams specifically, obviously whomever is wearing the camera controls what is being recorded by moving or looking in a certain direction. The question would be if something like that is intentional enough to be considered creative. It certainly seems to be in instances like someone wearing a GoPro camera to record themselves doing an extreme sport. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of files of Red Bull videos on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You could clearly tell from the way the footage moves, and if you can't tell, you run into the same situation as the monkey copyright thing, where what little influence the human may have is not enough to make them the author - after all, he orchestrated the monkey shoot and set it up and moved into its position, still not enough. On the body camera question: yes, I agree, and so I didn't mention body cameras, because there is creative input in how one moves and operates the camera, whether it is attached to one's person or not. Those are not really "automated", their movement and capture is wholly dependent on a human. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the monkey footage is copyrightable. Probably CCTV footage that clearly looks automated isn't either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video. But if I do the same but leave the camera for two years the copyright vanishes? Is there then a point on which the recoding before is copyrighted and the recoding after. Will the copyright of the first hour be revoked because the camera was standing for two years. This does not make sense to me. There are similar questions on some FOP cases where we decided to delete them all per PCP. GPSLeo (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

All is about the intent. The objective of a security camera is not to produce any work. It is only to provide security. If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright. Yann (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not know about the US law but in EU law intent is definitely irrelevant for the copyright of a work. The only think that matters is if there was a creative process. If placing a camera is a creative process keeping there for a longer time does not remove the creativity from the process of placing the camera. GPSLeo (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ain't that simply two ways of saying the same thing? Yann: "If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright." GPSLeo: "The only think that matters is if there was a creative process." I understand it as such: Intent to create = Creative process, if you have the intent to create, then you've taken the first step of a creative process. I do not see how creation without intent could be possible. Grand-Duc (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say placing a camera at a certain place is always a creative process. GPSLeo (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Fixed cameras are usually installed by technicians, not by videographers. And for determining the intent, search for who pays for the camera. For security cameras, a private or public organization pays for it with the intention of providing security. Yann (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you had to be a professional videographer to hold copyright. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

"If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video." Not necessarily. If I place a digital thermometer outside and it records the temperatures though-out the day, I don't have any right to stop others from copying the same exact data and publishing it themselves.

Copyright is limited-time government granted monopoly it can choose to bestow or withhold as it sees fit. It chooses not to bestow that monopoly in cases where recovered information lacks human originality. Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is just an extension of Burrow-Giles v. Sarony. The question has nothing to do with the mechanical process, but whether or not the photograph (or video) represents the "original intellectual conceptions" of the author. In the case of a planned or manually shot video, there is consistent control over the output. If you are watching the camera, you have a choice at any moment whether to move it or not, to adjust it, etc. — putting aside, of course, any control you may exercise over the events that take place in front of it. If you leave a camera unattended, however, then the frames captured will have less and less to do with your intellectual conception, to the point where you may not exercise any significant authorship.

To ask you another question: let's say you start shooting a video, and, after an hour, you hand your camera off to me (without turning it off) and I shoot video for an hour. During those times, we both have control over the camera and the various aspects of the photographic process. Once you stop exercising authorship, however, whatever the camera captures is not your work (but, in this case, mine). Look at Burrow-Giles. The photograph is found to be copyrightable because is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same … entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." In a CCTV case, very few of these criteria, if any, are fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Despite what many on Wikipedia/Commons claim, the US copyright office never ruled on the monkey selfie. Yes, they issues a pamphlet that said that in a hypothetical situation in which a monkey took a photograph that it wouldn't be eligible for copyright, but there was no ruling on the situation in which a human set up a camera, adjusted all the settings, composed and framed the image, and did everything other than actually hit the shutter button as to whether the image could be considered to have been created by a human. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

From the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices: The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” - If the CCTV is a static CCTV feed, it's ineligible. If someone's controlling the camera, it likely is eligible. I don't think it makes sense to apply it to body cameras, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That interpretation has zero legal precedent or foundation behind it. It's, essentially, a highly disputable reading of the Copyright Office principles. In fact, none of the examples given after that passage even remotely come close to what you're suggesting. -- Veggies (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I largely agree, and have encouraged people not to use {{Pd-automated}} for US CCTV. It would be useful to get WMF Legal to weigh in on the copyrightability of prepositioned cameras via m:Wikilegal -- I was going to request it a while ago, but never got around to sending the email. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Who do you think the copyright would vest in? Hypothetically they were copyrightable, who would get it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

In the UK, the copyright is assigned to the property owner, if my memory serves me. Though in the UK, something as simple as a signature can be copyrighted.

Perhaps someone could email the Copyright Office and ask them to weigh in? JayCubby (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

In any nation with sweat of the brow doctrine I feel it would logically go to whoever bought the camera, but the United States does not have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Anybody saying that these are easily in the public domain - well I hope they're right, but given the very low TOO in many countries, and the fact that this principle has been completely untested in the US, means we don't know until something goes to court. As a rule, I'd say CCTV is hopefully fine, while dashcams and bodycams are more dubious because there is far more likely to be human placement/decision in filming angle, what they're filming, when, ect. It's different from the monkey case, because the monkey produced a still and the choice of when to take the still is likely what bumps the copyright to the monkey rather than the human. But we don't know. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

US law is clear: Copyright applies to art, not data. When there's no artist, there's no art, and thus no government-granted monopoly to restrict copying. It's not a legal fiction, it's a well-established legal reality. Feoffer (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

How do you distinguish 'art' from 'data' in an image? -- Veggies (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Well... The law is actually really unclear on this point. "Art" is never explicitly defined in the relevant statutes in the same way you're defining it here. You can call anything "art", that doesn't make it copyrightable. You can also call anything "data", that doesn't make it copyright-ineligible. Indeed, the shades of grey are the most important aspects of this situation - it comes down to how courts and the CO have interpreted and analyzed similar "works" under the relevant statutes, it does not hinge on whether we personally think it's "art" or "data". As OP correctly pointed out, there are multiple examples of copyrighted films that comprise nothing more than a single, continuous, static shot - Warhol's Empire for sure could be a case of the Copyright Office granting registration prior to a court decision that would nullify the effect of the registration, but we just don't know if that's the case, it hasn't been tested in court. I'll stop there as I don't want to get knee-deep in this discussion, but the idea that "art" vs "data" is a simply explained binary within the language of US copyright law is just incorrect. 19h00s (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There are some reasonable arguments that some installations may be PD-ineligible, which is more a question if there is no identifiable human authorship. For a photograph, the usual aspects are framing and angle -- while those may be limited and more obvious for security cameras (merger doctrine arguments), it still may be enough for copyright. A camera could be positioned by an installation company, or tweaked by an employee, and maybe that is enough. It may also be very difficult for us to determine. I did find one registration, PA0002103805, which is I think for this video. Which means it's certainly possible for some fairly basic security cameras to get a copyright registration in the U.S. It's a pretty untested area of law, where we are guessing. If there is any remote control of the camera, I would assume it's copyrightable, for sure. The CCTV aspect is irrelevant in and of itself. I'm not sure the Copyright Office or any court has given us any decent guidance over what aspects to look for. It's arguable, but I can also certainly see arguments that it's gray enough that there is significant doubt on such works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I broadly agree. I think COM:PCP probably wins the day with me so far. Someone chose to put the camera there with the intention of capturing things in that area at that angle. It may be for utilitarian reasons and not "art", but AFAIK, there is no utilitarian exemption for video. GMG^talk 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am leery of {{PD-automated}}. I do not think there is caselaw that supports a blanket ruling that such footage is PD-ineligible. The copyright office has ruled that technical images such as x-rays are PD-ineligible. An x-ray technician does not have much freedom in making the image. I'm sympathetic to PD-ineligible in some circumstances. If somebody screws a Ring doorbell camera onto the wall, there is also little choice available from framing the shot. The same can be said of dash cams and Tesla cams. I'm less sympathetic to PD-ineligible when the installer has a lot of freedom about where to install the camera and where the camera points. A few months ago, I saw a discussion about a camera mounted on top of a building to monitor the parking lot below. Yes, a functional image, but the image was also pleasing as it had good composition. I can easily see a human exercising judgment to make a pleasing image. There are clear cases of copyright. If someone sets up a camera to catch the surf pounding the shore or some wild animals feeding, that someone should not be denied a copyright merely because they left the camera unattended for hours on end. The photographer intended to catch some interesting footage. That a security camera captures an unexpected event such as a plane crash makes the issue of copyright less clear. The photographer was not trying to frame the unexpected crash, so everything else might be incidental. If, however, the photographer wanted to capture images of ships passing underneath a bridge and happened to capture a ship striking the bridge and collapsing it, then the framing is not accidental, and I see no reason for PD-ineligible. In summary, the law is not settled, so Commons should be cautious about claiming {{PD-automated}}. Glrx (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean to say it has no basis in law, not that it is a "legal fiction." There is such a thing as a legal fiction, and this isn't an example of that. The question is whether or not the video has within it a modicum of originality which constitutes human authorship of the video/image.

Copyright exists only in works containing such originality, not in the mechanical process used to create them. If you run a camera for an hour with the lens cap on, you will produce an hour-long video, but it will not be copyrightable, because the output (a black screen) will not contain the modicum of originality necessary for something to be a copyrighted work. The best argument that CCTV is copyrightable in general is that the camera has been placed by a human and thus that there is human authorship in the framing of the image which is output. This may not always be the case — in some cases, the person who set up the camera may have little to no control over its positioning. There is no aspect of static CCTV which can possibly include human authorship, except for this initial framing of the image. And, even then, the contents of what is in front of the camera can be left uncontrolled to the point where the initial (minimally) creative image is no longer reflected in the output of the camera.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

is there "legal precedent" for cctv footage being copyrightable? ltbdl (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

In the United States, not. In the UK there is legal precedent for it being under copyright (Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland), in Russia there is legal precedent for it not being under copyright. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

CCTV footage in the United States is clearly ineligible for copyright as there is no human authorship. As the U.S. Copyright office states: Copyright "applies to the protection of intellectual property and authorship rights over original, creative works produced by a human." Sweat of the brow is not a valid legal doctrine in the United States. I also don't understand how Andy Warhol's Empire is at all relevant to the issue. CCTV footage and documentaries (even long monotonous ones) are different things. Nosferattus (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day, that film is essentially identical to most CCTV footage placed at a static location. Warhol physically set up a camera and let it film continuously from a specific angle, before taking the footage and publishing it as a continuous shot. When a CCTV camera is set up, a human being physically puts it up and angles it to get a specific shot, and another human operator may even be changing the angle or deciding when it records or not. Those are almost identical actions creating almost identical works, Warhol's simply has the imprimatur of "art" while the other is generally not viewed as such. Just because a maintenance worker without "artistic intent" carried out the acts to set up and ultimately film a CCTV video does not mean that "work" is less copyrightable than a nearly identical work created with "artistic intent". Nowhere in the relevant statutes does it say a human has to have intended to create a work for it to be eligible for copyright, the work just has to have been created by a human (along with all the other requirements/rules). Indeed, the USCO's compendium explicitly states: "When examining a work for original authorship, the U.S. Copyright Office will not consider the author’s inspiration for the work, creative intent, or intended meaning. Instead, the Office will focus solely on the appearance or sound of the work that has been submitted for registration to determine whether it is original and creative within the meaning of the statute and the relevant case law." 19h00s (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If you don't see any difference between Empire and CCTV footage, nothing I say is going to convince you. We seem to have entirely different ideas of what "creativity" and "authorship" mean, so I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful. Nosferattus (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a clear artistic difference between the two - but the copyright office doesn't care about artistic difference, they care about the visual attributes of the "work". I'm talking about the basic visual/physical attributes: a static, continuous video, set up by a human, recording an unmediated scene. 19h00s (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If a camera was carefully positioned by a human, it would be copyrightable, just like any photograph. Even pretty casual snapshot photographs get a copyright, as they were still positioned by a human. Security cameras are often positioned in obvious places, but it's a difficult question to figure out when such an act becomes uncopyrightable. Taking a straight-on photo of a painting is not, but we have little other clear precedents. Do you think this video has a copyright? If so, what makes that copyrightable but others not? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That video may not be copyrightable, but the license is a guarantee that the video can be used without any fear of litigation. Plenty of stock photography sites sell public domain images, I'd lump this in with that. JayCubby (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Except the U.S. Copyright Office looked at it, and granted a copyright registration (PA0002103805). So, that is supposed to be prima facie evidence that it's copyrightable, which you have to disprove in court if accused of infringing it. Are we saying the Copyright Office is wrong? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I seem to have missed that. I found some other registrations with a query (this for one). This one is edited, which would seem a more credible claim of copyrightability.

Though @Clindberg--the example you gave was part of a compilation of clips, which might be worth noting. JayCubby (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby: That compilation link does not work for me -- many cocatalog.loc.gov URLs only work temporarily. That particular registration has a "PA" number (performing arts) and is listed as a motion picture. The author assigned copyright to that company which is now selling the clip, and that is the only work that author is listed for. They may have registered several works at once, but not sure that is part of a series really, and works inside a compilation have their own independent copyright anyways (though you can have a copyrightable compilation of public domain works too). But yes, it would seem that the Copyright Office is issuing registrations for security camera footage in many cases, and I have not seen a case where they rejected one. That would argue against us allowing them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg, I fear that may be the case. I was initially biased against its copyrightability, and still am. I see still the possibility that the USCO hasn't formally considered the copyrightability (as it's in the courts that such rulings are more often made, no?). I, of course, am neither a lawyer nor an armchair lawyer. JayCubby (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

CCTV footage in the United States is clearly ineligible for copyright as there is no human authorship. Really? So... god put the camera there? Or did CCTV cameras coalesce out of the aether? -- Veggies (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If I make a computer program to automatically generate art for me, do I own the copyright to the output? If I place a camera, but a non-human entity takes the shot (a computer program, or a monkey), do I own the copyright to it? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

If I make a computer program to automatically generate art for me, do I own the copyright to the output? Irrelevant to this discussion. It isn't about computer-generated art. If I place a camera, but a non-human entity takes the shot (a computer program, or a monkey), do I own the copyright to it? Maybe. That hasn't been decided in the courts or the legislature—only on Commons based on an ad hoc pronouncement by the Copyright Office. Here, a human entity installed the camera and chose the angles to record. The footage and its rights belong to them. Again: look at Staehle's work, "2001" mentioned above. -- Veggies (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I spoke to a (former) copyright lawyer on the matter. He believed that CCTV was copyrightable, as it's a work in a fixed medium. However, it's a "thin copyright," so it's apparently unlikely that someone will even pursue a case. JayCubby (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not how I interpret "thin copyright". If I use the original footage, then he can sue me successfully. If I make my own footage that looks similar to his, then his lawsuit will fail. For example, X can take a picture of the Statue of Liberty. X has a thin copyright to that image. X's thin copyright does not prevent me from taking a nearly identical picture of the Statute of Liberty from the same place, with the same framing, and similar lighting conditions. CCTV footage of a plane crash on the Hudson River may have a thin copyright, but I'd be hard pressed to set up a similar plane crash with my own CCTV equipment a week later. A stronger copyright is where Y sets up the scene and controls the action. If I try to recreate a scene from a recent movie, then I'm probably violating a copyright. Glrx (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That's the other part of what he said, and it appears I merged his two points: that the recreation of depicted things is permitted (thin copyright) and that it's highly unlikely people will find it worthwhile to pursue litigation of CCTV that Commons hosts (it's not known if it will hold up in court, and damages are going to be tricky). JayCubby (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Board Game Artwork

I am very unsure about how to use Wiki-Commons. I am just about to do some major editing of a Wikipedia article about a board game, e.g., en:Brass (board game) (Wikipedia 'free link'). I screen-shot the artwork of the game's title on the computer game version, available through Steam. The header is the word "Brass" on a brass plaque. The artwork is clearly not my own work, and I am not sure whether it is the game's logo, as it is the game's title. In addition, since it is a graphic of the game, I assume that the person in control of illustrating the computer version, Magdalena Mudlaff, or the illustrator of the original board game, Peter Dennis, have a copyright over such a graphic. How would I go about working out whether I can use the graphic or getting permission? I seem to see other board games with a complete picture of the game's box cover, including the board game logo, but I am just not sure how they managed to do that. Are such illustrations in the public domain, and, if not, how do they become so? Can you advise me? Thanks in advance for the time taken to lend your assistance.SMargan (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@SMargan: There are two separate issues here:

1. Can you upload these materials to Commons? Without seeing the images in question I can't say anything definitive, but it is very unlikely anything related to a game create in recent decades is in the public domain, unless (for example) the logo is too simple to copyright and you want to use that, or the game simply reuses images whose copyright has expired. Otherwise, you'd need the owners of the copyright to release these materials under a free license, and very few owners of commercially valuable materials are likely to do such a thing. If you want a detailed explanation of the issues involved in uploading materials like this to Commons, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
2. Failing that, can you upload these as non-free materials on the English-language Wikipedia without involving Commons? en:Wikipedia:Non-free content allows for allowing certain non-free content (such as logos) directly to en-wiki.

- Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Luchador masks

Hello, I have a question regarding Luchador masks. In the past, the File:Mascara Blue Demon.svg has been deleted for copyright violation, even though it was in use on the professionnal wrestling project in French. Yesterday, I flagged the File:BlueDemonMask.png for copyvio, as it is a close picture of the unworn mask. I am not sure if I did the right thing or what the rule is regarding the masks of Mexican wrestlers. Does anyone have any advice? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The deletion request is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlueDemonMask.png CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There was also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hormiga luchador.jpg which came out of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Estrellato. The second DR was kept but it was mainly for procedural reasons because of how many files were included in the request. It's been a minute, but from what the remember the standard for masks is the same as it is for everything else. I don't think the mask in File:BlueDemonMask.png is complicated enough to copyrighted. More complex ones would be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Raúl Montero.jpg

Hi all,
Can anyone (probably Spanish speaking) help find if [15] contains anything about the license the uploader stated. Quick1984 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks alright. While I do not speak Spanish, the written language is sufficiently close to others I manage to check the "Condiciones de Uso" (easily understandable for me as "terms of use") linked of the page footer. These words are actually a link to the CC-By 3.0 license on Creativecommons.org. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about file

Hi! I have a question about if a file would be protected under copyright laws. In the US. This image was taken for the Southern Courier, a newspaper from the South that covered civil rights issues among other things. The newspaper archives are available, and not published with a copyright notice, qualifying them for the PD-US-no notice. The image at the first link, one that would be great to use for an article I am working on for the subject of the photo. That image was never published in that newspaper, and I am unable to find when it was truly first published. The AL digital archives indicates no clear copyright, just that it may be held by the state. The first image was taken for the Southern Courier, but not published there. The second batch of images at the digital archives were also not published from what I can find, but I am not sure. Could anyone weigh in on this and let me know? I understand that not every page needs a picture, it would just be helpful Yoblyblob (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Or this image Yoblyblob (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You'll be on much cleaner ground if you can find images that you know were published, without notice, in the U.S. before 1989 than in trying to work out the status of images that were not published in a timely manner. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sede de Cervecería Polar (1941)

Buenas se puede publicar a Wikimedia la sede de Cervecería Polar como esta imagen en 1941 para agregar {{PD-Venezuela}} (60 años) ósea en Venezuela estará al Dominio Público en 1965 o antes? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hola, AbchyZa22. Los 60 años empiezan desde la fecha de publicación, no de creación. No es claro cuándo se publicó la imagen. Es decir, si no se publicó antes de 1965, creo que no está en el dominio público en Venezuela.

La imagen también debe estar en el dominio público en los Estados Unidos (donde están localizados los servidores de Wikimedia Commons). Creo que los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. permanecen por 95 años desde la publicación, según la URAA/LARU. (En detalle: La URAA restaura los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. si la imagen estuvo protegida en el país de origen en la fecha de restauración [1 de enero de 1996 para la mayoría de países, incluso COM:Venezuela. Aunque se publicara la imagen en 1941, los derechos de author todavía no vencerían en 1996, entonces los derechos de autor son restaurados en los EE.UU.)

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anon126:Abajo de la imagen aparece 1941 como fecha de publicación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Bueno, pero como lo dije antes, creo que la imagen aún no estaría en el dominio público en los EE.UU. La política sobre material en el dominio público requiere que la imagen esté en el dominio público tanto en los EE.UU. como en el país de origen. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anon126:Buenas,no todos los logos pasaron al Dominio Público en EE.UU. pero existe logos que ya pasó al Dominio Público en Venezuela no en EEUU por ejemplo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)