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.

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)

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)

  What about security cameras which are not at a fixed location, for example, this footage from a YouTube video captured from a rear security camera of a Tesla car. You can turn them off and on, but once they're turned on, they record without explicit human input, similar to Amazon's Ring cameras. TansoShoshen (talk) 02:21, 6 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)

If the the uploaded images were drawn by the uploader after the general design, I don't see that the license would be wrong. Per Commons:Coats of arms, each different rendition typically has their own copyright. If these were someone else's drawings copied here (or started with someone else's drawing then enhanced some but there is still some of the original drawing remaining), then yes they would be a problem. But you would need to show that, and otherwise any new creative expression would need to be licensed. You would have to compare versus an original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 6 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)

Selbstantwort, damit die Sache nicht automatisch archiviert wird. Meinungen, bitte. GerritR (talk) 20:59, 8 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)

The Azerbaijan one seems to have used the vector from File:Emblem of Azerbaijan.svg, just recolored, which is probably below the threshold of originality (as is the rest). But, there is always gray area around TOO, so I'd be loathe to remove a self-license, provided the rest is documented. So there may be some technical relicensing file-by-file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 6 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)

Upload content with No-AI training license to commons

I Know CC license with NC and/or ND are not acceptable on Commons, also GFDL only license are not acceptable if this work are licensed on or after 15 October 2018 and it is not a content that is extracted from GFDL software manual, but what about content that explicitly allow commercial free use but don’t allow AI training on that content, it is ok to upload to Commons? 6D (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Not OK to upload. Commons licensing requires that files be usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". Omphalographer (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between CC-ND license and license that don’t allow AI training? 6D (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as Commons licensing is concerned, nothing. Neither license is permitted here. Omphalographer (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I know images with this license are not permitted on Commons, but what is the main difference of the two licenses (CC-ND license and license that don’t allow AI training)? Also, does CC-ND license allow AI training? 6D (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Any files uploaded to Commons must be usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose"; AI training is one such purpose, restricting it would violate the terms. ND licenses don't allow any derivatives to be made; again, this goes against the terms. Files that have either license are incompatible with Commons. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think an image I found on commons isn't actually copyright-free

I was searching "Djo" here and found File:Joe Keery "DJO".jpg, which is not only a very professionally posed and edited photo, but was the artist's Instagram profile picture for a time. With how much trouble I've had finding photos for a related band, my gut tells me this might not actually be free or taken by the user and they just uploaded it anyway. Is there a non-invasive way to check? Or a way we're supposed to bring up discussion for it? I don't want to falsely report, but I also don't want anyone else on the internet to use it in the event its not actually free.

(update: also found the album cover File:DECIDE.jpg)

(EDIT: i added a speedy deletion thing to the album page and it looks like someone's gone ahead and put one on the first one too, so im assuming this is the correct way to go about it?) Devonias (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Devonias I'm the one who added the speedy deletion request tag. It's a right thing because: a) the uploader claimed the image as their own work (false authorship claim), and b) the image got registered in the reverse image search results of Google Lens. The earliest instances were January 23, 2025 uses of the image in the FB page and Instagram account of the artist. We cannot safely assume that LuisArig (talk · contribs) is someone working under the artist, considering their user page is blank and has no public disclosure on their ties with the artist (if this is the case). Such disclosure is also needed to avoid any needless claims of conflict of interest. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh good, thank you! And extra thank you for explaining everything! Devonias (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Closing this now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 03:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Musician copyright vs label copyright

I want to upload the album "The Angel, The Demon," by Cacola. All the songs from the album have been uploaded on Cacola's Newgrounds page under a CC BY license. However, the album is also available on Bandcamp under the Business Casual label, who set the license to "All rights reserved". I feel like the artist officially releasing his works under a free license has more weight than their label assigning copyright (likely automatically, since this is the default license on Bandcamp), but just in case there are some nuances, I'm making a post here.

I'd also like some info on the album cover, since it seems to be different enough to count as transformative and not derivative, but that is better discussed in the #Clearer guidelines of fictional character fan art post, which I made yesterday with no replies so far. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you give a direct link to where the band has stated that they are releasing the album under a CC-BY license? Because the Cacola's Newgrounds page you linked to says "All rights reserved" at the bottom, and when I click the YouTube link there, I also can't see any indication of CC-BY. Nakonana (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The licenses are stated on each respective song (here are pages for The Angel and Lit Fuse for example). Also, it's CC BY-SA, not CC BY; still okay for Commons, though. The "All rights reserved" at the bottom is the copyright of the website Newgrounds. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

Is it common practice for Bandcamp to sell albums for $0? If not, then I'd consider the stated price of $0 as confirmation that the album is available under a free license, i.e. CC-BY-SA. But we might need to know under which version of CC-BY-SA. Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the licensing section links to CC-BY-SA-3.0, so that part is cleared, too. Nakonana (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Image tag when not found at source

What is the correct tag to be placed on a file when it has a stated source but is not available at that source? E.g. File:Cristina Gherasimov official portrait.jpg, File:Alexandru Munteanu official portrait.jpg. Gikü (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The images on the website seem to be derivative versions of the portraits you linked. It is likely that the portraits can be found on the other pages of the website (probably on subpages of the linked source). The portraits may have also been featured in an earlier revision of the page, in which case they could potentially be found with Wayback Machine. Don't place any tags, just try finding the actual source and replace the current one. Regardless, this is definitely a genuine photo from the government (with the website even using derivative versions of the portrait) so it is not a copyright violation. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried what you suggest, I myself was involved in importing portraits of these newly appointed ministers. I recognize that the small circular crops that we can see now on the Government site are derivatives of the photos on Commons, but I have not observed the full pics at any moment on the site, neither could I find a webarchive version. I have tagged the images with {{LicenseReview}} and I will await a LR-er to take a look. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverse image search reveals that there were usages of those images on other websites 4-5 days before they were uploaded to Commons: [1] [2] [3] [4] Nakonana (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and reviewed the licenses. General consensus on Commons has typically been that when something is licensed (or becomes PD), other crops or higher or lower resolution versions are fair game, since they fall beneath the COM:TOO (this can be debatable for certain edge cases but the corners of these photos do not seem particularly above the TOO to me). -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 03:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting unwritten rule I had not known about. Thank you @Nard the Bard. Gikü (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright declaration of consent

I've contacted a copyright holder and they seem open to putting a section of their database under a free license. Given that this is a large collection of images and not individual ones, would sending an email to the appropriate permissions wikimedia email still be sufficient (there's no link to be given)? Also, they seem to have a pre-filled letter; can this substitute the template given in Commons:Email templates? Bastobasto (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I would presume there is nothing magic about the email template, it's just intended to spare people from each having to draft their own letter. And as long as it is clear what materials are covered, I would expect it to be OK, but really questions about VRT should be at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Anyone (like me) not on the VRT can only guess at how the VRT will handle something. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Protogen and compatibility with CC

In Category:Protogen, there are five pieces of artwork (per the finickiness of COM:COSTUME I shall ignore the photographs), three CC-BY-SA, two CC0. However, I have my concerns as to if (some) derivative works are compatible with free CC licenses and the definition for free cultural works in general.

Finding usage terms for protogens was a little tricky, but i am led to believe that this website is the official hub for protogen info, as it's linked on the ZOR FurAffinity page, which is ran by "Koinu [the original author of protogens] and staff". In this info page lies the Protogen guide, which features an FAQ section that states the following:

"Public use/features of Protogen in artwork, media, books, games etc is fine with no royalties or specific permission required. A royalty would only be arranged if the works by Cool Koinu are being resold / used for profit. You retain all rights to your artwork/product and by featuring Protogen you have agreed to the community creation guidelines."

A restriction on commercial use would be in violation of the Definition of Free Cultural Works, the guideline Commons uses (and the reasons that CC-NC and CC-ND are forbidden from Commons), particularly The Freedom to Distribute Derivative Works. Additonally, the Protogen Guide mentions "restricted" traits which would seem to not meet The freedom to use and perform the work, but whether or not these restricted traits are binding to the actual usage terms or are simply out of "respect" for the creator is somewhat vague ("Restricted traits on the other hand are more about respect for Cool Koinu as the creator of the species as well as other original species creators within the furry community. We also don't moderate those outside of our official hubs, but we kindly ask that you refrain from breaking these more than the non-canon traits.".

With all this information, it would seem that artistic works featuring protogens would be disallowed from Commons, however, copyrightability and COM:FANART should always be considered. I personally think that Protogens in their classic, canonical form (that are also called Protogens would be copyrightable or at the very least be deemed suspicious per the Precautionary Principle. various non-canon and/or "restricted" Protogen depictions would have to be reviewed case-by-case. Additionally, CoolKoinu (the aforementioned author), is Australian (1, 2), so copyrightability laws of Australia would also have to be considered. This is where my knowledge falls short, ergo my desire to ask this in village pump before any DRs. I would greatly appreciate if someone with sizable knowledge of Australian copyright law would contribute to this discussion. As always, thank you for your time. Cawfeecrow (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wenzel Wirkner 1864- - Klid v horach - Horska idyla.jpg

Any idea why the files from this DR were redeleted? The summary just says "A Deletion Request" which is vague as hell... DMCA maybe? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That does seem odd. The "Undelete in 2018" category was removed when that happened. Seems like they should be restored, unless they were made/published after 1930 (in which case they would still be under U.S. copyright most likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The deleting admin is still active. Pinging @Gbawden: . Nakonana (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Léna erred here. When removing Category:Undelete in 2018 on 1 Jan 2018, probably Category:Undeleted in 2018 should have been added and the files should have been undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by NGCZ. I did a bulk delete which is why it just says Per a deletion request. Gbawden (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gbawden: If that's the case, it looks to me like you linked the wrong DR in the log, so that would have been very hard to guess. Let me know if you think I'm misreading. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense then. Deleted for reasons other than copyright, really. Unsure if there is a way in the future to get the DR linked in the logs somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Only way to do that is to undelete & redelete. Might be more useful to add a permalink to this discussion than just a link to the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

FoP-Uruguay again

Freedom of Panorama: Between Copyright and Enjoyment of Cultural Heritage, by Beatriz Bugallo (Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de la República, Uruguay). Published on: 28-10-2025.

Per the abstract (translated version, with underlined emphasis added by me):

Freedom of panorama is an exception to economic copyright of copyrighted works located in freely accessible public spaces. It seeks to balance social and cultural interests with the interests of creators. Its regulation is fragmentary in comparative law, since it is not especially enshrined in international regulations, and the States that regulate it do so with variations. Its growing regulatory provision is a consequence of the technological evolution in the possibility of reproduction and public communication. In the digital environment and due to the different economic activities affected in the cultural, touristic and educational fields, it is increasingly important to consider its regulation. We propose its concept, foundation and historical origin as a starting point. By means of a selection of comparative law experiences and a survey of aspects of diverse normative scope, we present the existing range of its regulation. Guidelines are included as a proposal for its inclusion in Uruguay.

The part that I highlighted seems to imply that there is no valid FoP in Uruguay (notwithstanding our interpretation at COM:FOP Uruguay). The Uruguayan chapter of Creative Commons is also of the view that FoP is not recognized in Uruguay, and that's why they are repeatedly calling for its introduction in that country.

Some past discussions on Fop-Uruguay: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Statues images and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06#Renewed review of Uruguayan FoP.

Here is the link to the full paper of Bugallo (2025), which is in Spanish. Pages 48–49 mention about Uruguay's FoP status.

Excerpt in Spanish

Algunas legislaciones no hacen referencia al tema. En Argentina la ley 11.723 de 26 de setiembre de 1933 y sus modificaciones, no hay referencia expresa. Tampoco la hay en la ley 9.739 de 17 de diciembre de 1937 de dere-chos de autor y conexos, y sus modificaciones, en Uruguay. Cualquier uso que quiera realizarse y que esté relacionado con reproducción, comunica-ción pública u otro derecho de explotación del autor requiere la autoriza-ción del titular del derecho, sea el arquitecto o cualquier otro a quién se los haya cedido, a menos que se aplique otro tipo de excepciones previstas. En un caso uruguayo se filmó una pieza publicitaria al aire libre en una calle, delante de un muro que tenía un graffiti visualizable libremente – típi-co uso comercial -, sin requerir consentimiento del autor. Si bien este tema no fue el centro de la discusión (la discusión versó sobre la atribución de autoría al reclamante), como no hay ninguna referencia en la ley respecto de este tema, en definitiva, se consideró que era ejercicio de derechos pri-vativos del autor y se fijó una suma como indemnización por el uso no con-sentido (Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022). Según las disposiciones del Derecho comparado que contemplan la libertad de panorama, podría haber sido o no admitida como excepción (creo que mayoritariamente no comprendida por su dimensión teleológica). Este tipo de conflictos no son difíciles de encontrar en la juris-prudencia de distintos países. En EEUU, donde la ley referida a la protección de las obras arquitectónicas consagra expresamente excepción de panora-ma limitada y que se interpreta además según la regla del fair use o uso justo, se había presentado antes un caso relativamente similar al uruguayo. Se trató de un artista plástico contratado para realizar una pintura mural en un parking, la cual fue fotografiada por un tercero y utilizada para avi-sos publicitarios de una empresa. El autor reclamó que no había autorizado el uso y la empresa demandada contestó que como se trataba de una obra visual incorporada en obra arquitectónica estaba comprendida en la excep-ción. En definitiva el tribunal actuante entendió que si bien un parking se puede calificar como obra arquitectónica, la creación visual objeto de la litis no era parte funcional del parking, sino independiente de él. De esta forma, no podía incluirse en la excepción que hubiera permitido el uso a la deman-dada (Falkner v. Gen. Motors LLC, 393 F. Supp. 3d. C.D. Cal. 2018) (Bugallo, 2025)

Re-mentioning everyone mentioned in those two older discussions: @Ganímedes, Leiro & Law, and Clindberg: from the 2011 discussion at FoP talk page, and @Ruslik0, Bedivere, and Ymblanter: from the discussion in June this year. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Some addition: Bugallo (2025) proposes (on page 53) a sufficient FoP to be applied in Uruguay, either following the German or the Andean Community models (both balanced according to Bugallo (2025)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the tag links to a version of Uruguayan law, the one which the articles states has no FoP provision, yet article 45.8 seems to be directly on point. It's possible the qualifier at the end (left the private domain) is fuzzy enough that it should be made more clear in the law, but to state there is nothing at all in the law seems incorrect. Unless that section has been removed more recently, or the author was looking at an earlier law which did not have it. Does the document discuss that article in particular? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg the document doesn't discuss the article, but I have a stronger feeling that 45.8 isn't a valid FoP, but more of an exception that guarantees free uses of works of art that are already outside the private domain (in other words, copyright has expired). This webpage (by IMPO Uruguay) is explicit in its Q&A explanation:

¿Qué usos están permitidos y no son considerados reproducción ilícita?
Los llamados usos “libres”, no considerados reproducción ilícita son:...
8. La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que hayan salido del dominio (propiedad) privado.

In their version, it's legal to reproduce works of art in public spaces provided they have "left" the private property domain. (Property, in the sense, intellectual property). There is no logic for equating "private property" with ownership, considering that works inside museum indoors also fall under this exception (yet museum indoors are typically privately owned).

The document itself mentions a Uruguayan case law concerning the inclusion of an outdior graffiti in an advertisement. Case file: Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 (English translation by Google: Civil Appeals Court, 3rd Division, Judgment 44/2022 of April 21, 2022). Per the author of the document, the case mainly concerned on "attributing authorship of the claimant", the case concluded with "a sum awarded as compensation for the unauthorized use". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to tell this too: The Article 45.8 in the Uruguayan copyright law has been intact since the law first came into effect in 1937. No revision has been made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg. Here is the link to the 2022 court casefile from Uruguay mentioned by Bugallo (2025). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's only allowed if the copyright has expired, then it wouldn't need a special clause in the law. I certainly don't speak the language and there may well be a reason, but there should be a discussion as to that clause specifically as to why our interpretation is wrong. I can't see the link you posted, but the court case described seemed to be for a film, whereas the clause's permission is limited to photographs. Secondly, the court case seems to have been mostly about attribution, and did not address FoP, per the description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems the website doesn't post the casefiles in dedicated webpages and instead reliant on providing content while still using search. Here is the link to search. Search term is Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 Tovagliare Note the website doesn't allow copy paste options. The relevant casefile to be selected from the search is "44/2022 DEFINITIVA - Tribunal Apelaciones Civil 3ºT° - PROCESO CIVIL ORDINARIO". Case name: "REOLÓN, GUZMÁN C/ BANCA DE CUBIERTA COLECTIVA DE QUINIELAS DE MONTEVIDEO".

The summary (in Spanish) is: Revocando la sentencia impugnada en cuanto desestimó la demanda y en su lugar se condena a la demandada a pagar al actor la cantidad de $ 40.000 por concepto de lucro cesante, y el importe de $ 160.000 por concepto de multa, cantidades éstas que deberán reajuste de conformidad con el DL 14.500 y generarán intereses legales desde la exigibilidad hasta su efectivo pago.
La Sala coincide con el apelante en cuanto a que la exigencia de que el autor de la obra estampe en la misma su nombre completo constituyó un error de interpretación de la normativa aplicable al caso, que no tomó en consideración la normativa internacional que inspira nuestra ley, así como el principio del informalismo, conforme al cual el autor puede identificarse con su nombre, firma rúbrica o símbolo.
El Tribunal entiende que la reproducción de la obra del accionante por parte de la demandada sin su previo consentimiento, resultó ilícita, por lo que corresponde ingresar a examinar la pretensión indemniztoria formulada.

Some salient points in the appellate court's ruling

▪︎ The defendant's claim on the graffiti's lack of protection was overthrown (being an illegal work doesn't deprive the artist of his copyright).

▪︎ The defendant indeed failed to attribute the artist in the advertisement, despite having been contacted by the plaintiff (the artist)

▪︎ (Here is one thing that may change our perspective on Uruguayan FoP) the court also ordered the defendant to pay 40,000 Uruguayan pesos (that's distinct from 160,000 Uruguayan pesos of fines). The 40K payment is for the lost profits due to the defendant's unauthorized reproduction of the graffiti. The court explicitly ruled on the unauthorized inclusion of the graffiti in their advertisement.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The attribution is a moral rights issue, not economic right. Or maybe failure to attribution makes it an economic right violation. Anyways, the clause in their law does not allow inclusion by video, just photograph, so this does not directly address it anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure how "official" is the opinion of Creative Commons Uruguay. I'm not sure if it's or not a Non-Profit Organization, a government Organization or simply enthusiastics of the free culture. At least one of the members seems to be a lawyer, but there are musicians, psychologist, sociologist, etc. With that said, not much I can add to this topic. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Dashcam copyright?

File:UPS Airlines Flight 2976 moments before crash.png is sourced to a dashcam and tagged with PD-automated. I know that previous wording of PD-automated included dashcams, but it no longer does. However, I don't think there's been a discussion here centered on just dashcams, so I'm looking for some thoughts for future reference.

Personally speaking, I lean towards PD in this case. There are much fewer creative choices one can make about dashcam video compared to bodycams. The only creative decision I could conceivably see in this video is the driver stopping the vehicle, but it's hard to say that that's creative. Based5290 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Bedivere (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is also File:UPS Airlines Flight 2976 crash still.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I was coming here to ask about this. Doesn't the person operating the vehicle, regardless of intent, mean there is human input in capturing the video? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Human input for dashcam videos? Perhaps, but quite certainly not of the creative kind or above any relevant threshold of originality. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It may actually be enough. There are several dashcam videos registered with the Copyright Office. A simple search of "dashcam" in the online USCO search returns a number of videos that would seem to be simple dashcam footage that happened to capture something interesting. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't this agency also register copyright for things that are clearly below TOO (like textlogos?). I think I remember that there have been instances like that. (was it maybe regarding the Tesla logo...?) Nakonana (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are many things registered with the USCO that, if they went to court and were fully adjudicated, might be ruled un-copyrightable. But under US law, the existence of a registration puts the entire onus on the re-user to fight the claim; courts are directed to automatically assume that a registration implies the work is copyrighted. And there are several recent registrations for dashcam footage, so presumably the USCO would continue to grant registrations to such works. 19h00s (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

And I believe what you're referring to re: Tesla is the DMCA takedown they sent last year over several of their "T" shield logo variations. WMF only removed one requested file as it was the only one registered with the USCO - it was the most complex variation on the shield logo, with several additional shading elements that seem to have pushed it above the ToO under USCO's analysis. 19h00s (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was figuring since w:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices only refers to pre-position cameras, which doesn't apply here since the vehicle is not pre-positioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of old Bangladeshi (East Pakistani) Newspapers

I’ve recently got digital copies of The Daily Azad newspaper of Jan-Feb & Jul-Aug 1952. It’s an important historic paper, especially related to the Bengali Language Movement, and the newspaper is now defunct since 1990s.

Before I start uploading, I want to confirm is it OK under Commons policy and current Bangladeshi copyright law to upload newspapers published before 1964?

From what I’ve read in the Bangladesh Copyright Act (2000, now 2023) and law firm summaries, corporate works like newspapers are protected for 60 years from the year of publication. That means issues published before 1964 should already be public domain.

For old newspapers, my understanding of copyright as follows:

1. If the writer was not employed by the newspaper: copyright lasts for the author’s lifetime + 60 years.
2. The newspaper’s layout and design (excluding text and images) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication. Reference
3. If someone writes something in a newspaper as part of their employment, the copyright belongs to the newspaper company. Reference
4. The editor of a newspaper is not the copyright owner. Reference
5. If the report was written by the newspaper’s own staff — being a corporate work — copyright lasts for 60 years from the year of publication. This means that all original photographs and staff-written reports published before 1964 are now in the public domain. Source: Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh
   (Note: The Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023 does not explicitly state that a corporation’s copyright expires 60 years after publication. but the previous Copyright Act 2000 states, "Term of copyrights in works of local authorities.⎯ Copyright in the work of a local authority shall, where the local authority is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following year in which the work is first published."
   According to 2023 law:
   1. The law says that if the author is known, the term is 60 years after the author’s death for literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.
   2. For anonymous authors, films, sound recordings, photographs, digital works, government publications, and international organizations, copyright lasts 60 years from publication.
   3. Since newspaper reports are generally not authored by individual editors or writers but by the organization, they can be treated as corporate works.
   4. Although the law doesn’t specifically mention Bangladeshi corporations, based on law of 2000 and and the legal opinion in the Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh — my conclusion is that the term is 60 years from publication.)

Arguments against say that if any article was written by an outside author (not staff), it might still be under “life + 60 years.” But The Daily Azad was mainly staff-written, and the paper closed long ago.

So, before I do the uploads, I just want to ask: Would you consider 1952 issues safe to upload as public domain?

Thanks for any thoughts. I just want to make sure it’s OK before I start. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment After reviewing the above comment and the relevant laws of Bangladesh, it appears that newspapers published 60 years ago are in the public domain.
  However, since they were published during the East Pakistan era, the interpretation under Pakistani law is also a relevant factor.≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 13:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @MS Sakib It is not a relevant factor. East Pakistani works published during the Pakistani era are still Bangladeshi works because East Pakistan is Bangladesh now. So it doesn't matter. The newspapers were published from Dhaka which is now in Bangladesh. Pakistan has no authority over Dhaka. Mehedi Abedin 13:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  
  I do believe rule of land applies here. Copyright law 2023 applies here as Dhaka is part of the Bangladesh now.

  Regardless of "Rule of land" vs "Rule of time", I want to cover my bases. The relevant law at the time of publishing these newspaper was British India copyright law 1914 (Pakistani ordinance was issued in 1962)

  If rule of time was to apply here: according to 1914 law

  1. Newspapers are explicitly defined as "collective works" along with encyclopedias, dictionaries, year books, reviews, magazines, or similar periodicals.
  2. For collective works, there's a special provision: any agreement by an author regarding assignment of copyright doesn't apply to "the assignment of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work or part of a work as part of a collective work".
     In simple terms, The work of an author cannot be published outside of the work without his/her permission if the work is collective work. The work can be PD as whole work but his work can not be published separately if author's copyright has not been expired. (This provision only applies to non-staff reporting or work)
  3. Where the author was in the employment of some other reason under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of· any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar Periodical.
     TL;DR: Copyright of staff reporting is held by the newspaper; not the staff reporter.
  4. When Owner is a body corporate, "the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts". The copyright term of corporate work is 50 years after publication.

  Tausheef Hassan (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Anything that was still protected by copyright in Bangladesh in 1996 would have its US copyright restored (Commons:URAA), and Commons requires works to be free both in their source country and the US (Commons:Licensing). URAA-restored 1952 works would enter the public domain in the US at the beginning of 2048. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig so, yes or no in your opinion? Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes or no to what? To uploading to Commons: No. Unless we delete them again immediately and add the files to an undeletion category like Category:Undelete in 2048 (assuming they're not still protected in Bangladesh by then). --Rosenzweig τ 10:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your clarification Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Saudi Photos platform

The official licensing announcement document

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) recently announced the Saudi Photos platform, which states in it's terms that "the media content on this platform is available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. Under this license, all media content published and owned by SPA on this platform may be utilized across all media outlets, online servers, or other informational platforms, and creatively reused without restrictions on the volume of materials or duration of use."

I noticed that a number of users were uploading images from this platform, so I created {{Saudi Photos platform}} with tracking category (79 files).

Any suggestions, comments, or feedback? The platform seems to contain hundreds of great images. --Alaa :)..! 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The Arabic Wikipedia community informed at w:ar:special:diff/72389097. Also ping @Dyolf77: one of the ar-N sysops at Wikimedia Commons --Alaa :)..! 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They are only about 10 years behind Iran..  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@999real What is the reason for this comment? And what does "Iran" have to do with the above topic? I still assume good faith. --Alaa :)..! 08:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you think? Iranian news websites started releasing all their content under a free license 10 years ago  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to them, and this is a positive step that we hope all countries of the world, from east to west, will follow. --Alaa :)..! 17:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@علاء seems a good start. Will it also mean that Saudi Arabia may become more "open" in terms of licenses that are friendly for commercial reuses and reuses on IT/digital/new media soon? For example, concerning the unrestricted pictorial and photographic reproductions of recent buildings and sculptures in public places without needing licensing permissions from the architects, sculptors, and artists of the said landmarks, or the so-called Freedom of Panorama which Saudi Arabia currently lacks right now? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, JWilz12345. I have the same questions as well, so I think the answers to these questions should be left for the future to see, but it seems that "maybe" the future is better. I don't know if the Saudi Wikimedia User Group can answer them? --Alaa :)..! 15:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Can the US Gov have special permissions for their photos?

@EF5 recently found File:May 3, 1999 Moore F5 tornado.jpg over on a verified U.S. Government Flickr account (Flickr upload here). The Flickr license is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. After some investigation, I found the original publication of the photo here, on an August 2001 archives NOAA website, attributed to Mike Eilts, the-then assistant director of the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory. Noting NOAA-use of the photo here, three years after the Flickr upload.

I know various government agencies have warnings/alerts regarding their photos, like {{PD-LosAlamos}}, {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, {{PD-NWS-employee}}, or {{PD-USGov-NOAA-GLERL}}. So, is the Flickr upload confirmation regarding special perms/a warning for the image? If Yes/No, how should the Flickr warning be displayed to the public if the image is kept on the Commons? WeatherWriter (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• It's unlikely the assistant director of NSSL took this image on duty. That plus the timestamp (to me) indicates a personal camera took this. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:May 3, 1999 Moore F5 tornado.jpg. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think it being a “personal camera” means it wasn’t taken by the NSSL while monitoring the storm. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • FWIW, from what I've seen in the past, photos like that rarely originate with NOAA employees. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Possibly AI-generated images that are likely derived from copyrighted works

• File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg
• File:ĐB Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg
• File:ĐBQH Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg

I couldn't find these images elsewhere using Google Lens. The first's EXIF data says Made with Google AI. The third has a watermark pointing to this government portal. How should these be handled? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg exif literally says made with Google AI. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

File:The Mother's Love "There was no room for them in the inn." (From the painting by Lawrence Bulleid).jpg

Can someone please review this? I've done what I can to help the uploader, but a more experienced person is needed. Thank you for your time. Geoffroi 21:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What's to help with? Looks fine. (I didn't examine the history; I assume there was some issue in the past.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to tell the uploader it was ok for sure without getting a second opinion. Geoffroi 23:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Image Upload Query

Hello! I'm new to the wikipedia community, and I'm trying to make a wikipedia page for the Soviet 130mm S-70 Cannon, but I'm unsure about the image I found for it. Could I have some help determining if I can upload it? This is the link with the S-70 details: [5] Admiral Orazark (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any indication of a Creative Commons license on this website and/or the websites it references. The images might be in the public domain but to establish that we'd need more information on the images than the website provides.

I guess we don't have any images of that cannon on Commons yet? Somewhere in those categories maybe:

• Category:Self-propelled artillery at the Tank Museum, Kubinka (the website you linked has one image that was taken in this museum)
• Category:Self-propelled artillery in the Patriot Museum Complex, Kubinka
• Category:130 mm artillery
• Category:Tanks of the Soviet Union
• Category:Automatic cannons of the Soviet Union
• Category:Cannons in Russia
• Category:Cannons

Nakonana (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are those the correct categories?

• Category:Object 260
• Category:IS-7

Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked around and couldn't find a direct reference or separate cannon image anywhere on the commons yet, that's why I tried to find a good outsource for the image. It's unfortunate that the images are undetermined; I'll try to do some digging with lens, but I don't know if I'll find anything. Thank you anyway for your time, I apologize for taking it up. Admiral Orazark (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Simon Dwain Kalavazides

This is my first time reporting an issue on Commons, apologies for any breach of etiquette. This user's contributions seem very problematic to me. They were brought to my attention from an edit request at an en.wiki article. The lead photo featured the subject making a rude gesture (and was claimed stolen from its actual owner), so when I searched Commons to see if an alternative was available, I discovered this account that has uploaded numerous photos of the subject, taken over the span of many years, and all licensed as "own work" with the caption "When I met <subject> at <place>. I have cropped myself out." And they have done so for many other subjects than just the one. It seems likely to me that they are all improperly licensed. Please let me know if there's a more suitable noticeboard or action I should take. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Judging by his Instagram[6], I've reached the opposite conclusion, it's probably a real person who has the hobby of meeting celebrities. Commons policy requires anything that has been published somewhere else first needs permission from COM:VRT. If you find any specific files that meet this criteria, it would go further to bolster the case these are copyvios. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well I'll be. Apologies for not digging deeper, but thanks for looking into it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lesley Joseph 2025.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are circuit diagrams below TOO?

I've found this image on English Wikibooks, and am considering whether it should be exported to Commons. The question is: are educational circuit diagrams below the threshold of originality in the United States? JJP_Master (she/they) 02:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say one that simple certainly is below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What about this one? b:File:Mesh1.png JJP_Master (she/they) 19:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. The key question would probably be: would anyone else diagram this significantly differently? If not, then it is probably below TOO. Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The annotations there—"loop1", "loop2", and "I₁", "I₂"—would probably be a more likely issue than the completely conventional circuit diagram. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable Source?

Is this page on the Supreme Court of India website an acceptable source for an image to be added to Commons? I ask this because I've seen other officeholders from the Indian Government have their pictures used on Wikipedia. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for it, but there appears to be no GODL release or anything of the sort. Indian government works are not automatically freely licensed, so unfortunately, probably not. Based5290 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Canadian FoP and interior photographs

File:Playhouse Cinema Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Concession Stand.png shows the concenssion stand of the en:Playhouse Cinema located in Canada. COM:FOP Canada states there's freedom of panorama for buidlings and other architectural structures under Canadian copyright law, but it makes no mention specific mention of photos taken inside such structures, and there doesn't appear to be any copyrightable elements in the photo that wouldn't meet the definiton of incidental/de minimis per COM:CB#Museum and interior photography. Is this photo OK for Commons as licensed or does it need another license (e.g. {{FoP-Canada}}) for the photographed interior? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Whether there is FOP or not for interior photographs in Canada doesn't matter in this case. Whatever would have a copyright is not sufficiently prominent to be an issue. All artworks are de minimis, and the rest is utilitarian. Yann (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

US paintings 1930-1955

Hi, What is the best license for these artworks, e.g. File:Untitled (Mt. Denali in Summer) by Sydney Mortimer Laurence, c. 1920-1940, Anchorage Museum.jpg. I mean for US artworks from after 1930 who author died before 1954 (1955 next year). There are either published without a notice and/or without a copyright renewal (therefore {{PD-US}}), or unpublished (therefore {{PD-US-unpublished}}). It is difficult to know for sure the publication history, except for famous painters. So what is the best solution? Yann (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think most other editors here are not going to like my answer. My take is if the art is "out there" (which it is since we have the art available), then it was probably published, but you still must do the due diligence of searching the Copyright Office filings to ensure it was never registered. You can never assume publication without notice, unless you find an art catalog or similar that lacks it. As you said, proving publication for some of these works is very burdensome, also the transitional rules for unpublished works 1997(1997 date only applicable for foreign works)1978-2003 are especially ridiculous (copyrighted until 2048). Again, I think some editors would object to my take, they want you to prove publication. This particular work seems especially troubling, as you don't even have a firm date when it was created/published. Therefore, whether it's actually PD is very debatable. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: The whole point is that, if the painting was not published, then it is in the public domain per {{PD-US-unpublished}}, as I said above. If we know the date of publication, it is easy to check for copyright renewal. I think that most of these paintings were published, even if it cannot be proved. So my question is, where we should use {{PD-US-unpublished}} which is true for all unpublished works, or {{PD-US}}, which is the most likely copyright status, even if we can't find the exact detail. We have the choice between an always-true license for unlikely situation, or an uncertain license for the most likely situation. Yann (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This particular work has some problems. If created between 1920-1930, and either published, or unpublished until 2003, then ok. If created 1930-1940, and published, possibly ok, depending on notice and registration/renewal. But if first published 1978-2002 you have a huge problem. From 1978-1988, notice was required (though omission could be cured by registration within 5 years), and the term is life+70 or until 2048, whichever is later. If first published 1989-2002, notice was optional, but still the term extends to at least until 2048. Which is why I said, your best bet is to assume publication, and focus on searching for a copyright registration. Proving publication can be very hard, as a lot of the primary places this would have occurred (art catalogs and the like) are not available online, but stating you have searched the copyright records and didn't find a registration is a firm step you can do.

To answer your question as to when to use PD-US-unpublished, this would only be a specific case, the artist never distributed copies of the work to the public, or it was a private commission and not reproduced until 2003. Some works this is easy to prove, Mark Twain famously hid his autobiography, and his heirs chose to publish it to take advantage of the transitional copyright rules, otherwise it would have immediately fell into the public domain.-Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: Registration is meaningless for such works, unless they were first published between 1978 and 1989. If they were *renewed*, then yes that could be an issue. If they were published though, they needed a copyright notice on the painting or frame. Determining publication for paintings can be extremely difficult, mainly because there was no set definition of publication in the U.S. at the time, and different courts had different standards. Unless there is some documentation that a painting was kept by the artist's family for a long time, we generally do assume publication around the time they were made (most works were made to be published). Given all the gray areas, there can be lots of theoretical doubts on such works, but the standard is significant doubt -- that would probably need some specific information that a painting could really have been first published between after 1978 (and before 2003) for an artist who died in 1940. That is exceedingly rare. You can throw theoretical doubt on a great many works here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was trying to convey this. Unless the work was bought for a (very) private collection or held in storage, it was effectively published. And you do raise a valid point, for pre 1964 works we only have to worry about renewals. Related DR for a work that falls into this category.-Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically, publication without notice overrides renewals -- it became PD immediately regardless of its current status. Granted, the copies without notice did need to be distributed. In general though, I don't like deleting where lack of information on U.S. publication status is the only doubt. If we do get some concrete publication information, we should of course follow that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:James D Watson crop.jpg et al.

Looking for a sanity check before I cause a disaster. This and the related versions are getting a lot of eyes at the moment because of the death of the subject.

The problem is that this is tagged as an official work of the NIH but it doesn't seem the NIH took the photo. What appears to be the original source identifies it as Courtesy: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Now, CSH undoubtedly makes use of a boat load of NIH funding, but it is not a government organization; it's a private non-profit. I've run into this before with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which similarly takes a lot of government money, but is actually run by UT–Battelle, a non-profit.

The NIH source identifies the Watson photo as "freely available and may be used without special permission." But as we all know, simply saying something is free in a non-descript way doesn't constitute a specific rationale for why it's free, and doesn't amount to a specific license.

I'm sure nominating this for deletion will cause a stir about Commons meddling and being nit picky, but unfortunately that doesn't have any bearing on whether the image is actually free and properly licensed. GMG^talk 13:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You're sane, don't fret. Looking at the file and links, I'd agree with you; works by CSH are not automatically PD and certainly aren't NIH works, and the genome.gov link is way too vague about the freeness. This will probably cause some arguments and folks may try to dig up more sources, but barring major conflicting info I'd agree these should get a deletion nom. 19h00s (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I updated File:James D Watson Genome Image.jpg with an archive.org link and links to the copyright pages. genome.gov's copyright page at the time said to obtain permission for third party works, but this particular image said permission was already granted. Not an NIH work, I also changed the license. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

uncredited OSM tileset use Category:Maps_of_exclaves,_enclaves_and_salients_of_the_United_Kingdom

I have just discovered the various maps such as File:Exclaves_Derbyshire.jpg. These appear to be photographs (!) of a monitor displaying old openstreetmap tiles, with an overlay showing pre-1844 county borders. credited with source "Wikimapia Historical Counties Map With Exclaves" and "Historic County Borders Project". At the very least they need an OSM credit, is my understanding. Having done a bit of cursory checking I'm not able to find these boundaries on wikimapia either, although i'm not super familiar with that site. Thoughts about what should be done about this would be welcome. The uploading user appears to have retired only a few months after these were put up, five years ago. Morwen (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Embedded YouTube videos

The Serbian military at vs.rs has generously licensed all the content on their website under a CC-BY license, as seen in the terms and conditions. They also publish a large amount of 'video-news', some of which might be nice to get on to Commons. However, while 'on their website' in spirit, the videos are technically embedded YouTube videos from their channel. The videos are theirs, and considering they used to upload them directly, it's obvious they upload them to YouTube for convenience, but they don't have a CC license on YouTube. Would these videos be ok to use? If not, how would I go around getting permission to use them if I ever need one? I don't need a full release, so is it just enough for them to send VRT an email saying 'we consider YouTube videos embedded on our website to be on our website'? JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If it is clearly their content and they clearly grant a license, it doesn't matter that they post the permission on a different site than the content. However, you'd need to explain the situation in the "permission" section of the {{Information}} template and should certainly tag with {{LicenseReview}} so that a license reviewer can sign off. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is that simple. Putting this example in other terms, we can consider an English Wikipedia article containing a mixture of fair use images hosted locally and freely licensed images hosted at Commons. Both the fair use images and the freely licensed images have separate sets of terms that are available for people to access. Does the presence of the freely licensed content overule the terms of the fair use content just because they are displayed on the same web page? Similarly, I think we would need an explicit statement to say that the website licence also applies to the embedded YouTube videos, which have their own licence terms already.

As an addition, I have run a machine translation on the terms of use for that Serbian website and it says, "The content on the site is available under the conditions of Creative Commons Authorship 3.0 Serbia license, if not otherwise indicated". The presence of that last statement would appear to exclude the YouTube videos, as they are otherwise indicative of a different licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't read Serbian, and I also don't know exactly what page is being discussed for what videos. I was going by JustARandomSquid's statement (possibly false, per From Hill To Shore)t that they "licensed all the content on their website under a CC-BY license". If that is not the case, we would certainly have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid, I think it is best to just contact the website to ask for clarification, since the license status for the YouTube videos is not clear, as others pointed out above. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's very much what I was afraid of. What would I say in the email? Would they need to forward their reply to VRT? Kind of new to this so bear with me JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid Please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party#If you need to obtain a license for copyrighted work, hopefully this should answer your questions. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for review

To interested users based in Belgium or possibly Benelux area, kindly review all of the images under Category:FOP (tagged with {{FOP}}). These apparently show stained glass windows in the city of Gent. Unsure if those are eligible for {{FoP-Belgium}}. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia:en:File:Conservatives logo.svg

File was removed from Commons in 2022 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservative Party UK Logo 2022.svg) but since then UK TOO has risen significantly (COM:TOO UK) and I believe it would fall under it now. Any advice? Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)