Review of File:Manila Railroad’s San Pablo station in 1923.jpg

Can anyone review this 1923 image? I cannot access the source because it only returned a "403 error" ("Forbidden
You don't have permission to access this resource."). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The same; but if this photo was published in 1923, it is in PD in the United States, and the Philippines. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo we need to be sure that it was also published as a postcard or other material at the same time it was photographed. I tried using reverse Google Lens image search (manually since the Google Lens option provided by WikiCommons isn't working, again). Many of the results come from Facebook, either by Filipino nostalgia-related groups or pages dedicated to vintage transport or rail transport. But as like what I expect, many of the netizens who posted don't bother to attribute the origin of the image, so reverse image searching becomes useless. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the 8 February 1970 date on that page? Pinging @Mr Mines Engine who uploaded it with that date. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not quite sure honestly, the image is very likely older than that but maybe it´s a reupload of another image or the website just got the date wrong. Mr Mines Engine (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Googling the alleged author, Arthur Ruh, points to https://etheritage.ethz.ch/2025/09/12/auf-den-spuren-von-arthur-ruh-ein-schweizer-in-manila-der-1920er-jahre/. He was travelling aroung Manila between 1920 and 1923. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If ever, this photo might not have been first published in the US. If Ruh is a European photographer, he may have first published his photos in Europe. Just my suspicion, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

If this photo was published before 1931, it is in the PD in the United States, although may or may not be in a country of first publication. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Searching for it from the ETH image archive landing page yielded this entry, which claims it to be from the photographer's "private album" of 1923-6. Felix QW (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It also asserts ETH Library Zurich as the copyright holder and a CC-BY-SA license. Felix QW (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of Bodycam.

I am inquiring on the copyright of bodycam footage that was released by American Fork Police Department. There was originally a link to a dropbox that contained the files. However, that link no longer functions, though: https://archive.org/details/american-fork-pd-unredacted-body-dashcam-6-3-26-220-pm claims the files are Public Domain Mark 1.0. If the files are appropriate for Commons I would like to upload some of the files. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Context: en:Reckless Ben and en:Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Currently, there is no consensus in Commons on whether bodycam footage in the US are automatically in public domain. I can see these bodycam footage are from American Fork Police Department, which is not one of the agencies that has their work automatically in public domain (e.g. federal government, Florida, California etc.). So, unless you can provide evidence that the PDM was applied by the copyright holder (i.e. American Fork Police Department), then unfortunately these footage won't be allowed on Commons. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@ Tvpuppy, Thank you for your response, I was familiar with California and Florida haveing those tags with PD-FLGov and PD-CAGov. I was also looking at Category: Police bodycam footage of the United States to see some of the common tags being used. I agree that it doesn't appear that police department has stated anywhere online or their website (https://www.americanfork.gov/236/Police) of their copyright release. Would it be best for COM:VRT, or inquiring at Commons: Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard for continuing this matter? Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess you can try contacting the police department and perhaps convince them to release these footage under a free license via VRT. However, I'm not sure if they would be willing to, as the archive.org link did mention they have made these footage unaccessible. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That isn't happening as long as the police force exists. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment The link in the American Fork Police Department press release on YouTube, has changed in their deception from a dropbox link to: Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: I am almost certain you did not mean "deception" there, but I don't know what you meant instead. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

description probably 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies spell checker on mobile changed it to that. Was intended to be description. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Is security camera footage copyrightable in Kuwait?

Can I use {{PD-CCTV}} for images taken by a security camera in Kuwait?

Google AI says CCTV footage is PD in Kuwait because it lacks the "creative effort" and originality required by Kuwait Law No. 75/2019. However, LLMs are not reliable sources. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Typically such recordings lacks original authorship, so in absence of precedent this recordings assumed being ineligible for copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

in absence of precedent this recordings assumed being ineligible for copyright. No. In absence of precedent COM:PCP applies: assume it's protected by copyright unless proven otherwise. Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Often (but not always) these recordings are made in fully automatic mode, such recordings not have author, so ineligible for copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of Bridges in South Korea

Related article

Recently, the Supreme Court of South Korea ruled that bridge design is subject to copyright protection.

This ruling is the result of a design lawsuit between two bridge design companies.

Therefore, unlike the misunderstanding that South Korean bridges are not subject to copyright protection because they do not fall under architectural copyrights, it is necessary to check the copyright status of South Korean bridges.

It is necessary to confirm whether the bridges are engineering firm designs or design firm designs. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow or, the threshold of originality comes into consideration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Korean original article Ox1997cow (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Translating a part of the article using Google Translate: 법원은 바름디자인의 저작권 침해를 인정했다. 즉 기능적으로 어쩔수 없는 유사성이 아니라고 판단했다. 법원은 이디아이의 도면 원안에 기능과 분리되는 독창적 요소가 있다고 봤다. 사장교는 일출하는 해를 품는다는 주제로 주탑을 휘게했고 상단·하단간 두께에도 변화를 줬다. 아치교는 아치라인을 3D곡선으로 제작해 돌고래의 역동성을 표현했다. 법원은 “이런 표현이 일반 교량에선 흔하지 않다”며 “우연히 같게 나올 수 없는 디자인”이라고 지적했다.

The court acknowledged Barum Design's copyright infringement. In other words, it determined that the similarities were not functionally unavoidable. The court viewed EDI's original drawings as containing unique elements distinct from function. For the cable-stayed bridge, the main towers were curved with the theme of embracing the rising sun, and variations were made in the thickness between the upper and lower sections. For the arch bridge, the arch line was crafted as a 3D curve to express the dynamism of a dolphin. The court pointed out, "Such expressions are uncommon in ordinary bridges," and noted that it was "a design that could not have been identical by chance."

The Supreme Court set a possible threshold of originality standard for Korean bridges. Perhaps, the creative elements are copyrightable, such as uniquely-designed supporting towers for cable-stayed bridges and the style of the arch lines of arch bridges. Styles and designs should feature uniqueness not common to ordinary bridges. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Then what will happen to the bridge affected here? Ox1997cow (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow I would assume same rules would apply, but the ruling may affect Wikimedia Commons' ability to host close up photos of artistic or unique elements of some modern Korean bridges. I would say both COM:DM South Korea and COM:TOO South Korea need to be considered in prospective deletion requests.

By the way, I would ping two users here who are active in Korea-related copyright matters like FoP-related ones: @Takipoint123 and @Namoroka, for their comments and insights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yi Sun-sin Bridge

In this case, the Yi Sun-sin Bridge was deemed to have an engineering firm design, resulting in kept decision. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow from my perspective, it doesn't matter if the bridge was designed by engineers or by architects. What matters is if some elements of the bridge have unique design or artistry.

In the example you give, I don't see any special or unique elements. The supporting towers have no unique design characteristics. The towers don't exhibit variations in thickness. Yi Sun-sin Bridge seems below the threshold of originality. This is unlike the bridge featured in the case, in which the main towers "were curved with the theme of embracing the rising sun, and variations were made in the thickness between the upper and lower sections." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Jwilz12345; I don't see any unique or artistic elements in this bridge. It's similar to the court decision about golf courses. I believe copyright should not be applied to most simple-looking bridges. But we need to raise TOO for South Korea anyway. Namoroka (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I am waiting for feedback from additional users regarding this. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It also looks like the court made a point regarding pure functionality versus artistry. The Yi Sun-sin Bridge looks purely functional without any fancy decorative additions to it. Nakonana (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow one point of complication, the case seems to be more concerned on blueprints of the bridge designs. Translated excerpt from the Korean article:

"EDI presented designs for a cable-stayed bridge for the Yeonggwang-Haeje Bridge construction project in 2011 and an arch bridge for the Masirah Bridge construction project in Oman in 2012. These designs visualized sunrises, sunsets, and the shape of a dolphin. However, these designs were not selected as the final plans for the projects at the time.
The problem arose when an employee who had participated in these projects moved to Barum Design. In the 2021 design competition for the Gyeongdo District Connecting Bridge in Gwangyang Bay, worth over 100 billion won, the Namyang Construction Consortium, which included Barum Design, won the contract by submitting a proposal similar to the original design created by EDI. Currently, a bridge based on this design is under construction. EDI filed a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement, claiming that blueprints were leaked during the employee's transfer, and the litigation has continued until recently."

More clarification is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 17:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What does this mean? Does it affect bridges that are already completed? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be about ripping off one bridge in the design of another bridge. One would think the issue wasn't in the blueprint as such, but in the intent to build another bridge based on that. Hard to see how that suggests any problem about photos of bridges. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Newcomer Question

Hello, I'm a newcomer in Wikipedia and I was wondering:

Is the European Parliament Multimedia Center's license under is acceptable to be published Wikicommons and does not violate any copyright restrictions? If so, what template should I use when publishing EU files to WikiCommons? I just wanted to make sure that I didn't violate any copyrights while uploading tons of photographs from there. I have asked two previous people about this and they didn't answer it clearly enough for me. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoNothingEveryday: To be clear, the EU consists of several institutions which have varying copyrights:

1. you are permitted to upload photos taken from the European Parliament Multimedia Center (using the template {{European Parliament}})
2. you are also permitted to upload photos taken from the European Commission Audiovisual Center (using the template {{EC-Audiovisual Center}}).
3. There is an ongoing discussion here on whether files from the Council of the European Union's Newsroom are also permitted on Commons.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification! DoNothingEveryday (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Guinean Party logo copyright

Howdy y'all. Would this pass COM:THRESHOLD? It's the logo of the GMD coalition in Guinea. — Knightoftheswords 21:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Illustration that looks like the Wikipedia Logo

Is this file subject to Wikimedia Foundation trademark? Or can it be used freely for commercial use?

I'm not 100% sure; that's why I'm asking.

• 
  Wikipedia planet.png

Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That pretty clearly relies on trademarked work. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Now marked accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk 14:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

does a film restoration gain a new copyright by being a restoration?

Momotaro: Sacred Sailors is a {{PD-Japan-film}}.

does this restoration - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvzDm41y_p8 - receive a new copyright by being a restoration? ltbdl (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Only if it introduces new creative elements (sorry, I'm not going to watch it to try to work out whether it does). Typical examples of that could be: new soundtrack; previously unreleased scenes; significant reordering of scenes; subtitling. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The other common example would be the (manual) colorization of a black and white film. That isn't the case here, but it's worth keeping in mind. Omphalographer (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That would depend on the laws of the country involved. Also, how was it restored?

This is potentially complex. Many country's copyright laws have some requirement for a 'creative process'. Even where they don't require this much, they may still exclude 'purely mechanical' processes, which is why Commons is able to host so many photographs of artworks. (A 2D facsimile representation of an artwork isn't seen as generating a new copyright, even though it may require technical skill in order to carry it out.) Then there is the AI question, where there is some (still undecided) move towards AI being fundamentally incapable of generating any new copyright (Personally I can't see this lasting past the first major studio wanting to protect its investment in an AI production, but we aren't there yet.)

So it's complicated, it depends where it was done, and the almost inevitable use of AI makes it even less likely to be copyrightable as a new work. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• BTW - thanks for the pointer to this film. It's absolutely fascinating. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Applying COM:GRAFFITI to Category:Graffiti on vehicles and subcats

Hello,

as I looked into Category:Graffiti on aircraft earlier today and subsequently wrote Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti on aircraft, I saw Category:Graffiti on vehicles and looked up COM:GRAFFITI. There, it's clearly stated that:

Not OK Graffiti are essentially murals that have been painted illegally. Graffiti are artworks painted in public spaces, sometimes without the property owner's consent. Such works are generally protected by copyright if they meet originality and fixation standards, even if created illegally. Courts in the US have upheld or recognized copyright in graffiti, for example Cohen v. G & M Realty L.P. (2018). In the UK, with regards to a mural authored by Banksy, the High Court "indicated obiter that copyright in the mural belongs prima facie to Banksy," in the Creative Foundation v Dreamland Leisure, Ltd. case (2015). One image of a French graffiti was deleted after a cease and desist letter from ADAGP that was sent to Wikimedia France.

Commons requires clear evidence of public domain status or a free license. OK Exceptions: Graffiti created in the U.S. before 1978 without a copyright notice may be in the public domain (use {{PD-US-no notice}}). Some countries allow photos of graffiti under freedom of panorama for 2D works, such as Germany and the Czech Republic. The US and many other countries do not (for example, the United Kingdom, Mongolia, and Canada).

Sadly, the Category:Graffiti on rail vehicles of the United States for instance is well-filled: "13 C, 2752 F". Some of the imagery should be OK per COM:TOO, like File:LIRR 165 and 168 working a ballast train 03.jpg. But I'm pondering how to reconcile COM:PRP & COM:CARES, COM:GRAFFITI, COM: DM US or any other country-specific rule, the guideline of COM:DM#Guidelines in regard to categorisation with each other in the most efficient way. For the moment, I'm thinking about using mass DR with manageable amounts (up to perhaps 50?) of files (with sub-sections as in my aircraft graffiti DR linked above or in that one), but I would only be able to rely upon my own understanding of TOO / De minimis. Especially for the US: does somebody have better pointers than the examples given in COM:TOO US? And where can one discuss the sense of having a specific category on a file (it's copyright-relevant per COM:DM#Guidelines)? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc I set up a mass deletion request last year for a similar issue. We were hosting dozens of photos of the graffiti and street art previously on display at 5 Pointz in New York (the graffiti at issue in Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P., 2018). I also basically relied on my own understanding of ToO and De minimis to decide what to include and what not to include. I mostly omitted graffiti tags that consisted of simple text and images where graffiti was obscured or very far away. 19h00s (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Satellite images

Are there available copyright guidelines regarding satellite images? My understanding is that their statues depend on the company that created them, meaning that for instance works by NASA are in the public dommain ({{Template:PD-USGov-NASA}}). What happens to images or screenshots from Google Maps or Google Streets, for instance? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Short answer: we can't use the Google stuff. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Misericorde title

Is the text from this image simple enough to be in the public domain if extracted?: en:File:Misericorde Volume One steam art.jpg. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I would certainly think so. Typography is almost never copyrightable. Might be trademarked. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 11 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)

Clothes with fancy textures

File:Shopping time! (41186524250).jpg Whether such textures can be copyrighted? And if so, would it affect photos as above? Thanks in advance. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Definitely not an issue in the U.S.; I'm not absolutely certain about Spain, though I am pretty certain that the strictest copyright laws in the world protecting clothing are in France, so if we can determine it would be OK there, then it should be in Spain. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am talking not about fashion design (not a problem), but about printed pattern, which can be visual work. This particular inclusion potentially may be de minimis (and definitely may not be FoP), but I am unsure. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  We do have COM:CLOTHES, but I'm also not certain where to draw the line.

  If the photo depicts someone wearing patterned clothes, I'd say that the design of the clothes is clearly De Minimis as it's just a byproduct but not the focus of the photo (which would be the depicted person usually).

  In cases like your given example it's a bit borderline as the clothes are the sole subject of the photo and that's where pattern design can become tricky copyright wise.

  However, in this particular case of yours I'd say it's De Minimis based on the argument that this is similar to a "general skyline view" of a city in a country that doesn't have Commons-compatible freedom of panorama: no item is the sole focus of the photo, it's just a general view of a shopping window display and therefore any singular item is de minimis. Nakonana (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Identificar el autor “Hormiga 90”

Estoy intentando identificar el autor de un etrato firmado aparentemente como “Hormiga 90”. La obra representa a Alfonso Carvajal Escobar y se encuentra en la Biblioteca de la Universidad Nacional de la sede Manizales]. No tiene placa ni ficha visible. Agradezco cualquier información sobre el artista, procedencia, fecha de creación, donación o contexto institucional. La consulta es para documentar correctamente la obra y verificar su estado de derechos antes de considerar una posible carga a Wikimedia Abeltran57 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abeltran57: si es en una biblioteca, es muy probable que la biblioteca sabe su origén. - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Regencies and provinces of Indonesia

Are Indonesian files such as the ones listed below free under {{PD-IDGov}}, {{PD-IDNoCopyright}}, or other circumstances?

• File:Congratulatory wreath for the inauguration of Koster-Giri Prasta.jpg
• File:I Gusti Putu Parwata, S.E.jpg
• File:Koster welcomes Suriname's foreign minister.jpg
• File:Koster speach in 2021 about Covid-19.ogg

— Wracking ( talk / contribs / uploads ) 03:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Similar question for files like File:Poster Kampanye Mulia-Pas 2024.jpg being claimed as government works. — Wracking ( talk / contribs / uploads ) 03:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wracking PD-IDGov is questionable at the very least. See discussion links under Template talk:PD-IDGov#References to recent discussions. The alleged supporting citations point to the provisions of the Article 43 of the Indonesian copyright law concerning free uses (exceptions or limitations to copyright), not public domain statement. This implies Indonesian government works remain protected, but can be freely used subject to Article 43, provisions a, b, and e. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, PD-IDGov is not the correct template name and should have been {{Copyrighted free use-IDGov}} (similar to {{Copyrighted free use}} licensing tag), but as Mdaniels5757 points out, the three provisions must meet COM:Licensing for the tag to be valid. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:50, 14 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)

License from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Hello again, I want to put some files into Commons but I don't know what license I should add. The files I want are from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the files I wanted to submit is here: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn538870

The museum states in the Rights and Restrictions part of the file is that it has "No restrictions on access" and "No restrictions on use", and in the Terms of Use part of the website, it states that:

A. Content Marked As Having No Restrictions on Use:
This Content may be used without receiving additional written permission from the Museum.

So what license should I put the files who have "No restrictions on access" as their rights?

DoNothingEveryday (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The file you linked is 18th century so it should be long out of copyright. Glrx (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} is the proper license. Yann (talk) 18:48, 12 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)

Is "Our Movie Guide" and "Empire" really providing videos under the creative commons license?

1) Our Movie Guide

They have videos on YouTube which are typically released under the "Creative Commons Attribution licence", like and . These are interviews they have with cast members of a movie. However, the video descriptions say "All rights, title and interest to the Materials, including the copyrights and trademarks therein, shall at all times be and remain with the studio and any other co-owner(s) of such copyrights and trademarks in the Materials." Am I able to take screenshots of these videos and upload them for the actors, under the license the video is under?

2) Empire Movies

They have trailers and teaser trailers of Masters of the Universe released under this "Creative Commons Attribution licence". I am more sceptical of this one as it is the full-on trailer of the movie. Is this also fine to take images from of cast members? jolielover♥talk 08:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't appear "Our Movie Guide" and "Empire" are the copyright holder of the videos you have linked. So, the Creative Commons license they have released the video under, are most likely invalid. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree for Empire, but why do you think OMG isn't the copyright holder? It seems like their interviews which they have uploaded to YouTube. jolielover♥talk 09:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In their YouTube description, it states "All materials provided by EPK.TV", then it says the paragraph you mentioned above "All rights, title and interest to the Materials...shall at all times be and remain with the studio...". This indicates to be that "OurMovieGuide" is just simply reuploading these videos that are available at "EPK.TV", hence they are not the copyright holder. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the explanation jolielover♥talk 09:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

What about Empire though? I did some digging and reliable sources (see peer-reviewed paper) report that they are a legitimate film distributor. I'm not an expert on the intricacies of copyright law so I don't know exactly how this affects copyright status (especially considering they're not the distributor in the United States) but it's worth bringing up. Maltazarian (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not enough to be a legitimate distributor of third-party content, Empire must actually own the copyright in the first place in order to permit further re-usage. The production companies who own the copyright to eg. Masters of the Universe may permit Empire to publish promotional materials on their YouTube channel, but Empire themselves do not have the right to license the content for external use. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Question

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)