Commons talk:Character copyrights

  • Archives: 1, 2...

There's a number of errors in the copyright duration of US works in the past. I don't really want to mess with it because it's complex and irrelevant, but starting in 1962, they started extending copyright so all renewed copyrights from 1906 on got at least 75 years, with all copyrights from 1923 getting 95. If I have my numbers right, nothing went out of copyright between 1963 and 1981 except for non-renewals, and nothing went out of copyright between 1998 and 2018 except for posthumous works.

Prosfilaes (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes i am confused? https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain. Is this for some of the expiration dates like Archy and Mehitabel and Felix being a bit too wrong..? Just wonderin'ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
@ZigZagTheTigerSkunk The Cornell Guide is right, but it's not historic. This page says says that Raggedy Ann left copyright in 1974, but it should be 1915+75 = 1990 or 1918+75=1993. I'm sure we could have debated the correct date at the time, but now it's a moot point. Likewise, I believe Tarzan and John Carter were 1987, not 1968. We've got a few numbers like that, and they're largely moot, but wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I can edit the dates to be correct tomorrow if you want @Prosfilaes ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I reiterate this; US copyright duration is complex enough that https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf feels free to elide some details that don't matter now. There were extensions between 1962 and 1978 that kept a lot of files under copyright until the 1980s and 1990s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Ill correct some dates soon @Prosfilaes ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bacromisee: Please read the above content. Looking at that circular again, it's more detailed on this subject than I though. E.g.

Before passage of the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress enacted a series of nine acts that provided interim extensions for works whose copyright protection began between September 19, 1906, and December 31, 1918, if they were in their renewal terms. Without these interim extensions, copyrights commencing during that time would have expired after 56 years, at the end of their renewal terms, between September 19, 1962, and December 31, 1976.
Duration of Copyrights
Example: A work that first secured federal copyright protection on October 5, 1907, and was renewed in 1935, would have fallen into the public domain after October 5, 1963. The first act extended the copyright to December 31, 1965; the second act extended it to December 31, 1967; the third act extended it to December 31, 1968; the fourth act extended it to December 31, 1969; the fifth act extended it to December 31, 1970; the sixth act extended it to December 31, 1971; the seventh act extended it to December 31, 1972; the eighth act extended it to December 31, 1974; the ninth extended it to December 31, 1976; and the 1976 Copyright Act extended the copyright through the end of 1982 (75 years from the end of the year in which the copyright was originally secured).

If a 1907 work left copyright in 1982, a 1918 work left copyright at the end of 1993.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand, they extended the copyright to works between 1917 and 1918, should you fix the terms for works that are less relevant, like mutt and jeff? Bacromisee (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I meant works from 1907 to 1918, sorry, its a typo. Bacromisee (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll edit it, this is. Zigzag btw my computer broke ~2026-20405-26 (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Removing Roni

I propose removing Roni as it is a modern copyrighted character (from 1977). We don't include characters created after 1963 unless they entered the public domain prematurely. No evidence of Roni entering the public domain has been presented and it appears that the earliest publication of the character included a valid copyright notice. Nosferattus (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should
this is zigzag. Btw, charger broke sorry, ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I removed it btw @Nosferattus ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Creation ≠ publication
Even if that poster actually created on 1977, it was published on 1980.
It is unclear does another content without notice or the poster with notice was published first (all of them is not registered). SomeFancyUsername (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Any proof? it has a 1977 notice. Also please stop undoing the deletion ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I think the proof is that roni debuted in 1980. Popeyefan1 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
@Popeyefan1: It seems extremely unlikely that Roni debuted in 1980. The Olympics that Roni was the mascot for began on February 13, 1980. The mascots for the 2026 Winter Olympics debuted in February 2024 (2 years earlier). The original Roni poster being published in 1977 seems completely reasonable. What evidence do you have that it wasn't published until 1980? That seems like a very dubious claim to me. Nosferattus (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
oh I thought was poof,well I guess that means roni isn't public domain. Popeyefan1 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
yeah, unless its a invaild notice but he likely not pd ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
@Nosferattus if we don't count the notice, do you have any evidence what Roni debuted before 1980? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
I just re-type my reply:
Even if that poster actually created on 1977 (as it says notice date), there's no evidence what it was published before 1980. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
but the poster is from 1977 ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
re-read last part of my reply:
"there's no evidence what it was published before 1980".
On official Olympic games website (or on another websites) there's no mention what Roni is published (or even created) on 1977. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
So what if that isn't mentioned on those sites? Those sites don't mention when any mascot was introduced or created. Don't be so insistent to assume omission of information means you're right. Did you check old sports magazines and newspaper databases to see press releases that introduces Roni? If no, and if nobody except SFUN objects I'll remove Roni at some point. Grey ghost (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Joe Palooka and Scorchy Smith

I added the 2 characters to the list and they were removed. Hyju (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Not well known and i think that's why? ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Getting a consensus

Hi, I think there should be a consensus before removing entries. Or if there are too many edit wars, I will semi-protect the page. Yann (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I know, but me and Nosferattus agree we should remove that 1977 entry. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove Roni. We removed Pink Panther, Gumby and the Energizer Bunny for being too complicated and not worth the effort to keep up on the page. As for having a consensus before removing entries, I think having it be for any user who wants to remove an entry to discuss with others on the talk page about removing it before it is removed will make things complicated, slow and strict. Better to semi-protect the page then, and let users who can't edit it discuss it on the talk page. Or have it be as it is now, we go with our gut feelings and let the most able sort it out so to speak. Or, add another rule: Not to feature any non-American character whose creator died after the 20th century (except Mario, the only video game character there). Since all characters currently on the list are subject to life + 70 years that means characters like Paddington, Pippi, Moomin and Asterix will enter PD in the 2070s and later, which is a bit too far into the future. We can remove this rule when we enter the 2030s but for now it would make the list more manageable. @SDudley, @Nosferattus, @Prosfilaes and @Popeyefan1 what do you think? Consensus before removing entries, semi-protection, a new rule or keep the status quo? Or more than one of those? Grey ghost (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I removed gumby because i was reworking it, i was gonna readd pink panther but i haven't yet. ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
yeah I think anything that is no entering public domain before the 2070s is fine to remove for now SDudley (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Mario can stay as its a example afaik. ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
OK, fine if there is an agreement. Yann (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I guess a new rule. Popeyefan1 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I agree ~2026-23614-3 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

@Popeyefan1 before removing entries you should discuss it there. That undos looks like a vandalism. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought these characters weren't well known. Popeyefan1 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
I would agree with the Popeye fan that they weren't well known enough to fit the page. And regarding those characters that are well known, like the Looney Tunes characters, well, not all major LT characters need to be on the page. If the characters are removed again, then relax, you can add them back in a few years when they're closer to entering PD. And isn't it a bit too much to call what the fan did vandalism? SFUN's edits come of more as vandalism, the way they keep bringing back Roni and Asterix. Grey ghost (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Yann on your talk page said what people should not remove entries without discussing. He didn't give any clarifications about how characters should be well-known to be added or not.
About my edits:
I attempted re-add Roni due to the propose about deleting him was ended weird:
Nosferattus suggested remove Roni, because he's debuted in 1977 due to notice dated in this year, ZigZag just said "Maybe we should" and removed him.
As you can see between these two replies nobody said whether they support this propose or not, so I undid removal due to this character was removed due to non-consensus propose.
I attempted re-add Asterix him due to this character created by same author who created Little Nicholas which is debuted on the same year and he's currently on that list. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
We haven't actually reached a consensus that we must have a consensus before removing an entry. It feels like you keep bringing up consensus just for your own sake, so your edits will be harder to undo. And as for Asterix and Obelix, I already told you that Uderzo counts as a co-creator and he died this century, therefore the characters' copyright expirations are too far into the future for us to care, yet you brought the characters back. Grey ghost (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Sigh, it's hard sometimes to work on this. I know we didn't have a consensus but i had to listen to what Grey and Nosferatus said.
Sorry for late response btw guys. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
If you know what there is no consensus, then why you even did it?
Why you just do something, instead of asking a clarifying question? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Sigh, i was just trying to do the right thing. That's all. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
On the next time edit only when you know what consensus is reached, ok? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Okay ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't "keep bringing up consensus just for my own sake", I just doing what people here saying.
About Asterix and Obelix: their co-author died in 2020, meanwhile co-author of Little Nicholas died in 2022, but for some reason you want what Asterix and Obelix was removed only, what is just un-logic. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I asked people that have edited the page for choices on how to change the page, including if they want consensus before removal, and since none of the ones who have answered said they want such a consensus, then it doesn't seem necessary to have one.
And, I never said I want Asterix removed only, I was just focusing on one thing first. Also, Sempé wasn't co-author of Nicholas, just the illustrator, similar to how the illustrator Shepherd isn't considered co-creator of Winnie-the-Pooh. Comics and children's books are different that way, comic artists are more involved than illustrators. But since you keep bringing up Nicholas, and want him treated similarly to Asterix, I'll delete him too. He doesn't seem notable enough anyway. Grey ghost (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
@Grey ghost: Well, Nicolas is well known here, but since he won't be in the public domain any time soon, I don't object to removal. Consensus is not option. It is not a new rule. It is the basic principle upon which all Wikimedia projects are based. So yes, any major change requires a consensus. Yann (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Your right. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I don't intend to say anything about the content. I will only care about the process. I don't know most of these characters, but I am certainly not a reference on that. And I am in Europe, so I know much more about European characters than US ones. Yann (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

What about characters in free depictions of non-free works?

See Category:Free depictions of non-free works and sub-categories. Can we say that the character SpongeBob SquarePants as depicted in File:SpongeBob SquarePants character.png is freely licensed? Would fan art solely based on that specific design of the character be uploadable to Commons, or could it infringe on the separate character's copyrights? ObserveOwl (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure if that would count, but @Nosferattus sorry for ping but what would your thoughts be on this? Just wondering ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
This page is about character copyrights, not copyrights of specific depictions of characters, so that isn't really an issue relevant to this page, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
I was mostly wondering whether character copyrights would affect re-use of free depictions, but I understand if this is not the right forum. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Some nancy drew works post-1931 weren't renewed

https://nancydrewsleuths.blogspot.com/2025/12/nancy-drew-case-of-missing-copyrights.html

Can someone add this information to the Nancy part? it's okay if not @Grey ghost and @SomeFancyUsername.

Also i wasn't editing the page lately that much cause of stress problems and depression, sorry for that, i'm okay though. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy Dan

I am pretty sure Happy Dan is considered renewed as part of the overall publication of "Cosmopolitan" in February 1945, which was renewed. There is no specific separate registration for Happy Dan in 1945, but that doesn't mean it wasn't copyrighted. It is just part of the compilation of the entire periodical. SDudley (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

No, Happy Dan was not renewed and is in the public domain, here is why. @SDudley, Because as a example, Conan the Barbarian and many of Lovecraft's works had their Weird Tales issues also renewed, but the indiviual stories didn't count because the authors passed away prior to renewal date (was even declared so in court related to Lovecraft.) It's called "unvested Copyright law", and. Ward Greene passed away prior to the 1970s renewal,
i read this from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Copyright_renewals#Contributions_to_periodicals.
"If the original author died before the renewal year, the contract between them and the publisher ended. Therefore the publisher no longer owned the copyright and was not eligible to register a renewal."
And this from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no-renewal-unvested
The renewal did not count since Ward passed away and Disney (who later bought the rights to the story) or the rightholders of Compolsitaion may have not had the rights to renew it. So it is in the public domain.

ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks :) SDudley (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
You're welcome, i learned about this from @Prosfilaes who also did a similar old post related to Charles Addams works (he didn't pass away until the 1980s so the renewals ddd count for the New Yorker drawings.) But seemed to not count for Lovecraft and Howard stories, pretty much the same case for Ward Greene and maybe other authors but would need to be looked into more.
Tbh, it's a peculiar case when it comes to periodical renewals. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@SDudley Sorry for ping again, but i haven't worked on this page that much due to depression and anxiety issues related to the PD reddit. I am okay though, just taking a hiatus. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
hope you feel better! SDudley (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I will, thankies. @SDudley ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

About some chars in green-orange sections

@ZigZagTheTigerSkunk
Can you add сitations to statements in notes what that characters are actually released simultaneously in the US? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I will soon. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Do you found something since your last reply there? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply, i was under mental stress. I haven't yet, but will by next week. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Magnus, Robot Fighter and Solar aren't public domain

Magnus first appearance was renewed:https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_7390562 So was Solar:https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_7390578 So Magnus and Solar aren't public domain after all. Popeyefan1 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

They aren't on the list, but thanks for the help bff @Popeyefan1 ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
yeah but they was mentioned before being removed
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Character_copyrights&diff=prev&oldid=1148100616 Popeyefan1 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"isn't a character in its own right."

@Grey ghost
Can you explain what you mean by phrase what you said in summary? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The Playboy bunny logo seems to be just that, a logo. There aren't any advertisements or spin-offs where the bunny is a character, and if there are, they're not notable enough. Even Kilroy got to be a character in a horror film. Grey ghost (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I do agree with this, like for example. Alfred from the Mad Magazine counts as a copyrightable character, but the Bunny is just a generic rabbit/logo. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Beano's Dennis the Menace

Is the 2073 date accurate? Because as far as i know David Law was the one who drew the strips and is credited with creating Dennis himself, while the others were just editors.

In my opinion, i do believe Dennis might not expire in the UK until 2041 but i could be wrong. (The US character is already public domain, but i meant the British one) Just wondering. I could be wrong though if 2073 is indeed the date in which UK Dennis expires. @Grey ghost, @Prosfilaes

Sorry i don't know much about British copyright that much to tell the truth. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Lone Ranger TV Show

I did a look and couldn't find a renewal for the first episode of the TV show that started in 1949. Does anyone else have info on this? It would have had to be renewed by 1977. This makes it a bit tricky since 1978 was the cross-over year. But in the 1976/77 motion picture catalogs I see no renewals, and TV shows were registered as motion pictures. SDudley (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

ill check soon @SDudley ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Rick Blaine

@Popeyefan1: What does "The film was registered more than 3 months" mean? Does you mean the film was registered more than 3 months after it was published? The citation says it was registered January 23, 1943, which I believe is only 2 months after the premiere (November 26, 1942). Nosferattus (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry I thought it was released in January 1942 Popeyefan1 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
it fine ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Popeye

I put this on reddit, but wanted to document it here too for anyone that wants to read. I'll defer to others for what to do.

The question of renewal regarding Popeye is a little tricky. It isn’t as simple as saying King Features didn’t renew the dailies that well. Yes we have some evidence of them renewing a bespoke issue (March 30, 1935), but this doesn’t tell the whole story.

Starting in 1933, King Features began copyrighting something called “King Features Illustrated Weekly”. This was a collection of every comic strip they published within a week—which we can hypothesize that Popeye was part of. We can see a more modern example of this type of work from this 1991 book. As comics.org puts it: “These books originally took proof pages made from comic strips (and other feature and editorial non-comic material) intended for newspaper syndication, made reduced copies of the pages, bound them together under a title, and sent them to the Library of Congress to secure copyright on the material.”

These books were essentially a way for King Features to get around paying the fee to copyright dozens of strips each week. However, the Copyright Office challenged this practice claiming that the books “consisted of ‘page proofs’ of contributions to newspapers and the [Register] contended, therefore, that the newspapers in which the material … appeared should be deposited and a separate fee for the registration of each item of such material”.

Essentially what we need to know is that King Features sued asserting that their books compiling the works WERE valid. This resulted in the case King Features Syndicate v. Bouve, 48 U.S.P.Q. 237, 23 Copyright Dec. 185 (1940). I won’t go super in depth on this, but if you check out page 38 of this PDF it explains it all really well.

Basically the courts decided that the Register has "no power to refuse or deny registration of a claim of copyright which is entitled to registration under the Copyright Act. Whether an applicant or claimant has complied with the law so that his claim is entitled to be registered raises questions of fact and law to be decided by the court; the Register of Copyrights has not power to decide such questions, especially where the deposit of copies and the application filed, when read together as they should be, are in apparent compliance with the act."

Simply put, the King Features Illustrated Weekly, or later known as King Features Weekly, were valid ways to register the copyrights of many comics at once. Which leads us to an important question—which of these Weekly compilations were renewed?

The earliest renewal I could locate was for the week of May 4, 1933. That seems to be a Thursday. The next renewal I could find was dated June 26, 1933, and these weekly renewals continued on through August 30, 1933. In a separate renewal catalog there are the rest of the dates from 1933 and the start of 1934 thru the end of February. I then ran into a gap, but was able to locate consistent weekly renewals again from June 6, 1934 onward. They continued weekly from the start of 1935, and as far as I could tell kept this practice up for decades with valid renewals. It would be a lot to list out each and every week/year here, but I did look and it seems quite consistent. I’m sure someone might notice a hole or two if they really used a fine tooth comb. I also utilized the card catalog, and that primarily returns to 1977, but it can reach up into some early 80s dates like this 1981 renewal of a 1953 KFW. Hoping that late date proves my point.

Based on this, it appears that Popeye’s public domain date largely ends right before the start of May 1933. There appear to be slight gaps from roughly May 12-June 25, 1933 as well as March 7 to June 5, 1934, but those are outliers and possibly hidden deeper in the catalogs. What I’m sharing is not legal advice by any means. Rather it is what I had observed when looking through the catalogs and trying to figure out what Popeye stuff might still be copyrighted. SDudley (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am no comment about the content, but I want to thank you for all this research. It is useful for Commons, and the world at large. Yann (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
This does mean the Popeye strips made before May 1933 are public domain, correct? @SDudley ~2026-27084-58 (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
@SDudley: Do you agree with this massive removal? Yann (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I think in an abundance of caution it is fine to have removed the things relying on KFS renewals. The Weekly seems to indicate that these items are at least in doubt at being in the public domain. We don't have enough info about what was in these weekly books exactly, but it feels reasonable to believe that those works are in there. SDudley (<span class="signature-talk)
Can we keep Popeye, Bluto and Wimpy? Cause Weekly didn’t start until May 1933, there are no renewals for any Popeye strips except for his first appearance and the January 11th 1930 strip, also only the first Blondie strip was renewed before that: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/kingfeatilluswk @Yann @SDudley ~2026-27084-58 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The findings have no bearing on what has expired. So of course any Popeye material published through the end of 1930 is definitely in the public domain. Research currently shows no renewals for 1931/1932, so those materials should also be ok. SDudley (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
@SomeFancyUsername: What do you think? Yann (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
@SomeFancyUsername this is ZigZag, I do personally think we can revert that edit, Bluto, Wimpy, and the rest of the strips that never had any syndicate books until later (Dick Tracy and Nancy Ritz) or not at all (Family Circus, Marmaduke) can be kept too as they are still public as well. ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Many people still thinks what this characters are still copyrighted, due to the characters are debuted less than 95 years ago and not all people knows about renewals. I think what we should wait until major part of people found out what that characters are not copyrighted. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I don’t agree, we have proofs of no renewals on the page that can help people @SomeFancyUsername ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Are you just an alt account of ZigZag? SDudley (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
to tell the truth, yes. Because Im outta town rn, I was gonna tell you this before I left on vacation. Sorry if I wasn’t active all time. ~2026-27084-58 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I think the concern was that it appeared-to me at least-that at times you were supporting ZigZag's claims without making it clear that you were one in the same. SDudley (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I know, I was trying to protect my identity too in case I might get stalked by redditors. ~2026-27084-58 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
For more info I texted you in your talk page. ~2026-27084-58 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
@999real agrees we should change the page and he already did it, but I reverted it to avoid him banned until we all agree, I agree though on the change, should we all agree on this? @[[User:Yann|Yann], @SDudley ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

A comprise

I decided to instead of mass deleting to instead make the post may 1933 king features works from green to orange, is this better? @Yann it’s okay if it’s not allowed but it’s what I thought about. ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the final decision, but it should be a consensus, to avoid reverting each others. Yann (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Oki ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Do you agree with this? @SDudley and @999real ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

John Steed

Hi, I have just realized that en:John Steed and his partners are not in the list. Yann (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ll uuh, add him soon @Yann ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
First, who created the avengers series? ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
@Yann sorry for ping again u I need some information to use on John steeds entry. ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know anything more that what is mentioned in en:The Avengers (TV series). Yann (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Okie ~2026-27509-71 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Heya I’m back @Yann, @SDudley ~2026-28372-00 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Okay that’s better, I’m back now ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I just got a notification, what happened? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Character's notability

@Grey Ghost If you removing some characters for "non-notability" you should add understandable reason why they are not notable for the list. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Could we define objective criteria for notability? Otherwise, there will be endless edit-warring about this.
I have no idea, since I have never heard of most of these, specially the ones from North America. Yann (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
First off, I did more than remove characters, I also corrected spelling and links and clarified in a note why one character is notable. Do I really have to give a reason for every single character I remove? If you or any other random user can add characters without reason, then it should be fine to remove characters with little reason. It has been done on the list not just by me but by Dudley as well. Lack of notability is a fine reason to remove characters from the list, do I need to say more to remove, say, the skeletons from The Skeleton Dance or The Penny Plunderer from the list? (If you don't know who that guy is then that proves my point.) To pacify you, I could say more now: many of the characters on the list or the works they've been in have received many re-releases, awards, adaptations and/or merchandise. The characters I removed have not, or if they have, you or I can't think of such before looking it up. And if it's characters that debuted in the U.S. before 1931 that makes them more eligible to remove in my opinion, since they'd obviously be okay to be on the site anyway. Since many of the characters I removed lacked anything in the note field (which could have given a reason for why they were notable or otherwise why they should be on the list) that didn't help them either. Nosferattus stated last year on this talk page (see the archive) to be "open to the idea of just removing entries from the list once they become public domain." While you may not want to go that far, it's still good not to have the page be too bloated. After all, as it says at the top of the project page, we don't need to name every free or non-free character. And just because someone and the people in their inner circle know a character that doesn't mean that other people on this site do. I have reverted the edit now and as I said at the start, I did more than just remove characters, so it'd be foolish to just undo the edit again. I think I made myself clear why what I did was okay, and it seems more than okay that I undid the edit. Grey ghost (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
I do agree with grey. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
You might not noticed, but you is only one person there who removes characters for non-notablity (at least as I see since previous year).
If you want what people will no more add non-notable characters, please make that criteria is scope less vague. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
I’ll Uuh, I’ll add examples of non-notable characters to help maybe. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
@Grey ghost ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
@ZigZagTheTigerSkunk you should add definition what is "minor work" and critera what makes characters not enough notable. Exanples of non-notable characters are non-helpful. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I’ll Uuh work on that @SomeFancyUsername
sorry I got my hands full a bit. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Is the creeper from Minecraft by the way? @SomeFancyUsername ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
yes, but if you don't like that character you replace with ever more younger one (like Pomni) SomeFancyUsername (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I've been going by the rule offered by Nosferattus at Commons_talk:Character_copyrights/archives_1#Are_you_sure_we_should_leave_out_too_old_or_less_notable_characters?: The character should have its own Wikipedia article or be the main character in a work with a Wikipedia article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for insight @Prosfilaes ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: meaning "Wikipedia in any language," I presume? - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It was coined by Nosferattus, but yeah, that's the way I interpret it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

My fathers dragon is public domain

I don’t have time to make entry green because I’m busy at the moment, so can someone change it plz? https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/30017

@Grey ghost ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
i already did Popeyefan1 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Ok thanks ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
You're welcome Popeyefan1 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Probably worth addressing Alice's adventures in Wonderland etc.: Lewis Carroll's original drawings and Tenniel's drawings (both PD everywhere by now), the Disney reworks (not PD yet), possibly others. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK we removed Alice in wonderland, Humpty Dumpty and Sweeney Todd. Because we don’t allow 150 or older characters. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Aren't there distinct aspects to the Disney versions that are still copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but I think they're out of the remit of this page. It's relatively easy to say that Alice or Sherlock Holmes, as characters, are out of copyright, based on well-understood law. Trying to discuss all the fine details of Alice in Wonderland and Sherlock Holmes and how you might infringe on later versions of them is a task for a law firm, and even they aren't going to speak in certainties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)