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)

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)

Per the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 906.2: Familiar symbols and designs are not protected by the Copyright Act. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). Likewise, the copyright law does not protect mere variations on a familiar symbol or design, either in two- or three-dimensional form. Qzekrom (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem will be with the Bulgarian threshold of originality, not the one in the US, though. Nakonana (talk) 22:29, 18 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)

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)

I'm skeptical that every possible Lego minifigure is a DW. The base minifig design was published in the U.S. patent USD253711S, which was issued in 1979 - so even if it is above COM:TOO US, it looks like it was published without notice and therefore {{PD-US-patent-no notice}} applies.

On the other hand, specific minifig designs may be copyrighted unless they were published before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice (and "publication" includes selling copies of the toy to the public).

Also, general art styles are not copyrightable, so if someone drew a person in the style of a minifig (e.g. Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu in this brickfilm), it would not necessarily be a DW of the base design. Qzekrom (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that the original poster (@NewAccount7295: is confusing "copyright" and "patents". The purpose of the Lego patent to to protect the manufacturers of Lego from unfair competition by people who are using the Lego designs. The Copyright law of the United States explicitly protects "artistic works" rather than "useful items". In this contect, Lego Bricks are "useful items" and as such do not have copyright protection. AS such, models made of Lego are not derivative works of any Lego specifications. Martinvl (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. Also, to the extent that Lego is a "system" for building toys and artistic works, it should fall under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Qzekrom (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Re: the minifig design - PD-US if the copyright was not registered within 5 years after the date of publication (per {{PD-US-1978-89}}). I can't find any registrations for a Lego minifigure older than VA0000655104 (1994-01-21), but they did register a Duplo figure as early as 1983 (VA0000139797).

It's hard to say whether the Duplo figure is similar enough to be a derivative work of the Lego minifigure, but even if it is, I don't know if publishing an original work without notice and then registering a derivative work of it within 5 years saves the copyright on the original work from forfeiture. Qzekrom (talk) 04:22, 20 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)

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)

Where the photo was taken is irrelevant here. What matters for Commons is when and where it was published first. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, though, even though we could have allowed the logic of PD-old-assumed before the 2002 publication, I don't believe it applies under U.S. copyright law now. If 2002 was first publication, and if it counts as authorized publication (not clear, and I don't think there is much by way of judicial precedent on this), then I believe through a quirk of U.S. copyright law at the time it is copyrighted in the U.S. through 2047. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

All the copyright issue can be resumed by: What did happen to the pictures between 1875/1878 and 2002? How did the publisher get them? Unless the publisher got the pictures directly from the photographer's estate, they were most probably published in the meantime. Yann (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I spoke to Kisseran on Discord (and recommended they post here); apparently the publisher got them from the photographer's relative. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:59, 20 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)

@Yann Why would it be PD-US-expired? The work seems unlikely to have been published, per our discussion above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

There are 2 possibilities: either these pictures were taken by a professional outside the family, and in this case, they were published when they left the photographer's custody; or they were taken by a family member, and in that case, *-heirs should be OK. I have a similar situation in my family (pictures of my grands-parents of the 1920s). And, although they were well off people of the bourgeoisie, I know that they never owned a camera, so the pictures were taken by a professional. So I think that PD-US-expired is more likely. Yann (talk) 08:29, 21 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)

Yes, it is better. Yann (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

May I add this? If so with what licences?

May I add this portrait from https://malackepohlady.sk/?p=13671 or https://nekrolog.frantiskani.sk/n/p-vendelin-jozef-kucera/ , there is no author or date given, and the person died on 31. of december 1937. --Bakjb (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that any of these that are later than 31 December 1930 could be out of copyright in the U.S. They would have been copyrighted in Czechoslovakia (and later in the Czech Republic and Slovakia) for the lifetime of the photographer plus 70 years, so they would still have been copyrighted there in 1996, when URAA would have given them a U.S. copyright lasting 95 years from initial publication. (Yes, there are edge cases: photo not published before 2003; photo published initially or simultaneously in the U.S. either without notice or without renewal; probably other weird scenarios.)

Conversely, any that were published no later than 31 December 1930 and where the photographer died on or before 31 December 1955 should be good for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Belarus and freedom of panorama

According to Ch. 4 Article 32-7 of this belarusian law, photos of architectual objects in Belarus can be published only under NC license and only if they are not the main object of a photo. If so, photos like this for example are protected under copyright (this exact building will be protected until 2036 as the architect passed away in 1985). And this is a great issue, because there're a lot of photos of architectual objects of Belarus on Commons, just check the categories for metro stations. Aranzavy (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, for another example, this photo is a material for NC Commons, because one of the stadium architects died only in 1985 (on ruwiki), so it will get into PD only by 2036. Aranzavy (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe You should create DRs for these files with "No FoP in Belarus" as reason. Thanks. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Comic Sans MIT license

It seems like a specific version of Comic Sans is now under the MIT license. Is there something we can do about this w.r.t. Commons?

News article Github repo Relevant question about Comic Sans's license grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the font, it's the entire client that contains that font. I'll revert the non-free downscaling of the lead image and then transfer the file to Commons. You may also upload your own screenshots - it's free software now. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Right; Comic Sans has by far the larger societal impact so I was focused on that grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You could already use Comic Sans, as the letters themselves are PD per COM:TOO US. It's just the ttf file that has been open sourced, and that can't be uploaded to Commons anyway, as there is no such format support. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was wondering if the TTF file was supported by commons grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Haitian voudou veve: no copyright, derivative work OK, or no-go?

I am looking to upload a Haitian vodou veve, which I understand to not be copyrighted as a cultural symbol from at least the 18th century. However, the main reference I have is from a book wherein I understand the artist to likely still be alive. I just wanted to confirm, in such a greyscale line art based on folklore like the veve, would the veve from the book be copyright protected if I were to scan and upload it? If so, if I produced my own lineart, would that be considered a derivative work of that in the book? Thank you, Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If what you have is a modern drawing, then that is almost certainly subject to copyright.

If you did your own drawing or other similar work, it would depend on how slavishly you follow a single source. The issue is certainly clearer (in favor of not being derivative work) if you have multiple examples and try to work from what they appear to show in common, rather than having only one visual source. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Several images of Selena uploaded by a user under CC

I asked a user on Wikipedia about this and was pointed to this discussion area. A user has uploaded what appears to be images of the late Category:Selena to WikiCommons. I am unsure of the images are truly released under Creative Commons because the user has had User talk:Enciclopedia1993#File:Selena Quintanilla.png images deleted before. Just wondering if anyone can check the accuracy of these image licenses. Thanks! Magiciandude (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I assume this refers to File:Selena & Los Dinos (1988).jpg and File:Selena in 1988.jpg. I'm not sure what your question is. The rationale given on the file pages is plausible; I think the only question would be whether there is evidence that the photo was published, not merely taken, before the end of February 1989, and that the U.S. can be considered first country of publication (which would be the case as long as it was not published elsewhere more than 30 days earlier). If you want evidence about publication date, your choices are basically:

• Ask the uploader.
• Research it yourself or find someone to do the research for you.
• Force the issue by nominating for deletion on the basis of your doubts.

Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Military symbols of Republika Srpska

Are all the files here that are above TOO copyright violations or is there some PD license that fits them? Jonteemil (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Are those government (issued) symbols? If so, {{PD-SerbiaGov}} for state symbols might be applicable per COM:Serbia. Nakonana (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Republika Sprpska is an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina so rather {{PD-BH-exempt}} is a possible license but I don't know if it's applicable on these files. Jonteemil (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Unpublished old photos of the PH

The concerned image: this one. Translation of the 2nd paragraph: A rare image of the former train station in Kawit, Cavite in the 1910s has been found in an old album. More than a century has passed, yet it remains an important part of Cavite's history and is a reminder of an era when the [said] town had rail lines. I assume that it denotes the old underlying image remained under private hands until it was recently discovered. It seems to have some identical case with at least two of the files I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "John Tewell".

Regardless if unpublished in the PH either during the regime of old copyright laws (see COM:Philippines#Governing laws) or of the present regime of the copyright law (1972 and 1998 laws), are all treated equally under US law? That is, either 95+1 years after (recent) first publication or 120+1 years after creation, whichever is shorter (for unknown authorships), per the table at COM:US?

Another intersecting concept: COM:URAA, but URAA seems to only apply published works outside the States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Or, to put it another way, for anything that had no publication before 2003, and was not published within 25 years of creation, publication date is completely irrelevant to when U.S. copyright will expire. - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

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

(courtesy ping @Moosey98: )

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

Frank Stella US ToO

Can I get a US threshold of originality check here? Reproduction of a Frank Stella painting (Quathlamba, late 1960s) on a German stamp, licensed as PD for being simple geometric shapes. I'm not totally sure about that, but I think this would crack open the door for a lot of other Stella works if there's truly consensus it's below ToO. Other works I'm thinking might be allowable if we agree with this PD assessment could include this, this, and this. Thoughts? (totally separately, but I assume it wouldn't be that hard to find evidence that the painting on the stamp is PD for lack of formalities upon original publication, but that's a search I don't have time to do) 19h00s (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy tag to uploader: @Delorian 19h00s (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)