Usergruppe Heraldikbamberg und deren Dateien

Bei diesem "User" handelt es sich um eine Personengruppe, die vor einigen Jahren zahlreiche Fotos aus Bamberg eingestellt hat, Schwerpunkt Wappen. Problemː Die Autorenrechte können doch nicht der Gruppe, sondern nur dem jeweiligen Fotografen zugerechnet werden? Kann ein Kollektiv überhaupt als "User" auftreten und Bilder lizensieren? Ist die Teilnahme an der Gruppe als konkludentes Einverständndis anzusehen? GerritR (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Solange alle Bildrechte explizit bei ihnen liegen und sie sich als Gruppe einstimmig dafür entscheiden ihre Bilder auf Commons hochzuladen sehe ich darin kein Problem. Auch das nutzen eines einzigen Accounts als Gruppe ist erstmal nicht weiter problematisch. Es muss im Zweifelfall aber nachgewiesen werden können, das die jeweile Person, welche das Bild erstellte auch wirklich ihr Einverständnis gegeben hat. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Also muss jede Datei mit einem VRT-Ticket versehen werden, oder etwa nicht? Wie will man sonst das Einverständnis belegen, unter Beachtung der hier geltenden Regeln? GerritR (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Über die genauen Vorgaben weiß ich ehrlich gesagt auch nicht wirklich viel. Im Zweifelsfall solltest du einen erfahreneren Commons-Nutzer um Rat fragen. Mir ging es erstmal um generellere Fragen. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Vielleicht reicht eine pauschale Erlaubnis von jedem einzelnen Gruppenmitglied à la "Hiermit erkläre ich, dass der Account xyz autorisiert ist, durch mich erstellte Bilder unter der Lizenz CC-xx-xx zu veröffentlichen."

Ob das dann als VRT-Ticket bei jedem Bild einzeln aufgeführt werden muss oder ob einfach Links zu allen relevanten Tickets auf der Benutzerseite als Nachweis ausreicht, weiß ich nicht. Müsste man mit VRT klären. Nakonana (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sollte man @Heraldikbamberg empfehlen, entsprechend tätig zu werden und bei der VRT-Abteilung anzufragen? Ich fände es schade, wenn die Bilder entfernt werden müssen, aus edukativer Sicht sind die meisten zu wertvoll. GerritR (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wäre wahrscheinlich sinnvoll. Nakonana (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ich halte das für aussichtslos, da ich weder rekonstruieren kann, wer welche Bilder gemacht hat, noch irgendwelche Kontaktdaten anderer Beteiligter kenne. Einverständniserklärungen von Gruppenmitgliedern einzuholen, wird also schwierig (selbst für meine eigenen - die jüngeren Bilder sind alle von mir, aber bei den älteren weiß ich es nicht mehr).

Vielleicht warten wir erst einmal die Entscheidung des Löschantrags ab, um den es hier geht - wenn die Unklarheit hinsichtlich der Autorschaft zur Löschung führt, wird ja Admin-seitig hoffentlich auch gesagt werden, wie das geheilt werden kann (falls überhaupt). Hier der Link zum Löschantrag. In den bisherigen LA, die Gerrit auf die Bilder des Account gestellt hat, hat es jeweilg keine Rolle gespielt, was nichts heißen muss, aber doch unwahrscheinlich macht, dass es weithin als großes Problem gesehen wird, wenn hinter einem Account mutmaßlich mehrere unbekannte natürliche Personen stehen. Gruß CRolker (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

wer welche Bilder gemacht hat — deswegen ja gerade der Vorschlag der pauschalen Erlaubnis, weil man bei so einer Erlaubnis evtl. nicht rekonstruieren muss, wer welches Foto gemacht hat (v.a. wenn die Mitwirkenden nicht auf Namensnennung bestehen). Nakonana (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Danke für die Überlegung. Der von Dir befürwortete Vorschlag von individuellen VRT-Tickets setzt aber doch, wenn ich das richtig verstehe, eine individuelle Zuordnung voraus, darauf bezog ich mich. Das pauschale Einverständnis würde dieses Problem umgehen, es bliebe aber immer noch die Frage, wie heute nachträglich belegt werden kann, dass 2018/19 ein solches Einverständnis gegeben wurde - der naheliegende Weg, die Leute einfach noch mal zu fragen, ist verbaut (damalige Email-Adressen sind längst stillgelegt, Universitäten haben meist kaum Daten zu Alumni und würden sie uns schon aus Datenschutzgründen auch nicht nennen). Momentan haben wir letztlich nur die Beschreibungsseite des Accounts, die ein paar Namen nennt. Das ist wenig.

Ich glaube, wir stochern hier alle ein wenig im Nebel, jedenfalls hat keiner von uns bisher Regeln oder Präzedenzfälle anführen können, die wirklich einschlägig wären. In dieser Hinsicht hoffe ich auf Klärung durch den abarbeitenden Admin. Wenn die Anonymität der Urheber bzw. die fehlende Möglichkeit, die hinter dem Account stehenden natürlichen Personen zu kontaktieren, gar kein Löschgrund sein sollte, dann ist auch Gerrits Befürchtung hinfällig, die Bilder könnten verloren gehen. Wenn das aber doch ein Löschgrund sein sollte, kann der jeweilige Admin vielleicht auch sagen, was wir hilfsweise tun können, um die Bilder zu retten. Gruß CRolker (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ich zieh mal @Rosenzweig hinzu. GerritR (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ich kann da auch kaum Erhellendes beitragen. Hier geht es weniger um Urheberrecht, sondern darum, wie die Korrelation Benutzerkonto zu Realperson(en) gehandhabt wird. Idealerweise nur eine Person pro Benutzerkonto (ist das irgendwo in den WMF-Regularien evtl. sogar festgelegt?), de facto gab es solche Mehr-Benutzer-Accounts aber schon vor 20 Jahren, vgl. de:Benutzer:CdaMVvWgS (die alten Benutzerseiten von 2003 etc.) --Rosenzweig τ 17:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ja, ist geregelt (hier) aber hier nicht strittig - der Account wurde zuletzt 2019 von mehr als einer Person genutzt, dann von einer, dann fast von keiner. Gerrits Frage ist, ob das ein Löschgrund für die unter diesem Account hochgeladenen Bilder sein könnte, und dazu scheint keine Regeln zu geben. Gruß CRolker (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we actually have to provide evidence of publication for pre-1989 no notice works?

Because I've seen multiple deletion requests close as keep due to it "probably" having been published, even when it is exceedingly unlikely that it was prior to 1989. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Probably" for something "exceedingly unlikely" is a problem, but that is a matter of facts, not policy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Each case is unique. If the person requesting the delete is out "dragon slaying" (See here for definition), then caution should be exercised. First of all, request to whoever posted the word "probably" to justify their statement and at the same time, check their posting record to ensure that they are likely to read your posting. Remember, the image might have been posted in 2010 and the person who posted it died in 2020. Put the request on the image Talk Page so that everybody can see it. There might be a good reason and it is not unknown for somebody to come back five years later and make the same request. If it is on the talk page, they will avoid making a fool of themselves.

On the other hand, if you have good reasdon to believe that the image was not published before 1989 AND IS STILL IN COPYRIGHT, you should post your rationale rather than just saying "I don't believe that". Martinvl (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that people can just assume that it was published then and not have to provide proof; how am I supposed to prove it wasn't when there is no proof of when it was published at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As Martinvl says, this always comes down to cases. There is no point to discussing this in the abstract. If there are particular images in question, let's focus on those, not on an impossible abstraction. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel For the one that bothers me most is File:David koresh.jpg. It was produced in 1987, but was not published then.

Mugshots were not usually published at the time, unless in a newspaper. I checked every newspaper article that covered Koresh pre-Waco (there weren't that many), and while there were photos of him printed, the mugshot never was until 1998 (and the places where it is included say it was first published in 1998!). Yet, it was kept at DR as "1978 and February 1989 no notice and no registration", but we have no evidence of where this was first published or if it was or without notice, despite no keep votes.

I could understand assuming if there was reasonable precedent, like say a poster in a series of a posters that were likely distributed, or something like that, but it happens with individual photos where we don't know that they were published at all.

So, can I just take any photo and assert that it was published and I get away with that? Really? Because that seems to be the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: As I'm sure you know, having participated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:David koresh.jpg, that is a really tricky one on several counts. Nearly all of the complexity is because it is a mugshot, so (at least on the basis of this example) this appears not to be nearly as general an issue as your initial remarks implied.

1. I presume we can all agree that when the mugshot was taken, it became available for newspapers (or, really, anyone) to use, and that the McLennan County Sheriff's Office did not engage in the then-required formalities for a U.S. copyright. If making the mugshot available constituted publication (I personally have no opinion either way), the it is PD on the basis stated by Abzeronow when he closed the DR. His closure is terse, but this appears to have been his reasoning.
2. It is possible that all mugshots in the U.S. are public domain. Certainly some people quite knowledgeable about copyright believe this to be the case; as far as I know, the matter has never reached a courtroom.
3. Failing that, it is possible that Texas's own specific policy with respect to use of mugshots may be liberal enough to make them "free enough" for Commons, even if the counties hold copyrights. Again, I don't have a decided opinion, but I could imagine a reasonable case; as far as I can see, the only real question would be the degree to which they allow derivative works, which seems unclear to me.

In any case, I do want to address one other remark in the DR (not yours): The worst part about this is that other people think this image is public domain because we said it is. If that's the worst, then that's a good reminder that this is more a detail of Commons policy than anything with legal consequences. As far as I can tell, the only possible copyright-holder is the McLennan County Sheriff's Office; clearly, they have no interest in enforcing their copyright; so the consequences of mistakenly believing this is in the public domain are not much. Losing a bar bet? Being mildly embarrassed over a misstatement? Clearly not "facing legal consequences."

Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Why can we assume that the McLennan County Sheriff's Office did not engage in the then-required formalities for a U.S. copyright?

2. I believe this but Commons consensus comes down against it every time.

3. We have time and time again deleted mugshots from Texas, every single discussion we have had on this count comes down to not free.

It was kept due to formalities, so point 1, your other two points have nothing to do with this. "Clearly, they have no interest in enforcing their copyright", COM:PCP. So apparently the consensus is yes, anyone can assert that anything was published and it will be kept. What fun. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel essentially sums up why I closed it as I did. Mug shots were circulated, McLennan County Sheriff didn't bother to copyright it because it was not in their interest to, they wanted it publicly available. Pre-1989 mugshots are basically almost always public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Circulated among private people does not mean published! COM:Publication. Publication means to the public, and the American legal definition of publication only counts public circulation. This was not published until 1998, they had no reason to publish the mugshot of a small time criminal until he became famous, which was in the 1990s. Most mugshots are never distributed to the public.

It would have been in their interest to copyright it, obviously, this image has commercial value.

Not true, most deletion requests on pre-1989 mugshots have closed as delete. This is quite inconsistent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Read the page you linked to. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." So when they offered the mugshot to the press, they were publishing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes They did not offer it to the press. That does not happen with most mugshots. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

They did not offer it to the press. That depends what you mean by "offer." Of course they didn't phone up newspapers and say, "We have a mug shot here of some guy you've never heard of, picked up on a relatively minor charge. Want a copy?" But they did (and do) have a general policy that mug shots are available to the press. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's going to depend in part on the type of media. Something like a newspaper or a poster has almost certainly been published, since that was the purpose of creating the work. A photograph in isolation is more questionable, since it might have been part of a personal collection. Omphalographer (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that with a poster or a newspaper it is inherent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with Jmabel's and Abzeronow's assessments. I also think that ridiculous requirements beyond significant doubts—which are made here—are disruptive, and not useful for Commons. Yann (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliefweb

I read this page, which (I think) says that we can upload maps from Reliefweb to Commons. Does that mean that I can upload the map that is in this report? Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Lova Falk: it's really hard to say. They say overtly that they offer "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported licence" {{CC-BY 3.0}} (OK for Commons) but then they link that to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en, which describes {{CC-BY-NC 3.0}} (not OK for Commons). So, unless we can get a clarification from them (ideally, editing that page for internal consistency), I would not rely on that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If I were you I'd send an email asking them to edit the webpage for clarity. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Copy/vio

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yoruba_Oduduwa_People_Ethnic_Flag.svg&oldid=1234259804

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yoruba_Nation_OduduwaStar_Flag.png&oldid=901562739

this image seems to be copy/vio. Wmbata (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Convenience links:

• File:Yoruba Oduduwa People Ethnic Flag.svg
• File:Yoruba Nation OduduwaStar Flag.png

1. This is complicated by the overwrite of the original flag at File:Yoruba Nation OduduwaStar Flag.png (which looks to me to have been below the threshold of originality) with a duplicate of File:Yoruba Oduduwa People Ethnic Flag.svg that is tangentially related to the original upload there.
2. It's not obvious to me that these are copyvios, though they could be. Is there an original that you believe they infringe? Usually, much as with coats of arms, the basic design of a flag is not copyrightable, only a particular visual expression of it so, for example, if that particular representation of a golden head and laurel leaves is the artist's own creation (or is something in the public domain) these are presumably fine, but if they are an exact or near-exact copy of someone else's copyrighted rendering then they are a copyvio.

Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This flag design is a real world ethnic or political flag and the uploader uploaded it as "own work" . As seen on this sites

here ,

here ,

here ,

here,

and on Facebook

here.

This file use a high detail photographic cutout of the Ife head that is identical across multiple external sites and it is very likely a copy and paste from an external source, making it a derivative copyright violation. Wmbata (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not a photographic 'cut out' but a graphical representation/design of a real life object, much like the design of a horse, a boat or a historically signifiant tree or building on a coat of arms or ethnic/national flag.. same goes for the laurel.

Not sure what your first line is about as flags are not copyright violation. Also, that something is identical across 'multiple external sites' is not proof of copyvio. Even on the file's own description, thee are external links to pictures hosted on other websites where the flag has been used in real life instances. I, for example, can upload an image from wikipedia to an external site, unless you can bring the original source of the image design protected by copyright by the designer/owner which has been violated, with proof.

Note: All the external links you have put up are broken, save for the third, but regardless, whatever is there takes nothing away from the fact that the upload is not copy vio. Oramfe (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:FBISD Historical Marker.jpg

I assked about File:FBISD Historical Marker.jpg here at VPC back once before in 2023, but that thread got archived with much being resolved. The file recently showed up on my watchlist due to a edit made by a bot; so, I figured I'd ask about again. While I'm sure the uploader took the photo itself, I'm not as sure as to whether the photographed marker (which appears to have been installed in 1991) can be covered by the same license due to COM:FOP US and COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs? Should the prose on the marker be treated as a copyright-protect work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As to your question about copyright, I do not know. I took the photo, as I have taken photos of other Texas historical markers and never encountered a question about copyright. I assume that if I take my own photo of something, that it is up to me whether it can be posted. The exception would be if I was in a museum that prohibited photos. Djmaschek (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you take a photo of someone else's copyright protected work (and your photo itself is eligible for copyright protection separate from the photographed work), then you've created a derivative work; in other words, there are two copyrights Commons needs to consider: one for the photo and one for the photographed work. You could perhaps post your photo on some other website or maybe even use it in a print publication under a claim of en:fair use, but Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type, which means all of a derivative works elements needs to 100% in compliance with COM:L for Commons to be able to host it. A photo of a 3D object like the one you took would be eligible for copyright because of the creative descisions you made when deciding how to take the photo; so, you would be the copyright holder of the photo. You, however, had nothing to do with the creative decisions made by whoever created the marker; if the marker (written text, overall design or both) is considered eligible for copyright protection, then whoever created the marker would be considered its copyright holder. Some countries have copyright laws that do allow people to freely photograph such works without worrying about whether you're infringing on rights of the work's copyright holder, but the US isn't one of them, at least not when it comes to 2D or 3D works, even when they're publicly displayed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs applies and the content of the sign may be copyrighted. The content itself needs to be in the public domain (e.g. below TOO, PD due to being created by a government, or expired) or freely licensed. In this specific example, it seems like none of those are true and the content of the sign is not free. -Consigned (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that the prose on the marker is sufficiently creative (complex) for it alone to be eligible for copyright protection. It's possible that the prose came from somewhere else, but I'm not sure how to try and check that. At the bottom of the marker beneath the prose, "(1991)" is written; if that's the date the marker was installed, then that would be considered the publication date of the prose, right? That would mean the prose is not old enough to be {{PD-US-1978-89}} and most likely would be de-facto eligible for copyright protection even without any visible copyright notice anywhere to be found on the marker. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think it's reasonable to assume 1991 as date of publication; 1991 works are copyrighted regardless of copyright notice per COM:HIRTLE. -Consigned (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Right to use photos of artist paintings from U.S.docs. - use: Unrestricted

Right to use photographs of artist paintings from PGO U. S. documents with text use: Unrestricted? I have oploaded a number of photographs from a U. S. school book for young classes in art: Amiotte, Arthur: Art and Indian Children of the Dakotas. Book five. Office of Educational Services. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Aberdeen. No year. Downloaded from the web pages "govinfo.gov". A user have raised the question if it is allowed or if the owners of the paintings just have given permission to publish the picture of the art work in this specific book, although published as a GPO publication. Yours Indianertosset (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Related file: File:Artist Charles Trimble - Dancer (1967).png.

Who did commission that publication? Was there a copyright notice in it? Yann (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The Hathi Trust record suggests that the 5 books have been published in 1982, while ERIC, a government source, dates Book 4 to 1978. I could only find Books 1-4 on ERIC, none of which seem to have copyright notice, and which are credited to the 'Cultural Arts Curriculum Development Center, Manderson, South Dakota, a field office of the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen Area Office, Aberdeen; South Dakota'.

Therefore, material originally published in this series seems to be at least PD for lack of notice, if authors are not acting in the course of governmental duties.

However, given that the artwork just mentioned by Yann is 10 years older than the earlier possible publication date, I would doubt that this was the first publication of the 1967 artwork in particular. Felix QW (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Felix QW. Thanks for your comments. What do you suggest - I let the pictures of the painters and paintings be on wikimedia or I delete them? I don't want to make problems. Yours Indianertosset (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Yann. No copyright notice in it. On govinfo I found this text in connection to the book: "Rights Statement: This document is a work of the United States Government and is not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 USC 105". yours Indianertosset (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, "first publication" is not particularly crucial. In the "notice required" era, any widely distributed authorized publication without notice (and, starting in 1978, without registry within 5 years) was sufficient to lose copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a very fair point - the publications in question certainly seem to be sufficiently widely distributed, and there is no reason to believe it has not been authorised. So, although the paintings are probably not a case of {{PD-USGov}}, they should be covered by {{PD-US-1978-89}} if there is no registration of copyright (presumably in the name of the artist, as the government would hardly have registered copyright for the publication). A quick search in the catalogue does not come up with anything from 1978 onwards, although I wonder whether one could still lose copyright if one had a previous registration (subsequent to an earlier publication)? Felix QW (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that is exactly what happened with several films that lost copyright when distributors were careless about changes to the title sequence and lost the copyright notice in the process, but I'd appreciate if someone more expert weighed in. - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Felix QW. Thanks for your interest in this question. I have changed the license of the uploaded files to "PD-US-1978-89" as suggested by you. Hope this will settle it. Yours Indianertosset (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Abt Garhammer.png - hier hat der Entscheider die Zahlen in der Grafik mit dem Alter der Grafik verwechselt und damit eine Behaltensentscheidung begründet. GerritR (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Es wäre einer schnelleren Beantwortung deiner Themen dienlich, wenn du diese auf Englisch formulieren könntest. Commons ist ein sprachübergreifendes Wiki-Projekt, daher ist - trotz der weiten Verbreitung von maschinellen Übersetzern - Englisch als allgemeine Arbeitssprache üblich. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Aber ich glaube, GerritR hat Recht. @TheImaCow: did you presume that the date in the image is the date of the image? Gerrit is pointing out that is not likely, and I agree with him.

Unless something else is going on here, the question would next be: when does this illustration of the coat of arms really date from (and, ideally, who drew it)? From the look of it, it could be any time from 1900 or so to the 1960s (imaginably outside that range, but I don't think so). Lacking a source it is hard to make an intelligent guess, and uploader JPGARHAMMER hasn't been heard from in several years. Also, while File:Wappen Abt Georg Garhammer Prüfening 1448 Nachcoloriert.jpg (same uploader) is claimed as simply "own work," it is clearly derivative of this file. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wenn es sich wie auf w:de:Garhamer (Adelsgeschlecht) beschrieben um das persönliche Wappen von "Abt Georg Garhamer" handelt, der im 15. Jdh. gelebt hat, wieso sollte sein Wappen dann erst später entstanden sein? Selbst wenn es sich um eine Nachzeichnung des Wappens handelt, entsteht dadurch ja kein neues Urheberrecht. ~TheImaCow (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Die Grafik hat eigenständige Schöpfungshöhe. GerritR (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The blazon would date to the 15th century, but blazons aren't copyrighted. The copyright issue is the date of the emblazon: the particular rendering of the blazon. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Löschantrag neu gestellt - Deletion request again. GerritR (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Public Domain, Google-digitized

Hello, I have uploaded these files:

• File:Amasa E. Killam in 1922.jpg
• File:Alonzo Granville Draper.jpg

Both of these images come from books that have a Public Domain, Google-Digitized tag of them, with the text of "Digitized by Google" under the pages. I unknowingly did not look at the HathiTrust Access & Use Policy before adding these, which state that:

• Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

 Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images.

Although, there may be a case of PD-scan since it is just a photocopy of a public domain image, BUT there is still text under the paper that says it was digitized by Google, BUT it may not pass the Threshold of originality since it's just text added below the book. What to do? Should I remove them and replace it with the definitely public domain ones at Internet Archives? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, since in this case it just covers whitespace, you could simply crop it out. Commons:Watermarks suggests that watermarks of this kind are discouraged but not forbidden; however, on otherwise public domain material I would suggest removing it. In terms of copyright, I think that the text and logo should definitely be below the US threshold of originality. Felix QW (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I have uploaded new versions of the file with no watermark. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The "digitized by Google" logo is plain text, and far below the threshold of originality. It's certainly preferable to remove it where feasible, but it's not required that you do so. (We have a ton of scans of PD books with cover pages from Google Books, and it's actually preferable at this point that they stay in place to keep page references in Wikisource accurate.) Omphalographer (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Photo that contains a logo on an item

I have a photograph that I took that I would like to add to a Wikipedia article. The photo is of a gallery display. One of the items in the display is a whisky bottle with a logo on it. COM:CB explains how to handle an image of a logo when the image is of the logo itself (like a png or vector), but I’m unsure how copyright rules might apply to an image like this. Trotsk6 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to an image of the bottle / logo in question (from the internet)? It will depend on the complexity and country of origin of the logo (see COM:TOO). It will also depend on how prominent the logo is in the overall image (see COM:DEMINIMIS). Nakonana (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. It's a bottle of Sassenach whisky. In the photo I've taken (it's landscape), I'd say the bottle takes up more than half of the length of the shot but maybe only one fifth of the horizontal breadth. Trotsk6 (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Trotsk6: may I assume that you're residing in Scotland, or at least in the UK (I took a look an your EN-WP userpage)? In that case, COM:UK for a set of copyright-related guidelines may be relevant for your endeavours, like COM:TOO UK, which actually is a lot about logos.

And how can a gallery display, assuming you meant something like an art gallery or a product displaying gallery at a manufacture place be a landscape image? Of course, if you set up a bottle into some scenic environment, you have an amalgamation of product photography with landscape imagery, but I don't see a "gallery" in that.

For what it's worth, in COM:DM United States you have a reference to Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., but such a high court ruling is seldom given and case law not available in most countries.

Nakonana wrote how prominent the logo is in the overall image, but that is not meant to describe some kind of numerical threshold of occupied surface area in the image. It's more meant to describe how "important" some feature is to the overall image. As an extreme example (for that really small features can be utterly important to an image): for the en:Pale Blue Dot, the most defining feature of the image is the eponymic dot, occupying an infime fraction of the whole amount of pixel in the finished example.

A solid, conservative application of the en:De minimis doctrine is to test whether a copyrighted work is insignificant enough to the image so that an ordinary viewer would not notice if it were removed. Anything more prominent is borderline and best to be avoided per COM:PRP.

The prefacing text is likely seen as nudging you towards "Do not upload". But that's not the whole picture. For how long has the whisky manufacturer been in business and using his logo? If you can convincingly demonstrate that the two oak leaves or any other logo features are something old, maybe used as maker's mark for more than a century, there would not IANAL be copyright problems in uploading an image of them here. While Commons:CARES, the project does so only about copyrights, trademarks and similar are COM:Non-copyright restrictions that aren't really relevant to us. Last but not least, you will find a kind of compendium about third party copyrights at COM:Uploading works by a third party, even though that is not particularly applicable for logos and some household objects. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response. When I said the image was "landscape", I was referring to its orientation, but I realise now that I may have phrased that part of my comment clumsily. Thanks for all the resources too. I think it's probably best to stray on the side of caution and refrain from using the image. Trotsk6 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as I understood, it's one bottle of whisky, surrounded by other bottles of whisky / other objects?

The logo (of the horse?) also appears to be rather small, so that I think it might be fine to upload, and the worst / safest case scenario would be to blur the circle with the horse. Nakonana (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright laundering

I came across File:Minecraft Logo.png on Commons today when the uploader added it to the w:Minecraft article, claiming it is available under a free license. I reverted it back to Wikipedia's non-free version at w:File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png.

That image is a derivative of File:Minecraft Key-art.png, which also is tagged with a free license. It seems that the origin of the "free" claim traces back to this YouTube video that was released by Xbox under a Creative Commons license, in which the logo flashes on the screen almost too briefly to see.

My question is: If a company releases a video under a free license, does that automatically void prior copyright restrictions on any property that may be depicted in that video?

I found a couple of relevant discussions about this question:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Resident Evil Requiem - 4ème Trailer.webm - see later comments recognizing that the "free" claim is questionable
• w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 May 30#File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png - Wikipedia discussion referencing the above Commons discussion

Similarly, File:Minecraft Logo-en.svg also exists on Commons with an assertion of a free license, with the source image being on a Github repository that clearly states in the LICENSE file "All image assets of this project are copyrighted by Mojang Studios and may not be used outside this project without permission by Mojang Studios" followed by an MIT license contradicting this statement. That file is also tagged at public domain for failing to reach a threshold of originality in Sweden, but I think that's a subjective claim. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For File:Minecraft Key-art.png, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft, where decision to keep was unanimous (minus the nominator). You might want to renominate for deletion if you think community consensus about this kind of free licensing has shifted. Based5290 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. That discussion doesn't appear to account for the contradictions I described above. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

PD picture on a non-PD article

Hello: I was planning to add a picture that was taken circa 1880s and is found at the second page of this article:

• https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol10/tnm_10_3_15-48.pdf

According to the article, published 2000, the photograph was taken circa 1880s. It says, below the photo

Figure F: Gaius Samuel Turner, farmer, shipbuilder, trader, lumberman, quarry owner, railway promoter, Liberal-Conservative ML A for Albert 1878-1892, b. 1838. d. 1892, circa early 1880s.

Source: Courtesy of Kathleen Turner, Edmonds, Washington, United States.

Now, could I just crop the picture out of the article since it definitely fits PD-old since it was taken before 1931, but it's in a 2000 article and it was given to possibly by the heir of the image. Can someone help me? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that it is a work of Canadian origin, the photo would be public domain there per {{PD-Canada}}. However, we also need to consider the status of the image in the US.

The chart at COM:US instructs us that for a work of "unknown or corporate authorship" created before 1978, but published between 1989 to 2002, is copyrighted until minimum December 31, 2047. If this image was first published in that 2000 article, then the photo is copyrighted until December 31, 2047.

However, per COM:Canada, if we can prove the photo was published in Canada at least before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice (or 1964 without renewal), then it would have also fallen into the public domain in the US per {{PD-1996}} (anonymous works in Canada are Create + 100 years). – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

More precisely on that last paragraph: it would have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. upon publication without notice, or upon non-renewal and would never have had its copyright restored (since URAA would be irrelevant for a work already out of copyright in Canada on 1 January 1996). the same logic would apply for most other imaginable places of first publication. So finding any publication without notice before 1 March 1989 would be very good. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Publication of text on postcards

The following question came up during license review of Flickr PD-Mark material: Is posting a postcard to somebody publication of the text written on the card? I was reviewing City Hall Swedish Missive (54142255168).jpg, and while the printed postcard itself is clearly in the public domain, I was unable to justify why the text should be, as I could not see any reason to believe it was ever published (with the consent of the copyright holder). I opened a deletion request where the question of publication has been brought up, but as I am sure the issue will be encountered time and time again with message text on otherwise public domain postcards, I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience here. Felix QW (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sending one copy to one person is not publication. However, it looks like this was not anonymous, and if was not been published as of 31 December 2002, then it most likely will be PDat the end of 2027, and could already be PD. Here are the cases:

• Author's date of death is known, and is before 1956: {{PD-old-70}}
• Author's date of death is known, and is after 1956: it will be {{PD-old-70}} on 1 January of the 70th year after the year of the author's death (e.g. 1960 death => 1 January 2031).
• Author's date of death is unknown: on 1 January 2028 it will be 120 years from creation, and we can use {{PD-US-unpublished}}

I'm guessing we are in that last scenario, so probably should delete this and restore in 18 months, but if we know anything about the author's date of death, or about publication before 2003, that would change the picture. (I haven't enumerated the earlier publication cases, but any publication between 1931 and 2003, with appropriate notice and renewals as required for the relevant date, would mean it is currently copyrighted.)

Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Projet de rephotographie patrimoniale — questions sur les licences et l'upload vers Commons

Bonjour, Je développe une application de rephotographie à vocation patrimoniale. Le principe : un utilisateur photographie un lieu, et d'autres peuvent ensuite reprendre exactement le même cadrage au fil du temps. L'accumulation de ces prises de vue successives documente l'évolution d'un lieu — une sorte de chronologie visuelle, utile sur le plan patrimonial et scientifique (j'ai déjà des sollicitations de chercheurs travaillant sur le climat qui souhaitent y attacher des observations datées). L'application proposerait deux modes. Un mode personnel, privé, sans aucun lien avec Commons. Et un mode communautaire, gratuit, où les contributeurs accepteraient explicitement de placer leurs photos sous licence libre (CC BY-SA) en vue d'un versement sur Wikimedia Commons, en s'engageant à ne photographier que des sujets libres de droits et conformes à la mission documentaire du projet. Avant d'aller plus loin, je préfère vous exposer la démarche et recueillir votre avis, sur deux aspects.

1. Licences et droits des contributeurs. Le modèle « le contributeur cède ses droits en publiant sous licence libre » vous paraît-il solide ? Comment recueillir un consentement valide et éclairé au sein de l'application ? Et comment gérer le cas des mineurs, qui ne peuvent pas céder de droits seuls ?

2. Versement vers Commons. Quelle est la marche à suivre pour une application qui verserait des images de façon programmatique ? Faut-il un statut de bot ? Existe-t-il des limites de débit à respecter ?

Si ma demande relève d'un autre espace, n'hésitez pas à me rediriger. Merci d'avance. J00hnWayne (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Tthank you for the translation! Looking at all the posts I was exactly thinking doing the same. :) ~2026-36659-32 (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am developing a re-photography application focused on heritage. The concept is simple: a user photographs a location, and others can subsequently replicate the exact same framing over time. The accumulation of these successive shots documents the evolution of a place—creating a sort of visual timeline that is valuable from both heritage and scientific perspectives (I have already received inquiries from climate researchers wishing to attach dated observations to these images). The application would offer two modes: a personal, private mode with no connection to Commons, and a free community mode where contributors explicitly agree to release their photos under a free license (CC BY-SA) for upload to Wikimedia Commons, committing to photograph only subjects that are free of rights restrictions and align with the project's documentary mission. Before proceeding further, I would like to outline the approach and seek your feedback on two aspects.

1. Licenses and contributor rights. Does the model where "the contributor assigns their rights by publishing under a free license" seem sound to you? How can valid, informed consent be obtained within the app? And how should the issue of minors—who cannot assign rights on their own—be handled?

2. Uploading to Commons. What is the procedure for an application that uploads images programmatically? Is "bot" status required? Are there rate limits to observe? If my inquiry belongs in a different forum, please feel free to redirect me. Thank you in advance.

@J00hnWayne: Bonjour, Je publie une traduction ci-dessus, avec l'aide de Google Translate. Beaucoup parmi les personnes compétentes pour répondre à vos questions ne connaissent pas forcément le français, et la plupart des discussions ici ont lieu en anglais. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

English translation with the help of Google Translate. Yann (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Yann! ~2026-36659-32 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Government photos in India

File:Commonwealth Games closing ceremony picture.jpeg this photo isn't the work of Flickr's user, but, in accordance with EXIF, was made by governmental photographer. Whether such photos are licensed under OGL-India (as other governmental works)? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Flag of Dominica - country flag still under copyright?

Tl;dr: Does the flag of Dominica count as an "applied art" for copyright purposes and/or is it too simple to be copyrighted?

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 23:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 this seems to be the same issue with that of Vanuatu. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/06#Vanuatu flag for the discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't consider the flag design could be considered a legal document due to its official adoption... Most governments already have the same kinds of provisions although Dominica's Commons page doesn't elucidate on the matter. I will hold off on advancing a deletion request unless there is a clearer argument for copyright protection. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this work in the public domain in my country? template

this template is not exactly very accurate

take https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm as an example

as far as i can tell, this would also be pd in canada, china, india iraq, iran, malaysia, new zealand, pakistan, peru, the philippines, venezuela and vietnam due to them following publication + 50/other years for cinematographic works and them expiring (with no retroactive restoration)

its likely pd in japan (complicated) and turkey (assuming no retroactive restoration)

however all are classified as not public domain according to the tag

also i think the list of countries/territories listed is not large enough Noob282 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The tag says:This work was published in 1928 and is now in the public domain in areas where the copyright term of audiovisual works is 95 years or fewer since publication.. Where is the problem you are writing about? Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

i mean the one at the bottom Noob282 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Exorcist steps plaque.jpg

Is File:Exorcist steps plaque.jpg OK for Commons as licensed or does the copyright status of the plaque (image and text) mean it needs the COM:CONSENT of the plaque's copyright holder per COM:DW and COM:FOP US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Permission is needed; I've nominated the file for deletion. -Consigned (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Exif data says "Software used: Instagram"

See File:Goat meat soya.jpg. Does that mean, the image was taken from Instagram? Or does Instagram have some feature to take/edit photos? Nakonana (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana Yes, that metadata indicates that the photo was edited by Instagram, and the overlay on the photo in the top right corner confirms this. This is probably from the "Stories" feature, which has an option to save the edited photos locally when you post them. Usually, images that are downloaded from Facebook/Instagram have the FBMD metadata string, rather than the "Software used: Instagram", but I can't say for sure. Neither indication can truly tell us for sure whether the image is someone's own work or if they found it somewhere else. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Found the source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=24330301023284266. Name matches. Omphalographer (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the source! Also thank you @AntiCompositeNumber for the clarification because I couldn't find anything with reverse image search and wasn't sure whether the EXIF data is an indicator for a copyvio or not. Nakonana (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention this on the file talk page to protect the file from any unjustified deletion requests or is this too close to outing territory? Nakonana (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

possible copyright issue with Arco da Calheta Civil Parish Coat of Arms.gif

Hi all! I'm primarily an editor from english wikipedia. I've recently found File:Arco da Calheta Civil Parish Coat of Arms.gif from scrutinizing AtlanteanAstorian's LLM-generated edits at en-wiki. From what I can gather with Google Translate, it seems that the author of the work didn't copyright it with CC-BY-SA 4.0.

There's also a lot of other files like File:Fajã_da_Ovelha_Civil_Parish_Coat_of_Arms.gif that are similarly licensed, come from the same author, has been uploaded by User:AtlanteanAstorian, and doesn't seem to be copyrighted with CC-BY-SA 4.0 ~2026-36983-09 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a mess. Judging by that page, (1) the uploader AtlanteanAstorian corresponded in Portuguese with the owner of the site from which this comes, Sérgio Horta, who is also credited as author. (2) Sr. Horta gave a permission that was not couched in terms of a CC license, but is broad enough. (3) AtlanteanAstorian took it upon themself to call that a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license (whereas {{Attribution only license}} would have been more appropriate). Also, they gave no indication of the appropriate attribution which, judging by the reproduced correspondence, would be the page of origin on heraldicacivica.pt, not the the name Sérgio Horta. Since that page is not even indicated on the Commons file page, there is almost no way anyone can correctly conform to the license. (4) The correspondence should, of course, have gone through VRT; it did not.

In theory all of this can be solved, but this was terribly handled, and unless someone takes on sorting out the mess, we are liable to have to delete this and every other similarly uploaded file. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I need to note that, I've figured out how to check their uploads and it's the same mess of "bad copyright info", for example, this one or that other one, or this image of a medal pointing to legislative text, or the first images uploaded by them, which also don't indicate permission and so on and so forth ~2026-36983-09 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

So even more of a mess. I see that AtlanteanAstorian was active on en-wiki as recently as about 6 weeks ago, so there is some chance they will help fix the mess. Otherwise, it looks to me like there might be a lot of files here to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Tons of possible copyright violations

I came up across a prolific uploader Кіріл Єлисаветградький, and after he created an article on SR Wikipedia, I checked several images he uploaded, and most of them were copyright violations. Also, lot of pictures in Category:Nikolay Trubin seems copyvios as well. Some of pictures may be theirs (e.g. modern picture of a grave), and I will continue checking his contribs, but would like to solicit help from more experienced users to weed out his contribs. Ђидо (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

EBBA Files

Hello! I wanted to some files from the English Broadside Ballad Archive (EBBA) since they're in the public domain. I'm just making sure they're viable since EBBA's license say they are CC-BY-NC 4.0 but they're just photographs so I think PD-Art applies there as well. What do you think? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

(I assume the missing verb in "I wanted to some files" is "upload".) Without seeing any example of what you want to upload, I can't see how anyone else could meaningfully say more than you have already said. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that! Here are some images from the EBBA catalogue I wanted to upload here:

• https://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/20857/album
• https://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/31034/citation
• https://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/20801/image

Here are some examples of what I mean, I meaning to upload some more, but I wanted to make sure they're in the public domain. Sorry for the inconvenience... DoNothingEveryday (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoNothingEveryday: Assuming you are talking strictly about the image files, and that they are (as they appear to be) from old broadsheets, then those are certainly public domain, and any copyright claim is ridiculous. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Will upload them now DoNothingEveryday (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Does South Africa now have Freedom of Panorama? If so, what are the perimeters of it?

User:Michaelgraaf says in an UDR that this court decision https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2026/26.html means that South Africa has FOP. @Discott: I haven't seen any news idea that seemed to indicate that South Africa has any sort of FoP so I'm interested in hearing from those in the know in ZA if it has indeed joined the ranks of yes-FoP countries, or if this is still a country in which we're still pushing for FoP? Abzeronow (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow I think close but not yet. As per updates from Discott, the bill will return to the parliament to tweak one section that was found unconstitutional: subsections 1-5 of Section 12(D). See also the statement from one of the bill's supporters, COSATU, and this resource from the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance.

In any case, the FoP provision remains supposedly intact, as the meta:Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendment Bill states it is under Section 14, which is not one of the provisions Ramaphosa contests.

Per the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance, the court struck down Section 12(D), subsections 1 to 5 because they believed it "constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property. These provisions enable the wholesale copying of textbooks by educational institutions under loosely defined conditions, failing to adequately define "commercial purposes" or specify which institutions qualify. The Court held that this improperly shifted the state’s burden to fund public education onto private authors, disrupted normal market exploitation, and conflicted with international copyright law." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Film

Hello, just wondering whether anyone could confirm whether this film and its three sequels are in the public domain. There are stills in all of their commons categories which say its copyright has not been renewed but I am unsure whether the score/the illustrations at the start change anything. I've not been able to find anything in commons policy specifically regarding public domain films so if anybody knows of something to read and could shoot it my way, that would also be great, thank you. Paccyd33 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment In the U.S., most studio-released stills from that era are in the public domain (often they were not copyrighted at all, and very few were renewed); most films from that era remain copyrighted. - 17:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Argentine de facto FoP likely OK with one caveat

Previous recent discussions:

• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12#Argentine_architecture_now_object_of_copyright
• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/09#Argentina_and_Building_Interiors_(covered_under_de_facto_FOP_or_not)

Pinging all participants of the previous discussions: @Abzeronow, Clindberg, Cambalachero, and Asclepias: .

I found an online copy of the 2nd ed. of Dr. Emery's book on Argentine copyright law: on Scribd. This is the 500+ pages version. The quote on reproduction of buildings is now at page 67, as opposed to page 40 from the first edition (via COM:FOP Argentina citation). To quote in full:

Como se expresara (ver § 11) se ha admitido pacíficamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos del autor. Frente a esta aceptada situación de hecho, se debe concluir que lo que la ley protege es la originalidad en el dibujo, el croquis o el modelo y la facultad del arquitecto de autorizar o prohibir las reproducciones de estas exteriorizaciones por terceros.

Google Translation: "As stated (see § 11), it has been generally accepted that buildings may be reproduced through paintings or photographs, without this reproduction being considered to infringe the author's rights. Given this accepted factual situation, it must be concluded that what the law protects is the originality of the drawing, sketch, or model, and the architect's right to authorize or prohibit reproductions of these representations by third parties."

This quote relies on the important excerpt from Section 11 of the book, found at page 65:

Con respecto al derecho de reproducción del dueño del edificio que se encuentra adornado con pinturas murales, el dueño del edificio podrá lucrar con fotografías de todo el conjunto edilicio, pero no con reproducciones individuales de las obras. Así, por ejemplo, el propietario de Galerías Pacífico tiene derecho a reproducir su cúpula dentro del conjunto arquitectónico, pero no las obras allí contenidas en forma individual; esto no sucede con respecto a la cúpula del Teatro Colón, ya que toda ella es obra de Raúl Soldi.

Google Translation: "Regarding the reproduction rights of the owner of a building adorned with murals, the owner may profit from photographs of the entire building complex, but not from individual reproductions of the artworks. Thus, for example, the owner of Galerías Pacífico has the right to reproduce its dome within the architectural ensemble, but not the individual works contained within it; this does not apply to the dome of the Teatro Colón, as it is entirely the work of Raúl Soldi."

In a nutshell, it is accepted in Argentina that building owners can reproduce the buildings their own through photography and sell their photos even without permission from the architects. However, only pure architecture can be exploited. Murals, frescoes, and any artwork that is integrated into the buildings are not exempted from copyright and must not be photographed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Presumably, few images we would be concerned with are by the owners of the buildings, so I'm not sure how that last is at all germane. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)