United Nations "No Excuses" campaign

I am a bit confused on the license of the files in Category:No Excuses. All the files whose name starts with "No Excuses " say they are licensed under the CC-BY-SA and reference an OTRS ticket, while the rest of the files say they are copyrighted free use, referencing a quote from the website saying "The spots may be downloaded and used free of charge". The only difference from what I can tell between the copyrighted free use files and the CC-BY-SA files is that the latter are high resolution. What's the actual license the videos there are under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosAmber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@ChaosAmber: I would consider the statement "may be downloaded and used free of charge" an inadequate permission statement for being too vague (eg. does not specify if usage is permitted for all purposes including commercial). Had there not been a confirmation of the CC BY-SA license via VRT, it should have been deleted. For our purposes, the videos are under the CC BY-SA license and the "copyrighted free use" template should be replaced. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Are mugshots from the U.S. state of Georgia really in the public domain?

(courtesy ping @Moosey98: )

Recently, Moosey98 created {{PD-GAGov}}. I am concerned that the interpretation of Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) as meaning mugshots are public domain may be invalid. I note that this article discusses how someone can force websites to remove Georgia mugshots about them...and not just Georgia state government websites. If an image is truly in the public domain, it wouldn't be encumbered with such restrictions. This is covered in the OCGA under § 10-1-393.5 (see code). It is clear that Georgia, with exceptions, views a number of documents (including photographs) as "public records". It's not clear that this should be interpreted to mean "public domain". I am not a lawyer, so looking for input on this and whether this {{PD-GAGov}} is a truly valid template. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Right off the bat, the template notes that copying is permitted...but that's not the only economic right granted to the copyright holder. Is there clear and minimally controversial law which also encompasses things like distribution and adaptation? (The parallel situation in California was apparently that an appellate court said the public records law operated as a copyright waiver in the absence of legislation otherwise. Is that demonstrably the case in Georgia?) TheFeds 00:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I am also doubtful about the validity of this template. The template quotes from a Georgia statute that states that all public records shall be open for personal inspection and copying, but a reasonable interpretation of this could just as easily be shall be open for personal inspection and [personal] copying (why specify personal inspections only if you're going to allow unrestricted copying?) As far as I can tell, there is no case like w:Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner or w:County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition for Georgia, nor is there a statement by a relevant legal authority explicitly stating that Georgia public records are not copyrightable like {{PD-MAGov}}. Based5290 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear, but they could have specified personal inspection as meaning not requiring the government to put things online or mail out copies, or not requiring people to go through electronic hoops if they're willing to come in person to inspect the file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 perhaps Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org might be of the relevance? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Another source of the same casefile: this from GeorgiaRecorder.com. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That case was dealing with the government edicts doctrine, which does not apply to works made in a non lawmaking capacity (the SCOTUS majority opinion says that states are free to assert copyright in the vast majority of expressive works they produce, such as those created by their universities, libraries, tourism offices, and so on). Mugshots are unlikely to be made public domain via the government edicts doctrine as they are made by a police officer, not a legislator/legislature or a judge/court. Based5290 (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Moosey98, could you explain your interpretation of whether "copying" refers to every possible downstream reuse by any entity, or instead a requirement that the state agencies allow access to their records for the purpose of copying, after which the person with the copy must use their own judgment to reuse it as they believe the law permits? @Minermatt122514, @Mikeyspeed7, @Knightoftheswords281, @ElhamHusey & @PublicDomainFan08 you applied this template to files recently; any opinion on the above? Failing any convincing argument, I think the next steps would be to assess the files so tagged for alternative reasons for PD, and if none, deletion/transwiki (several originally from en.wikipedia as fair use). Broadly, it looks like criminal justice content, politicians' photos, and a few state agency logos. TheFeds 22:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If research shows it's legally public domain, then it is such. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read the specific legal codes, but I just want to say that even in the case of you being able to request a removal of your mugshot, that doesn't mean that it's not in PD. For instance, US Federal mugshots are typically not displayed at all, and US military band music is in PD, despite the fact that they sell them with cost. — Knightoftheswords 22:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in the specific legal codes that says "public domain", only "public record". Those are not the same thing, from an image licensing perspective. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I have a defense.

O.C.G.A. § 50-18-102 says "All records created or received in the performance of duty and paid for by public funds are deemed to be public property and shall constitute a record of public acts."

"Shall constitute a record of public acts" clearly means public records.

But then the phrase "public property" is used separately. Hmm... Why would you include two phrases that mean the same thing?

So, public property clearly means something different. The most obvious answer that I can think of is that it means public domain.

I did some more research and I found some interesting things. First of all, courts actually used to refer things not protected by copyright law as "public property." Then in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court used the term "public domain" which came from French law. The term "public domain" ended up becoming more commonplace than "public property."

https://web.archive.org/web/20151001043157/https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=facpubs

There is another court case that uses the term "public property" that I would like to mention. The case is Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

You can read up on the full case if you are interested (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/601/1523/1734702/), but here is the part where the court says something that proves public domain and public property are the same thing.

"In this case, the fact that Mayer permitted her design to enter the public domain is fatal to any claim she can assert. Any theory of liability she could advance would necessarily assume she holds some property interest in the snowflake design. Yet it is elementary that once copyrightable material is published without the author's first securing federal copyright protection, the author loses his property interest in the material. The material becomes public property."

This is referring to how you had to put a copyright notice on your work back then if you wanted federal copyright protection (you no longer need to do this). Failing to do so back then resulted in the work becoming public domain. The court says here that if a work was published without securing federal copyright protection, it becomes "public property."

So "public property" is a legal synonym for "public domain."

Public property = Public domain

So we can conclude that all records "created or received in the performance of duty and paid for by public funds" are public domain.

Now that I have given my defense for Georgia, I want to bring up North Carolina now.

I remembered that the North Carolina public records law says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law."

"Property of the people?"

Property of the people = Public property = Public domain.

To further back this up, I took a look at the website for the State Archives of North Carolina. It says, "State and local government records in the custody of the State Archives of North Carolina may be cited and published without permission. We do ask that the Archives be credited as the custodian of these materials."

https://archives.ncdcr.gov/researchers/services/permissions-and-citations

This implies that you can publish/use the records held by the archives however you wish without needing permission as long as you credit. This is basically their equivalent of a free use license such as CC BY 4.0 where you can use the work however you wish as long as you credit them.

Please let me know you think about all this. Minermatt122514 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, California and Florida have similar laws that forces websites to remove a person's mugshot if they receive a request from them to do so. But wait, California and Florida mugshots are in the public domain! It is a legal paradox.

Long story short, the law doesn't apply to us because we are a non-profit. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I was kind of following along with everything you posted up until the your summary in the last paragraph. The fact the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization is irrelevant to the copyright status of the mugshots. It's not a question of whether the law applies to "us", but whether the content Commons is hosting can be downloaded and reused by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose (including derivative and commercial reuse). So, even if the law may not apply to "us", it might not be OK for Commons to host per COM:LJ and COM:L if the law places a "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use only" type of restriction on other potential reusers of the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia’s Personality Rights Warning, a file can be completely free of copyright or in the public domain while remaining restricted by the legal rights of the person in the photo.

This policy seems to apply to the mugshots where an individual (the person in the mugshot) can restrict its use. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mug_shot_of_Carolina_Amesty.jpg Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My previous post was regarding "NC-ND" types of copyright restrictions because you seemed to be implying the the WMF has no problems with them because it's a non-profit; my post had nothing to do with personality rights or any other type of non-copyright restrictions. Those type of restrictions, as you point out, are not considered a problem for Commons by the Wikimedia Foundation. The template {{Personality rights}} can be used for files where such a thing could be a problem for those wanting to re-use the content. Ultimately, it's up to the reusers of the content being hosted by Commons to make sure they're doing in accordance with the local laws of wherever they live. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument regarding public property, but I would say that the more likely meaning in this context is "property owned by the state of Georgia". I refer generally to the entirety of chapter 16 of title 50 of the Georgia Code, entitled "Public Property", which apparently uses that sense of the word to refer to everything from art to livestock belonging to the state—but also uses the term to refer extensively to land and buildings. Many of those things cannot be said to be public in the sense of free to use (even nonrivalrously—there is no statutory public use right for the swine of the state of Georgia), or free to take (even when you have a right to access—you can enter the state court to observe, but you can't have the state court building, except by real estate process).

As currently organized, chapter 18 on public records and chapter 16 on public property are in the same title (50) of the state code, and it would stand to reason that the Code Revision Commission, when consolidating the public laws on the books, would have attempted to be consistent when working on material that would be published under the same title. (Although I haven't looked into their exact process, I imagine that if they'd found a conflict, they would have proposed a textual fix that the legislature would have passed in the next code revision statute.) I acknowledge the cited history of terminology ("Origins and Meanings of the Public Domain" by T. Ochoa) (quite interesting actually), but would suggest that it documents a linguistic shift around 1896–1945, and is specific to intellectual property—while the Georgia definition of public property is more expansive and is based on statutes both before and after that shift in U.S. federal copyright terminology. It seems unlikely for 50-18-102, first passed in 1975 and consolidated more recently, to refer to the pre-1896–1945 understanding for the purposes of intellectual property while still being read harmoniously for property in general according to the clear intent of chaper 16 (evidenced by its subject matter). TheFeds 07:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm trying to find the basis for the statement that Georgia does not allow a state agency to claim copyright unless specifically authorized. The old Harvard state copyright site listed Georgia as "yellow" as having very little on-point law or court cases; we typically needed some definite statement or court ruling pertaining to copyright in particular. Commons uses "public domain" in regards specifically to copyright, though there can be other meanings of that term in other contexts. A logo may be "public domain" here but still fully protected by trademark with lots of usage restrictions, for example. The right to remove mugshots is similarly a non-copyright restriction; it exists separately from copyright or any licensing tag here. Florida has a somewhat similar public records law, but they also have a state Supreme Court decision which decided the wording of that law impacted their actual copyright in government-authored works, and I'm not sure we have that with Georgia -- the wording could be subtly different. They do specifically allow some agencies to administer copyright (and other intellectual rights), as mentioned by the tag. In general, public records does not mean public domain in a copyright sense. So, we have normally needed to see something specifically mentioning copyright. I'm not sure we have that. This seems to me that it is entirely based on public records, and that the public is allowed to copy those records -- but of course, that does not mean they are allowed to exploit them in the copyright sense. Court evidence is public record, and as such people can request and make copies of those public records, but you have no right to publish them other than fair use (maybe discussing the court case). It was the Florida court case that decided the law's wording also meant that public records authored by the government were usually therefore void of copyright; without something similar from Georgia I am not at all comfortable with the tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Should we proceed with a request to deprecate the template and redirect it to {{Copyvio}}? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

The logo is a modification of the logo shown at File:Florida Today, January 19, 1977 - Snow Flurries Fall in Brevard.jpg. The 1977 logo unambiguously passed into the public domain due to formality shenanigans, so the new logo also has to clear the bar of having enough originality added beyond the elements present in the 1977 logo to gain copyright protection. To me, thickening the rings around the O and moving one of the balls on the ring around does not meet that bar. Based5290 (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say if the old one wasn't for sure free it might be pushing it, but it isn't different enough from the old one to be copyrightable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

We may not be allowed to host California and Florida mugshots here

Apparently, California and Florida have laws that restrict commercial use of mugshots. I thought that California and Florida mugshots were public domain though. If commercial use is restricted, our policies don't allow them to be on the Commons.

We seem to have reached a paradox here.

Are they or aren't they public domain? Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit, this seems to apply to the Personality Rights policy. So all mugshots should have this attached. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

They may be public domain in a copyright sense, but there can always be additional non-copyright restrictions that may need to be respected (or can apply to some uses in some areas). It's up to re-users to be aware of those. That mugshot right seems like something in between privacy rights and personality rights. That may end up being a community decision (or the WMF, if they become liable for violations) on how much to respect those, but a request coming from the pictured person may well be reasonable to honor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Third Reich and earlier German insignia and currency

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with intitle:DPLA German "Bank Note" -Morgenthau and Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Nazi Germany Fire Police Shoulder Insignia Patch Collected by Winfred Kenner sent me looking to find how parallel cases had been handled, and what I found was a mess. Lots of claims of "own work", lots of dealing only with the U.S. side of the copyright issue, etc. I looked to Commons:Currency#Germany for guidance, but what is there is basically nonsense: it begins "Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes," which would imply that a 19th-century German banknote is somehow still copyrighted. For the Nazi-era insignia, I could find even less guidance.

Besides these two particular DRs which should certainly be addressed, Commons:Currency#Germany needs to be clearer on older banknotes and coins, and somewhere we ought to have guidance on Nazi-era insignia (do we? Did I just not find it?) - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Worst case scenario: apply 70 years after author's death.

For Nazi banknotes:

• Richard Länger (1879–1950) designed the 10 Reichsmark (1929/1938) and 20 Reichsmark (1929/1936) banknotes
• Paul Scheurich (1883–1945) designed the 5 Reichsmark (1942), 50 Reichsmark (1933/1934), 100 Reichsmark (1935), and 1000 Reichsmark (1936) banknotes.

Nakonana (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

New Saudi Arabia copyright act - an update

See this article from Baker McKenzie website. Baker MacKenzie alleges a Freedom of Panorama rule has been introduced by virtue of this law, but we cannot confirm if it is indeed legit and is suitable for IT/new media era including the COM:Licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons. Gemini AI claims "Arabic Text: The original Arabic text was officially published on February 13, 2026, in the Saudi Official Gazette, Umm Al-Qura (Issue No. 5144). It is accessible through official Saudi legislative databases and specialized local platforms like DecreeSA." But, fingers crossed.

Other online source: from Decree Saudi, but this is not the copyright law's text (Arabic or English).

EastLaws.com has an alleged English text of the law but its content are behind registration wall. Title: "Royal Decree NO. 169 Published On 25 - 08 - 1447" and "Title: CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW."

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the issue of Ummul Qura Newspaper the text starts on page 13 and the FOP part is in article 29 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@999real the reading is:

المادة التاسعة والعشرون:
1- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، استخدام المصنف استخداماً عرضياً من خلال تضمين المصنفات
الموجودة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة في عمل فوتوغرافي، أو سمعي بصري، أو تسجيل صوتي مع جواز إعادة إنتاجه أو توزيعه أو تنفيذه أو عرضه أو نقله إلى الجمهور، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف
والغرض من المصنف.
٢- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، نسخ أعمال الفنون التطبيقية أو الشكل الخارجي للأعمال المعمارية الموضوعة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة عن طريق الرسم أو التصوير الفوتوغرافي وما شابه ذلك، وتوزيعها أو عرضها بأي وسيلة مماثلة، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف.

Google Translate verbatim:

Article Twenty-Nine:
1- Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including it in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording, provided that it may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, and provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.
2- Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be copied by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights.

It also seems de minimis became formal and legal under the law. But still, both the de minimis (incidental inclusion) and FoP provisions (Articles 29(1) and 29(2)) fall under this identical condition: "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights." Compliant with COM:Licensing or not?

Your thoughts? Also mention here @Clindberg@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow@Aristorkle@Yann@Ox1997cow (users whom I interacted with concerning FoP of all lands and jurisdictions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way thanks 999Real for the link. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think "incidental" and "de minimis" are quite the same thing -- the first is more unavoidable inclusion when focusing on something else (or a wider scene), and it may still be prominent (more than de minimis). But it doesn't extend to focusing on that work in particular. We tend to allow incidental inclusion anyways, but having it explicit is good. So, this seems like architectural-only FoP (and applied art, which is artistic aspects of otherwise utilitarian works). But not for public sculpture. I presume the last part of each section is the usual Berne limitation that FoP clauses can't infringe on other normal, direct usages of the underlying work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, according to Baker MacKenzie: "The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 13 February 2026 and will enter into force on 12 August 2026, replacing the 2003 Copyright Law that has governed the Kingdom for more than two decades." Also: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points. We will continue to monitor developments and will issue further updates as the regulation is published and as the new framework takes effect." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say that "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" means FOP does not always apply. If it is high resolution and not partially obscured, an image could be cropped from the work, blown up and published for commercial purposes. Do we have a volunteer to review the whole new law and update the CRT entry? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2 I just updated the CRT page of KSA. Thanks to Google Translate website's image translation feature, I was able to update almost the entirety of KSA's CRT page. I'm not sure if we will accept Saudi Arabia's first ever FoP clause. My hunch says "financial rights" is similar to "economic rights" since it is also the (translated) wording for the article on the copyright durations ("The financial rights....50 years..."). Kindly check the CRT page that I just revised. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I think "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" pretty much comes from the Berne Convention, which restricts *all* FoP clauses that way. I've always taken that to mean that you can't say make a photo that is basically a copy of an existing 2-D work, even if on public display, as that can compete directly with the original. Or a sculpture of a sculpture, that sort of thing. In other words, something that adversely affects the existing market for direct copies of the original work itself. I would think that is rare for public photos where the pictured item is just part of a scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging three users from threads at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia: @Ashashyou, Liuxinyu970226, and Aymatth2: . For their opinions and insights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@999real@Clindberg kindly check my updates to COM:SAUDI ARABIA, in particular the terms and the FoP section. It also appears photographs no longer enjoy the shorter copyright term. Instead, the 25-year term only applies to applied arts. The good news is, the new terms are not retroactive (but due to lo-onger US terms, this is pretty much useless). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition: Google Translate's feature to translate foreign language content within images really helped. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @DarwIn and @Bedivere, both of whom commented at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/03#Review of COM:FOP Malawi. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is also worthwhile mentioning all of the users who participated at the Arabic Wikipedia FoP-issue discussion (w:ar:نقاش القالب:حرية البانوراما فقط في الولايات المتحدة), for attention and comments concerning the newly-introduced FoP rule for Saudi Arabia under the new (2026) copyright law that will take effect this August 12, 2026. @جيمي, Ibrahim.ID, Abu aamir, and Dr-Taher: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

When are US wire photos considered published?

When is a wire photo by a news agency (eg. Associated Press, United Press International) first considered "published" for the purpose of US copyright? Does publication occur when:

• a copy of the wire photo is distributed to the newspaper company
• or when the wire photo actually appears in the printed publication of a newspaper?

If the former is the case, then does the existence of a wire photo without a copyright notice (such as this one sold on eBay), mean the photo itself is in the public domain due to Template:PD-US-no notice? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: The concept of publication in the U.S. changed considerably in 1978; prior to that, almost any distribution constituted publication. Also, the practices of the news agencies evolved over time. As you probably know, before 1 March 1989, you had to go through some formalities to retain copyright in the U.S. The news agencies mostly didn't bother (though I gather that over time they slowly began to bother in some cases), because their mian business model was for news organizations to pay them for their teletype/wire feed, and the value of that feed was in its timeliness. They basically didn't really care that someone would use the photo a month or two later, it wasn't worth the hassle to pursue. My own take is that for a 1972 AP photo, it would be very exceptional for it to be copyrighted, exceptional enough that I would say the burden of proof would lie with the person who wanted to argue that it is copyrighted; I'd be interested, though, to know if someone sees this differently. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's probably technically published when copies are sent to the newspaper company. However, the loss of copyright requires physical copies to actually be distributed without notice, not simply published in any way (from the wording of the part of the law which stated copyright was lost). The physical copy of a wire photo was printed out at the clients and not really distributed after that, and not sure about notice requirements on something transmitted like that. So, not entirely sure those lost copyright as a result right then. Hard to say if there was some other part of the transmission that had a copyright notice; I really don't know. I'm a little leery over making decisions over physical copies of wire photos. I doubt there was a court case to really decide the issue. It's possible, as there were often captions printed along with the photo and copyright notices may have needed to be in that -- but maybe cropped by the newspaper, who knows. The actual newspapers were obviously distributed of course, but one client forgetting a copyright notice may not have lost the copyright. It was distributions done by the owning company that mattered more, but since those were transmitted over telephone lines, I'm not really sure if there was a way to lose copyright that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Per copyright laws, offering to distribute copies (as evidenced by the production of the wire photo card) counted as publication. I would say distribution without notice on the photo card to be a loss of copyright; after all, some of these cards did include notices. Unless a photo was exceptionally good and relevant AP and especially UPI almost never bothered, as noted by the library of congress. If a photo is particularly well regarded or famous, they probably did. However, they did sometimes include notices when they redistributed photos from other papers that were copyrighted; this notice was supposed to be included in the paper as well and usually was from what I have seen, every time I have seen a wire photo scan with a copyright notice, the newspapers also carried the notice (though like all newspaper attribution things, on rare occasion they sometimes messed up, this is why it is good to check multiple copies) so publication in newspapers without notice is also valid evidence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but offering to distribute copies, then not actually distributing them, apparently does not lose copyright (even if it does start the publication time clock). Although, that may be different before 1978. Since 1978, the law mandated a copyright notice on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived. So, if a work was technically published, but not distributed, a missing or defective notice would not lose copyright. There was one Copyright Appeals decision which got into that distinction, here. That was about a movie which was offered for sale in Germany in 1983, with a defective notice on its one copy. It was screened for prospective buyers, meaning it was offered for sale (rather in that case, an offer to distribute copies for purposes of further distribution or public display), but apparently the offer was not accepted as no copies were actually distributed. The Copyright Office therefore decided that copyright had not been lost, despite having been published in 1983, and allowed registration in 2022 (but the 95 year clock still started in 1983). All of that analysis however was using the 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978. The 1909 law may not have had that particular "distributed" distinction, as that law did require notice on all copies published or offered for sale. That does get into thornier questions when you involve technology that the original law could not contemplate, and where notice needed to be on such copies, and if that form was only necessary for their clients to understand copyright existed. If there was a physical copy distributed by AP or UPI, that definitely needed a notice. Something transmitted over a phone line and printed internally at client sites, I'm less sure. As for lack of notice in a newspaper, a copyright notice on the newspaper as a whole would prevent loss of copyright for that particular publication. If copyright had been lost earlier, of course that didn't matter. I guess I'm a bit dubious on whether we can take lack of notice in a newspaper to mean there was lack of notice when AP/UPI distributed a work to clients. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. But then what would we be counting here? If it isn't offering, and it isn't the appearance in a newspaper, what would we be counting for a proper notice or lack thereof? The copyright appeals decision vis a vis the film is that the work was never distributed to the public, which is not the case for a press photo that was printed and distributed (whether on cards or in a paper) - per the language used in the case, they were "publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner". Perhaps the logic would be that the clock starts ticking but then wherever it is first distributed to the public the notice/no notice requirement comes in.

And a copyright notice for the newspaper prevents loss of copyright for that particular publication but not for works not owned by the newspaper that they included. They can't copyright something they don't own. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of the Peter Elfelt collection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• We also have {{PD-Because|Insert exact text from the webpage}}. It has been used when we did mass uploads from archives that released images from their archives under "no known copyright restrictions". --RAN (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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

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

The relevant facts are:

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

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

My questions are:

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

VRT ticket: 2026072610000676

Thank you very much for your assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest removing the statements about the United States and requiring a United States copyright template in all cases. After the United States dropped the renewal requirement, it became very easy to satisfy the copyright formalities, and after the copyright notice requirement was dropped, all photographs fail COM:SC. It gets even more confusing if the template is used alongside source+United States templates for non-Brazilian photos of relevance for Brazilian people. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the first publication was in 2026 on Commons then USA will be the source country and the image would be copyrighted until 2062. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

May I add these portraits?

Hi, may I add portraits of: Móric Pálfi, Paulína Pálfiová and Jozef Pálfi from https://www.smolenice.com/22260/kaplnka-sv-vendelina-s-palfiovskou-hrobkou ? --Bakjb (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We need more information. Who took the photographs? If you know who the photographer was and he died before 1956, then it is OK to add the portraits concerned.

If you do not know who took the portraits and they were not published until 70 years had passed since they were taken, then it is OK.

If you do not know who took the photographs and they were published published within 70 years of being taken, then you must wait for 70 years after they were published.

In summary, you should contact the Smolenice Municipality and find out who took the photographs, when the photographer died, when they were taken and when they were first published. You should also read this page. Martinvl (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Might not be necessary unless Slovakia has some "protection after first publication clause". In case of Móric Pálfi (1812-1897) and Paulína Pálfiová, rod. Wilczeková(1829-1894) any photo of them was taken more than 120 years ago so that they are in the public domain per {{PD-old-assumed}} (as long as Slovakia doesn't offer protection after first publication). Now as for Jozef Pálfi(1853-1920), here we would need more information. Nakonana (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Slovakia is EU member, and all EU members have publication rights. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. In some countries there are laws that protect works that are technically in the public domain. Take for example an unpublished painting by an artist who died in 1920. Per the usual copyright protection laws, the painting has entered the public domain 70+1 years after the author's death, that would be 1991. However, in some countries there are additional laws that protect a work after its first publication (but for a shorter term than regular copyright protection, for example for 25 years). If said painting was first published in 2010, it is possible that it can not be hosted on Commons until 2035/2036 despite the author having been dead for over 70 years, because it is granted another 25 years of protection after first publication. Nakonana (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: so it actually regains a previously lost copyright? For your hypothetical example, does this mean:

• Author dies in 1920.
• Unpublished work enters public domain in 1991.
• Some arbitrary unrelated person publishes it in 2010 and gets 25 years of copyright protection.
  • (And presumably, since the work was PD, anyone could do that last.)

Or are you saying something else? I mean, I certainly could imagine:

• Author dies in 1950.
• Unpublished work would normally have entered public domain in 2021.
• Heirs publish in 2015 and get 25 years of copyright protection.

But that is a very different scenario than you described. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If an unpublished work enters the public domain (usually per {{PD-old-70}} or {{Anonymous-EU}}) and is then published, whoever published the work (who could be unrelated to the original author) gets copyright protection for 25 years from publication. However, if the work is published before the copyright expires (for example, if the work is published 69 years after the death of the author), the 25-year term is not granted. From w:Copyright Duration Directive:

Stefan2 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

OGL3 vs Open Government Licence 3.0

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

Yes, it should be a redirect. Although the original editor of the first template, @User:Rui Zhong(Rachel Zhong) appears to have intended it as a Transport for London or UK Ordnance Survey version of OGL3, it isn't being used for that purpose. The subsequent user, @User:Kingsif uploaded several images, which might be OGL3 via a different governmental agency. TheFeds 01:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Photo of USCGC MIDGETT (WMSL-757)

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

• Is there reason to believe the photo is the work of a U.S. federal government employee? - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I can tell you that the image was first published by an official social media account of mission managed by the U.S. Department of State. I have not found any earlier publication or any indication that it originated from a third party. News reports using the image also cite the official account as the source. JamsSmith1 (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you link to the image? It's possible that it's floating around somewhere on DVIDS, which would save us some grief with authorship. Based5290 (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

It has long been considered that {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} is also {{PD-1996}} in US with rare exceptions. However, photographs that remained unpublished for a long period may still be protected under U.S. subsisting copyright, and is not uncommon for old photographs from private collections. I'd like to invite someone familiar with U.S. copyright law to the discussion at Template_talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto#US_copyright_status. Thanks in advance. Mzaki (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Newspapers from Iran

Hi, Dalba has uploaded a lot of scans of newspapers from Iran with {{PD-Iran}}. However it doesn't seem to me that this license is valid. DR of one file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ettelaat13450720.pdf. Could I get more opinions before creating a mass DR? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you questioning the validity of the template itself or whether its applicable to Dalba's uploads? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is not applicable to these files. The template itself is fine. Yann (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The template states that the copyright expires 30 years after publication for works which belong "to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person". Do you believe the copyright to the newspaper does not belong to a legal person? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about Iran, but usually copyright of a newspaper belongs to the authors, unless the articles are anonymous. Is it different in Iran? I have never seen such a case, where the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not to the authors. Yann (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A newspaper article is a work for hire. In some countries, such as the United States, the copyright to a work for hire normally belongs to the employer. In other countries, such as Sweden, the copyright to a work for hire normally belongs to the employee. I don't know what Iranian law says about works for hire. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"Work for hire"? Well, it depends very much on the contract between the journalist and the newspaper. At least in France, even if an article is a work of command, the copyright belongs to the author, unless it is specified otherwise in the contract. This is specifically the case for freelance journalists. I think that the case almost anywhere in the world: by default, the copyright is owned by the author, not by the publisher or the employer. We already have had this discussion many times, always with the same result. Yann (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I get the impression that the US and France are pretty much on two extremes of this issue; I don't know where Iran's copyright law sits, but I don't think we can assume one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable on Iran's copyright law but maybe this part gives a clue: "In the following cases works fall into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16): [...] In cases where the work belongs to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person". Journalism businesses are typically legal persons. As a work for hire, (France may be an exception) these works usually belong to the legal person. Bedivere (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also the U.S. side of this. Because Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention, there has been no URAA restoration, so for any works on or before 28 February 1989, barring the unlikely case where someone went through U.S. copyright formalities, the work is public domain in the U.S., so no problem there. However, Iranian works from 1 March 1989 onward would still be copyrighted in the U.S, even if they have now lost copyright in Iran. So we can really only use this on Commons for works published on or before 28 February 1989. [Or am I wrong about that, and does first publication in a non-Berne country somehow lose U.S. copyright for more recent works?] - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If a country doesn't have copyright relations with the US, then a work by their nationals published on their territory doesn't have copyright protection in the US. There's other ways besides Berne; WTO countries have copyright protection in the US. There's a lot of other theoretical ways, like bilateral treaties and UCC, but outside cases where a now independent state may or may not be honoring previous agreements, all states with copyright relations with the US are members of Berne or the WTO. (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf also lists "The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled", which Iraq and the Marshall Islands have signed as the only copyright treaty--I have no idea if that has an impact on anything. Said document lists all the US copyright treaties and includes the relevant law, as well.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Iran not being a member of the Berne Convention comes with other traps. If the author is not an Iranian citizen, the source country is the country of citizenship or residence of the author. For example, on page 7 of File:Ettelaat13450720.pdf, there is an advertisement for Traktoroexport, a Soviet company, so there is a plausible reason to assume that the advertisement was created in part or in full by Soviet citizens living in the Soviet Union. The text might have been written by someone in Iran (or written in the USSR and translated in Iran, who knows?), but what about the photos? For our purposes, the Soviet Union being the source country would mean that we need to ensure that the copyright has expired in Russia and also that the advertisement was in the public domain in Russia when the copyright to Russian works was restored in the United States. There's bound to be lots of traps like this in Iranian newspapers where some contributions to the newspapers are made by foreign citizens or foreign residents, such as advertisements for foreign countries or photographs taken abroad. Even an article by an Iranian journalist stationed outside Iran might count as a work from the country where the journalist is stationed. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, dotting i's and crossing t's here is going to be a lot of work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I'm trying to understand how this works. Let's say an artist in Iran paints a picture, but does not publish it. Does that mean it doesn't have the normal protection that the U.S. gives and unpublished work? Or do they have that initially, but lose it if their work is published in an Iranian magazine? And what if that Iranian citizen is living in France? Would their unpublished work be protected on the basis of residence rather than citizenship? I find this all very confusing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The legal phrasing is in the document I linked above. Unpublished works are always subject to protection. Published works are protected if "on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled" or "the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party" ("a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party, as the case may be.") So pretty much only works by Iranian authors living in Iran published only in Iran are not copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Authors from non-Berne countries were always able to initially publish their work in a Berne country, and get protection under the convention that way. The "country of origin" is that first country of publication, not necessarily where the author is from or lives. The U.S. explicitly protects unpublished works from anywhere by anyone, as mentioned, until they are published -- it is only then that nationality-related questions can be answered. This is from 17 USC 104. The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author. Once published, then you know which country it was published in (Berne or UCC or other treaty country), and where the authors were living at the time (again, in the U.S. or a treaty country would have protection). If someone is considered "stateless" at that point they also get protection. So in your example, the author has U.S. protection while unpublished (of course, usually hard to exploit something without publishing it -- mainly, this is preserving their choice of when or how to first publish it). They would lose their U.S. copyright if published in an Iranian magazine and they are still living in Iran. If living in France, it is protected because they are a domiciliary of a treaty country (France). If they lost copyright because they are living in Iran, and Iran and the U.S. ever become treaty partners, then the U.S. would restore protection provided (on the date the treaty becomes effective) the work was still protected in Iran, per the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Documentation and photographs from Polish National Institute of Cultural Heritage

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

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

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

@Yann (tagged the files for speedy deletion). The source link provides https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.pl as license if one clicks on the Informacje tab as described above. That would be {{Cc-zero}} instead of the currently used PD-Polish symbol license tag. Changing the license tag should fix the issue, right? Nakonana (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

So now after adding a proper tag can I remove speedy deletion tag, or should I challenge every file for normal deletion? Pko (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case you can just remove the deletion request and add the license review template instead. GPSLeo (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, DR closed, license reviewed. Yann (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Z-Library seizure.jpg and de minimis

Can anyone with a better understanding of copyright rules explain to me why the pictures displayed on the original upload (link) had to be removed/pixelated by two experienced editors and revdelled? The upload is merely a work of the US federal government and not some original composite work of mine wherein I decided myself to use copyrighted photos (and even if it were I still would think there isn't a problem); would anyone dare say the federal gov't violated copyright laws? They had a right to use those images because it was fair use to them, and since they were allowed to use those images, the images themselves should become de minimis to the whole work. Would anyone say that in a governmental report that quotes copyrighted material, the quoted passages should be excised before it can be uploaded here?

Furthermore, another editor in May placed a clear label on this upload (before the removal) that the copyrighted portions are de minimis, so these subsequent two editors are clearly disagreeing with or the first or did not see his de minimis template. I therefore ask for clarification if people agree this was an erroneous revision.

Pinging @Yacàwotçã, The Squirrel Conspiracy who edited the file. Dreykop (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No, "fair use" for images within the larger image doesn't somehow magically become de minimis when the larger image is reused. But also: if it's de minimis, then by definition blurring or pixelating it should have no significant effect on the usefulness of the resulting image. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The photos were not taken by the US government, at least certainly not the selfie with the people that were arrested. Therefore, the photos are not US government works, and the copyright is held by the original photographers. De minimis is not about the size of the images take in the work, it's about prominence, and considering that the web page is directing people to look at the photos, it's hard to argue they aren't a major focus.

As for why I did the pixelation, I thought that it was a better solution than the crop. I only knew about Yacàwotçã's prop because I'm one of the few admins that remembers to patrol the backlog of old revisions that need to get hidden. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, so I now understand it is not de minimis (I had understood de minimis to be a matter of whether it's the whole or main part of the work vs. a small part of a larger work, provided it was legitimately used within that larger work), but would this then mean that any governmental report or publication that quotes or displays copyrighted content needs to first have all copyrighted material removed/blurred before it can be uploaded to Commons? Because that is no different than this case, where the four images are displayed by the government to demonstrate something, and I'm sure I can go around and find examples of this in government publications here on Commons. Dreykop (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dreykop: Typically, yes, removal or blurring is required unless it is actually de minimis. A few examples of things that would be de minimis: an out-of-focus painting in the background, a logo on someone's clothing, a few seconds of music coming from a passing vehicle in a video (as long as the music was not obviously central to the video). - Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I allowed to scan and upload this photograph dated 1888?

I found this image of the Hauptkadettenanstalt with this license (click the "§" symbol to the lower right of the image): "Provenance/Rights: Landesgeschichtliche Vereinigung für die Mark Brandenburg e.V., Archiv / Sophus Williams (CC BY)" and would like to use it at Preußische Hauptkadettenanstalt. The photographer, Sophus Williams, died in 1900. I found another one of his photographs on Commons with the PD-old-100 license template.

According to Williams's German WP page, he published series of his own photographs. The one of the Hauptkadettenanstalt was published in 1888 as part of the series "Berlin und Umgebung" (Berlin and surrounds). The print uploaded to museum-digital.de's website was purchased by them in 2012. Below is the Google-translated text of the German "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz), § 72 Lichtbilder" (Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act), section 72, Photographic Works).

(1) Photographs and products produced in a manner similar to photographs are protected in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 applicable to photographic works. (2) The right under paragraph 1 belongs to the photographer. (3) The right under paragraph 1 expires fifty years after the publication of the photograph or, if its first authorized public reproduction occurred earlier, after such first reproduction, but also fifty years after its production if the photograph has not been published or authorized to be publicly reproduced within this period. The term is calculated in accordance with Section 69.

Google translation of section 69:

§ 69g Application of other legal provisions; contract law (1) The provisions of this section do not affect the application of other legal provisions to computer programs—in particular those concerning the protection of inventions, topographies of semiconductor products, trademarks, and protection against unfair competition (including the protection of trade and business secrets)—or contractual agreements. (2) Contractual provisions that conflict with § 69d subsections (2), (3), (5), or (7) or with § 69e are void.

Section 69 Calculation of time limits
The time limits under this Section commence at the end of the calendar year in which the event determining the start of the time limit occurred.. I cited the wrong section on the time limits (69g applies to computer programs). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume that the antiquarian bookshop that sold the print to museum-digital didn't have a license agreement with Williams or his heirs, but I'm not a lawyer. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure about the German side of this for works that were published only recently, but in the U.S. all ways a work by someone who died in 1900 could currently be copyrighted require that it was first published between 1931 and 2002 inclusive (1931 will move year-by-year for the next several decades, 2002 will not). If published before 1931, then it has necessarily passed into the public domain on the basis of publication date + 95 years; if unpublished on 1 January 2003, when the U.S. law changed, it passed into the U.S. public domain on the basis of p.m.a. + 70. And, of course, there are other ways that works published in the U.S. 1931 - 28 February 1989 could lose copyright through lack of conforming to copyright formalities; also, works published elsewhere and lacking those formalities regained U.S. copyright 1 January 1996(or other dates for some countries that joined the Berne convention after that, which is not relevant for Germany) only if they were still copyrighted in their country of first publication. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Part of the inscription on the photograph says "Photographie und Verlag von Sophus Williams, Berlin 1888" (Photograph and publishing by Sophus Williams, Berlin 1988). That would mean that under German law the copyright protection expired at the end of 1938. The provenance/rights note on the photograph says it's CC BY but it seems it needs to which version. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You wrote "1888" in the German an "1988" in the English translation. May I assume the "1988" was just a typo, rather than the quoted German original being wrong?

If the work was published in 1888 by someone who died in 1900, it is simply {{PD-old-auto-expired|1900}}. As far as I can tell, there cannot possibly be a valid CC license, because by the time CC licenses were introduced, there was already no one with a valid copyright claim in any country, and so no one who could grant such a license.

When I read your original post, I presumed you were asking about photos of his besides the ones that were published in his lifetime, since the case was so clear-cut for any published within his lifetime. Reading more closely, I see that "The print uploaded to museum-digital.de's website" means a print of the same photo that you said was published in 1888. My apologies for not seeing that; for copyright purposes, the only way it would matter that there were different prints is if they were differently cropped. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you for the info. My apologies for the typo—not the first time I wrote 19 instead of 18. I once wrote that the Army of the Cumberland commissioned a memorial to Civil War general Thomas in 1979, by which time the Army had long since ceased to exist, instead of 1879; didn't notice it until eight days later. So I'll make a screenshot of the print, upload it with the old-auto-expired template, and use "https://berlin.museum-digital.de/object/116740" as the source? Is there any special wording for the "Permission (reusing this file)" part that goes along with the template or do I omit this parameter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I assume that by "the old-auto-expired template" you mean {{PD-old-auto-expired}}, the template I referred to. It does not have a parameter "Permission (reusing this file)", so I don't know how to answer your question. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Sorry, I just assumed the parameter would be there, hadn't tried to upload the image yet. I've done so now, and the upload was accepted. Thanks again for your help. One thing I haven't figured out is how to link to Williams's creator page or alternatively his German Wikipedia page to get rid of the red link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: looks like User:Aa77zz did the remaining steps for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you, User:Aa77zz. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality?

Can someone please have a look at this logo and check if ToO applies? Thanks, --~2026-42190-76 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It may well be below the German ToO taking into account that this logo was ruled to be below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Uploading photos by deceased family members

Hi, I have a family archive of photos that I think would be valuable for Commons that were taken by family members who have since passed away. I would like to upload a selection of some of these photos to Commons (and thus release them with a CC license) and I am a legal heir of the estates in question and I have permission of other legal heirs as well (I am certain that the copyrights of these photos in question belong to the family members in question and not other parties). Are there guidelines on how to do this please? KFP (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Guidelines for heirs licensing inherited works

Category:Commons:Heirs licensing

Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs

These should help. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into these. Will be a long-term project though since there's a lot of stuff including historical material that hasn't even been digitized yet. KFP (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Photos exposed by exploiting an API call WordPress vulnerability on US Senate website

Regarding File:Darline Graham official portrait.jpg

The photo has not been officially published anywhere, but was exposed by the uploader by exploiting a WordPress API vulnerability.

In their edit adding the image, the uploader states: "I know about how WordPress websites work and I made an API call to her Senate website to list all media uploaded to the site. I quickly found it afterwards."

First of all, is it kosher to upload images obtained via exploit to Commons?

Second of all, even if it were, how do we know the licensing status of this image? We have zero information about this image other than the fact that it exists. RachelTensions (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

That's... Yeesh. I can't speak to the policy implications, I do not know if it's OK to upload unpublished images obtained via an exploit like that. But from a copyright standpoint, it's somewhat murky to me. The photo was definitely taken the day she was sworn in, not sure if it was before or after the ceremony (presumably before, as she is not wearing a Congressional pin yet). It could have been taken by a member of her personal team/family/friends who joined her that day (i.e., not federal staff), a member of her Senate staff (which, at that point, would've been like 3 people, at the absolute most, as she was sworn in *that* day for a sudden opening), a professional photographer working for the Senate (seems unlikely, it's not the highest quality photo), or another unknown person with a different connection to the Senator. If they had actually published the photo on their website, I would've been much more comfortable assuming the person who made it was a federal employee. But they didn't publish it, it's just sitting on their server without being used.

What I am sure of though, is that the caption is definitely inaccurate. There's no way that's her official Senate portrait.

Courtesy tag to the uploader, @Minermatt122514. 19h00s (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The quoted edit summary doesn't say anything about that particular exploit. Is there evidence that they used it or that there is no innocent possibility? Perhaps they consulted the public API documentation, or even merely constructed a URL from knowledge of how similar URLs are formatted on the same site?

I wonder whether there is specific case law (because realistically, the relevant statutes are pre-Internet) about whether posting at an undisclosed URL on a site that will nevertheless dutifully serve the file, is publication? Does it matter whether the URL is obvious in context, versus obsfuscated to a particular degree? TheFeds 17:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@19h00s: The composition of the portrait photo is really similar to that of Sens. Rochester (file) and Alsobrooks (file). It's possible it was the same photographer for the senate. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I guess I'm used to the more "traditionally" composed ones, like Sens. Van Hollen (file) or King (file). They're normally posed with a background of either the Capitol or a flag. In any case, the photos of Sens. Rochester and Alsobrooks are readily available on their websites, having been explicitly published. I still feel weird about this situation and I think I will continue to feel weird unless and until the photo is explicitly published on Sen. Graham's website/elsewhere. If it wasn't taken by a federal staffer, they'll almost certainly credit the image to its non-federal author; if it's definitely a photo by their office or Senate staff, then it either won't have a credited author or will say something like "The Office of Senator Darline Graham" or "Senate Photography Studio". 19h00s (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not use a vulnerability. All you have to do is add to is https://example.com/wp-json/wp/v2/media and it will list media uploaded to the website.

WordPress literally mentions it on their developer website. This is an intentional feature. This is what it gave me at my access level. There are parts of the API that are restricted to logged in users, but this is not one of them.

https://developer.wordpress.org/rest-api/reference/media/

Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I was actually already aware of how the API worked without needing to consult that documentation because I work for an organization and manage their website which uses WordPress. So I was already familiar with it. Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't use an exploit.

The WordPress rest API handbook (https://developer.wordpress.org/rest-api/reference/media/) says you can list media uploaded to a WordPress website by using this API call:

https://example.com/wp-json/wp/v2/media

This is an intentional feature. Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for assuming the image was obtained via an exploit - WordPress image related exploits have been in the news lately so I assumed this was obtained that way.

I guess this discussion would center around copyright status more than anything else. We don’t have any information on the image other than the fact that it exists? so can’t determine its copyright status. RachelTensions (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We do know that it was taken on the same day as the swearing-in ceremony because she is wearing the same clothing.

Why don't we just contact Senator Graham's office and inquire about who took that photo to get to the bottom of this? If it was taken by a federal employee keep it. If it was taken by a contractor, ask the contractor if they will release it under a free license. If they will do that, keep it. If not, delete it.

My thought process though is why would you waste time and money taking a separate photo on that day if you are going to have an official portrait taken? I'm thinking it is the official portrait because it wouldn't make sense to waste time on a separate photo.

I will say though that the choice of a white background makes it easy for editors to composite the portrait into different things. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment For File:Darline Graham official portrait.jpg, if the author is unknown, the license is not valid. It would be valid only if the author is an officer or employee of the United States Federal Government. Yann (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: if you're searching for case law about copyright matters on undisclosed images, I'd suggest that you try to find cases about leaked classified media. There was something in the 1980's, involving Jane's Group and en:KH-11 spy satellite imagery (-> en:KH-11 KENNEN#Compromises), and the en:Snowden disclosures. There may have been court procedures involving and refuting copyright protection on those and other high profile cases (published via Wikileaks). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; open court proceedings are where I would draw the line. I don't want anything to do with actual material that is plausibly or even arguably controlled. (Not any kind of professional obligation; just no desire to partake.) I was thinking more along the lines of pedestrian stuff like an artist posting files to their own website, unaware that the web server's index.html was configured to automatically list it even though they had used a random filename. TheFeds 21:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I have proof that they are aware of it. The users query of the API is enabled by default (https://myththrazz.medium.com/wordpress-rest-api-performance-disable-what-you-dont-need-e3d6eb1223c4). However, it has been disabled implying that they know about the API. This means that the media part of the API was intentionally left enabled. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.dgraham.senate.gov/wp-json/wp/v2/users

This returns access denied. By default, it would actually list the users who can edit the website. So someone did make further restrictions to the API other than the default ones, but left the media one unrestricted. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Grand-Duc and de minimis problem

Regarding the deletion request of China Airlines aircraft images because of copyrighted arts on aircraft tail.

I think User:Grand-Duc is over restricting the de minimis to only the level of File:A_Porsche_997_GT2_in_front_of_Boutique_de_parfumerie_Guerlain,_356_rue_Saint-Honoré.jpg and anything above is copyright violation, but what I see the deletion requests of aircraft images by Grand-Duc, while most of them are deleted for copyrighted characters covered all of aircraft (such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8288 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA754A (aircraft) etc.), a few of these deletion requests are closed as keep because the de minimis apply (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PT-MUA (aircraft) in Stormtroopers livery) (having similar case of China Airlines aircraft tails) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Airbus A320 VN-A680 at Tan Son Nhat Oct 2014.jpg, having new evidence (Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA marinjambo jr. tak.jpg).

User:S5A-0043, User:Nick-D and even the official Commons:De minimis policy are saying clear. KMB1933 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I would say the Batman poster in File:A_Porsche_997_GT2_in_front_of_Boutique_de_parfumerie_Guerlain,_356_rue_Saint-Honoré.jpg is, indeed, just short of the cutoff level for de minimis. It is saved only by the fact that it is somewhat out of focus. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For me, a photo of the entire plane should be fine -- the livery is incidental. That is not the same as de minimis, which they may well not be, though we mention this on the Commons:De minimis page. Basically, the subject is a wider scope, and the copyrighted work is unavoidable. This is the same as the Ets-Hokins decision, where a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrighted label on the bottle (unless you are focusing on the label). So any crop or focusing on the artwork itself is a problem, but the entire plane should be OK. There are rulings to this effect in the U.S. and France, and several countries mention this explicitly in their laws. Other countries are more nebulous but I'm not sure I've seen a ruling against that theory anywhere, so I would prefer to assume it applies more generally until we get such a ruling. There needs to be some line where a logo artist does not get derivative rights over every photo their work appears in, and that one seems to be the most common one. The incidental line does not include photos focusing on the element, or photos where the element was intentionally included for effect. But, I do think we should apply that rule more generally. If you claim "de minimis" though, that is a different legal standard, and people may well delete when they (validly) reject that argument. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Must concur with thee; the grand duke is ignoring past Keep decisions by consensus from many years ago. Can't let this slide further without giving considerations on alternative options (move to Wikipedias or other site preserving the licenses they had on upload).

In light of the Marine Jumbo file; if he keeps adding more of these request templates to related, those of the three A380s of ANA would be condemned as well. Outside of Japan, probably the ones with pandas. Such discussions mustn't be ignored and undeletion requests of a handful (for the purpose of inclusion to WP articles if needed) soon as possible. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Do you have some case law descriptions or legal scholar opinions about what may constitute "focusing" on copyrighted material? The Pokémon in File:CHINA AIRLINES A321-271NX B-18101 HND RJTT 08-OCT-2022 (52412820078).jpg for instance are quite highlighted by virtue of the lighting and having the plane centred in the frame. From a photographer's standpoint, I'd say that there is an artistic focus on them (and, necessarily, an optical one). Do I understand you correctly that your sentence The incidental line does not include photos focusing on the element, or photos where the element was intentionally included for effect. is meant to not cover such imagery, because it is a valid assumption that the spotter shot is meant to include the livery "for effect"? That's creating an innate contradiction between it and "but the entire plane should be OK", though. On the other hand, I can easily understand it as proposal for consensus to have images like the China Airlines Pokéjet as "Not OK" and images like File:JR East E231-500 (Yamanote Line) with Pokémon advertisement 2009-08-03.jpg or File:E311-1001 at Utsunomiya Station 20080914.jpg as borderline OK for incidental inclusions. The train images do not optically and artistically put as much emphasis on the Pokémon artwork as the CAL plane still.

Furthermore, I just read through Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and noticed the section s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.#2. The Bottle Is Not Copyrightable which reads: Under the Copyright Act, the design of a useful article, such as a bottle, is not protected unless the design includes features that exist separately from utilitarian ones. And THAT sentence alone arguably makes "Ets-Hokin" inapplicable to vehicle liveries, especially artistic plane paintworks! Choosing a colourful painting in the shapes of Pokémon, flowers, mascots, etc., actually puts a premium onto artistic considerations and relegates technical, utilitarian considerations (temperature resistance, corrosion resistance, weather resistance, aerodynamics...) on the second rank. Colourful paintworks that are only applied to selected parts are especially bad in regard to controlling the heating under solar light and alleviating thermal stresses in the airframe - uniform colours are much much better in that regard. So, artistic artwork liveries are meant to mostly be just that, artistic, and are well-separated from utilitarian aspects of painting an aircraft, in fact, those artistic elements are actually technically reducing the utilitarian value (of the livery) for fulfilling pure artistic purposes, as they arguably show for a quicker wear of the utilitarian object, the vehicle, they are applied to. The Pokémon are already existing as independent works of art, in video games, on trading cards, in manga and anime and merchandise. Both criteria tested in the Ets-Hokin case, that liveries have elements that "[include] features that exist separately from utilitarian ones" and that "can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article" are fulfilled. About the other factors: the pre-existing works, the Pokémon (or mascots or similar), are unambiguously copyrightable, so livery shots are derivatives of them.

@Poketalker: Could you please stop in referring to me using terms related to nobility, like "grand duke" or "Großherzog"? The persistence in doing so lately gives me the feel that you're perhaps intending to frame me as hidebound / reactionary, something similar or as being aloof. The intended etymology of my nickname is penned on my userpage (in German and English) and bears no relationship whatsoever to aristocracy. Thank you. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Which of these hardware licenses are permitted on Wikimedia Commons?

On NIH 3D, there are a few licenses that some models are released under that do not currently have templates on Commons. These licenses include the following:

NIH links to the Open Source Hardware Association for each of these licenses. If these licenses are permitted on Commons, what is the process for the text to include in a license template? ForeverFlying (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Heritage rephotography project — questions on licensing and uploading to Commons

Hello, I'm developing a heritage-oriented rephotography. The idea: a user photographs a place, and others can later re-take the exact same framing over time. Accumulating these successive shots documents how a place changes — a kind of visual timeline, useful for heritage and scientific purposes (I already have interest from climate researchers who want to attach dated observations to it). The app would offer two modes. A personal mode, private, with no connection to Commons. And a community mode, free, where contributors would explicitly agree to release their photos under a free license (CC BY-SA) for upload to Wikimedia Commons, committing to photograph only copyright-free subjects consistent with the project's documentary mission. Before going further, I'd like to lay out the approach and ask for your input on two points. 1. Licensing and contributor rights. Does the model "the contributor releases their rights by publishing under a free license" seem sound to you? How should I collect valid, informed consent within the app (wording, traceability)? And how should I handle the case of minors, who cannot license away rights on their own? Are there pitfalls I should anticipate? 2. Uploading to Commons. What is the proper procedure for an application that would upload images to Commons programmatically? Is a bot flag required, or a GLAM-partnership framework? Are there rate limits or best practices to follow so this isn't seen as uncoordinated mass uploading? If this belongs on a different page, please point me there and I'll gladly move it. Thanks in advance for your guidance. ~2026-36659-32 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36659-32: Nothing definitive about what I'm saying here, but here's how I would approach it:

• Things will probably be simplest if all of the free-licensed content on your site has a single license. Since people are uniformly uploading their own work, that would not present the problem for you that it would for a respository like Commons. (I'd suggest CC-BY 4.0.) As long as your UI is such that the granting of such a license amounts to informed consent, that should be fine for Commons.
• You may want to think about a grace period in which people can retract a license. (Commons normally allows a week for this.)
• You may want to think about a way someone can grant a license later if they do not do so at time of upload.
• Commons usually accepts licenses offered by minors; we are looser about letting them revoke those after the fact, but if they are still minors when they want to revoke it, we've been known to say, "Yes, but please don't upload anything else until you reach the age of majority, because this creates some chaos." If you are more concerned with this, and with the follow-up to Commons, you probably should age-screen on your site and not allow minors to offer a license.
• There are a lot of ways the upload to Commons can be done; a bot account is probably the best idea and, yes, that would need a bot flag. If you are allowing (say) a one-week grace period in which someone can retract a license, it might make sense to have the bot upload only files where that grace period has expired. You can do that by having the grant of a license queue up a file to be uploaded to Commons seven days later, and then have your bot check at upload time to validate the license.
• If you don't already have a proper account here, could you please create one? It sounds like there may be a fair amount of back-and-forth here, and it is much harder to do that in communicating with a temporary account. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Jmabel, thank you very much for this detailed answer, it helps a lot.

  I created a permanent account (this one). I read all your points and they are clear to me.

  I will use a single license, CC BY 4.0, as you suggest. My app already asks the user to confirm they are the author, that the subject is free of rights, and that they accept the license before taking a community photo.

  I understand the idea of the 7-day grace period, and I like your suggestion to combine it with the upload: the photo goes to Commons only after 7 days, and the bot checks the license is still valid at that moment.

  For minors, I will follow your advice and not allow them to offer a license (age check in the app). They can still use the app in private mode.

  I will create a dedicated bot account and ask for a bot flag, and I will read the rate-limit and bot policy pages before I start.

  Thank you both, Jmabel and @Nakonana — I will also look at the official Commons app to see how it handles the upload. I will come back with more questions when I start the bot part. JDoulos (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you know the Commons app: (GitHub: )? You might want to take a look on how they are handling things like the upload process and licensing issue. Nakonana (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36659-32 and yes, there are rate limits. The bot policy might also be relevant. Nakonana (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

International Criminal Court (ICC) photos

On the ICC's official website, there's a photograph of Joseph Kony that I believe should be added to Commons so it may be added to the article. However, I am unsure whether or not ICC photos are in the public domain (or are even useable); could someone confirm the copyright over ICC works? KneeHallHawk (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@KneeHallHawk Not sure which photograph you are referring to, but the photo at the Kony Case main page is unlikely a work of ICC. Even if it is, I cannot find any indication that ICC works would be in public domain, especially when their terms and conditions states "Copyright © International Criminal Court 2003-2016. All rights reserved. None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means...without permission in writing from the publisher". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate your help :) KneeHallHawk (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Trump Truth Social posts

There may be a copyright dispute for posts by Donald Trump on Truth Social, which includes files in Category:Screenshots of Truth Social (among others). Per The Intercept:

Trump has also set a new standard for blurring the lines between his communications as a public official and a private citizen.

For nearly half a century, communications from the president have been recognized as the property of the United States, not the president himself. Under the Presidential Records Act, any documents (with some carve-outs for national security and personal records like journals and diaries) that are “created or received by the President … in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President” are subject to the United States’ “complete ownership, possession, and control.”

In other words, selling expedited access to such statements is effectively privatizing a public asset. That might be part of the reason why, this spring, Trump’s Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that argues the heretofore uncontroversial Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.

If it is true the Trump administration is attempting to privatize the posts on his Truth Social account, do they have a claim of copyright in the US? Would this mean we would have to delete screenshots of posts containing an extended amount of text? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

(This would not involve posts containing text too minimal to be copyrighted, eg. here, but obviously would for extended pieces, eg. here). – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I would make the same argument to Commons that I would to anyone else in the media, writ large: no preemptive surrender. If Trump wants to carve out a novel legal claim, pay no attention to the new "rule" unless it is upheld by a judge. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not be lightly scared away from the established edges of the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploads

I just hit upon a whole series of uploads of drawings by a living artist. There is no indication of a permission by the artist. Not sure how to handle this, can someone check please? --~2026-42663-43 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Strange, all other uploads by this user with works from other artists have valid VRT tickets (e.g. File:“Composition XXVIII” (1976), Museum für Zeitgenössische Glasmalerei, Langen, Germany.jpg). But the uploader does not identify themselves as the artist on enwiki. Nakonana (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the ones that were kept have valid tickets. Or you could put it the other way around: Those with valid tickets were kept. Quite a number were deleted too, just look at her talk page. To judge by that page, one gets the impression that she uploads first and asks later. --~2026-42789-06 (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I tagged a couple of images as missing evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Issues with songs from NickRewind clips

NickRewind has, as many know, been releasing clips from old television shows like iCarly, Victorious, and others, under a Creative Commons Attribution license on YouTube. My issue is with songs and music that appear as part of this.

Take File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm for example. The copyrights are also possessed by Columbia Records in addition to Nickelodeon Records, which is owned by a separate entity from Paramount/SkyDance. So is this song here fully available under the CC BY terms if only NickRewind releases it under CC BY? We have several other files like this, so we need to sort this out. The visuals might be released under CC BY, but is the audio? Aplucas0703 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Works of Government of American Samoa

I propose to create {{PD-US-ASGov}} for works by AS Government, because {{PD-American Samoa}} is focused on works, first published in AS by citizens of non-Berne countries. Works of AS Government is in public domain regardless of applicability of copyright law to AS, or simultaneous publication in mainland United States. Thoughts? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

DR categorization on URAA cases

In this DR @Rosenzweig and @Günther Frager have underscored that post-1989 cases in which a work is in PD in the country of origin but not in the US are not technically URAA cases and therefore thay shouldn't be categorized as such. Nevertheless, I think that it's useful to keep track of them (for example because in the future we may decide that we accept PD-works in non-FoP countries which are permanently visible from public spaces, just as we do with non-PD works in FoP-countries).
Therefore I'd propose to create a more general category (something like Category:US law-related deletion requests on foreign works) that could host also the post-1989 works. The URAA categories would then become subcategories of this more general one. Any opinion on the matter? Friniate (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If the work was copyrighted in the source country on the URAA date, then it is copyrighted in the United States, either per COM:URAA or per COM:SC, but we usually don't check why it is copyrighted (as it doesn't matter to us). However, it is probably a good idea to have a common tracking category for all such deletion requests (which could differentiate between COM:URAA and COM:SC if we know the reason for the work being unfree in the United States). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stefan2 I was referring to the proposals made by various users during this discussion, but that was just an example anyway. Friniate (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Image licensed under OGL3 but metadata has additional restrictions?

I'm looking at some images uploaded by a sock group (Vanderpumpstan) that doesn't always do the best at following copyright, but this is an interesting one. The image is File:Downing Street hosts the Dame Barbara Windsor Dementia Mission 10.jpg and it's from the UK Government flickr account. Flickr says the license is CC BY_NC_ND 2.0. The exif data on the image says Crown copyright, licensed under the Open Government License, but then has "This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." Contradictory information - what license should be used for these images and is it compatible with Commons? Related to this File:Prime Minister Boris Johnson hosts meeting with Scott Mitchell 2.jpg also says Crown copyright, nothing in exif about the OGL, but the same "can not be used for advertising or commercial use" phrasing. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe these photos aren't licensed under OGL at all ("except where otherwise stated"), but it isn't clear why OGL is mentioned, if it isn't applicable. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

generic publish copyright tag for sound recordings, films and photos?

in the vast majority of countries sound recordings are calculated from publication not the death of the author so its very strange that this does not have a separate tag by itself

for films fewer countries have publication and use death of "principal persons" but they still are in the minority globally as far as i can tell

some countries do still apply flat publication for photos as well

so there should be generic publish + 50/70/other years but with a disclaimer that this work is not public domain in certain areas due to local laws unless following the rule of the shorter term or other exceptions instead of having to use many separate tags Noob282 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

To upload anything to commons, it has to be public domain in the United States as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

yes i know but this is for countries that have publication based copyright for these works instead of death date ones Noob282 (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. So far, this hasn't been a big issue, because any sound recording 1927 or later is still copyrighted in the U.S., and anything 1926 or earlier, tagged as PD in the U.S., is also PD almost everywhere else, but it starts to get more complicated next year as more works come out of copyright in the U.S., and (if nothing else) we might want to one or more tags that do something more like what we do with {{PD-auto-expired}}, but using date of publication rather than a death date. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

File:The Holiday for all the Family (10291803986).jpg

File:The Holiday for all the Family (10291803986).jpg is marked as "No copyright restrictions", but no reason specified. This drawing was first published (and likely created) in 1952, so it was under copyright on URAA date. If it is anonymous work, {{PD-UK-anon}} applies now, but was not applicable on date of publication by archive. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: so what is there to discuss here? If nothing, start a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Poems on the Underground posters

Hello - I am trying to get an extra picture or several for the Poems on the Underground wiki page. The project website includes images of all the posters used since its inception in 1986 but does not have a copyright statement that I can find. Most of the posters are simple (but distinctively styled) text layouts of a poem, with no art. After reading the guidance on copyright by subject matter and on threshold of originality, I am still worried I'm not understanding correctly and have two questions:

1) Am I right in thinking that we could reproduce a poster if:

• the poem used is itself public domain by virtue of its age,
• AND the design includes only text and no art,
• AND the poster was published more than 25 years ago and so is no longer protected by UK law about typographical arrangement?

E.g. this one (poem 1800s, poster published 1986) or this one (poem 17th century, poster published 1996)

2) If so, what would be the correct combination of tags for it?

Any help extremely appreciated. Obleronet (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Obleronet: (1) yes.

(2) This is a case where I'd probably break it down a bit, and possibly put it in the "permission" section of {{Information}}. E.g. for https://poemsontheunderground.org/ozymandias-2, something like:

Poem: {{PD-old-auto-expired|1822}}
Design (under U.S. law) {{PD-ineligible}}
Design (under UK law) {{PD-UK-typographical}}

I don't think we have a super-elegant way to tie those together, but it might exist. Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you so much. Obleronet (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Question about PD status of a Czechoslovak photograph

Hi all. As part of a good article review about the Ukrainian National Union, I have to verify the public domain status of this photograph of a UNO election truck. The PD tag states, per Czechoslovak copyright law, that it should have come into the public domain 50 years after publication, however it does not provide evidence of its original publication; I tried searching around to see if I could find it, but wasn't able. It also doesn't provide an author, nor could I find one. I think it'd be a shame for the article to lose this image, as this is the only photograph of the UNO we have available on commons (the other images are all posters), so wanted to ask here if someone can help verify the PD status of this image. Thanks in advance. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)