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.

Copyright status of March 1941 of Luftwaffe image

Hi folks!! I have this image located on page 22 of [1]. 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)

template:PD-EU-Anonymous should work as a license. The URAA has provisions to prevent Nazi works from regaining copyright and while this photo may not fall 100% in the wording of the law it is doubtful Nazi copyrights are enforceable in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 11:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: "The URAA has provisions to prevent Nazi works from regaining copyright...": do you have something citeable on that, because this comes up often, and different admins seem to make different determinations. Just last week an image was deleted that I certainly would have wanted to keep, on the basis that because of where/when it was taken it couldn't have been in American hands before the end of the war and therefore the Alien Property Custodian was irrelevant. If what you are saying is true, it should have been kept. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

[2] To be eligible, a work must meet all of the following requirements:

1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country.

Is modern Germany the legal successor of Nazi Germany or not?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• This work appears to be public domain in the US. I've uploaded File:Treatment by United States of World War I and II Enemy-Owned Patents and Copyrights.pdf which is an excellent law review article written in 1955 explaining the issue. I've also found 2 higher quality scans of the image at [3] and [4]. Both of these can and should be uploaded here. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  @999real The Federal Republic of Germany is the successor to the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich (and absorbed the German Democratic Republic in 1990). There's ample legislation and material to read: en:Potsdam Agreement and en:Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany are prime candidates for a first read. Due to the fact that the Allies didn't destroy and take over all governmental structures in Germany during the occupation (local governmental bodies like Landkreise - Counties - or municipalities and their mayors often simply carried on and over before and after VE day), the scientific consensus is that the Federal Republic carried on the statehood legacy of the previous German state(s). This is also evidenced by the fact that the Holy See and Germany both assume that the en:Reichskonkordat is still in effect.

  About Nazi copyrights, something to read for Jmabel et al.: en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Wartime copyrights and en:Office of Alien Property Custodian. As far as I understood the matter, IP rights that were seized by the US during or as result of war weren't returned, so only US rights apply (IIRC that's why there are templates around warning about any use of these media on DE-WP, as it could be a possible rights infringement). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Grand-Duc: Scientific seems a questionable word here. Certainly it is 'Wissenschaftlich, but scientific is narrower. Probably scholarly.

  Nothing in your links that I don't know. If we had evidence that U.S. forces had obtained this image before the German surrender, then the U.S. copyright case would be clear-cut on that basis. However, I have seen nothing solid either way as to whether that affects the status of intellectual property obtained after the end of hostilities. - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've seen some good arguments here that basically all U.S. copyrights of WWII German material were technically owned by the property custodian regardless if actual copies were actually obtained or not. Non-government works were returned to their owners but if the copyright was still owned by a government, that may be a reasonable path to take, for the U.S. side at least. The entire point of that exception was to not suppress such works under copyright reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like VE day is the cutoff: en:Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917#Germany has it that "Sanctions were lifted in 1946 by Executive Order 9788 and the Office of Alien Property created in the Department of Justice. As Germany was judged to have a primary role in starting both world wars, the United States policy was to confiscate and sell off German assets that Germans acquired before 1946." That executive oder is from the 14th of October, 1946. Even in the light of COM:PRP, I'd say it is sufficiently safe to assume that military imagery, especially material produced by aerial reconnaissance, was seized by the Western Allies until then (if only to deny the access to the communists). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  What if the image fell instead into the hands of the UK? Or the USSR? (Etc., but those seem the main likely cases.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean exactly by "fell instead into the hands of the UK?" (I'd add Canada and France, too). Do you mean that the imagery was only in the hands of officials of those countries and never shared among other Allies? Or do you mean that only the troops doing the actual seizing of the folders, crates or whatever material object containing the imagery where from the respective militaries? In the latter case, if it ended somehow in US hands, then US rules would be enough.

  I can't form an informed opinion about any potential USSR situation yet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Copyrights are owned territory by territory. The U.S. can only control the copyright inside the U.S. In time of war, all foreign copyrights are basically seized. Thus, they are conceptually owned. Private copyrights were returned but not governmental ones. The UK did something similar, which is independent of the U.S. (no matter who actually seized the material), and whether they are under copyright in the UK depends on changes there (arguably not). Or Russia (that depends on their own laws). The APC situation only affects the copyright status inside the U.S., not the country of origin or anywhere else. See the arguments of Benjamin Miller and others at:

  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Non_policy_based_closure_decision
  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Alien_copyright_works
  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Alien_copyright_works_(resumed)

  It's very arguable, as something like this was the entire point of that exception. I would not keep it if it's not also PD in Germany, but I would not delete solely under the URAA -- the burden of proof is a bit different there, where you have to show the copyright was indeed restored, and I'm not sure that's easy at all. I don't think it's worth deleting over. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'd really like us to create a page—at least an essay, but ideally a guideline—expressing what seems to be a consensus here that for German government works from the Nazi era, URAA would not typically apply. I have definitely seen a fair number of files be deleted on the opposite assumption. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Was there even a US copyright for this photograph in 1941? A notice and registration would have been needed for that I think. If no copyright existed, none could have been owned/vested by the Alien Property Custodian. That in turn would mean the URAA restored the US copyright in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm honestly not at all sure that is the way that materials captured in the war and occupation have been treated by the courts. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Are there any pertinent US court decisions, and if so, what do they say?

A while ago, I found this: PLUNDER AND RESTITUTION: Findings and Recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States and Staff Report from December 2000. In chapter 3, titled Assets in the United States, there is also a section called Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, in which it says that “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. Vesting being what this process was called in the WW II era. Which contradicts the claim above “that basically all U.S. copyrights of WWII German material were technically owned by the property custodian” and “In time of war, all foreign copyrights are basically seized.” --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This reading, although technically correct, feels like it shouldn't be. Commercially exploitable copyrights, and particularly the royalty rights, were "vested" (seized) by the APC. Any military photographs seized by the Army are similarly treated as PD by NARA, although they have been careful to draw a distinction with images that were not taken as military spoils[5]. For the most part copyrights owned by the Nazi government are treated as "de facto" public domain in the US (The English Wikipedia seems to liberally apply Template:PD-US-alien property to these images without worrying about URAA, and adds a warning not to upload to Commons if they are possibly still in copyright source country). The 1941 military photo that is the subject of this discussion is over 70 years old in Germany, and appears to be PD there. And no US court has ever enforced a copyright on Nazi military photographs. Probably because the German government has never tried to enforce such a copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I have suggested the other approach, that they are not eligible for restoration if Nazi Germany was never an eligible source country. I know there is a treaty between Germany and the US from 1892, the question is if the US considers Nazi Germany as a valid successor for the treaty to apply to them.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It does. --Rosenzweig τ 15:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what this document is supposed to show. We know the 1892 treaty is valid for Germany today, the question is if it was ever valid for Nazi Germany.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it have been? The German state from 1871 to 1945, called Deutsches Reich, was the same state all the time. It was a parliamentary federal monarchy at first, then a republican federal state, and officially that did not change in 1933. The constitution still existed, but was sidelined by emergency laws. And according to the German constitutional court, the current German state is still identical with the Deutsches Reich from 1871, just with a new name and new constitution. Which makes sense, because a lot of laws from that time are still valid. As is said 1892 copyright treaty. --Rosenzweig τ 15:56, 9 October 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 (2023) an alternate print of the famous File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg photograph was published [6] in the journal "Holocaust and Genocide Studies". This print is in the possession of the United States Holocaust museum ([7], archive link[8]) 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 ([9]) in an article by welt.de ([10]).

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)

I would argue that something that is relevant from a historical perspective is not necessarily relevant from a copyright law perspective. 13:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Veryspecific (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do we want the new version, if it is not significantly different? Because of its higher quality. I think we'd still be happy with the new version even if we'd only crop out and upload the part that we already have without the "new" stuff that can be seen at the edges of the new version. And the crop that we have is PD, right? To go with Jmabel's example: if we can't have the map of the whole of the US, we'd still be happy if we could have the same map of Florida that we already have but in better quality. So, are we allowed to upload the map of Florida in better quality at least? Nakonana (talk) 15:20, 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)

As far as I know 2021, as stated in the original question. Veryspecific (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you suppose that is the first publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I was mistaken, 2021 was the date when the picture (along with the rest of the documents) was donated to the US holocaust memorial museum. 2023 is the actual date it was first published (in a paper titled "“The last Jew in Vinnitsa”: Reframing an Iconic Holocaust Photograph" [11]). Veryspecific (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Same point applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have searched and found no other publication of this image between 2021 and 2023. Veryspecific (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For those interested, there's an article about this image, with another version of the "new" print, here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/02/historian-uses-ai-to-help-identify-nazi-in-notorious-holocaust-image

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

So you don't think that the new image that's cropped wider is in the public domain, but do you agree with the other people here that an identical crop of the new print (that is higher quality) would be in the public domain? Veryspecific (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure who "you" is, but that's exactly what I think. Copyright involves creative expression of ideas. Once an image is legible, quality of reproduction doesn't normally enter further into the issue. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say any of that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I read too much into your questions but since the new print was only published after 2021 it isn't automatically in the public domain like the original print was (due to the fact that that one was published between 1930 and 1977 without a copyright notice). I therefore took your questions to mean that you don't think that the new and the old prints count as the same work and that therefore the new print that was cropped wider wasn't automatically in the public domain. Veryspecific (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Again: What makes you suppose that 2021 or after is the first publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Because the description of the item on the website of the US holocaust memorial museum states that it was only added to their collection in 2021 and because the paper from 2023 describes the new print as a new discovery. And unless you expect me to prove a negative this should be sufficient. Veryspecific (talk) 10:52, 5 October 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)

Hmm, this is less straightforward to me. On the surface, this would appear to be a clear issue as the relevant statutory language requires that the copyright symbol/phrase, owner's name, and year appear as a single continuous statement. But I have no idea how the USCO or federal courts have ruled on this issue in the past, there's a chance that format/style of notice has been deemed acceptable. Separately, I also do not know the legislative history of notice format requirements, so I do not know when the "single continuous statement" requirement was added, which would impact the cut-off date for examining notices with this requirement in mind. 19h00s (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not defective 2205.1(E) "Likewise, a year of publication that is prominently displayed elsewhere on copies or phonorecords may be acceptable if it is an appropriate date and if it can reasonably be considered part of the notice. For instance"... "the year of issue for a periodical, even if the date does not appear on the same page as the rest of the notice."  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 999real - there's your answer, Muzilon! Hopefully that makes deletion requests on these types of files easier, I can imagine there might be a number of files with similarly incorrectly reasoned license templates related to this issue. 19h00s (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing because the w:Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (which is technically a policy manual rather than law) does say the copyright notice "should be a single continuous statement" - but then goes on to make an exception (or leeway) for "Dispersed Date in a Notice",[12] as 999Real has pointed out. The Compendium also refers to the actual statute 17 U.S.C. § 401(b) (incorporating the Copyright Act), which does not stipulate a "single continuous statement" as far as I can see. Muzilon (talk) 18:43, 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)

that DR was closed before: OK, so you weren't forum-shopping the DR, but you were still forum-shopping the issue. You should have linked the DR. Thank you for now linking the other one. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree -- I see nothing which mandates the order of the elements. If the three elements are there and next to each other, that even seems to qualify for the recommended "single continuous statement" (which itself is not a requirement, but a recommendation in order to avoid gray areas and having it deemed invalid). And the Compendium has several examples where if the copyright word or symbol is there, and the other two elements are obvious even if separated, it will often be accepted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

What happens if an original wirephoto was copyrighted but the Newspapers published it without Notice?

I was looking photos in newspapers and Worthpoint of the Kent State Shootings if any could be used freely, and I found something interesting regarding the copyright of the most well known of them. The Original AP Wirephoto release had a valid Copyright notice (Copyright Valley Daily News- AP Wirephoto 1970). But a lot of the periodicals when publishing the photo forgot to use any valid Copyright Notices (AP Photo) or used a defective one (Copyright Valley Daily News-AP "does not include year"). These newspapers 1, 2, 3, 4, and later wirephotos 1 2 forgot to use a correct notice or failed to include one. So there would be my question, What would happen to the copyright of a wire photo if the original had a valid notice but a lot of periodical issues didn't include it? Hyperba21 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The first publication is what matters. A copyright-holder is not responsible for another party's publication of a work without correct notice following first publication with correct notice. It's not AP's fault that other outlets didn't append the correct notice every time the image was republished. 19h00s (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No, "..notice shall be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor", but the copyright owner is Valley News, not AP, there is no proof Valley News directly authorized any of these publications, with or without notice  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd assume there would be some indirect authorization, like the Valley News giving the AP the right to distribute the photo to its customers, otherwise it would heavily impair the point of a photo service. Based5290 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Depends on their agreement I'd presume. If the contract required that all receiving newspapers reproduce the copyright notice and they failed to do so, then those specific reproductions would not have been authorized under the terms of the license. In that sense, the fault would lie with the newspapers rather than the copyright holder, and the absence of notice would not automatically void the copyright itself but rather make those copies unauthorized, somewhat akin to a "fruit of the poisonous tree" situation. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This is more what I was saying. A) AP obviously had permission to distribute this image, other newspapers obviously had permission to use it, that's how a wire service works. B) AP almost certainly required that newspapers reproduce the correct notice, as evidenced by several newspapers correctly adding notice. C) When authorized third parties don't follow the rules themselves even when asked to by the authorizing party, that doesn't mean the copyright goes away. I would point to Section 20 of the statute 999real linked to. 19h00s (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

All publications are supposed to be with correct notice, and a copyright holder needs to require it of their licensees. But given the indirection, I don't think I'm comfortable about saying the copyright is lost--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies and information so far. I've also found this discussion months ago about basically the same topic but didn't had the example of the Kent State photos we have right now. If someone could also contact the people who have participated in that discussion so they can have their opinion about this one it'd be helpful to see how we should proceed with these kinds of photos. Hyperba21 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There is also this discussion in which Toohool concludes that the photo in question can't be uploaded to Commons. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, this principle was set forth in National Comics v. Fawcett Publications: If an author grants a licensee permission to publish a work with copyright notice, and the licensee then publishes the work without copyright notice, that publication is an infringement, not an authorized publication, so it does not forfeit the copyright. Toohool (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've decided to add that info in the AP Category so people can be a bit more careful with photos published between 64-77. Hyperba21 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

PD70 when

The painter en:Fernand Léger died in 1955, i.e. 70 years ago. But I thought his paintings would first be PD70 on January 1, 2026. I’m asking because people are starting to upload images to Category:Paintings by Fernand Léger. Christian75 (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. On the other hand, if one nominates the images for deletion now, the requests will like be still pending on 1 January, and the question is whether it is worthwhile to invest time in this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Or they could just be speedy deleted, or given a short and reasonable DR. There is no reason for us to tolerate the uploading of clear copyvio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Some Commons users should learn to be patient. Howardcorn33 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the photo File:Portrait Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (cropped).jpg public domain in the US?

Is the photo File:Portrait Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (cropped).jpg public domain in the US? If not, can it be used under another license or does it need to be deleted? The photo is from 1862, see Beecher 2021 p. 241. The photographer, Nadar, died in 1910. For an earlier discussion on this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Political_philosophy/archive1#Image_review Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any publication info? There are an enormous number of routes through which this could have lost copyright in the U.S. One would be to have been published anywhere in the world before 1930. - Jmabel ! talk 14:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I found the following from Bibliothèque nationale de France: "... Publication date: 1854-1865 ... Rights: Public domain ...". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This obviously answers the question. Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't this painting be labelled as PD-95, not CC-BY-SA?

File:Elbridge Ayer Burbank The Sunflower.jpg is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. However, the official stance of the Wikimedia Foundtion is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain".

The painting is 1894 (95+ years old, painter was American), and the painter died in 1949 (PD in death + >76 countries). Though it does seem that the photograph was taken in France, which makes matters more complicated as Commons labels their stance as inconclusive here (I don't speak french so I'm not sure of the details. Anyone who does speak it would be appreciated.).

I would like to get people's thought on this matter. Cawfeecrow (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It can be labeled by both templates. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, now I feel like a big idiot, I didn't see that it was multi-licensed. Strange considering I obsessively checked the file page when I was writing it to see if I got all the publication info right, I should've just scrolled down.

I know about multi-licensing, i just saw "CC-BY-SA 4.0" on Eng Wikipedia and got flustered I suppose. That's my bad! Cawfeecrow (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Er, wait no. the September 24th revision (the one I remember scrolling down to) only has the CC BY SA template. I suppose my intelligence is preserved haha.

Thanks anyways for the multi-license info on PD/CC BY SA specifically though! appreciate it. Cawfeecrow (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Черномырдин_и_Медведев.jpeg

Hello! I have a question about this version of the photograph of Chernomyrdin at the award ceremony on May 20, 2009. Was it on the archive website archive.kremlin.ru before 2015? The current version on kremlin.ru is different, and the RIA Novosti media bank states that both photographs were taken by Dmitry Astakhov (https://riamediabank.ru/media/395546.html). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the archived version, but the current Kremlin website does not credit any photographer, as far as I can see. Links:

• http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/4139
• http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/4139/photos/1582

Nakonana (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nationaal Archief photos

Malenkov photo is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 NL, but there is no indication of that license in the site. Does it mean that these photos of Andropov, Kuznetsov, Podgorny, and Suslov under the same license too? I don't know copyright policy of Nationaal Archief. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"You cannot download the photo because it is not copyright-free."

NA has released lots of images, but this does not seem to be one of them. You can safely rely on their website for the most up to date information. Ciell (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The 2014 upload of File:Georgy Malenkov 1964.jpg by User:Materialscientist under CC BY-SA 3.0 NL was likely in good faith if the Nationaal Archief webpage had that license in 2014. The file File:Malenkov (kop), Bestanddeelnr 916-3070.jpg of the same NA image uploaded in 2018 by another user used the NA template stating that they made the upload as part of the 2010 partnership program with NA, but that seems dubious, considering that the file was uploaded in 2018 and was not uploaded by the NA upload bot. However, the CC0 template seemed used in good faith at the time of upload in 2018. Until at least 2021, the NA webpage indicated a CC0 statement [13]. Apparently, at some time between 2021 and 2015, NA changed the information on their webpage. Not sure if the present information there is correct either. Don't know why a user added to File:Georgy Malenkov 1964.jpg a warning template stating that the face of Malenkov is a prohibited symbol. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Also Malenkov's image possibly was made by employee of en:Soviet Information Bureau (or TASS (?); RIA Novosti) [14], and according to {{PD-Russia}} This work is photo report, which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925[3] and January 1, 1955 (made in 1953), provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993. So we have to find the source of the USSR that it was published no later than 1955. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It sort of looks like the photo used on this 1954 stamp. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Found the following information on this photo on this website: Официальный портрет Г.М. Маленкова из 2-го издания Большой советской энциклопедии, 1954 год (translation: Official portrait of G.M. Malenkov from the 2nd edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1954). Nakonana (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Could it be even older? There might have been a Time magazine cover in 1950 that looks like a derivative work of the photo: [15] Nakonana (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh. That's interesting. That's really from 1950. [16]. Is cover in PD? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Not that issue. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• This isn't unknown for the Anefo-sourced photos in the Nationaal Archief. Anefo was a news agency, so sometimes they needed a photo of a particular subject that wasn't local to be photographed. They'd then copy an existing non-Anefo photo (note that here it's pinned to a cork board) and then use that under a rather ad hoc claim of fair use. It's not our job to investigate mid-century copyright elasticity. These are then not usually author-credited through Anefo (but then, many aren't anyway) but they did pass through the Nationaal Archief under their blanket free licensing, what we use for the main collection.

More recently, some of these non-Anefo originated images have started showing clearer copyright statements. Such as here, where it's credited to Workers' Press / IISG. This may or may not have been evident at the time of upload here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you please provide your opinion on each of the photos that I have attached, are they under a free license? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hard, other than 'probably not Anefo'. If they're credited to TASS, then we'd have to treat them as images from TASS and can't simply assume any blanket licence from Anefo would be applicable.

But watch out for the (quite a few) photos of Soviet politicians and diplomats passing through Schiphol or addressing political meetings in Western Europe etc. that were regular Anefo photographs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

These are than not usually author-credited through Anefo (but then, many aren't anyway): Pinging @Andy Dingley, I can't parse that, and it could say two opposite things. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the Anefo collection are credited to specific photographers, and their status is clear. The ones from Anefo that are 'fair use' like this are nearly all uncredited (although many of the pre-war ones were credited to named photographers, and harder to spot). Generally looking for the cork pinboard background is the best hint. We also have a very large number where we know they're from Anefo, they show no reason to suspect they're not taken by Anefo photographers and simply licensed, per the collection, but the credit to a specific photographer has been lost.

We also have some (hard to spot) where they're duplicates or members of a series that's from a known photographer, but individual photos have lost their author credit. There are even a few where the upload process here was faulty and they've been assigned to the wrong photographer, but the details at Nationaal Archief are correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. So, as a result, Andropov's photo is under a free license? ANP is a Dutch news agency. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The NA page credits the Andropov photo to the Lehtikuva photo agency of Finland, but the page says that ANP is the rights holder. That sounds a little strange. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If ANP is a copyright holder, does this mean that it is under a free license? (by default, I don't mean this particular case) Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. It does not look like this photo has a free license. Maybe other users know more. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If I stick to the Anefo-Malenkov-photos: a few things are clear. I can largely confirm Andy Dingley's statement. As to the date: the Malenkov photos are clearly not from 1964: Malenkov was at the height of his power in 1953, but was forced to resign as Premier of the Soviet Union in Febr. 1955 and dismissed from the Praesidium in 1957. The presumed 1964 photo is in fact a 1953 photo, most likely the official Politburo photograph. As to copyright: at the time of the upload to Commons the copyright was (according to Dutch National Archives) at Arbeiderspers; in the meantime Nationaal Archief changed that to Arbeiderspers / IISG. The photo can't be found at the image database of IISG Amsterdam, but that doesn't matter. According to Russian copyright law the photo is Public Domain: official photo, published before 1 Jan. 1955, no photographer mentioned. I will change the dates (to 1953) and copyright (to PD-Russia-expired) in all Anefo-Malenkov photos. (The photo doesn't look to have been the basis of the 1950 Time-photo, in my opinion.) Vysotsky (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked the original file from Anefo again: the date 9 Febr. 1953 is clearly visible in the "N.V. De Arbeiderspers"-mark on the left. Vysotsky (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"are clearly not from 1964" - that's probably uploader's mistake cause date indicated in source shows definitely not 1960s.
"The photo doesn't look to have been the basis of the 1950 Time-photo, in my opinion" - but it looks very similar. How did it happen?
Also Malenkov image says: "Repronegatief 14-4-1956. Datum 1955-02-09". It indicates 1955, not 1953 or 1954. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The RIA Novosti source you found says 01.03.1954. I'd rather trust a Russian source for a Russian photo because any non-Russian source will be a reuser who likely got the photo at a later point.

I also feel like the Time cover is based on this photo. It's the same pose and the same facial expression. It's just unlikely that the US had a photo of their own of a Soviet politician that resembles the official portrait so much. They likely used an existing one. It also seems like they made him look less favorable on the cover (he looks chubbier around the neck and has more wrinkles) which would be in line with the anti-Communist stance of the US. Other Time covers that feature him also paint him in a rather negative light, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

1964 was a mistake by Nationaal Archief, not by the uploader. As mentioned, the NA page had different information then. Cf. the web.archive link. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Duma.gov.ru

It seems that when updating the website design, the State Duma of the Russian Federation removed the notice in the footer about CC-BY-4.0. http://duma.gov.ru/ Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You could ask at the VRT noticeboard if the ticket 2018071510003299 from 2018 can be interpreted as a license that can continue to be offered independently and indefinitely even after the license is removed from the website. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Are FOIA responses edicts of government?

File:FOIA 10-202 Nov 04 2010 Correspondence between NIST and David Cole OCR redacted.pdf has a significant portion of its text composed by NYC, which is obviously not PD-USGov-NIST. However, it may be PD if the response (NYC portions included) qualify as PD-EdictGov. Thoughts? Based5290 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Glrx (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Should Psych2Go be deemed a problematic source?

Although many YouTube videos by Psych2Go are licensed under CC BY, they often contain fan art of copyrighted fictional elements (such as characters, objects or scenes). However, not all of their fan art has the same amount of detail. For example:

• The depictions of Gravity Falls characters Dipper Pines, Mabel Pines and Pacifica Northwest in File:What Is Your Inner Demon Quiz- (for fun).webm do not seem to copy enough elements from the source material (and thus may be allowed per COM:FANART).
• In contrast, the video 8 Signs You're Being Used, Not Loved copies significant details from the scene from The Lego Batman Movie of the title character eating a lobster alone (at 0:41) and the scene from the Owl House episode "Reaching Out" of Luz Noceda notifying Amity Blight of her father's death (at 1:27 and 4:57). (These are just the scenes I recognize from that video.)

A requested deletion of Psych2Go depictions of Omori characters in September 2024 was closed as delete in January 2025, but should Psych2Go files be more closely reviewed similar to videos by Voice of America? And, if so, should they possibly be listed at COM:Questionable YouTube videos? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I think adding it to the list would be good, but it would have to be in its own section (it's not quite license laundering). Maybe something like "Accounts to scrutinize further"? The text for its entry could be

Uses self-produced fan art of non-free media. Care should be taken to ensure that this art complies with COM:FANART before uploading.

Based5290 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

pd-philipinesGov in twitter images

Does images published on twitter by person covered by {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Affected file: File:Picture of Franciz Zamora.jpg.—KEmel49(📝,📤) 13:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of images on "The Cape: Miltary Space Operations 1971-1992"

Looking into the Titan III operations, a friend of mine has shown me this website: https://spp.fas.org/military/program/cape/cape2-5.htm Few of the figures in it would be handy, but I don't know what the copyright status could be, or any further details about the page. Could you help? Hal Nordmann (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If an audio file is CC-BY-3.0 because it is marked as such on Youtube, is the higher quality studio CD version also CC-BY-3.0?

Long story short, File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん（CV：早見沙織）／HoneyWorks.ogg is CC-BY-3.0 because it is the audio extracted from File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん（CV：早見沙織）／HoneyWorks.webm, which is CC-BY-3.0 because it was marked as such on Youtube. However, because the audio file is extracted from a Youtube video, it is an inferior, lower bitrate version compared to the studio album CD version. I am in possession of the original studio CD version, and can potentially provide it to Commons in lossless FLAC format, see this screenshot for a night-and-day comparison in quality as compared via spectral analysis. The audio content is almost exactly identical if you played both files on $20 budget Chinese speakers, but you'd notice warmer tones if listening on a $2800 HIFIMAN HE1000se. The version on Commons also cuts off at the 20 kHz mark (as one would expect from Ogg Vorbis), however humans can't hear between 20 kHz and 24 kHz anyway.

My question is, would the higher quality version also be CC-BY-3.0 if the lower quality version on Wikimedia Commons is CC-BY-3.0? --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 14:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Usually copyright can only refer to things where creativity is involved. I doubt the two would vary by any relevant criterion. But others may view this differently. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That's nearly the same issue as the question whether a license for an image only covers the exact file version (when looking at the pixel sizes and compression) or any fixation of the creative work, no matter what pixel size and quality. I'm not aware of any court ruling on this subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In general, we respect these sorts of arrangements because it leads to more freely licensed media overall (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Grand-Duc that we should treat this issue just like we deal with different image resolutions. Gnom (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. I've uploaded the higher quality FLAC version to File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん (CV：早見沙織) by HoneyWorks.flac, and have superceded usage on various projects where the older OGG file was used (Chinese Wikipedia, English Wikipedia). For the record, I'll hold no hard feelings if anyone in the future decides to nominate a deletion request because they disagree with the above, for whatever reason. If there is a good copyright-related reason to delete this file, I won't contest it. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 06:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

various grub stake images copyright

I reviewed en:The Grub-Stake for GA status at en:Talk:The Grub-Stake/GA1. long story short it's very close to passing but the only matter left is the copyright of some files. I was told some files were public domain due to publication pre 1930. However the file pages at the source assert copyright and the nominator says it's too tedious to find the images in the original trade publications. Given that they're supposedly promotional photos for the film I am inclined to believe they are PD. The files in question are: File:Nell Shipman Promotion.png, File:The Grub-Stake in Spokane.png, File:Nell Shipman cliffhanging.png, File:Nell Shipman's Company.png, and File:The Grub-Stake ad.png. Any help? Therapyisgood (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm File:Nell Shipman Promotion.png is PD. Shows up in the archive at [17]. Can confirm File:The Grub-Stake ad.png is PD, shows up at [18]. Based5290 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sculpture ToO - Larry Bell

Another sculpture/U.S. threshold of originality question for ya.

I was thinking of uploading a few photos I took of American artist Larry Bell's latest installation in New York's Washington Square Park, consisting of six sculptural installations. His primary medium is glass and plexiglas, and he is most well known for his clear or translucent boxes of varying colors. Much of his work would seem to fall below the threshold of originality for copyright in the U.S. There is currently one image already on Commons relying on that assumption (Untitled (Golden Box)); there are also two images of an installation in Germany that rely on FoP allowances (1, 2), but I have questions about whether that installation is copyrighted in the U.S.

What do we think about the copyrightability - and thus allowability on Commons - of the six sculptures pictured here (scroll to image gallery). They all appear to me to be basic geometric shapes (boxes, triangles, angled lines, etc.). Some of them are multiple shapes, but again they seem to be below the ToO line to me. Thanks for any advice! (didn't want to upload without gauging opinions first) 19h00s (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It reminds me of this DR about a big oval shape. Bell's installation seems to have more originality. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Renovation record of Padmashree Haldhar Nag Kavi Kutir.png

I'm looking for some opinions on the licensing of File:Renovation record of Padmashree Haldhar Nag Kavi Kutir.png. The file originally comes from File:Haldhar Nag Kutir 05.png, which is sourced to a YouTube video. The YouTube video does have a CC license, but I'm not sure that license applies to the plaque itself per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. Moreover, even if it original watermarked file is OK and the plaque could be considered incidental to the video screenshot as a whole, further cropping to just show the plaque seems problematic unless the plaque itself is PD for some reason per COM:India. Can Commons keep these two files as licensed? File:Haldhar Nag Kutir 04.png is another image of the same buidling sourced to YouTube that might also need to be assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

VOA exclusive video

A video statement by ethnic Mongol activist Hada was given to Voice of America, which was first published on their website. VOA offers the video for download, which AFAIK, they only do for videos that are in the public domain. Would this video then be in the public domain per {{PD-VOA}}? Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Which have higher Threshold of originality? China or United Kingdom after THJ v Sheridan case in 2023

UK Threshold of originality used to be very low, even EDGE (magazine) logo are copyrightable, but after THJ v Sheridan case in 2023, which have higher Threshold of originality? China or United Kingdom after THJ v Sheridan case in 2023 6D (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Image Upload guidelines

Hi knowledgeable peoples of wikipedia. Please I have a question that have been battling with but do not know how to go about it.

I just created a draft article page for my client who is a Town Councillor, so I needed to use his image also in the article but I do not know how to go about it. I have the images already sent to me by the client but then wikipedia is requesting for copywrite of the image. I do not clearly understand how to go about it uploading to Wikipedia commons.

Anyone who could gladly explain the processes to me, I would really appreciate.

Regards, Creative Contents Creative Contents (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Creative Contents: Wikimedia Commons (this site) and the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki) are two separate projects, though both are umbrella'd by the Wikimedia Foundation..

Just to be clear, you do not need to use his image in an en-wiki article. Not all articles contain images.

Probably the big question is going to be: who owns the copyright to these images? That is the only person (or organization) who can license them.

You would probably do well to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. It should answer most of your questions. Feel free to come back here with more specific questions if it does not answer all of them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Germany's TOO

en:File:Logo Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. The logo seems simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US, but I'm not sure about COM:TOO Germany. Is this logo OK for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Some German Wikimedians use to say that logos are inherently unsafe on Commons (and in jeopardy of deletion), but your example would be, IANAL, a textbook example for a {{PD-Textlogo}} upload. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The file is ok for Commons with PD-textlogo IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 04:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Grand-Duc and Rosenzweig for the responses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of text on plaques/ historic markers

More input is needed at:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Cape Town
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Johannesburg

on the question of how much text is required to generate a copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)