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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

another thing, would march 2 1989 to december 31 1995 works be okay to upload on english wikipedia? because it would fail the point regarding copyright formalities and as far as i can tell it requires that as well to be eligible for restoration in the us Noob282 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No, beginning 1 March 1989 copyright in the U.S. no longer requires any notice or registration. Any works from that date or later would have had U.S. copyrights beginning at the moment of creation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

understood Noob282 (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

Photos taken abroad - which law to apply?

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yolandal got me thinking: It seems that the photographer of most of these photos is from the Netherlands. Some of them are taken on vacations in Italy (and other countries). Not just specific to this case (which is complicated by the uploader claiming "own work" for everything when it's probably not), I wonder: If someone from a country like the Netherlands or Germany, where photographs of landscapes or people usually enjoy the full copyright protection term of 70 years after the creator's death, goes to a country like Italy which has {{PD-Italy}} (photographs only protected for 20 years), takes some photos there, then goes back home, never publishing the photos in Italy, are the photos considered works from Italy (where they were undoubtedly created - but in the case of old photos on film, maybe not developed) or from their home country? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

As author of the comment about PD-Italy, you've a fair point actually, I didn't think about it. I agree with you that since Italy is not the country of origin we should apply the Netherlands' law, I'll strike my comment. Friniate (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we use freedom of panorama type stuff based on where the photo was taken from. But, "country of origin" is the country of first publication. So someone taking photos in one country, and publishing them in another, the country of origin is the latter country (and per policy the one we would use for term). In real life of course, even if first published in a country with a longer term, the term inside Italy is still the shorter one -- the term always depends on the country where copies are actually distributed, regardless of first publication.

In the internet age of course, there is a question if it's simultaneously published in many countries, which would get into all sorts of strange tiebreaker rules in the current Berne text. I'm sure there have been some discussions on how to adapt the Berne rules for cases like that, but don't think any have gotten close to actually amending it. Granted, this is mainly only an issue when the rule of the shorter term is in question, which is pretty rare in a copyright case. "Country of origin" is more important to Commons due to our policy, but it usually doesn't matter much elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, regarding the specific case, these photos by a (probably) Dutch photographer (or photographers), taken in various countries including Italy, are apparently personal family photos (and that was the nominator's reason for the DR, though I think there are good reasons to consider many of them as being in scope, as discussed there) that were previously unpublished, so their publication on Commons constitutes simultaneous world-wide first publication...? (in all countries where Wikimedia Commons is accessible, so probably most excluding possibly a few including China, North Korea, Iran...). Though specifically {{PD-Italy}} apparently doesn't base its protection term on the date of publication, but of creation of a photo ("a period of 20 years from creation"), so for Italy, the creation in Italy might still be of relevance...? But I don't suppose the Netherlands would consider such a photo a "work from Italy"... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Side note, the files in the mentioned case have all been kept now "per discussion"; a decision I don't quite understand, as there were arguments to keep some (not all) of them as possibly in scope, and the copyright question wasn't even addressed by the admin who processed the request, but I'm not hugely opposed to keeping them... Gestumblindi (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Airborneo logo

I believed this logo could be upload because it has only used text and geomitrical. Can? Thebaldball (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thebaldball: I would think so. Certainly no problem in the U.S.; I know nothing about copyright law for Borneo/Malaysia. Category:AirBorneo already includes two photos that show this logo. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, what about this one? It said the license is commerical.

https://www.loupiote.com/photos/short-sc-7-skyvan-6452120755.shtml Thebaldball (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That license is not fit for Commons unfortunately, so no. Jonteemil (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright issue with File:Scotland in Union logo.png

This logo is not Creative Commons-licensed as stated on its Commons page. Based on other similar logos such as File:BBC Logo 2021.svg, it could be eligible to remain on Commons in light of the UK's lower threshold of originality compared with other countries. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The user who independently drew this logo released their work under a CC license, althouth {{Pd-text}} also is necessary. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The UK raised theirs a bit recently. I think this would be below the old ToO, but the new ToO it would be free. It's just a circle and a basic font, no symbols or unique lettering; the new ToO requires individual character, which this does not have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I've relicensed it with {{PD-textlogo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

URAA date for pre-1958 India photos?

This affects some photos I nominated for deletion (that were taken in India in the early to mid 1940s). Pre-1958, the copyright for photos in India was create+50. This was changed in 1958, but not changed retroactively, though I am unsure if that means photos taken pre-1958 go by pre-1958 rules or only ones that expired already? The templates Template:PD-India-photo-1958 and Template:PD-India-URAA suggest that it is photos in 1941 or before that would not have their copyrights restored by the URAA - but wouldn't this be 1946, since 1996-50 = 1946? Where is the 41 coming from? In 2015, @Deepak (SUL) changed it from 1946 to 1941. I don't see why.

Does anyone more well informed on this know what the free URAA date here would be (date a photo created in India would be PD per the URAA)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: A photo from 1946 with 50 years copyright would still have been copyrighted on 1 January 1996. A photo from 1945 would just have come out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Oh, yeah. Still, why does it say 1941? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not a clue. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If it is 1945, both of the files I nominated for deletion should be kept, so this is of importance to my current situation... PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

At Template talk:PD-India-URAA, Yann suggested that in 1991, term lengths were increased to 60 years for all photographs whose copyright had not yet expired, making all photographs from 1941 or later copyrighted in 1996. There is a bit more background at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gandhi and Jinnah Bombay 1944.jpg and in this footnote on the English Wikipedia URAA table page. Felix QW (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that explains it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of a soccer ball drawing

Hi, In many football club logos, the main design is the ball. File:PFC Septemvri Sofia Logo.png is the typical example. Is this OK or not? Yann (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We at least have two more of that: File:Septemvri Sofia (ancien logo).svg and File:Septemvri Sofia.png. But there's no COM:TOO Bulgaria page to help with assessment. The former file says "ancien logo" (so, "old logo") and was taken from an unofficial fan website (НЕОФИЦИАЛЕН ФЕН САЙТ), while the latter has the following text its upload history: "Емблема на ФК Септември (София) © 2007 http://clubs.bul-foot.org" (Emblem of FC Septemvri (Sofia) © 2007). Maybe not that old of a logo? The club (or the logo?) was established in 1944 according to the categorization of the latter file. Nakonana (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Frwiki says it's protected by copyright, but the logo on frwiki is a bit different from the above, see . The colors and ball are different. Nakonana (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The logo is from 1988, so definitely not ancient enough in Commons copyright-sense. Nakonana (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

My question is about the threshold of originality of a soccer ball. Another example: File:Reggina 2026.png. Yann (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There are also basketball logos with a basketball as the main part of the logo, hockey puck for ice hockey etc. Jonteemil (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:FC Volendam logo.png is a good example. Jonteemil (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the ball is original enough. What was the creative process, and how did it differ from (for example) mechanically tracing a photo of a soccer ball? The roundness of the ball is utilitarian. The pattern is not novel. Given the old logo, I think the assignment was to depict a conventional ball using a line drawing, rather than to embellish the shape in any creative manner that could lead to a copyright. TheFeds 06:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

PD-Japan-film and PD-Japan-audio

as far as i can tell it should apply to all pre-1971 films credited to individuals not just prior to 1953 as implied by the template because the "pre-1953" rule is for companies only when it was extended in 2004.

the old law is only applied if it is longer than the term provided by current law (generally most cases for individuals), otherwise the current law would apply which explains the "kurosawa rule".

for sound recordings it seems that they only expire from publication since 1971 also

therefore for pre-1971 recordings a term of performer death + 30 years applies unless it expires more than 70 years after 1971

english source : https://www.bunka.go.jp/english/policy/copyright/pdf/93468601_03.pdf

If the length of the term of protection has been extended under the revised Acts, then the revised term of protection shall apply only to those works whose copyrights have not yet expired as of the time of the enactment of the respective revised Acts. If the term of protection for works from the era of the Old Act is longer under the Old Act than the revised Acts, the longer term of protection shall be applied

The Old Act protected copyrights for musical performances, vocal performances, and phonograms for a period of 30 years after the death of the author (or 30 years after publication for works attributed to an organization).

therefore it should instead be this:

PD-Japan-film; URAA compliant: This film from Japan before 1971 is now in the public domain in both Japan and the United States due to meeting one of the following conditions:

1. It was published in or before 1945 and is credited to a person who died in or before 1957.

2. It is a film credited to an anonymous person or pseudonym published in or before 1945.

3. It is a film credited to a corporation published in or before 1945.

4. It is a "non-creative" cinematographic work (news and documentary films) published in or before 1957.

PD-Japan-film; Non-URAA compliant: This film from Japan before 1971 is now in the public domain in Japan due to meeting one of the following conditions:

1. It was published in or before 1955 and is credited to a person who died in or before 1987.

2. It is a film credited to an anonymous person or pseudonym published in or before 1955.

3. It is a film credited to a corporation published in or before 1955.

4. It is a "non-creative" cinematographic work (news and documentary films) published in or before 1957.

PD-Japan audio (not that relevant due to music modernization act but still, in 2042 it can be changed due to being published more than 70 years ago):

This Japanese musical performance, vocal performance or phonogram was published before 1971, and its neighboring rights have expired in Japan due to meeting one of the following criteria:

1. It was published in or before 1967 who is credited to a person who died in or before 1987.

2. It is credited to a corporation or other entity published in or before 1967. Noob282 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

For sound recordings, keep in mind that files also have to comply with United States copyright law per Commons policy. The United States copyright term is given in {{PD-US-record}}. For pre-1972 sound recordings, the copyright term is longer than for other kinds of material and it also doesn't matter if the sound recording was protected in Japan in 1996 or not; it is copyrighted in the United States regardless. Probably 100 years from publication is longer than 30 years from the death of the author in most cases.

There is s:ja:著作権法 (明治32年法律第39号) which seems to be the original law from Meiji 32. For example, it says:

Then there is s:ja:著作権法中改正法律 (明治43年法律第63号) which says

so Article 52 was repealed in Meiji 43 (making architectural works copyrighted). Probably sound recordings also became copyrighted at some later point. Does this also apply to sound recordings created before that change to the law?

Is s:ja:著作権法の一部を改正する法律 (昭和44年法律第82号)/著作権法 the most recent version of the law? There is a more recent Article 52 which states that the copyright term is extended from 30 years to 38 years pma, but this does not apply to sound recordings and performances.

Better put the URAA stuff on a documentation page and not in the template itself. The PD-Japan-xxx templates should only describe the copyright status in Japan. There are other traps with United States copyright law such as COM:SC which means that some Japanese works may be copyrighted in the United States even if they were in the public domain in Japan on the URAA date. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

yes i am aware that us copyright for sound recordings is far longer than japanese copyright and covers them regardless

per the interpretation of the law posed in the source the 1969 version is the one used for all works that did not expire by that point but not ones that were expired

already Noob282 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This file needs to be brought back

This file needs to be brought back, as it was taken by Georgia police, making it public domain. I will change the license to that one. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

COM:UDR is usually the forum for undeletion requests. File:Paulding County Deputy Michael McMaster slams Tyler Lee Canaris to the Ground.webm would be the file I deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

massive swath of license laundering by User:Brian Boru

User:Brian Boru seems to have more than 700 images which correspond to be license laundering, see here here and here

I actually don't want to manually bulk nominate them under CSD F6 but I also don't want to create an account and maybe get semi-automated tooling so it's a bit faster to do that ~2026-36983-09 (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The Art Journal

Hi, I don't want to quibble, but these issues were published in UK, and lack a license for the country of origin. It is unlikely to be still under a copyright, but we do not have a license for this case, unless one wants to check all authors. Yann (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:The Art Journal, vol. 71, 1909 (IA gri 33125006187864).pdf
• File:The Art Journal, vol. 70, 1908 (IA gri 33125006187856).pdf
• File:The Art Journal, vol. 69, 1907 (IA gri 33125006187849).pdf
• File:The Art Journal, vol. 68, 1906 (IA gri 33125006187831).pdf

I checked File:The Art Journal, vol. 71, 1909 (IA gri 33125006187864).pdf, page 11, where they list the names of some of the artists. There are two kinds of illustrations. Some are paintings (which have a painter), but the magazine has etchings of the paintings (and the etchings were made by someone else). The other illustrations are original etchings. As I understand it, the person who painted the original pantings, and the person who made the original etching, need to be dead for at least 70 years. The person who converted the painting to an etching maybe needs to be dead for 70 years (if the conversion meets the threshold of originalty). I found that most people have been dead for at least 70 years. These were the only exceptions:

• E. Marsden Wilson, A.R.E. (1877–1965) converted the painting by C. M. Webb (1830–1895) at the beginning of the issue into an etching (on page 6 of the PDF).
• E. Marsden Wilson, A.R.E. also made an original etching. This page is  Not OK.
• Hester Frood (1882–1971), original etching. This page is  Not OK.
• I can't find the death years for Luke Taylor, R.E., or Robert W. Stewart.

There are many illustrations which are not listed on page 11. I did not look up those. Also, I did not look up the people who wrote the text. Some possibly died less than 70 years ago. Everyone seems to be listed on page 14, but without death years, so it would take a lot of time to look them up.

I didn't check the remaining three files at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your research. I have checked succinctly the other files: same problem. Yann (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Art Journal, vol. 71, 1909 (IA gri 33125006187864).pdf
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Art Journal, vol. 70, 1908 (IA gri 33125006187856).pdf
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Art Journal, vol. 68, 1906 (IA gri 33125006187831).pdf
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Art Journal, vol. 69, 1907 (IA gri 33125006187849).pdf

What to do after deletion request hits 7 day threshold?

I submitted a deletion request on June 28 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Odeon Jan 1960.jpg), and it's been more than the 7 days that the deletion guidelines suggest waiting for. What should I do next? I haven't heard back from the original uploader or an admin, and I'm not sure if there's anything I should be doing to nudge the process along. Vlcice (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vlcice: There are deletion requests open for more than 200 days(!). This 7-day period is only meant to guarantee an offer of sufficient discussion time, not that a closure must happen at this threshold. A DR closure may happen any time after 7 days have elapsed; there's no need to do some nudging. In the actual case, a speedy deletion request as COM:CSD#F1 or COM:CSD#F3 could be made, but we can also simply wait for an admin passing by the DR page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Als Grand-Duc says, unfortunately, there is a huge backlog of open deletion requests and it is quite normal that a request is only processed after severel weeks or months. It will be processed, but some patience is often needed. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ahh got it, that makes sense! Thanks for clarifying, and I'm happy to be patient. Just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed doing something I was supposed to. Do you think I should open a speedy deletion request, or just wait for the discussion to resolve? Vlcice (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

URAA and "publication" of photos

The Template:PD-US-1996 template says only published works. How would it apply to works that were PD in their home country in 1996 but which I don't know if it was "published"?

Say I have a photo from 1936 in India that was never verifiably published (I mean, it probably was, but who knows) until it appeared online in the mid-2000s from someone scanning a copy of the original photo print. Since India was create+50, it was PD in 1996, but how is it affected in the USA? Does URAA not apply because it was never put into a magazine? Does it instead go by the unpublished works rules? What counts as "unpublished" for a photo?

Or, say I have a photo from 1908 that appeared in France that is too simple for copyright in France. But I also have no proof it was published until it was scanned online in the 2000s.

According to Commons, publication means "appeared in copies that the public could have access to" under US law. so I'm inclined to believe all cases may be unfree - which is a problem, because for this one rather notorious individual I am trying to check the copyright statuses of the photos for, I have no clue if the photos were actually "published". I'm inclined to believe all of these would be non-free in the USA, right? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The France example is borderline {{PD-old-assumed}}. (Not sure there's anything below French TOO though, the bar is very low.)

Who's the individual you are talking about? Maybe a native language speaker from their country would have more success in determining publication status. Nakonana (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana For photos, France has a very high ToO. A court recently ruled that most news images could not be copyrighted . Basic photography like ID photos are also not copyrighted.

And I can read French and have friends who are native speakers. For an obscure figure there is just no way to do it. (It's Savitri Devi). PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

A court recently ruled that most news images could not be copyrighted. That's quite an exaggerated interpretation. The court dismiss AFP, but still requires FSJU to pay 7,000 euros. Yann (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The court said they weren't copyrighted due to a lack of originality. The reason they had to pay was not because of copyright but due to business competition rules. Direct quote: "débouter l’AFP de sa demande de contrefaçon de droits d’auteur en raison de l’absence d’originalité des clichés litigieux et de l’absence de preuve de la cession des droits d’auteurs ;" [dismiss AFP’s copyright infringement claim due to the lack of originality of the photographs in dispute and the absence of proof of the assignment of copyright] PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: All pictures of India from before 1941 are in the public domain in India and in USA. The old copyright law was from the date of creation. Yann (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann See question above, I don't think that's true. Wouldn't it be 1945, even if so?

And yes, but they weren't published, so the URAA does not impact them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: What is not true? 1941 or 1945 depends on whether another law was retroactive or not. Yann (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann Ah, the explanation above explained why it was 1941 and not 1945. Thank you, that is what I meant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that Indian pre-1941 photographs may be protected in the United States per COM:SC. Probably uncommon for photos published close to when they were created, but it is a different thing if they remained unpublished for a while. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but again, how do we determine what is "published" for a photograph? I've seen people on this board argue that a photograph being taken constituted publication. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Barring concrete evidence, it's always a bit of a judgement call. For clearly amateur work, we almost always presume unpublished unless there is specific evidence of publication. For clearly professional work, we tend to lean the other way, especially if there appears something that looks more or less contemporary with the photograph written on it (a photographer's mark, a description of what is shown, or even a number unless we know that particular photographer tended to number and file their unpublished work). It's also a strike against presuming publication if we know that a similar photo (likely to be from the same shoot) was published, in a context where usually only one photo from the shoot would be used (e.g. if someone is shooting a formal portrait, and they took half a dozen photos, probably only one got used). It's trickiest when we have no good idea whether the photo is by a professional or not. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

argue that a photograph being taken constituted publication — rather "taken and handed over to the customer who commissioned it". Though, iirc I've only seen this argument in the context of US work due to US-specific definitions of what constitutes "publishing". Nakonana (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A claim of taken = publication is extraordinary, so it needs extraordinary evidence. It almost always fails. Publication is usually related to some form of copying the original work with the permission of the rightsholder and offering the copies to the public (whether for sale, or something else). The weird case of spontaneous portraiture is very fact-specific, and it's a good intellectual exercise, but the exact facts are not as closely aligned to ordinary photography as they might seem. (Is it a work for hire where the copyright belongs to the commissioner ab initio, not the photographer? But they took the photo and then hawked it to you after: you didn't have an agreement. Unless you did, because they were agents of the theme park executing their duties in fulfillment of your purchased experience? Unless you waived that in your ticket's release of rights?) TheFeds 11:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No, taking a picture doesn't constitute publication. But for old picture, say pre-World War II, most people didn't own a camera. So pictures were not taken by the people would use it. So these pictures were published when they left the photographer's custody. I would say in 99% of cases, that's the case. Only in some cases, when the photographers kept the pictures in their archives, they were not published. Yann (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: pre-World War II, most people didn't own a camera. While I'm sure that is literally true, there were parts of the world where camera ownership was quite common long before that. The Smithsonian says Kodak had sold 1.2 million Brownie cameras by the end of 1905. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean. None of us can agree on anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is often impossible to know if a photo is published if you find an image on a modern website. It is another thing if you find it in an old newspaper. There is also another complication: per Commons policy, the file needs to be in public domain in the source country, and the source country is the country of first publication, but if you don't know if the photo was published, how do you know in which country it was first published? In the end, you may have to guess a bit about the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, if it's on a modern website, it is published now, but it remains to be determined if it was published during the time when it would have been free for us. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There was a Swedish supreme court ruling a few years ago where distribution on a modern website was found not to constitute publication. Not sure to what extent other countries' laws treat this as publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That's very surprising. So putting something on the Internet would not constitute publication? So nothing on Wikimedia would be published? Yann (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office does not take a stand whether putting something on the Internet is publication, and accept registrations for Internet works marked published or unpublished at the discretion of the user. I imagine that anything on a Wikimedia site, which is marked under a license permitting free distribution and is clearly made publicly available, would be considered published. Something that was only normally available to you or a select audience, especially access controlled, would likely be considered unpublished. I'm sure a museum or something could argue that they were merely broadcasting the images to you, not permitting you to download it, and not distributing it to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If the content is behind a paywall, then I can get the reasoning. But even in that case, it is a very doubtful one. If a publisher prints only a few copies of a book, it is nevertheless published. So why a content restricted to only a few online subscribers would be different? If there is no restriction to access, this reasoning doesn't stand against logic, not speaking about law. Yann (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

So then what would in the eyes of the Swedish courts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

With no link to the Swedish case I'm running blind here, but: (1) I don't know why "published" or not would matter in a particular, undescribed case in Sweden (where few copyright matters hinge on publication). (2) I could easily imagine that if someone who has no legal claim to a copyright were to post a file to the web, many countries would not consider that to constitute "publication" for either copyright or certain other purposes. For example, if I purchased a photo album at a yard sale and did not secure intellectual property rights, my posting those files to the web might well not constitute legal publication, at least in some jurisdictions. But until we have something more concrete than "there was a Swedish supreme court ruling a few years ago", this might as well be "some guy told me once…"- Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Stefan2: No. Indian pictures from before 1941 are in the public domain per {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-1996}} requires publication without compliance with United States copyright formalities (point 2 in the template). If the photo complied with the copyright formalities, or if it was not published while copyright formalities were needed, then it does not meet {{PD-1996}}. Presumably few Indian publishers submitted copyright renewals to the United States Copyright Office, so more or less anything created before 1941 should be in the public domain in the United States, under the condition that the photo was published around the time when it was taken, but it is a different thing if it wasn't published. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Australian copyright law / De minimis; expansion of COM:AUS?

Hello,

in front of a backdrop of several DR, the lack of a section about COM:De minimis in COM:Australia is strongly felt. A quick survey with Google (search string: "de minimis copyright australia") hints at that there not being any actual provisions for De minimis in the Australian copyright law, though. On the other hand, the same research pointed to a quite recent en:Federal Court of Australia ruling: the court, in Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd (NSW) [2010] FCAFC 47, found that the song “Down Under” by the band Men at Work had breached copyright. The finding was that aspects of the song Down Under that had been taken from the tune the “Kookaburra Sits on the Old Gum Tree”. This is even though to an ordinary person, the two songs’ similarities may seem minimal and it would seem the de minimis rule should apply. (Source: https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/commercial-law/national/litigation/de-minimis-rule/) I also often read a wording like De minimis can only be "very minor instances" of using copyrighted material.

As a layperson, I understand these information as that Australia is quite restrictive when speaking about limitations stemming from the concept of De minimis. Hence, I propose to add a section "#De minimis" in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia reading something like:

The Australian copyright law does not have a verbatim description fitting the De minimis notion. Several court rulings stipulate that, as soon as a copyrighted part of a work is recognisable and determines characteristics in some media, an authorisation from the copyright holder is needed, lest it be a rights violation. For instance, a Federal Court ruling from 2010 stated that even though to an ordinary person, the two songs’ similarities may seem minimal and it would seem the de minimis rule should apply in a case where one song was found to infringe upon the copyright of another piece of music.

Please refine that to better English if possible! It's not my mother tongue. @Y.haruo, Jameslwoodward, Fæ, and Nakonana: You were already involved in these matters via DR, hence this ping as info.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

This interpretation of the Larrikin vs EMI case is reaching too far. In the area of IP law, it is well established that music is highly contested and even 3 notes might be enough for a vexatious and expensive case. Drawing conclusions that this means that an AU case about music can immediately change our understanding the entire country's lex history for de minimus, is weak.

To infer based on case histories or case law that an understanding of de minimus for photographs or visual arts has changed, or is significantly different from conventional EU based definitions would need cases based on visual exemplars, not music. This is not appropriate for COM:CRT. Fæ (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons is also hosting MP3 and other audio files and videos with sound, though. The project is not only about visual media... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As it happens, I do not recall ever participating in any music related DRs relying on DM rationales and I'm one of the few uploaders that has uploaded music and audio files. I believe they are rare, but would be interested to see a list.

The list of DRs included above are all for photographs, and seem to include just one that mentions DM in the DR rationale itself. For these AU related DRs, mostly based on FOP, interpreting DM with the intention of changing CRT for AU would benefit from a photo based case book as a justification. Fæ (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I have to amend my entry statement about "not being any actual provisions for De minimis in the Australian copyright law". Through https://alacc.org.au/exceptions-to-copyright/, I was pointed to the part III division 7 section 67 in the Copyright act of 1968 (https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21915), reading:

"Incidental filming or televising of artistic works

Without prejudice to the last two preceding sections, the copyright in an artistic work is not infringed by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast if its inclusion in the film or broadcast is only incidental to the principal matters

represented in the film or broadcast."

Wouldn't that be fit to a verbatim inclusion as De minimis section? I know it's saying "cinematograph film", but as far as I know, this wording doesn't normally exclude single photographic stills. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

A momentary broadcast inclusion of a copyrighted work is not equivalent to publishing a static image including the same copyrighted work. It can be argued to be an interpretation of de minimis, but one medium context does not map to the other. That is to say, intellectual property law for film, music or photographs does not not have the same interpretations of copyright legislation, because the media itself has unique characteristics and different types of copyrightable creative elements. Fæ (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

ProQuest image status

Hi, I'd appreciate some advice, please. I have been de-stubbing articles on old films (1930s, 1940s etc, many now lost), and sourcing infobox images like contemporary posters, trade ads, etc, from old film magazines hosted by ProQuest (free access to Wikipedia editors ). However at the foot of every ProQuest page, which typically contains a raw scan of a magazine page, is text like: (A) "Copyright © 2021 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved." or (B) "Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission." I have been advised on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions that these "browsewrap" statements do not, under US law, establish copyright if the material has simply been digitised by ProQuest, without them providing any original input to the work. My question is: is material from magazines published in the 1930s/1940s now in the public domain, and so any images I use can be put in Commons? Or would this need to be evaluated on a detailed case-by-case basis? Thank you, and I apologise in advance if my question is not well-enough formed! Best, Toby Tobyhoward (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a well-formed question—and as I see it you're on the right track with thinking about things on a case-by-case basis, because there are a lot of details that can be relevant. But occasionally there are whole classes of works that would be usable freely. There's some meta-controversy about whether we (on Commons) can even assume standardized practices relating to copyrights and trade publications of the American film industry of the mid-20th century, and so leaving that aside, it's more productive to start with the Hirtle chart (and the copyright registration database linked there—it's more tractable to search than it might seem) and see if a strict reading of the criteria nevertheless reveals that maybe the publisher of a series of issues lost copyrights for ongoing failure to follow formalities. I don't know if you and ProQuest have an agreement that goes beyond copyright—but maybe there's a small consolation that even if you are in breach of an agreement not to reproduce something, the rest of us aren't parties to that agreement, and don't have to worry about it (if it is out of copyright). TheFeds 10:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll certainly look at the Hirtle chart. I should add that I restrict myself to British films, so my image sources are almost totally UK-published magazines from the the 1930s-1950s. And for the record, I have no agreement with ProQuest -- I'm just a user, gaining access via Wikipedia's relationship with them, and also via the institutional membership of the University where I hold an Honorary position. Cheers! Tobyhoward (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

For United Kingdom films, you need to ensure that the copyright has expired in both the UK and the US.

In the UK, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the person who created the poster, see {{PD-old-70}}. From that era, I suspect that the posters usually are illustrations created by an illustrator. If the poster was created anonymously, and the person didn't disclose his identity within 70 years from publication, the copyright expires 70 years after publication, see {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Unfortunately, images that you find on the Internet may be of low quality or low resolution: you see that there is a signature on the poster, but you can't read the signature, so you know that the poster isn't anonymous but you don't know who the artist is.

In the US, the copyright to a UK poster expires 95 years after the poster was first published.

The UK copyright term and the US copyright term will usually not expire at the same time, and you need to verify that both have expired. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

One pretty solid rule: if something copyrightable in the U.S. was first published in the UK in 1931 or later, and was not published in the U.S. within 30 days of that (which would constitute "simultaneous" publication), then there is almost no way that it can be in the public domain in the U.S. That "1931" will be moving year-for-year for the next several decades. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hundreds of problematic images in Category:Lego

COM:TOYS considers images of toys or products to be derivative works due to the material they feature, including Lego. However, there are hundreds of images of Lego on Wikimedia Commons, many of which can be seen at Category:Lego, in violation of this. Despite there being occasional deletions, most remain. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The overall precedence in the hundreds of Category:Lego related deletion requests seems to be that simple blocks, and models that members of the public make from them, aren't a copyright issue, but more complex individual designs are (such as Category:Lego minifigures, which has a COM:TOYS note at the top). Belbury (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. As a typical example, File:Apatozaur.jpg is not a derivative work of the LEGO bricks it's made of, as the bricks it's made of aren't substantially creative works. (The model is potentially a creative work in its own right, but is freely licensed by the uploader.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Works by Jaime Colson

Category:Jaime Colson contains a number of Colson's works, but I was under the impression that it would not be free use until his lifespan+70, i.e. 2045. I hope the images are allowed because I want to upload another one for a Wikipedia draft I'm working on. Thank you, Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I tagged all as missing evidence of permission or nominated them for deletion. They need to be in the public domain in both the United States and the source country per Commons policy.

In the United States, the copyright expires 95 years after publication. One of the paintings was created (but possibly not published) exactly 95 years ago, so that one went to a deletion request instead of a no permission tag. The other ones were clearly copyrighted in at least the United States, so they got no permission tags as there was no evidence that the Creative Commons licence is correct.

The painter was born and died in the Dominican Republic, where the copyright expires 50 years after the death of the author (see COM:Dominican Republic). This means that all of his paintings entered the public domain in the Dominican Republic this year.

He lived for parts of his life in France (expiration 70 years after his death), Spain (expiration 80 years after his death) and Mexico (expiration 100 years after his death), and some of the paintings may have been published there first, meaning that we need to wait a few extra decades before those paintings will be permitted. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the followup, I think I will pursue non-free use for the Wikipedia article (rewrite of en:Ciguapa). Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

"No permission" tags are not always the best way to handle this, because they will usually result in deletions without any note being made of what year they can be undeleted. I'd really suggest a proper DR on anything at least from the 1930s and 1940s with an author who died several decades ago, so we can easily add them to the appropriate subcat of Category:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

René Lévesque photos

I'm not seeing any way to verify the licensing of File:René Lévesque BAnQ (restored).jpg and File:René Lévesque BAnQ P243S1D865 (cropped).jpg. I'm also not seeing how these can really be claimed as being the "own work" of their respective uploaders since both files seem to essentially be nothing but slavish reproductions of a work originally created in 1961 and attributed to someone named Harvey Majo. It would seem that Majo would be the copyright holder as the person who took the original photo, and the copyright status of the original photo would depend on COM:CANADA. Since Canada allows copyright protection for 70 years p.m.a., a photo taken in 1961 would still be eleigible for copyright protection under Canadian copyright law until January 1, 2032, right? So, unless there's some other reason that the original photo might've entered into the public domain under Canadian copyright law prior to Canada's URAA date (January 1, 1996), this photo could still be eligible for copyright protection under both Canadian copyright law and US copyright law, meaning that Commons can't continue hosting it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Google says, "Harvey Majo (the professional pseudonym of Hervé Majeau, 1924–1982)," so 70 pma is 2053. Glrx (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

IMHO the right procedure should be nominate the file to deletion, unless you have doubts about what you're saying Wilfredor (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s likely that the copyright was transfered to the institution upon donation, which would allow them to control and license the works how they see fit. It states in the fonds that the works were donated in 1985. Try reaching out to BanQ and clarify the rights status before jumping right into deletion. I can send an email if you’d like. PascalHD (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly To add, I found a prior deletion request about the file which was kept; Commons:Deletion requests/File:René Lévesque BAnQ P243S1D865.jpg. That should answer your question. PascalHD (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that DR link PascalHD. As long as the licensing has been verified (which the DR seem to do), then files are OK for Commons (at least in my opinion). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It is presently listed as CC BY-NC-ND, per https://web.archive.org/web/20260715215212/https://advitam.banq.qc.ca/notice/576335. Do we have a clear paper trail for it having been released as CC BY-SA by the legal successor to Majo/Majeau? TheFeds 22:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds In the deletion request I referenced above, it should answer your question. Reasoning, it was uploaded with a compatible license by an employee (@Fdaveau) of the BanQ, which is presumed to be the copyright holder of the work. If you’re still unsure, an email can be sent seeking clarification. PascalHD (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and yes, that sounds plausible. When BAnQ selects a licence (or marks a work as PD), it seems to generally do so in a reasonable way, and seems to use CC sparingly in a way that suggests that it is deliberate. They were aware as of 2019 of the differences between CC licences. (Certainly if the BAnQ clarified that they owned Majo/Majeau's copyrights directly, and that FDaveau was their agent, that would be better—but I wouldn't presume to pressure you into contacting them.) TheFeds 22:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Four DRs regarding Indian state emblems

Please join these four DRs. All files are heavily used so good if we get more user's involved:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lakshadweep
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Government Banner of Nagaland.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Telangana.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Arunachal Pradesh.svg

Jonteemil (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about use of the "Copyright free use" template.

This file: File:Portrait of Liu Xiaobo by Wang Liming (2017).jpg has a "Copyright free use" template.

The Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User-en states that,

• "The copyright holder, [[:en:User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] (from the English Wikipedia), of this image hereby irrevocably releases all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial."

In the permission section of this file offers:

• "The following statement was also included in the tweet: "I am very pleased that this 2017 work has been used by many people to post commemorative posts. You are welcome to collect and use it." (我很欣慰，這張2017年的作品被很多人用來發紀念帖，歡迎收藏使用)"

That seems to be an accurate translation from the file's linked source.

However, it that statement adequate to apply this template on this file? -- Ooligan (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is strong enough about allowing derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was my similar impression @Jmabel. After opportunity for more comments, what would be the next step(s)? -- Ooligan (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Either contact the artist and try to get a clear license, or start a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok., thanks Jmabel, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

"Redrawn from..."

Scientific papers, including freely licensed Open Access ones such as the source of this image, sometimes include figures "redrawn" from other papers, often neither freely licensed nor in the public domain. I would assume that those are derivative works and that the copyright component of the underlying source drawings would not be covered by the journal's free license - what do others think? Felix QW (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It would probably depend on how close they were to the source drawings (was it just a loose reference, or is this basically a copy), and, of course, the copyright status of those source drawings. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I suppose the standards will be similar as for heraldry and for redrawings of photographs. This seems like a difficult line to demarkate, so I would appreciate any input on whether, say, Fig. E in this image, is a derivative work of Fig. 3 of this article (Wikipedia library link). The image shows a reconstruction of how a fossil organism may have looked, due to the author of the latter (source) paper, rather than illustrating a specific specimen, which may make a difference to what is judged a copyrightable design choice. Felix QW (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

May I upload this?

So theres a postcard as seen here I believe it falls under Public domain but does it still fall under copyright? Wobs100 (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The front of the postcard, bearing a photograph, is certainly in the public domain in the United States as a work first published before 1931. So, as the US also clearly seems to be the country of first publication, you are good to go! Felix QW (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Wobs100 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded it let me know if I did anything wrong as this is my first upload! Wobs100 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking great! There was just an unnecessary extra section with an additional, unnecessary {{PD-US}} template, which I have just removed for you. The {{PD-US-expired}} template is perfect, and perfectly adequate on its own! Felix QW (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Wobs100 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

One other point, @Wobs100: you categorized it under Cities in the United States, but Martinsburg is already a member via Cities in West Virginia, Cities in the United States by state and Cities in the United States by location, going upward through the hierarchy, and in such cases only the most specific—the smallest branch in the tree, so to speak—should be included. See COM:OVERCAT for the relevant policy. (I added a couple of others instead.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright :) Wobs100 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of photograph from the Russian Empire

I'm looking at photographs of the Polish linguist Mikołaj Kruszewski that I think are probably in the public domain, but I'm not too sure. The relevant information and photograph is in this paper in Ukrainian. I'm specifically looking at the group photograph, which according to the paper was taken in Troisk, Russian Empire, in modern-day Russia. This photograph was taken some time between 1875 and 1878. It was first published in a 2002 book, which was published in Ukraine, after the photograph was donated by a family relative. I'm not sure which country is relevant here: the photograph was not created in Ukraine, so I don't think its status in Ukraine is relevant here. The template for the Russian Empire only deals with works published in the Russian Empire, but the photograph was not published in the Russian Empire. The page for copyright in Russia doesn't have provisions for unpublished works with unknown authors. I think that if we generously assume that the photographer was 22 years old (quite young) when taking the photograph in 1878 (the latest possible year for the photograph), then the photographer would still have to be 100 years old by 1956, the current year required for PD in Russia. Kisseran (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This is in the public domain in the US. The place where it was first published is usually the important place under Berne, so Ukraine would be the important country. Unless Ukraine has laws about giving first publication a copyright over public domain, it seems clear that it's safe for PD-old-assumed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Its status in Ukraine is very relevant here as it was published first in that country. According to the Ukrainian law Persons who first publish an unpublished work after its copyright protection expires enjoy protection for 25 years from the time when the work was first published. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

taken in Troisk, Russian Empire, in modern-day Russia — was it not published in the time of the Russian Empire and isn't Russia the country of origin instead of Ukraine? If yes, that would suggest {{PD-RusEmpire}}. If it wasn't, then how did the authors of the paper get their hands on it?

And there's also the {{PD-old-assumed}} option for works older than 120 years, which is the case here. Nakonana (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see some questions were actually answered in the opening post. But even if Ukraine was the country of origin, if the first publication was in 2002, then it will be PD in 2027/2028. If PD-old-assumed does not apply for some reason, because even in the year of publication 2002 more than 120 years had already passed since the photos creation. The photo would have qualified for PD-old-assumed by 1998/1999 at the latest. Nakonana (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

US copyright for a 1937 photo taken in the UK and published in New Zealand

Hello all - a while back I stumbled upon File:Mahommedan festival at an English mosque 1937-03-24.webp which is an image of the Shah Jahan Mosque in England. It's listed by Auckland Libraries as having 'No known copyright restrictions' (i.e. PD) - it's definitely public domain in both New Zealand (publication + 50y) and in the UK (publication + 70y). Unfortunately, I don't know the original source of the image beyond the Auckland Daily News, so I can't say for sure if this was indeed published in the UK before being published in NZ, but assuming a publication date of 1937, I'd have to assume that it would only be PD in the US around 2032.

Anyways, I opened a DR for the file - any thoughts regarding the US copyright? applecuckoo (he/him) 09:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Using family photographs from the 20s-40s to add to my ancestor's Wikipedia page.

Hello all, I have a great collection of family photos I have found at my grandmother's, and I would like to use those to add an image to the Wikipedia article of my great-grandfather, (here) but I am unsure about how the licensing works. I am not asking for legal advice, I only want to abide by the rules of Wikimedia and make sure my image won't be taken down because of a copyright issue.

The photographs are from the 1920s up to the 1940s, and in every one of those photos the photographer is unknown. Could I use those? If this can help, I am from France.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jean LE TRIVIDIC (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I would support having French pictures before 1936 on Commons, unless a photographer is named, and this photographer died after 1955. Before 1931, they are OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. From 1931 until 1936, they are OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. After 1936, US copyright of these may be questioned. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Bonjour, Je pense que c'est bon pour les photos de 1936 ou avant, à moins qu'un photographe ne soit mentionné, et que ce photographe soit mort après 1955. Avant 1931, c'est bon avec {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. De 1931 à 1936, c'est bon avec {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. Après 1936, le copyright aux Etats-Unis est incertain. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If you know the photographer, and he/she is one of your ancestors, you could have the right to publish them. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Si vous connaissez le photographe, et qu'il/elle est l'un de vos ancêtres, vous pouvez avoir vous-même le droit de les publier. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Yann,

No photographer is named on the back of either pictures, but all of the family memebers at the time died between the 60s and 80s. Should I stick to photographs strictly taken before 1936? Jean LE TRIVIDIC (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)