Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Possibly public domain images published in book

I copied this question from the Help Desk at the suggestion of another contributor. There is a book titled Port Charlotte by Roxanne Read, and within it there are some old photos pertaining to Port Charlotte High School that were apparently provided "courtesy of Port Charlotte High School" (as well as some other public schools in Port Charlotte, including Charlotte Harbor Center). Public records in Florida are considered public domain, and apparently "public record" has a broad interpretation, so these are potentially public domain images. Would I need to try to hunt down either the author of the book or the school/school district officials that provided these to confirm their public record status (meaning that they were, in fact, government produced vs. a private individual or corporation with copyrights producing them for the government), or is the citation in the book enough to qualify them for inclusion in the Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikipedia? PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@PCHS Pirate Alumnus: "Courtesy of" in this case is likely to just mean who physically provided a photo. It would matter enormously whether or not the photo was taken by a school employee as part of their job, and nothing you say indicates that we can assume that.

Also, you don't say anything about the nature of the photo, or its date. If (for example) they were published in a school yearbook or a school newspaper before 1 March 1989, there is a very good chance of being PD for lack of copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The photos in question are from the early 1980s (1980-1982, I think, but definitely prior to 1989). It seems to me that a reputable publisher would require the author to provide proof of permission to use the images if they were copyrighted by someone other than the school, and if that were the case the person or company that owns copyright would be named in the book. The book was published by Arcadia Publishing in 2009. How would you suggest verifying this, since I can't seem to find any information on the author to ask her directly? PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@PCHS Pirate Alumnus: It doesn't seem likely that the author of the Arcadia book has any rights at all involved in this, so it would seem to make more sense to contact the school. I take it from your account name that that should not be difficult for you to do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Royal Military College Duntroon badge

Hi, and hope you're well. If File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge cropped.PNG can be hosted here, can w:File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif be imported? I don't know enough to evaluate the November 2023 discussion at w:File talk:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif#c-KarmaKangaroo-20231125160900-KarmaKangaroo-20231122204100. Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the templates that state it is public domain in both the US and Australia, I say we're good. Bremps... 03:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Imported to File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif. Thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

CC licensed used by official channel in different region for Copyrighted Materials

The YouTube source for File:Overwatch_2_–_Trailer_de_lançamento.webm (as well as several files that have been cropped from screenshots of it) does list the standard CC YouTube license, but its clear that the material in question is normally 100% a copyrighted work from a US company. The uploader does appear to be an official agency of the US company that owns the copyright but this feels like copyright-washing that we should be avoiding. Masem (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Templates and categories were created in September 2024, April 2025 and July 2025 for videos of several official youtube accounts of that company. Not sure what we do with that but at least it's not an isolated mistake by one channel. Notifying JohnCWiesenthal. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Those channel-specific YouTube CC BY templates were created in response to {{Official Doctor Who YouTube channel}} and {{Official Star Wars Flickr stream}} (and actually started with {{Official NickRewind YouTube channel}}). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't deny its fine for those templates, it makes sense, for the channels of the programs in their original native country or language, as there's clearer line of authority for taking copyrighted material to release as CC. Here, though, this is a foreign language version of the main US entity, and posting videos that are under copyright from the official English channels, but where the foreign version simply uses the same visual elements and labels that CC. The cleanliness of the Brazilian Xbox division to do that is very unclear. Masem (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a straightforward rehash of the Vogue Taiwan situation. The foreign subsidiaries of a company don't automatically have the right to freely release content they're republishing from their corporate owner. They're two separate entities, so the republisher (the subsidiary) needs explicit permission from the content owner. As has been demonstrated in several other analogous situations, that required permission often never happens, as subsidiaries sometimes mistakenly believe they don't need to ask for it. So, IMO, we can't rely on the CC licenses for the non-English XBOX videos unless and until Microsoft/XBOX HQ confirms that their subsidiaries had permission to release the content as such. 19h00s (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesnt explain why a subsidary suddenly decided to release everything under CC BY SA (and in the case of XBoxBR, seemingly only for videos posted in a specific time period) Trade (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't know if this info is going to be useful, but XboxBR stopped CC BY licensing after October 2023 (with the last CC BY video being 11 segredos que você não sabia sobre o Xbox, which I also wanted to upload, but now I'll wait). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 10:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean I don't think we're ever going to get a direct explanation as to why they made that choice unless the rightsholder confirms it was on purpose and authorized. No one from Condé ever gave a full reasoning of why Vogue Taiwan made those licensing choices. I was chastised in that last discussion by several folks for conjecturing about the intent of VT, so I'm just gonna wait until WMF or a rightsholder responds. 19h00s (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What you've encountered is a free depiction. There is a whole category for these types of files with constant arguing about whether some of this stuff should be allowed. The most recent deletion discussion about Minecraft content uploaded by Xbox Mexico veered heavily towards the fact that uploads by subsidiaries count as official (0 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes, excluding mine), but feel free to argue otherwise. This can be a pretty contentious topic and the fact that it has never been tested in court doesn't help.

Also, CC licenses are irrevocable, so even if one changes their license on YouTube, it is still fair game, as long as you can verify that the license was here in the first place (either with Internet Archive or if the reviewer verified it). So if the owner changes the license after being contacted, that doesn't mean anything unless the owner explicitly mentions that the license was not intended in the first place. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel you may be overlooking some factors here. We have several uploads of the video, two of which in the same locale (Overwatch BR), by subsidiaries of the same company. But only the XboxBR account posted it as free use. That wasn't the same issue raised in the Minecraft deletion discussion, and I share Masem's concerns about copyright-washing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn’t address whether XBOX’s Brazilian subsidiary had the right to publish the content under that license. That’s the core of the issue here, not the irrevocability of CC licenses. Subsidiaries don’t automatically have the same rights over content as their corporate parents. 19h00s (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

And just to put a finer point on it, I really do think this feels like the same situation as Vogue Taiwan (see the primary discussion and the eventual WMF response). In that case, a foreign subsidiary of Condé Nast (Vogue Taiwan, or VT) republished content from Condé under free licenses; that same content had been published elsewhere by other Condé entities without free licenses. After WMF got in touch with Condé to clear things up, Condé confirmed that the CC licenses on VT's content were an error; the consensus among admins was to then delete all of the content in question, not because VT had made a mistake (CC licenses are irrevocable, after all), but because VT likely never had the legal authority to make that free licensing decision in the first place, meaning the CC licenses were likely never even valid. I think that's exactly what's happened here with XBOX: the foreign subsidiaries of a company have released under a free license content from their corporate parents, even after that same content had been republished by other subsidiaries with restrictions. This resulted in that content ending up on Commons; but there is no evidence that the subsidiary had the legal authority to make that licensing decision, meaning we do not know if the licenses are valid or invalid. Given the context here (we're talking about a giant tech company that regularly pursues damages for IP violations), I do not think it's appropriate to just "assume" that the subsidiaries crossed their t's and dotted their i's on this, especially when other examples have taught us that assumption is not always correct.

I understand completely why it's so tempting to believe on its face the licensing situation here; there's even a part of me that feels a bit of satisfaction with XBOX's seeming mistake because I also love free media and hate it when corporations gatekeep everything they own. But loopholes or unique situations like this which seem to get around the IP practices of large companies are in fact usually too good to be true. 19h00s (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I sent messages to Activision/Microsoft/XBox's PR and legal teams to try and sort this out. Does anyone else have any interest in reaching out to any of the rightsholders here to get clarity? Should we ask WMF Legal for an opinion on what they would do if Microsoft/XBox/Activision send DMCA takedowns? 19h00s (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

WMF legal could definitely provide help. Although it would make sense to remove the content under the DMCA takedown, I feel like going with a full lawsuit could be more beneficial, since there has been no precedents on free depictions and one could be set, resolving most of the future conflicts. Though I don't know how costly it would be and how strong the Wikimedia lawyers are. Still, it would be nice to know the legality of free depictions once and for all, including ones made by subsidiaries. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 04:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do i feel like this is gonna end up with companies pressuring YouTube to remove CC licensing as an option entirely? Trade (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not my intention, but... oof, yeah.

FYSA, I flagged this for WMF legal in the same place where Yann flagged the Vogue Taiwan issue. 19h00s (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the title and author name under CC BY-SA 4.0 and the image under CC BY-SA 3.0??

I was looking at older image dumps and I released some are liscensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 but the structured data is sparse, with only the name of the author in some cases even though for a CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution the title is required. Perhaps this has been asked before, or I simply do not understand this correctly... Sloemaxez (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Huh, @Sloemaxez, your posting is somewhat hard to sort out and understand (notably due to a lack of punctuation). Did I grasp correctly that you're asking about licensing combinations on Wikimedia dumps? If yes:

- for some time already (several years, I think), the standard license on WMF projects was switched from CC-By-SA 3.0 unported to CC-By-SA 4.0 unported. I don't recall the exact date at the moment, but this date serves as cut-off between the default licenses. Anything that carried a valid license at the time of upload is available under that exact license.

- an author name is pure information and does not amount to any expression of creativity. Only human creative results warrant copyright protections, which are the base of licenses. So, author names are not within the purview of copyrights.

- an author is free to provide a title for their work(s). If such information is given, then it must be included in any license-compliant usage. But: authors are also free to forego the selection of a title. If they don't state a title, then the licensing requirement of stating one is moot - you can't use something that isn't present. For Wikimedia Commons images, you can and maybe should default to the filename as title surrogate as that would help in searching the actual source file. It is also quite difficult (but not impossible) to create a title which is creative enough to warrant a copyright in its own right, as default, use the same license for it as the underlying work. Other licensing constructions must be clearly declared.

- the Creative Commons licenses are quite permissive when it comes to make correct attributions in compilations using licensed material. You will need to simply list what compiled part is available under what kind of license. There are other en:FOSS licenses around which are "more virulent", meaning, they pervade compilations and are often incompatible with other kinds of free licensing models. Further reading is likely to be gleaned by actually googleing "viral license" or at en:Copyleft#"Viral" licensing.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see, my english has been getting worse(despite me being a native speaker), I am sorry for my lack of punctuation. Your response is appreciated. Sloemaxez (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sloemaxez: nevermind - I struggled at sorting out the meaning of the 2 verbs in "I was looking at older image dumps and I released some are liscensed under CC BY-SA 3.0". But apparently I got your intentions right enough?! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

released -> realized Sloemaxez (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

AAAHHH! Thanks, that really makes sense. - I forgot to give Commons:Multi-licensing as link in my first answer, by the way. It may also be a helpful reading. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Help determining copyright

This photo is of a composer named Apollon Gussakovsky (Russian) or Hussakovskyi (Ukrainian). I tried to search the image, but the only other result I found was this Soviet journal that doesn't mention the author, date,... Can anyone help me find the copyright details of the image? WafflesInvasion (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Given his lifespan of 1841-1875, this file *should* be safe to upload to Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agree {{PD-old-assumed}} should probably work. Nakonana (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Russia rehabilitation question

Hi, I'm trying to figure out Russian copyright for a work. This is about a man who, while in Russia under the USSR, published a work in 1930, was arrested in 1935 and died while imprisoned (around 1938), then was posthumously rehabilitated in October 1958. Based on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia, is his 1930 work still copyrighted?

To my understanding it is; if we assume 50 years from rehabilitation -> October 2008, and on January 1, 2008, Russia retroactively extended rehabilitation copyright to 70 years, so -> October 2028. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think your reasoning is correct. Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright terms almost always run to the end of the year, so until Dec. 31, 2028. Also still protected in the US until the end of 2025 because of the URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 10:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

About an old Argentine photo

Once again I'm struggling to wrap my head around the ins and outs of copyright law for a GA review. In 2023, Jpmanganiello (talk · contribs) uploaded this photograph of the Dubovsky family, claiming to be the copyright holder and releasing it under a CC license. I can't find any evidence that this photograph was published prior to its upload here. I also don't know the identity of the photographer. I estimated that the photo was taken in the late 1920s or early 1930s, judging by the age of the children, which would imply that it was created before Argentina established its own copyright law in 1933. I've tried reaching out to the uploader for more information, but they have been inactive since uploading it. Based on all this info, was the uploader correct in uploading it under this license, or is it in the public domain based on the known information about it? LEvalyn (talk · contribs) believes it might fall under PD-1996, but I'm not sure that's the case, due to a lack of prior publication. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If the photo was taken and afterwards given to the family by a professional photographer, then, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beverly J. White portrait.jpg, it was published if it wasn't a work for hire. So either Jpmanganiello has to be the copyright holder or we are certain that the photo is not a work for hire. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How is "for hire" defined? It definitely seems like it was taken in a studio. But again, I have very little information about it :/ --Grnrchst (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking through that discussion thread and some linked from it, I don't see a clear explanation of "for hire" , but I do see a recurring idea that when a photographer gave a studio portrait to the subjects of the photo, this actually constituted its "publication". That's new information to me and very helpful to know! I agree with Grnchst that this certainly appears to be a studio portrait of the family. I'm more convinced now that pd-1996 is appropriate here. LEvalyn (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My understanding from reading Nimmer on Copyright § 5.03[B][2][c] is that under the Copyright Act of 1909, commissioned works are presumed to be made for hire, but (as Nimmer speculates at the end of the section) it is possible that the photographer published the photo before implicitly transferring their common law copyright. However, since this is a photo from Argentina, I'm not sure if US copyright law is the correct point of reference. Maybe Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., a case that I don't fully understand, could offer some insight? prospectprospekt (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair-use and copyright violation

I was editing the article on Plants vs. Zombies on the English Wikipedia, which itself had a screenshot of the game, uploaded under the fair-use license. I uploaded a screenshot of my own to add to the section of the article talking about other game modes. It is just a screenshot of the game just like the existing photo in the article. As I am still quite an inexperienced editor, I couldn't figure out how to set the license under fair-use. This seems to have lead to the removal of the image, along with a warning issued to me regarding a copyright violation, and how repeated offenders could be banned.

Clearly, I had no intention of violating any copyright laws, and I had thought that any issues with not selecting the right license would be rectifiable after the image was uploaded, and not lead to a copyright violation. I am concerned that this might mean my account is flagged for having a copyright violation, and I would like to appeal for this record to be removed, as I am sure that fair-use applies to the image that I had uploaded, as it does for the existing image featured in the article.

Could anyone educate me on what I might have missed? How was I supposed to get the image to be uploaded under fair-use, and how can I go about rectifying this record for a copyright violation? Who could I contact or appeal to regarding this issue? Thank you.

-- Sentimex (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair use images should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, they are not allowed on Commons. Spinal83 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Ditto as to what Spinal83 said, Fair Use is outside the scope of Commons as it is supposed to serve as a library of freely-licensed images.

Furthermore, when uploading a fair-use/nonfree image to Wikipedia, one must make sure it follows the Free Use Rational. One of the most important aspects of this is that the file is low enough quality as to make it unfit for reproduction.

With all that said and done, I'd like to say "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons!". Start here if you'd like to know more about this project and it's policies. I hope this moment doesn't scare you off. Cawfeecrow (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses, and doubly so for the warm welcome! I needed that if I'm being honest, that copyright violation notice did scare me quite a bit, haha. I had no idea that there was a distinction between uploading to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, which explains my initial confusion during the upload. I'll try to be more careful moving forward. Glad to have had a positive encounter with the community come out of this! -- Sentimex (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

We mark everything as "copyvio" even if the usage here (or Wikipedia) would fall under fair use and be legal. Fair use, as it exists in the United States, is not common elsewhere (though a few countries have copied the language into their laws in the last few years). Most have something somewhat similar but not as wide-ranging or flexible. Since Commons is used by projects of all languages, we don't allow fair use images here at all -- those have to be uploaded at local projects such as English Wikipedia (and they try to limit their use there, so if there are many fair-use images on an article, they may try to whittle those down). Fair use implies that it's legal in some circumstances, and not in others (which would then be copyright violations if used in those other situations). The marker here was more of "it could be a copyvio if people use in ways we claim it can be used", as images here should also be OK for e.g. commercial use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That's really good to know, really appreciate your detailed explanation. I did intend to upload the image to the English Wikipedia as I was editing an article, but I did not realise that the image ended up being uploaded to Commons instead. This is something about the interface that I am still confused about and would like to figure out moving forward. -- Sentimex (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sentimex: you should probably read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Will check this out. Thanks! -- Sentimex (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What's the TOO on PD moving picture re-scans and/or "remasters"? (US)

I already presume colorizations meet TOO, I'm not talking about them.

Per Bridgeman v. Corel, I know that static reproductions of PD 2d works do not meet TOO. However, I'm a little lost on moving reproductions. You know, movies. Template:PD-scan doesn't specify format.

I see that per Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp., "pan and scan" reproductions are copyrighted (though I'm no film aficionado, not too sure I'd be able to identify a pan and scan work myself), but I can't find policy on simple "transfer this to digital HD" reproductions. Attempting to look at Commons precedent, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm appears to be lifted from Disney Video and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:004_-_The_Barn_Dance.webm seems to be from a DVD version, and I know that everyone gets a heart attack from even the slightly-dodgy mention of Micheal Rat and his henchmen (reasonably so), so it's looking good for "hd rescans of moving pictures do not meet TOO"...I think. But I'd like an actual expert rather than relying on my iffy guess-work

It feels silly that I'm even asking this question in the first place, since I feel like I should know this by now, but I don't. Not just asking for the purposes of Commons, but also for personal use purposes. Thank you for listening. Cawfeecrow (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Any motion picture consists of many still frames that are displayed sequentially. So, any digitization of a movie involves digitization of a large number of still pictures, none of which creates any new copyright. The pan and scan is different in this respect as in involves digitization of only a portion of each still image. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, thanks! Cawfeecrow (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been several deletion discussions on this topic, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Common issues that have disqualified movie reproductions from being hosted on Commons include re-editing, creation of new intertitles in silent movies, and new soundtracks. Tinting and recolorizing is a bit of a grey area and these probably have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Just remastering from studio negatives doesn't create a new copyright, nor does minor cleaning and restoration. Significant restoration of a damaged film is another grey area and this can sometimes warrant copyright protection. Hope that helps. Sorry I don't have better resources to point to. Nosferattus (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Derivative license

If a non‐original derivative is made of a public domain work, that work will also be in the public domain. Let’s assume a man makes a work of art, and then makes a non‐original derivative of the artwork (e.g. a different colour for one section). He then licenses the original under a free licence. Does that make the derivative can be uploaded here? What about if he licensed the derivative and not the original? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN _{wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo} 22:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Modifications of existing works that don't rise to a standard where they can be copyrighted are said to be below the threshold of originality, see COM:TOO however if it's also licensed under a free license, I don't see the problem? Maybe if you showed us the source and final products we could give some more specific advice? Also some licenses are sharealike or viral, you don't have a choice but to license the derivative the same way. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• I think the issue you are asking about is one of licence timing. The example you give suggests an artist creates a copyrighted work, then creates a derivative of the work and, finally, releases the original work under a free licence. You are couching this in terms of one work being derivative of the other, but you could also argue that the original artist produced two versions of the same work. Without specific examples to consider, I would lean toward this being two versions of the same work, one version has been licensed and the other is unlicensed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yemen

Houthi-controlled areas

Do Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yemen apply to the areas in Yemen that are being governed and controlled by the Houthis? It doesnt really make sense for Commons to be bound by the FOP of a internationally recognised government which lacks any ability to enforce their laws in the area. Trade (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we recognize the treaties that govern copyright in Afghanistan even if the Taliban do not care to enforce copyright (and thus also the no FOP in that country). I don't see a reason for us not to uphold Yemeni copyright in Houthi-controlled areas. Courtesy ping to @Abo Yemen: Abzeronow (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole argument to follow Russian FOP in Crimea that the Ukrainian government did not had any ability to enforce the law in the area? Not that i wish to bring up that argument again

I find the argument with Afghanistan curious because as far as Commons is aware there is little to suggest that the copyright law has changed since the fall of the republic Trade (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The Crimea argument essentially boils down to Russia being slightly more liberal on FOP than Ukraine, and thus a policy-based reason to keep Crimean buildings without violating COM:PCP. Abzeronow (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

So if the Houthis had a more liberal FOP you would be onboard with recognizing their law instead? Trade (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The houthis still follow the yemeni constitution and its laws and are pretty much a de facto state, so yes, it does apply 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Media without human authors

Trade recently created categories Category:Videos without human authors and Category:Images without human authors which made me wonder whether satellite imagery and videos – including from cameras on the ISS – should also be in it.

If so, doesn't that mean those are not copyright protected either? And doesn't that mean that all Google Earth media also is CCBY? Please clarify.

Moreover, for now I've added Category:Photos taken with camera traps and Category:Self-portraits of animals (non-human animals) to the former – please comment if these don't belong there or should be distinguished somehow from the rest of the cat contents. There probably are a few more similar categories still missing there. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Some completely automated photos and videos may be public domain, ie surveillance cameras that run 24/7, the webcam that has pointed at a coffee maker for 20 years, possibly body cam footage (although you can make an argument that officers definitely control what they point their cameras at and turn them on and off subjectively, and Commons hasn't decided to allow that category of photos). Telescope and satellite photos are typically controlled by a person (or at the very least, a person selects which photos are kept) and Commons does not accept them without a free license. The categories you've added, for trail cams or the like, are most likely allowed, since they continuously run without human interaction. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanations! I wonder though about satellites that just record 24/7 with automatic or static positioning of the camera. I guess most public satellite imagery already is PD but I was wondering if there maybe are some treasures out there where people didn't realize it's just images & videos taken without human authors entirely automatically. I've also added Category:Videos taken with camera traps and maybe more useful files could be added to that category, not just of animals. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyrightability of the Commons logo

There is a request to put a PD template to the Commons logo (thus deny its copyrightability) at File talk:Commons-logo.svg#Edit request. I invite opinions because this can be controversial. whym (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Johnson Publishing Co

Shot in the dark here, but does anyone have info on the copyright/renewal history of the Johnson Publishing Co? They were most famous for publishing Jet and Ebony magazines and other periodicals aimed at African–American audiences; the company wound down a few years ago and their huge archives, including tens of thousands of seminal historical photographs, were jointly acquired by the Getty Research Institute and National Museum of African American History & Culture. I have zero clue whether they followed formalities and submitted renewals, but it's such a famous collection I assume someone here may have done some digging before. Absolutely no worries if no one knows! Most of the institutions that own images from the company say there is an active copyright for the company's works but I assume that's just deference to the rightsholder.

This was sparked by looking for images of Ronald Stokes for the Wikipedia article for the sculpture series Lynch Fragments. Found quite a few images of Malcolm X protesting the 1962 killing of Stokes by police and acting as a pallbearer at Stokes's funeral, most of which are sourced to Johnson publications. The image that made me think to dig deeper and ask here is from the Saint Louis Museum of Art (fair warning, this image contains a very distressing representation of Stokes after an autopsy, link). 19h00s (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this was covered recently in a DR, see[1]. They were religious about their copyrights, although they do seem to have missed copyright renewals on most of the 1956 issues of Ebony, see [2]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that was simpler than I expected! Thanks Nard :) 19h00s (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what is simple there Johnson didn't publish only Ebony, there was Jet, Hue, Negro Digest, there is no issue renewals for those, there was also Tan magazine I can't find any renewal for it either.

I was also looking at other black magazines that are more rare today and have no big scans archive like Ebony, there is no renewals for Sepia or Brown magazine and from the few issues that are archived some by that company (Good Publishing Company/SEPIA Publications) they seem to have no copyright notice at all except for Sepia magazine itself, Example:

Hep magazine 1971

cover https://megalodon.jp/2025-1027-0515-47/https://www.ebay.com:443/itm/167429532157

title page https://megalodon.jp/2025-1027-0515-49/https://i.ebayimg.com:443/images/g/VssAAOSwMIln8KQr/s-l1600.webp

Bronze Thrills - 1976 no notice https://archive.org/details/bronze-thrills-v-25n-11-1976-11.-good-d-m-ia/page/63/mode/2up

Jive magazine - 1958 appears to have no notice https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/jive-negro-magazine-vol-feb-1958-4724642958

Brown magazine January 1954 invalid notice  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Related: Do we need to make our own scans of PD publications like newspapers, or can we use any we find as it's public domain material? I realize this is rudimentary but better safe than sorry. Specifically thinking about the Nation of Islam newspaper Muhammad Speaks - @999real, funnily enough, I notice you actually just created a category for this publication. I found a bunch of scans of old copies of the paper, but I'm not sure if they're OK to upload. I'm specifically hoping to use one of the front pages that covers the death of Stokes; those front covers became quite famous after Malcolm X and others were photographed holding them in protest in the months after Stokes was killed. 19h00s (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, If the content is in the public domain, a scan will be in the public domain, whoever made it, per {{PD-scan}}. Yann (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I was scraping all the issues from Jstor (here) but the quality in that archive is much better  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think these were uploaded by someone connected to the NOI or a descendant of someone who was, they have special issues that JSTOR doesn't. And yeah I saw the JSTOR versions and was disappointed by the quality, then did some more searching and found these versions which are way better. Thanks y'all! 19h00s (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Crest of INA.png, File:Badge of the Indian Air Force.png, etc

So the current licenses on these files are obviously nonsense, but before I tag them as {{Logo}}, I'm wondering if there's any chance these might be public domain or otherwise freely licensed as Indian government works. I've seen some Indian government works are freely licensed, but COM:INDIA isn't particularly helpful. @Ksh.andronexus has uploaded a ton of Indian military logos/badges under the same obvious nonsense licenses, so they might all have to go. Jay8g (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, In addition, File:Indian Embassy in Argentina.jpg is unlikely to be own work: small file, no EXIF, and I doubt this user went to Argentina to take only this picture. Yann (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The files mentioned, uploaded by me are digitally enhanced and redrawn representation derived from publically available references of the Indian Armed Forces, for the sole purpose of educational and encyclopeadic representation within Wikimedia projects. It does not support, claim, imply or stimulate any official status or authority of Government of India or it's defence services.

I acknowledge that the underlying insignia is protected under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; however the Act's scope pertains primarily to commercial or misleading use, NOT to accurate descriptive or informational deceptions used in an educational and non-commercial context such as Wikipedia. This work is NOT a reproduction of an copyrighted file but a faithful artistic redrawing, produced solely for identification purposes.

While precedents exist on Wikimedia Commons wherein comparable protected insignia, military symbols and official emblems of US and the Commonwealth countries exist when used solely for identification, historical, and educational documentation. In the same spirit, I request the file to be retained under a educational and illustrative rationale. Further the images are technically under the combination of tags {{PD-India}}{{Indian Army}} {{Indian navy}} while similar tag DOES NOT exist on commons for Air Force.

However, if Commons policy ultimately decides that holding such insignia contravenes free licensing requirements, I request that the file to be transferred to the appropriate Wikipedia project under fair-use grounds, rather than deleted outright, given it's clear contextual relevance and informative necessity.

Also the Emblem of Indian Air Force if gone would affect a ton of Wikipedia articles. Ksh.andronexus (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, how can i use a image for an article?

I'm trying to upload an image for an article, but it always gets deleted, i am a brazillian and beginner, i don't know how to do that. AloneSlk (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Olá, AloneSlk! Entendo que você está tendo problemas com o upload de imagens no Wikimedia Commons, e como iniciante, isso pode ser confuso. O motivo pelo qual suas imagens estão sendo deletadas é que os uploads para o Commons precisam seguir regras estritas de direitos autorais: a imagem deve estar em domínio público (ou seja, livre de direitos autorais) ou você deve ter uma licença explícita do detentor dos direitos autorais permitindo o uso livre.Para mais detalhes, recomendo ler estas páginas em português:

• Commons:Licenciamento – explica as licenças aceitáveis.
• Commons:Copyright_rules/pt – sobre normas de direitos de autor.

Se a imagem for de sua autoria, você pode liberá-la com uma licença livre, como CC-BY-SA. Se precisar de mais ajuda, pergunte aqui ou na página de discussão do Commons! -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Obrigado, mas tem como eu usar essa imagem só pra esse artigo em especifico? AloneSlk (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

DMCA takedown/s addressed to other sites but include links to Wikimedia

See, for example, this. It was sent by "Remove Your Media LLC" (on Behalf of Crunchyroll) and addressed to Google LLC. Dated November 1, 2025. Here are some of the details under the "Copyright claim 3" under which wikimedia is mentioned:

Desc: "Copyrighted Japanese anime merchandise owned by Crunchyroll LLC. Pursuant to 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii) the official website for 'Dr. Stone' includes a commulative episode list at the below url:"

Orig URL: "store.c[redacted]l.com - 1 URL"

One of the alleged infringing URLs: "upload.wikimedia.org - 5 URLs"

I'm not sure if it's Commons or one of the other Wikimedia sites (enWiki etc.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You can request a one-time link to a full view. In this case, it's utter slop; it's not copyvio, it's not cosplay or something we could debate about, it's a bunch of US magazines published before 1930 and copied to Commons. I'm guessing the works mention Dr. Stone and the senders didn't bother looking at the context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/The_Billboard_1919-11-29-_Vol_31_Iss_48_%28IA_sim_billboard_1919-11-29_31_48%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Men_of_progress%3B_biographical_sketches_and_portraits_of_leaders_in_business_and_professional_life_in_and_of_the_state_of_New_Hampshire%3B_%28IA_menofprogressbio00hern%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/The_Billboard_1920-05-22-_Vol_32_Iss_21_%28IA_sim_billboard_1920-05-22_32_21%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Chicago_medical_review_%28IA_chicagomedicalre41881chic%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/The_Glendale_Evening_News_1923-05-02_%28IA_cgl_004984%29.pdf

--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Another one: this. Sent by Buteor.com (on behalf of e____) to Google LLC on October 20, 2025. Some salient points:

Desc: "Removal of explicit non-consensual material DMCA protected by "ONLYFANS.COM" paywalls system. Legal notice on my client's page."

Orig URL: "o[redacted]s.com - 1 URL"

One of the alleged infringing URLs: "upload.wikimedia.org - 3 URLs"

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, if we search Google with site:upload.wikimedia.org "onlyfans", it returns 3 urls of pdfs, two of which mention "onlyfans" [3] [4] and the third one is of a 1909 book [5] which contains the passage "Chinese gentlemen and their clerks are vigorously fanning themselves, [...] A Chinese not only fans his face, but opens his long silk tunic and fans his body". -- Asclepias (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias copyfraud in this case, like what is stated on w:en:Digital Millennium Copyright Act#Criticism. The Lumen database should include the status of whether the online host provider responded affirmatively or negatively. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there no provision penalizing blatantly frivolous takedown demands? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is, but someone affected (usually the victim of the false demand) has to actually pursue it in court. Unfortunately, that rarely in practice happens. Seraphimblade (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

British Pathe clip from South Africa copyright?

File:Assassination attempt on Hendrik Verwoerd 2.jpg (ignore the deletion, that was me being stupid) is taken from a newsreel that has been unambiguously released into the public domain. However this British Pathe clip [6] seems to contain the same clip as the newsreel. Given that this has much higher quality, I believe a Pathe employee produced the clip, which was subsequently copied by Universal (presumably with permission). Given this info:

• Should we presume that the release into the public domain by Universal is legally valid?
• If not, is the Pathe clip PD in the US by virtue of copyright notice and renewal shenanigans, much like early AP photos?

Based5290 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It sure was nice of them to "release" something into PD that was already PD, due to no notice... If it was first produced by Pathe, it wouldn't be PD in the UK, it's not even 70 years old yet. But if simultaneously published in the US and UK, it would be PD at least in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

According to the National Archives,

"MCA/Universal donated the collection to NARA in 1970, and deeded the collection’s rights and title to the United States Government in 1974, although the films may still contain material which is protected by copyright or other proprietary rights and restrictions." [7]

Which was not a release to the public domain. The template PD-Universal Newsreel may be confusing copyright held by the government with public domain. Still, individual items may be in the public domain if they did not have a copyright notice and they were published by Universal as their own works or with the permission of the copyright holders. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The Paoay Church Symphony of Lights.jpg

Can we host File:The Paoay Church Symphony of Lights.jpg? Is the still image of the lighting show not infringing on the lighting organizers' copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, lighting like this can only have a copyright in France. Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Logo Handball World championship

Hello,

I want to upload the following Logo from the 2025 IHF Men's U17 Handball World Championship to use it in my German Wikipedia article: https://www.ihf.info/competitions/u17-men/10169/1st-ihf-mens-u17-world-championship-morocco-2025/216491 Is this allowed? The Logo is also used in the English Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_IHF_Men%27s_U17_Handball_World_Championship#Final_ranking Balou20 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, This logo is under a fair use rationale at en:File:2025 IHF Men's U17 Handball World Championship.png. It is certainly complex enough for being under a copyright in Morocco. So it can't be on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Odpowiedź urzędu na petycje

Jak zrobić odpowiednią licencję do pliku https://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Plik:9997_ORG.1520.2.2025_odpowiedz_na_BIP_bez_danych.pdf ? Zgodnie z polską ustawą o prawie autorskim, pisma urzędowe są domeną publiczną zaś anglojęzyczny użytkownik Wikimedia Commons prosi o uwzględnienie licencji na commons Argonowski (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How should I license this file? It is a letter from a Polish government agency, and such letters are in the public domain under Polish copyright law Argonowski (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the licensing, and added appropriate categorization and English language description. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is also File:9998 skan ORG.1520.1.2025.pdf. I suppose the same license applies. Please also add categories there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I applied the closest category I could find, Category:LGBT-free zone declarations in Poland. Not 100% right but close enough for people who care to find it. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Wappen Schützenverein - Tell Reidelbach

Kein eigenes Werk, aber: Reicht die Kombination aus Form, Schrift und typischen Symbolen für Schöpfungshöhe? - No own work, but is it enough for TOO? GerritR (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Passport cover images

The English Wikipedia article en:List of passports is pretty much one big gallery of photos/scans of passport covers. Most of the images seem to have been uploaded to Commons, and many are uploaded under under claims of "own work" with COM:CC licenses, which seems odd given COM:2D copying; File:Rwandan Passport.webp, File:Madagascar passport.webp, File:Azerbaijan Passport.svg, File:E-passport of Bangladesh.png and File:Diplomatski Pasoš Srbije.png are some examples of such uploads found just by random clicking. It's possible that some of the files might only need to be relicensed, but most of the "own work" ones probably need to be assessed. Can anyone think of an efficient way to do this or does each file need to be DR'd individually. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

DR'd individually in the sense of going through a deletion request? If so, then I'd say no. I didn't click all but most of them seem to show

1. text that is below the threshold of originality (COM:TOO and {{PD-text}}).

2. state symbols, which in most countries appear to be exempt from copyright.

3. official documents issued by states, which also oftentimes are exempt from copyright.

There may be a few exceptions (or not). Nakonana (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Relicensing might be necessary, however, in case of SVG files those might actually be own works because they are not photos but, if I'm not mistaken, created with software by the uploader. So they are own works or derivative works of things that are likely in the public domain. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Conflicting copyright of video game

File:Chaotic Rage - Beta 18 Screenshot.jpg

The uploader (and developer) says it's Creative Commons 3.0 and yet the GitHub lists the license as GPL-2.0 license

Which license should take precedence? Trade (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is conflicting, the uploader can license their game under GPL-2.0, while they license the screenshot under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding to this; both licenses are compatible with Commons regardless, though it is better to include both, with clear labeling as to what license applies to screenshot and the content. Actually, since the image has already been uploaded, I can do that myself. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearer guidelines of fictional character fan art

Fan art of fictional characters seems more strict in terms of copyright compared to fan art of live-action characters, with the former constantly getting deletion requests, both successful and unsuccessful. I think we should establish clearer guidelines so that there wouldn't be that many debates. Maybe add more examples in the COM:FAN page other than Harry Potter? (say, Mario, as another example) Or info about the difference between derivative and transformative works? Or a dedicated COM:Transformative works page? (seriously, how is this not a thing yet) I'd gladly contribute myself, but I don't think I have the full understanding of it. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Questions about PD-KPGov

First, sorry to using translater. In {{PD-KPGov}}, It is written as follows:

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that this work might not be in the public domain in countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term and have copyright terms longer than life of the author plus 50 years. In particular, Mexico is 100 years, Jamaica is 95 years, Colombia is 80 years, Guatemala and Samoa are 75 years, Switzerland and the United States are 70 years, and Venezuela is 60 years.

However, it seems that no United States public domain tag can be used to tag North Korean material. Because it's public domain and Article 12 of the Copyright Act of North Korea, it is explicitly stated that there is no copyright for materials published by government agencies. Government data templates from other countries do not contain this provision; only North Korea does.

when I go to Category:PD North Korea government, no material displays the United States public domain tag. Do I have to tag all materials? Klgchanu (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)