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)

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)

COM:Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't say anything about state symbols being exempt from copyright. And the Yugoslavian copyright terms would only have made the symbols PD if they had been published some time before 1977 (or even 1971 if we take URAA into account), but those were military groups from the first half of the 1990s, so we'd either need to demonstrate that the symbols are older than the military groups that used them, or we'd argue on grounds of threshold of originality, but we don't have any information on COM:TOO Bosnia and Herzegovina. One could argue that the Serbian flag is in the public domain per Serbian copyright rules so that symbols that are dominated by the Serbian flag might be argued to be derivative works of a public domain work and thus might be in the public domain too. But for the more elaborate symbols things are not looking Commons-compatible. Nakonana (talk) 11:55, 26 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Unpublished old photos of the PH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)

@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)

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)

I'm thinking that it's under the U.S. threshold of originality. The Arrows logo is made of similar V-shaped lines. Shading/dithering is similar to Discover, if indeed that is a feature of the work and not the reproduction. The drop shadow suggests an intent to depict a specific light source's effect on a work of that shape, but the arrangement is quite trivial and obvious—and if the arguably similar-intentioned effect in Nikon wasn't copyrightable, I tend to think this isn't either. TheFeds 22:33, 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)

It may have a license that allows it to be freely used as if it were public domain (that, for example, is the intent of CC-0), or it might be in the public domain because of TOO, but nothing copyrightable that is created on or after 1 March 1989 can possibly be truly public domain in the U.S. Similarly for most other countries (and mostly starting at an earlier date), unless somewhere has a copyright term so short that a copyright could already have expired. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Florida Today (2021-01-21).svg

File:Florida Today (2021-01-21).svg was uploaded as {{PD-logo}}. I'm wondering, though, whether the letter "O" in the logo might be just complex enough to push the entire logo above the COM:TOO US. It seems like it might be a close call. If the file is OK for Commons, then an older version of the logo uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Florida Today.svg should also be OK for Commons and can be relicensed accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it is like the Best Western W-crown, but differs in that it is literally substituted for part of the word instead of as a logo suggesting an initial and an object simultaneously (more textlike = less creative), and it is more complex in that it suggests a 3-D object (there are overlapping trails in and out of what looks like the plain text O) (more spatially complex = more creative). Ornamentation of a letter (Subway arrows) and substitution of a design for a letter (Discover O—I always assumed it was a sunrise, but I don't know) aren't necessarily copyrightable. I would say on balance that it's in the public domain in the United States. TheFeds 08:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The logo is a modification of the logo shown at File:Florida Today, January 19, 1977 - Snow Flurries Fall in Brevard.jpg. The 1977 logo unambiguously passed into the public domain due to formality shenanigans, so the new logo also has to clear the bar of having enough originality added beyond the elements present in the 1977 logo to gain copyright protection. To me, thickening the rings around the O and moving one of the balls on the ring around does not meet that bar. Based5290 (talk) 08:28, 27 July 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)

File:Conservation walks (sign) 2 (3969282171).jpg

Photo of a sign with Ordnance Survey map. Whetcher such map can be covered by {{OS OpenData}}? If so, the file should be fine. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:33, 26 July 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)

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)

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)

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)

Copyright status of the Peter Elfelt collection

The Royal Danish Library and the Museum of Copenhagen jointly hold the Peter Elfelt collection, comprising approximately 170,000 digitised glass negatives from 1890–1970. The library states that the photographs are "free of copyright and posted in good resolution, so they can be used for many purposes".

The collection is an important visual record of Denmark, including official and private portraits, places, public life, social development and the royal court. Its royal and diplomatic material is also relevant to wider Scandinavian history. Peter Elfelt was royal court photographer, but after his death in 1931 the collection was continued by Elfelt & Co. Authorship, dates and publication history may therefore vary.

Could the library's statement support treating the entire collection as public domain on Commons, including in the United States, or is a file-specific copyright assessment still required? Would it be appropriate to create a collection-wide template such as {{PD-Elfelt collection}}, perhaps with parameters for date, photographer and US status? Or would the safer approach be to begin with a source template, {{Peter Elfelt collection}}, identifying the collection and catalogue record while requiring separate copyright tags for each file?

Brodmann10 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be worth asking the library and museum what exactly they mean by "free of copyright". There's a chance they also acquired the rights to the images via Elfelt & Co in addition to the negatives themselves. Or there could just be a more complicated reason for the public domain status. But the "free of copyright" phrasing could also be a mistranslation, mistakenly overly broad, or a term of art in Danish law that doesn't mean quite the same thing in other languages.

This seems like a hugely valuable collection for Commons, and the library and museum do seem eager to have it shared; it would just probably be a good idea to get their confirmation first, as they might be able to answer all your questions. 19h00s (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy to contact the Royal Danish Library for clarification. What should the enquiry specifically ask them to confirm?

Should I contact them directly and, if necessary, forward their reply to VRT, or should the request itself be handled through VRT? I have not used VRT before, so guidance would be appreciated. Brodmann10 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Before heading to VRT, I would contact the library and ask them about the rights status of the items in the Elfelt collection (the library is more likely to know the nuances of the copyright than the museum).

Specifically, you want to ask them to clarify what they mean when they say the collection is "free of copyright". Are the photographs from the collection in the public domain in Denmark, and if so, how did the library come to that conclusion? Do all works in the collection have the same rights status, even though there is a wide range of dates and authors? If the works are in the public domain in Denmark, when did they enter the public domain (this question is relevant for URAA copyright restoration, but I won't go too far down that rabbit hole unless it's needed)? And if the works are not in the public domain, what does the library mean by "free of copyright"?

You can of course start by introducing yourself and telling them that you hope to share the collection via Wikimedia Commons, but that you wanted to confirm the exact rights status of the works before going any further. It's likely that someone on the library's licensing or copyright team knows about Commons and would understand the intent. 19h00s (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have now emailed the Royal Danish Library and asked them to clarify the rights status of the collection. When I receive a reply, I will post it here. Brodmann10 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The Danish status may also be different than the U.S. status. The former should be 70pma, thus public domain there and all of Europe. The U.S. situation... may be based on date of publication instead. The URAA may have restored some of the works, so they may expire year by year as 95 years from publication, provided they were published before 2003 (if unpublished at that point, they became 70pma in the U.S. as well). But yes, the more details we know, the better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

For Denmark, there is also {{PD-Denmark50}} (50 years from creation) for photographs. --Stefan2 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Brazilian formal portrait from 1942, unknown photographer - does PD-Brazil-Photo apply?

Hello,

I would appreciate assistance in determining the copyright status of the following file:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joao_Batista_Diogo_de_Siqueira_1942_Aos_21_Anos.png

The relevant facts are:

• The photograph was created in Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, in 1942.
• It is a formal documentary portrait of João Batista Diogo de Siqueira at the age of 21, taken on the occasion of his graduation in Accounting Sciences.
• The original photographer is unknown.
• The physical photographic print has been preserved in the historical archive of the Diogo de Siqueira family.
• Daniel Abreu Diogo de Siqueira digitized and digitally restored the print.
• The restoration was intended to reproduce the original photograph faithfully. It involved digital cleaning, removal of stains, scratches and other damage, and general preservation work, without altering the original composition or creating a new artistic interpretation.
• Neither the family nor StoryKnight Audiovisual Entertainment Enterprise LTDA. claims to be the original photographer or to have received a copyright assignment from the unknown photographer.
• The photograph appears to be an ordinary formal and documentary studio portrait rather than an artistic photographic creation.
• We have not found evidence that the photograph was publicly published before its upload to Wikimedia Commons in 2026. As far as the family is currently aware, it may previously have existed only as a physical print preserved in the family archive.

A VRT volunteer initially suggested that the photograph might be free under {{PD-Brazil-Photo}}, but later explained that VRT only documents permissions received from copyright holders. Since the original photographer is unknown and neither the family nor StoryKnight claims to hold the original copyright, the volunteer directed me to this copyright forum for community review.

My questions are:

1. Does {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} apply to this formal documentary portrait created in Brazil in 1942?
2. Does the absence of evidence of publication before 2026 create a problem concerning the copyright status of the photograph in the United States?
3. Which copyright templates should be used on the file page?
4. Should the current VRT permission-pending notice and the CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing statement be removed?
5. Should Daniel Abreu Diogo de Siqueira remain credited only for the digitization and digital restoration, while the original author is identified as an unknown photographer?

VRT ticket: 2026072610000676

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Daniel Abreu Diogo de Siqueira (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason why {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} will not apply. Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-Brazil-Photo}} seems to be a problematic template. First it states that the photograph is in the public domain in Brazil because it was created before some specific date. Then it states that the photograph is in the public domain in the United States because it was published during certain time periods and without copyright formalities. However, there are several errors in these statements, and far from all Brazilian photographs meet those requirements. The following three requirements are given in the template:

it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),: This is wrong. The part and not published in the U.S. within 30 days means that the photograph is exempt from URAA restoration. The only difference if the photograph was published within 30 days is that the third bullet point in the template does not need to be fulfilled. Therefore, this part of the first bullet point can be removed. The part it was first published outside the United States is insufficient: if it was first published outside the United States, you need to check in which country it was first published. The Brazilian copyright law, on the other hand, doesn't, based on what is stated in the template, require that the photo was published in any specific country (or even that the photo has been published at all) and therefore the Brazilian part of the template doesn't say anything about that. In particular, based on the Brazilian part of the template, Brazilian law does not require that Brazil is the source country of the photograph (so the template could safely be added, as an informative template, to any pre-1998 photograph which might be of interest for Brazilians people).

it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,: The Brazilian part of the template only requires that the photograph was created before 19 June 1998, but now we suddenly need publication before 1 March 1989, and there are also conditions concerning copyright formalities. This makes the template confusing.

it was in the public domain in its home country (Brazil) on the URAA date (1 January 1996).: Here it says that Brazil is the source country, but this is not a requirement in the Brazilian part of the template.

I suggest removing the statements about the United States and requiring a United States copyright template in all cases. After the United States dropped the renewal requirement, it became very easy to satisfy the copyright formalities, and after the copyright notice requirement was dropped, all photographs fail COM:SC. It gets even more confusing if the template is used alongside source+United States templates for non-Brazilian photos of relevance for Brazilian people. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 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)

File:The_tales_of_Indian's_Eco_Heroes.png

Hi all! I'm not usually on the commons, so hopefully I've found the right place!

I came across a book jacket File:The_tales_of_Indian's_Eco_Heroes.png, which according to the book website is of a 2026 book with the illustration from 1955. So it seems quite unlikely to be just released to public domain to me. I would like to know what's the appropriate course of action now?

LkL-70547 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@LkL-70547: User:Athulkrishnan CG (who has exactly one other file upload, which is a picture of the author of the book) claims to be the copyright-holder of both the book cover and the photo of the author, and to be releasing both into the public domain. That's not unimaginable (they could be, or represent, the publisher), but seems unlikely. The pictures cannot be found elsewhere on the Internet, though, so I'd guess they have some connection to the subject.

One or another way, the right thing to do for both of these is to ask for VRT verification. Sorry to embroil you in the following as someone "not usually on the commons" but: I've complained in the past that we do not have a good template for this situation. I've seen other users mark such files with {{No permission since}}, but given the uploader's claim to be the copyright-holder, that template is terribly unclear about what the issue is (that we are not convinced that the uploader is the copyright-holder). So in this case, I'd start a full-blown deletion request, which is what I will do here (LkL-70547, you can wash your hands of this). - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

OGL3 vs Open Government Licence 3.0

I just came across {{Open Government Licence 3.0}}. I feel like this is the same license as {{OGL3}}, but just not as flushed out of a template. I am in no way an expert on British law & the Open Government Licenses, but is there any reason not to make the Open Government Licence 3.0 template redirect to the OGL3 template? The one that caused me to stumble on this was File:Lionesses Victory Parade 2025 (54688338251).jpg. Elisfkc (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Photo of USCGC MIDGETT (WMSL-757)

I would like to upload a photo of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Midgett (WMSL-757) together with a ROC Coast Guard vessel to Wikimedia Commons. The image was first published by the social media account of the American Institute in Taiwan (managed by the State Department), and news media later used the same image. However, the photographer is unknown. Should this image be tagged as a U.S. Coast Guard work, a Department of State work, or another public domain category? JamsSmith1 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and COM:SC

It has long been considered that {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} is also {{PD-1996}} in US with rare exceptions. However, photographs that remained unpublished for a long period may still be protected under U.S. subsisting copyright, and is not uncommon for old photographs from private collections. I'd like to invite someone familiar with U.S. copyright law to the discussion at Template_talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto#US_copyright_status. Thanks in advance. Mzaki (talk) 12:44, 29 July 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)

Documentation and photographs from Polish National Institute of Cultural Heritage

Hello. Recently I've uploaded some photos from official documentation created by Polish National Institute of Cultural Heritage (Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa). All files are now marked for speedy deletion, for example File:Kikół, pałac - elewacja frontowa.jpg

Photos were taken from official website https://zabytek.pl. All documents look similar, for example: https://zabytek.pl/pl/obiekty/g-231821/dokumenty/PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_N_04_EN.333427/1

If you click on the "Informacje" tab, there is information about public domain and link to CC0 1.0 license. What is a proper way to prove, that the files can uploaded to Commons? Pko (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)