Broken references

I noted that there are plenty of broken reference links (31). This probably happens due to the different referencing system, so when the country entry is transcluded by {{TOO Country}} the same cannot be said also for the corresponding references, grouped together with {{Reflist|refs=}}. --ZandDev (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Infographic showing "GIMP"

The infographic claims that the GIMP in its distinctive type face is not protected by copyright anywhere. I am not expert on the UK law, but it has a special copyright for typography that we honor. I think that the distinctive type face is probably protected there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Golang history in a diagram

Does the image meet the threshold of originality? --D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Graph on fibres intake and diseases

Does this graph https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext#gr1 meet the threshold of originality? By browsing previous cases I would say no, but I'd like to know what other users think. Sette-quattro (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated

Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

TOO:Ukraine

In the page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine maybe some new informations (e.g. COM:TOO Ukraine) could be added, reviewed and/or removed, given that at the beginning of this year a new copyright law entered into force, see:

• https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21708
• https://www.petosevic.com/resources/news/2023/02/4726

-- ZandDev (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

EU threshold of originality

Hi all, I'm missing from this page the fact that the threshold of originality is harmonized within the European Union after the Infopaq ruling in the European Court of Justice. In the EU member states, there is thus little room left for national versions of threshold of originality. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Linking to defunct UMichigan wiki

I noticed that Timeshifter recently added to the maps section a link to an archive of the University of Michigan wiki and encouraged readers to use that to determine whether a map is public domain. I think this is inappropriate to use as a source given that (1) it's a wiki, (2) it declares itself a "work in progress" and says that "none of the information presented [therein] should be considered legal advice in any way", and (3) it only seems to cover US law. It seems to me that any useful information in it should be paraphrased directly in the article, and ideally attributed to a more reliable source. Since this has proved controversial on a related English Wikipedia discussion, I thought I would float my concerns here before removing it. Justinkunimune (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The link to the wiki page (the Casebook) has been there for a long time. This was all discussed in 2019. See:

Commons talk:Threshold of originality/Archive 2#Bobby Glushko communications. At the time of that discussion (2019) Bobby Glushko was, and still is, the Associate Chief Librarian of Western Libraries at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. He is the author of this Casebook:

Open.Michigan Wiki. Casebook archive on "whether or not the content object is protected by US Copyright law.". Opening in the maps section. There is much case law linked from there.

Wikis can have pages where one person has the final say. I know because I am the main admin on a couple wikis. I am not surprised that the wiki was not maintained. Wikis are hard to maintain. There are many references on Wikipedia that are archived.

Bobby Glushko, an expert in copyright law, said that he signed off on everything on that Casebook page. As to its usefulness he wrote: "Those are as accurate as it’s possible for the answers to be. The challenge with copyright is that as a court applied doctrine, there aren’t always hard and fast answers. That said, I stand by my original analysis, which is to the best of my knowledge consistent with the case law."

His LinkedIn page here shows extensive collaborative copyright work. He worked on a multi-state multi-institution Copyright Review Management System:

Program Manager/Copyright Librarian. University of Michigan. 2011 - Apr 2013 · 2 yrs 4 mos - Project Manager for a three year multimillion dollar Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded National Leadership Grant for the development of the Copyright Review Management System – World grant. I co-wrote the funding proposal, researched the legal issues, designed and implemented the review process, and trained and managed over twenty reviewers from fourteen partner institutions. In addition to this, I was responsible for managing the progress of the grant, making long term strategic plans for the grant, and reporting progress to the IMLS. - Working with the lead copyright officer, I was responsible for outreach, education, and faculty and staff service with regards to copyright policy at the University of Michigan Library system. I helped craft library policy. - As part of an engagement in the national copyright dialogue, I have drafted comments for the US Copyright Office, for DMCA Rulemakings, and other commenting processes. Additionally, I have coordinated work with various amicus curiae in relevant legal cases, and have worked with top library staff to prepare comments and blog posts on timely legal issues, such as the ongoing litigation between the Publisher’s Guild and Google, as well as the litigation between the Author’s Guild and the HathiTrust. - Working with the HathiTrust, I was the primary rights adjudicator for patron initiated questions. I handled takedown requests, individual access requests, and broader collection access policy questions. As part of this role I have initiated a multi-state review of state application of copyright law to their government documents. I mentored an Association of Research Libraries Career Enhancement Program Fellow in this arena, and we produced a preliminary research agenda that has been used to open thousands of state government ...

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well regardless of how long it's been there I think it should be removed and the relevant information should be put directly in the text. You don't need to paste the same CV that you already sent me in the Wikipedia discussion; as I said there, I'm not questioning Bobby Glushko's expertise. What I'm questioning is the reliability of that page. Bobby himself says that copyright is "a court applied doctrine, [where] there aren’t always hard and fast answers." That means that his original analysis is not guaranteed to hold up in court; it's only "to the best of [his] knowledge consistent with the case law", and thus should shouldn't be relied on as legal advice.

For what it's worth, I'm also not saying all of the ideas attributed to that wiki page ought to be removed. Several of the cases cited in there are clearly relevant. But we should cite those directly rather than citing the wiki page, and we need to note that they're only directly relevant to works made in the US. Justinkunimune (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Your point about the US is well taken. Commons:Licensing:

You wrote: I'm not questioning Bobby Glushko's expertise. What I'm questioning is the reliability of that page.

The point of including the relevant parts of his resume is to show his expertise. How else are we to believe him when he says this: "Those are as accurate as it’s possible for the answers to be. The challenge with copyright is that as a court applied doctrine, there aren’t always hard and fast answers. That said, I stand by my original analysis, which is to the best of my knowledge consistent with the case law."

He is not the only person making some of his points. He covers more than maps and charts. Much of what he is saying has been corroborated by other experts and institutions. See throughout Commons:Threshold of originality. It is important to see that corroboration. We can't do that by deleting it. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The resume isn't necessary because I'm not questioning his expertise. I believe him when he says that it's "consistent with the case law" "to the best of [his] knowledge". But I also believe him when he says that "the challenge with copyright is that as a court applied doctrine, there often aren't hard and fast answers". This uncertainty is what I think needs to be communicated on the page that isn't communicated by simply linking to the UM wiki.

I think we should paraphrase the guidelines from the UM wiki into the article, reference the relevant cases directly, and include Bobby Glushko's caveat about this being a court-applied doctrine. For example, here's a way that I think we could say the same thing but without all of the links, and being clearer about the uncertainty.

Use {{PD-map}} for maps which have been deemed ineligible for copyright proteccion. See Category:PD map for a list of maps that have been tagged this way.

While there are few legal precedents for the threshold of originality as it applies to maps, the same principles apply as for other types of media:

• Copyright protection for an original work of authorship does not extend to ideas, concepts, or principles regardless of the way it is illustrated or embodied in that work.
• When there is only one or a few ways of expressing an idea, the expression is not subjected to copyright protection.
• The United States recognizes the "creative spark" principle, meaning that a visual representation of data with no expression or requisite spark of creativity is ineligible for copyright protection.
• Australia recognizes the "sweat of brow" principle, meaning that any work, even a phone book, can be protected by copyright.
• Copyright law is a court-applied doctrine, meaning there are no hard and fast rules about what does and does not meet the threshold.

One relevant precedent is Darden v. Peters, in which William Darden applied for copyright protection for a series of maps on his website. To make each map, Darden took a public domain US Census map, "colored the map blue, and added shading to give the map a three-dimensional effect. [He] selected a font to use in labelling the states, and he added call-outs as well." The US Copyright Office rejected his application, concluding that the simply recoloring and 3D-ifying of an existing map lacked the minimum amount of creativity needed for copyright protection in the US, noting that "copyright does not protect familiar shapes, symbols, and designs, or mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, fonts, or coloring." An appeals court upheld that ruling.

Keep in mind that even if the map doesn't meet the threshold of originality, there may be other legal limitations on its use (for example, a patented map projection).

This also removes the need to discuss lawyers' credentials, which makes it shorter and less repetitive. Justinkunimune (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You are right that this needs to be emphasized. I don't know why I hadn't added this to COM:THRESHOLD already. I talked about it multiple times in discussions elsewhere and here. I added it just now near the top of the Maps section:

Bobby Glushko, the author of the Casebook, said here concerning the Casebook:

"Creative spark" and "sweat of the brow" are mentioned already. Darden is well covered.

Info is needed on patented map projections. One of the Google search results says: "Map projection patents are rare, many patentees did not attempt to develop their patents, and none who did seems to have made much money." From here.

Google: how long do map patents last. Google summary (for what it's worth):

Google: are basic choropleth maps using a patented map projection copyrightable. Google summary (for what it's worth):

So it looks like any map that qualifies for {{PD-map}} would still be qualified even if it uses a map projection still under patent. The creator of the map might get sued if they used the software without a license. But anybody could use already existing basic maps with that map projection to create more maps. Since they wouldn't be using the software themselves.

Google: what are some currently patented map projections in the united states. Google summary (for what it's worth):

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent changes; they're a big improvement to the section's clarity and accuracy. However, they also make it longer, and I think it was already too long for the amount of information it contains. To be clear, I'm proposing to replace the Maps section with the text I wrote in green becuase it's shorter and it doesn't require readers to click through to external websites like the UM wiki. Would you object to that, or are there points in the current version that you don't think would be covered by my shorter version?

By the way, you shouldn't rely on Google Gemini summaries; they often contain mistakes. For example, the AuthaGraph projection is patented by Hajime Narukawa. Anyway, "patented map projection" is just an example of an intellectual property law other than copyright; I don't think we need to discuss it in detail. Justinkunimune (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The info in the text you wrote in green is not remotely adequate. It's a complex subject as witnessed by the many discussions in the archives here and elsewhere.

I think though that Commons:Threshold of originality has become too long for the average reader. It started off in 2009 with a few countries, and now it includes many countries.

So I think it should remain as a country list, and the topics should be moved to another page. Everything from the "Logos and flags" section down through the "Charts" section. That would remove around a quarter or a third of the page. Use table of contents to get to "Logos and flags". Look at where the the drag button is on the sidebar to see how much will be removed. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)