PD picture on a non-PD article

Hello: I was planning to add a picture that was taken circa 1880s and is found at the second page of this article:

• https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol10/tnm_10_3_15-48.pdf

According to the article, published 2000, the photograph was taken circa 1880s. It says, below the photo

Figure F: Gaius Samuel Turner, farmer, shipbuilder, trader, lumberman, quarry owner, railway promoter, Liberal-Conservative ML A for Albert 1878-1892, b. 1838. d. 1892, circa early 1880s.

Source: Courtesy of Kathleen Turner, Edmonds, Washington, United States.

Now, could I just crop the picture out of the article since it definitely fits PD-old since it was taken before 1931, but it's in a 2000 article and it was given to possibly by the heir of the image. Can someone help me? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that it is a work of Canadian origin, the photo would be public domain there per {{PD-Canada}}. However, we also need to consider the status of the image in the US.

The chart at COM:US instructs us that for a work of "unknown or corporate authorship" created before 1978, but published between 1989 to 2002, is copyrighted until minimum December 31, 2047. If this image was first published in that 2000 article, then the photo is copyrighted until December 31, 2047.

However, per COM:Canada, if we can prove the photo was published in Canada at least before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice (or 1964 without renewal), then it would have also fallen into the public domain in the US per {{PD-1996}} (anonymous works in Canada are Create + 100 years). – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

More precisely on that last paragraph: it would have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. upon publication without notice, or upon non-renewal and would never have had its copyright restored (since URAA would be irrelevant for a work already out of copyright in Canada on 1 January 1996). the same logic would apply for most other imaginable places of first publication. So finding any publication without notice before 1 March 1989 would be very good. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• I loaded the image for you: Gaius Samuel Turner (1838-1892) portrait.png, it can be added to the Wikidata entry now. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Convenience link: File:Gaius Samuel Turner (1838-1892) portrait.png.

  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): do you have evidence that "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal" or are you just asserting that? - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is a commercial photographer image, and under USA copyright case law, the image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the photographer, circa 1880 in this case, not just appearing in a book, or magazine, or newspaper. You also lose your right to claim a copyright 120 years after creation, the maximum lifespan of a human. See: {{PD-US-unpublished}} --RAN (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I won't argue against the former claim, but to be clear, PD-US-unpublished only applies if the photo was never published before 2003. The photo is known to have been published in 2000, as shown above. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Government photos in India

File:Commonwealth Games closing ceremony picture.jpeg this photo isn't the work of Flickr's user, but, in accordance with EXIF, was made by governmental photographer. Whether such photos are licensed under OGL-India (as other governmental works)? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Evelino Ucelo, the photo indeed comes from PIB which publishes indian govt images, and the license is {{GODL-India}}. I tried to dig in PIB archives but couldn't find this image. Maybe they never published it and somehow this landed with the flickr user. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this work in the public domain in my country? template

this template is not exactly very accurate

take https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm as an example

as far as i can tell, this would also be pd in canada, china, india iraq, iran, malaysia, new zealand, pakistan, peru, the philippines, venezuela and vietnam due to them following publication + 50/other years for cinematographic works and them expiring (with no retroactive restoration)

its likely pd in japan (complicated) and turkey (assuming no retroactive restoration)

however all are classified as not public domain according to the tag

also i think the list of countries/territories listed is not large enough Noob282 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The tag says:This work was published in 1928 and is now in the public domain in areas where the copyright term of audiovisual works is 95 years or fewer since publication.. Where is the problem you are writing about? Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

i mean the one at the bottom Noob282 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The {{PD-in}} template is problematic. It may be better to remove the template as it is not really accurate for this file.

Many countries use the rule of the shorter term, and it is therefore in the public domain in those countries for that reason. However, the PD-in template does not consider this. The rule of the shorter term has a bunch of traps, such as not applying if the work was published in the country within 30 days from the first publication of the work. Usually, we don't know where it was published within 30 days, and the template does not seem to provide a way to supply this information, should it be available.

In some countries, the copyright may expire a certain number of years after the death of the longest living author, but the author of a film is ambiguous: one country's laws may stipulate one list of people, while another country's laws stipulate a different list of people. Therefore, you need a per-country death year of the author, which the template does not currently support.

For example, under Swedish law:

• The rule of the shorter term applies, unless one of the authors was an EU citizen or Swedish resident, or it was published within 30 days in Sweden. The first Swedish publication seems to be in 1930, so not within 30 days. Probably the rule of the shorter term applies.
• If the rule of the shorter term does not apply:
  1. w:Copyright Duration Directive Article 2.2: "The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." This seems to mean 70 years after the death of Ub Iwerks (died 1971): PD in 2042.
  2. w:Copyright Duration Directive Article 10.1: "Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State." The old copyright law stipulated 50 years after the longest living co-author, but now you have to check the death year of more people. Probably you have to include at least all of the people currently listed on the file information page. The longest living seems to be Wilfred Jackson, who is listed as an animator. He died in 1988, so PD in 2034 under the old law, unless there are even more people than those listed on the file information page who have to be considered. This is shorter than the new law, so the new law would then apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Could we just add a mention about the rule of shorter term? This would cover most cases. Otherwise, I am not opposed removing it, as we are not supposed to provide legal advice. We could instead add a link to a dedicated page, where a lengthy explanation would be possible. Yann (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also the problem that the template does not handle films very well as the list of authors depends on the country, and the list of authors often determines the copyright term. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That's why I suggest to move all this information to a separate page, where these details can be expanded (and translated). Yann (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Exif data says "Software used: Instagram"

See File:Goat meat soya.jpg. Does that mean, the image was taken from Instagram? Or does Instagram have some feature to take/edit photos? Nakonana (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana Yes, that metadata indicates that the photo was edited by Instagram, and the overlay on the photo in the top right corner confirms this. This is probably from the "Stories" feature, which has an option to save the edited photos locally when you post them. Usually, images that are downloaded from Facebook/Instagram have the FBMD metadata string, rather than the "Software used: Instagram", but I can't say for sure. Neither indication can truly tell us for sure whether the image is someone's own work or if they found it somewhere else. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Found the source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=24330301023284266. Name matches. Omphalographer (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the source! Also thank you @AntiCompositeNumber for the clarification because I couldn't find anything with reverse image search and wasn't sure whether the EXIF data is an indicator for a copyvio or not. Nakonana (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention this on the file talk page to protect the file from any unjustified deletion requests or is this too close to outing territory? Nakonana (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Does South Africa now have Freedom of Panorama? If so, what are the perimeters of it?

User:Michaelgraaf says in an UDR that this court decision https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2026/26.html means that South Africa has FOP. @Discott: I haven't seen any news idea that seemed to indicate that South Africa has any sort of FoP so I'm interested in hearing from those in the know in ZA if it has indeed joined the ranks of yes-FoP countries, or if this is still a country in which we're still pushing for FoP? Abzeronow (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow I think close but not yet. As per updates from Discott, the bill will return to the parliament to tweak one section that was found unconstitutional: subsections 1-5 of Section 12(D). See also the statement from one of the bill's supporters, COSATU, and this resource from the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance.

In any case, the FoP provision remains supposedly intact, as the meta:Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendment Bill states it is under Section 14, which is not one of the provisions Ramaphosa contests.

Per the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance, the court struck down Section 12(D), subsections 1 to 5 because they believed it "constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property. These provisions enable the wholesale copying of textbooks by educational institutions under loosely defined conditions, failing to adequately define "commercial purposes" or specify which institutions qualify. The Court held that this improperly shifted the state’s burden to fund public education onto private authors, disrupted normal market exploitation, and conflicted with international copyright law." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow & @JWilz12345, great question, especially following the recent Constitutional Court ruling. Sadly this ruling does not, yet, mean that South Africa has Freedom of Panorama or Fair Use (we currently have the more restrictive Fair Dealing instead). Both are in the Copyright Amendment bill but have not yet been gazetted into law (still awaiting signing by the presidency despite it sitting on his desk longer than any other bill). The long time it has taken the president to sign it into law, thereby violating the constitution, is why this case was taken to the Constitutional Court, something lead by our friends at Blind South Africa. So what does this finding mean for us? Well it means that everything in the bill is constitutional (except subsections 1-5 of S12D on some educational exceptions). This is good news because it means that both Freedom of Panorama (something no one objects to) and Fair Use (something big corporate in South Africa objects to) are constitutional. This matters because the presidency's argument for not signing the bill into law has been reservations about the bills constitutionality especially with regards to Fair Use. The bad news, what this likely means is that the bill will probably need to go back to parliament for redrafting to remove these problematic sub-sections. In this current parliament the politics to get this done do not look great sadly. At least anytime soon. The bill might get scrapped and we will need to start again or it might get spread through parliament or the bill might get signed into law as is with these subsections being ignored. Its really hard to tell right now but if I was forced to make a guess I would wager that the bill will be sent back to parliament again. Either way, we need to continue to put pressure on the South African presidency to get this done. --Discott (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Film

Hello, just wondering whether anyone could confirm whether this film and its three sequels are in the public domain. There are stills in all of their commons categories which say its copyright has not been renewed but I am unsure whether the score/the illustrations at the start change anything. I've not been able to find anything in commons policy specifically regarding public domain films so if anybody knows of something to read and could shoot it my way, that would also be great, thank you. Paccyd33 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment In the U.S., most studio-released stills from that era are in the public domain (often they were not copyrighted at all, and very few were renewed); most films from that era remain copyrighted. - 17:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps still was a poor choice of worlds, a few of them are stills but there's quite a few screenshots from them invoking Template:PD-US-not renewed. Paccyd33 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The 1945 film seems to be in the public domain. Commons:Character copyrights says that there's no renewals for earlier Dick Tracy appearances, so it should be clear. I suspect the later three are in the public domain, but that's when the renewal books printed by the Copyright Office stopped being alphabetized, which makes really hard to be sure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Argentine de facto FoP likely OK with one caveat

Previous recent discussions:

• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12#Argentine_architecture_now_object_of_copyright
• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/09#Argentina_and_Building_Interiors_(covered_under_de_facto_FOP_or_not)

Pinging all participants of the previous discussions: @Abzeronow, Clindberg, Cambalachero, and Asclepias: .

I found an online copy of the 2nd ed. of Dr. Emery's book on Argentine copyright law: on Scribd. This is the 500+ pages version. The quote on reproduction of buildings is now at page 67, as opposed to page 40 from the first edition (via COM:FOP Argentina citation). To quote in full:

Como se expresara (ver § 11) se ha admitido pacíficamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos del autor. Frente a esta aceptada situación de hecho, se debe concluir que lo que la ley protege es la originalidad en el dibujo, el croquis o el modelo y la facultad del arquitecto de autorizar o prohibir las reproducciones de estas exteriorizaciones por terceros.

Google Translation: "As stated (see § 11), it has been generally accepted that buildings may be reproduced through paintings or photographs, without this reproduction being considered to infringe the author's rights. Given this accepted factual situation, it must be concluded that what the law protects is the originality of the drawing, sketch, or model, and the architect's right to authorize or prohibit reproductions of these representations by third parties."

This quote relies on the important excerpt from Section 11 of the book, found at page 65:

Con respecto al derecho de reproducción del dueño del edificio que se encuentra adornado con pinturas murales, el dueño del edificio podrá lucrar con fotografías de todo el conjunto edilicio, pero no con reproducciones individuales de las obras. Así, por ejemplo, el propietario de Galerías Pacífico tiene derecho a reproducir su cúpula dentro del conjunto arquitectónico, pero no las obras allí contenidas en forma individual; esto no sucede con respecto a la cúpula del Teatro Colón, ya que toda ella es obra de Raúl Soldi.

Google Translation: "Regarding the reproduction rights of the owner of a building adorned with murals, the owner may profit from photographs of the entire building complex, but not from individual reproductions of the artworks. Thus, for example, the owner of Galerías Pacífico has the right to reproduce its dome within the architectural ensemble, but not the individual works contained within it; this does not apply to the dome of the Teatro Colón, as it is entirely the work of Raúl Soldi."

In a nutshell, it is accepted in Argentina that building owners can reproduce the buildings their own through photography and sell their photos even without permission from the architects. However, only pure architecture can be exploited. Murals, frescoes, and any artwork that is integrated into the buildings are not exempted from copyright and must not be photographed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Presumably, few images we would be concerned with are by the owners of the buildings, so I'm not sure how that last is at all germane. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No, Dr. Emery's opinion is crucial here. The building owner here represents the user in the context of copyright. He can only freely reproduce through photos the building he owns, as well as parts of the building like the dome, walls, columns, et cetera. He has no right to reproduce artworks associated with the building, though.

Inferring from this, we can say the uploaders/Wikimedians/other users can reproduce Argentine buildings, like w:en:Teatro Colón and w:en:Galerías Pacífico, even without permission from the architects. They can freely distribute and make a profit from their photos. However, File:Sala Principal Teatro Colón.jpg is an infringement, as it is a work of Raúl Soldi (as Dr. Emery points out). Possibly Category:Interior of Teatro Colón needs to be reviewed, as well as Category:Interior of Galerías Pacífico that may show the murals, artworks, and architectural elements that are not really works of architecture. Dr. Emery's opinion contrasts with the American decision on Leicester, which denied copyright claims of artists of artworks that became integrated with the buildings. As of this writing, I'm going to nuke the entire Category:Murals of Galerías Pacífico as a whole, as an obvious infraction of Dr. Emery's legal opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murals of Galerías Pacífico. I excluded images that do not show specific murals. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In my conclusion and opinion, I think we can accept de facto Argentine FoP as valid, using Dr. Emery's analysis, until an Argentine high court overturns the de facto legality of reproducing buildings through photography. This might be the most practical approach, IMO. I'll also edit COM:FOP Argentina after the archival of this thread to include salient points of my interpretation of Dr. Emery's conditions (including non-inclusion of individual artistic works that are either attached to the buildings, like murals, or integrated into buildings, like gargoyles and stained glass artworks). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is exactly the discussion here? That FOP in Argentina covers just generic architecture and not works of art is the standing written rule, and it has been for some years. Cambalachero (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cambalachero confirmation of Argentine FoP, and taking into attention Dr. Emery's notes on works of art that are either attached to or integrated into buildings, like murals in his example. We may extend it to include wall paintings, stained glass artworks, gargoyles, and other works of art that are either attached to or integrated into buildings. This somehow makes architectural Argentine FoP slightly restricted than the architectural US FoP, because the American Leicester court ruling dictates even works of art are covered by the pictorial exemption (US FoP) if those are integrated in the architecture as part of the architectural work's plans (no separability). Dr. Emery's opinion may mean similar legal privilege doesn't apply to the Argentine FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Mistagged license, potential copyright violation?

I spotted an edit that added the file File:Odeon Jan 1960.jpg. The image is tagged "own work" with a Creative Commons license, but the edit that added it instead indicates that it's taken from a 1960 issue of a British newspaper. What's the right process to follow here? I asked the user a question on their talk page, but since they haven't edited in a couple of years I don't know if I'll hear back. I don't know if I should go straight to deletion or adding a template first. The closest template I found, Template:Wrong license, didn't quite seem to fit this case. Vlcice (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vlicie: looks to me like it should be nominated for deletion as a copyright violation. I can't see any likely basis on which a UK picture from that date could be in the public domain, and certainly the license isn't valid. (This upload was the only Commons edit DaimlerSleeveValve ever made.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I've nominated it for deletion. Vlcice (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this in the public domain?

This is just a self-explanatory question I had from May 2026-me's hallucinations from enwiki. So here goes again: The tech store near me seems to not have the new M4 iPad Air, and I only ever noticed because some Salebot1 socks were invading the page, and iPad Air (M4) is the only iPad page that has no photo of the pad. Wondered if this is in PD as I'm just too lazy to check the license. And that photo clearly, adequately shows the M4 iPad Air. SimpleObjects-9ei (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The source web page credits the photo as "Photograph: Luke Larsen" without any mention of a free license - so no, I don't see any reason that would be in the public domain. Omphalographer (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Free depictions of non-free works

The "policy" Commons:Free depictions of non-free works runs counter to our existing copyright policies and to a basic understanding of copyright law. This article was seemingly created without any community discussion by a few users. At the very best, sections of this article just reiterate existing policies.

This policy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding - that the author of a derivation of a work releasing their derivation under a free license makes the combined derivative work free. This is not how copyright works, if copyrightable elements of the original work exist in the new work, the work is a derivative work and is still imbued with the original copyright.

The only effect releasing the derivation of the work under a free license does is that it does not add any additional copyright. Importantly, the author is not actually releasing the work as a whole under the free license, but only the copyrightable elements that they added through their derivative. They would not be able to release the whole work under a free license if they are not an authorized representative of its owner, so claiming that they have is false.

In some cases, you may able to make "fanart" if that fanart includes only generic elements that are not individually or collectively copyrightable. An example: File:P Harry Potter-icon.svg. However, this is already discussed at length in COM:FANART. Further more, this "policy" is specifically about works that are legally derivative works, i.e. they contain copyrighted elements of the original.

The example cited in the lede of this policy is blatant nonsense: While SpongeBob SquarePants is protected by copyright, this specific depiction was officially released under a free license by Nickelodeon.

If this were actually true, the SpongeBob character design in general would actually be under a free license as this would be only way to ensure that all the copyrightable elements in that image were under a free license. Such a thing however would a be quite a bold move, which would surely be accompanied by an official announcements like this.

Does this seem too good to be true? Well that's because it is. SpongeBob has obviously not been released under a Creative Commons license. The justification for this is that a single YouTube video on the Nickelodeon YouTube channel was marked as having a "Creative Commons" license.

Uploads of YouTube videos and posts to social media platforms are often delegated to specialized social media PR firms who are most surely not granted the rights to all of the client's intellectual. Even if they are done in-house, the representatives posting these are not authorized rights agents and their individual postings are not overseen by legal teams. Any license they claim that goes beyond what the company has actually granted is legally void. Just because they are an employee does not mean they have any kind of authorization to license any copyrights - just like how if I get a summer job at Disney World, I do not have the right to vote at the Board of Directors' meetings.

Finally, this so-called "policy" and its associated templates mention Freedom of Panorama, but this is already covered by COM:FOP and its extensive existing templates. ~2026-37112-12 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37112-12: since you basically do not cite a single statute, court case, or even article by a lawyer, nor do you present any evidence that you are a lawyer yourself, I don't see a lot of reason to take any of this particularly seriously in terms of changing policy. In several discussions I have had with people from WMF legal, I have repeatedly been told that Commons' current positions with respect to copyright law almost always strike them as very conservative, probably more conservative than necessary. This makes me extremely skeptical of any argument to make them even more conservative, especially one that seems most likely to be a layperson's extrapolation from a moderate level of informal legal knowledge.

To be clear: I am not a lawyer myself, but I don't see anything at all unreasonable about assuming that someone within an organization (or operating on behalf of that organization) who publishes a work for which that organization owns the rights has apparent authority to grant a license to that published material. If the organization rapidly retracted that, I'd be willing to take seriously the possibility that it was done in error and would not rely on that license but with that exception, if we can't rely on that then we can't rely on any organization publicly granting a license for any content. I am confident that it is possible to grant a right to a derivative work that relies on content from a larger work without granting rights to the underlying larger work, as long as you have the relevant authority to make such a partial release. A common examples of this is licensing (or releasing into the public domain) a film trailer, which does not affect the copyright status of any elements of the film that are not contained in the trailer. And it entirely reasonable to me that if you hold a character copyright, you can release specific materials that use that character, without losing any other rights over that character. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"if copyrightable elements of the original work exist in the new work, the work is a derivative work and is still imbued with the original copyright" — but only in degree that was included in derived work or representation. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The lede of the linked page rather reads like a "VRT-case without the need of an actual VRT-ticket". It says that the files are released under a free license "by the copyright holder", not by some third party who created a derivative work. So, basically, if the creator of Spongebob publishes a drawing of Spongebob on their website under CC license, then we're supposed to use {{Free depiction}} on the file page if we upload that drawing to Commons. This does not make the Spongebob character or its design free of copyright or CC-licensed. It only means that this one particular drawing of Spongebob is CC-licensed. Any other drawings of Spongebob are still copyrighted with "all rights reserved". Nakonana (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I broadly agree that Commons is too trusting of licensing choices made on social media by companies and subsidiaries. Social media staff (or, as is often the case, social media contractors) are rarely authorized agents with the legal authority to release their company's content freely. And when we're dealing with subsidiaries, there's even less clarity, as we don't have any way to ensure the subsidiary was legally authorized to release its parent company's content (short of reaching out to the parent company and getting confirmation, which, as we all know, often doesn't end with a satisfactory answer or even any answer at all). I recognize that this is controversial and would have many unintended downstream consequences, but I don't think we should take these kinds of licenses at face value (specifically freely licensed content published on social media from large companies or subsidiaries that otherwise do not license their content freely, and which have not made any formal statement/announcement about their licensing policy).

I've raised this all before in various venues and have gotten intense pushback. But I firmly believe it's a problem, as demonstrated by the numerous instances of large companies confirming that they did not want to license their content freely and that their subsidiaries/partners/contractors did so without authorization or intent.

I also agree that the "Free depictions of non-free works" page has some issues, but this is not generally the place to discuss that; it would be more appropriate to have that conversation on that talk page. And to be clear, that page is neither a policy nor guideline for Commons, it's simply an advice page with information about a specific application of copyright principles, as far as I know. 19h00s (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. And more broadly: if an image is on Commons with a Creative Commons license, users outside Wikimedia should be able to take that as a signal that they can reuse the image freely, for any purpose - including commercial use! - so long as they comply with the license. And for these sorts of files, I don't think that's something we can be sure of without a more explicit, deliberate release of rights than a license selection on a YouTube upload. Omphalographer (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Are 120-year-old photos Public Domain in US if they were published in 1936 outside US?

I have a book published in the UK in 1936. Its author died in 1970. It contains photographs from 1886 - 1893. Under UK copyright law, these came out of copyright 70 years after publication, i.e. at the end of 2006. However, as the book wasn't published in the US, it looks to me as though the photographs do not become Public Domain in the US until 95 years after publication, i.e. the end of 2031. Is this correct? RobertSimons (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If you mean Commons:URAA then yes. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If the photographs were first published in the UK in 1936 (and not also published in the US within 30 days), then the copyright (having expired in the UK in 2007) would have received an URAA extension in the US as it was still copyrighted in 1996. This would mean it is still protected in the US until 2031. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Photographs in the USA have had courts declare they are "made public" when they leave the custody of the creator, not just appearing in a book. Some home snapshots may have remained as negatives since creation and remained with the photographer. I would look at the attribution cited in the book, and if they are credited to someone's personal collection, they may have remained not available to the public. I would load them to Commons and let us decide on a case-to-case basis. --RAN (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status and licensing path for Kovno Ghetto photographs of Avram and Emanuel Rosenthal

Hello,

I am preparing an English Wikipedia draft about Avram / Avraham and Emanuel Rosenthal / Rozental, two Jewish children photographed in the Kovno Ghetto shortly before the March 1944 Children's Action.

I would like advice before uploading any files to Commons. I am not the copyright holder and I do not want to upload archival images unless the copyright status or permission path is clear.

The photographs I am trying to evaluate are:

• Avram and Emanuel Rosenthal in the Kovno Ghetto, February 1944. USHMM collection record PA1035323: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1035323
• The related Yad Vashem photo record 4789/1: https://collections.yadvashem.org/api/Names/GetSingleFullDetails?id=52262&lang=en&source=Photos
• Shraga Wainer in the Kovno Ghetto, USHMM collection record PA1037634: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1037634
• Kovno Ghetto Jewish police group with Elchanan Rosental identified, USHMM collection record PA1037636: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1037636

The photographer is generally identified as George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin. The photographs were taken in the Kovno Ghetto, Lithuania, around 1942-1944. The current online copies are held by institutions such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Yad Vashem. Some records credit the photograph to George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin or his collection.

My questions are:

• Is there any plausible public-domain basis for Commons upload for these photographs, considering the date, photographer, location, later publication history, and possible United States / Lithuanian / Israeli copyright issues?
• If George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin is the photographer, would Commons require permission from his estate / rights holder rather than from USHMM or Yad Vashem as holding institutions?
• If USHMM or Yad Vashem can only provide publication approval for a specific article, but not a free license such as CC BY-SA 4.0 / CC BY 4.0 / CC0, am I correct that the images should not be uploaded to Commons?
• If the images are not Commons-compatible, would the safest route be to keep only external links in the Draft article, and later consider one local non-free image on English Wikipedia only after the article is accepted into mainspace?
• Is there any existing Commons precedent for George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin Kovno Ghetto photographs that would clarify the correct licensing approach?

I have already contacted Wikimedia VRT, and they suggested asking this question here. I would appreciate guidance on the correct Commons approach before taking any upload action.

Thank you. Markas.krasovskis (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

(1) it depends; (2) if the rights weren't transferred, answer is "yes", otherwise permission from institution is required; (3) yes; (4) yes; (5) I don't know. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The text in the first link clearly identifies George Kadish as the photographer. Zvi Kadushin might own copies of the photo but that wouldn't make him the copyright holder in most cases. So, assuming that George Kadish is the copyright holder, things get tricky for Commons because he lived until 1997 and most countries offer copyright protection for the duration of the photographer's life plus another 70 years after the photographer's death. To my knowledge, this is the case for all countries of the European Union (with some exceptions for "simple photos" here and there), and Lithuania is a EU member and the country of origin here. PD status is extremely unlikely, I'd say, and the safest route would be to seek permission / clarification regarding the copyright holder. Nakonana (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Zvi Kadishin might actually be something like a pseudonym of George Kadish going by the wiki article and Wikidata entry.

And we have a photo by George Kadish on Commons: File:Workshop in the Kovno Ghetto.jpg. The source website of this photo says, that this photo is in public domain (but not sure on what grounds exactly). Nakonana (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Uncertain about copyright status of an image of a coin

Hello, can anyone help with me licensing this (link) image of a coin from the Ancient Greek temple complex of Lykosoura? I know the coin itself is out of copyright, it is the image that concerns me. The coin is in the Numismatic Museum of Athens, inv. no. NM 1911 2ΛΒ 19. And the article whence came the image uses © to refer to the image. Does it mean it is not in fair use? Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

We do have a help page: COM:Currency - as a standard, imagery of coins are seen as images of 3D objects, not as a 2D reproduction (as e.g. images depicting banknotes and paintings from Old Masters are). Thus, such a photo gets a copyright assigned to its photographer: photos of coins are copyrightable and would need a license from the photographer (and, if applicable, from the coin designer too). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Photos by the Quezon City Government

[Reposted from the Teahouse, as suggested by another editor]
Hello, I just saw someone else (not me) upload a pic from this Facebook album under the PD-PhilippinesGov licence.
This is what the licence says:
This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of their regularly prescribed official duties; consequently, any work is ineligible for copyright under the terms of Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended, unless otherwise noted. However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws. (Emphasis mine)
I would love for the photos here to actually be under PD-PhilippinesGov, because that would mean a lot of these Filipino celebrities would finally get lead images or better ones. For example, the lead image for Angela Ken right now is extremely dark and blurry, you can't even see her actual face.
But yes, do you think the licence applies here? I think it does. The photos are from the Quezon City Government page. The "as a part of their regularly prescribed official duties" part is a bit murky, as LoveL4ban is a university Pride Month event, not a political one. However, I think the photos are a part of the local government promoting the city.
The post also mentions that several local political figures and organisations gave speeches at the festival such as Risa Hontiveros, so I guess that's why the government photographers were there as well.
Please let me know before I upload anything myself. If the licence is valid, it would be really great for these Filipino celebrities in need of good pictures. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

On one aspect of this: how do we know that these photos were taken by government employees? - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Which photos are in question, anyway? I found , but they don't precisely match the album.

I'd also point to this and this (cites this) which discussed (inconclusively) the assertion that local governments are instrumentalities of the national government. There's probably a body of Philippine law that settles this, but I wouldn't know where to look for it. TheFeds 22:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

revision proposal on {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}

I'd like to invite you to Template_talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto#The_condition_must_be_corrected. Thanks in advance. Mzaki (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Environment and Climate Change Canada Data Servers End-use Licence

Hi, I was looking to upload an image generated with MSC AniMet, but ran into some confusion with the license. The underlying data products (in this case GDPS) uses something called the Environment and Climate Change Canada Data Servers End-use Licence, version 2.1. It appears to be the same as Template:OGL-C, with two modifications. Section 3 provides additional guidance on how to attribute multiple sources along with Environment and Climate Change Canada, without changing the terms. The more significant change is in section 2 (changes in bold):

   2. You are free to:
   
   Copy, modify (see note), publish, translate, adapt (see note), distribute or otherwise use (see note) the Information in any medium, mode or format for any lawful purpose.
   
   Note: In the case of weather alerts (i.e. watches/warnings), any information shall be reproduced in such a way that there is no alteration of the content or intent of the alert.

Searching the village pump archives, the only relevant topic I saw mentioned was regarding moral rights, and that the added clause may fall under that, but I'm unsure if this qualifies as a free licence. Thanks! Racer J77 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It strikes me as a naïve modification, very poorly drafted and ultimately counterproductive. They probably mean well, but the implementation leads to considerable ambiguity, not to mention that it cedes many of the benefits of standardization. I think they are supposing that this is a substantive term of the copyright licence, and thus that it would be a violation to alter the content of the alert. Though you ordinarily would have the right to do so (particularly for legitimate purposes), by accepting.the licence, you agree not to. For the purposes of weather alerts, I think that makes it non-free. For other things, to the extent it directly reproduces OGL-C, I guess it's still free, but for Commons purposes, I don't think we should be in any hurry to embrace licences with clumsy carve-outs. I don't think it resembles a moral right that exists independently of the agreement between the parties. TheFeds 20:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s what I was concerned about. I might contact ECCC to see if they can explicitly license the non-alert content under OGL-C, but for now I’ll hold off from uploading the images. Racer J77 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the tool, but do you think that the output represents a derivative work of some copyrighted original? Or, for example, is it creating an image from uncopyrightable facts (e.g. the numbers corresponding to a meteorological reading)? They may not own any copyright in the output, because if the input is your query + uncreative data + their code, and the output is an image that does not include that code, it seems like they have no copyright to licence. (Maybe you do, if your query is copyrightable.) They could theoretically refuse you permission to use the service if you do not agree to their terms, but whatever copyright does or doesn't exist upon creation of the output won't change because of that. TheFeds 01:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The tool basically lets you overlay ECCC meteorological/climate data onto a map, so you can create an image or animation with it. Since it comes out of their forecast modelling, I don’t think it would count as an uncopyrightable fact?

I looked into a bit more, and the GDPS data is actually available via the Open Government portal, where it’s licensed under OGL-C. It seems the approach they’ve taken is “since GDPS data could be combined with alert data into a single map, we’ll relicense all outputs of this tool under something new.” Or that’s what I thought until I also found Weather Alerts under OGL-C on Open Government, which means all the underlying data is freely licensed. The one thing that stands out is the generated map includes the ECCC logo as a form of attribution, so that may be why they’ve chosen this route? But now I feel that it shouldn’t be a problem to try to switch back the licence. Racer J77 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the bare facts of a weather forecast are copyrightable, because they are merely descriptive of a phenomenon in a utilitarian way (like a recipe); the software implementation (human-written computer code) of the model is; and the theory of the model is not (algorithms, as distinct from their software implementations, are not copyrightable).

If the base map is under a free licence, in the public domain due to U.S. government authorship (GOES imagery apparently has often been accepted on Commons as this), in the public domain due to being automated surveillance footage (somewhat unsettled), or not copyrightable, that would alleviate that concern. The Canadian government wordmarks aren't copyrightable (too simple), but they are protectable under trademark (official mark) law; I don't think that makes any difference from the licence standpoint.

Speaking practically, there is a potential risk to the way that they let any user create a wordmarked output that no government employee directly supervised—but as long as we don't misrepresent it as the government's actual work, I don't think there is a concern. TheFeds 23:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

How do I upload a movie poster?

I downscaled the image but the copyright information provided in the help pages are very confusing. Which copyright tag do I use? RockMan77777 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@RockMan77777: Unless this is a very old movie poster, it is extremely probable that it is copyrighted material that you may not upload unless you were to get an acceptable free license from the copyright-holder. I strongly recommend that you take 20 minutes or so to read COM:THIRD and then come back here if you still have questions. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of scale models of unrealized architectural works

Hello all,

I am planning to write an article about "de Kueb", a large building that was planned in the late 1970s in Luxembourg to serve as the seat of the European Parliament, but was cancelled due to public backlash. I would like to illustrate it with a picture I took of the building's scale model, which is exposed at the Luxembourg City History Museum. The architect, Roger Taillibert, died in 2019. Would such a picture be acceptable on Commons, or would it have to be uploaded locally on EN WP under fair use? I understand that models are considered "Not OK in the US", but would this still apply here? Procrastineur49 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Procrastineur49 not OK also with regards to artworks from Luxembourg. See COM:FOP Luxembourg. Only incidental inclusion is permitted. "Cameo" presence, so to speak. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

PD-Canada picture license for the US

I had uploaded a picture from the 1940 Old McGill Yearbook: https://yearbooks.mcgill.ca/viewbook.php?campus=downtown&book_id=1940#mode/1up, which is here:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Edward_Beatty_in_a_1940_Old_McGill_Yearbook.jpg

I had based this licensing on a picture of Betty Kobayashi Issenman (uploaded by a different Wikipedian), which is from the same yearbook, shown here: https://yearbooks.mcgill.ca/viewbook.php?campus=downtown&book_id=1940#page/52/mode/1up. The picture can be seen here:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BettyKobayashiIssenman1940.png

Now this both of these are in public domain in Canada based on Template:PD-Canada, but what is its license in the US? The original photographers are unknown but it still doesn't explain how they are licensed. Can anyone help? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoNothingEveryday You can use {{PD-1996}} for the US license. A Canadian photo that was created (and published) prior to 1946, would have been in the Public Domain by 1996. PascalHD (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the US license tags as suggested by PascalHD above. Felix QW (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Constituição em nheengatu.pdf

Any help here is appreciated Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Feed-icon.svg

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) 13:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Red bull logo

Does ticket:2025020610011248, present at File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png, make the Red Bull logo free? And hence w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg among others can be relicensed and transfered to Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

NZ Copyright

im attempting to get images deleted which are copyright in New Zealand. I'm struggling because editors who don't understand want to keep them.

I've provided the relevant legislation.

Surely the burden should be on them to show where it is public access.

Help. Do I just have to jump to a DMCA? Māori M (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the relevant deletion discussion (scroll to the second discussion). I'm not familiar with NZ copyright threshold of originality case law, but I imagine that's at the core of this dispute. 19h00s (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It is under copyright. I know the holder.

There is zero proof that it meets the criteria for use on Wikipedia. Any options about threshold of originality is their opinion and nothing more. It is irrelevant to the use. Māori M (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see how a DMCA notice would apply to anything that is not copyrighted in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I refer to this guidance.

https://www.copyright.co.nz/about/news-and-blog/what-is-a-dmca-take-down-notice Māori M (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit simplified. The formal form of a DMCA is a US specific work, but it has been coöpted as an easy way to make a copyright demand anywhere on the Internet. I don't think WMF has any obligation to act on a DMCA notice that's not based on US law, but it is a way to communicate them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia take downs they lost by country. These include those outside the US.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/transparency/2024-1/dmca/ Māori M (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• requests by country.

I know this is from 2024. Just one that came up in my search Māori M (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

People from any nation can submit a DMCA takedown. That's not the issue. The issue is that your work is not eligible for copyright in the US, so you're not filing based on a US copyright like other works might have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

both NZ and USA are signatories to the Berne Convention which means that this design which has copyright also has copyright in the USA.

I link to guidance from the NZ government https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/business/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-protection-overseas

Guidance from WIPO (which NZ and USA are member states)

"Firstly, copyright protection is automatic in all states party to the Berne Convention"

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright/faq-copyright#accordion__collapse__04 Māori M (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so you're quoting FAQs to people who have studied this stuff. A NZ work gets US copyright as if it were a US work. If it wouldn't get copyright as a US work in the US, it won't get copyright as a NZ work in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

2 genuine questions. 1.Are you an IP lawyer? My understanding of the Berne Convention is that if it is copyright in the home country then it is copyright in all countries across the signatories to the conversation. Is that incorrect? Māori M (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

however this is also a diversion. This design has been tagged as being in the public domain which it is not.

No-one who is objecting can provide any evidence that it is in the public domain. Māori M (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Māori M: I'm not an IP lawyer, but I'm comfortable saying that your understanding of the Berne Convention is wrong, at least as you've stated it. An obvious counterexample would be that any works published anywhere in the world before 1931 are now out of copyright in the U.S. regardless of the death date of the person who created them. So, for example, a work from Aldous Huxley published in the 1920s is copyrighted in his native UK through 2033 (1963 + 70), but is already in the public domain in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

however an I correct in that copyright works in a country who is a Bern signatory have copyright transferred to the other countries which also are signatories ie copyright work in NZ is automatically copyright in those countries. Māori M (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No. It depends on the rule of shorter term, and other local laws. NZ has a shorter term than European countries, so anything still in copyright is probably also in copyright in Europe, but it is not automatic. USA doesn't use the use of shorter term, only US law applies. Yann (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

copyright on materials prohibited by law in china (before 1996)

would any of these be available for upload to commons due to the following clause in the 1990 law?

Article 4　Works the publication or distribution of which is prohibited by law shall not be protected by this law.

this was still on the books as of the uraa restoration date for china (1 jan 1996) and until being removed in the 2010 version of the law which would exempt them from any uraa restoration when banned before that date (ie no content relating to falun gong due to being banned from 1999)

and if any works count, they mightve been restored in china (and only in mainland china) when that clause was removed similar to the retroactive clause in 1990/1991 which might mean local file uploads for content instead

assuming this is correct and provable, this would allow for the upload of content for the great chinese famine, cultural revolution and tiananmen protests that were not simultaneously published outside (relevant for the last one, though it may be covered by shorter term?) that was not allowed as well as miscellanous items like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Snow,_Red_Blood to be uploaded to chinese wikisource?

Noob282 (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

To be ineligible for URAA restoration, the work must be in the public domain in the source country "through expiration of the term of protection" and it sounds as if these Chinese works were in the public domain in the source country for some other reason, so they may not have been ineligible for copyright restoration.

Note that works from China may be protected by having a subsisting copyright; see w:WP:NUSC#Chinese copyrights. In particular, the 4th of June Incident was after the United States dropped the copyright formalities, so everything would be protected due to subsisting copyrights. Before this, there was a long period where you only needed a copyright notice, so many things may have a subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

so its likely local file uploads are okay for them but them being hosted on commons itself not okay due to them probably fulfilling all requirements for restoration, is my understanding correct?

in that case i assume https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Rim_Kkok_Jong and its associated things would need to be deleted due to the same reasoning applying Noob282 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of pictures of the AEG-Hauptverwaltung

I would like to upload the pictures of the building "AEG-Hauptverwaltung" from the website "Bildindex". This would be my first time to do that. The website states that the photographer is unknown, but the owner of the images is listed. The license on the linked site states "CC BY-SA 4.0" which seems to allow the usage and upload to other sites, as long as the original author (or owner) is named? Can I upload these images, or images under other versions of the CC BY-SA license without issues?

https://www.bildindex.de/document/obj20555657?medium=fm1066069 Monkelbear (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)