Commons:Village pump/Copyright
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.
- 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.
- Have you read the FAQ?
- 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).
- 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.
- Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
Copyright Question Austrian Fire Departements
[edit]Hi can i upload the Badge of the Volunteer Fire Departements of Austria? Im not sure if its Open source But it should be the same License as any other Official Badges like the Bundesadler or the Badge of the Police should it?
This is a Link to the official Describtion
Here you can Download it StVeit Maps (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Those are not government departments like police, are they? Going by the PDF file you linked, there may be restrictions regarding commercial use, which would mean that they cannot be uploaded to Commons (quote from the PDF:
Für die kommerzielle Nutzung der Korpsabzeichen gelten die aktuellen Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen des ÖBFV Generalsekretariats zur kommerziellen Nutzung des Korpsabzeichens
). Though a little further down the PDF it seems like those commercial use restrictions are rather a matter of trade mark rules than copyright rules, which would mean that the badges can be uploaded on Commons. We'd need to know what exactly the Terms of Use say regarding commercial use of the badges. Nakonana (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)- I found an entry in the Austrian Patent-Office. Does this Help determine whether it can be used or not? And in that case wouldnt the Logo count as "below the threshold of originality" mentioned in the Wikimedia rules?
- Link Patent Office StVeit Maps (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether patent registrations are relevant or not because patents are not the same as copyright. But I'm also not a legal expert. Might be worth pinging @Rosenzweig who, to my knowledge, seems to have some legal expertise and also speaks German if I'm not mistaken.
- As far as the threshold of originality argument goes, in this case it's probably an argument against uploading the badge to Commons because the relevant threshold of originality would be the Austrian one and that threshold appears to be quite low unlike the German or US threshold of originality, see COM:TOO Austria. So the only ways I could imagine that this badge can be hosted here is that the volunteer fire departments somehow qualify as official government entities so that their badge falls under the same regulations as state symbols, or that the Terms of Use mentioned in the quote above somehow clear the badge for commercial use etc., but tbh honest, I doubt it. Nakonana (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hm. The de:Österreichischer Bundesfeuerwehrverband is not a state department, it's a Verein (association, society), so it's not any kind of state symbol I think. The logo is from 1970, so not old enough for PD-old of some kind. I'd say it's below COM:TOO Germany, but as already mentioned, COM:TOO Austria is another matter because of some decisions by Austria's highest court. These decisions are from the 1990s however, and I somewhat doubt they would hold up to review now given the current state of EU law, just like the formerly very low COM:TOO UK was revised by a newer court decision a few years ago. I'm not aware of a recent Austrian discussion about TOO though, so as far as Wikimedia Commons is concerned, we might still want to adhere to the lower TOO as of now. The German Wikipedia might de facto accept the file though, even if supposedly the lowest standard/common denominator of Germany, Austria and Switzerland is applicable. If they were to actually do that, a lot of German logos would have to be deleted there as well, which is not something anyone really wants to do. So uploading the file directly to de.wp with a "Do not move to Commons" template might be a solution if the file is to be used there. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
South Korea FOP
[edit]User:JWilz12345 has nominated a number of photos of Korean buildings for deletion (see Category:South Korean FOP cases/pending) on the basis that "There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea." So on that basis, won't most photos in Category:Museums in South Korea and Category:Buildings in South Korea by location be deleted? Is that policy even correct and being properly applied? How do South Korean media organisations publish or broadcast anything in public then? Is it useful that we would have almost no photos of buildings in Korea? Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist South Korean media and broadcasters are allowed to publish buildings without architects' permissions due to Article 26 of their copyright law: In cases of reporting current events by means of broadcasts or newspapers, or by other means, it shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute, perform publicly, transmit publicly a work seen or heard in the relevant courses, to the extent justified by the reporting purpose.
- Wikimedia Commons, however, is not a broadcasting organization or an information service provider. It is a media repository and archive where all content must be free for commercial reuses, in accordance with Commons:Licensing. The Korean copyright law's FoP rule is simply against this freedom. To quote in full Article 35(1 and 2), with underlined parts for emphasis of FoP rule:
- Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.
(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the exterior of a building, or other places open to the public, the same shall not apply.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced and used by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:
1. Where a building is reproduced into another building;
2. Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1);
4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.
- Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.
- Many of the permitted licenses on Wikimedia Commons do not allow restrictions to commercial reuses, such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and {{Cc-zero}}. Due to the prohibition of commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea, Wikimedia Commons cannot host images of recent art and architecture (whose designers have not yet died for more than 70 years) from that country. Simply put, South Korean FoP under their law is not compatible with COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist additionally, thousands of images from South Korea have been deleted in the past. You can see the closed deletion requests at Category:South Korean FOP cases/deleted. So for your final question, "is it useful that we would have almost no photos of buildings in Korea?" Yes and no:
- No, because there will still be a couple of images of very old Korean buildings (temples and ancient Korean gates for example), even if it will inevitably misrepresent our coverage of that supposedly-democratic country. Furthermore, cityscape images where buildings and statues/monuments are incidental (de minimis, in accordance with COM:DM South Korea) are fine and can stay here. No contemporary South Korean landmark must be the main focus.
- Yes, because Wikimedia Commons should only host media that does not infringe copyrights of architects (and also, sculptors and street artists or muralists). COM:PCP policy means we must aim to reduce takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters from the artwork designers, if not totally eliminate. Proactive vs. reactive. Commons has tolerated (since late 2000s) having no high quality images of Louvre Pyramid from France, Burj Khalifa from U.A.E., and Malacañan Palace (the Presidential Palace) from the Philippines.
- Note that I intentionally added "supposedly-democratic", because the Korean democracy – as far as my hunch as a WikiCommoner is concerned – does not extend to the rights of content creators, consumers, and professionals. This can be inferred from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09#South Korean state media may be free content now but login required, concerning the "public" release of alleged freely-usable media from their state media but login is still required for access, with one commenter in that Village pump forum remarking, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- So you are saying that a building is a "work of art"? In that case Art 35(2) clearly applies and any building "exhibited at all times at an open place... may be reproduced and used by any means." Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist you forgot the fourth restriction. The free use "by any means" no longer applies if "the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Photography is a method of reproducing buildings and artworks. The law is clear that there is no exception for commercial exploitations of images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Posting images on Commons is not "for the purpose of selling its copies" If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist and you've said it: "If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright." Allowing images for non-commercial use only is against COM:Licensing policy. Non-commercial licenses are perpetually forbidden here. In fact, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and many others are commercial-type licenses. Restrictions on commercial reuses are not allowed under CCBYSA, CCBY, CCzero, and PD terms. South Korean FoP is simply incompatible with COM:L, so modern buildings and monuments from that country are not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- So we can't have pictures of modern Korean buildings solely because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially? That seems to be completely opposed to the foundational policy of usefulness of images. Why can't we create non-commercial licenses? There is nothing stopping us from doing so. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Because non-commercial licences do not meet the definition of free content, and per the official description of the project, Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content, not a repository of useful content. Allowing non-commercial licences would go against the intention of the project, even if such a change is well-intentioned and has merit on the basis of being helpful for Commons' users. Greviances are better placed on South Korean law, rather than Commons, because Commons hasn't done anything wrong, it is South Korea that is the problem here. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 06:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially?
@Mztourist: with due respect, I believe you are confused. This is not about what "Wikimedia users" may do.- Commons has a specific role assigned to it by the Wikimedia Foundation. We specifically host content that, with regard to copyright, may be freely used by anyone (including commercially), in any manner (including derivative works), as long as they conform to an available license. (Aside: this is specifically about copyright: many images may have their use limited in one or another country by personality rights, trademarks, etc.). Unlike any other WMF project, Commons is not free to establish an meta:Exemption Doctrine Policy that would allow exceptions to this. We simply are not allowed, as part of our charter, to host such images. This policy is not a matter of law (we could legally host such images) but, on the other hand, it is not an internal Commons policy that we could change: it is part of the basis on which Commons is funded and hosted by the WMF. Pictures of recent buildings in Korea (or France, or Romania) can conform to this criterion only by getting an additional "free license" from the architect. - Jmabel ! talk 06:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at the Wikimedia Project Scope, its states: "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." I don't see any mention of commercial there. Further down is a section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". So given the educational purpose it seems contradictory that under the Non-allowable license terms it states "The following licensing terms are not allowed: Non-commercial or educational use only." How is that in compliance with the main aim? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- These photos are not freely-licensed even if the photographer gives a free license to their creative work, there is still the copyright of the architect, who also needs to release the work under a free license to make the photo really free. GPSLeo (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist don't look at just one aspect of COM:SCOPE. Another aspect (which is one section higher than "educational purpose", therefore more important to consider) is Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain, specifically (with underlined passages for emphases):
Required licensing terms
To be considered freely licensed, the copyright owner has to release the file under an irrevocable licence which:
- Permits free reuse for any purpose, including commercial.
- Permits the creation of derivative works.
Non-allowable licence terms
The following licensing terms are not allowed:
- Non-commercial or educational use only.
- Restrictions on the creation of derivative works, except for copyleft.
- A requirement for payment or for notification of use; these can be requested but not required.
- Restrictions on where the work may be used, e.g. use allowed on Wikipedia only.
Licences with these restrictions are allowed as long as the work is dual-licensed or multi-licensed with at least one licensing option that does not include such a restriction.
"Licences" which purport to allow fair use only are not allowed. Fair use is not a right that can be licensed by a copyright owner, and is in any event never accepted on Commons.
- Looking at the Wikimedia Project Scope, its states: "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." I don't see any mention of commercial there. Further down is a section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". So given the educational purpose it seems contradictory that under the Non-allowable license terms it states "The following licensing terms are not allowed: Non-commercial or educational use only." How is that in compliance with the main aim? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- So we can't have pictures of modern Korean buildings solely because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially? That seems to be completely opposed to the foundational policy of usefulness of images. Why can't we create non-commercial licenses? There is nothing stopping us from doing so. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist and you've said it: "If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright." Allowing images for non-commercial use only is against COM:Licensing policy. Non-commercial licenses are perpetually forbidden here. In fact, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and many others are commercial-type licenses. Restrictions on commercial reuses are not allowed under CCBYSA, CCBY, CCzero, and PD terms. South Korean FoP is simply incompatible with COM:L, so modern buildings and monuments from that country are not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Posting images on Commons is not "for the purpose of selling its copies" If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist you forgot the fourth restriction. The free use "by any means" no longer applies if "the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Photography is a method of reproducing buildings and artworks. The law is clear that there is no exception for commercial exploitations of images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- So you are saying that a building is a "work of art"? In that case Art 35(2) clearly applies and any building "exhibited at all times at an open place... may be reproduced and used by any means." Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's why the South Korean rule on free use of public landmarks is against both COM:Licensing and COM:SCOPE. This Commons perspective will remain unchanged until South Korean government changes their mind and become more open to digital, I.T., and new media era where everyone can exploit public landmarks even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Still falls under Aims which refers to education, with no reference to commercial use. Its educational to have photos of modern Korean buildings for use on WP pages, other Foundation projects and just for public knowledge. Instead by requiring that images must be commercially exploitable, we are, by our own policies, undermining education. Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist read again Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. A file should not only be usable for educational purpose; it must also be usable for commercial purpose. How many times will I repeat that "non-commercial or educational use only" (as listed among non-allowable license terms under "COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain") content is not allowed here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- You don't need to repeat it. I am raising a bigger question of why if this is an educational project we impose policies that limit education because commerce isn't served? Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- We are not even save that no court would consider our project an commercially as we ask for donations and sell merchandise. There are interpretations of non commercial they reduce non commercial basically to personal use only. GPSLeo (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not really relevant unless the merchandise incorporates picture(s) of modern Korean buildings. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: Four experienced users here, two of us admins, have now told you essentially the same thing, but you keep telling us that the mandate of our site is not the mandate of our site. At some point, you either have to abide by a clear consensus, or decide that this is not the site for your work. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Neither you, nor anyone else has explained why the policy contradicts the stated educational Aim of this site, just that the policy must be obeyed. How am I not abiding by consensus in raising this? Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- There are many educational things that are not included in the scope of Commons. Among them are original, previously unpublished academic papers; academic classes; user-written encyclopedia articles of the sort found in Wikipedia; and works that are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed (where the latter is defined to include allowing for commercial re-use) either in their country of origin or in the United States. The fact that something has educational value is not sufficient to place it in Commons's scope.
- Some aspects of Commons' scope are negotiable: the degree to which we allow AI-generated or AI-enhanced works, the degree to which we host previously published text articles, the degree to which we host archives of websites that fall within our requirements for free-licensing. Other parts are basically not, and you are hitting upon one of the least negotiable, mainly because, as I wrote above, Commons charter from the WMF does not allow Commons to have an Exemption Doctrine Policy. The norm for WMF sites is to host only public-domain and free-licensed materials. Other sites are allowed to make certain limited exceptions under an approved policy. Commons literally does not have that option. What you are asking is like asking why the vegan restaurant won't serve cow's milk, or eggs, or maybe some fish. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- The point I am making is that nothing in Korean copyright law prevents Commons from hosting pictures of modern Korean buildings, only Commons' policy prevents that by insisting that images must be able to be sold. That does not serve education, so maybe the policy needs to be changed. Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Allowing NonCommercial was discussed in 2019 at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/08#Proposal to introduce Non-Commercial media on Wikimedia Commons, you can see the community strongly opposed it; the reasons why and the links provided (e.g. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC) might help to further explain why why Commons doesn't allow NC. Like any policy, though, if you don't agree with it, you can propose changing it at COM:Village pump/Proposals. -Consigned (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Neither you, nor anyone else has explained why the policy contradicts the stated educational Aim of this site, just that the policy must be obeyed. How am I not abiding by consensus in raising this? Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: Have you had a chance to review COM:LJ? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it contradicts the educational aim. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist no, it actually reinforces the aim for freely accessible educational content. Non-commercial licensing impedes the freedom to distribute, sell, and publish educational materials. Furthermore, in their 2022 policy guide, Creative Commons suggested the "exercise freedom of panorama" as one of the "minimum necessary exceptions for the Cultural Heritage Institutions and Their Users". GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) benefit from commercial Freedom of Panorama of outdoor works as well as building exteriors by the freedom to exhibit or publish images of contemporary monuments and buildings without any restrictions, further benefitting the mission of GLAMs to provide educational content on the architectural and sculptural heritages of their respective countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- There it is "sell". Nothing in Korean copyright law prevents Commons from hosting images of modern Korean buildings, only Commons' rules prevent that by insisting that images must be able to be sold. That's not educational. Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist I'll reiterate again that "educational" is just one aim under COM:SCOPE. The another (and more important) aim is freely-licensed or public domain material. "For educational purpose only" material is against the mission of WikiCommons to provide media content "that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose" in accordance with COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- There it is "sell". Nothing in Korean copyright law prevents Commons from hosting images of modern Korean buildings, only Commons' rules prevent that by insisting that images must be able to be sold. That's not educational. Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist no, it actually reinforces the aim for freely accessible educational content. Non-commercial licensing impedes the freedom to distribute, sell, and publish educational materials. Furthermore, in their 2022 policy guide, Creative Commons suggested the "exercise freedom of panorama" as one of the "minimum necessary exceptions for the Cultural Heritage Institutions and Their Users". GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) benefit from commercial Freedom of Panorama of outdoor works as well as building exteriors by the freedom to exhibit or publish images of contemporary monuments and buildings without any restrictions, further benefitting the mission of GLAMs to provide educational content on the architectural and sculptural heritages of their respective countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it contradicts the educational aim. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: Four experienced users here, two of us admins, have now told you essentially the same thing, but you keep telling us that the mandate of our site is not the mandate of our site. At some point, you either have to abide by a clear consensus, or decide that this is not the site for your work. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not really relevant unless the merchandise incorporates picture(s) of modern Korean buildings. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mztourist read again Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. A file should not only be usable for educational purpose; it must also be usable for commercial purpose. How many times will I repeat that "non-commercial or educational use only" (as listed among non-allowable license terms under "COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain") content is not allowed here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Still falls under Aims which refers to education, with no reference to commercial use. Its educational to have photos of modern Korean buildings for use on WP pages, other Foundation projects and just for public knowledge. Instead by requiring that images must be commercially exploitable, we are, by our own policies, undermining education. Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's why the South Korean rule on free use of public landmarks is against both COM:Licensing and COM:SCOPE. This Commons perspective will remain unchanged until South Korean government changes their mind and become more open to digital, I.T., and new media era where everyone can exploit public landmarks even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- for such countries, ultimately as photographers we have only 2 options:
- upload here; let them be deleted, and then in future be undeleted and rediscovered (when the photographed objects' copyrights no longer apply).
- upload to websites like flickr.com .
- RoyZuo (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Alternatively, once battery technology becomes sufficiently advanced enough, as Commons contributors we can travel to North Korea, fly a drone over the DMZ, and photograph buildings in South Korea that way. Because you are physically standing in North Korea while you are controlling the drone, North Korean law applies, and North Korean FOP is more liberal than South Korea. Seoul is only 60 kilometres from the DMZ, and I have flown my DJI Mavic 4 in a straight line for 8 kilometres without any problems, so we're nearly there. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 14:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think this strategy will fly very far (pun intended). The FoP laws were designed without thinking of drones, and may have to be updated. But the copyright should be decided by where is the camera, not where is the drone controller. For Mztourist defense, I think that that law is weirdly worded. Yann (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann or the FoP rule was meant to be worded that way, and Wikimedia Korea chapter should have a very convincing argument about why a commercial outdoor FoP in Korea (similar to Belgian or German models) or at least unrestricted architectural FoP (similar to American, Taiwanese, and Russian models) would be good for the dissemination of cultural heritage of their country, especially on foreign-hosted sites that are seen as "competitors" of South Korean ones. As I can infer from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09#South Korean state media may be free content now but login required, the South Korean establishments and authorities do not appear to be open ("genuine openness") to the free licensing concept. The SoKor online community has a direct "competitor" of Wikipedia, Namuwiki (enWiki article: w:en:Namuwiki), which draws more Internet traffic than KoWiki (despite having lesser quality control over their content), and is under a non-commercial CCBYNCSA licensing. SoKor politicians prioritize more on curating their entries on NamuWiki than either Kowiki or EnWiki. Connecting these dots, I have inferred that SoKor, in general, is unwilling to be submitted under free culture movement being advocated by the Wikimedia and Wikipedia communities. I can bet that within five years the non-commercial SoKor FoP will remain, even towards 2030s. It's only a miracle if the SoKor society suddenly embraces the free culture and free licensing, and follows (at the very least) the partial (architectural) FoP identical to the FoP rules of Denmark, Finland, Japan, Malawi, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, and the United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Do also note that there is a mention of an existing casefile concerning commercial use of buildings at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea#Add example of FOP?. Though according to @Nuevo Paso: (citing Beomnyul Sinmun), the case never concluded in court and was settled out of court, although in the first trial the architect lost because the advertiser only used a small part of the building in their commercial ad (here is the video of the incrimimated ad). The small inclusion in the video may be covered under Article 35-3 (apparently a later amendment of the SoKor law since it used the original numbering of the non-commercial FoP and artwork exhibition clause): "A work seen or heard in the courses of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), where it is incidentally included in the main object of shooting, etc., may be reproduced, distributed, performed in public, displayed, or publicly transmited. That where it unreasonably prejudices the interest of the holder of author's economic right in light of the type and nature of the used work, the purpose and character of use, etc, the same shall not apply." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I was responding to Benlisquare about used of drones to circumvent the limitation. I don't dispute the interpretation. May be this wording is usual legalese text, or due to language and translation, or both. Yann (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann it's my take on your comment "I think that that law is weirdly worded." For me, while initially "weird" for me (considering that the democratic R.O.K. does not grant liberal FoP unlike the dictatorial D.P.R.K.), I eventually understood that it may be normal after all. Not weird, just expected. SoKor, in general, isn't generally open to free culture movement. If they were, they would had allowed free exploitations of their architecture even for selling copies of images of those (just like in USA, Russia, Japan, and Taiwan). They would also had only authorized one type of {{KOGL}} (the present Type 1), and namuWiki would have been CCBYSA-licensed. But no, it seems normal to place commercial restrictions there. Even their state media website, which allegedly contains freely-licensed content, can only be accessed by logging in. As one commenter in the state media topic once said, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." I do not expect SoKor liberating their FoP anytime soon, at least within the next 5 years, except if there is a "miracle" more elaborate than the events at the w:en:Miracle in Cell No. 7. This time, "justice" for Wikimedia Korea peeps and free culture advocates there in South Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know about South Korea, but in France, absence of FoP is mostly due to strong lobbying by architects and artists' organizations (ADAGP, etc.). Yann (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann it's my take on your comment "I think that that law is weirdly worded." For me, while initially "weird" for me (considering that the democratic R.O.K. does not grant liberal FoP unlike the dictatorial D.P.R.K.), I eventually understood that it may be normal after all. Not weird, just expected. SoKor, in general, isn't generally open to free culture movement. If they were, they would had allowed free exploitations of their architecture even for selling copies of images of those (just like in USA, Russia, Japan, and Taiwan). They would also had only authorized one type of {{KOGL}} (the present Type 1), and namuWiki would have been CCBYSA-licensed. But no, it seems normal to place commercial restrictions there. Even their state media website, which allegedly contains freely-licensed content, can only be accessed by logging in. As one commenter in the state media topic once said, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." I do not expect SoKor liberating their FoP anytime soon, at least within the next 5 years, except if there is a "miracle" more elaborate than the events at the w:en:Miracle in Cell No. 7. This time, "justice" for Wikimedia Korea peeps and free culture advocates there in South Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I was responding to Benlisquare about used of drones to circumvent the limitation. I don't dispute the interpretation. May be this wording is usual legalese text, or due to language and translation, or both. Yann (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think this strategy will fly very far (pun intended). The FoP laws were designed without thinking of drones, and may have to be updated. But the copyright should be decided by where is the camera, not where is the drone controller. For Mztourist defense, I think that that law is weirdly worded. Yann (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Alternatively, once battery technology becomes sufficiently advanced enough, as Commons contributors we can travel to North Korea, fly a drone over the DMZ, and photograph buildings in South Korea that way. Because you are physically standing in North Korea while you are controlling the drone, North Korean law applies, and North Korean FOP is more liberal than South Korea. Seoul is only 60 kilometres from the DMZ, and I have flown my DJI Mavic 4 in a straight line for 8 kilometres without any problems, so we're nearly there. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 14:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Please move threads like this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, which is the discussion boards for topics exactly like this one. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Moved here from Commons:Village pump#South Korea FOP.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- (Replying to a comment far above by JWilz12345, unindenting for readability) "Photography is a method of reproducing buildings and artworks." - can this statement be backed up with sources? I was under the impression that a reproduction (or a copy) of a building must be another building in this context, while a reproduction of a 2D painting can be a photograph. whym (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Whym similar logic when we draw or make a painting of a building or sculpture, we are reproducing these through mechanical reproduction. Reproduction or replication of buildings, sculptures, and monuments in two dimensions. This is backed by Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017). It all boils down to the humble German origins of Panoramafreiheit in the 1870s in the German Confederation (now Germany).
- Mechanical reproductions - photography, lithography, and industrial presses - were introduced in the mid-19th century, and this meant easier access for anyone to copy anything, even if those were not their creations. To quote from Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017), with underlined words for emphases:
To paraphrase Walter Benjamin, the work of arts came to the "age of mechanical reproduction": new techniques, such as photography, industrial presses or lithography lifted significant restraints to replications.
- France immediately enacted measures to restrict photography, but mainly for privacy reasons. Italy also enacted anti-photography measures in belief that reproduction of their ancient archaeological sites through photography is a disrespect to their cultural heritage. We should not be surprised by the attitudes of Franco-Italian regimes towards photography going forward, and the resistance to Freedom of Panorama. In contrast, Germans embraced photography. The Kingdom (now State) of Bavaria introduced the earliest Panoramafreiheit rule in 1840. To quote from Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017), with underlined words for emphases:
German law was at the time a complex by-product of confederate agreements and, still, widely autonomous small states. In 1837, the German Confederation approved a new author right disposition against reproductions ("gegen den Nachdruck"). As was the use at the time, it made a special case of mechanical reproduction ("auf mechanischem Wege"). The reform aimed to establish a common standard on copyright law within the Confederation (with a minimal protection length of 10 years).
Several members of the German Confederation quickly attempted to soften some aspects of this stricter legal frameworks — a process somewhat analogous to the subsidiarity principle in the contemporary EU. Three years later, in 1840, the Kingdom of Bavaria edicted the very first "freedom of panorama": an exception to this general rule regarding the "work of arts and architecture in their exterior contours" situated in a public space (quoted in Chirco, 2013).
- Other German kingdoms imitated, until the Confederation finally enacted a harmonized FoP rule in 1876 based on Bavarian model, and this is inherited in today's German FoP model. Germany, in effect, is the birthplace of this crucial legal right for Wikimedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Re @Whym: It comes down to COM:Derivative works - a photo of a building is a derivative work of that building. Consigned (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that such a photograph of a 3D object is a derivative work of the 3D object. But is it a reproduction? Those are different, if partially overlapping, concepts. I think we need to argue based on South Korean legal precedent citing the law quoted above specifically. (I don't think that is an unrealistically high expectation - we just need to be patient until hearing from our colleagues who have the right expertise and/or linguistic skills.) whym (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Whym no need for case law. It is already not allowed to use photos of several public monuments in South Korea for commercial purposes (as can be read here). Note that those monuments are owned by the government. And lastly, we do have the noteworthy case in which architect Min Gyu-am's house was exploited by an advertiser (article about the case). He got lost in the first trial, not because the court did not consider a visual image as a reproduction but because the copyrighted house reproduced by the advertiser in their ad was just a small portion of the house. Then came out-of-court settlement and the rest is history, with no ruling in the 2nd trial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Simply put, photos of copyrighted works in public, like buildings with creative designs, statues, sculptures et cetera, cannot be used for commercial purpose. Advertising is to sell copies (reproductions) of buildings and monuments even in 2D form like photographs. With the two examples above, it's certain that in SoKor, photos are reproductions of objects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those sources might be enough for us to say this is what we believe. I still think we'd want something more (like a supreme court ruling containing the exact argument) to say it's an established fact, though. whym (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Whym unfortunately, the plaintiff architect in the UV House case did not appeal, and resorted to making a settlement with the defendant advertising company instead during the 2nd trial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a legal scholar in South Korean law who shares your view on this? whym (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have found one possible online paper regarding Korean FoP, but it requires sign in. Another paper discussing FoP is this but the full text is in Korean, with English version only for the abstract. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a legal scholar in South Korean law who shares your view on this? whym (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Whym unfortunately, the plaintiff architect in the UV House case did not appeal, and resorted to making a settlement with the defendant advertising company instead during the 2nd trial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those sources might be enough for us to say this is what we believe. I still think we'd want something more (like a supreme court ruling containing the exact argument) to say it's an established fact, though. whym (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that such a photograph of a 3D object is a derivative work of the 3D object. But is it a reproduction? Those are different, if partially overlapping, concepts. I think we need to argue based on South Korean legal precedent citing the law quoted above specifically. (I don't think that is an unrealistically high expectation - we just need to be patient until hearing from our colleagues who have the right expertise and/or linguistic skills.) whym (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
1914 Photo album
[edit]I own a photograph album passed on by my grandmother who was Winifred van Praagh. I have digitized these 1914 black and white photos of her journey from UK to New Zealand on SS Euripides, and wish to upload them and then use the photos to add to a Wikipedia article.
I assume since the originals are over 100 years old there would be no copyright issues. Do I need to release copyright for my digitized copies? Since an original source cannot be quoted, am I prevented from using them on Wikipedia. There are several famous scientists in the photos. DrEvanLewis (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @DrEvanLewis: You do not need to release copyright for your work of digitization because Wikimedia considers that the action of digitization does not generate a distinct copyright. However, you need to clarify the facts to determine the copyright on the original photos. What was the source of each photo before it was collected in the album? Were the photos published? Where? When? Who took the photos? Unknown person(s)? Known person(s)? When did they die? Who are the heirs of the known photographer(s)? It is not clear if you are implying that Winifred was the photographer or if the photos were taken by someone else. If the photographer(s) died before 1956 and if the photos were never published, the photos might be in the public domain. If the photographer died after 1955, and if you are the heir of the photographer, you might be the owner of the copyright. If the photos are by unknown photographers and were never published, they might be unusable until 2035. If the photos were published, it depends when and where. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @DrEvanLewis: Asclepias is being very through above, but the case for most of these is probably simple. Are they all photos she took? If so, what year did she die, and (if 1956 or later) are you the heir to her intellectual property? If not, then you get into the more complicated cases. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the very thorough replies. I concluded that the photos would be in Public Domain because:
- All photos were taken by my grandmother with her own camera (or occasionally a photo was taken of my grandmother by her sister.)
- Winifred wrote a caption under each photo in her own hand writing.
- Both died before 1956. My grandmother Winifred van Praagh died on 17 September 1950 (7 months after I was born).
- I am the physical owner of the album and heir.
- The photos have never been published.
- The collection is 116 digitized photos, named using their captions. Some prints have two digitized verions including a closeup.
- Do you think Wikipedia would allow them to be used to supplement existing articles about famous scientists who are included in the photos (closeups included): Lord Rutherford, Sir Henry Tizard, Prof Pringsheim.
- Do you think they would be interested in a Wikipedia article about the photo album, perhaps including 100 photos?
- Thank you for your help!
- Evan DrEvanLewis (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- @DrEvanLewis: A
- From the above, it sounds like marked as {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Given your description, Commons would gladly host them. (Please don't be offended if it turns out that a small number might be outside of Commons scope; the only thing I can imagine is if there are a few too many unexceptional personal photos of a small number of private individuals.) Also, I recommend that besides any other categorization you create a "hidden" Commons category for the album as a source, analogous to Category:Images from the Prosch Albums, and that should go on every photo from the album. Probably also, in addition to anything else, it would be worth having the descriptions include the captions as they appear in the album. (The Prosch Albums aren't a perfect analogue, because those scans are rather low-res and include Thomas Prosch's handwritten annotations.)
- As I'm pretty sure you know, this is Wikimedia Commons, not one of the several hundred Wikipedias in various languages, each of which makes its own policy and editorial decisions. I'm active on several of the Wikipedias, and I'd expect that some of these photos would be welcome, others would not, either because they already have a similar, better photo (Wikipedia is very rarely interested in a second similar photo) or because that language's Wikipedia does not have an article where the photo would be appropriate. A Wikipedia article about the album itself seems very unlikely, and if it were desired, the policies about conflicts of interest (see en:WP:COI for the policy in the English-language Wikipedia) mean it would not be a appropriate for you personally to write that article. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of completeness: Many countries - including the European Union and the United Kingdom - grant a so-called publication right (also called right of the editio princeps) to anyone first publishing a work that is already in the public domain and was never published before, usually for 25 years. This grants basically the same rights as "regular" copyright to the publisher. DrEvanLewis: The photos of your grandmother, who died in 1950, are in the public domain in the EU, in the UK, and in New Zealand (as I don't know anything about her or about you, might it be the case that she emigrated to New Zealand and you're living there?), as the duration of copyright is life + 70 years in EU/UK and even only life + 50 years in NZ. So, in theory, by the act of publishing these previously unpublished public domain pictures, you become the copyright holder for 25 years in the countries that grant this right (I don't know about publication right in NZ, though). But if you declare them PD when uploading them here, I suppose this counts as waiving this right / releasing the pictures into the public domain. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @DrEvanLewis: Asclepias is being very through above, but the case for most of these is probably simple. Are they all photos she took? If so, what year did she die, and (if 1956 or later) are you the heir to her intellectual property? If not, then you get into the more complicated cases. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
NASA images processed by third parties
[edit]Sometimes third parties create derivative works of NASA images (e.g. colorizing, stitching together raw images to form a mosaic) and claim copyright on them. Deletion requests for these images are handled inconsistently by Commons administrators: most are deleted, but some are kept. Here is a recent discussion that was closed as keep, with links to others that were closed as delete.
[I]t is well established that colorizing creates a new copyright.
– Jameslwoodward, 2019Trivial changes do not create a new copyright.
– Yann, 2026
Both can't be true! Has there ever been a consensus on how these cases should be handled? SevenSpheres (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- If they are using the same colors that NASA uses to represent each wavelength, then there is nothing creative beyond what was already in the public domain. The copyright for colorization was awarded for a film where they had no color stills to determine what the natural/original colors were for costumes, so they represented a creative choice. --RAN (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I assume, similar as per RAN, that it depends on how changes are applied. If Moasics are fully automatically stitched together by software, I cannot imagine how it creates a copyright protection (especially when the results of 200 other users would be identical). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to move this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. That's in part because there there may be more users interested in / with expertise in copyright. However, the two quotes you named are not contradictory: it depends basically on the magnitude of changes – small/trivial changes don't make the file copyrightable. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a better place, thanks. The two discussions linked above are about images from the same source (solarviews.com), that presumably have the same or similar magnitude of changes. I don't think we know exactly what processing was done. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, We usually assume that film colorization creates a new copyright, but that is much more complex than adjusting the colors in a single picture. On the opposite, film restoration, how complex it may be, doesn't create a new copyright. That indicates what level of changes is needed for a new copyright. Yann (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- When the US Copyright Office first had to deal with colorized films in 1983, they invited public input before they finally decided that yes, they could be copyrighted. The line on colorization is so high in the US that it wasn't obvious that whole films got a new copyright for being colored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- im begging for this to be resolved, one way or another. Anonymsiy (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Anonymsiy: It has been. Everyone is telling you you are wrong. Consider me one more person telling you the same thing. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- You're only the second person who has said that; others have said that the copyright depends on exactly what changes were made, which is unknown in the case of the images discussed above. If there is consensus that Yann's position is correct, many images should be undeleted. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- ye hes a bit rude Anonymsiy (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- ...To be clear, this isn't about images by Anonymsiy, which are undoubtedly free regardless of whether their changes create a new copyright. This is about images from places outside of Commons, such as solarviews.com and the Planetary Society, for which a non-free license is claimed. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- yeah, on one hand i am excited for the many new imags from the planetary society we werent able to get earlier, but on the other hand, copyright is gonna be weird Anonymsiy (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- jeez @Jmabel Anonymsiy (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- You're only the second person who has said that; others have said that the copyright depends on exactly what changes were made, which is unknown in the case of the images discussed above. If there is consensus that Yann's position is correct, many images should be undeleted. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Anonymsiy: It has been. Everyone is telling you you are wrong. Consider me one more person telling you the same thing. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- After sleeping on this for a night, I think that in the vast majority of cases, cleaned up versions of NASA photography/data would not constitute a new creative work, in the same way that a scan and cleanup of a PB painting isn't considered a separate creative work. An argument that a colorization is novel needs to be made for the image to be deleted. If a colorization is based on NASA data, I don't think it can reasonably be considered a creative colorization; programmatically changing color values can be more straightforward than most other cleanup work. ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- this one is tough... some processed nasa images, especially ones to made look aesthetically pleasing or collages of images to make one big image (like the image of miranda on wikipedia) probably deserve copyright if they are copyrighted, but most dont. Anonymsiy (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Example - File:Miranda mosaic in color - Voyager 2.png
[edit]
Above, Anonymsiy mentions this image, which is currently labeled with a CC license. The process is described in the file's description, which I've copied to the right. Does stitching together the frames and colorizing based on data constitute creative work exceeding the threshold of originality? In my opinion, no - while it may have taken skill and effort (en:sweat of the brow), it is not effort but creativity that creates copyright, and the description of this process (and the result) is not a creative one exceeding COM:TOO USA. -Consigned (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- ok, also, random question, ive heard people talk of an "algorythm" which automatically stitches these images together. what is it? Anonymsiy (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- dezoomify is such a software, which stitches mosaic images. You can test it on images from here or here. Yann (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- thx Anonymsiy (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- wait, how do you do this with images on your computer? Anonymsiy (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Probably with Hugin or an equivalent. Yann (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- thanks! i will try this soon! Anonymsiy (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- it didnt work with the miranda images i used :( i wonder if there is a program for this that works with space images Anonymsiy (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Probably with Hugin or an equivalent. Yann (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- dezoomify is such a software, which stitches mosaic images. You can test it on images from here or here. Yann (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Policy/practices not very clearly defined
[edit]Based on the discussion above, while it seems like the Commons community has a consistent practice around colorizations and DWs, I don't think this is clearly explained in a way that newer users might understand. I've started a discussion on the Derivative Works talk page proposing that a section be added to better explain this - please take a look at Commons talk:Derivative works#Proposal: Add a section to better describe when a derivation creates a new copyright, all feedback is welcome! -Consigned (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- cool i dont know about copyright so i cant engage but still nice Anonymsiy (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- i mean i dont know that much Anonymsiy (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- If no particular argument can be made about creative choices can be made, then we have no basis to delete the file. That being said, if no one can track down the original NASA-released imagery used for the cleanup, we also don't have a solid basis for it actually being a public domain image. If we cannot confirm an image has been (primarily) created by the US government, then I understand why the files were deleted. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- i mean i dont know that much Anonymsiy (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Digitized Sky Survey
[edit]
Moved from Commons:Village pump § Digitized Sky Survey Should get a consensus on this too. Commons hosts many images from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). According to this page, DSS is copyrighted and only non-commercial use is allowed; in contrast to other data hosted by the same institution (STScI), which is in the public domain. Based on this, individual DSS images are often nominated for deletion. They are also often (re-)uploaded citing an email that gives permission for use on Wikipedia (e.g. here, also quoted below), but this doesn't contradict the non-commercial license terms on the website. Commons requires a license that allows commercial use (Commons:Licensing).
Hi, Thank you for your question. The licenses for SDSS and DSS images are different because there are different contributing organizations to each. However, both are free to use for non-profits for educational purposes, without further restriction. This includes Wikipedia. There is no copyright STScI holds that would prevent using the DSS images on Wikipedia, even though it may not be specifically named in the DSS license.
Referring to https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use#section-95dab389-f4b4-4a52-8985-dcbfb908d8f2 it appears that use of the color DSS images can be investigated further by contacting archive@stsci.edu
Sincerely, The Office of Public Outreach
So, can DSS images be hosted on Commons or should they be deleted? SevenSpheres (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @SevenSpheres: I don't see anything in what you wrote here that suggests any basis to keep on Commons. Am I missing something? (Your wording suggests you think there is an open question here.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- There are a lot of images that would need mass deletion requests (I could try to start one), and at least one user who keeps uploading them after multiple deletion requests. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a partial mass deletion request. SevenSpheres (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to also move this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. That's in part because there there may be more users interested in copyright-related questions and/or with expertise in copyright. However, as Jmabel said, the question was unclear: looks like it just needs a mass deletion request for all the DSS files (btw not to be confused with Sloan Digital Sky Survey files) so I think this is solved. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- ESO/DSS and NASA/DSS should be kept at least. ESO/NASA/DSS files have explicit permissions in EXIF. See File:Wide-field view of the Virgo cluster of galaxies (ground-based image) (heic0815i).jpg and File:Around the star-formation region Gum 19 (RCW 34).jpg (kept already) for example Юрий Д.К. 10:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
_(heic0815i).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Les image DSS
[edit]J'ai compris pourquoi on ne peut les utiliser. Des milliers d'images que j'ai créées pour les articles que j'ai écrits risquent d'être effacées. À moins que ....
J'ai envoyé un courriel à l'organisme en charge des images DSS, un programmme terminé avant l'an 2000 dont les images sont de piètre résolution, mais qui ont l'avantage de couvrir tout le ciel. Je leur ai demandé de changer leur licnece comme l'ont fait les relevés SDSS et PaanSTARRS, en leur mentionnant que des milliers d'images pourraient disparaître des pages Wiki tant français qu'anglais si leur licence n'est pas changée. J'attends leur réponse en me croisant les doigts.
En attendant, pourrait-on les conserver où à tout le moins les transférer dans un dossier. Quelqu'un (?) pourrait alors les remettre aisément dans Common. Si la licence devient Open Source, les remettre une à une par l'outil que j'ai, eh bien, vraiment trop long. Donald Pelletier (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Virtually all file deletions on Commons are soft deletions. The only hard deletions I'm aware of are for CSAM (pédopornographie).
- Assuming there is a sane way to identify what content comes from DSS and is therefore likely to be deleted, you can certainly create a list of the relevant files so that they can be undeleted either when such permission might be obtained or in the distant future when their copyright expires. See the wikitext of Category:Undelete in 2043 for a similar (though much shorter) sort of list. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Old British newspaper advert
[edit]I think this newspaper advert published in 1928 in the UK should be in the public domain: https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-mirror-something-new-in-biscuits/172694524/. In the US, the situation is simple since it was published before 1931. However, which copyright tag should be used for its status in the UK? {{PD-UK-Unknown}}? Shapeyness (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is anonymous/corporate work, so I presume {{PD-old-70}} would apply. Does anyone disagree? - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ok thank you, I didn't realise that could be used for anonymous works too. Shapeyness (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Uploading Florida public domain photo to Commons
[edit]I would like to upload this photo of a governor signing legislation to Commons https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/128440 . It is listed as being in the public domain, and the U.S. state of Florida is typically very open with government information. I can't figure out the right license to list when uploading it, though. JMMaok (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- If the photo was created by the government of Florida then you should use {{PD-FLGov}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- actually use {{PD-FLGov-PhotoColl}}, it was specifically made for images from that website.. Stemoc 04:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
German FOP and photographs of unauthorized graffiti
[edit]An ongoing deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hilden Nové-Město-Platz 9-10 (2).jpg raises a Freedom of Panorama question with broader policy implications.
.jpg){kind=link}
The file shows unauthorized graffiti reproducing a copyrighted character. Under COM:FOP Germany, photographs of permanently displayed public works are generally allowed, and precedent has often supported keeping similar street art images. However, this case differs from original graffiti because it involves an additional layer of third-party copyright infringement.
This raises a policy question about how to balance existing FOP precedent with COM:Precautionary principle and Commons' requirement that files be genuinely free.
I did not close this myself, and am instead seeking additional input, given the nuanced interaction between Freedom of Panorama and third-party copyright. Please provide opinions in the DR. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't differ from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vitoria - Graffiti & Murals 1127 12.JPG, as I pointed out in the linked thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Griffin in Hannover 2015.jpg. German law is clear on this, unauthorized depictions of copyrighted characters are not protected by FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- What about the thread I linked? We need consistency in admins' rulings on cases in which DW and FOP seem to be in conflict. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Germany and Spain may have different laws. @Strakhov: @DarwIn: and Spanish FoP is well not as clear cut you think. Abzeronow (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- In any way, this is a legal quagmire. According to Gnom, the scholars are actually split as to whether German FOP mandates a lawful emplacement of a work to be applicable as a rights limitating statute. I know about Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg and User talk:Gnom/Archive 4#Frage zum Rechtsverhältnis; geschütze Vorlage und Panoramafreiheit as pertinent previous exchanges in that subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- User:Abzeronow, OK, if Spain and Germany are different in this respect, is that spelled out in COM:FOP Spain and COM:FOP Germany? It should be, if possible. Copyright laws and exceptions can be very confusing, and Commons should make them as clear as possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- In any way, this is a legal quagmire. According to Gnom, the scholars are actually split as to whether German FOP mandates a lawful emplacement of a work to be applicable as a rights limitating statute. I know about Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg and User talk:Gnom/Archive 4#Frage zum Rechtsverhältnis; geschütze Vorlage und Panoramafreiheit as pertinent previous exchanges in that subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Germany and Spain may have different laws. @Strakhov: @DarwIn: and Spanish FoP is well not as clear cut you think. Abzeronow (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- What about the thread I linked? We need consistency in admins' rulings on cases in which DW and FOP seem to be in conflict. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the Spanish example was kept; IMO it should be deleted per Commons:Free depictions of non-free works#Not OK:
Photos of derivative graffiti without authorization from the copyright owner, even where two-dimensional artistic works are covered by commercial FoP
. -Consigned (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- So are you saying this should have been deleted because of a Commons policy that is stricter than Spanish FOP? Why does Commons do that to itself and its users? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence that Spanish FOP contradicts that policy? I don't see anything in COM:Spain that says so. The policy seems like a reasonable interpretation of FOP everywhere. -Consigned (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Since you are proposing an exception to Spanish FOP law, I think it is up to you to provide evidence for that. It's more reasonable, in my opinion, to assume that a law does not have such exceptions unless legal provisions, cases or legal opinions can be cited to demonstrate such an exception. Otherwise, you're creating an unnecessary additional prohibition on Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per COM:ONUS the burden of proof is on the person arguing for the file to be kept. And per COM:PCP, when in doubt, we should not make assumptions around law, we should tread towards the precautionary option which is deletion. Consigned (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The onus is actually trickier than that. For one thing, the doubt has to be "significant." For another thing, the precautionary principle is more about whether a particular file is PD under an understood law than a requirement that in undetermined areas of law, we must presume the broadest imaginable interpretation of copyright. Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting "the broadest imaginable interpretation of copyright" correctly, your description of the precautionary principle seems to align well to this case - since it seems like Spanish law is unclear as to whether the original artist's right to restrict reproduction is lost due to FOP after being reproduced or derived in public without authorization, the broadest interpretation of copyright is that the original artist retains that right. My personal interpretation is that it isn't reasonable that this right can be relinquished without the rightholder's consent - to me this seems contradictory with the principles behind the Berne Convention, which ENWP's intro summarizes as providing creators
with the means to control how their works are used, by whom, and on what terms
. This aligns with the German court opinion discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Griffin in Hannover 2015.jpg. I am very interested in learning if Spanish or any other countries' law, court cases, or legal analyses discuss this scenario, but in their absence, we should presume the broadest interpretation of copyright. -Consigned (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)- No we shouldn't. Just delete everything, then, why don't you? The broadest possible interpretation is that no evidence of true authorship is enough, etc., etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Consigned: intentionally or unintentionally, you grabbed a phrase out of what I wrote and pulled it out of context to say the opposite of what I said. If you read more closely you will see that I am saying that the precautionary principle does not require that in undetermined areas of law, we must presume the broadest imaginable interpretation of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wow, my apologies, I completely misinterpreted and clearly missed a word or two. I'll try to read more carefully in the future, and thank you for explaining it again. -Consigned (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: yes, I think that we should "Delete everything" where there is significant doubt in its freedom, which is in the COM:PCP. Obviously we disagree on "significant doubt", but people are allowed to have different opinions; at the end of the day hopefully the discussion and different perspectives help arrive at an overall consensus. -Consigned (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You're suggesting I don't believe you're "allowed" to have your own opinion? Would it make you feel freer if I stated that I take the presumption to permit you to have one? The point is, your personal "significant doubt" is a legal opinion you're making up to unnecessarily delete a large swath of files no court or legal provision said we had to delete. That's unnecessarily destructive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have any thoughts about my argument itself, whether it aligns with legal language, cases, or opinions? Or are you just disputing it because of the outcome? Consigned (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- You're suggesting I don't believe you're "allowed" to have your own opinion? Would it make you feel freer if I stated that I take the presumption to permit you to have one? The point is, your personal "significant doubt" is a legal opinion you're making up to unnecessarily delete a large swath of files no court or legal provision said we had to delete. That's unnecessarily destructive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting "the broadest imaginable interpretation of copyright" correctly, your description of the precautionary principle seems to align well to this case - since it seems like Spanish law is unclear as to whether the original artist's right to restrict reproduction is lost due to FOP after being reproduced or derived in public without authorization, the broadest interpretation of copyright is that the original artist retains that right. My personal interpretation is that it isn't reasonable that this right can be relinquished without the rightholder's consent - to me this seems contradictory with the principles behind the Berne Convention, which ENWP's intro summarizes as providing creators
- The onus is actually trickier than that. For one thing, the doubt has to be "significant." For another thing, the precautionary principle is more about whether a particular file is PD under an understood law than a requirement that in undetermined areas of law, we must presume the broadest imaginable interpretation of copyright. Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The freedom of panorama is codified in Article 35(2) and it indeed has no restriction, yet this article is part of Chapter II. This chapter ends with Article 40 bis:
Los artículos del presente capítulo no podrán interpretarse de manera tal que permitan su aplicación de forma que causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor o que vayan en detrimento de la explotación normal de las obras a que se refieran
, and it roughly says that the articles in the whole Chapter II cannot be interpreted in a way to cause unjustified harm on the interest of the author. It is clear to me that if an artist decides to place an artwork in a public space, they are aware of that people can take photos and use them commercially. However, in the case of Graffiti containing derivative works, the Graffiti artists, in general, don't ask for permission to the original author. Further reproduction of the Graffiti would transform an unlawful reproduction of their work into a legal one and that goes against the legitimate interest of the original author. Günther Frager (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- Thanks, what seems like an official translation at this link (direct pdf download) translates it as
The Articles of this Chapter shall not be construed so that their implementation is capable of unreasonably prejudicing the author's legitimate interests or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer.
I agree that a work (or a version of it) entering PD due to an unauthorized reproduction seems like both "unreasonably prejudicing the author's legitimate interests" and "adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works". -Consigned (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, what seems like an official translation at this link (direct pdf download) translates it as
- Per COM:ONUS the burden of proof is on the person arguing for the file to be kept. And per COM:PCP, when in doubt, we should not make assumptions around law, we should tread towards the precautionary option which is deletion. Consigned (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Since you are proposing an exception to Spanish FOP law, I think it is up to you to provide evidence for that. It's more reasonable, in my opinion, to assume that a law does not have such exceptions unless legal provisions, cases or legal opinions can be cited to demonstrate such an exception. Otherwise, you're creating an unnecessary additional prohibition on Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence that Spanish FOP contradicts that policy? I don't see anything in COM:Spain that says so. The policy seems like a reasonable interpretation of FOP everywhere. -Consigned (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- So are you saying this should have been deleted because of a Commons policy that is stricter than Spanish FOP? Why does Commons do that to itself and its users? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Griffin in Hannover 2015.jpg. German law is clear on this, unauthorized depictions of copyrighted characters are not protected by FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps the 2nd paragraph of Sec. 59 comes into play: "The reproduction may not be carried out on a building." Per w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland (translated): The reproduction of the work "on a building" is expressly prohibited. For example, a protected monument in the market square may not be depicted in murals or stucco decorations on buildings. The underlying rationale is that the purpose of the freedom of streetscapes is not to allow reproductions to be used in accordance with the original function of the work without compensating the author. As far as the literature is concerned, an interpretation is often favored that only the exterior of the building is meant. This would mean that, on the one hand, the reproduction of a fresco above a house entrance would be impermissible, but on the other hand, its copying on the wall in the stairwell of a building would be permitted.
- Assuming an unauthorized graffiti of a copyrighted character on the outdoor wall of a building, the reproduction itself is already infringing as it reproduces a copyrighted character. By using the logic, WikiCommons photographers whose photographs are not PD (e.g CCBY and CCBYSA) are protected: it's illegal to paint an image of an existing photo by a Wikipedian on the outdoor walls, or even beam an image of the same photo using modern technology (like laser or AR). And since such reproductions are already illegal under Sec. 59(2), any photo of such reproductions is also an infringement from the beginning.
- See this discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: Graffiti always falls under FOP under German copyright law, except (with this exception being disputed and not yet decided by the courts) if the graffiti itself is an unauthorised copy of a protected work. Gnom (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- §59(2) UrhG prohibits reproducing a protected work onto a building. That is, using a building as the medium for copying an existing work (e.g. painting a mural of a copyrighted character on a wall). This clause is aimed at preventing unauthorized use of buildings as canvases for derivative works. However, this restriction applies to the act of creating the reproduction, not to photographing it. The photographer is not reproducing the work on a building, but rather capturing an existing work on a building. §59(1) governs that situation, and as long as the work is permanently located in a public space, the photo is permitted. So while the graffiti itself may be infringing, the photo of it is not necessarily a reproduction
on a building
within the meaning of §59(2). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)- Seems dodgy to me. Effectively, a derivative work of a copyvio is somehow kosher. So I could take any work of art, paint (or otherwise affix) a copy anonymously onto the side of a building, photograph that, and as long as no one can prove I'm the same person who painted it, I have a clean copyright on the photo? So if something like File:Okanogan, WA - Frank Matsura photo 02.jpg used a still-copyrighted photo without permission, and was located in Spain, my resulting photo would be fine? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that it does sound bonkers, and I understand the concern. That said, this is my reading of German FOP law, a photograph of an existing work permanently located in a public space is generally allowed, even if the work itself is an infringing derivative. My comment in the above DR is of note in my opinion. On Commons, the only situation where a file does not need to be free in both the source country and the US is under FOP. That said, I think we should at least attempt to document cases like this clearly. Even if a photograph would be legally publishable under the source country's FOP, Commons still requires that it be freely usable in the US. Doing so would help avoid confusion and provide consistency for contributors encountering these edge cases... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Seems dodgy to me. Effectively, a derivative work of a copyvio is somehow kosher. So I could take any work of art, paint (or otherwise affix) a copy anonymously onto the side of a building, photograph that, and as long as no one can prove I'm the same person who painted it, I have a clean copyright on the photo? So if something like File:Okanogan, WA - Frank Matsura photo 02.jpg used a still-copyrighted photo without permission, and was located in Spain, my resulting photo would be fine? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- §59(2) UrhG prohibits reproducing a protected work onto a building. That is, using a building as the medium for copying an existing work (e.g. painting a mural of a copyrighted character on a wall). This clause is aimed at preventing unauthorized use of buildings as canvases for derivative works. However, this restriction applies to the act of creating the reproduction, not to photographing it. The photographer is not reproducing the work on a building, but rather capturing an existing work on a building. §59(1) governs that situation, and as long as the work is permanently located in a public space, the photo is permitted. So while the graffiti itself may be infringing, the photo of it is not necessarily a reproduction
- Just to clarify: Graffiti always falls under FOP under German copyright law, except (with this exception being disputed and not yet decided by the courts) if the graffiti itself is an unauthorised copy of a protected work. Gnom (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Photo with incorrect copyright info and description
[edit]A photo that is on an article I am working on seems to have incorrect copyright information and description. This photo of Georgia Gilmore has the source as "The Montgomery Advisor" (I'm assuming that they meant "The Montgomery Advertiser") and has the author as Mark Wallhemer. Neither of those facts are correct. I found it on the Alabama Department of Archives & History website which says that the photographer was Jim Peppler, that the photo was taken for The Southern Courier (but not used in the article), and that it is under copyright. I don't understand copyright much at all but I'm not sure if I can keep the photo on the article (I am working on the article to submit for GA). Any help would be appreciated. Snugglebuns (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I also just found one of the other photos from her article and it doesn't seem terribly correct either. This one has the same description and info on it but it is a screencap (I think) from this NYTimes article, NYTimes credits the Montgomery Advertiser, and this is the only version of the picture I've found that doesn't have the tilt and border on it. I am now skeptical of all the photos that are in the article currently. Snugglebuns (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Snugglebuns. For the first image, it looks like Peppler is still alive, so unless this was first published without a copyright notice (which doesn't seem accurate based on the archive link provided - says the image was never used in the article) this would likely still be copyrighted. For the second image, it is listed as a file photo; as such, it's possible that it may have been published before 2022. However, you would need to have a look to confirm when it was published and if a copyright notice was included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Can screenshots of Dwarf Fortress be uploaded to Commons?
[edit]I'm specifically talking about en:Dwarf Fortress, but the same logic might apply to other procedurally generated games using similar graphics.
Dwarf Fortress uses ASCII graphics (plain text) to represent things in-game, such as terrain, items, and creatures. Here is an example of what it looks like in-game - on the left side is a series of rooms created by the player, and on the right side is the game's procedurally generated terrain. The boxes filled with π, Æ, and θ are bedrooms - notably, these structures were created by the player (i.e, the player chose how to dig out the room, and where to place the objects), not created by the game.
While the game itself is copyrighted, what I want to know is if text-based outputs from Dwarf Fortress are also automatically copyrighted. This deletion request (for the file Dwarf Fortress - mapa świata.png) seems to suggest that they aren't, but it's the only discussion I can find on Dwarf Fortress, and seems to apply specifically to the world map (not other parts of the game).
There are other files on Commons which have screenshots of copyrighted games with free graphics, most notably mods of Minecraft - File:Tinkers Construct smeltery.png, File:Vintagecraft jungle.png, and File:Galacticraft moon buggy.png, among others. All of these mods are licensed under compatible licenses (and the pictures don't contain any copyrighted assets from vanilla Minecraft). In this case, while the graphics of Dwarf Fortress are not explicitly released under a free license, I believe they would fall under either PD-text or PD-shape.
So, my question is this - which of the following would be okay to upload to Commons (assuming I am the player taking the screenshots)?
- Screenshots of the user interface (example) - still text-based, but not procedurally generated - the UI was designed by the game's developers.
- Screenshots of unit descriptions (such as this one) - the names and appearances of units are procedurally generated, but they always appear with the same descriptions ("He is a citizen of <place>", "His eyes are <color>", "<name> likes <object>, <object>, and <object>", etc...) which were written by the game's developers.
- Screenshots of terrain or maps (example of a cavern, example of part of the world map) - like Dwarf Fortress - mapa świata.png, these are completely procedurally generated, and vary entirely from game to game.
- Screenshots of player-created structures (like the bedrooms above) - these are entirely player-created (not generated by the game), the only thing the game does is render what the player creates with the tileset.
I'm guessing that:
- 1 is not okay (UI design was done by the game's developers, so the copyright would be held by them)
- 2 might not be okay (the specific text the game uses to describe the procedurally-generated output is probably copyrightable)
- 3 is probably okay (based on the DR linked above)
- 4 is probably okay (any creative design is done by the player, so as long as I am the one who builds everything in the screenshot, I can upload it - the tileset is most likely PD-text, and it would look the exact same as if I made en:ASCII art of the game)
but I'm not sure if there are any guidelines or copyright rules which would be relevant here. As far as I can tell, that linked DR is the only time someone has brought this question up (about Dwarf Fortress specifically), and I can't find anything else on similar games that use ASCII graphics.
Thanks in advance. Tymewalk (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Unsure whether these maps are public domain and can be used as they are
[edit]After reading about public domain on maps, I'm not sure whether the maps in this link are public domain and can be uploaded in Wikimedia. They are from a course at Tulane University. Anyone can give an answer? CS20M (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @CSM20M: nothing on that page gives me any particular reason to think those images are in the public domain. Is there some reason you think they might be? - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- COM:TOO#Maps suggests that maps are generally public domain. Looking at the maps, they are just a map of Spain with colored regions representing linguistic variation; data, not creativity. Therefore, these images could probably be uploaded here, though it would probably be better to recreate these maps as SVGs for reusability. Based5290 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: As Based5290 pointed out, I read COM:TOO#Maps and the explanation there suggests that these maps are public domain. Hence my question. CS20M (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hmm. If all it showed were the province boundaries, I would certainly agree, but I'm much less sure this applies to something like https://www2.tulane.edu/~h0Ward/DiaEsp/_images/Espana-rfinal.png. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Notice that the course gives another source for the maps: the web http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/, which is a suspended domain, and is allegedly based on the Atlas Lingüístico de la Península Ibérica, which is a huge project that started in the 30s and was interrupted by the Spanish Civil War, and now it is being recovered by the CSIC (Spanish National Research Council). So it seems that the maps have been taken from a website that doesn't exist any more and are based on a work that is undoubtedly public domain. You can tell me what you think of this. CS20M (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hmm. If all it showed were the province boundaries, I would certainly agree, but I'm much less sure this applies to something like https://www2.tulane.edu/~h0Ward/DiaEsp/_images/Espana-rfinal.png. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: As Based5290 pointed out, I read COM:TOO#Maps and the explanation there suggests that these maps are public domain. Hence my question. CS20M (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- COM:TOO#Maps suggests that maps are generally public domain. Looking at the maps, they are just a map of Spain with colored regions representing linguistic variation; data, not creativity. Therefore, these images could probably be uploaded here, though it would probably be better to recreate these maps as SVGs for reusability. Based5290 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Government of Pakistan's logo, can it be free to use?
[edit]If you go to https://www.pakistan.gov.pk/ and then https://www.pakistan.gov.pk/storage/settings/cttXaj4jKZ5l2dHZ0EjozVXSV0BMubAC92rKoRGV.svg, you can clearly see a logo that I would like to use for w:Government of Pakistan as it seems to be best representative of the pakistani government. Just wanting to be sure on that one and seek approval to do so.
Might be eligible under Template:PD-Pakistan though. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- view-source:https://www.pakistan.gov.pk/storage/settings/cttXaj4jKZ5l2dHZ0EjozVXSV0BMubAC92rKoRGV.svg may be relevant as well. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Copyright status of old photos in modern books?
[edit]If a photo exists that should be free to use on account of age, but I only have a copy of it as reproduced in a book that is more recent and therefore still under its own copyright, can I take a photo of the relevant page, crop it and use just the photo, optionally crediting it as "as seen in [book name]"? My instinct is that it would be preferable to cite the book as a source, but I can also imagine that causing problems.
(Secondary question: in this case the photos are of a construction site circa 1910 +/-5 years, so I think it's very likely they're beyond the 70 years after death rule and no author is credited. How certain do I need to be?)
(Prototyperspective (talk · contribs) suggested moving this over here from where I'd originally posted it. They mentioned something about "the validated longevity record is 122 years". Given the context of the photos showing a construction site, I imagine the photographers would not have been young children; probably at least in their early 20s.)
Anothersignalman (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Better to move the full thread, I also addressed the first part and I doubt or am very unsure the longevity record inference approach is the right way here so I mainly said that question is more complicated when I addressed the second question.) Prototyperspective (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- My apologies.
- For a case study, I've used a photograph here - [1] (the one in the oval frame) - which was taken in 1905 +/-1 year. In this case I know the author died in 1941, but the book it's in was published in 2002. Note I stuffed up the filename upload and I've put in a request to change that, so it might change shortly, but I made a point of citing the source in the caption on that page.
- Anothersignalman (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- We'd need more info, like the country of origin of the photo/book, because in some countries copyright protection is linked to time of (first) publication.
- And the duration for {{PD-old-assumed}} is 120 years after creation of the photo. Nakonana (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The photographs are about 80 miles / 130 km east of Melbourne, Australia. Anothersignalman (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- As you say, looking over Commons:Publication, it says the date of publication is the key number for starting the clock on copyright. I suppose the net rule across Commons would be the latest time possible across all possible rule sets, so in this case if the first publication is sixty years after the author's death, then the latter really doesn't matter because the clock hadn't started yet. The caption in the source book says "[the photographer, who died in 1941] often made his own postcards [of photos taken between 1904 and 1912] and sent them to family and friends", but that's not ironclad evidence that this specific photo, or any of the others in the book, was "published" before it appeared in the book from 2002.
- There are two names on the cover of the book (ISBN 0-9581266-0-7), credited as "Compiled by" not authors:
- John Kiely, who from a quick Google might have been born 1934 and died March 2025 (I'm not certain this is the right person.)
- Russell Savage MLA, born 1948, still alive today, credited elsewhere as having these photos in his collection.
- All up, I think I need to delete the photo, at least for now :(
- Anothersignalman (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- There are two separate issues here: status in the country of origin and status in the U.S.
- In most countries other than the U.S. (but not quite all), publication is irrelevant to copyright. If a known author died in 1941, or any time up to 1955, then in any country where the copyright duration is "p.m.a. + 70" (the most common), their work is simply in the public domain.
- In the U.S., however, until very recently copyright was overwhelmingly based on publication date, and copyrights for older works are "grandfathered in." Unfortunately, 2002 is the last year that is grandfathered in. According to the COM:Hirtle chart, if the first publication of the photo was in a book published in 2002, it is copyrighted in the U.S. through 31 December 2047. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The only way around both the US and AU restrictions might be to find out whether "published" includes "postcards copied and sent to friends", which must have been done before the photographer died in 1941. Anothersignalman (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- The photographs are about 80 miles / 130 km east of Melbourne, Australia. Anothersignalman (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment It is very unlikely that a picture from around 1910 to be still under a copyright, specially for a picture from Australia, which a shorter copyright term than, e.g. European countries. Yann (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- If that was first publication, it will be copyrighted in the U.S., as my remark above (cross-posted with yours) makes clear. - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I tracked down one of the two book authors via Facebook, they said:
"There is no copy right on any of the photographs. They were owned by the late (second author). A small number were supplied by (third person) who gave them to me freely. (Photographer) worked as a railway time keeper and I suspect he had a contract with the (government) to photograph works on the (railway under construction). All the photographs were given to the Public Records Office after the book was published and are accessible there. You can do what you wish with the images for Wikipedia."
- If that was first publication, it will be copyrighted in the U.S., as my remark above (cross-posted with yours) makes clear. - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- If nothing else, I think the first and last lines are essentially permission to upload whatever I want from the book, and tag it as CC0. Is that a fair reading? Anothersignalman (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It certainly can't be CC-0. The only way something can become CC-0 is that someone owns the copyright and specifically grants a CC-0 license as a statement that they will not pursue any of their rights, and the image can be treated as if it is in the public domain.
- Unless the hand-off to the Public Records Office counts as publication (any opinions there would be very welcome), I stand by my statement about U.S. copyright. And I wouldn't expect the author to be an expert on U.S. copyright law, some of which is very tricky for publication of old, previously unpublished works, especially between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002, when the law was frankly pretty ridiculous, but has been upheld. It sounds like they wish to renounce the U.S. copyright, and I would imagine they can do that through the COM:VRT process (@Krd: would you agree?).
- Thanks Jmabel (talk · contribs). To clarify: CC-0 is the same thing, or slightly different, to "in the public domain"?
- I wasn't able to find the photos on our Public Records Office website, but I did find a small handful of them on the State Library site which explicitly states on a few files I randomly checked, "Copyright status | This work is out of copyright" and "Conditions of use | No copyright restrictions apply." But that would only cover Australian law, and I'm guessing it isn't transitory to photographs in a consecutive set if one or two are on the website but others are in the book. For US law purposes, does the act of the original photographer making copies and sending to "family and friends" (pre-1941) count as him publishing them? And if the answer is yes, and then if I download from the State Library website and upload to Commons, what copyright tags/settings should I use? Anothersignalman (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The effect of CC-0 is that you can safely treat the content as if it were in the public domain. But that doesn't mean they are "the same". See Category:PD-release like license tags for many other analogous tags. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- 1941 wouldn't help (or at least wouldn't help yet). If enough copies were sent at some date to amount to publication, then 95 years after publication occurred the content would be PD in the U.S. So, if we could show publication in 1930 or earlier, that's good now; that date moves year-for-year from now through 2047, after which they are in the public domain regardless. That is, unless we find a "worst case": if it was first published between 1952 and 1977, it wouldn't be in the public domain in the U.S. until 95 years from publication, or, more precisely, 1 January of the following year, which would be even later than 2047.
- Again: this is all a hideous mess in U.S. copyright law. For works first published in 2003 or later, U.S. copyright law is much saner, and much more similar to other Berne Convention countries. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- If nothing else, I think the first and last lines are essentially permission to upload whatever I want from the book, and tag it as CC0. Is that a fair reading? Anothersignalman (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Grail Message
[edit]This is a question about In the Light of Truth. GRAIL MESSAGE. GREAT EDITION 1931 by Abdruschin.
If I am right, it will become public domain according to URAA on 1 January 2027. Am I right? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: Certainly it cannot be later than that (presuming it was actually published in 1931). Without further information, I cannot promise that it is currently copyrighted in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- First published in 1926, but I don't have that version. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: The wording of the question seems to imply a 1931 edition in English. But Wikipédia says that the English version of the 1931 German edition was first published in 1933. Could you clarify if you refer to a German of English edition and a 1931 or 1933 publication? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have different versions in mind, in different languages. But I'm not going to upload them to Commons. Just asking about copyright, when bigger quotations could become the issue. AFAIK, in the US quotes fall under fair use, but they cannot be too long. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Copyright status of ice sculptures in Germany (indoors)
[edit]I'm guessing photos of indoor ice sculptures in Germany from the Eiswelt exhibition (https://www.eiswelt.de/) are not ok for Commons? Nakonana (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: I'd agree with your guess. No indoor FoP in Germany, and I can't see why they would not be copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- They are located in temporary constructions (tents)[2] which were specifically set up to house the exhibition. But that probably also counts as "indoors", right? Nakonana (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
File:Dan Hentschel.jpg
[edit]I wondering whether it's OK to just assume good faith with respect to the licensing of File:Dan Hentschel.jpg or if VRT verification should be required per COM:PCP. It's a photo of en:Dan Hentschel, but there's nothing to indicate that it's the uploader's own work or that it's been otherwise released as licensed. All of the uploader's contributions seem to be related to this particular file; so, there's no established history of "own work" uploads to try to assess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The lack of metadata is weird but could happen from simply cropping the image. According to a friend,
he's too normal
for this to be a screencap from one of his videos (and scrolling through his videos, I would also agree). Tineye didn't give any results. I think it's reasonable enough to say that the original photographer, whether it's Hentschel or someone else, uploaded this. Based5290 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
ToO on zoom + circle effect?
[edit]I was looking to upload footage from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI4GbvegGZg, which is primarily bodycam footage from Californian police officers which is {{PD-CAGov}}. I know the music and certain clips are not PD, so I'm excising those before uploading. I'm also probably going to blur the text placed over the video to be safe. However, around 0:22, there's a zoom in on the knife and circling effect which was presumably not in the original footage and does not fall under PD-CAGov. Does this effect rise above ToO? Based5290 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt a U.S. court would uphold a copyright claim for cropping something in a PD image and circling it.
- That said: do we have access to the original underlying footage, which would presumably not raise this issue? - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Regarding File:UrubuPix.png
[edit]
Please take a look at it and (especially) at its description, and tell me whether everything is all right with it and whether the license used is okay. I need that information before using it on wikt:Urubu do Pix and w:pt:Urubu do Pix. There might be a few little issues, as far as I am concerned. (Note: A week ago, I uploaded the bottom-right image in its entirety, but it has been deleted due to uncertain licensing, especially regarding the vulture photo. Please do see the full discussion on my talkpage, for context.) In my understanding of it, the image should be allowed here, because it is a derivative work of authorless derivative works of a royalty-free photograph, which could somehow be classified therein as a de minimis component of the meme images and of my simple collage of them. I would say that, perhaps, the relative low quality of some parts of the image(s), as well as the unknown (and unknowable) authorship, are important factors that support my point. Bytekast (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Bytekast: I'm confused on a few counts:
- what exactly are the licensing terms of the "royalty-free photograph"?
- what do you mean by "authorless"?
- Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Of course:
- 1. As you can see on the imagepage's description, the original (or oldest—from 2006) home of that photograph, the first site to which the photographer uploaded it, is alamy, whose "Individual license" prescribes (presented below after the site's style):
Unlimited usage across websites and social media platforms including short-form-video on video sharing sites- Can be used in digital publishing and digital marketing
- Print runs of up to 5,000 for print marketing and self-published book
- For one user only
- Also, it has no release, either of "Model" or of "Property".
- On iStock, where the photo was reposted 14 years later (in 2020) by the same guy, there are a "standard" and an "extended" license. See more here.
- I couldn't find any license information for the shutterstock photo, but I suppose the principle is similar, otherwise the O.A. (original author) would not have uploaded it there too (in 2020, months prior to iStock).
- Sidenote: see here (a screenshot) about the "royalty-free" part.
- Turns out someone bought that image (from one of those three sites, or even elsewhence), as is clearly evidenced by the absence of a watermark on the derivative works, on which the photo is additionally mirrored.
- 2. By authorless (also on M-W) I meant "with no known author(s)". The authors of those memes—perhaps some bored Brazilian teens who found the scam weirdly/ridiculously funny, which I also did—cannot be determined, as is often the case with memetic (read ephemeral) media. Even if they could be, I don't think they would mind our upload (or "repost") of their memes without their "permission"; memes are born in the public domain by their own nature, which I argued in my first reply in the talkpage discussion.
- 1. As you can see on the imagepage's description, the original (or oldest—from 2006) home of that photograph, the first site to which the photographer uploaded it, is alamy, whose "Individual license" prescribes (presented below after the site's style):
- Bytekast (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Print runs of up to 5,000 for print marketing and self-published book" is still too weak for our requirement for a free license allowing commercial reuse.
- Insofar as there is anything copyrightable, failure to name yourself when publishing is not a waiver of copyright, and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle specifically rejects "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work," as an acceptable basis for us to accept content. It could be argued whether or not these anonymous authors did anything above the threshold of originality, but if they did then that would be a problem.
- But really, I think the first problem is the deadly one: a license too weak for our requirement for a free license allowing commercial reuse. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I comprehend and agree… Well, what about the Royalty Free team license (for more than one user)?
- Use across all platforms all-media worldwide
- Multiple re-use
- Anyway, please keep in mind that we do not know where the creator of the original/first image in my collage (top-left corner) got the vulture photo, and we can't possibly ask them.
- It could have been from Alamy, or from either other imagebank, or from somewhere else entirely. Since the photos, once dewatermarked (or waterunmarked) by purchase, look the same (because they are really the same photo (re)uploaded to a number of places by its creator), there is no way to tell.
- The weak/not fully free license issue would be a problem only if my intention were to upload the alamy photo to Commons, which it is not.
- I still think my collage is fine & free, and I am here seeking community feedback to either deny or confirm that outlook ultimately. I feel like that uncertainty of provenance (among other factors; see image description) makes the image free by default, but perhaps I am missing something and that is actually an unacceptable excuse around here. Not sure…
- And what about my de minimis argument? Is it sound? Or is the vulture too maximis and therefore my argument is absurd? Bytekast (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- The vulture is well over TOO in most countries of the world, certainly so in the U.S., and everything we host here is supposed to be either licensed or PD in the U.S. It is way to prominent in the photo for any other sort of de minimis argument to be plausible. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Of course. Well then, it ought to count as "licensed"—oughtn't it?—because it was bought by the meme's creator (or likely at first by a silly scammer desperate for some quick money, without much effort), edited (with mirroring) and used in a derivative work, which then spread into a number of memes. I additionally credited the ultimate creator—the photographer—in the image's description, for the sake of full fairness and transparency. Bytekast (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm missing something here: are you saying that the meme's creator (1) bought the copyright to the vulture picture and (2) issued something that amounts to a free license (including explicitly allowing derivative works and commercial works)? It just looks to me like what you have evidence for is much narrower than that. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- (1) They either bought the picture (which means licensing it) or used watermark-removing software; there's no easy way to know which one was it. (2) Practically, yes. That's how it works! If one creates a meme, one expects it to be shared and maybe adapted/modified too, across online platforms like Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, Wikimedia Commons (if the meme is relevant enough and has wikipages on it, like w:pt:Urubu do Pix and wikt:Urubu do Pix)... even news sites reproduced the picture (without "permission", which isn't even needed in that case as far as I can tell) when reporting on that Pix scam.
- Also, the meme has been online for years and so far Philippe Clement (the photographer and original creator of the unmirrored vulture photo) hasn't sent any takedown notice to any site (not Reddit, not any newspaper or magazine), so I guess that makes it okay...?! Means he won't mind us either. Seems to me like a pretty free media. Bytekast (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- (1) They either bought the picture (which means licensing it) or used watermark-removing software; there's no easy way to know which one was it. (2) Practically, yes. That's how it works! If one creates a meme, one expects it to be shared and maybe adapted/modified too, across online platforms like Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, Wikimedia Commons (if the meme is relevant enough and has wikipages on it, like w:pt:Urubu do Pix and wikt:Urubu do Pix)... even news sites reproduced the picture (without "permission", which isn't even needed in that case as far as I can tell) when reporting on that Pix scam.
- I'm missing something here: are you saying that the meme's creator (1) bought the copyright to the vulture picture and (2) issued something that amounts to a free license (including explicitly allowing derivative works and commercial works)? It just looks to me like what you have evidence for is much narrower than that. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Of course. Well then, it ought to count as "licensed"—oughtn't it?—because it was bought by the meme's creator (or likely at first by a silly scammer desperate for some quick money, without much effort), edited (with mirroring) and used in a derivative work, which then spread into a number of memes. I additionally credited the ultimate creator—the photographer—in the image's description, for the sake of full fairness and transparency. Bytekast (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The vulture is well over TOO in most countries of the world, certainly so in the U.S., and everything we host here is supposed to be either licensed or PD in the U.S. It is way to prominent in the photo for any other sort of de minimis argument to be plausible. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I comprehend and agree… Well, what about the Royalty Free team license (for more than one user)?
- @Jmabel Of course:
What do I fix here?
[edit]File:SPC_logo_solid.jpg. The license is CC-0 (own work), but this is clearly wrong as it is a logo of a company. I'm not too familiar, so what do I fix? All I know iss that the license should be changed. Nugs (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's {{PD-textlogo}}, which I'll take care of. - Jmabel ! talk 07:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you!! Nugs (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Iranian videogame copyright length
[edit]After being interested on Iranian videogames, a doubt came to me: What is the copyright lenghth for videogames in Iran? I know for movies is 30 years after being released, but what about videogames? I asked AI and said the following:
Iran’s copyright law expressly sets a 30‑year term for cinematographic works (movies), but it does not explicitly mention video games. Video games may be treated as software or audiovisual works, and the applicable term is uncertain.
[...]
The situation is ambiguous. If a game is considered an audiovisual work, it might be treated like a film; if it is considered software, a different term may apply. Given the lack of explicit wording and inconsistent enforcement, consulting a local intellectual‑property attorney is strongly recommended before using or distributing older video games in Iran.
[...]
Iranian law does not specify a separate term for software; the default term for literary/artistic works is life of the author plus 30 years.
I know other countries had considered videogames to be audiovisual works, and videogames have the same terms as audiovisual works (or software, if their laws do include software on it), so, my question: Can we upload to Commons screenshots of Iranian videogames prior to 1995? (my guess it's yes) and an even funnier question: can we upload the full videogame to Commons (my guess it's not because the format would not be supported, but if we could, should we?).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- TaronjaSatsuma, from the 1970 law: "12. Any other original works produced from combinations of the aforementioned works."
As games often include "4. Musical works irrespective of the way they are composed, recorded or broadcast.", "5. Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner.", "7. Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings." and potentially "10. Original works based on folklore and national heritage of culture and arts." and "11. Technical works of originality." I'd say it's probably 50 PMA. But IANAL. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)- Thanks. Also, from WIPO:
Article 13. The financial right of work produced by employees belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production, unless a shorter period or more limited arrangements has been agreed upon
- So, the very early garage-made videogames could be 50 PMA (30 PMA, as I see in the law), but might the first corporate works eligible to be Public Domain in 2027? (Also stated at Article 16, item 2). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TaronjaSatsuma: No you can't upload any Iranian video games or screenshots to Commons. Files on Commons have to be freely licensed in the source country AND in the US (since that's where our servers are). The US copyright term for video games is 95 year after publication. And the US doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term. Nosferattus (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nosferattus, {{PD-1996}}. The URAA date is never. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize Iran wasn't a member of the Berne Convention! Nosferattus (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. The fact of not being part of Berne is what makes my question relevant: A corporate work released in 1996 will enter PD in less than one year?
- PD: If Berne, of course it would not be PD soon, but for a work made in the 90s it would be not 95 years but 70. Correct me if mistaken. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize Iran wasn't a member of the Berne Convention! Nosferattus (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nosferattus, {{PD-1996}}. The URAA date is never. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- -Moved here from Commons:Village pump#Iranian videogame copyright length
Prototyperspective (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks and sorry for posting it on the general-talk page. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Flickr photo license vs. copyright statement in EXIF data — Flickr-washing?
[edit]File:Andrea (Model), 5.jpg had its Flickr license reviewed by bot however the Exif data names Dan Culleton as the photographer and has the note "All Rights Reserved". The Flickr account where the photo came from (B71 photos) does not have any obvious name match with Dan Culleton, and the account has zero uploaded photos these days. The source link of the photo is also dead. Is this a possible case of Flickr-washing? Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
,_5.jpg){kind=link}
- Looking through Category:Photographs by b71photos (note: nudity NSFW) there are some more photos by Dan Culleton with "All Rights Reserved" and "Restricted, Use Only With Prior Permission" statements in the EXIF data, but there are also photos that have "B71 photos" as author in the EXIF data and in those cases there are no copyright statements like with the Dan Culleton photos (see examples File:Crimson-1525.jpg and File:Chibi (37337523420).jpg). Nakonana (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, the source Flickr link looks fine for me, I think the images by this user are restricted in Flickr, so you will need to log in to Flickr to view them. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Category:Dmitry_Ermakov_photographs
[edit]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dmitry_Ermakov_photographs طهماسب آقاجانی خطبه سرا (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dmitry_Ermakov_photographs طهماسب آقاجانی خطبه سرا (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
@طهماسب آقاجانی خطبه سرا: 3 links to an empty category that has never existed as a category. What (if anything) is the question here? - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Category:Photos by Dimitri Ermakov perhaps ? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Probably (I didn't go looking, thanks), but that still gives on indication what is the question. If this is a 19th-century photographer, it is hard to imagine there are any copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- As you said, there was no question. Maybe the user was just looking for the category. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Probably (I didn't go looking, thanks), but that still gives on indication what is the question. If this is a 19th-century photographer, it is hard to imagine there are any copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Could someone with access to https://www.newspapers.com verify if the May 18, 1966 issue of the San Francisco Examiner had a copyright notice in the header or elsewhere? Wanted to verify the claim as the file source is from Instagram. PascalHD (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Coats of arms of Bulgaria
[edit]Hello all,
the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria says Not protected: normative and individual acts of state administration bodies, acts of courts, as well as their official translations aka {{PD-BulgarianGov}}. Does that includes Coats of arms? We do have {{PD-BGMFA}} -- Geagea (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)