Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
2. Have you read the FAQ?
3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Bodycams and PD-automated

@Trade recently added a statement to {{PD-automated}} stating this template doesn’t cover bodycam footages. I know from past discussions that there wasn’t any clear consensus on whether bodycam footages are copyrightable, so I wanted to ask here again for other’s opinion on the added statement on the template. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It's long been an unwritten rule not to use PD-automated on bodycams and for us to delete such videos and screenshots. It's possible we have just never declared it an official policy

As for the DRs i was waiting for

Commons:Deletion requests/File:(Explicit Violent Content) Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing the Nova music festival area on 7th October.webm before taking any action against those Trade (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

For the DRs that voted kept it's worth keeping in mind they either had very fed participants. In other cases, most of the vote keeps were people engaging in personal attacks against the nominator --Trade (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• One problem with the template is that it doesn't properly address differences in national law. For example, under Swedish law, the only requirement is that the photograph has a producer, in which case it is automatically protected for 50 years from creation. Originality is only a concern if you still seek copyright protection after more than 50 years from creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  No one is stopped from making changes that adresses differences in national law Trade (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  So how do this work with CCTVs in Sweden? Trade (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  As long as the photograph has a producer, the copyright expires 50 years after the photo was created. I don't know who the producer is in the case of CCTV. Maybe it is the technician who last pressed the on/off switch. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just flagging that we previously went through a similar discussion on CCTV/automated camera videos a few months back, might be some useful insights in there. 19h00s (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Either we are allowed to host CCTV footage or we are going to have to delete hundreds of videos and screenshots. There's no compromise to be made here Trade (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

1943 title page for Talking to India

en:File:Talking to India.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a non-free license, but it seems too simple to be eligible for copyright in the US per COM:TOO US. I'm curious though as to whether it might also be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the UK based on the UK's new TOO. Even if that's not the case, perhaps the book itself is now PD for some reason per COM:UK because of its age. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, The cover is probably OK, but the book is not in the public domain, as en:E. M. Forster died in 1970. Yann (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. Based on what you posted, I'm assuming a {{PD-text}} license is probably OK for both the US and UK, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• COM:UK#Typographical copyright indicates that there is a typographic copyright which expires 25 years after publication, but that has obviously already expired. Furthermore, I would think that the title page is normally not created by the author of the book and the person who created the title page is probably anonymous, so any copyright in the title page would have expired 25 or 70 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Stefan2. Based on what you posted, it appears the title page could be no longer eligible for copyright protection for two reasons: COM:UK#Typographical copyright and COM:UK#Unknown author. What licenses would you suggest using in the first case and in the second case? In the "unknown author" case, though, I'm wondering whether the page would've still been protected on the UK's URAA restoration date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if there is a copyright tag for the UK typographical copyright. For the 70-year term, use {{PD-UK-unknown}}.

  For the United States, use {{PD-ineligible}} or a variant of that copyright tag. As it is below the threshold of originality in the United States, you don't need to consider the URAA stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality of logos

The shield in this logo appears to be something that is beyond "simple design" to qualify as public domain, but not so certain that I wanted to get some opinions before proposing deletion. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for VP/C rather than the now-open DR? - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , Easy on acronyms and abbreviations which took me a moment to decode. This discussion at Village Pump/Copyright was started 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC) by me as a broader discussion by me to really get a good idea of the boundary between simple and complex. Someone else filed a Deletion Request 3 1/2 hours later on the same file at 19:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC) which is beyond my control. So I'm not sure why you're asking the question? Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking why there was any reason to continue discussion here, given that there is now (or, more accurately, was at the time of my remark) an open DR. That DR has now been resolved. Again, is there anything that needs to be discussed here that was not covered in the DR? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

In broader picture, Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States shows nVidia logo is copyrightable but the Subway and Geek Squad ones aren't. At first sight, I'm not quite grasping what makes the nVidia one at the threshold. For those that haven't been through court/administrative dispute, how do we go about what's above below threshold for Wikimedia upload purposes? Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, partly informed by rationales given in court rulings. This is almost all case law, not statute law. Even actual copyright lawyers will sometimes disagree; because of the precautionary principle, we try to set Commons' threshold relatively near the low end of the gray zone. I am sure our decisions are not completely consistent over time, but I'm also sure that the consequences are not enormous (having a particular logo hosted on Commons or not is not of enormous importance). As far as I know, we've had few, if any, takedown notices for logos that had had any scrutiny. As in most things related to copyright, Commons tends to stay in a range that most copyright lawyers would find conservative. (Compare almost any other media site on the web that accepts user uploads.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

We have actual rulings on the Subway and Geek Squad logos. Nvidia logo does not have an official ruling, which means we use editor consensus, which as Jmabel pointed out runs rather conservative. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Are these in the public domain?

This is about two files - one of which I'm about to upload and the other that has already been uploaded.

The file that hasn't been uploaded yet:
This is the file I'm planning on uploading: https://x.com/MatPatGT/status/1932458863619404194/video/1
I would like to upload the audio of this video. I believe it is in the public domain as the video is formatted and angled in a way that makes it seem like it was originally recorded and published by a congressperson. However, I am not sure if that applies to videos, and if it doesn't, please let me know.

The file that has been uploaded:
This is the file that has been uploaded: File:Matpat aurafarming cropped even more.png
While I do believe the file was formatted very badly and uploaded by a careless contributor, what I also believe is that this was taken by a congressperson - possibly the same congressperson who took the other photos that have been uploaded here. What I'd like for this is a source to attach to the file, although I'd probably want to verify the source first. Regardless, it seems like a safe file to me and, if the file really is in the public domain, I might consider replacing the image in MatPat's Wikipedia infobox with that image, as I believe it is the best recent file of him on commons. I changed the license from a CC0 license to a PD-Congress license earlier tonight and I do believe I was correct with that change.

I would like to know if both of these files are in the public domain - if they are, I will upload the former while the latter's info can be cleaned up. If not, the latter can be deleted while the former will not be uploaded. I am making this as I believe this will require some form of discussion. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see any evidence here that any of this media was actually made by a member of Congress or a federal employee. Press events like the one pictured are attended by many different people whose photos would not be PD, including press, Congressional campaign staff (not federal staffers), outside partners (like MatPat and his entourage), or members of the public. Notably, MatPat tagged several large companies in his post, presumably because they are involved with this effort; how do we know that YouTube or Jubilee didn't send a photographer or set up the livestream to ensure the event was documented and well-covered? MatPat posted the video and photograph himself, it was not posted by a federal source; we'd need confirmation of some kind, whether that's an original image source or a photo credit listed in another place, to show that it was in fact a federal employee who made the photo. I also don't really understand what you mean when you say the photo is angled in a way that makes it seem as if a member of Congress took it, but I could just be misreading that.

From where I sit, Commons:PCP would necessitate deletion of the photo and no uploading the other media unless/until we have a definitive source on who made the images/video. 19h00s (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Which is what I was hoping could be found.

The reason why I believe these were made by congresspeople were because of files such as this, which have similar camera quality. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, that image sourced from Rep. Yvette Clarke changes it a bit for me. It's very possible that the images came from Clarke's office, but we'd still need confirmation I think. And I apologize for my "don't really understand" comment, I more meant that I didn't see the connection between the angle of the image and it being made by a member of Congress or their staff, but after seeing the photo's from Clarke's office I see what you mean. 19h00s (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully someone will be able to determine this soon. I think we're getting closer to finding out these files are fine to be here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: I found out where the latter file came from. It came from the same Tweet the video came from. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Right now, however, we are still determining whether or not they came from a congressperson. While I personally believe that that is the case, it is not definitive and that's why I'm forwarding this to the village pump. Sorry if I say things that don't make the most sense, by the way, English is not my first language. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I nominated this file for deletion. There is no evidence that the license is valid. If the author is unknown, how could we know? Yann (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Uluru

There has been some media attention recently (e.g. [1]) concerning photos of Uluru. Essentially, you need a "media permit or license" to "capture, use or create images,footage, recording, artwork or likeness of Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park for commercial or public purposes" [2], or you face fines.

For existing photos, they must be "reviewed and approved by the Media Office before use". These permits/licences are valid for 10 years, after which you apparently have to reapply. They also have a broad ?request? to not "capture or use existing images or footage of people climbing, the base of the climb, the chain on the climb or views from the climb, including from the top of Uluṟu."

Can any media depicting Uluru or the national park be included on here? Even on Wikipedia, CC-BY-NC would seem to not be permitted, as you need a licence for "public purposes". 128.250.0.194 11:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an example of a Commons:Non-copyright restrictions (unless you can show me where in their copyright law they literally copyright this mountain). Commons generally permits this type of photo, with a warning. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Looking at Template:Australian Commonwealth reserve, it seems insufficient, as restrictions are not merely on commercial purposes, but "commercial and public". It may need to be edited, or another template made for gradations of restrictions. 49.183.93.101 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Images Published by Sri Lankan Army in July 2009 (Subsequently Deleted from their Website)

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (2 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (4 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (5 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (3 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions Hand Over their Weapons (6 out of 7).jpg

File:Sri Lankan Islamic Fractions (Homeguard & Jihad) Hand Over their Weapons at Kattankudy on July 4, 2009 1.jpg

Appendix 2: In response to a government-declared amnesty on July 4, 2009, several Muslim militant groups in the Eastern Province surrendered dozens of weapons

These 6 photos were released by the Sri Lankan Army as part of a press release on their Website. [3] The thing is the Sri Lankan Army deleted those photos but once they had uploaded those photos.[4] The footer of the Sri Lankan Army Website says:

© Reproduction of news items is permitted when used without any alterations to contents and the source. All Rights Reserved. Ministry of Defence - Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Did I amend it to the copyright tag? (CC0) Zero Public Domain, "No Rights Reserved". I don't know which License is appropriate for it. Also AFP used these exact images but it doesn't seem like they asked for copyright permissions?[5]

What do I do now? If I wait it out the images will be deleted in 6 days. Wikipedia Commons is asking me to provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Then update the tag with on file description page. This is really complicated for a noob like me.

The Images are being used for the following page: [6] {{Permission pending|year=2025|month=September|day=28}} RajaRajaC (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@RajaRajaC Do you have permission to upload these photographs? As you have mentioned, the footer states these images are non-free (“All rights reserved”) and no derivatives allowed (“without any alterations to contents”), so they cannot be uploaded to Commons, hence should be deleted. Please read Commons:Licensing for more details. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will delete it then. How else am I supposed to give readers context? Can I use it on just on vanilla Wikipedia? Which License should I select if I can do that? RajaRajaC (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

On en-wiki you might be able to upload one such image, at low resolution, under the policy laid out at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Beyond that, I'm not sure why images would be needed for "context", but if they are relevant, you can refer to them with external links. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd do with the one upload. Is there an embed feature on Wikipedia? RajaRajaC (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@RajaRajaC: Not sure what you mean by an "embed feature." Embed what in what? - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of March 1941 of Luftwaffe image

Hi folks!! I have this image located on page 22 of [7]. The image was taken by a Luftwaffe reconnaissance flight in March 1941. The site was subsequently bombed. I'm currently unsure about the copyright status of such images. I've had a chat with User:Marchjuly today at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright on Luftwaffe images and he identified "property as spoils of war angle" as a possible avenue for the image being in public domain and suggested posting the question here after having a look at the policy articles. Certainly it seems to be true in the US case but is it the case that the UK government took a similar approach by seizing such property as spoils of war and making the image public domain? As is an annoted intelligence photo taken by Luftwaffe Command Staff Ic/II, it would have been seen as a valuable items. Thanks.Scope creep (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Does nobody have any idea about this? Scope creep (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Hi, This is certainly in the public domain in Germany, which satisfies one of Commons conditions. The trickier issue is the copyright status in USA, and whether URAA applies or not. We have had discussions about such images, and the result was not clear. Personally, I would accept this, but others may disagree. Yann (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann. Does that mean I can upload as a public domain image? And concomitantly, what licence would I use for this, for example if I uploaded to Commons? Scope creep (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Here's the tricky part, as I read the URAA. This would be exempt as owned by the Alien Property Custodian if the image had been seized by the US. Since it was seized by the UK, this would legally be a grey area. The copyright was not ever held by the Alien Property Custodian (but a very strong case could be made that US courts still would not enforce a Nazi copyright). -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Somalia

Hello. I'm requesting for someone to update COM:SOMALIA and possibly some related pages. Accordingly, their intellectual property office reopened in 2019 and resumed operations in 2021. It also means PD-Somalia is no longer default, as it is now possible to register copyrights of Somali works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

{{PD-Somalia}} may need to be discussed and, possibly, deprecated in favor of {{PD-Somalia-no notice}} and {{PD-Somalia-expired}}, considering that the copyright office is now operating again. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ping two participants of the first discussion at Template talk:PD-Somalia for some comments: @Geni and Wikiacc: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Potential Nirvana photo

Hi all. I am currently trying to find a free or otherwise public domain of Kurt Cobain and/or his band Nirvana. The current photo on Cobain's Wikipedia article is unsatisfactory, and the latter's article uses a fair use image. There is a very short window of time between 1987 (when Nirvana formed) and February 1989 (when US copyright laws got stricter) where photos of the band could have been published without copyright notice and without being renewed, thus being in the public domain in the US.

I have found one such potential photo, the Love Buzz cover art. This is the packaging of the band's first single released in 1988, and as can be seen on the gallery, there isn't an explicit copyright notice on the jacket itself. Both photos on the front and back are rather blurry, so their usefulness for illustrating Nirvana or Cobain is debatable. There are primarily two issues relating to the copyright, the first is that the vinyl itself does contain a copyright notice reading "Produced by Jack Endino ©+℗". The second is that the photographer, Alice Wheeler, appears to indeed have registered the copyright for "Nirvana first photo sessions" in 1993. However, this record appears to only claim photos created in 1989, whereas the Love Buzz cover was released in 1988.

Does the above issues prevent scans of the cover art from being uploaded to Commons as {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-US-defective notice-1978-89}}? Howardcorn33 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no copyright notice in this Discogs page containing scans of the vinyl record, so I think it should be fine. But I'm no expert on US copyright law, so another opinion is preferable. Bedivere (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Only one way to find out. Upload it and see if someone deletes it :) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

btw @Howardcorn33, Tracy Marander (the former girlfriend of Kurt Cobain) took several photos, some of which have been published. They were not registered [8], none of them. If you can find some pre-February 1989 shot of Marander, then you might be lucky. I found some October 1988 pictures, and another ones from the same timespan on Reddit, but that might not be the best of sources. Good luck. Bedivere (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've uploaded it here: Nirvana - Love Buzz Big Cheese front cover.jpg Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh it appears a second free Kurt Cobain photo exists, which I've now uploaded: Photo of Kurt Cobain from US Embassy in Bern (cropped).jpg Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume Howardcorn33 meant to link File:Photo of Kurt Cobain from US Embassy in Bern.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploading an alternate print of a negative?

BEGIN moved from Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Somewhat recently (2021) an alternate print of the famous File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg photograph was published [9] in the journal "Holocaust and Genocide Studies". This print is in the possession of the United States Holocaust museum ([10]) and was probably photographed/scanned by the authors themselves since the museum itself does not host a digitized copy. An additional digitized copy of higher quality was published in 2024 ([11]) in an article by welt.de ([12]).

I want to upload this alternate print to Wikimedia commons but I am unsure about the copyright situation with this image. The original print seems to be part of the public domain due to being published in the US between 1930-1977 without a copyright notice. I am wondering whether the public domain status also extends to this alternate print, since the exact photographic reproduction of a work in public domain is not protected by copyright (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp). The key question seems to be: Is the alternate print considered the same work as the already published print or not?

The alternate print shows a larger section of the image (two additional soldiers watching are visible) and is of higher quality (buildings in the background of the image can clearly be seen) which is why I think it is relevant to upload this print. Since the copyright situation for the two scans of the images should be the same I would choose to upload the scan by welt.de due to its higher resolution Veryspecific (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Veryspecific: subtle questions about copyright are much better asked at COM:Village pump/Copyright. Mind if I move this there? - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No, go ahead. Veryspecific (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

END moved from Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Veryspecific: Yes, if the original picture is in the public domain, any new scan will also be. Yann (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not a new scan. It's another old print, from the same negative, but showing more of the image then the version we already have.

The question, I suspect, is what is the publication date for those additional parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would this print have a different copyright status that the one we already have on Commons? Even if it is scanned from a different print, I don't think that changes the copyright. Yann (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would it inherit the publication date of a print of part of the negative? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Surely the creative work is the photograph, not the print? The photographer is credited as the author, after all. Omphalographer (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally, but weirdly if it's significantly differently cropped it doesn't quite work that way. Consider a more extreme case: imagine that in 1950, someone published a detailed map of the United States, ran an ad for it showing the Florida portion, failed to get the formalities right, and the Florida portion fell out of copyright in the U.S. The rest of the map would not lose copyright.

Assuming there was anything copyrightable in the portions that had not lost copyright in the current image, the same considerations would apply. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Does this still apply when the cropping does not significantly change the photo? In this case the crop concerns only the edges and the "essence" of the image is the same for both prints. Veryspecific (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"does not significantly change the photo" is supposition. On what basis is it supposed? Why do we want the new version, if it is not significantly different? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case, when was the whole photograph first published? The well known version is not the whole photograph, so its date of publication presumably cannot be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Question about collective works published before 1978

Would a collective work whose only copyright notice bore the name of an author of a contribution have the copyright to the rest of its parts not forfeited? The Copyright Office's Jaws decision seems to suggest yes, since it goes great lengths to emphasize that the Jaws novel is not a collective work. I'm asking because this is directly relevant to Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Power Broker book cover.tiff and the copyright status of File:Houseboat Days - Ashbery.jpg. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment clearly talking only about U.S. even though that is not stated. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection

The problem is that a number of files within this category (and it's subcats) are incorrectly tagged (and have been since upload).

Fae was undertaking a curatorial task using tools they had authored until they left, due to specifc Commons contributors offensive and inappropriate attempts at humor (as I recall it).

This has sadly meant that for over 4 years, Commons has potentially been hosting signficant material it should not have been, if it's own policy was being applied.

What is needed is a contributor copyright investigation, even though the vast number of these files would prove to be acceptable by Commons policy standards. It is the minority of files which taint the entire upload. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

When doing this, remember that a fair number for which the claimed basis for PD is wrong are still fine under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this position. Specifc groups of content of concern are Contractor reports (post 1989) , co authored papers, and library holdings that aren't federal works. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Music videos

Sooner or later, people probably should check whether music videos posted under CCBY can be licensed that way for both music audio and the video. It may be the case it's often just for the video if the file was released by the music video director in which case the audio would have to be muted I think. If the audio is also CCBY, then it would be good if the audio was extracted and uploaded separately. I thought about doing so but noticed this current state of ambiguity. Two example music videos are File:Alcest - Les voyages de l'âme (Official Music Video).webm (not on vimeo anymore so you need to view the archived source) and File:Robin Schulz - "Sugar" - Director's Cut.webm (856 M views; note that the video license is not CCBY on YouTube). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Cemeteries and freedom of panorama in Finland

Hello everyone, I have a picture of a Jewish cemetery in Helsinki ready for upload. Reading the freedom of panorama page for the country, i.e. it's mostly restricted to buildings, I have a doubt: Would tombstones be considered 'sculptures' and therefore not be allowed? I do see other pictures of cemeteries in Finland on Commons. In this case one of the tombstones in the picture has a bit more of, say, design to it. Many thanks in advance for your time and help, Sjenghai (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• The law excludes commercial art like tombstones, and forbids "sculptures (non-commercial only)". --RAN (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. I won't upload the picture then until FOP were to change in Finland. Best regards, Sjenghai (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Sjenghai wait, are the tombstones recent creations? If the designers of those have died for more than 70 years, then you may upload images of them as satisfying public domain (see COM:Finland#General rules). "Copyright subsists until 70 years have elapsed from the year of the author's death or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, from the year of death of the last surviving author." In this case, the author is the sculptor or tombstone designer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  The tombstones are of people who passed away in, mostly, the 1990s so that wouldn’t apply here. Many thanks for the additional clarification and help nevertheless! Much appreciated, Sjenghai (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Noted, very unfortunate. Anyway, you're welcome! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, tombstones with only text or standard religious symbols may fail to pass Commons:Threshold of originality and therefore be free. Pere prlpz (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Pere prlpz perhaps {{PD-structure|FIN}} will work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Portraits from EC Audiovisual service

This came from Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inga_Ruginienė_2025.png, but in that case EC isn't the owner. The uncertainty is about portraits the EC owns like File:Visit of Carolina Barco Isakson, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the EC.jpg. The EC audivisual service's license says "CC BY 4.0 licence, with possible exceptions of parts containing personal images". Stricken. See my reply to Tvpuppy

Commentary about the GDPR and Polish law differ from the definition at COM:PERSONAL, saying "personal images ... the appropriation of a person’s likeness" or "The personal image is defined ... as: The image is a fixed set of physical features typical for a particular person enabling the individualisation and recognition of that person."

This could affect all portraits under Special:Search/"https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/". How should we deal with the phrase "possible exceptions of parts containing personal images"? 173.206.37.177 18:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, according to the statement you linked, isn’t the quote “…CC BY 4.0 licence, with possible exceptions of parts containing personal images…” referring to specific video files, so not related to images or portraits? Tvpuppy (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "referring to specific video files, so not related to images or portraits" means. File:Visit of Carolina Barco Isakson, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the EC.jpg was always an image. Its source links to the "Conditions of Use" I quoted.

File:Inga Ruginienė 2025.png was originally a video, and a commons user extracted a still. But a video is just a series of images (frames).

I just re-read the licensing page. Skipping over private individuals, the next part appears relevant: "• Moral rights, publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights, such as image rights are not covered by the reuse decision. ... [Per RAN's comment, this bullet is about personality rights not copyright] • For any commercial or promotional uses of content depicting public or individual persons, or for any use not authorised by this copyright notice and the terms of use accompanying each individual file, we strongly recommend to you obtain a prior authorisation from the rightsholders." I'm now also worried this part goes against COM:Commercial. 173.206.37.177 18:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You said “This could affect all portraits”, and I’m saying that it appears you have misunderstood the license page. The full quote on that page states, “All other kinds of videos available on this website may be edited and re-used in line with the provisions of CC BY 4.0 licence, with possible exceptions of parts containing personal images or third party works”. So, it will not affect all portraits. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I struck that part to focus on File:Visit of Carolina Barco Isakson, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the EC.jpg. How should I interpret "Restrictions ... content depicting public or individual persons ... recommend to you obtain a prior authorisation from the rightsholders. ... [only] where none of the specified restrictions and/or specific cases apply, ... CC BY 4.0"? 173.206.37.177 20:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, along the lines of RAN's comment below, perhaps the phrase "strongly recommend" means a non-binding or optional condition so not a real "restriction" that limits the CC BY 4.0 at the bottom. I hope this is what the EU thinks. 173.206.37.177 19:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• As worded it appears to be a cautionary statement about terms of use in countries with "personality rights", which do not override the CC license. For instance we cannot use a photo of a prime minister and use it in an advertisement where the PM is endorsing a product or service. --RAN (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Order of elements in a U.S. copyright notice?

A contributor has uploaded a screenshot from a 1967 U.S. film with the claim of "Public Domain due to defective copyright notice", apparently on the grounds that the film's credits say "Aries Documentaries production copyright © 1967" when the uploader believes the correct sequence of these elements should have been "Copyright © Aries Documentaries 1967". This seems a pretty contrived argument to me. The relevant legislation appears to be the subsection of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Practices dealing with copyright notices for motion pictures published between 1964-1977:

2122.6(B) Notice Requirements
The copyright notice for a motion picture or other audiovisual work may consist of any acceptable form of the word “copyright” or the copyright symbol, along with the name of the copyright proprietor and the year date of first publication. Generally, it should be embodied in the motion picture or filmstrip, preferably in the title frames or near them, or embodied in or after the closing credits, and should be clearly visible when projected or broadcast. For more information about copyright notice requirements, see U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES Chs. 4, 8.2, & Supplementary Practice Nos. 18, 19, 27, 29, 35 & 37 (1st ed. 1973), available at http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap2100/doc/appendixA-noticerequirements.pdf.

Looking at that 1973 appendix, there is a subsection 4.2.5. Dispersed Notice. (Unfortunately it's a poor scan with some words cut off in the right-hand margin of the PDF, but I think it reads as follows:)

I. Standard form of notice
a. The three elements of the notice ("Copyright" or "Copr.," the symbol ©, the name of the claimant, and the year date should be given together as a single continuous statement.

II. Where elements are separated.

a. General rule. Where the elements of the noti[ce] are all present but are separated, the notice [may] be accepted as long as it is reasonably clear that the name is that of the claimant and the date is the year date of copyright ...

b. Separated name.

1. Where the separated name is the only name appearing on the same page as the rest of the notice, it may be accepted as part of the notice.

In other words, the fact that the copyright holder's name appears immediately before "copyright © 1967" (rather than after it) is irrelevant, and the claim of "defective copyright notice" is a questionable one. Thoughts? Muzilon (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with your conclusion, the uploader is really stretching the definition of "defective" far beyond its intended meaning. AFAIK there has never been any requirement in re: the order of elements in a copyright notice in the US. 19h00s (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've seen similar arguments here regarding newspapers where the date (e.g. "October 1st, 1980") appears at the top of the masthead, and the words "© Acme Media" appear at the bottom of the masthead. Some uploaders have claimed "Oh, but the copyright notice should have said "© Acme Media 1980". Muzilon (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: discussing an ongoing DR here without linking it amounts to forum shopping. This is presumably about Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Finley.png. If you were going to discuss it somewhere else, you should have made a brief, neutral statement of the issues at hand and directed people to the discussion already going on, not start a second parallel discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Actually, that DR was closed before I started this thread. I was surprised by that Admin's decision to "Keep" the screenshot with the assertion that there is "no valid reason for deletion". I'm not sure that Admin is correct, but before I appeal his decision I thought I'd seek further advice here. Muzilon (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

PS. Lest I be accused of "forum shopping" in regard to the related issue of "dispersed copyright notice" in newspapers, there is an active DR currently going on at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meg Tilly - The Record (1985).jpg. Muzilon (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality in Hong Kong and Singapore

TIL that COM:TOO UK was recently loosened and no longer follows the older "sweat of the brow" doctrine. In light of this, would the TOO in Hong Kong and Singapore also be relaxed given the copyright laws in these two territories are "modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar"? S5A-0043🚎 08:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)