United Nations "No Excuses" campaign

I am a bit confused on the license of the files in Category:No Excuses. All the files whose name starts with "No Excuses " say they are licensed under the CC-BY-SA and reference an OTRS ticket, while the rest of the files say they are copyrighted free use, referencing a quote from the website saying "The spots may be downloaded and used free of charge". The only difference from what I can tell between the copyrighted free use files and the CC-BY-SA files is that the latter are high resolution. What's the actual license the videos there are under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosAmber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@ChaosAmber: I would consider the statement "may be downloaded and used free of charge" an inadequate permission statement for being too vague (eg. does not specify if usage is permitted for all purposes including commercial). Had there not been a confirmation of the CC BY-SA license via VRT, it should have been deleted. For our purposes, the videos are under the CC BY-SA license and the "copyrighted free use" template should be replaced. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Are mugshots from the U.S. state of Georgia really in the public domain?

(courtesy ping @Moosey98: )

Recently, Moosey98 created {{PD-GAGov}}. I am concerned that the interpretation of Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) as meaning mugshots are public domain may be invalid. I note that this article discusses how someone can force websites to remove Georgia mugshots about them...and not just Georgia state government websites. If an image is truly in the public domain, it wouldn't be encumbered with such restrictions. This is covered in the OCGA under § 10-1-393.5 (see code). It is clear that Georgia, with exceptions, views a number of documents (including photographs) as "public records". It's not clear that this should be interpreted to mean "public domain". I am not a lawyer, so looking for input on this and whether this {{PD-GAGov}} is a truly valid template. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Right off the bat, the template notes that copying is permitted...but that's not the only economic right granted to the copyright holder. Is there clear and minimally controversial law which also encompasses things like distribution and adaptation? (The parallel situation in California was apparently that an appellate court said the public records law operated as a copyright waiver in the absence of legislation otherwise. Is that demonstrably the case in Georgia?) TheFeds 00:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I am also doubtful about the validity of this template. The template quotes from a Georgia statute that states that all public records shall be open for personal inspection and copying, but a reasonable interpretation of this could just as easily be shall be open for personal inspection and [personal] copying (why specify personal inspections only if you're going to allow unrestricted copying?) As far as I can tell, there is no case like w:Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner or w:County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition for Georgia, nor is there a statement by a relevant legal authority explicitly stating that Georgia public records are not copyrightable like {{PD-MAGov}}. Based5290 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear, but they could have specified personal inspection as meaning not requiring the government to put things online or mail out copies, or not requiring people to go through electronic hoops if they're willing to come in person to inspect the file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 perhaps Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org might be of the relevance? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Another source of the same casefile: this from GeorgiaRecorder.com. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That case was dealing with the government edicts doctrine, which does not apply to works made in a non lawmaking capacity (the SCOTUS majority opinion says that states are free to assert copyright in the vast majority of expressive works they produce, such as those created by their universities, libraries, tourism offices, and so on). Mugshots are unlikely to be made public domain via the government edicts doctrine as they are made by a police officer, not a legislator/legislature or a judge/court. Based5290 (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Moosey98, could you explain your interpretation of whether "copying" refers to every possible downstream reuse by any entity, or instead a requirement that the state agencies allow access to their records for the purpose of copying, after which the person with the copy must use their own judgment to reuse it as they believe the law permits? @Minermatt122514, @Mikeyspeed7, @Knightoftheswords281, @ElhamHusey & @PublicDomainFan08 you applied this template to files recently; any opinion on the above? Failing any convincing argument, I think the next steps would be to assess the files so tagged for alternative reasons for PD, and if none, deletion/transwiki (several originally from en.wikipedia as fair use). Broadly, it looks like criminal justice content, politicians' photos, and a few state agency logos. TheFeds 22:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If research shows it's legally public domain, then it is such. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read the specific legal codes, but I just want to say that even in the case of you being able to request a removal of your mugshot, that doesn't mean that it's not in PD. For instance, US Federal mugshots are typically not displayed at all, and US military band music is in PD, despite the fact that they sell them with cost. — Knightoftheswords 22:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in the specific legal codes that says "public domain", only "public record". Those are not the same thing, from an image licensing perspective. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I have a defense.

O.C.G.A. § 50-18-102 says "All records created or received in the performance of duty and paid for by public funds are deemed to be public property and shall constitute a record of public acts."

"Shall constitute a record of public acts" clearly means public records.

But then the phrase "public property" is used separately. Hmm... Why would you include two phrases that mean the same thing?

So, public property clearly means something different. The most obvious answer that I can think of is that it means public domain.

I did some more research and I found some interesting things. First of all, courts actually used to refer things not protected by copyright law as "public property." Then in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court used the term "public domain" which came from French law. The term "public domain" ended up becoming more commonplace than "public property."

https://web.archive.org/web/20151001043157/https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=facpubs

There is another court case that uses the term "public property" that I would like to mention. The case is Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

You can read up on the full case if you are interested (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/601/1523/1734702/), but here is the part where the court says something that proves public domain and public property are the same thing.

"In this case, the fact that Mayer permitted her design to enter the public domain is fatal to any claim she can assert. Any theory of liability she could advance would necessarily assume she holds some property interest in the snowflake design. Yet it is elementary that once copyrightable material is published without the author's first securing federal copyright protection, the author loses his property interest in the material. The material becomes public property."

This is referring to how you had to put a copyright notice on your work back then if you wanted federal copyright protection (you no longer need to do this). Failing to do so back then resulted in the work becoming public domain. The court says here that if a work was published without securing federal copyright protection, it becomes "public property."

So "public property" is a legal synonym for "public domain."

Public property = Public domain

So we can conclude that all records "created or received in the performance of duty and paid for by public funds" are public domain.

Now that I have given my defense for Georgia, I want to bring up North Carolina now.

I remembered that the North Carolina public records law says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law."

"Property of the people?"

Property of the people = Public property = Public domain.

To further back this up, I took a look at the website for the State Archives of North Carolina. It says, "State and local government records in the custody of the State Archives of North Carolina may be cited and published without permission. We do ask that the Archives be credited as the custodian of these materials."

https://archives.ncdcr.gov/researchers/services/permissions-and-citations

This implies that you can publish/use the records held by the archives however you wish without needing permission as long as you credit. This is basically their equivalent of a free use license such as CC BY 4.0 where you can use the work however you wish as long as you credit them.

Please let me know you think about all this. Minermatt122514 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, California and Florida have similar laws that forces websites to remove a person's mugshot if they receive a request from them to do so. But wait, California and Florida mugshots are in the public domain! It is a legal paradox.

Long story short, the law doesn't apply to us because we are a non-profit. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I was kind of following along with everything you posted up until the your summary in the last paragraph. The fact the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization is irrelevant to the copyright status of the mugshots. It's not a question of whether the law applies to "us", but whether the content Commons is hosting can be downloaded and reused by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose (including derivative and commercial reuse). So, even if the law may not apply to "us", it might not be OK for Commons to host per COM:LJ and COM:L if the law places a "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use only" type of restriction on other potential reusers of the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia’s Personality Rights Warning, a file can be completely free of copyright or in the public domain while remaining restricted by the legal rights of the person in the photo.

This policy seems to apply to the mugshots where an individual (the person in the mugshot) can restrict its use. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mug_shot_of_Carolina_Amesty.jpg Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My previous post was regarding "NC-ND" types of copyright restrictions because you seemed to be implying the the WMF has no problems with them because it's a non-profit; my post had nothing to do with personality rights or any other type of non-copyright restrictions. Those type of restrictions, as you point out, are not considered a problem for Commons by the Wikimedia Foundation. The template {{Personality rights}} can be used for files where such a thing could be a problem for those wanting to re-use the content. Ultimately, it's up to the reusers of the content being hosted by Commons to make sure they're doing in accordance with the local laws of wherever they live. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument regarding public property, but I would say that the more likely meaning in this context is "property owned by the state of Georgia". I refer generally to the entirety of chapter 16 of title 50 of the Georgia Code, entitled "Public Property", which apparently uses that sense of the word to refer to everything from art to livestock belonging to the state—but also uses the term to refer extensively to land and buildings. Many of those things cannot be said to be public in the sense of free to use (even nonrivalrously—there is no statutory public use right for the swine of the state of Georgia), or free to take (even when you have a right to access—you can enter the state court to observe, but you can't have the state court building, except by real estate process).

As currently organized, chapter 18 on public records and chapter 16 on public property are in the same title (50) of the state code, and it would stand to reason that the Code Revision Commission, when consolidating the public laws on the books, would have attempted to be consistent when working on material that would be published under the same title. (Although I haven't looked into their exact process, I imagine that if they'd found a conflict, they would have proposed a textual fix that the legislature would have passed in the next code revision statute.) I acknowledge the cited history of terminology ("Origins and Meanings of the Public Domain" by T. Ochoa) (quite interesting actually), but would suggest that it documents a linguistic shift around 1896–1945, and is specific to intellectual property—while the Georgia definition of public property is more expansive and is based on statutes both before and after that shift in U.S. federal copyright terminology. It seems unlikely for 50-18-102, first passed in 1975 and consolidated more recently, to refer to the pre-1896–1945 understanding for the purposes of intellectual property while still being read harmoniously for property in general according to the clear intent of chaper 16 (evidenced by its subject matter). TheFeds 07:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm trying to find the basis for the statement that Georgia does not allow a state agency to claim copyright unless specifically authorized. The old Harvard state copyright site listed Georgia as "yellow" as having very little on-point law or court cases; we typically needed some definite statement or court ruling pertaining to copyright in particular. Commons uses "public domain" in regards specifically to copyright, though there can be other meanings of that term in other contexts. A logo may be "public domain" here but still fully protected by trademark with lots of usage restrictions, for example. The right to remove mugshots is similarly a non-copyright restriction; it exists separately from copyright or any licensing tag here. Florida has a somewhat similar public records law, but they also have a state Supreme Court decision which decided the wording of that law impacted their actual copyright in government-authored works, and I'm not sure we have that with Georgia -- the wording could be subtly different. They do specifically allow some agencies to administer copyright (and other intellectual rights), as mentioned by the tag. In general, public records does not mean public domain in a copyright sense. So, we have normally needed to see something specifically mentioning copyright. I'm not sure we have that. This seems to me that it is entirely based on public records, and that the public is allowed to copy those records -- but of course, that does not mean they are allowed to exploit them in the copyright sense. Court evidence is public record, and as such people can request and make copies of those public records, but you have no right to publish them other than fair use (maybe discussing the court case). It was the Florida court case that decided the law's wording also meant that public records authored by the government were usually therefore void of copyright; without something similar from Georgia I am not at all comfortable with the tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Should we proceed with a request to deprecate the template and redirect it to {{Copyvio}}? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-GAGov has been initiated (thanks for the notification). Are there any more positions on the legality aspects, whether copyright or non-copyright? Do we have a consensus that, since Commons requires freedoms not conveyed by a right to merely access and copy information, and the meaning of public property does not appear aligned with the meaning of the copyright public domain, our text should not contend that they are free of copyright restrictions?

In expectation of some change to or deletion of the template, followed by deletion of the files with no alternative copyright justifications, does anyone have a position on whether some files (list them?) might be usable on English Wikipedia under fair use (or other wikis with a similar policy), and should be transwikied? I think there are fair alternative questions about the copyrightability of some media tagged PD-GAGov, such as due to non-creative recording/photography—but nothing stands out as clear-cut. Are there any arguments following that line of reasoning? TheFeds 23:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The lack of court precedent is really the issue. Many states have similar provisions whereby their laws do specify copyrights for specific agencies/bodies, but that doesn't in itself necessarily translate, explicitly or implicitly, to broader copyright exemptions apart from said specifics. Florida's judicial precedent is what saves it from this trap. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

We may not be allowed to host California and Florida mugshots here

Apparently, California and Florida have laws that restrict commercial use of mugshots. I thought that California and Florida mugshots were public domain though. If commercial use is restricted, our policies don't allow them to be on the Commons.

We seem to have reached a paradox here.

Are they or aren't they public domain? Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit, this seems to apply to the Personality Rights policy. So all mugshots should have this attached. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

They may be public domain in a copyright sense, but there can always be additional non-copyright restrictions that may need to be respected (or can apply to some uses in some areas). It's up to re-users to be aware of those. That mugshot right seems like something in between privacy rights and personality rights. That may end up being a community decision (or the WMF, if they become liable for violations) on how much to respect those, but a request coming from the pictured person may well be reasonable to honor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Third Reich and earlier German insignia and currency

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with intitle:DPLA German "Bank Note" -Morgenthau and Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Nazi Germany Fire Police Shoulder Insignia Patch Collected by Winfred Kenner sent me looking to find how parallel cases had been handled, and what I found was a mess. Lots of claims of "own work", lots of dealing only with the U.S. side of the copyright issue, etc. I looked to Commons:Currency#Germany for guidance, but what is there is basically nonsense: it begins "Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes," which would imply that a 19th-century German banknote is somehow still copyrighted. For the Nazi-era insignia, I could find even less guidance.

Besides these two particular DRs which should certainly be addressed, Commons:Currency#Germany needs to be clearer on older banknotes and coins, and somewhere we ought to have guidance on Nazi-era insignia (do we? Did I just not find it?) - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Worst case scenario: apply 70 years after author's death.

For Nazi banknotes:

• Richard Länger (1879–1950) designed the 10 Reichsmark (1929/1938) and 20 Reichsmark (1929/1936) banknotes
• Paul Scheurich (1883–1945) designed the 5 Reichsmark (1942), 50 Reichsmark (1933/1934), 100 Reichsmark (1935), and 1000 Reichsmark (1936) banknotes.

Nakonana (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

New Saudi Arabia copyright act - an update

See this article from Baker McKenzie website. Baker MacKenzie alleges a Freedom of Panorama rule has been introduced by virtue of this law, but we cannot confirm if it is indeed legit and is suitable for IT/new media era including the COM:Licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons. Gemini AI claims "Arabic Text: The original Arabic text was officially published on February 13, 2026, in the Saudi Official Gazette, Umm Al-Qura (Issue No. 5144). It is accessible through official Saudi legislative databases and specialized local platforms like DecreeSA." But, fingers crossed.

Other online source: from Decree Saudi, but this is not the copyright law's text (Arabic or English).

EastLaws.com has an alleged English text of the law but its content are behind registration wall. Title: "Royal Decree NO. 169 Published On 25 - 08 - 1447" and "Title: CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW."

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the issue of Ummul Qura Newspaper the text starts on page 13 and the FOP part is in article 29 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@999real the reading is:

المادة التاسعة والعشرون:
1- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، استخدام المصنف استخداماً عرضياً من خلال تضمين المصنفات
الموجودة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة في عمل فوتوغرافي، أو سمعي بصري، أو تسجيل صوتي مع جواز إعادة إنتاجه أو توزيعه أو تنفيذه أو عرضه أو نقله إلى الجمهور، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف
والغرض من المصنف.
٢- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، نسخ أعمال الفنون التطبيقية أو الشكل الخارجي للأعمال المعمارية الموضوعة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة عن طريق الرسم أو التصوير الفوتوغرافي وما شابه ذلك، وتوزيعها أو عرضها بأي وسيلة مماثلة، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف.

Google Translate verbatim:

Article Twenty-Nine:
1- Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including it in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording, provided that it may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, and provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.
2- Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be copied by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights.

It also seems de minimis became formal and legal under the law. But still, both the de minimis (incidental inclusion) and FoP provisions (Articles 29(1) and 29(2)) fall under this identical condition: "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights." Compliant with COM:Licensing or not?

Your thoughts? Also mention here @Clindberg@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow@Aristorkle@Yann@Ox1997cow (users whom I interacted with concerning FoP of all lands and jurisdictions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way thanks 999Real for the link. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think "incidental" and "de minimis" are quite the same thing -- the first is more unavoidable inclusion when focusing on something else (or a wider scene), and it may still be prominent (more than de minimis). But it doesn't extend to focusing on that work in particular. We tend to allow incidental inclusion anyways, but having it explicit is good. So, this seems like architectural-only FoP (and applied art, which is artistic aspects of otherwise utilitarian works). But not for public sculpture. I presume the last part of each section is the usual Berne limitation that FoP clauses can't infringe on other normal, direct usages of the underlying work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, according to Baker MacKenzie: "The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 13 February 2026 and will enter into force on 12 August 2026, replacing the 2003 Copyright Law that has governed the Kingdom for more than two decades." Also: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points. We will continue to monitor developments and will issue further updates as the regulation is published and as the new framework takes effect." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say that "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" means FOP does not always apply. If it is high resolution and not partially obscured, an image could be cropped from the work, blown up and published for commercial purposes. Do we have a volunteer to review the whole new law and update the CRT entry? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2 I just updated the CRT page of KSA. Thanks to Google Translate website's image translation feature, I was able to update almost the entirety of KSA's CRT page. I'm not sure if we will accept Saudi Arabia's first ever FoP clause. My hunch says "financial rights" is similar to "economic rights" since it is also the (translated) wording for the article on the copyright durations ("The financial rights....50 years..."). Kindly check the CRT page that I just revised. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I think "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" pretty much comes from the Berne Convention, which restricts *all* FoP clauses that way. I've always taken that to mean that you can't say make a photo that is basically a copy of an existing 2-D work, even if on public display, as that can compete directly with the original. Or a sculpture of a sculpture, that sort of thing. In other words, something that adversely affects the existing market for direct copies of the original work itself. I would think that is rare for public photos where the pictured item is just part of a scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging three users from threads at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia: @Ashashyou, Liuxinyu970226, and Aymatth2: . For their opinions and insights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@999real@Clindberg kindly check my updates to COM:SAUDI ARABIA, in particular the terms and the FoP section. It also appears photographs no longer enjoy the shorter copyright term. Instead, the 25-year term only applies to applied arts. The good news is, the new terms are not retroactive (but due to lo-onger US terms, this is pretty much useless). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition: Google Translate's feature to translate foreign language content within images really helped. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @DarwIn and @Bedivere, both of whom commented at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/03#Review of COM:FOP Malawi. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is also worthwhile mentioning all of the users who participated at the Arabic Wikipedia FoP-issue discussion (w:ar:نقاش القالب:حرية البانوراما فقط في الولايات المتحدة), for attention and comments concerning the newly-introduced FoP rule for Saudi Arabia under the new (2026) copyright law that will take effect this August 12, 2026. @جيمي, Ibrahim.ID, Abu aamir, and Dr-Taher: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Info I have mentioned this discussion at the main village pump for attention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, 999real, and Clindberg: the better translation of the article is:

Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including works permanently located in public places in a photographic, audiovisual or sound recording, with the possibility of reproducing, distributing, performing, displaying, or transmitting it to the public, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.

Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights.

— in: Article 29(1 and 2)

_JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

For added attention: pinging here the "interested participants" of meta:Wikimedians of arab User Group for their comments and insights on the new Freedom of Panorama rule for Saudi Arabia which will take effect this coming August 12: @TOUMOU, Ayoub Fajraoui, علاء, سامر, Hamed Gamaoun, سائغ, Ovva olfa, صفاء, Koussayou003, Ravan, رشاد, and أحمد ناجي: . If the new FoP rule complies with COM:Licensing (the new rule contains the condition "provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional pings, selected participants of meta:Arabic Wikimedians User Group who are apparently based in Asian part of the Middle East (per their Metawiki or Arabic Wikipedia user pages): @Mahmoudalrawi, Fjmustak, Salah Mhamdi, عباد ديرانية, Md Nahid Islam Sumon, Osps7, روتانا, Shaween, Almajidy, and روزان جاسم: . Kindly add your comments below Carl Lindberg's comment. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional pings: users whom I interacted concerning FoP-related matters: @A1Cafel and Jmabel: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, that sounds to me like it is reinforcing the "incidental" rule we have in Commons:De minimis (though it's a separate thing than actual de minimis). The second is architecture- and applied art-only FoP. These type of exceptions are allowed in Berne Convention article 9(2) -- It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. So, most countries just take that phrasing and put it in the law. You definitely can't use the exceptions to essentially create a copy of the original -- i.e. using a FoP law to take a photo of a public painting, cropped to the original painting, would basically be a copy, and compete with the original. It just seems to be a safeguard on the "exceptions" having edge cases like that, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg the law also reinforces Berne three-step test rule under Article 37 (which I added at my revision of COM:FOP Saudi Arabia). Back to FoP, can Wikimedia Commons accept this new FoP rule this coming August 12? Your fellow WikiCommoner veteran Aymatth2 had a different perspective on the common condition for both the incidental clause (1) and the architectural/applied art FoP clause (2) of the article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, yes. The Berne limitations affect every FoP clause from all countries, just about. This seems basically the same as other laws. The "incidental" thing we observe more generally -- there is nothing special in there that would allow things we usually don't keep. The FoP clause is architecture-only (and applied art). Photos of a building are not part of an author's "financial rights", basically. Perhaps photographing a building in sufficient detail as to serve as architecture plans for another, then the other building is still infringing -- you can't do things like that, or maybe some other extreme edge cases. But photos of buildings are not really part of the copyright's scope, it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg however, not 100% of Saudi buildings would be hosted/restored here starting August 12 (if ever). The new FoP rule only covers exterior architecture. Basically, the interior designs and interior architecture of those same buildings are not covered. Perhaps the images of interior architecture are subject to noncommercial use if we apply Article 37(2): In cases other than those stipulated in Articles 26 to 36, the use of the work by a third party may be carried out without the author's permission and without compensation if the use is non-commercial, does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and does not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders. In "the use..by a third party.." or "the use...by others," third party or others refers to the re-users (that includes us and the re-users of Wikimedia Commons).

Perhaps: " OK exterior architecture and applied art permanently located in public places (subject to Article 29(2)).  Not OK interior architecture, noncommercial only (subject to Article 37(2)).  Not OK monuments, sculptures, murals and other fine arts, unless incidental in the images (subject to Article 29(1))." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's explicitly just the exterior architecture. That should be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this update. That's a good thing, at least included exterior architecture. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

When are US wire photos considered published?

When is a wire photo by a news agency (eg. Associated Press, United Press International) first considered "published" for the purpose of US copyright? Does publication occur when:

• a copy of the wire photo is distributed to the newspaper company
• or when the wire photo actually appears in the printed publication of a newspaper?

If the former is the case, then does the existence of a wire photo without a copyright notice (such as this one sold on eBay), mean the photo itself is in the public domain due to Template:PD-US-no notice? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: The concept of publication in the U.S. changed considerably in 1978; prior to that, almost any distribution constituted publication. Also, the practices of the news agencies evolved over time. As you probably know, before 1 March 1989, you had to go through some formalities to retain copyright in the U.S. The news agencies mostly didn't bother (though I gather that over time they slowly began to bother in some cases), because their mian business model was for news organizations to pay them for their teletype/wire feed, and the value of that feed was in its timeliness. They basically didn't really care that someone would use the photo a month or two later, it wasn't worth the hassle to pursue. My own take is that for a 1972 AP photo, it would be very exceptional for it to be copyrighted, exceptional enough that I would say the burden of proof would lie with the person who wanted to argue that it is copyrighted; I'd be interested, though, to know if someone sees this differently. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's probably technically published when copies are sent to the newspaper company. However, the loss of copyright requires physical copies to actually be distributed without notice, not simply published in any way (from the wording of the part of the law which stated copyright was lost). The physical copy of a wire photo was printed out at the clients and not really distributed after that, and not sure about notice requirements on something transmitted like that. So, not entirely sure those lost copyright as a result right then. Hard to say if there was some other part of the transmission that had a copyright notice; I really don't know. I'm a little leery over making decisions over physical copies of wire photos. I doubt there was a court case to really decide the issue. It's possible, as there were often captions printed along with the photo and copyright notices may have needed to be in that -- but maybe cropped by the newspaper, who knows. The actual newspapers were obviously distributed of course, but one client forgetting a copyright notice may not have lost the copyright. It was distributions done by the owning company that mattered more, but since those were transmitted over telephone lines, I'm not really sure if there was a way to lose copyright that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Per copyright laws, offering to distribute copies (as evidenced by the production of the wire photo card) counted as publication. I would say distribution without notice on the photo card to be a loss of copyright; after all, some of these cards did include notices. Unless a photo was exceptionally good and relevant AP and especially UPI almost never bothered, as noted by the library of congress. If a photo is particularly well regarded or famous, they probably did. However, they did sometimes include notices when they redistributed photos from other papers that were copyrighted; this notice was supposed to be included in the paper as well and usually was from what I have seen, every time I have seen a wire photo scan with a copyright notice, the newspapers also carried the notice (though like all newspaper attribution things, on rare occasion they sometimes messed up, this is why it is good to check multiple copies) so publication in newspapers without notice is also valid evidence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but offering to distribute copies, then not actually distributing them, apparently does not lose copyright (even if it does start the publication time clock). Although, that may be different before 1978. Since 1978, the law mandated a copyright notice on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived. So, if a work was technically published, but not distributed, a missing or defective notice would not lose copyright. There was one Copyright Appeals decision which got into that distinction, here. That was about a movie which was offered for sale in Germany in 1983, with a defective notice on its one copy. It was screened for prospective buyers, meaning it was offered for sale (rather in that case, an offer to distribute copies for purposes of further distribution or public display), but apparently the offer was not accepted as no copies were actually distributed. The Copyright Office therefore decided that copyright had not been lost, despite having been published in 1983, and allowed registration in 2022 (but the 95 year clock still started in 1983). All of that analysis however was using the 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978. The 1909 law may not have had that particular "distributed" distinction, as that law did require notice on all copies published or offered for sale. That does get into thornier questions when you involve technology that the original law could not contemplate, and where notice needed to be on such copies, and if that form was only necessary for their clients to understand copyright existed. If there was a physical copy distributed by AP or UPI, that definitely needed a notice. Something transmitted over a phone line and printed internally at client sites, I'm less sure. As for lack of notice in a newspaper, a copyright notice on the newspaper as a whole would prevent loss of copyright for that particular publication. If copyright had been lost earlier, of course that didn't matter. I guess I'm a bit dubious on whether we can take lack of notice in a newspaper to mean there was lack of notice when AP/UPI distributed a work to clients. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. But then what would we be counting here? If it isn't offering, and it isn't the appearance in a newspaper, what would we be counting for a proper notice or lack thereof? The copyright appeals decision vis a vis the film is that the work was never distributed to the public, which is not the case for a press photo that was printed and distributed (whether on cards or in a paper) - per the language used in the case, they were "publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner". Perhaps the logic would be that the clock starts ticking but then wherever it is first distributed to the public the notice/no notice requirement comes in.

And a copyright notice for the newspaper prevents loss of copyright for that particular publication but not for works not owned by the newspaper that they included. They can't copyright something they don't own. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does. A copyright notice on a composite work served to protect *all* contained works, regardless if they were different authors or not. The newspaper could not renew it themselves of course, but they did not lose copyright. Only advertisements, specifically, were not considered part of the composite work because they were inserted later. Those needed their own notices, always. Everything else did not. Under the 1976 law, you could only lose copyright by actually distributing copies that did not have notice. The newspapers themselves, while obviously publication, generally had their own copyright notices. The copies printed out at clients from over-the-wire transmissions, not quite as sure how that would fit into the old law -- that act was almost certainly publication in itself, but losing copyright is another matter. Those particular printed copies were *not* distributed to the public, but kept private at the newspaper. I don't know what the law would say where notice was required in the transmitted data, or if they habitually did but newspapers discarded it in their copy. It may very well have been needed at least in the caption, and it's very possible that many transmissions did not have that, but proving that is extremely hard I think. Without a court precedent, it's a very gray area for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

May I add these portraits?

Hi, may I add portraits of: Móric Pálfi, Paulína Pálfiová and Jozef Pálfi from https://www.smolenice.com/22260/kaplnka-sv-vendelina-s-palfiovskou-hrobkou ? --Bakjb (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We need more information. Who took the photographs? If you know who the photographer was and he died before 1956, then it is OK to add the portraits concerned.

If you do not know who took the portraits and they were not published until 70 years had passed since they were taken, then it is OK.

If you do not know who took the photographs and they were published published within 70 years of being taken, then you must wait for 70 years after they were published.

In summary, you should contact the Smolenice Municipality and find out who took the photographs, when the photographer died, when they were taken and when they were first published. You should also read this page. Martinvl (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Might not be necessary unless Slovakia has some "protection after first publication clause". In case of Móric Pálfi (1812-1897) and Paulína Pálfiová, rod. Wilczeková(1829-1894) any photo of them was taken more than 120 years ago so that they are in the public domain per {{PD-old-assumed}} (as long as Slovakia doesn't offer protection after first publication). Now as for Jozef Pálfi(1853-1920), here we would need more information. Nakonana (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Slovakia is EU member, and all EU members have publication rights. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. In some countries there are laws that protect works that are technically in the public domain. Take for example an unpublished painting by an artist who died in 1920. Per the usual copyright protection laws, the painting has entered the public domain 70+1 years after the author's death, that would be 1991. However, in some countries there are additional laws that protect a work after its first publication (but for a shorter term than regular copyright protection, for example for 25 years). If said painting was first published in 2010, it is possible that it can not be hosted on Commons until 2035/2036 despite the author having been dead for over 70 years, because it is granted another 25 years of protection after first publication. Nakonana (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: so it actually regains a previously lost copyright? For your hypothetical example, does this mean:

• Author dies in 1920.
• Unpublished work enters public domain in 1991.
• Some arbitrary unrelated person publishes it in 2010 and gets 25 years of copyright protection.
  • (And presumably, since the work was PD, anyone could do that last.)

Or are you saying something else? I mean, I certainly could imagine:

• Author dies in 1950.
• Unpublished work would normally have entered public domain in 2021.
• Heirs publish in 2015 and get 25 years of copyright protection.

But that is a very different scenario than you described. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If an unpublished work enters the public domain (usually per {{PD-old-70}} or {{Anonymous-EU}}) and is then published, whoever published the work (who could be unrelated to the original author) gets copyright protection for 25 years from publication. However, if the work is published before the copyright expires (for example, if the work is published 69 years after the death of the author), the 25-year term is not granted. From w:Copyright Duration Directive:

Stefan2 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's bizarre. So:

• If Person A's father dies, and they inherit nearly-expired rights for unpublished artwork to their great-grandparent who died in 1958, if they publish right now they have only about 28 months to benefit from copyright, but if they wait until 1 January 2029 they get 25 years protection.
• On the other hand, if Person B (maybe another family member) has photos of those works and publishes one day before Person A (but on or after 1 January 2029) Person B gets the 25 years protection.

That seems insane. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There is even more stupidity in this. Let's say that you somehow obtain a box with anonymous unpublished poems. Maybe you bought a house and when you started doing repairs, you found the box inside a wall. 70 years have passed since the creation of the poems, so they are now PD and you publish them and get the 25-year term. However, then you find out about Article 10.1 of w:Copyright Duration Directive, which states that 1. Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State. So some EU countries might have a copyright term for unpublished works which is longer than 70 years from creation. The Swedish transitional terms specifically state that Article 10.1 is not applied if the work is an anonymous unpublished work created more than 70 years ago, so you don't need to consider the old copyright term. Thus, you own the copyright to those poems in Sweden. On the other hand, you find out about COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works: in Germany, the copyright to an anonymous posthumously published work expires 70 years after the death of the author, so you only get the 25-year term if the original author has been dead for at least 70 years. If not, the original author's heirs still retain their copyright in Germany, and no one gets the 25-year term. So who is the current copyright holder in Germany? No one knows. Also, outside the European Union, United States law states that the copyright only expires 120 years after the creation of the work per {{PD-US-unpublished}}, so the copyright may still held by the original author's heirs in the United States. This means that you have created a situation where the copyright holder is different in different countries, which is very complicated. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Newspapers from Iran

Hi, Dalba has uploaded a lot of scans of newspapers from Iran with {{PD-Iran}}. However it doesn't seem to me that this license is valid. DR of one file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ettelaat13450720.pdf. Could I get more opinions before creating a mass DR? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you questioning the validity of the template itself or whether its applicable to Dalba's uploads? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is not applicable to these files. The template itself is fine. Yann (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The template states that the copyright expires 30 years after publication for works which belong "to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person". Do you believe the copyright to the newspaper does not belong to a legal person? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about Iran, but usually copyright of a newspaper belongs to the authors, unless the articles are anonymous. Is it different in Iran? I have never seen such a case, where the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not to the authors. Yann (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A newspaper article is a work for hire. In some countries, such as the United States, the copyright to a work for hire normally belongs to the employer. In other countries, such as Sweden, the copyright to a work for hire normally belongs to the employee. I don't know what Iranian law says about works for hire. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"Work for hire"? Well, it depends very much on the contract between the journalist and the newspaper. At least in France, even if an article is a work of command, the copyright belongs to the author, unless it is specified otherwise in the contract. This is specifically the case for freelance journalists. I think that the case almost anywhere in the world: by default, the copyright is owned by the author, not by the publisher or the employer. We already have had this discussion many times, always with the same result. Yann (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I get the impression that the US and France are pretty much on two extremes of this issue; I don't know where Iran's copyright law sits, but I don't think we can assume one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable on Iran's copyright law but maybe this part gives a clue: "In the following cases works fall into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16): [...] In cases where the work belongs to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person". Journalism businesses are typically legal persons. As a work for hire, (France may be an exception) these works usually belong to the legal person. Bedivere (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also the U.S. side of this. Because Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention, there has been no URAA restoration, so for any works on or before 28 February 1989, barring the unlikely case where someone went through U.S. copyright formalities, the work is public domain in the U.S., so no problem there. However, Iranian works from 1 March 1989 onward would still be copyrighted in the U.S, even if they have now lost copyright in Iran. So we can really only use this on Commons for works published on or before 28 February 1989. [Or am I wrong about that, and does first publication in a non-Berne country somehow lose U.S. copyright for more recent works?] - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If a country doesn't have copyright relations with the US, then a work by their nationals published on their territory doesn't have copyright protection in the US. There's other ways besides Berne; WTO countries have copyright protection in the US. There's a lot of other theoretical ways, like bilateral treaties and UCC, but outside cases where a now independent state may or may not be honoring previous agreements, all states with copyright relations with the US are members of Berne or the WTO. (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf also lists "The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled", which Iraq and the Marshall Islands have signed as the only copyright treaty--I have no idea if that has an impact on anything. Said document lists all the US copyright treaties and includes the relevant law, as well.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Iran not being a member of the Berne Convention comes with other traps. If the author is not an Iranian citizen, the source country is the country of citizenship or residence of the author. For example, on page 7 of File:Ettelaat13450720.pdf, there is an advertisement for Traktoroexport, a Soviet company, so there is a plausible reason to assume that the advertisement was created in part or in full by Soviet citizens living in the Soviet Union. The text might have been written by someone in Iran (or written in the USSR and translated in Iran, who knows?), but what about the photos? For our purposes, the Soviet Union being the source country would mean that we need to ensure that the copyright has expired in Russia and also that the advertisement was in the public domain in Russia when the copyright to Russian works was restored in the United States. There's bound to be lots of traps like this in Iranian newspapers where some contributions to the newspapers are made by foreign citizens or foreign residents, such as advertisements for foreign countries or photographs taken abroad. Even an article by an Iranian journalist stationed outside Iran might count as a work from the country where the journalist is stationed. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, dotting i's and crossing t's here is going to be a lot of work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I'm trying to understand how this works. Let's say an artist in Iran paints a picture, but does not publish it. Does that mean it doesn't have the normal protection that the U.S. gives and unpublished work? Or do they have that initially, but lose it if their work is published in an Iranian magazine? And what if that Iranian citizen is living in France? Would their unpublished work be protected on the basis of residence rather than citizenship? I find this all very confusing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The legal phrasing is in the document I linked above. Unpublished works are always subject to protection. Published works are protected if "on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled" or "the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party" ("a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party, as the case may be.") So pretty much only works by Iranian authors living in Iran published only in Iran are not copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Authors from non-Berne countries were always able to initially publish their work in a Berne country, and get protection under the convention that way. The "country of origin" is that first country of publication, not necessarily where the author is from or lives. The U.S. explicitly protects unpublished works from anywhere by anyone, as mentioned, until they are published -- it is only then that nationality-related questions can be answered. This is from 17 USC 104. The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author. Once published, then you know which country it was published in (Berne or UCC or other treaty country), and where the authors were living at the time (again, in the U.S. or a treaty country would have protection). If someone is considered "stateless" at that point they also get protection. So in your example, the author has U.S. protection while unpublished (of course, usually hard to exploit something without publishing it -- mainly, this is preserving their choice of when or how to first publish it). They would lose their U.S. copyright if published in an Iranian magazine and they are still living in Iran. If living in France, it is protected because they are a domiciliary of a treaty country (France). If they lost copyright because they are living in Iran, and Iran and the U.S. ever become treaty partners, then the U.S. would restore protection provided (on the date the treaty becomes effective) the work was still protected in Iran, per the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploading photos by deceased family members

Hi, I have a family archive of photos that I think would be valuable for Commons that were taken by family members who have since passed away. I would like to upload a selection of some of these photos to Commons (and thus release them with a CC license) and I am a legal heir of the estates in question and I have permission of other legal heirs as well (I am certain that the copyrights of these photos in question belong to the family members in question and not other parties). Are there guidelines on how to do this please? KFP (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Guidelines for heirs licensing inherited works

Category:Commons:Heirs licensing

Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs

These should help. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into these. Will be a long-term project though since there's a lot of stuff including historical material that hasn't even been digitized yet. KFP (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Photos exposed by exploiting an API call WordPress vulnerability on US Senate website

Regarding File:Darline Graham official portrait.jpg

The photo has not been officially published anywhere, but was exposed by the uploader by exploiting a WordPress API vulnerability.

In their edit adding the image, the uploader states: "I know about how WordPress websites work and I made an API call to her Senate website to list all media uploaded to the site. I quickly found it afterwards."

First of all, is it kosher to upload images obtained via exploit to Commons?

Second of all, even if it were, how do we know the licensing status of this image? We have zero information about this image other than the fact that it exists. RachelTensions (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

That's... Yeesh. I can't speak to the policy implications, I do not know if it's OK to upload unpublished images obtained via an exploit like that. But from a copyright standpoint, it's somewhat murky to me. The photo was definitely taken the day she was sworn in, not sure if it was before or after the ceremony (presumably before, as she is not wearing a Congressional pin yet). It could have been taken by a member of her personal team/family/friends who joined her that day (i.e., not federal staff), a member of her Senate staff (which, at that point, would've been like 3 people, at the absolute most, as she was sworn in *that* day for a sudden opening), a professional photographer working for the Senate (seems unlikely, it's not the highest quality photo), or another unknown person with a different connection to the Senator. If they had actually published the photo on their website, I would've been much more comfortable assuming the person who made it was a federal employee. But they didn't publish it, it's just sitting on their server without being used.

What I am sure of though, is that the caption is definitely inaccurate. There's no way that's her official Senate portrait.

Courtesy tag to the uploader, @Minermatt122514. 19h00s (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The quoted edit summary doesn't say anything about that particular exploit. Is there evidence that they used it or that there is no innocent possibility? Perhaps they consulted the public API documentation, or even merely constructed a URL from knowledge of how similar URLs are formatted on the same site?

I wonder whether there is specific case law (because realistically, the relevant statutes are pre-Internet) about whether posting at an undisclosed URL on a site that will nevertheless dutifully serve the file, is publication? Does it matter whether the URL is obvious in context, versus obsfuscated to a particular degree? TheFeds 17:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@19h00s: The composition of the portrait photo is really similar to that of Sens. Rochester (file) and Alsobrooks (file). It's possible it was the same photographer for the senate. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I guess I'm used to the more "traditionally" composed ones, like Sens. Van Hollen (file) or King (file). They're normally posed with a background of either the Capitol or a flag. In any case, the photos of Sens. Rochester and Alsobrooks are readily available on their websites, having been explicitly published. I still feel weird about this situation and I think I will continue to feel weird unless and until the photo is explicitly published on Sen. Graham's website/elsewhere. If it wasn't taken by a federal staffer, they'll almost certainly credit the image to its non-federal author; if it's definitely a photo by their office or Senate staff, then it either won't have a credited author or will say something like "The Office of Senator Darline Graham" or "Senate Photography Studio". 19h00s (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not use a vulnerability. All you have to do is add to is https://example.com/wp-json/wp/v2/media and it will list media uploaded to the website.

WordPress literally mentions it on their developer website. This is an intentional feature. This is what it gave me at my access level. There are parts of the API that are restricted to logged in users, but this is not one of them.

https://developer.wordpress.org/rest-api/reference/media/

Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I was actually already aware of how the API worked without needing to consult that documentation because I work for an organization and manage their website which uses WordPress. So I was already familiar with it. Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't use an exploit.

The WordPress rest API handbook (https://developer.wordpress.org/rest-api/reference/media/) says you can list media uploaded to a WordPress website by using this API call:

https://example.com/wp-json/wp/v2/media

This is an intentional feature. Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for assuming the image was obtained via an exploit - WordPress image related exploits have been in the news lately so I assumed this was obtained that way.

I guess this discussion would center around copyright status more than anything else. We don’t have any information on the image other than the fact that it exists? so can’t determine its copyright status. RachelTensions (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We do know that it was taken on the same day as the swearing-in ceremony because she is wearing the same clothing.

Why don't we just contact Senator Graham's office and inquire about who took that photo to get to the bottom of this? If it was taken by a federal employee keep it. If it was taken by a contractor, ask the contractor if they will release it under a free license. If they will do that, keep it. If not, delete it.

My thought process though is why would you waste time and money taking a separate photo on that day if you are going to have an official portrait taken? I'm thinking it is the official portrait because it wouldn't make sense to waste time on a separate photo.

I will say though that the choice of a white background makes it easy for editors to composite the portrait into different things. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment For File:Darline Graham official portrait.jpg, if the author is unknown, the license is not valid. It would be valid only if the author is an officer or employee of the United States Federal Government. Yann (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: if you're searching for case law about copyright matters on undisclosed images, I'd suggest that you try to find cases about leaked classified media. There was something in the 1980's, involving Jane's Group and en:KH-11 spy satellite imagery (-> en:KH-11 KENNEN#Compromises), and the en:Snowden disclosures. There may have been court procedures involving and refuting copyright protection on those and other high profile cases (published via Wikileaks). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; open court proceedings are where I would draw the line. I don't want anything to do with actual material that is plausibly or even arguably controlled. (Not any kind of professional obligation; just no desire to partake.) I was thinking more along the lines of pedestrian stuff like an artist posting files to their own website, unaware that the web server's index.html was configured to automatically list it even though they had used a random filename. TheFeds 21:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I have proof that they are aware of it. The users query of the API is enabled by default (https://myththrazz.medium.com/wordpress-rest-api-performance-disable-what-you-dont-need-e3d6eb1223c4). However, it has been disabled implying that they know about the API. This means that the media part of the API was intentionally left enabled. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.dgraham.senate.gov/wp-json/wp/v2/users

This returns access denied. By default, it would actually list the users who can edit the website. So someone did make further restrictions to the API other than the default ones, but left the media one unrestricted. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Grand-Duc and de minimis problem

Regarding the deletion request of China Airlines aircraft images because of copyrighted arts on aircraft tail.

I think User:Grand-Duc is over restricting the de minimis to only the level of File:A_Porsche_997_GT2_in_front_of_Boutique_de_parfumerie_Guerlain,_356_rue_Saint-Honoré.jpg and anything above is copyright violation, but what I see the deletion requests of aircraft images by Grand-Duc, while most of them are deleted for copyrighted characters covered all of aircraft (such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8288 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA754A (aircraft) etc.), a few of these deletion requests are closed as keep because the de minimis apply (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PT-MUA (aircraft) in Stormtroopers livery) (having similar case of China Airlines aircraft tails) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Airbus A320 VN-A680 at Tan Son Nhat Oct 2014.jpg, having new evidence (Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA marinjambo jr. tak.jpg).

User:S5A-0043, User:Nick-D and even the official Commons:De minimis policy are saying clear. KMB1933 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I would say the Batman poster in File:A_Porsche_997_GT2_in_front_of_Boutique_de_parfumerie_Guerlain,_356_rue_Saint-Honoré.jpg is, indeed, just short of the cutoff level for de minimis. It is saved only by the fact that it is somewhat out of focus. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For me, a photo of the entire plane should be fine -- the livery is incidental. That is not the same as de minimis, which they may well not be, though we mention this on the Commons:De minimis page. Basically, the subject is a wider scope, and the copyrighted work is unavoidable. This is the same as the Ets-Hokins decision, where a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrighted label on the bottle (unless you are focusing on the label). So any crop or focusing on the artwork itself is a problem, but the entire plane should be OK. There are rulings to this effect in the U.S. and France, and several countries mention this explicitly in their laws. Other countries are more nebulous but I'm not sure I've seen a ruling against that theory anywhere, so I would prefer to assume it applies more generally until we get such a ruling. There needs to be some line where a logo artist does not get derivative rights over every photo their work appears in, and that one seems to be the most common one. The incidental line does not include photos focusing on the element, or photos where the element was intentionally included for effect. But, I do think we should apply that rule more generally. If you claim "de minimis" though, that is a different legal standard, and people may well delete when they (validly) reject that argument. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Must concur with thee; the grand duke is ignoring past Keep decisions by consensus from many years ago. Can't let this slide further without giving considerations on alternative options (move to Wikipedias or other site preserving the licenses they had on upload).

In light of the Marine Jumbo file; if he keeps adding more of these request templates to related, those of the three A380s of ANA would be condemned as well. Outside of Japan, probably the ones with pandas. Such discussions mustn't be ignored and undeletion requests of a handful (for the purpose of inclusion to WP articles if needed) soon as possible. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Do you have some case law descriptions or legal scholar opinions about what may constitute "focusing" on copyrighted material? The Pokémon in File:CHINA AIRLINES A321-271NX B-18101 HND RJTT 08-OCT-2022 (52412820078).jpg for instance are quite highlighted by virtue of the lighting and having the plane centred in the frame. From a photographer's standpoint, I'd say that there is an artistic focus on them (and, necessarily, an optical one). Do I understand you correctly that your sentence The incidental line does not include photos focusing on the element, or photos where the element was intentionally included for effect. is meant to not cover such imagery, because it is a valid assumption that the spotter shot is meant to include the livery "for effect"? That's creating an innate contradiction between it and "but the entire plane should be OK", though. On the other hand, I can easily understand it as proposal for consensus to have images like the China Airlines Pokéjet as "Not OK" and images like File:JR East E231-500 (Yamanote Line) with Pokémon advertisement 2009-08-03.jpg or File:E311-1001 at Utsunomiya Station 20080914.jpg as borderline OK for incidental inclusions. The train images do not optically and artistically put as much emphasis on the Pokémon artwork as the CAL plane still.

Furthermore, I just read through Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and noticed the section s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.#2. The Bottle Is Not Copyrightable which reads: Under the Copyright Act, the design of a useful article, such as a bottle, is not protected unless the design includes features that exist separately from utilitarian ones. And THAT sentence alone arguably makes "Ets-Hokin" inapplicable to vehicle liveries, especially artistic plane paintworks! Choosing a colourful painting in the shapes of Pokémon, flowers, mascots, etc., actually puts a premium onto artistic considerations and relegates technical, utilitarian considerations (temperature resistance, corrosion resistance, weather resistance, aerodynamics...) on the second rank. Colourful paintworks that are only applied to selected parts are especially bad in regard to controlling the heating under solar light and alleviating thermal stresses in the airframe - uniform colours are much much better in that regard. So, artistic artwork liveries are meant to mostly be just that, artistic, and are well-separated from utilitarian aspects of painting an aircraft, in fact, those artistic elements are actually technically reducing the utilitarian value (of the livery) for fulfilling pure artistic purposes, as they arguably show for a quicker wear of the utilitarian object, the vehicle, they are applied to. The Pokémon are already existing as independent works of art, in video games, on trading cards, in manga and anime and merchandise. Both criteria tested in the Ets-Hokin case, that liveries have elements that "[include] features that exist separately from utilitarian ones" and that "can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article" are fulfilled. About the other factors: the pre-existing works, the Pokémon (or mascots or similar), are unambiguously copyrightable, so livery shots are derivatives of them.

@Poketalker: Could you please stop in referring to me using terms related to nobility, like "grand duke" or "Großherzog"? The persistence in doing so lately gives me the feel that you're perhaps intending to frame me as hidebound / reactionary, something similar or as being aloof. The intended etymology of my nickname is penned on my userpage (in German and English) and bears no relationship whatsoever to aristocracy. Thank you. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: -- the airplane is utilitarian and not copyrightable, just like the bottle. The livery is akin to a label on a bottle. We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. That does say that photos "mainly" of the label itself would be derivative -- at that point you are focusing on the copyrightable work. But photos of the whole airplane, are a photo of a utilitarian work. It may incidentally and unavoidably contain labels or liveries or whatever, but I don't know of a case anywhere, in any country, which ruled a photo like that derivative. At some level, a logo or livery designed does not get derivative rights over every photo in which that work appears -- as that ruling says, that would be prejudicial to photographers and their copyright. That ruling states plainly (for the U.S.) that a photo of the entire bottle is not derivative of a copyrightable label on the bottle, no matter how prominent. Much of the world would not be possible to photograph without encumbrance, really, without some dividing line like that. If you are focusing on the livery itself (i.e. not really caring about the full airplane), then it becomes different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I get the feeling that you're conveniently glossing over some points I argued before... At the least, I'm missing an explanation as for why they aren't pertinent, like arguing for that a vehicle livery is a pre-existing work as required in the Copyright Act.

First, a plane itself is utilitarian, yes. But in a stark difference to a beverage bottle, usually made in numbers reaching the millions yearly (or even monthly), the numbers of planes constructed over the life of the building program barely reach the five digits in the most extreme cases (like the Boeing B737, Airbus A320 family, and from the military: MiG-21, P-51 Mustang, Spitfire, F-6 Hellcat, Messerschmitt Bf 109). So, planes are clearly less "everyday" than bottles.

Then, the artistic liveries (I'll stay with Pokémon for the example) are, as written above, less utilitarian than plain colour liveries, like those worn by en:Delta Air Lines or Southwest Airlines planes - and the latter example is already more "communicative" and "advertising" than "technical", incurring higher and faster wear due to thermal stresses. Pokémon images are worse than Southwest's paint job, when looking at the needs of the plane, inducing even more tension loads into the hull. The functional livery is meant to protect the airframe from weather, abrasive wear and tear due to dust, corrosion and dirt and get good aerodynamics. You do not need or want Pokémon for that, only mostly uniform lacquering. Pokémon are going against the target you want to reach by painting your "everyday" plane: the protection from the elements.

Third, the contents of Ets-Hokin, when trying to apply them to aircraft liveries, contradict somewhat the descriptions and court decisions stated in COM:TOYS. Notably: "a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function" and Numerous lawsuits have shown that Mickey Mouse or Asterix have to be treated as works of art, which means they are subject to copyright, while a common spoon or a table are not works of art. Artistic elements of these items could be copyrighted, but only if it's separable from the utilitarian elements. As demonstrated: Pokémon on planes have no utilitarian function tied to being a livery; they are separable from the utilitarian elements. Thus, naturally considering the concept of case law and en:precedents, Ets-Hokin and its bottles are IMHO not sufficiently comparable to vehicle liveries to apply the ruling verbatim, there are really plausible grounds to also apply those toy-related rulings granting copyrights.

Fourth, simply photographing artistic plane liveries and also showing them off on photo websites are indeed IMHO not a really far-reaching interference into third-party IP rights. But granting a license allowing commercial reproduction is!! I'd say that photosites like Flickr or planespotters.net are safe, but not a media repository like Commons or Pixabay, because the offering of commercial re-usability comparatively intrudes much much more into the rights owned by the IP holders.

Lastly, there's indeed a high court ruling about vehicle liveries, where the inclusion of art was deemed a derivative: the ruling about the Kussmund on Aida ships. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The number of copies doesn't matter whatsoever -- if its expression was limited by utilitarian concerns, it's utilitarian. (The U.S. does not protect applied art with copyright.) An airplane is utilitarian. Livery is not utilitarian -- some may be simple, too simple for copyright, but none of it is utilitarian. It's not constrained by any utilitarian concern; it is pure 2-D decoration and artwork. Some are more artistic than others, but anything above the threshold of originality is just as much protected as a painting. Paint itself is utilitarian; the designs you make with it are not. Just like a label on a bottle, it may be a fairly substantial part of the resulting photo -- but the photo is still not derivative, if the photo is of the entire bottle. It is not the same as de minimis, at all. You can use "incidental" photos to on articles the livery -- but only with an illustration of a wider subject that copyright owner put it on, as an example. So yes there may be a lot of livery in a photo -- or other copyrightable decorations -- but a photo of the entire plane is not derivative, in the U.S. Livery designers, no matter how copyrightable, do not get derivative rights over every photo taken of the plane or containing it, whether there was one airplane with it, or thousands. When you focus on the livery itself, then that aspect disappears -- the focus of the photo is then the livery, and if it's copyrightable, then the photo is a derivative work. A toy airplane does not need to actually fly or perform any function, so is not utilitarian. As such, a photo focusing on that toy is a derivative work. Nothing in Ets-Hokin is in conflict with that. A photo of a larger subject where the toy appears (say maybe a photo of store shelves) -- is usually not derivative. It does need to be unavoidable when photographing that larger subject though -- if you intentionally include or place a copyrightable object in a scene to enhance the photo, that's not the same thing. (There was a case where a fashion designer had the model wear some fancy glasses to enhance the photo -- that was ruled derivative of the glasses.) The license we have here is only on the photo as a whole -- it does not allow you to make derivative works of the underlying object directly, only use it indirectly. You can use such photos commercially (sell them), but only as those photos. It's not just fair use. Much like FoP, you don't get any rights over the underlying work. Like de minimis, cropping to the copyrighted portions changes the question, so those particular derivatives are not OK. But you can use the photo as a whole in a collage or something. You seem to be conflating the level of artistry with "utilitarian", but that's not really it. The Aida case, the photos were allowed by the court -- and their FoP may allow you to focus on the decoration more than the U.S. would, at least as long as the public context was still there. In the U.S. a photo of the entire ship is fine -- but a photo focusing on the Kussmund is not, as that is clearly copyrightable. You would be limited to fair use on that photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Tut mir leid^(!), @Grand-Duc; my honourable character can't be compromised in replying to these sort of discussions. Anyway, it seems from the fourth  Keep decision of JA8578 + four remaining PokéJet files that photos of similar specials were and still are treated no differently to the Arkia DHC-7 example in De minimis and ordinaries before you came with a more restrictive interpretation. Will let your machine-translations do the thing on my recent reply to @Y.haruo on the 2020 amendment while I try to make one that's less-mechanical as possible. Stopgap? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Which of these hardware licenses are permitted on Wikimedia Commons?

On NIH 3D, there are a few licenses that some models are released under that do not currently have templates on Commons. These licenses include the following:

NIH links to the Open Source Hardware Association for each of these licenses. If these licenses are permitted on Commons, what is the process for the text to include in a license template? ForeverFlying (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose, is there any policy or essay on Commons that goes over the process of adding a new license? Does such a policy exist, or am I free to create new license templates for these licenses? ForeverFlying (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Heritage rephotography project — questions on licensing and uploading to Commons

Hello, I'm developing a heritage-oriented rephotography. The idea: a user photographs a place, and others can later re-take the exact same framing over time. Accumulating these successive shots documents how a place changes — a kind of visual timeline, useful for heritage and scientific purposes (I already have interest from climate researchers who want to attach dated observations to it). The app would offer two modes. A personal mode, private, with no connection to Commons. And a community mode, free, where contributors would explicitly agree to release their photos under a free license (CC BY-SA) for upload to Wikimedia Commons, committing to photograph only copyright-free subjects consistent with the project's documentary mission. Before going further, I'd like to lay out the approach and ask for your input on two points. 1. Licensing and contributor rights. Does the model "the contributor releases their rights by publishing under a free license" seem sound to you? How should I collect valid, informed consent within the app (wording, traceability)? And how should I handle the case of minors, who cannot license away rights on their own? Are there pitfalls I should anticipate? 2. Uploading to Commons. What is the proper procedure for an application that would upload images to Commons programmatically? Is a bot flag required, or a GLAM-partnership framework? Are there rate limits or best practices to follow so this isn't seen as uncoordinated mass uploading? If this belongs on a different page, please point me there and I'll gladly move it. Thanks in advance for your guidance. ~2026-36659-32 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36659-32: Nothing definitive about what I'm saying here, but here's how I would approach it:

• Things will probably be simplest if all of the free-licensed content on your site has a single license. Since people are uniformly uploading their own work, that would not present the problem for you that it would for a respository like Commons. (I'd suggest CC-BY 4.0.) As long as your UI is such that the granting of such a license amounts to informed consent, that should be fine for Commons.
• You may want to think about a grace period in which people can retract a license. (Commons normally allows a week for this.)
• You may want to think about a way someone can grant a license later if they do not do so at time of upload.
• Commons usually accepts licenses offered by minors; we are looser about letting them revoke those after the fact, but if they are still minors when they want to revoke it, we've been known to say, "Yes, but please don't upload anything else until you reach the age of majority, because this creates some chaos." If you are more concerned with this, and with the follow-up to Commons, you probably should age-screen on your site and not allow minors to offer a license.
• There are a lot of ways the upload to Commons can be done; a bot account is probably the best idea and, yes, that would need a bot flag. If you are allowing (say) a one-week grace period in which someone can retract a license, it might make sense to have the bot upload only files where that grace period has expired. You can do that by having the grant of a license queue up a file to be uploaded to Commons seven days later, and then have your bot check at upload time to validate the license.
• If you don't already have a proper account here, could you please create one? It sounds like there may be a fair amount of back-and-forth here, and it is much harder to do that in communicating with a temporary account. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Jmabel, thank you very much for this detailed answer, it helps a lot.

  I created a permanent account (this one). I read all your points and they are clear to me.

  I will use a single license, CC BY 4.0, as you suggest. My app already asks the user to confirm they are the author, that the subject is free of rights, and that they accept the license before taking a community photo.

  I understand the idea of the 7-day grace period, and I like your suggestion to combine it with the upload: the photo goes to Commons only after 7 days, and the bot checks the license is still valid at that moment.

  For minors, I will follow your advice and not allow them to offer a license (age check in the app). They can still use the app in private mode.

  I will create a dedicated bot account and ask for a bot flag, and I will read the rate-limit and bot policy pages before I start.

  Thank you both, Jmabel and @Nakonana — I will also look at the official Commons app to see how it handles the upload. I will come back with more questions when I start the bot part. JDoulos (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you know the Commons app: (GitHub: )? You might want to take a look on how they are handling things like the upload process and licensing issue. Nakonana (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36659-32 and yes, there are rate limits. The bot policy might also be relevant. Nakonana (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Trump Truth Social posts

There may be a copyright dispute for posts by Donald Trump on Truth Social, which includes files in Category:Screenshots of Truth Social (among others). Per The Intercept:

Trump has also set a new standard for blurring the lines between his communications as a public official and a private citizen.

For nearly half a century, communications from the president have been recognized as the property of the United States, not the president himself. Under the Presidential Records Act, any documents (with some carve-outs for national security and personal records like journals and diaries) that are “created or received by the President … in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President” are subject to the United States’ “complete ownership, possession, and control.”

In other words, selling expedited access to such statements is effectively privatizing a public asset. That might be part of the reason why, this spring, Trump’s Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that argues the heretofore uncontroversial Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.

If it is true the Trump administration is attempting to privatize the posts on his Truth Social account, do they have a claim of copyright in the US? Would this mean we would have to delete screenshots of posts containing an extended amount of text? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

(This would not involve posts containing text too minimal to be copyrighted, eg. here, but obviously would for extended pieces, eg. here). – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I would make the same argument to Commons that I would to anyone else in the media, writ large: no preemptive surrender. If Trump wants to carve out a novel legal claim, pay no attention to the new "rule" unless it is upheld by a judge. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not be lightly scared away from the established edges of the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a signature reading "President DONALD J. TRUMP" in File:Donald Trump attacks Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones on Truth Social - April 9, 2026.png. That alone would IMO IANAL be sufficient evidence that the text is covered by PD-USGov, sporting a clear attribution to the actual leader of said federal government in his official function. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploads

I just hit upon a whole series of uploads of drawings by a living artist. There is no indication of a permission by the artist. Not sure how to handle this, can someone check please? --~2026-42663-43 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Strange, all other uploads by this user with works from other artists have valid VRT tickets (e.g. File:“Composition XXVIII” (1976), Museum für Zeitgenössische Glasmalerei, Langen, Germany.jpg). But the uploader does not identify themselves as the artist on enwiki. Nakonana (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the ones that were kept have valid tickets. Or you could put it the other way around: Those with valid tickets were kept. Quite a number were deleted too, just look at her talk page. To judge by that page, one gets the impression that she uploads first and asks later. --~2026-42789-06 (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I tagged a couple of images as missing evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Issues with songs from NickRewind clips

NickRewind has, as many know, been releasing clips from old television shows like iCarly, Victorious, and others, under a Creative Commons Attribution license on YouTube. My issue is with songs and music that appear as part of this.

Take File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm for example. The copyrights are also possessed by Columbia Records in addition to Nickelodeon Records, which is owned by a separate entity from Paramount/SkyDance. So is this song here fully available under the CC BY terms if only NickRewind releases it under CC BY? We have several other files like this, so we need to sort this out. The visuals might be released under CC BY, but is the audio? Aplucas0703 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons requires permission from the copyright holder themselves, so third-party content requires a separate statement of permission, in this case from Columbia Records. If no permission can be obtained, then the audio should be censored (muted) in the Commons upload. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's what I think. It doesn't seem like Nickelodeon alone can license the song. Aplucas0703 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If the rights are jointly owned by two companies, then one of them can license the rights independently of the other under United States law. Many other countries require the consent of all joint copyright owners, but this work is from the U.S.

Separately, Paramount would have to own the rights to both the sound recording and the composition for the audio to be fully CC-licensed. Qzekrom (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, damn, that's interesting. So then Nickelodeon actually can license it without Columbia's permission. Nickelodeon almost certainly possesses the composition copyrights, since they virtually always have them written as works for hire (to my understanding). There might be contractual restriction here where they have a contract with each other forbidding this licensing, but then Nickelodeon would be liable to Columbia, the public can still use it for free. Aplucas0703 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but here might be a case to consider: The song "Shakespeare" that appears at the end of this video is probably only owned by Sony Music, since the album was never released by Nickelodeon. Aplucas0703 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Works of Government of American Samoa

I propose to create {{PD-US-ASGov}} for works by AS Government, because {{PD-American Samoa}} is focused on works, first published in AS by citizens of non-Berne countries. Works of AS Government is in public domain regardless of applicability of copyright law to AS, or simultaneous publication in mainland United States. Thoughts? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

DR categorization on URAA cases

In this DR @Rosenzweig and @Günther Frager have underscored that post-1989 cases in which a work is in PD in the country of origin but not in the US are not technically URAA cases and therefore thay shouldn't be categorized as such. Nevertheless, I think that it's useful to keep track of them (for example because in the future we may decide that we accept PD-works in non-FoP countries which are permanently visible from public spaces, just as we do with non-PD works in FoP-countries).
Therefore I'd propose to create a more general category (something like Category:US law-related deletion requests on foreign works) that could host also the post-1989 works. The URAA categories would then become subcategories of this more general one. Any opinion on the matter? Friniate (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If the work was copyrighted in the source country on the URAA date, then it is copyrighted in the United States, either per COM:URAA or per COM:SC, but we usually don't check why it is copyrighted (as it doesn't matter to us). However, it is probably a good idea to have a common tracking category for all such deletion requests (which could differentiate between COM:URAA and COM:SC if we know the reason for the work being unfree in the United States). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stefan2 I was referring to the proposals made by various users during this discussion, but that was just an example anyway. Friniate (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Image licensed under OGL3 but metadata has additional restrictions?

I'm looking at some images uploaded by a sock group (Vanderpumpstan) that doesn't always do the best at following copyright, but this is an interesting one. The image is File:Downing Street hosts the Dame Barbara Windsor Dementia Mission 10.jpg and it's from the UK Government flickr account. Flickr says the license is CC BY_NC_ND 2.0. The exif data on the image says Crown copyright, licensed under the Open Government License, but then has "This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." Contradictory information - what license should be used for these images and is it compatible with Commons? Related to this File:Prime Minister Boris Johnson hosts meeting with Scott Mitchell 2.jpg also says Crown copyright, nothing in exif about the OGL, but the same "can not be used for advertising or commercial use" phrasing. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe these photos aren't licensed under OGL at all ("except where otherwise stated"), but it isn't clear why OGL is mentioned, if it isn't applicable. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

OGL is OGL. Extra restrictions are not part of that licence. The image is effectively dual- (or triple-) licenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's pretty much my thoughts as well on the first image. The second one is the more interesting one in that Flickr says CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, the exif data claims Crown Copyright, says that it cannot be used for advertising or commercial purposes, but there is no mention of OGL anywhere. I went a bit into a rabbit-hole looking into this, and the UK National Archives page on the OGL says that an exception to using the OGL is possible if the provider wants to only allow non-commercial use/re-use. If an image that claims Crown Copyright, but doesn't claim OGL, then the licensing on Flickr / exif data would apply? Ravensfire (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the latter image; I can see no OGL licence,

UK gov got very bad at this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

generic publish copyright tag for sound recordings, films and photos?

in the vast majority of countries sound recordings are calculated from publication not the death of the author so its very strange that this does not have a separate tag by itself

for films fewer countries have publication and use death of "principal persons" but they still are in the minority globally as far as i can tell

some countries do still apply flat publication for photos as well

so there should be generic publish + 50/70/other years but with a disclaimer that this work is not public domain in certain areas due to local laws unless following the rule of the shorter term or other exceptions instead of having to use many separate tags Noob282 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

To upload anything to commons, it has to be public domain in the United States as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

yes i know but this is for countries that have publication based copyright for these works instead of death date ones Noob282 (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. So far, this hasn't been a big issue, because any sound recording 1927 or later is still copyrighted in the U.S., and anything 1926 or earlier, tagged as PD in the U.S., is also PD almost everywhere else, but it starts to get more complicated next year as more works come out of copyright in the U.S., and (if nothing else) we might want to one or more tags that do something more like what we do with {{PD-auto-expired}}, but using date of publication rather than a death date. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

File:The Holiday for all the Family (10291803986).jpg

File:The Holiday for all the Family (10291803986).jpg is marked as "No copyright restrictions", but no reason specified. This drawing was first published (and likely created) in 1952, so it was under copyright on URAA date. If it is anonymous work, {{PD-UK-anon}} applies now, but was not applicable on date of publication by archive. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: so what is there to discuss here? If nothing, start a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Poems on the Underground posters

Hello - I am trying to get an extra picture or several for the Poems on the Underground wiki page. The project website includes images of all the posters used since its inception in 1986 but does not have a copyright statement that I can find. Most of the posters are simple (but distinctively styled) text layouts of a poem, with no art. After reading the guidance on copyright by subject matter and on threshold of originality, I am still worried I'm not understanding correctly and have two questions:

1) Am I right in thinking that we could reproduce a poster if:

• the poem used is itself public domain by virtue of its age,
• AND the design includes only text and no art,
• AND the poster was published more than 25 years ago and so is no longer protected by UK law about typographical arrangement?

E.g. this one (poem 1800s, poster published 1986) or this one (poem 17th century, poster published 1996)

2) If so, what would be the correct combination of tags for it?

Any help extremely appreciated. Obleronet (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Obleronet: (1) yes.

(2) This is a case where I'd probably break it down a bit, and possibly put it in the "permission" section of {{Information}}. E.g. for https://poemsontheunderground.org/ozymandias-2, something like:

Poem: {{PD-old-auto-expired|1822}}
Design (under U.S. law) {{PD-ineligible}}
Design (under UK law) {{PD-UK-typographical}}

I don't think we have a super-elegant way to tie those together, but it might exist. Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you so much. Obleronet (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I would use {{Copyright information}} for such cases; perhaps

{{Copyright information|text = {{PD-old-auto-expired|1822}}|typographical arrangement = {{PD-two|PD-UK-typographical|PD-ineligible}}}}

which I think explains the situation clearly and succinctly. Felix QW (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've allowed myself to add this to your uploads; feel free to revert to the previous, more manual solution if preferred. Felix QW (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the "typographical arrangement" in your example was ever copyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

In the UK, it is always hard to know; as they legislated a separate copyright term specifically for typographical arrangements, it would seem to me that this may apply specifically to such arrangements that would not meet even the UK's rather low threshold of originality for a full copyright. Felix QW (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The source we give at COM:CRT/UK concerns the typographical copyright of governmental information pamphlets, which seems more mundane to me than posters of poetry designed for Poems on the Underground. Of course, this predates their recent movement on their overall threshold of originality, but I am not sure what the repercussions of that are for such additionally regulated rights outside of the standard regimen. Felix QW (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I'm not either, and if it were my upload I wouldn't bother, but since the tag provides an unimpeachable reason why it wouldn't apply in this case, there's no harm in adding it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all, this was v useful context. Obleronet (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Question about PD status of a Czechoslovak photograph

Hi all. As part of a good article review about the Ukrainian National Union, I have to verify the public domain status of this photograph of a UNO election truck. The PD tag states, per Czechoslovak copyright law, that it should have come into the public domain 50 years after publication, however it does not provide evidence of its original publication; I tried searching around to see if I could find it, but wasn't able. It also doesn't provide an author, nor could I find one. I think it'd be a shame for the article to lose this image, as this is the only photograph of the UNO we have available on commons (the other images are all posters), so wanted to ask here if someone can help verify the PD status of this image. Thanks in advance. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Sadly this photo is not of Czechoslovak origin. By reverse image searching, I have discovered that the photo is in fact from the archives of Life magazine according to this webpage from 2012. This means the source country is considered to be the US and not Czechoslovakia. The webpage further states the captions were "provided by Google", so the photo was most likely obtained via the LIFE photo archive hosted by Google, which in turn says that most of the photos "were never published and are now available for the first time through the joint work of LIFE and Google". The images on the webpage also share the same Life watermark on the bottom right as on the Google/Life archive.

In conclusion, our available evidence shows that the photo is of American origin and was never published until 2012. The name of the photographer is unknown, therefore the chart at COM:US states the copyright expires "the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation". In our case, this means copyright expires 1939 + 120 years, so January 1, 2060. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Well that's incredibly unfortunate. Can we be sure that it wasn't published by Life prior to 2012? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The Google page says that "most" were not published until the archive was established. Without any evidence to the contrary, we will simply have to presume the photo wasn't published until then.

Even if it was published in a 1939 issue, Category:Life (magazine) states that issues were renewed from 1936 onward, excluding some issues between 1944-1945. The only possible scenario the photo is public domain is if the photo (created in 1939) was first published in one of those issues published between 1944 and 1945 (5-6 years after it was created). I consider this highly unlikely. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Since we are already here, and regarding the posters currently in the article, File:Уно аг. 1939.png and File:УНО вибори 1939.jpg, I have exchanged the current tagging for tags based on Ukrainian copyright law, as the area covered by Carpatho-Ukraine has been part of Ukraine since 1945 and thus I think that from our perspective at Commons as from the perspective of URAA restorations, Ukraine would be treated as their country of first publication. Felix QW (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

On PD-text's threshold

Hello! I am inquiring about at what goalpost does the template PD-Text stand on?

https://hyperallergic.com/artists-planned-monument-to-charlie-kirk-gets-trolled-online/#:~:text=Additional%20comments%20trolling%20Furnari%E2%80%99s%20Kirk%20statue%20posts%20on%20Instagram%20(screenshot%20via%20Instagram)

If I were to censor the user profiles and usernames in the screenshot with black boxes, would it be qualified under PD-Text since the template reads: Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright. and black boxes, text, and hearts could fall under 'not special enough', yes? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe so. The longest comment in that screenshot is 17 words, and the Copyright Office has refused registration for words and short phrases of similar length. See wikisource:Untitled (USCO Review Board, 2022). Qzekrom (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Similarly, A 23-word email consisting of "Has anyone had a problem with White, Zuckerman ... cpas including their economist employee Venita McMorris over billing or trying to churn the file?" was deemed uncopyrightable in the 2011 case Stern v. Does. (COM:TOO US) Qzekrom (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Length is not the key. See Ashleigh Brilliant#Copyright controversies, especially the last paragraph. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for the information! Personally, I think the screenshot in the article seems to be in the realm of PD-Text, since I think all of them are simple jokes or pretty short phrases, one of them being a threat to send the statue's head to the sculptor's studio. I don't these are concise and clever, public bathroom jokes have going on for decades, I assume, and a threat is just a threat I think.

I'm not really an expert at this, so let me know if this is not eligible for the PD-Text license DoNothingEveryday (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The Righteous Mind Book Cover - Below TOO?

I changed the file permissions on English Wikipedia for the cover photograph of the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt because I found it to be clearly below the threshold of originality. That photograph was the first edition cover. However, now I'm considering whether the cover of the most recent edition is likewise below the threshold of originality. (̈https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback) This cover features only text as well as cutouts of two figures from The Damned by Luca Signorelli, which is a public domain work, in a rather simple arrangement. As such, it the book cover is composed solely of unprotectable elements.

Per Satawa v. Lowry (which has cited by the copyright office in turning down logo copyrights̠)ː "not … any combination of unprotectable elements automatically qualifies for copyright protection. Our case law suggests, and we hold today, that a combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship."

I believe this most recent cover to fall below the standard of sufficiently original selection and arrangement. From what I've searched, the copyright office also doesn't recognize symbolism as an element of a work's copyrightability. I wanted to double-check, though, so that I don't act hastily with this decision or future decisions. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cauliflowerblackhole If the two figures are in the public domain then the entire cover is so as well as the simple lettering are too simple to be copyrightable. Jonteemil (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry about copyright status of images from Backloggd.com

Hi everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

I would like to know if it is permissible to upload images from the website Backloggd.com to Wikimedia Commons. Specifically, I am interested in using some of the game-related imagery found on their platform.

Since I want to make sure I am fully complying with Commons copyright policies before downloading and uploading anything, could someone please help me verify if the content on this site (or the specific types of images they host, like game covers/screenshots) is considered free media?

Thank you so much for your time and help!

Arthur Juraski (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Arthur Juraski I unfortunately doubt that any file from that site is free. Some very simple covers with text-only might be considered below the threshold of originality but that's assessed on a case-by-case basis. Screenshots of video games are never considered free, unless the video game itself has released their rights to copyright which is very uncommon. Jonteemil (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Upload of sports club logo with CC0 license

Someone recently uploaded the logo of a German sports club here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AC-Logo-2022-helle-Hintergruende.png) and tagged it with the CC0 license. I seriously doubt the author is the owner of that logo and is allowed to do that. What's the usual procedure here, ask the person on the personal discussion page about the upload? Bthfan (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bthfan:

1. Decide whether the logo is below COM:TOO (or, possibly, PD on some other basis, like something really old). If it clearly is, just change the license tag to {{PD-logo}} or something else appropriate. If it is unclear (which is the case here: this is on the edge of TOO) start a DR to discuss whether we can keep this as {{PD-logo}}. If it were clearly not PD, you could go to {{Copyvio}} if it is blatantly from somewhere online, or otherwise a DR, in which you would probably want to point to COM:THIRD and/or COM:VRT for what is needed.
2. In the case of a user like this with almost no other uploads, decide whether you feel like taking time to educate them. If you do, you might want to go to their talk page and give more of an explanation than they will implicitly get in the prior step. The shortest form of that would probably be a sentence or two with a link to COM:THIRD.
   • Also, definitely look at their other uploads to see if they raise similar issues.
3. In the case of a more experienced user, it's probably still worth looking at their uploads and maybe their user talk page to see if this is just the tip of an iceberg.

@Bthfan: Please indicate here whether you'll be following up, or whether this was more of an implicit request for someone else to take over. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I will follow-up, thanks for the information on how to proceed. Will first contact the uploader. Bthfan (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Are all NASA astronaut photos government works?

A "work of the United States Government" is defined as a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. (17 U.S.C. § 101) Clearly, a NASA astronaut is an employee of NASA, so the first part of this definition applies. But the second criterion must also be met - that is, the astronaut must have created the work while acting within the scope of their employment, as determined by agency law principles. The criteria, according to Restatement (Second) of Agency (quoted in Harbeson (2025)), are:

228. General Statement

(1) Conduct of [an employee] is within the scope of employment if, but only if:

(a) it is of the kind [s/he] is employed to perform;

(b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits;

(c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the [employer]...

It's not clear to me that all photos or videos that happen to be taken by the astronaut during a space mission automatically meet these criteria. One such work (File:Only one chance in this lifetime.webm) seems more like a "personal video taken at work" - Reid Wiseman wasn't obviously on duty when he took the video, and he wrote that he couldn't resist a cell phone video of Earthset while his colleague Christina Koch was taking the actual Earthset photos, and it was posted to his personal Twitter account.

By analogy, I could take photos at the office while off duty and they wouldn't necessarily be considered works made for hire if I was motivated by personal reasons rather than business objectives and I'm hired as a software engineer, not a photographer, even if my employment contract requires me to assign the copyright to my employer because they were taken on company property. That said, photography and public relations are definitely the type of work that NASA astronauts are employed to perform, and the video could have been motivated "by a purpose to serve" the mission even if it looks personal. Qzekrom (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Assuming we mean while they are in space (or otherwise engaged in their work capacity), I would say the answer is yes, these are U.S. government works. Obviously, like anyone else, a NASA astronaut can take picture of their family, or of a building in their home town, without those being government works. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If a hypothetical astronaut took a photograph of their own body, which strongly suggests a personal purpose, and which they believe that if released would likely have a negative overall publicity effect (it could nevertheless be positive in some contexts), by what rationale would we suppose that it is a government work or work for hire? How do we distinguish this from an otherwise similar non-astronaut employee, or even that same astronaut, taking a similar photo in the terrestrial toilet facilities at work? If there's something special about the employment arrangements of astronauts, what is it, and how do we know that? TheFeds 00:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Usually if it's released through an official government channel, such as a website or verified social media account, that's considered acceptable for Commons as those are intended to be exclusively used for work. A selfie which was made at work and published through a government channel infers that the photo was made in their capacity of being employed by the federal government. This is not exclusive to astronauts, and applies also to eg. senators. It is not strictly relevant to whether the photo is good or bad for publicity as the federal government often posts or releases content which generate unintended negative publicity.

Now, in the initial case brought up by @Qzekrom, we can actually see the video was not a personal Twitter account as they claimed. The account actually bares a government checkmark, a NASA logo, and the bio has a direct link to nasa.gov. By any reasonable measure this is an official government channel. The claim that Wiseman was also not on duty is also incorrect as he was participating in the Artemis II mission at the time. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 07:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree that the publication by the photographer on a federal government channel they control in the course of their government employment would ratify it as a government work, without needing to further consider the motive or circumstances at creation. We don't need to determine if the work was federal ab initio or if it was federalized by its willing "prepar[ation]" by its copyright holder as part of their federal employment. (My statement about the negative effect was intended to state a hypothetical where the photo-taker and their agency would have both understood that the photo was not relevant to their job—it was just during or at work and they took no care to conform it to any assigned job duty. It was an argument against an automatic presumption by virtue of employment.) TheFeds 20:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

For some professions, people are at work when they are in the field, whatever they are doing. This is even more true for astronauts during a short mission like Artemis. They are certainly on duty from the moment they left Earth, and until they come back. And even when sleeping. Astronauts in a long-term mission in the ISS may be different. I think a good measure is: who pay in case of a medical issue? If the employer pays (or its insurance), then people are at work. Yann (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this property right should be assigned by reference to unrelated employment obligations. Imagine a message to an intimate partner: "look at my [use your imagination] in zero-g". Automatically in the public domain by operation of law because of the consequences of a flightsuit zipper malfunction? I say no, because although they are employed to produce some kinds of photos and messages, even of an informal nature, they are not employed to produce content indiscriminately. And their concept of what serves the employer's interest is at issue: it's not obvious that they would have this in mind for every possible work, particularly if not accompanied with intent to distribute. (Also, just to be complete, restatements of law are not law: they are persuasive rather than authoritative.) TheFeds 01:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploads of Fcstmani

• Special:ListFiles/Fcstmani

Pretty much all of their files are claimed as own work however I have a hard time believing that. They are indeffed on enwiki and on User talk:Fcstmani there are many copyvio and No permission since notices. I asked them about it a month ago without a response. While I can't find any matches on Tineye or Google eye, all files just seem taken from somewhere else, for example File:Park Tae-rang 01.jpg even has a Voyo watermark on it. Noteworthy also is that all files lack Exif information which makes it more suspicious. What do you think? Can I nominate all of their files for deletion, or at least many of them, requesting proper evidence that they are own works? Jonteemil (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Looks like you are right. Photos that appear to be from many places in the world in a narrow time frame, none with EXIF. The complete lack of overt mention of where in the world many of these were taken is also suspect. Lack of finding sources might mean they are scren grabs from videos. Also, old photos with dubious copyright claims (for File:Čierny Balog c.1944.jpg, how could anyone be confident that the unidentified author of a c. 1944 photo has been dead for 70 years, but that's the claim; also no accounting for how that would be PD in the U.S.).

So: I think you should feel free to pursue this as aggressively as you might want. Unless there is a lot less to this than meets the eye, this looks like continual copyfraud. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

BMW art cars?

Wondering how we should handle photographs of the w:BMW Art Car fleet. These are BMW racing cars with artist-designed paint jobs, the program has been ongoing since the 70s. I'm really only concerned with the designs from after 1989, specifically those which appear to rise above ToO in the US (several of the designs are definitely below ToO as simple geometry). These could either be a work-for-hire, so BMW owns the copyright, or the artists may have signed an agreement to retain copyright themselves.

Obviously the cars are not copyrightable as useful objects. But the paint wraps appear copyrightable as they are intellectually/visually separable from the cars themselves. And I do not believe freedom of panorama exemptions would apply here, as these cars are only ever exhibited in museums/galleries/public spaces temporarily, and when they're used in races they are also not permanently on view; a race day event is inherently temporary.

Here are three examples to give a sense of what I'm talking about:

• 2019 car by Julie Mehretu: File:BMW M Team WRT - BMW M Hybrid V8 -20 (53815726583-crop2).jpg
• 1995 car by David Hockney: File:BMW Art Car no. 14, 850CSi David Hockney (1995).jpg
• 1992 car by Sandro Chia: File:BMWArtCar-Chia2.jpg

Thoughts? 19h00s (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Whatever would be the copyright status of the decorations, these are covered by FoP. Yann (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

How? A car is not permanently on view. A car in a race is inherently only there for the race, it's not as if it's parked on the track forever. The Mehretu car is pictured in a temporary race, and the Hockney car is pictured at a temporary car show in London. Of the three examples I gave, only one is on view in such a way that could be interpreted as permanent (the car by Sandro Chia, which is pictured inside the BMW museum, which regularly shows the cars; but I don't even believe that's "permanent", these cars are also shown in temporary exhibitions around the world as a full group, so there's no way that one is permanently on view at that museum). --19h00s (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The section above about aircraft liveries might be of interest here. Nakonana (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg, sorry to tag you in here, but would you apply the same airplane livery logic to the one-off designs on these cars? I would note that the designs are not re-used like a logo or other traditional livery, they're only applied to one individual car each. 19h00s (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, if it's a photo of the entire car, any copyrighted work on the car itself is "incidental". Yes, the car itself is utilitarian. The designs are separable and fully copyrightable. But to me, photographers have a right to photograph the car -- any designs on the car are "incidental" in that they are unavoidable if you are trying to photograph the entire car. Photos which focus on the designs, and not the car itself, are not OK (unless FoP can also apply, which it may in some countries). If a photos is trading off the specific expression on the cars in some way (more than just depicting it), then "incidental" may not apply. The cars are unique, but it's still unavoidable when photographing the larger subject. That is the Ets-Hokin decision in the U.S. (also more or less backed up by Latimer v. Roaring Toyz which was about a custom paint design on a motorcycle, when photographing the entire motorcycle, though the actual ruling ended up being based on contracts). Those are both U.S. law, but France does have a "theory of the accessory" court ruling, where a prominent, copyrighted building in a photograph of a street did not cause it to become derivative, and several countries have "incidental" use sections in their laws. I tend to think these fall under that theory -- not de minimis, though our policy on that is documented on the Commons:de minimis page. To me, the copyright is the same if it's on one car or thousands. The number of copies of a work don't change its copyright status, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of circa-1982/83 Interdynamic USA photograph

I was referred here from Wikipedia copyright questions. I am trying to determine whether this photograph might be in the United States public domain under {{PD-US-1978-89}}.

Image: https://content.osgnetworks.tv/firearmsnews/content/photos/Interdynamic-KG-9-Review-1.jpg The photograph apparently depicts George Kellgren, Carlos Garcia, Mercedes Garcia and other Interdynamic USA personnel with the first KG-99 firearm (first sold in 1982)

It appears to have been taken in Florida in 1982/83.

The image is reproduced on these webpages: Firearms News, published July 30, 2020: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/interdynamic-ab-kg-9-review/382628 This page credits it as “Photo courtesy George Kellgren.” The Kommando Blog, published September 30, 2022: https://kommandoblog.com/2022/09/30/tec-9-the-history-of-intratec/ This page calls it a photograph of Interdynamic USA circa 1983 and credits it as “Image courtesy of George Kellgren.” TinCanBandit, published in 2023: https://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/2023/10/firearm-factory-of-month-intratec.html Strzal.pl: https://strzal.pl/tec-9-ulubiony-czarny-lud-hoplofobow/

I understand that these recent reproductions do not establish a free licence or prove that the photograph was published during the 1980s. I have not found the photographer’s identity, an original publication, a copyright notice, or evidence concerning copyright registration.

Is there enough information to treat this as a United States work published before March 1, 1989 without notice, or would I need evidence of an actual 1980s publication—such as a catalogue, advertisement, press release or magazine appearance—before {{PD-US-1978-89}} could apply? Entropy1999 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Entropy1999: I think you'd need evidence. You are not only saying it was published before March 1, 1989, but you are saying it didn't have an appropriate copyright notice. If you haven't seen the publication, how do you know it lacked notice? - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)