Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Do Newspaper Staff photos qualify for {{PD-US-1978-1989}}?

Would older Newspaper Staff photos be considered published without notice to qualify for {{PD-US-1978-1989}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}? I found a few fantastic photos of Michael Jackson, examples;
- File:Michael Jackson waving to fans at Hollywood Boulevard in Nov 1984.jpg
- File:Michael Jackson with the Jacksons at Victory Tour, July 1984.jpg
- File:The Jacksons Victory Tour by Michael Goulding Nov 30 1984.jpg
- File:Michael Jackson by Michael Goulding Dec 2 1984 2.jpg
I can't help but notice that it looks to be more of an internal staff photo, a presumed/potential work-for-hire by an employee/contractor of/for the 'Daily News' than a more widely distributed publicity or press/wire photograph. Were 'Daily News' photos sent to other newspapers? Certainly the newspaper would have had a notice in the header by this point which would have protected the photo? I'm not calling for deletion, just genuinely curious if it can be legally considered 'published' without notice. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@PascalHD: Clarification requested: are you saying that as late as 1984 the Daily News did not have a copyright notice on its masthead? I thought that by then all the major NYC papers did. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Not quite. I’m seeking clarification on if these news photographs themselves specifically are considered published without notice. What actually constitutes ‘publication’ in this case? The uploader is claiming {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but I don’t understand where the publication without notice would have occurred. From what I can see, these are internal photographs taken by the staff of the newspaper and only used by the newspaper itself. Publication would not have occurred until it was in the newspaper right? I assume it had a notice in the header by this time. I’m seeking others opinions whom are more familiar on this then I am. I hope this makes sense. PascalHD (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, presumably first publication would have been their own paper. Occasionally things like this did get sold through syndication; I'm not sure if the Daily News offered a syndication service, but the New York Times certainly did (and, I presume, does). For example, in that period the Seattle Times had a license to use five NYT stories per day, credited, of course. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If it was syndicated beyond their own paper, would that be enough to be considered published? PascalHD (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. And presumably any syndication would be close enough to initial publication that this would all count as simultaneous. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the Los Angeles Daily News not the New York Daily News $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• My apologies; when some says "Daily News" without qualification, I think of the one in New York. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we know if the LA Daily News syndicated their news photos? PascalHD (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so, I couldn't find any matches on newspapers.com by searching the description that is on the back of the photos, Newspapers.com doesn't have the new Los Angeles Daily News $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 17:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

To lose copyright, copies without notice actually had to be distributed. So if these were printed internally and not distributed until after 1989, then I don't think these show a loss of copyright. If there was no copyright notice anywhere on the newspaper, then the versions/crops actually seen in the newspaper would be fine, but not sure the original is. The only marks on the back of the first one are of the newspaper's own internal library, and an indication it was used in a newspaper. If the others are similar then yes the photo was probably published, but "published without notice" is far less likely, and not sure these internal prints can be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

A deletion discussion has been opened, any further comments can be made there; Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RTSthestardust PascalHD (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Archdiocese of Manila Vectorized.svg

This image, except the heraldic charges (crescent, castle, and merlion, which are from this file), is an exact vectorization of the depiction designed and used by the Archdiocese of Manila. [1] [2] Does this constitute a copyright violation? As I understand, coats of arms themselves are instructions that cannot be copyrighted, but depictions or representations of them are. P-JR (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I was able to read Commons:Coat of arms and have opened a deletion request for further discussion. P-JR (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC) P-JR (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Dust jacket with copyright notice for one specific portion

The dust jacket for The Tie that Binds bears a copyright notice referring only to the photo on the front cover. Does anyone know if the photo of the author on the inside of the dust jacket gained copyright protection from this? Based5290 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That copyright notice clearly affects only the photo on the cover. It only mention the Amon Carter Museum as copyright holder and I think that neither Laura Gilpin (1891-1979) took the photo of Haruf nor that the potarit is part of the museum collection. Günther Frager (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This situation is similar to that of the The Power Broker dust jacket, which has a copyright notice for a photo of Robert Moses that names only the photographer. The issue is whether the dust jacket in question is a collective work. @FunnyMath: could you explain why you claim that the dust jacket for The Stand is not a collective work? prospectprospekt (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, and I forgot the details. I do remember that I had a discussion before uploading the dust jacket. I suggest reading the discussion. If you have follow-up questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/06#Limited_copyright_notice_on_a_1978_dust_jacket

FunnyMath (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Question

Are the CCTV footages of México on public domain? ಠ ಠ 00:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Should be in public domain? I would recommend to apply the license Template:PD-automated if you plan to upload a picture of said CCTV footage. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure we know. The fact of being CCTV should have no bearing on the copyright anyways. PD-automated is being quite misused. There is probably some level of automation where copyright won't be granted but if a human placed the camera, not sure a court has really drawn a line anywhere, and some basic security camera footage has gotten copyright registration in the U.S., regardless of what Mexico would do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Scootacar badge.jpg

I'm looking for some other opinions on the licensing of File:Scootacar badge.jpg. This is a photo of the logo/badge of en:Scootacar that was taken by the uploader. The photo looks like a derivative work of a potentially copyright protected logo and seems to be nothing more than case of COM:2D copying; however, the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} might still be necessary for it under UK copyright law. It's the copyright status of the logo that needs to be assessed. In a discussion about this on the uploader's user talk page, the uploader posted that the logo was never trademarked and that any intellectual property rights would have vested in the Crown on the company's dissolution in 1964., i.e., a case of en:bona vacantia. If this is truly the case, then perhaps COM:CROWN applies. Could the badge/logo have had it's copyright restored under under US copyright law (COM:URAA) on the UK's URAA date even if the logo did enter into the public domain under UK copyright law 50 years after commercial publication? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The way English law works is that creating something as part of employment means employer owns all IP rights, so copyright would vest in the company (and now the Crown). In practice there's no way of working out who created the badge, it would have been 70 years ago or so.

There's the issue as well of anything along these lines being uploaded - not just car badges but e.g. football club badges. There seems to be at least an understanding that it's OK for reference or ID purposes, as it's not for commercial use. In Vitrio (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the There seems to be at least an understanding that it's OK for reference or ID purposes, as it's not for commercial use. part of your post because it seems to imply there is some kind of restriction being placed on commerical use. Would that be a correct understanding of that part of your post? If it is, then that could be a problem for Commons because of COM:LJ. In addition, if as you state the copyright of the badge/logo reverted to the Crown upon the dissolution of the company in 1964, then it still would've been under copyright protection for some period of time after 1964, wouldn't it? When would you say the badge/logo entered into the public domain under the UK's copyright law? If that happened after the UK's URAA date (January 1, 1996), then the could also be a problem per COM:URAA because Commons requires the content it hosts be within the public domain under the copyright laws of both the US and the country of first publication per COM:PUBLISH. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure something becomes Crown Copyright in the UK just because the rights are transferred. In Australia the wording today seems like that is possible, but don't think the UK has done something similar. That said, there should be freedom of panorama in the UK. The photograph itself definitely needs a license, so the license is fine as far as that goes. But dealing with potential questions over what happens with stuff owned by a decades-defunct company and then copyright restorations decades later and the interplay... gets into extremely theoretical stuff that I don't think rises to significant doubts. If it was a division of the Hunslet Engine Company would they still own any copyright? It's a pretty extreme edge case to me that may be interesting to think about. But I would just call that {{FoP-UK}} (work of artistic craftsmanship in public) and just use the photo license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Logo of the government of Iran

if you go onto https://irangov.ir/, you can clearly see some sort of emblem/logo that says "GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN". I have just made a vector version of this and I wanted to know if I can upload it as a free file on commons, free file on wikipedia, or non-free file on wikipedia?

Planning to upload the said logo on article Government of Iran in case if you want to know about that.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the symbol in the middle would make the work above the TOO but File:Emblem of Iran.svg exists so I guess not Traumnovelle (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality Inquiry

Hi, was looking at this image. I know that the text on it's own isn't a question, but can anyone tell me if the "blood" in the 'U' pushes this above the U.S. threshold of originality? I find it doubtful, but figured it was better to be safer than sorry. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This "blood" occupies an area so small that it is unlikely to be significant. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was leaning towards, thanks. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Diaphonémer_conjugaison. webm

La licence de ma vidéo n'est pas définie. Pourquoi ma vidéo peut être supprimée après sept jours. La désynchronisation de Video2commons n'incombe que Wikimedia Commons d'avoir adoptée une application moins performante. Diaphonémus-Galaxie (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Diaphonémus-Galaxie: perhaps I have misunderstood, because I have only very basic French, but as of this time, nothing you uploaded has been deleted. If you were given a notice that you did not provide a license, unless that notice was erroneous, certainly the easiest way to address that would be to provide a license and remove the notice from the file page. I have no idea what that would have to do with Video2commons or any other upload tool. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Merci cher Monsieur. C'est de ma faute d'avoir cliquer faussement sur " supprimer ". Vous êtes correct. Diaphonémus-Galaxie (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Photo of German Templer Bank in Jaffa of 1935

I'm working on a Draft page with information about a German Bank that existed in 1935 in Jaffa, them under the Mandate for Palestine and wanted to use a photo taken by Carl Luts who passed away in 1975: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bank_of_the_Temple_Society

The photo of the German bank in Jaffa in 1935 by Carl Lutz, I have further investigated this issue as per your suggestions and found the following:

I checked the first publication of the photo of the German bank which was taken in 1935 by Carl Lutz. It was published in Yad Vashem as part of his collection: https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/photos/12106979

This was the Swiss Diplomat that took the picture: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1170532

Then I checked the link to the Copyright rules that you forwarded to me and I think it comes under the following rule: Works Published Abroad Before 1978 10 1923 through 1977 Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) 20 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Copyright_rules_chart_2014_-_Peter_B._Hirtle%2C_Cornell_University.pdf

The photo is cleared for use according to Israel laws: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בנק_אגודת_הטמפלרים

Can I use it also on my Draft to be published in English?

Sincerely

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks to be both {{PD-Israel}} and {{PD-1996}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Carl Lindberg

Thank you for your confirmation.

Have a nice day.

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Are these Sondra Lee photos good to upload?

I often find that publicity photos or black and white photos of celebrities are frequently uploaded from Ebay and I was wondering if these images of Sondra Lee (Image 1 and Image 2) are good to be uploaded to Commons. Not sure how uploading photos from Ebay works also. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101 Personally, I avoid photos that lack on the details. Photos that don't mention an author or have dates of some kind, they're just too ambiguous. Maybe it was published elsewhere with notice? Maybe this copy had the notice ripped off? Maybe wasn't published until recently? Although it might technically be Public Domain by law, I'd argue there is some doubt about it. I'm just a bit more cautious than others may be. Your first example, the back is pretty sparse, I don't know who made it or when it was published. Try to stick to photos with more information, like this as an example [3]. We can clearly see an author/copyright holder, releasing their work with no notice, and a syndication date. Your second example should probably be fine as {{PD-signature}}, without the photo. I wrote a guide here. It isn't a thorough or legally binding guide, but just some helpful tips to keep in mind when doing this sort of thing. PascalHD (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

an aside, but that Cronkite image is beautiful and I hate that this person uploaded it with a watermark. SDudley (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Higher quality [4] [5] $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 21:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes the watermarks are incredibly annoying, usually you can find most photos elsewhere without watermarks PascalHD (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Map with "CC 4.0" attribution

Map can be found at this link. License is in the bottom left of the picture. Unsure wether it has the correct attribution, since it should say "CC-BY". Just CC by itself does not mean much. BouncyCactus (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@BouncyCactus: sadly, that link with the flawed license appears to be the original publication of this, so there isn't some "good" license to trace back to. I suspect your only chance here is to get in touch with the author and have them go through VRT to grant a proper license. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele Mastrangelo? --Geohakkeri (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The person you pinged has not edited since 2017. I doubt they'll see the ping. Nakonana (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I know. But it doesn’t hurt to try. --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Disneyland "Man in Space"

I was looking at some Disneyland TV show renewals and found that the Man in Space episode had a copyright renewal on March 21, 1983. However, this is more than 28 years past its original notice on February 16, 1955. Would this difference of a month be considered PAST the renewal date? Or because of the 1976 Act pushing copyrights to expire at the END of the year is it valid? SDudley (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Any renewal through the end of 1983 would have been timely for this work, by my understanding. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

sounds good! Thanks :

Resolved

SDudley (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Are the CC licenses of these Youtube videos valid? (Sinn Sisamouth)

So Sinn Sisamouth is a Cambodian musician who died c.1976, but regardless he has a verified Youtube channel. I noticed that starting from this video up till the most recent upload are under CC licenses.

I don't know how this channel gets managed, but I know from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sinn Sisamouth.jpg that the modern copyright holders of his stuff are an NGO that preserves Sisamouth's work, and despite their registered info being outdated are who I infer to be behind this channel.

Given everything, is this enough to say that the songs that have been released under CC licenses on Youtube to be eligible to be uploaded onto Commons? Furthermore, as there is a portrait of Sinn Sisamouth in these videos, which happens to be the same one referenced in the aforementioned DR (which allegedly the SSA did permit to be uploaded here per original uploader, but just never went through VRT), is that now eligible to be undeleted? TansoShoshen (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen: Any reason not to contact the Foundation and/or the YouTube channel owner and try to clarify the situation? - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel As far as I'm aware their contact info is outdated, their website was last updated in 2012. The Youtube channel does have a different email attached. I'll go ahead and shoot them an email there.

I do want to say that I've had personally bad experiences with trying to get copyright holders to send over information to VRT, they have always never done so for all attempts. TansoShoshen (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: so the Yahoo email associated with the NGO whose website was last updated in 2012 is dead. The other 2 emails went through, and I CC'd VRT so hopefully there's no problems on that front. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

So there's a lack of any updates now that the work week has begun. I'll give them the rest of the week but, in the event that we still get no response, should we presume that the CC licenses on Youtube are valid?

There's still the eLibrary we have to sort out. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The Cambodian Vintage Music Archive (CVMA) controls that account, or at least its releases. The videos posted under “video”, are not managed by the CVMA, but most of the music under “releases” are and should have a description stating if they were uploaded under the CVMA. The CVMA are an active US 501(c)(3) non-profit that have legal rights over Sinn Sisamouth plus practically all the other pre-genocide singers’ music but I’m not sure when it comes to visual material. They also work with the Ministry of Culture, Department of Copyright.

For portraits, and in specific reference to the former picture on the Sinn Sisamouth Wikipedia page.

1. The eLibrary of Cambodia, that holds this record sleeve and photo, which is an academic initiative supported by the government, specifically the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport as well as the Buddhist Institute, has stated “អ្វីៗទាំងអស់ដែលតម្ដល់ទុកនៅក្នុង eLibrary of Cambodia ជាសម្បតិ្តរបស់ខ្មែរទាំងអស់គ្នា សម្រាប់​បម្រើ​ជា​ប្រយោជន៍សាធារណៈ ដោយមិនគិតរក និងយកកម្រៃ ព្រមទាំង អាចឱ្យយើងខ្ញុំបានជួយប្រទេសជាតិ បានមួយភាគតូចផងដែរ ។” translation: “Everything stored in the eLibrary of Cambodia is the property of all Cambodians, to serve the public interest, without any consideration or charge, and to enable us to help the country in a small way”.

2. The eLibrary of Cambodia also states “សម្បតិ្តខ្មែរណាដែលបង្ហោះលើវេបសាយយើង បើលោកអ្នកជាម្ចាស់ ចង់ឱ្យយើង

ដកចេញ យើងនឹងគោរពតាមសំណូមពរ” translation: “If you are the owner of any Cambodian material on this website and want us to remove it, we will honor the request”. That portrait still remains in the database.

It seems as tons of portraits have been able to be used freely because legal rights over them either haven’t been signed for a long time or do not exist. Regarding Wikipedia taking down former photos on the Sisamouth page, I’m highly sure it was due to people claiming the portrait was entirely their work rather than the use of it in the first place. CiteMeToSleep (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input @CiteMeToSleep, I actually now remember some of the context of at least 2 of the deletions. There was a flickrwasher who uploaded several photos themselves, claiming they were under a free license. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on URAA and Canadian copyright on photographs

Is this photo published in 1937 in Canada public domain in the United States? I can't tell if this photo's original 50 year term got extended past the URAA date for Canada (1996). Based5290 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, public domain in the United States since it was public domain in Canada in 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Photos created before 1946, and first published in Canada, are not affected by the URAA. The Canadian copyright of a photo created in 1937 expired in 1988. If it did not otherwise meet the formalities for U.S. copyright and if it was published before 1989, it would be PD in the U.S. On Commons, it could use the templates PD-1996 and PD-Canada or PD-Canada-anon, unless it was simultaeously published in the U.S., in which case it would use a U.S. template. However, in the case of the photo you link, one should try to find the origin of the photo and the country of its first publication. According to the Wikipedia article, the subject of the photo was active in Canada and in the United States, so there may be some possibility that the photo was first or simultaneously published in the U.S. If no such U.S. publication is found, Commons will likely accept to tag it as a Canadian photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ESA CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO e-mail permission sent to VRT?

I uploaded an image from here, where it is clearly stated that the content can be used under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (see the bottom of the page). During the upload, I added the custom {{ESA}} license. Then I opened the file page and saw that the {{Permission pending}} template had been added too, indicating there is an e-mail to be reviewed by the VRT team. Well, no e-mail has been sent, and as it is clearly stated that the file is available with a compatible license there is no reason for. But why did that happen? C messier (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@C messier: Much more chance of a meaningful answer if you link the Commons page you are talking about. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel:  Done. --C messier (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@C messier: Assuming you uploaded this with the Upload Wizard, usually that comes from the branch "I have permission to upload this work from my employer or the creator of this work," but usually in its current state that doesn't indicate a license, so I'm not sure what happened. Did you use the Upload Wizard or some other upload tool? If it was the Wizard, you might want to report this (with the link to the file, of course) at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I figured out what I did wrong 😅 (choose the I have permission... instead of the creator has released...). C messier (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Photo of a convention in a place open to the public.

Hello, I would like to import a screenshot from a YouTube videopublished under a Creative Commons Attribution License by Adventuring Bear. The image shows the physical scale model of the F7 Hornet at CitizenCon 2024 (Manchester, UK).

Although the original design belongs to RSI, this photo of a physical 3D work falls under the British Freedom of Panorama (Section 62 of the CPDA 1988), which permits the reproduction of artistic craftsmanship works displayed in places open to the public in the United Kingdom. I wanted to know if this screenshot, intended for documentary purposes regarding a public event and exhibition, is authorized on Commons. Thanks from @Karinoir Karinoir (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't FoP in the UK apply only to things that are permanently installed? - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If not, does this mean that any time a copyrighted painting is exhibited in a gallery in the UK, it is OK to photograph and reproduce it? (Asking mainly for my own edification.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 to Jmabel, as far as I know, UK FoP carve-outs require a work to be permanently installed in a publicly accessible location, not just displayed there. Many images of copyrighted works in the UK have been deleted from Commons because the works were photographed at a time-limited, temporary exhibition (or other temporary event). 19h00s (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Images about the sinking of the "Falaba" (Thrasher incident)

Hi. I have a question regarding the historical photos of the so called "Thrasher incident". On 28 March 1915 the cargo liner Falaba was sunk by a German submarine, the U 28. One of the passengers of the ship, Lieutenant Charles Lacon from the Warwickshire Regiment has made several pictures with his own camera. Many of these photos were published three days later, on 31 March 1915 in "The Daily Mirror", and many others did it later on. Some of the images are already in the Commons, some not. Here is a link for a bunch of the published photos:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Oceanlinerporn/comments/16w188p/one_of_the_first_photographed_sinkings_rms_falaba/

Some of these images are also on Alamy, where it is to read: "Editorial use only".

My question is, whether these images are free to upload into Commons? (I guess and hope they are, but would ask beforehand.) - Andreas P 15 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I see one here: File:SM U-28, photo taken from sinking SS Falaba (1915).jpg. The license was wrong, so I fixed it. After reading en:Thrasher incident, I see that Charles Lacon was an American, so my previous comment is wrong. Yann (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's likely that these images are already here: File:SM U-28, photo taken from sinking SS Falaba (1915).jpg, Category:Thrasher incident, Category:Falaba (ship, 1906). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Charles Lacon was actually Canadian, and he died in 1964. These are UK sourced photos, he served in the British military and thus evidently lived there, and were published in the UK. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:SM U-28, photo taken from sinking SS Falaba (1915).jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  I googled a result that this Charles (Cyril Roland) Lacon died in 1964: the full name is found on a page of the IWM and here, his death date (1964-06-18) is found: https://www.thepeerage.com/p49312.htm. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think you posted this as I was fixing my previous post. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Now I see the image is under "deletion request". Lacon sold the pictures for "The Daily Mirror" for about 300 pounds, so it does not matter, when he died. I think this historical images are public because of the old newspaper publishings. Don't delete Lacon's pictures simply cause of his death date. - Andreas P 15 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Andreas P 15: You should join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SM U-28, photo taken from sinking SS Falaba (1915).jpg and explain why you feel the files shouldn't be deleted because that's where the Commons administrator who will eventually decide what to do regarding the files is going to be looking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I suppose he took these pictures as his duty, so the pictures were under a Crown copyright, which expired 50 years after publication in 1965. Yann (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, that was not his duty as far as I remember. It was his own machine, and he made the pictures on his own behalf. There was another survivor of Falaba, who had also a camera in his room, and thought he should make some pictures, but "unfortunately" he decided not spend time with making pictures. The same was the case with Lieutenant Lacon. Nowhere is it mentioned, that he was a photographer, indeed, his pictures were so much inofficial, that during the legal process in May 1915, led by John Bigham, the images were not concidered to be real, cause Lt. Lacon was sent to West Africa with another ship, and could not be appear for the court to testify, this pictures are true, and were taken on that ship, on that day etc. I'm convinced that would not be the case if he would have been a photographist out of "duty". These were his own images, and sold them as his own property. And within weeks they appeared not only in the Daily Mirror, but in many other newspapers and in tons of books. - Andreas P 15 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Bettmann Archive

Many files in the category:Bettmann Archive do not provide evidence that they were published without copyright notices or did not follow formalities, or were even published at all prior to being hosted on the modern Getty Images website. Many of them are also in full color, which is almost certainly not how these photos would have been published in the papers (if they even were) at the time. Should a mass deletion request be initiated to handle this matter? Examples:

• Thomas Dewey in 1944.jpg
• Portrait of Robert Kennedy.jpg
• Ronald Reagan 1954.jpg

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Previous discussions have indicated that differences like higher or lower resolution or different crops fall below COM:TOO usually, and color vs b&w might also count. Plus some magazines would have published in color. The RFK photo could be a Senate photo as alleged, as it was taken in his office. The other photos might also be distributed without copyright notices, it was common for people to hand out photos for autographs or publicity without notice with the express intent they be reused widely. Hard to say for sure though. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 There was a deletion request on this topic a while back; Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Bettmann. In cases where a photo is just credited to ‘Bettmann’ it shouldn’t be assumed to be in the Public Domain, original author and publication is usually not stated. Certain photographs within the collection can be in the Public Domain, such as the various UPI photographs or other wire photographs. PascalHD (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@PascalHD: So COM:PCP applies for photos which do not provide explicit evidence of publication without following copyright formalities? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 It could yes, for photos between 1964-1989 where it just credits ‘Bettmann’. Some argued photos prior to 1964 have a stronger rationale to keep based on the old laws, with renewals. PascalHD (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, in line with the previous deletion discussion I will only nominate post-1963 photos solely credited to Bettmann. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I would try to find this in a newspaper before deleting anything. I have seen a lot of Bettmann photos published in a newspaper without notice; I saw a few wire card distributions and all lacked notices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Georgy Chervinsky related files

Jamescopperfieldd has uploaded several files to Commons for use in en:Draft:Georgy Chervinsky: File:Georgy Chervinsky.jpg, File:Georgy Chervinsy With his Theatre Troupe of the Greek Cultural Center, Pavel Kizhuk, Oksana Osipova, Margarita Besova and more.jpg, File:Inspiration Finland Awarded.jpg, File:Arthur Kopit.Wings.jpg, and File:Invitation to Georgy Chervinsky Studio 69 from Professor Anatoly Graf, Chairman of the Federal Integration Council, face of the Mayakovsky Headquarters in Berlin.jpg. All of the files are claimed as "own work" and licensed as {{cc-zero}}. The first two files are photos that could be COM:Own work, but the last three seem to be photos/scans of awards/letters sent/received by persons other than the uploader. Are these OK as licensed or is VRT verification required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Inspiration Finland Awarded.jpg — depends on Finland's threshold of originality. The text isn't all that creative but the logo would certainly be above the TOO of some countries (while being below the TOO of other countries).
• File:Arthur Kopit.Wings.jpg — this one is fine. It just lists names and roles (e.g. "БИЛЛИ — пациент" = "BILLY — patient", and in a similar fashion it lists names of other patients and doctors and nurses), nothing copyrightable here. PD-text.
• File:Invitation to Georgy Chervinsky Studio 69 from Professor Anatoly Graf, Chairman of the Federal Integration Council, face of the Mayakovsky Headquarters in Berlin.jpg — that's a lot of prose, and German copyright law won't be OK with it unless there's a VRT permission from the author Anatoly Graf.

Nakonana (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey!) I found these on the Facebook page of the Georgy Chervinsky himself, who died seven years ago. I understand he published the photos specifically to make them public. They simply serve to add significance to the article, nothing more.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey!)

I doubt Anatoly Graf will be doing this. It's up to VRT to decide.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jamescopperfieldd: How can you have claimed File:Invitation to Georgy Chervinsky Studio 69 from Professor Anatoly Graf, Chairman of the Federal Integration Council, face of the Mayakovsky Headquarters in Berlin.jpg as "own work"? Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I'll fix everything, thanks!

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

​@Jamescopperfieldd: All you "fixed" was changing the source of the file from you yourself to Georgy Chervinsky and removing "self" from the license template. You've still not given any COM:EVID to clarify why you think this file is OK to license as {{CC-zero}}. Why did you decide to use that particular license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jamescopperfieldd: If these photos were found on Facebook and you didn't taken them yourself, then you can't really claim them to be your COM:Own work. Are you, by chance, assuming that because a photo is publicly visible online (e.g., posted on Facebook) that it must also be within the public domain as you posted here on your user talk page about another file you uploaded to Commons? If you are, then that's a mistkae; a common mistake many make perhaps but still a mistake. Most photos you find online should assumed to be under copyright protection unless it clearly states otherwise by the person who took the photo (i.e., its copyright holder). So, if you didn't take a photo you find online, you shouldn't be uploading it to Commons unless you can otherwise prove that it's either no longer eligible or never was eligible for copyright protection, or it has been released by the person who did take it under a copyright license that's free enough for Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey!

I apologize! I understand everything, I will definitely correct it, I was not previously familiar with the rules of the licensing system.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, but maybe you should stop uploading files for a little bit or at least ask for help at COM:HD before uploadng any new files until you've got a better understanding of COM:L. You also uploaded File:Unokrysh 2022.jpg a few days ago even though the file clearly comes from a Discog page, and there's nothing to indicate it's been released under a {{cc-zero}} license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Files are uploaded to Discogs under a free license. Read the Discogs upload terms and conditions and return the file. Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jamescopperfieldd: Files at Discogs are overwhelmingly not legitimately free-licensed. For a random example, look at https://www.discogs.com/search?q=white++stripes&type=all. Do you really think the White Stripes have offered free licenses for all of their album jackets? Again, where is your evidence that the specific file File:Unokrysh 2022.jpg is offered under the specific license {{Cc-zero}}. (And if Discogs upload terms and conditions provides relevant information, give a URL, don't tell someone else to go find something.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Personality Rights

Please help with a personality rights issue:

A user - professional photographer apparently - has uploaded a number of portraits from his oeuvre under a CC 3.0 license. So, in terms of copyright, this should be o.k.; it's his own business how he licenses his images.

However, it turns out now that apparently he didn't quite know what he was doing. He had his models sign releases that covered all use within the project he was doing - but no more than that. He clearly does not have their consent for commercial use and all the other use cases a CC 3.0 license will allow. In other words: This is not the free content Wikimedia Commons requires as its first basic principle.

Now as far as his own copyright is concerned, I really don't care. It's his own business if he doesn't read the fine print before licensing a picture. However, this seems quite unfair or even illegal to his models. Not sure if this is a deletion reason after these pictures have been online for some time, but I would think that non-free content that has been uploaded without consent doesn't miraculously turn into free content just by being uploaded long enough.

The pictures this is about are these:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Kato2807~dewiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Kato~dewiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Kato287
Three different user names, but clearly the same person.

Thanks for looking into this, --~2026-12968-58 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that a photographer does obtain a consent from the models for commercial reuse does prevent the photographer from licensing his works under any license he wants. The problem of consent is up to resusers to solve. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be quite appropriate to put {{Personality rights}} on any of these templates that may not have that. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Did you mean to post "doesn't prevent" above instead of "does prevent"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! I'll admit that I am confused now, and not only by the question if "doesn't" or "does" was intended... which might alter the meaning just a tad. :-)
The thing is, the models never consented into this type of free use, and the photographer never intended this type of free use. I don't care about the photographer, it's his own fault, but the models had no say in this and were not informed of this type of use.
Reusers should be able to rely on the licenses given, or why would we even bother to tag images with a license? The "free content" guideline would be rendered absurd if reusers would then be required to find out what's applicable to a particular picture. --~2026-12968-58 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-12968-58: again: what issues are you raising that are not addressed by the {{Personality rights}} template? Or are you saying that the presence of these on Commons constitutes a personality rights violation? - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

SBS Radio YouTube

Most videos uploaded to the YouTube channel "SBS Radio 에라오" (Seoul Broadcasting System) list "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" (example). The description also says:

Copyright Ⓒ SBS. All rights reserved. 무단 전재, 재배포 및 AI학습 이용 금지

(google translated: "Copyright Ⓒ SBS. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution, and use of AI learning are prohibited.")

Can these files/their derivatives be uploaded to Commons? Asking as I've seen some uploaded and nearly uploaded some myself. Wracking (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You might want to check out the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from SBS Radio. Qzekrom (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Wracking (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

PokéPark Kanto

Is this PokéPark Kanto logo PD under Japanese and U.S. law? The top part is derived from the original English Pokémon logo, which is {{PD-textlogo}} (despite an ongoing deletion request claiming otherwise), so I'm only unsure about the wood pattern in the "KANTO" wordmark. Qzekrom (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Looks pretty safe to me. Japan does have a low TOO related to calligraphy, but the lettering there is just in a standard font. {{Trademarked}}, of course. - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

DW and FOP

Are photos of public artworks which are located in countries with FOP, but are derivative of a copyrighted work permitted on Commons? eg. compare Graffiti Eme Freethinker Will Smith Chris Rock Slap Oscar Awards Mauerpark Berlin.jpg which is obviously a derivative work of File:Will_Smith_slaps_Chris_Rock.jpg.

If so, does that mean I can post images of derivative works to Commons so long as I first post the image in a publicly accessible place with FOP? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the time no, you can't, unless the derivative work is very, very different from the original. Some countries specifically have a clause in the law that prohibits this kind of copyright circumvention by FoP exploitation (Spain iirc, and maybe Germany too). There was a recent discussion about this here. Nakonana (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Was it the following discussion maybe Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/02#German FOP and photographs of unauthorized graffiti? Nakonana (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Should I thus mark the above file for deletion? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it already got deleted. Nakonana (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I just went ahead and marked it before you answered. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Al-Malahem Logo.jpg

The uploader of File:Al-Malahem Logo.jpg seems to have had their account globally banned by User:WMFOffice. The logo is sourced to Al Qaeda and licensed as {{CC-zero}}. Is it really OK to keep this as licensed? I know this kind of thing (i.e., logos of terrorist organizations) has recently been discussed in general terms here at VPC, but I'm wondering if anything needs to be done regarding this particular logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It's probably so simple as to be below TOO in most countries, so I doubt there is a copyright issue even if the specific license claim is bogus. - Jmabel ! talk 07:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Rumba957.jpg

File:Rumba957.jpg was uploaded as "own work" and licensed as {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}, but I'm guessing the uploader isn't the copyright holder of the logo. It's a fairly simple logo, though, that seems to be a former logo for a US radio station called en:WDAE-FM. The background looks to be nothing but the names of cities. towns, etc. (e.g., en:Zephyrhills, Florida) which fall within the station's listing area. Is this OK to relicense as {{PD-logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes. The background probably puts it over TOO in some countries, but not the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Update to Commons:AI-generated media

Hello, in the course of a recent DR, I happened to think about an eventual copyright on AI-generated media in Ireland. A quick googling ("copyright ai generated images in ireland") lead me to https://imro.ie/about-imro/the-complex-intersection-between-copyright-artificial-intelligence/ where the following quote can be found: "Besides Ireland, there are a number of other countries that provide copyright protection to computer-generated works in their laws. These include the UK, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong and India." Would that be enough of a reference to update the guideline COM:AI to denote that these named countries have legislation for IP protection of AI media? Grand-Duc (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The link you provide is from a company that makes a living managing copyrights and the references they give are to laws previous to the widespread of generative AI. There is no guarantee that what they say is accurate or just something to attract potential customers. If there is an specific law regarding IA-generated artworks or court decisions, then, in my opinion, we should cite them directly. Günther Frager (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

On that note - the US Supreme Court just refused to hear an appeal to a finding that AI works are ineligible for copyright protection: "US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material" (Reuters) Omphalographer (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There's also https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/ireland-at-odds-with-eu-on-copyright-and-ai : "However, he pointed out that Ireland takes a different position in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, which says the author of a computer-generated work is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”.

Dr Scannell said: “The provision has never been tested in court. Yet it remains on the Irish statute book, creating a framework under which AI-generated outputs could attract copyright protection even where no human creative choice shaped the expressive content." (The source presents itself as: "Irish Legal News is the only daily news service for lawyers north and south of the border.") Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Illustration Daveluy - Le cœur de Perrine (1936)

The illustrations are claimed to be published before 1931. Does that hold water? --Geohakkeri (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Geohakkeri: I assume that "claim" you are referring to is the (probably inaccurate) U.S. copyright tag?

Do we know whether copyright was renewed on this work? Because if not, then it is just a matter of switching to a correct U.S. copyright tag. - Jmabel ! talk 06:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, so it seems that we could import s:fr:Fichier:Daveluy - Les holocaustes, 1935.djvu to Commons? --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that we can host issues of that magazine L'Oiseau bleu that mention the U.S. subscription and do not have a copyright notice, unless someone has an objection. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Did it have a copyright notice? If not, it looks like it could be "PD-US-no notice" and "Simultaneous US publication". This magazine lists a price for subscribers in the United States. Other magazines and books published in Quebec were likely sold also in New England. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ukrainian pronunciation audio files

Commons has many Ukrainian pronunciation audio files files, which list the URL http://packs.shtooka.net/ukr-balm-galja/readme.txt (archived) as the permission. This permission file clearly states in French:

Le contenu de cette base de données est distribué librement sous

licence "Creative Commons Paternité 2.0". Vous trouverez plus d'informations sur cette licence sur :

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/fr/

However, it seems that all of these files were incorrectly marked with {{Cc-by-3.0-us}}.

What's the compatibility between CC 2.0 and CC 3.0? Should the license templates for all these files be replaced with {{Cc-by-2.0-fr}}? Example edit: Special:Diff/1175015173. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It would certainly be rather harmless to do so, and easily done with VFC.

I think someone made a mistake in adding that 3.0 license because the 2.0 license is not forward-compatible. - Jmabel ! talk 06:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone double check this for me?

This photographer has a bunch of photos of musicians on his website. I really tried looking for one but I don't think he published these on his website with a copyright notice. Can someone verify this for me? That would mean we could upload all those photos if that's the case right?  Bait30  ^{pls ping me when you reply?} 18:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bait30 The no copyright notice exception in the US only applies between 1931 and 1989, and the website looks like it was made after that. Copyright protection is automatic now, so unless it's explicitly stated to be in the public domain or under a free license, you can't upload it. HurricaneZeta^C 18:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

And, between 1978 and 1989, it's still copyrighted if it was registered here within five years of publication. HurricaneZeta^C 18:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. I even knew that. Idk why I asked. Trout moment for me lol  Bait30  ^{pls ping me when you reply?} 18:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)