COM:Paying public domain and hosting of non-commercial files

Relevant Resources:

• COM:Paying public domain
• COM:Licensing
• Definition of Free Cultural Works
• COM:Project scope

Paying public domain is a copyright regime where copies, presentations or performances of a work that has entered the public domain are still subject to royalties, which are payable to the state or to an authors' association
It may apply only to certain types of work, such as folklore or traditional cultural expressions, and typically is restricted to commercial use.

— in: Commons:Paying public domain

The same page states:

When a work is in the public domain, the existence of a paying public domain regime may be seen as a "non-copyright restriction" which does not prevent the work from being uploaded to Commons

— in: Commons:Paying public domain

Now the problem is that, I think the last statement goes directly against COM:L and COM:SCOPE. I do recognize that COM:PPD is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Commons contributors. It is not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

From what I understand from :

• Copyright of works under paying public domain has expired.
• So, [I think] the work is not protected by copyright.
• You do not need permission to exploit the work however you like including commercial exploitation.
• You can use the work freely non-commercially.
• But you have to give royalty to the government or an applicable body

Per both COM:SCOPE and COM:L, files needs to be commercially exploitable in order to be hosted on commons. That's why we do not support CC-NC licenses. The statement in COM:PPD seems to be going directly against the project scope and I think paying public domain works do not meet the definition of Free Cultural Works.

My proposal:

• Update COM:PPD to say that "Paying public domain works do not meet the criteria of definition of Free Cultural Works as the works are not commercially exploitable. As a result they fall outside of Project scope and cannot be uploaded to commons."
• Accept COM:PPD as official guideline.

Per wikiBlame the text was added by @Aymatth2: . So pinging him.

Also pinging @JWilz12345: and @Jmabel:  ; sorry for the ping. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 16:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Strong oppose This would mean deleting all photos of cultural heritage works in Italy, from the Colosseum to the Pisa Tower. I don't agree with it: these are all country-specific regulations, but on Wikimedia Commons the really important thing remains the US law. And according to the US law all these non copyright restrictions are not valid (in fact, the Italian one is not valid even inside other EU-countries) Friniate (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, this would also mean that we'd have to delete a lot of photos for which we have an authorization valid only for Wikimedia Commons. So nothing would be safe, even photos with VRT-licenses would have to go. Basically we could close Wikimedia Commons at that point. Friniate (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, Commons:Non-copyright restrictions is an official guideline, so you'd have to modify also that one. Friniate (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

PPD is very specific things, not applicable to Commons; commercial companies know as it works anyway. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

PPD is more like a tax, so  Strong oppose. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't quite understand. But, to put it simply, the proposal is to shut down Wikimedia Commons in Italy, right? Fabrizio Garrisi (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fabrizio Garrisi It would still be possible to take photos of mountains, rivers, etc, but otherwise basically yes... It'd mean that we should delete the photos of every building/painting/sculpture/etc that is present in this website. Friniate (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

So I got it right. Okay, I'll find another hobby. Fabrizio Garrisi (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of the proposal is not really clear to me. What is the goal of accepting COM:PPD as guideline? Are there any court rulings that say that there are legit instances where one has to pay royalties for works that are no longer protected by copyright? Or why exactly should Commons care about PPD? Currently, PPD sounds to me like some borderline Copyfraud, like what Getty Images is doing where they demand payments for works that are actually free. Nakonana (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In Italy there was at least one court ruling saying that (see here), but I think that what matters the most is that these restrictions are valid only in one single country. So there wouldn't be any reason to delete all photos of the Colosseum on Commons because in every country of the world except Italy you can freely use those images also for commercial purposes. Otherwise we'd also have to delete all images of swastikas or communist symbols because in some countries you can use them only for scholarly purposes, I think that it doesn't make any sense. Friniate (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Even in Italy photos of Colosseum may be used freely in sense "without permission", although with paying a fee, but in case of noncommercial license, or noncommercial exception of panorama, commercial use wouldn't be possible at all (because copyright holder can refuse to license a work). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo That's right, thank you for explaining better the issue. Friniate (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW I was wrong about natural objects being fine: even minerals shown in Italian museums wouldn't be safe. Along of course with 2 million artistic objects, 400.000 archeological finds, 230.000 photographs, 100.000 buildings, 40.000 coins, 70.000 anthropological traditions (!), 17.000 technological objects, 2000 musical instruments... Friniate (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction: prior authorisation is necessary in Italy, but refusal in authorisation is possible only under specific reasons (in conrast, copyright holder can refuse in the license under any reason). In some other countries with PPD, prior authorisation not exists and mere declaration is required. But both requirements isn't copyright anyway. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. COM:NCR is the relevant guideline. It explains why Wikipedia allows almost all public domain works, regardless of any non-copyright restrictions that may be imposed by individual countries. In the case of PPD works, typically a fee is required for commercial use in the country of origin. It can be freely used for personal or educational purposes, and can be freely used in all other countries. Wikimedia allows upload, and assumes a user making commercial use in the country of origin follows the law and pays the fee. That is a long-established policy. There is no reason to dispute it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

   Strong oppose aswell GioviPen ^{GP msg} 16:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: There's more to this from a structural point of view, and I don't think we can state a general rule. Right now, I don't see much in terms of references to specific law. Some potential issues that may differ from place to place include whether it is a copyright restriction or a non-copyright restriction (does the country include it in what they consider copyright law, or in another body of law like taxation?); whether the reuse is itself prohibited by failure to pay (it is conceivable that rescission of permission is not a remedy or consequence for failure to pay—maybe you just accrue tax debt); whether the statute is operative given other treaties and subsequent law (some of these are potentially archaic); whether the use on Commons itself is permitted (for instance, it could count as a foreign use, or as a noncommercial use—and thus it might only affect reusers subject to that specific country's jurisdiction); whether it is transitive to derivatives (does it affect an ancient folkloric statue, and a modern picture of that statue equally?); and whether there are weird side agreements (like Italy's Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC—it's not wholly clear to me to what extent downstream reusers are beneficiaries of the agreement, or for that matter whether the agency has the legal authority to make such an agreement). TheFeds 05:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  "does the country include it in what they consider copyright law, or in another body of law like taxation?" — PPD isn't copyright, even if relevant provision are included in copyright law Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment it's not only the Italian case that involves here. Dozens of African laws also have such domaine public payant clauses. Perhaps soon we will be the next, considering the infamous cases of several content creators, both Pinoy and foreign, exploiting the cultural heritage of the Philippines (example case, w:en:Whang-od Academy).

The most curious instance of the existing domaine public payant rules is that of Guinea. See COM:Guinea#Public domain works and expressions of cultural heritage: not free. I created {{Guinean-heritage-disclaimer}}, considering that their rule specifically targets all foreigners, because only locals (Guinean citizens) can freely use the derivative works of the Guinean heritage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

See also Category:Guinean-heritage-disclaimer, for images tagged with this non-copyright template. Currently, all of the images there were taken during the following contests: COM:Wiki Loves Africa 2022, COM:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023, and COM:Wiki Loves Folklore 2024. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Can someone remove these files for Commons?

Hello, I had posted these two files when I first started editing Wikipedia like months ago:

• File:Acton Smee Ayrton Photograph.jpg
• File:Harry McClure Johnson (Right) cradling his son, Harry Johnson II (Left), May of 1925.jpg

The main problem is that one is from the National Portrait Gallery in London and downloaded it under the Creative Commons part of the download and did not pay for the license and the typical license for that is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

As for the other one, I did get permission, yes, but the website said that the file is under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0FR

Can someone remove my files for Commons? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Why should the files be removed? all are PD-Old, because of how ancient they are. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The websites that I got the files from didn't license them under what's acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The Ayrton one I got from the Natural History of London and downloaded under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (I didn't pay for the license) while the Johnson one I got from Geneanet, which, in Geneanet's Terms and Conditions: states that:

"Genealogical data remains fully the property of the members who publish it on Geneanet. With the exception of the indexations of images carried out on the Site which remain Geneanet property.

The filing of genealogical data under the Creative Commons license ‘CC BY-NC-SA 2.0FR’ (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/) does not alter its ownership but does allow the reuse of this data by Geneanet and all Geneanet members."

(Genealogical Data means all personal or other data voluntarily provided or entered in a family tree)

I'm assuming that these files that I submitted to Commons violates the Terms and Conditions of both of these websites. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I only see two pictures in those links. Are those pictures are 150 and 100 years old. Those are in Public Domain, it doesn't matter what the original wbesite says. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Really? I thought the files I submitted violates copyright terms of both websites since they're both published under those websites. Yes, both of them are in the public domain, the Ayrton was published c. 1873 and the Johnson one was photographed in 1925. I thought that the pictures that are in public domain but in websites that have claimed to hold copyright for them violates what's acceptable in Wikipedia.

These are from the sites directly:

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image/?mkey=mw157456 (For the Ayrton one) (See Creative Commons portion)

https://en.geneanet.org/legal/cgu/#MemberData (For the Johnson one) DoNothingEveryday (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The older one is for sure PD. The second one, if it's really an anonymous (or unknown author work), then it has been PD for 31 years now. If it can unmistakenly be proved the author was the wife, then it's +70 years after her death. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the rightful checking of my files. Although, I don't get how are these files are in the PD and are acceptable to be submitted in WikiCommons even though the websites that hold those files licensed them that are not such. Can you enlighten me on how these works? Can I publish copyrighted works by other websites if the photograph is old enough? Is there a guide for this? Thanks in advanced DoNothingEveryday (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Check Help:Public domain and Commons:PD files TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoNothingEveryday: you may find en:Copyfraud an interesting read. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thanks! I thought I violate copyright laws. Thank you so much for the read DoNothingEveryday (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Just making sure, after reading this article, does that mean I could borrow some images at the NPG website and say it's under Public Domain if the photograph really is eligible for public domain because of the date? (just as long as it's licensed correctly ofc) DoNothingEveryday (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you definitively should do that. And if there was a mistake and the file was not PD, then it will be temporaly deleted until the PD date is reached.

Don't be afraid of being mistaken, everyone learned that way. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you so much DoNothingEveryday (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoNothingEveryday: Things like en:Copyfraud (already pointed out above) and en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute are probably reasons why these files are OK for Commons since copyright courts in the US and UK seem to have consistently ruled that the digitalization of a PD work is insufficient to create a new copyright for said work (or something along those lines). So, it's unlikely you or Commons will run into problems related to copyright law; individual users, though, need to be careful when it comes to contract law because any agreement they might enter into with an organization (e.g., the NPG) is between them and said organization; an agreement an individual might enter to procur an image license has nothing to do with Commons and is treated (I believe) for the most part as a COM:NCR. In cases like this, it's contract law where individuals seem to run into problems (if they ever do); so, you might want to keep this in mind moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I fixed the license of the first file. Yann (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems as if the possible photographer of the second file is Helena Modjeska Chase, who died in 1986. So, if a family photo that was not published before 2003, which is not unlikely given the circumstances, it seems to be copyrighted in the US whether treated as her work or as an anonymous work. Felix QW (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Dutch TV Public Domain?

Surfing the net I found PD-NetherlandsGov Template in a local Wikipedia. It States:

This is regulated in Article 15b of the Copyright Act of 1912. This implies that all programmes of the Netherlands Public Broadcasting service (they are public authorities just like the Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation, ABRS 30 November 1995, JB 1995/337) are not copyright protected.

However, Commons template PD-DutchGov quotes a different article (11 vs. 15) and does not mention TV.

What can (and what can't) I do with Dutch Public Broadcasting television's news, for instance? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW the archived URL. Bedivere (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Article 11 states that "No copyright subsists in laws, decrees or ordinances issued by public authorities, or in judicial or administrative decisions." The Nederlandse Publieke Omroep is indeed a public company but that does not necessarily mean the article applies. Bedivere (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW the malayalam template was taken from the now deleted English Wikipedia one deleted in 2017 but for unrelated reasons. Bedivere (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

What can (and what can't) I do with Dutch Public Broadcasting television's news, for instance?
TaronjaSatsuma, nothing. It's not public domain. I had uploaded a one or two minute clip from a popular science show to YouTube and the public broadcaster took it down. They didn't monetize it (which would have been smarter!), they took it down. Didn't hurt them financially in any way, they didn't have that clip on their own channels, they took it down simply because they could. Their online streaming platform is infested with DRM. When they enabled their shitty DRM (it was easy to download episodes before that), they actually took the effort to insert a clip that stream ripping software would download instead. It roughly said "na-na na-na boo-boo, we outsmarted you, don't download our content!" It was childish.
The Dutch public broadcaster is complex by the way. It's not strictly one homogeneous organization like the BBC. It consists of a bunch of smaller organizations that are allotted time on the telly. Some of them publish some content on YouTube with a CC BY license. They also license content from third parties.
Vysotsky might know more. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I recently discovered the interesting Dutch Public TV system, and at least is good to know something is CC, and something might be used.

Anyway, the claim "Dutch public TV is Public Domain" seems to be a thing. We could perhaps improve documentation with the explanation why it isn't. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It is only public domain if it is in-house produced as well and doesn't state to be rights reserved. But additionally, a lot of the public broadcasting is commissioned or licensed material. For modern TV and Radio that is sort of the standard honestly. The Beeld en Geluid institute (that often partners with Wikimedia NL and Commons) has the responsibility to archive and make that archive available to the public, but as can be witnessed from this page, indexing what the status of all of the rights are is a very complex process. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I hope the status of the rights gets clear at least for some shows. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

PD Template for US regarding NPG x76570

Hello, I'm trying to publish this file to WikiCommons. I think it suits to be {{PD-UK-unknown}} since it:

• From an unknown photographer; and
• Made available to the public in 19 July 1939

Now, I don't know what to put in the Public Domain template regarding the US. Can someone help me regarding files like these? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1996}} if this photo was published without copyright registration (likely so, but not always). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! DoNothingEveryday (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: I don't follow your logic; here's how I see it. If it was published in 1939 in the UK, then in 1996 it would presumably still have been in copyright there (<70 years) and would have regained U.S. copyright under URAA. It would be protected through 2034. What is your basis to say it would have been out of copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996? (Also Pinging @DoNothingEveryday.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jmabel, I have already added the file into Commons here:

• File:Weetman John Churchill Pearson, 3rd Viscount Cowdray; Anne Pamela (née Bridgeman), Viscountess Cowdray (Cropped).png

Should you wish to change what license this falls under I won't mind. Or if you just want to check the file. Cheers DoNothingEveryday (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: you are right, this photo was under copyright on URAA date. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep. It was PD in the UK in 1990 (being created/published in 1939), but re-copyrighted by the EU directive in 1996 and also thus restored by the URAA. It re-entered the UK public domain in 2010, and will re-enter the US public domain in 2035. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of WW2 POW mugshots

What is the copyright status of images like this, taken by an unknown German photographer and in this case ending up in the UK's National Archives? Nthep (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nthep: it's possible that the UK govt seized both the physical photographs as well as the intellectual property thereto, similar to what the US did with the photos of Heinrich Hoffmann (see Template:PD-HHOFFMANN). Given that the Public Relations Office of the War Office (I'm pretty sure that's what PRO WO stands for) claims copyright, it may be public domain per {{PD-UKGov}}. Even so, the copyright claims would only apply in the UK and probably not in Germany (where anonymous photographs are protected from 70 years from publication, and there isn't evidence of publication) or the US (even if it was published between 1939-1945, the URAA extension would ensure protection until at least 2035). Out of precaution, I would not upload such photos. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

it may be public domain per PD-UKGov — per the text of the template, this PD rationale only applies to works that were created by the UK government. So, even if they seized all physical copies, they are still not the ones who created them. For this to be in the public domain, it would require a different PD tag than PD-UKGov. Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, that is important to consider. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the date of publication is the date on which the photos were made available to the general public. Furthermore, it is my understanding is that in the United Kingdom, government papers are transferred to the National Archives and made available to the public after 30 years unless special rules apply to specific documents or sets of documents. In this case, one needs to check when the photos were first catalogued in the archives' index and whether any specific restictions applied. It might be worth noting that when William Shirer wrote en:The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, he (and anybody else) had access to documents that the US Government were returning to the West German Federal Government in the early 1950's, so maybe these photos were available to the public earlier than 1975 (30 years after the ned of WWII). Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Publication also requires the legal right to distribute copies (if someone steals a work and disseminates copies without permission, that is not publication). If we pursue the theory that it was published by UK authorities, it seems essential that we be able to document what legal right they purported to exercise. Just like a regular uploader can't slap their own copyright notice on someone's work and place it on Commons, if there is no plausible reason the UK PRO WO was the creator, we ought to find out how (or whether) they came to possess the copyright. Failing that, we should attempt to establish the jurisdiction under which the photo was taken, identify its successor state, and apply that copyright law. We should then attempt to ascertain the author, and if reasonably unknowable, treat it as an anonymous work. TheFeds 19:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The UK government was definitely not the creator. The most likely is an unknown member of the German military (unless someone has records of the official photographers in POW camps). Nthep (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Image from the Indian Air Force

hey everyone I've been intrested in uploading this photograph to Wikipedia, for an Article I'm currently drafting.

Image source -> https://indianairforce.nic.in/history-timelie 4-RAZOR 01 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

IAF terms are found here https://indianairforce.nic.in/terms-and-conditions

Unlike the Indian Army or Navy, I've not been able to find an templated for the Air force. So I been thinking of using GODL-India. Will it create any issues? 4-RAZOR 01 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither of those links works for me. Maybe not accessible from the U.S.? - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There exact lines from the site are

"Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. In case of doubt about the veracity and ownership of site-material, intended to be used, a prior permission / authorization of IAF or the concerned department of IAF or the third-party copyright holder must be obtained."

I am in doubht about this, and does this allow me to use GODL-India 4-RAZOR 01 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

"not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" is certainly an acceptable non-copyright restriction, and requiring acknowledgement of source is fine. I have no idea whether GODL-India can be used, but these sound to me like acceptable terms. I hope someone with more knowledge of Indian copyright law in particular will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I could only find a very old discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mig-21bis.JPG, but I am sure this has been discussed since as well. The issue seems to be less the "not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" and more the "has to be reproduced accurately", which may be construed as disallowing derivative works. Felix QW (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Felix QWso, no issues in direct upload under godl-India right? I am working on a page with it s the infobox picture 4-RAZOR 01 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

NYC Mayor video

This video from the NYC Mayor's office ("LET'S GO KNICKS") is licensed as CC-BY, but it incorporates a lot of what look like preexisting elements like music, newscast audio, and photographs that might not be covered by the license. Which parts of this video can be safely uploaded under a free license? Qzekrom (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that the video contains a lot of likely unfree elements, so the CC license should only apply to portions of the video that are most likely taken by the Mayor's office. This means the video would need a lot of editing to remove those elements, in order for it to be compatible with Commons.

Alternatively, you may just want to upload selective screenshots of the free portions of the videos. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The historical photos are from 1984-ish, so {{PD-US-1978-89}} might apply. But I can also remove the audio and cut out the section with the photos. Qzekrom (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, if the photos were taken by the NYC Mayor's office, then they are included under the license. Qzekrom (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the old photos shown in the video are sourced from the New York City Municipal Archives, which can be seen here. However, their page description doesn't indicate whether they are in public domain. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Good find! I've uploaded the video here without the audio - File:Let's Go Knicks - NYC Mayor's Office (edited).webm - and noted the de minimis elements.

I could also send an email to the Mayor's Office asking about the source materials, or possibly even submit a FOIL request since the video is published by the city government.

Also, for what it's worth, the third-party materials in the video (e.g. stock music) may also be covered by the CC license if the City has a sublicensable right to use them. But I'd assume otherwise unless we see what's in the contracts governing them (which could also be discovered in a FOIL request). Qzekrom (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Usergruppe Heraldikbamberg und deren Dateien

Bei diesem "User" handelt es sich um eine Personengruppe, die vor einigen Jahren zahlreiche Fotos aus Bamberg eingestellt hat, Schwerpunkt Wappen. Problemː Die Autorenrechte können doch nicht der Gruppe, sondern nur dem jeweiligen Fotografen zugerechnet werden? Kann ein Kollektiv überhaupt als "User" auftreten und Bilder lizensieren? Ist die Teilnahme an der Gruppe als konkludentes Einverständndis anzusehen? GerritR (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Solange alle Bildrechte explizit bei ihnen liegen und sie sich als Gruppe einstimmig dafür entscheiden ihre Bilder auf Commons hochzuladen sehe ich darin kein Problem. Auch das nutzen eines einzigen Accounts als Gruppe ist erstmal nicht weiter problematisch. Es muss im Zweifelfall aber nachgewiesen werden können, das die jeweile Person, welche das Bild erstellte auch wirklich ihr Einverständnis gegeben hat. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Also muss jede Datei mit einem VRT-Ticket versehen werden, oder etwa nicht? Wie will man sonst das Einverständnis belegen, unter Beachtung der hier geltenden Regeln? GerritR (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Über die genauen Vorgaben weiß ich ehrlich gesagt auch nicht wirklich viel. Im Zweifelsfall solltest du einen erfahreneren Commons-Nutzer um Rat fragen. Mir ging es erstmal um generellere Fragen. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Stars and Stripes

Is original content from the Stars and Stripes newspaper considered public domain as {{PD-USGov-military}}? According to the legal disclaimer on their website, they claim copyright for all content and it "may not be reproduced for any commercial purpose with out [sic] the express written consent of Stars and Stripes". – Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly this is a mystery to me too. There was discussion about this on the ENWiki talk page for Stars and Stripes about a decade ago, but there was no consensus. My gut instinct is that original content from Stars and Stripes is public domain via its creation by federal employees as part of their job, but there are a few other quirky situations that this could be similar to (I'm thinking along the lines of the National Gallery of Art, whose employees technically work for the National Gallery board of trustees, not the government itself, so their work is not public domain; or Smithsonian Trust employees, who are not directly employed by the government and therefore their output is similarly not public domain). I did some quick digging just now and I can't find any substantive discussions about this.

Note also that the authorizing directive which created the modern Stars and Stripes uses the term "public domain" incorrectly to discuss news-gathering (their definition of "public domain" is really more oriented around security clearances and safety, meant to represent news and information that is publicly known or accessible, in contrast with news and information that only members of the military have access to). 19h00s (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like it probably would be but as said above there could be some technicality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

US publications with European translators

Hi, I think these files may not be OK on Commons.

• File:Relativity (1931).djvu by Albert Einstein (OK), translated by Robert William Lawson (1890–1960) from UK.
• File:Relativity, the Special and General Theory, by Albert Einstein, 1920.pdf, another edition of the same.
• s:File:Investigations on the theory of the Brownian Movement, by Albert Einstein.pdf on Wikisource, initially uploaded on Commons as File:Investigations on the theory of the Brownian Movement, by Albert Einstein.pdf.

Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Relativity, the Special and General Theory, by Albert Einstein, 1920.pdf: The title page credits Robert William Lawson at the University of Sheffield, but the publisher is Henry Holt and Company of New York. The 1920 date means the US copyright has aged out, and I think that is the only copyright that matters for Commons. If it were simultaneously published in the UK, then the UK copyright may last through 2030. Glrx (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

For simultaneous publication, we can always choose which of those countries we consider the place of publication. We wouldn't need to concern ourselves with the UK at all. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

s:File:Investigations on the theory of the Brownian Movement, by Albert Einstein, uc1 b4212174.pdf is a 1956 Dover copy of a 1926 translation. A. D. Cowper was the translator. Not sure what to say about notes by R. Fürth (notes added to the original and also translated by Cowper?). Dover got permission from Methuen and Company, Ltd., which is a British publisher. Cowper and Fürth may still have PMA 70 rights. Glrx (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

R. Fürth is probably Reinhold Furth (20 October 1893 – 17 July 1979) (Reinhold Furth (Q24718719)). PMA 70 would be good through 2049.Glrx (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Alred Denys Cowper. Possibly Alfred Denys Cowper (Q76127414) (no data). Possibly https://canadiangreatwarproject.com/person.php?pid=774898 b 1884-02-04. Glrx (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png - Wikimedia Logos and Visual Identity Guidelines

May include content of a graphic, violent, or sexual nature.

I was reviewing a DYK at the English Wikipedia, and the image File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png (NSFW) was included with the nomination. The fan art seems to have been given a free license. However, I was wondering if the obscured Wikipedia puzzle piece logo is acceptable under the Visual Identity Guidelines (15 and 16). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2025-11#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg_and_File:LoliWikipetan2.jpg seems to indicate that trademark and other legal questions are beyond scope for Commons discussions, so I'll sign off on the English Wikipedia for this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipe-tan is a fan character with no Wikimedia markings aside from puzzle shapes and letters, which are far from resembling any Wikimedia branding (notice how File:Wikipe-tan full length.svg doesn't have any trademark disclaimers). The MLP image on the other hand uses a Wikipedia puzzle piece logo (specifically File:Wiki letter w.svg), which is marked as a Wikimedia trademark.

  Honestly, this is a non-issue, since fan-made edits of Wikimedia logos exist on Commons and haven't been deleted, but even if this is somehow a violation, removing the offending cutie mark should be easy (in fact, someone already did it but in a lossy jpg format). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, I did the cutie mark removal. I stick with JPG for on-Wiki display due to the thumbnail issue.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment en:Template:Did you know nominations/Clop (erotic fan art) (2nd nomination) — link to the DYK nomination. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Washington State University Office of University Publications and Printing/WSU Press WSU Photographs

Les photographies de ce site sont-elles libres de droit étant donné la phrase citée dans les conditions générales: "Access Restrictions This collection is open and available for research use" Cinokat (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All that says to me is that the photographs are available to be viewed. No indication at all of any right to reuse them. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Releasing inherited copyrighted photos into the public domain

Hello all, I am somewhat new to all this so forgive me if this has an obvious answer. I have recently inherited photos that my descendants took in the 1920s and 1930s when they were living in Indonesia.The people who took the photos died between the 1940s and 1960s. As inheritor of the photos, is it possible for me to release them into the public domain? I assume the answer is probably no, as just saying your the inheritor is probably not enough evidence however I thought I would ask. Gogerr (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gogerr: are you the sole heir, and can you demonstrate that should the need arise? If yes, then it's fully within your rights to deal with your inheritance the same way you can with any other propriety of yours (licensing, gifting, destroying, hiding away, etc.). We have {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} for instance.

If you're not the sole heir, then the resulting group of heirs must unanimously agree to whatever you plan to do.

Last but not least: in most countries, works from people who, as of 2026, died in 1955 or earlier are basically in the public domain, barring exceptions like en:editio princeps.

There's a compendium about these and related copyright questions at COM:THIRD you might find helpful. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, your response is helpful. I will keep all that in mind. I am sole heir for a portion of the collection but not all. I have accurate records for when they died, so I will go ahead and publish the photos for the people who have died in 1955 or earlier. Thanks! ~~ Gogerr (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to cover all the bases, do you know whether you inherited a collection of photo prints, files, slides or negatives alone, or also the rights to use those photos? (It wouldn't be abnormal for that not to have been spelled out in detail anywhere, so you'd have to apply the facts and law specific to your situation.) TheFeds 05:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: at least in Western countries, an inheritance covers everything that the deceased possessed by default, material goods, but also immaterial ones, like IP rights. To deviate from that, a will with a different stipulation (to the effect of separating the actual material possession from the copyrights) would have to have been written, otherwise, there's no separation between material possession of records to holding the rights to it for the heir. And such a will can even become moot when the circumstances don't fit, e.g. with would-be heirs already dead, too. But there's nothing in the opening question that alludes to such problems. It looks like a pretty straightforward situation: a photographer dies, their heir gets physical images and IP rights on their works. There are apparently not even much shared inheritances coming into play. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

While that's fair enough (and they can address whether there's a will with further provisions), I was hoping to consider the scenario that multiple members of the family might have received copies of the same photos ("sole heir for a portion of the collection but not all" could imply one got the negatives, another got the album). Are you sure about whether it ought to be presumed that transfer of copies of the same work to multiple people creates multiple copyright interests unencumbered by one another? TheFeds 06:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm German and I have only read a bit about our local laws, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt - (international) inheritance law is finicky. With that caveat...

As written before, I would expect that any bequeather of works is leaving hard copies and rights together by default, this doesn't get unbundled without a will. But if several people inherit together, forming a community of heirs, they have to jointly administer the bundle of work and rights; and jointly will usually mean unanimously, no one can decide on their own. This case arises for instance when there are several siblings. Joint heirship is also a prime candidate for the cause of works becoming en:orphan works, as it muddies the rights transfer chains. I just found en:Intestacy which may be something interesting to read; but that is likely leading too far away from the original question.

To sum up - Gogerr should be safe when they endeavour to upload works by relatives who died more than 70 years ago (that is what the threshold of 1955 above meant) and also when they are the sole heir to something. In other cases, when a join heirship is present, they could gather the consent of any other heir and proceed as well, if they deem if worth the effort. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

TOO in the United Kingdom for text-based graffiti

File:GOC Walthamstow to Stratford 094 Graffiti (25001371599).jpg Whether such graffiti is covered by copyright? I am not sure about TOO in this case. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we actually have to provide evidence of publication for pre-1989 no notice works?

Because I've seen multiple deletion requests close as keep due to it "probably" having been published, even when it is exceedingly unlikely that it was prior to 1989. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Probably" for something "exceedingly unlikely" is a problem, but that is a matter of facts, not policy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Each case is unique. If the person requesting the delete is out "dragon slaying" (See here for definition), then caution should be exercised. First of all, request to whoever posted the word "probably" to justify their statement and at the same time, check their posting record to ensure that they are likely to read your posting. Remember, the image might have been posted in 2010 and the person who posted it died in 2020. Put the request on the image Talk Page so that everybody can see it. There might be a good reason and it is not unknown for somebody to come back five years later and make the same request. If it is on the talk page, they will avoid making a fool of themselves.

On the other hand, if you have good reasdon to believe that the image was not published before 1989 AND IS STILL IN COPYRIGHT, you should post your rationale rather than just saying "I don't believe that". Martinvl (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that people can just assume that it was published then and not have to provide proof; how am I supposed to prove it wasn't when there is no proof of when it was published at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As Martinvl says, this always comes down to cases. There is no point to discussing this in the abstract. If there are particular images in question, let's focus on those, not on an impossible abstraction. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel For the one that bothers me most is File:David koresh.jpg. It was produced in 1987, but was not published then.

Mugshots were not usually published at the time, unless in a newspaper. I checked every newspaper article that covered Koresh pre-Waco (there weren't that many), and while there were photos of him printed, the mugshot never was until 1998 (and the places where it is included say it was first published in 1998!). Yet, it was kept at DR as "1978 and February 1989 no notice and no registration", but we have no evidence of where this was first published or if it was or without notice, despite no keep votes.

I could understand assuming if there was reasonable precedent, like say a poster in a series of a posters that were likely distributed, or something like that, but it happens with individual photos where we don't know that they were published at all.

So, can I just take any photo and assert that it was published and I get away with that? Really? Because that seems to be the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: As I'm sure you know, having participated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:David koresh.jpg, that is a really tricky one on several counts. Nearly all of the complexity is because it is a mugshot, so (at least on the basis of this example) this appears not to be nearly as general an issue as your initial remarks implied.

1. I presume we can all agree that when the mugshot was taken, it became available for newspapers (or, really, anyone) to use, and that the McLennan County Sheriff's Office did not engage in the then-required formalities for a U.S. copyright. If making the mugshot available constituted publication (I personally have no opinion either way), the it is PD on the basis stated by Abzeronow when he closed the DR. His closure is terse, but this appears to have been his reasoning.
2. It is possible that all mugshots in the U.S. are public domain. Certainly some people quite knowledgeable about copyright believe this to be the case; as far as I know, the matter has never reached a courtroom.
3. Failing that, it is possible that Texas's own specific policy with respect to use of mugshots may be liberal enough to make them "free enough" for Commons, even if the counties hold copyrights. Again, I don't have a decided opinion, but I could imagine a reasonable case; as far as I can see, the only real question would be the degree to which they allow derivative works, which seems unclear to me.

In any case, I do want to address one other remark in the DR (not yours): The worst part about this is that other people think this image is public domain because we said it is. If that's the worst, then that's a good reminder that this is more a detail of Commons policy than anything with legal consequences. As far as I can tell, the only possible copyright-holder is the McLennan County Sheriff's Office; clearly, they have no interest in enforcing their copyright; so the consequences of mistakenly believing this is in the public domain are not much. Losing a bar bet? Being mildly embarrassed over a misstatement? Clearly not "facing legal consequences."

Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Why can we assume that the McLennan County Sheriff's Office did not engage in the then-required formalities for a U.S. copyright?

2. I believe this but Commons consensus comes down against it every time.

3. We have time and time again deleted mugshots from Texas, every single discussion we have had on this count comes down to not free.

It was kept due to formalities, so point 1, your other two points have nothing to do with this. "Clearly, they have no interest in enforcing their copyright", COM:PCP. So apparently the consensus is yes, anyone can assert that anything was published and it will be kept. What fun. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel essentially sums up why I closed it as I did. Mug shots were circulated, McLennan County Sheriff didn't bother to copyright it because it was not in their interest to, they wanted it publicly available. Pre-1989 mugshots are basically almost always public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Circulated among private people does not mean published! COM:Publication. Publication means to the public, and the American legal definition of publication only counts public circulation. This was not published until 1998, they had no reason to publish the mugshot of a small time criminal until he became famous, which was in the 1990s. Most mugshots are never distributed to the public.

It would have been in their interest to copyright it, obviously, this image has commercial value.

Not true, most deletion requests on pre-1989 mugshots have closed as delete. This is quite inconsistent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Read the page you linked to. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." So when they offered the mugshot to the press, they were publishing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That's going to depend in part on the type of media. Something like a newspaper or a poster has almost certainly been published, since that was the purpose of creating the work. A photograph in isolation is more questionable, since it might have been part of a personal collection. Omphalographer (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that with a poster or a newspaper it is inherent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with Jmabel's and Abzeronow's assessments. I also think that ridiculous requirements beyond significant doubts—which are made here—are disruptive, and not useful for Commons. Yann (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliefweb

I read this page, which (I think) says that we can upload maps from Reliefweb to Commons. Does that mean that I can upload the map that is in this report? Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Lova Falk: it's really hard to say. They say overtly that they offer "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported licence" {{CC-BY 3.0}} (OK for Commons) but then they link that to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en, which describes {{CC-BY-NC 3.0}} (not OK for Commons). So, unless we can get a clarification from them (ideally, editing that page for internal consistency), I would not rely on that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If I were you I'd send an email asking them to edit the webpage for clarity. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Copy/vio

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yoruba_Oduduwa_People_Ethnic_Flag.svg&oldid=1234259804

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yoruba_Nation_OduduwaStar_Flag.png&oldid=901562739

this image seems to be copy/vio. Wmbata (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Convenience links:

• File:Yoruba Oduduwa People Ethnic Flag.svg
• File:Yoruba Nation OduduwaStar Flag.png

1. This is complicated by the overwrite of the original flag at File:Yoruba Nation OduduwaStar Flag.png (which looks to me to have been below the threshold of originality) with a duplicate of File:Yoruba Oduduwa People Ethnic Flag.svg that is tangentially related to the original upload there.
2. It's not obvious to me that these are copyvios, though they could be. Is there an original that you believe they infringe? Usually, much as with coats of arms, the basic design of a flag is not copyrightable, only a particular visual expression of it so, for example, if that particular representation of a golden head and laurel leaves is the artist's own creation (or is something in the public domain) these are presumably fine, but if they are an exact or near-exact copy of someone else's copyrighted rendering then they are a copyvio.

Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This flag design is a real world ethnic or political flag and the uploader uploaded it as "own work" . As seen on this sites

here ,

here ,

here ,

here,

and on Facebook

here.

This file use a high detail photographic cutout of the Ife head that is identical across multiple external sites and it is very likely a copy and paste from an external source, making it a derivative copyright violation. Wmbata (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not a photographic 'cut out' but a graphical representation/design of a real life object, much like the design of a horse, a boat or a historically signifiant tree or building on a coat of arms or ethnic/national flag.. same goes for the laurel.

Not sure what your first line is about as flags are not copyright violation. Also, that something is identical across 'multiple external sites' is not proof of copyvio. Even on the file's own description, thee are external links to pictures hosted on other websites where the flag has been used in real life instances. I, for example, can upload an image from wikipedia to an external site, unless you can bring the original source of the image design protected by copyright by the designer/owner which has been violated, with proof.

Note: All the external links you have put up are broken, save for the third, but regardless, whatever is there takes nothing away from the fact that the upload is not copy vio. Oramfe (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Images from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Im looking at the possibility of uploading images located from the Washington state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, but there is not a license template that matched the need. If I am reading this policy statement correctly, with limited exceptions records/works of the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation are released as public records per the Washington State Public Records Act. As such the files are not subjectable to any use restrictions and free use in the public domain. Am I understanding the situation correctly? If so what template is the most appropriate ir is a new {{PD-WADAHP}} template in need of creation?--Kevmin § 00:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kevmin: The only Washington State agency that routinely places its intellectual product in the public domain is the Office of the State Secretary of State.

Access to public records is not permission to republish them, let alone make derivative works. Read section "10. Copying of Records" on page 5 of the PDF you linked. It provides only a very limited right for anyone to copy these materials, nowhere near what Commons requires. - Jmabel ! talk 02:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ace Combat 8 Logo

Hello, I'm wondering if I can upload the Logo of Ace Combat 8 from the official website: https://www.bandainamcoent.com/games/ace-combat-8. Since it only consists of simple geometric shapes it should be free of copyright (in both the US and Japan), but because it's from the official website of Bandai Namco I'm not quite sure if there's other restrictions that may apply here and would prevent an upload to Wikimedia Commons (except the trademark since there's already a template for that). Long story short, can I upload this with the right licenses or not? Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pfannkuchenwaffel: is this just the text logo at upper left there? If so, no issue at all. {{PD-textlogo}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant the Logo in the middle which says "Ace Combat 8: Wings of Theve". But judging by your answer it should be legal as well. Thanks! :) Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pfannkuchenwaffel: yes. Just don't forget also to add {{Trademarked}}. - Jmabel ! talk 03:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Already uploaded it with the right templates including {{Trademarked}}. Thanks again. :) Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

File:FBISD Historical Marker.jpg

I assked about File:FBISD Historical Marker.jpg here at VPC back once before in 2023, but that thread got archived with much being resolved. The file recently showed up on my watchlist due to a edit made by a bot; so, I figured I'd ask about again. While I'm sure the uploader took the photo itself, I'm not as sure as to whether the photographed marker (which appears to have been installed in 1991) can be covered by the same license due to COM:FOP US and COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs? Should the prose on the marker be treated as a copyright-protect work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As to your question about copyright, I do not know. I took the photo, as I have taken photos of other Texas historical markers and never encountered a question about copyright. I assume that if I take my own photo of something, that it is up to me whether it can be posted. The exception would be if I was in a museum that prohibited photos. Djmaschek (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you take a photo of someone else's copyright protected work (and your photo itself is eligible for copyright protection separate from the photographed work), then you've created a derivative work; in other words, there are two copyrights Commons needs to consider: one for the photo and one for the photographed work. You could perhaps post your photo on some other website or maybe even use it in a print publication under a claim of en:fair use, but Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type, which means all of a derivative works elements needs to 100% in compliance with COM:L for Commons to be able to host it. A photo of a 3D object like the one you took would be eligible for copyright because of the creative descisions you made when deciding how to take the photo; so, you would be the copyright holder of the photo. You, however, had nothing to do with the creative decisions made by whoever created the marker; if the marker (written text, overall design or both) is considered eligible for copyright protection, then whoever created the marker would be considered its copyright holder. Some countries have copyright laws that do allow people to freely photograph such works without worrying about whether you're infringing on rights of the work's copyright holder, but the US isn't one of them, at least not when it comes to 2D or 3D works, even when they're publicly displayed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs applies and the content of the sign may be copyrighted. The content itself needs to be in the public domain (e.g. below TOO, PD due to being created by a government, or expired) or freely licensed. In this specific example, it seems like none of those are true and the content of the sign is not free. -Consigned (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Right to use photos of artist paintings from U.S.docs. - use: Unrestricted

Right to use photographs of artist paintings from PGO U. S. documents with text use: Unrestricted? I have oploaded a number of photographs from a U. S. school book for young classes in art: Amiotte, Arthur: Art and Indian Children of the Dakotas. Book five. Office of Educational Services. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Aberdeen. No year. Downloaded from the web pages "govinfo.gov". A user have raised the question if it is allowed or if the owners of the paintings just have given permission to publish the picture of the art work in this specific book, although published as a GPO publication. Yours Indianertosset (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Related file: File:Artist Charles Trimble - Dancer (1967).png.

Who did commission that publication? Was there a copyright notice in it? Yann (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Abt Garhammer.png - hier hat der Entscheider die Zahlen in der Grafik mit dem Alter der Grafik verwechselt und damit eine Behaltensentscheidung begründet. GerritR (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Es wäre einer schnelleren Beantwortung deiner Themen dienlich, wenn du diese auf Englisch formulieren könntest. Commons ist ein sprachübergreifendes Wiki-Projekt, daher ist - trotz der weiten Verbreitung von maschinellen Übersetzern - Englisch als allgemeine Arbeitssprache üblich. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Aber ich glaube, GerritR hat Recht. @TheImaCow: did you presume that the date in the image is the date of the image? Gerrit is pointing out that is not likely, and I agree with him.

Unless something else is going on here, the question would next be: when does this illustration of the coat of arms really date from (and, ideally, who drew it)? From the look of it, it could be any time from 1900 or so to the 1960s (imaginably outside that range, but I don't think so). Lacking a source it is hard to make an intelligent guess, and uploader JPGARHAMMER hasn't been heard from in several years. Also, while File:Wappen Abt Georg Garhammer Prüfening 1448 Nachcoloriert.jpg (same uploader) is claimed as simply "own work," it is clearly derivative of this file. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Public Domain, Google-digitized

Hello, I have uploaded these files:

• File:Amasa E. Killam in 1922.jpg
• File:Alonzo Granville Draper.jpg

Both of these images come from books that have a Public Domain, Google-Digitized tag of them, with the text of "Digitized by Google" under the pages. I unknowingly did not look at the HathiTrust Access & Use Policy before adding these, which state that:

• Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

 Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images.

Although, there may be a case of PD-scan since it is just a photocopy of a public domain image, BUT there is still text under the paper that says it was digitized by Google, BUT it may not pass the Threshold of originality since it's just text added below the book. What to do? Should I remove them and replace it with the definitely public domain ones at Internet Archives? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, since in this case it just covers whitespace, you could simply crop it out. Commons:Watermarks suggests that watermarks of this kind are discouraged but not forbidden; however, on otherwise public domain material I would suggest removing it. In terms of copyright, I think that the text and logo should definitely be below the US threshold of originality. Felix QW (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I have uploaded new versions of the file with no watermark. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Photo that contains a logo on an item

I have a photograph that I took that I would like to add to a Wikipedia article. The photo is of a gallery display. One of the items in the display is a whisky bottle with a logo on it. COM:CB explains how to handle an image of a logo when the image is of the logo itself (like a png or vector), but I’m unsure how copyright rules might apply to an image like this. Trotsk6 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)