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)

Copyright of a soccer ball drawing

Hi, In many football club logos, the main design is the ball. File:PFC Septemvri Sofia Logo.png is the typical example. Is this OK or not? Yann (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We at least have two more of that: File:Septemvri Sofia (ancien logo).svg and File:Septemvri Sofia.png. But there's no COM:TOO Bulgaria page to help with assessment. The former file says "ancien logo" (so, "old logo") and was taken from an unofficial fan website (НЕОФИЦИАЛЕН ФЕН САЙТ), while the latter has the following text its upload history: "Емблема на ФК Септември (София) © 2007 http://clubs.bul-foot.org" (Emblem of FC Septemvri (Sofia) © 2007). Maybe not that old of a logo? The club (or the logo?) was established in 1944 according to the categorization of the latter file. Nakonana (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Frwiki says it's protected by copyright, but the logo on frwiki is a bit different from the above, see . The colors and ball are different. Nakonana (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The logo is from 1988, so definitely not ancient enough in Commons copyright-sense. Nakonana (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

My question is about the threshold of originality of a soccer ball. Another example: File:Reggina 2026.png. Yann (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There are also basketball logos with a basketball as the main part of the logo, hockey puck for ice hockey etc. Jonteemil (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:FC Volendam logo.png is a good example. Jonteemil (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the ball is original enough. What was the creative process, and how did it differ from (for example) mechanically tracing a photo of a soccer ball? The roundness of the ball is utilitarian. The pattern is not novel. Given the old logo, I think the assignment was to depict a conventional ball using a line drawing, rather than to embellish the shape in any creative manner that could lead to a copyright. TheFeds 06:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Per the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 906.2: Familiar symbols and designs are not protected by the Copyright Act. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). Likewise, the copyright law does not protect mere variations on a familiar symbol or design, either in two- or three-dimensional form. Qzekrom (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem will be with the Bulgarian threshold of originality, not the one in the US, though. Nakonana (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hundreds of problematic images in Category:Lego

COM:TOYS considers images of toys or products to be derivative works due to the material they feature, including Lego. However, there are hundreds of images of Lego on Wikimedia Commons, many of which can be seen at Category:Lego, in violation of this. Despite there being occasional deletions, most remain. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The overall precedence in the hundreds of Category:Lego related deletion requests seems to be that simple blocks, and models that members of the public make from them, aren't a copyright issue, but more complex individual designs are (such as Category:Lego minifigures, which has a COM:TOYS note at the top). Belbury (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. As a typical example, File:Apatozaur.jpg is not a derivative work of the LEGO bricks it's made of, as the bricks it's made of aren't substantially creative works. (The model is potentially a creative work in its own right, but is freely licensed by the uploader.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that every possible Lego minifigure is a DW. The base minifig design was published in the U.S. patent USD253711S, which was issued in 1979 - so even if it is above COM:TOO US, it looks like it was published without notice and therefore {{PD-US-patent-no notice}} applies.

On the other hand, specific minifig designs may be copyrighted unless they were published before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice (and "publication" includes selling copies of the toy to the public).

Also, general art styles are not copyrightable, so if someone drew a person in the style of a minifig (e.g. Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu in this brickfilm), it would not necessarily be a DW of the base design. Qzekrom (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that the original poster (@NewAccount7295: is confusing "copyright" and "patents". The purpose of the Lego patent to to protect the manufacturers of Lego from unfair competition by people who are using the Lego designs. The Copyright law of the United States explicitly protects "artistic works" rather than "useful items". In this contect, Lego Bricks are "useful items" and as such do not have copyright protection. AS such, models made of Lego are not derivative works of any Lego specifications. Martinvl (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. Also, to the extent that Lego is a "system" for building toys and artistic works, it should fall under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Qzekrom (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Re: the minifig design - PD-US if the copyright was not registered within 5 years after the date of publication (per {{PD-US-1978-89}}). I can't find any registrations for a Lego minifigure older than VA0000655104 (1994-01-21), but they did register a Duplo figure as early as 1983 (VA0000139797).

It's hard to say whether the Duplo figure is similar enough to be a derivative work of the Lego minifigure, but even if it is, I don't know if publishing an original work without notice and then registering a derivative work of it within 5 years saves the copyright on the original work from forfeiture. Qzekrom (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of photograph from the Russian Empire

I'm looking at photographs of the Polish linguist Mikołaj Kruszewski that I think are probably in the public domain, but I'm not too sure. The relevant information and photograph is in this paper in Ukrainian. I'm specifically looking at the group photograph, which according to the paper was taken in Troisk, Russian Empire, in modern-day Russia. This photograph was taken some time between 1875 and 1878. It was first published in a 2002 book, which was published in Ukraine, after the photograph was donated by a family relative. I'm not sure which country is relevant here: the photograph was not created in Ukraine, so I don't think its status in Ukraine is relevant here. The template for the Russian Empire only deals with works published in the Russian Empire, but the photograph was not published in the Russian Empire. The page for copyright in Russia doesn't have provisions for unpublished works with unknown authors. I think that if we generously assume that the photographer was 22 years old (quite young) when taking the photograph in 1878 (the latest possible year for the photograph), then the photographer would still have to be 100 years old by 1956, the current year required for PD in Russia. Kisseran (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This is in the public domain in the US. The place where it was first published is usually the important place under Berne, so Ukraine would be the important country. Unless Ukraine has laws about giving first publication a copyright over public domain, it seems clear that it's safe for PD-old-assumed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Its status in Ukraine is very relevant here as it was published first in that country. According to the Ukrainian law Persons who first publish an unpublished work after its copyright protection expires enjoy protection for 25 years from the time when the work was first published. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

taken in Troisk, Russian Empire, in modern-day Russia — was it not published in the time of the Russian Empire and isn't Russia the country of origin instead of Ukraine? If yes, that would suggest {{PD-RusEmpire}}. If it wasn't, then how did the authors of the paper get their hands on it?

And there's also the {{PD-old-assumed}} option for works older than 120 years, which is the case here. Nakonana (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see some questions were actually answered in the opening post. But even if Ukraine was the country of origin, if the first publication was in 2002, then it will be PD in 2027/2028. If PD-old-assumed does not apply for some reason, because even in the year of publication 2002 more than 120 years had already passed since the photos creation. The photo would have qualified for PD-old-assumed by 1998/1999 at the latest. Nakonana (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Where the photo was taken is irrelevant here. What matters for Commons is when and where it was published first. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, though, even though we could have allowed the logic of PD-old-assumed before the 2002 publication, I don't believe it applies under U.S. copyright law now. If 2002 was first publication, and if it counts as authorized publication (not clear, and I don't think there is much by way of judicial precedent on this), then I believe through a quirk of U.S. copyright law at the time it is copyrighted in the U.S. through 2047. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

All the copyright issue can be resumed by: What did happen to the pictures between 1875/1878 and 2002? How did the publisher get them? Unless the publisher got the pictures directly from the photographer's estate, they were most probably published in the meantime. Yann (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I spoke to Kisseran on Discord (and recommended they post here); apparently the publisher got them from the photographer's relative. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Using family photographs from the 20s-40s to add to my ancestor's Wikipedia page.

Hello all, I have a great collection of family photos I have found at my grandmother's, and I would like to use those to add an image to the Wikipedia article of my great-grandfather, (here) but I am unsure about how the licensing works. I am not asking for legal advice, I only want to abide by the rules of Wikimedia and make sure my image won't be taken down because of a copyright issue.

The photographs are from the 1920s up to the 1940s, and in every one of those photos the photographer is unknown. Could I use those? If this can help, I am from France.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jean LE TRIVIDIC (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I would support having French pictures before 1936 on Commons, unless a photographer is named, and this photographer died after 1955. Before 1931, they are OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. From 1931 until 1936, they are OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. After 1936, US copyright of these may be questioned. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Bonjour, Je pense que c'est bon pour les photos de 1936 ou avant, à moins qu'un photographe ne soit mentionné, et que ce photographe soit mort après 1955. Avant 1931, c'est bon avec {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. De 1931 à 1936, c'est bon avec {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. Après 1936, le copyright aux Etats-Unis est incertain. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann Why would it be PD-US-expired? The work seems unlikely to have been published, per our discussion above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

There are 2 possibilities: either these pictures were taken by a professional outside the family, and in this case, they were published when they left the photographer's custody; or they were taken by a family member, and in that case, *-heirs should be OK. I have a similar situation in my family (pictures of my grands-parents of the 1920s). And, although they were well off people of the bourgeoisie, I know that they never owned a camera, so the pictures were taken by a professional. So I think that PD-US-expired is more likely. Yann (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you know the photographer, and he/she is one of your ancestors, you could have the right to publish them. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Si vous connaissez le photographe, et qu'il/elle est l'un de vos ancêtres, vous pouvez avoir vous-même le droit de les publier. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Yann,

No photographer is named on the back of either pictures, but all of the family memebers at the time died between the 60s and 80s. Should I stick to photographs strictly taken before 1936? Jean LE TRIVIDIC (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. Yann (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

May I add this? If so with what licences?

May I add this portrait from https://malackepohlady.sk/?p=13671 or https://nekrolog.frantiskani.sk/n/p-vendelin-jozef-kucera/ , there is no author or date given, and the person died on 31. of december 1937. --Bakjb (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that any of these that are later than 31 December 1930 could be out of copyright in the U.S. They would have been copyrighted in Czechoslovakia (and later in the Czech Republic and Slovakia) for the lifetime of the photographer plus 70 years, so they would still have been copyrighted there in 1996, when URAA would have given them a U.S. copyright lasting 95 years from initial publication. (Yes, there are edge cases: photo not published before 2003; photo published initially or simultaneously in the U.S. either without notice or without renewal; probably other weird scenarios.)

Conversely, any that were published no later than 31 December 1930 and where the photographer died on or before 31 December 1955 should be good for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Belarus and freedom of panorama

According to Ch. 4 Article 32-7 of this belarusian law, photos of architectual objects in Belarus can be published only under NC license and only if they are not the main object of a photo. If so, photos like this for example are protected under copyright (this exact building will be protected until 2036 as the architect passed away in 1985). And this is a great issue, because there're a lot of photos of architectual objects of Belarus on Commons, just check the categories for metro stations. Aranzavy (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, for another example, this photo is a material for NC Commons, because one of the stadium architects died only in 1985 (on ruwiki), so it will get into PD only by 2036. Aranzavy (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe You should create DRs for these files with "No FoP in Belarus" as reason. Thanks. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Comic Sans MIT license

It seems like a specific version of Comic Sans is now under the MIT license. Is there something we can do about this w.r.t. Commons?

News article Github repo Relevant question about Comic Sans's license grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the font, it's the entire client that contains that font. I'll revert the non-free downscaling of the lead image and then transfer the file to Commons. You may also upload your own screenshots - it's free software now. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Right; Comic Sans has by far the larger societal impact so I was focused on that grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You could already use Comic Sans, as the letters themselves are PD per COM:TOO US. It's just the ttf file that has been open sourced, and that can't be uploaded to Commons anyway, as there is no such format support. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was wondering if the TTF file was supported by commons grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Haitian voudou veve: no copyright, derivative work OK, or no-go?

I am looking to upload a Haitian vodou veve, which I understand to not be copyrighted as a cultural symbol from at least the 18th century. However, the main reference I have is from a book wherein I understand the artist to likely still be alive. I just wanted to confirm, in such a greyscale line art based on folklore like the veve, would the veve from the book be copyright protected if I were to scan and upload it? If so, if I produced my own lineart, would that be considered a derivative work of that in the book? Thank you, Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If what you have is a modern drawing, then that is almost certainly subject to copyright.

If you did your own drawing or other similar work, it would depend on how slavishly you follow a single source. The issue is certainly clearer (in favor of not being derivative work) if you have multiple examples and try to work from what they appear to show in common, rather than having only one visual source. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Several images of Selena uploaded by a user under CC

I asked a user on Wikipedia about this and was pointed to this discussion area. A user has uploaded what appears to be images of the late Category:Selena to WikiCommons. I am unsure of the images are truly released under Creative Commons because the user has had User talk:Enciclopedia1993#File:Selena Quintanilla.png images deleted before. Just wondering if anyone can check the accuracy of these image licenses. Thanks! Magiciandude (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I assume this refers to File:Selena & Los Dinos (1988).jpg and File:Selena in 1988.jpg. I'm not sure what your question is. The rationale given on the file pages is plausible; I think the only question would be whether there is evidence that the photo was published, not merely taken, before the end of February 1989, and that the U.S. can be considered first country of publication (which would be the case as long as it was not published elsewhere more than 30 days earlier). If you want evidence about publication date, your choices are basically:

• Ask the uploader.
• Research it yourself or find someone to do the research for you.
• Force the issue by nominating for deletion on the basis of your doubts.

Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Military symbols of Republika Srpska

Are all the files here that are above TOO copyright violations or is there some PD license that fits them? Jonteemil (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Are those government (issued) symbols? If so, {{PD-SerbiaGov}} for state symbols might be applicable per COM:Serbia. Nakonana (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Republika Sprpska is an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina so rather {{PD-BH-exempt}} is a possible license but I don't know if it's applicable on these files. Jonteemil (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Unpublished old photos of the PH

The concerned image: this one. Translation of the 2nd paragraph: A rare image of the former train station in Kawit, Cavite in the 1910s has been found in an old album. More than a century has passed, yet it remains an important part of Cavite's history and is a reminder of an era when the [said] town had rail lines. I assume that it denotes the old underlying image remained under private hands until it was recently discovered. It seems to have some identical case with at least two of the files I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "John Tewell".

Regardless if unpublished in the PH either during the regime of old copyright laws (see COM:Philippines#Governing laws) or of the present regime of the copyright law (1972 and 1998 laws), are all treated equally under US law? That is, either 95+1 years after (recent) first publication or 120+1 years after creation, whichever is shorter (for unknown authorships), per the table at COM:US?

Another intersecting concept: COM:URAA, but URAA seems to only apply published works outside the States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Or, to put it another way, for anything that had no publication before 2003, and was not published within 25 years of creation, publication date is completely irrelevant to when U.S. copyright will expire. - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 22 July 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)

Frank Stella US ToO

Can I get a US threshold of originality check here? Reproduction of a Frank Stella painting (Quathlamba, late 1960s) on a German stamp, licensed as PD for being simple geometric shapes. I'm not totally sure about that, but I think this would crack open the door for a lot of other Stella works if there's truly consensus it's below ToO. Other works I'm thinking might be allowable if we agree with this PD assessment could include this, this, and this. Thoughts? (totally separately, but I assume it wouldn't be that hard to find evidence that the painting on the stamp is PD for lack of formalities upon original publication, but that's a search I don't have time to do) 19h00s (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy tag to uploader: @Delorian 19h00s (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I hate to always bring ToO issues here (even simpler ones like this) but I'm always running into images of artworks that present problems like this. And it feels important to get feedback before letting it lie or adding additional similar images. 19h00s (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The thing is: TOO is always a judgement call, and things like this are near the threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Signatures in the UK

Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#United Kingdom claims that signatures are above TOO in the UK. I wonder if that is still the case with the recent raising of that threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

When was the threshold raised - was it a court case, an Act of Parliament, or something else? Qzekrom (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: ruling by the High Court: https://ial.uk.com/important-copyright-originality/ - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Mayor H.W. Farnsworth.jpg

File:Mayor H.W. Farnsworth.jpg was also uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:HW Farnsworth.jpg. The uploader appears to be claiming it's a "family owned photo". My guess is that this image is no longer eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law (i.e., OK to be relicensed as {{PD-US}} or at least {{PD-US-not renewed}}); so, the {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} license can be replaced with {{Licensed PD-art}} and an appropriate PD license, but there's really no information provided about the image's en:provenance per se. Do others think its safe to assume this has already entered into the public domain or is COM:PCP an issue? If this is OK for Commons, there's really no need for the local file an it can be deleted per en:WP:F8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

There are very few ways an 1860s photo could still be copyrighted in the U.S., few enough that it would be an edge case that would require evidence. For starters, at this time there was almost no such thing as an amateur photographer, and U.S. standards of what constituted publication were very low, so most photos would have been published almost immediately and would be long out of copyright. But here are the two edge cases:

• First published 1931-1977 and (if first published in the U.S.) conformed with U.S. copyright formalities (including renewal if published 1963 or earlier). Copyright extends 95 years from publication.
• First published 1978-2002 and (and if first published in the U.S. and published on or before 28 February 1989 conformed with U.S. copyright formalities). Our Commons:Hirtle chart contradicts itself on whether this will become PD in 2048 or 2049, but either way it is not PD now.

That's it. If it was published before 1931 (by far the most probable), or fell short on formalities, or was unpublished at the start of 2003, then in all those cases it is in the public domain. This is into the range where in order for Commons to delete it, we would need positive evidence that it is not in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If first published outside the United States, it would still have to comply with United States copyright formalities unless the photo was somehow magically still copyrighted in the country of first publication on the date of restoration (usually 1 January 1996).

I would think that a photo from 1860s is very unlikely to be protected by copyright in the United States, but it is often impossible to prove that a specific photo is in the public domain because publication information is unavailable. The problem will go away when, in over four decades, works first published in 1977 enter the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Stefan2: you're right, the path is even narrower, since most (though not all) other countries ignore publication dates for copyright, and and 1860s photo would typically have passed into the public domain by 1996. Still, there are weird cases: e.g. Mexico has p.m.a. + 100, and that could not be presumed in 1996 for an 1860s photo. In any case, the chance is pretty small that first publication would have been outside the U.S. and before 2003. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that it is a formal portrait photo of the mayor of a US town in the 19th century, I would normally have marked it {{PD-US-expired}} without much second thought if I had come across it while reviewing putative PD files. If it is indeed a family-owned photo though and the uploader is in possession of the original, it would be great to have a higher-quality scan. Felix QW (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Painting of Francis W. Capers

Hello! So for context: I want to make an article about Francis Withers Capers, a President of The Citadel, and I wasn't really satisfied with the image already uploaded in WikiCommons, seen here:

• File:Major Francis W. Capers.jpg

Because of that, I contacted The Citadel for a more higher quality photograph of the artwork since it can be founded on their website and the Daniel Library & The Citadel Museum part of the website states that "On the first floor are two galleries displaying portraits of Board of Visitor members and distinguished alumni.", meaning the portrait of Capers could be there.

The Citadel responded. Here's the email: "Good afternoon, Thank you for reaching out! I took a picture of the painting this morning, which I have attached here. You are welcome to share it online. The artist was Alicia Rhett, a well-known actress and portrait painter. The portrait was made in 1962. Best, Tessa", Tessa being MAJ Tessa Updike, MLIS, Daniel Library curator.

I have many questions about the painting, first one being: What is the copyright status of the painting? I think it's currently housed in Daniel Library in the Citadel. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If it was made in the U.S. in 1962:

Public display in a place where photos could be taken counts as publication.

If it was published and did not have a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain.

If it was published in 1962, that is actually the last year of publication for which copyright renewals were required; however, if it was not published/displayed until 1963 or later, that would not apply.

I'm going to guess that is all you need. Very few painters at this time bothered with the formalities they would have needed for copyright; their business model was simply to sell the painting, not to hold on to intellectual property rights. However, you might check to see whether Alicia Rhett registered her copyrights. While there is also the possibility that she placed a copyright notice on the painting without registering it, that would have happened in 1962, so that would have required renewal. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I marked it as {{Wrong licence}} and added the information from this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I've contacted Tessa Updike again for information regarding when did the painting got hanged in the institution and whether or not it got copyrighted by somebody. In the meantime, I have looked at more info about the painting, and there's a plaque regarding the painting, it reads:

"Francis W. Capers

August 8, 1819 - January 12, 1892

Superintendent 1852 - 1859

Presented to The Citadel, June 2, 1962, by descendants of Major Capers"

I don't know that could this possibly hold more information, but it's still a detail regardless. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Are these public domain?

I'm looking to potentially create a Wikipedia article on the Lower Dry Creek Fire in Oregon and if so I'd like to add media. I'm wondering if images by U.S. state employees are public domain, like images here, with a similar case for county employees like here. Please ping when responding. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Very few U.S. states have policies that place their employees' works in the public domain. I'm pretty certain Oregon is not one of them, so it's just like an image from any other source. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is a postcard a free image

I have 2 postcards of Elmdon in my possession. They were passed down from my grandmother. I think they were from the early 1900's. Can I share on Wikimedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie Challis (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Julie Challis: Commons requires that images be free in both their "source country" and the U.S. You don't mention what country this is, so I can't address that side of the equation, but anything published anywhere on or before 31 December 1930 is now in the public domain in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Avatar: Seven Havens logo

Is File:Avatar Seven Havens title card (cropped).webp below COM:TOO US? Someone uploaded another version of it to enwiki as a non-free logo (en:File:Avatar Seven Havens logo.png). Qzekrom (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say its probably below ToO. Copyright Office's decision on the Cyberpunk logo is instructive; even though there is a sorta 3D effect on the font for "Seven Havens", such minor effects are generally not enough to make typefaces copyrightable. Based5290 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Feed-icon.svg

Note: This is a bump of an old topic that I opened that received no replies. I chose to recreate it instead of changing the file's permission notice since Mozilla's wording is a bit unclear and the last thing I want to do is tag it as public domain when in fact it isn't

This item says that it is triple-licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL, however, I found this webpage under the Mozilla's Foundations website that seems to suggest that the icon is in public domain

Relevant excerpt:

The feed icon is freely available for general use in connection with web feeds using open web syndication formats, without the need to enter into a trademark license agreement or similar legal arrangement. Note that these guidelines are not legally binding.

Oakchris1955 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Short bangs fringe hairstyle.png

Hello! I uploaded an image to Commons that I took myself and licensed for open use under Creative Commons. It was accepted as a main image for the en:Bangs (hair) Wikipedia page, which previously featured a low-res image licensed under CC1.0 (not recommended). Because of this deletion, the page has reduced context and illustration of the topic.

I would like to request a review of this deletion and reinstatement or reupload if possible.

thank you! gillian GillianRWu (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• The correct venue for this is COM:UDR, I see you also posted there so am closing this thread. Link: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:short bangs fringe hairstyle.png. -Consigned (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Consigned (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)