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.

Questionable Japan copyright claim

Hey all. I came across this image from enwiki. Upon seeing the images, they interested me so I clicked on this one - which brought me to Commons where I saw the following:

The current copyright template on the image ({{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}) states the following:

This is when the photograph meets one of the following conditions:

1. It was published before 1 January 1957.
2. It was photographed before 1 January 1947.

I can't see any evidence on this file's infopage specifically that it was published before 1 January 1957 - and given the date of the incident that caused this irradiation (March 1, 1954), it is impossible it was photographed before 1947. The source given was a book published in 1987 - as confirmed by WorldCat for the ISBN referenced. I don't have access to the physical book to confirm, but I'm posting this on the assumption that is the accurate (and earliest) source.

I'm unsure if this image may have been published in another work before 1957 - for full disclosure, other images on the page have other dates and sources (examples: 1 and 2) which claim to be published at a time for which the PD-Japan-oldphoto would apply to them - but this image is a different source from much later. And in any case, if it was published earlier (and thus is eligible for the tag), the source needs updating to reflect that - however, it's almost certain that such a source (if it exists) is going to be a physical copy and likely not digitized, thus difficult to find (at least for me).

I'm posting here to request more eyes - especially from those who are more experienced with Japanese copyright laws and/or may have some better insight into sources from this time that may have published this image before 1957 thus making it PD still (i.e. just needing the source to be updated). I figured better to ask here rather than just starting a deletion discussion - apologies if that would've been better.

Regards, - berch Berchanhimez (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The file name and author parameter in the file description indicate that the photo was published in the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun in 1954. The 1987 book that is named as the source for the photo is seemingly titled "Photojournalism", so I'm guessing it is a book about photos that are used in journalistic works like newspaper. Therefore I'd assume that the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper is probably the original source of the photo and the first place where the photo was published. Nakonana (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The file description infobox has also a "Note" parameter at the bottom that says 増田三次郎は第5福竜丸事件の被害者の1人。毎日新聞社の吉村正治が撮影。 (Google translate: "Sanjiro Masuda was one of the victims of the Lucky Dragon Nr. 5 incident. Photographed by Masaharu Yoshimura of the Mainichi Shimbun.") so that confirms that the newspaper is the original source rather than the 1987 book. Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw that too, but if it was actually published in the newspaper at that time, then the source should be updated to reflect that - ideally with details of the publication (such as at least the date it was published in the paper). As of right now the "Source" parameter just gives the paper as the source but doesn't confirm it was actually published in the paper in 1954. Failing that, I believe COM:PRP may come into play - as it's possible this was an image taken by a photojournalist but not actually published at the time. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This news website also sources the photo to Mainichi Shimbun. Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The original appearance in Mainichi Shimbun should be mentioned in the description and/or permissions section of {{Information}} but unless you had your hands on a copy of it (or at least a reliable online scan of it), it is not your source, it is your source's source, or maybe even further levels of indirection. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Technically it is already mentioned in the Information template (in the "Note" parameter at the bottom in Japanese), I quoted it above. Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: The issue isn't that the name of the source is not mentioned - it's that the actual publication isn't mentioned. Just because it was taken by an employee of that news organization does not mean it was published at that time.

Unless you can provide a citation to exactly where and when it was published, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. We can't just assume it was published at the time unless you can provide evidence of exactly where and when. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

also going to ping @Jmabel: as they replied before. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment One could certainly contact asamnews.com to find out more precisely their source. It's part of the Library of Congress, presumably they care about helping sort out copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The 1987 book says that the photo was originally published in a magazine called カメラ毎日 in its inaugural June 1954 issue. (This link is available only for those with the right access.) A less important correction is that it was not in the Mainichi paper but a magazine published by the Mainichi company - a common confusion because the company and the paper have the same name containing "newspaper" in full form. whym (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Portal (sculptures)

I took the liberty to contact the people behind the famous art installation of modern era, through the contact form at their official website.

Very soon, I got a decent response from them. The response reads (with some redactions by me):

Hi <redacted>,

Thanks for reaching out.

Yes, Portals are copyrighted works of art, but we are generally fine with people sharing images of them for non-commercial use, including on Wikimedia Commons.

If you have any further questions, just let me know.

Best,
<redacted>

Apparently, Portals are copyrighted artworks and people can only share the images for non-commercial use. Perhaps understandable, considering that the team behind the Portals is based in Lithuania, where free use of public landmarks is not allowed.

Two of the Portals are in Ireland and Poland, both permitting Commons-suitable FoP (COM:FOP Ireland and COM:FOP Poland). The other two at the moment are located in Lithuania and in the United States, both not providing full FoP especially for public art.

Anyway, in response, I have suggested them of sending correspondence to COM:VRTS so that the VRT can validate the permission. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The limited noncommercial license they're offering wouldn't be sufficient for Commons anyway. Probably not worth engaging further unless they've indicated they're willing to offer a more permissive license. Omphalographer (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I also have doubts about the copyrightability of these as sculptures vs. useful objects under various countries' ToO standards (what are they if not just utilitarian, circular video screens with a camera?). Though the footage captured by the Portals and livestreamed onto the screen seems copyrightable in the US to me based on all the other recent discussions about "automatic" works of video (a person installed the Portals and chose the framing, the videos are not free of human creativity). 19h00s (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@19h00s@Omphalographer at the very least, the images of the New York Portal focusing on the front screen at Category:New York–Dublin Portal must be nomimated for deletion, due to both no Freedom of Panorama for non-architectural works and the possible ToO on the video footage itself. Category:United States FOP cases/deleted shows that images of Chicago's Crown Fountain were also removed in the past, though Crown Fountain case was in the form of video projections. But still, US FoP does not extend to creative video projections and video footages permanently exhibited in public spaces. The same will be treated to the Lithuanian copy of the Portal. There are no images of Vilnius Portal as of the moment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Crown Fountain is a rather different case; the video projection in that work is a fixed set of prerecorded videos deliberately created as part of the sculpture, whereas the projections in Portal are a live stream from the "other side", not a work created by the artist. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The livestreams aren't copyrightable. They operate as a fixed camera without human intervention, like a cctv. Also they aren't recorded, making them unfixed works under copyright law. (Yes I'm aware that on some level someone is or could be recording them but this is not the same thing as the artist themself doing so) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This and this Philippine online articles claim the work as a product of tech artist's "spiritual awakening" concerning the need for mankind to connect one another in spite of era of hatred and "separation of humanity". Would the artist's purpose in creating these installations negate the utilitarian aspect of these? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright for publicity photo

How do I fill in the copyright information for a publicity photo given to me by an actor who is the subject of the actor's wikipedia article I am updating. The photo was commissioned by the actor from a professional photographer whose business it is to create these portraits for a fee. It has not, so far, been published anywhere. The actor owns the copyright. Professional film actors freely provide such photos to be used wherever they can be published> MarthaAnsara (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have not exactly answered my own question -- but I decided to look at the images of other actors on their wikipedia pages, and I see that ALL are taken from sources published on the internet and NONE are their own publicity shots. So -- I think I can assume that this is the protocol. I now know where to look for an image. The image that I uploaded will in due course be deleted. MarthaAnsara (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons!

Files have to be Freely licensed, meaning that they ensure anyone can use them for any purpose. This typically (though not always) means that they are licensed under a Creative Commons License, as they are very user/licensee friendly (more info here and here). We here at Wikimedia Commons cannot accept most publicity photos, as we need to ensure that this photo is free for any purpose, not just on one English Wikipedia page.

If the actor who supplied you this photo is willing to re-license it, you can contact the Volunteer Response Team with relevant proof. Cawfeecrow (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You also might find it useful to read COM:THIRD. In particular, if you are going to solicit content from third parties, reading that will help you have your ducks in a row so you do not waste that person's time. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, hello. I have a similar problem. I have here a photo of an actress and I am trying to add it to the commons. It is a lowly selfie. It is already out there, public, used on a site similar to Wikipedia. On top of that, the actress herself told me that it is okay to use it in here. What license should I put it under? Please, help! Iskra-115 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You, Iskra-115, aren't supposed to "put it under" some license. That's the sole prerogative of the actual camera operator. The rule is that Commons:CARES. You can actually upload the image if the camera operator (the actress in case of a selfie) certifies in writing that e.g. a Creative Commons license with commercial uses allowed (CC-By-SA 4.0 is the standard) is applicable; Jmabel already referenced COM:THIRD. Please follow the steps outlines in Commons:Uploading works by a third party#If you need to obtain a license for copyrighted work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright Question Austrian Fire Departements

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)

Faroe Islands copyright for photos and the URAA

COM:Faroe Islands states that photographic works are eligible for copyright protection for 50 years after creation, but it makes no mention of a URAA date in the infobox for that page. COM:Faroe Islands#Background states that the islands are an autonomous country of the Kingdom of Denmark but the 2014 Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright laws doesn't apply to the Faroes. Does this mean that photos taken in the Faroes have no URAA date or does it use Denmarks's date by default? The reason I'm curious about this is because there's a photo on page 32 (Mynd 4) of this 2019 publication of some Faroese fishermen doing some counting of cod tongues, and I'm trying to help sort out the copyright status of the photo. The photo was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content but was deleted for not being in compliance with English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If the photo has already entered into the public domain under Faroese copyright law, then it might be OK for Commons depending on US copyright law. The photo is attributed to "Tjóðsavnið" which is the en:National Museum of the Faroe Islands, but there's no more information provided about the photo. Perhaps the photo is part of the museum's permanent exibition. Based on the discussion over on English Wikipedia, this cod tongue counting practice has been obsolete since 1958; so, I the photo might've been take prior to 1959. The Commons page about the Faroe Islands doesn't seem to make any distinction between works with a known author and anonymous works when it comes to photographs. It also doesn't seem to make a distinction between creation and publication. Does anyone have any ideas on how to assess the copyright status of a photo like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

URAA has nothing to do with Faroe Islands or any other country. It is a very specious USA law. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Commons requires something be PD in both its country of first publication and the US per COM:PUBLISH for it to be OK to host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I was notified about this because I'm from Denmark. Even if the Faroe Islands is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark I do not speak the language. But as I understand it since Faroe Islands is not a country of it own therefore the US treat the Faroe Islands as a part of Denmark in relation to the URAA date. So the photo is most likely PD in the Faroe Islands because it is taken before 1958 but there is a risk it is copyrighted in the US because of URAA. --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I kind of feel the same way, and a photo would need to have been taken prior to January 1, 1945, for it to be PD in the US if Denmark's URAA is applicable, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly yes. Unless it is possible to find a loop hole if published in the US but not renewed. It's been a while since I checked the URAA rules in details because in most cases there are no proof of publication in the US etc. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be much other useful information about the image in the article (mynd 1 on the previous page is from 1793 and should therefore be safer, if it's of any use). So my best bet would be contacting the museum about photographer and date. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office Circular on International Copyright Relations of the United States does not mention the Faroe Islands. However, Denmark joined the Berne Convention in 1903, before any independence of the Islands, and unless they have repudiated that, it would still be be binding on them, meaning that they had copyright relations with the US on 1/1/1996, and thus that would be their URAA date.

Basically if a country had signed the Berne Convention or joined the WTO before 1996, their URAA date is going to be 1/1/1996. If not, it's generally going to be the day they signed the Berne Convention or joined the WTO or had a bilateral proclamation (Vietnam, Dec. 23, 1998).--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

South Korea FOP

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.

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. --benlisquare_{Talk•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.

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)

@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)

for such countries, ultimately as photographers we have only 2 options:

1. upload here; let them be deleted, and then in future be undeleted and rediscovered (when the photographed objects' copyrights no longer apply).
2. 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. --benlisquare_{Talk•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)

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)

German FOP

I took two photos at a Berlin U-Bahn station.

1) Someone tried to immortalize themselves overnight on the tiled walls with a large signature. This 'artwork' consists only of black lettering. Does this reach the threshold of originality?

2) I also photographed a U-Bahn carriage covered in graffiti (which definitely reaches the threshold of originality). Since this is a mobile object, to what extent does copyright protection apply here? I would like to publish both files on Wikimedia Commons.

Regards Lukas Beck (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

1) The U-Bahn station (and its tiled walls) itself is/are protected by copyright because German FoP only applies to outdoor spaces and excludes indoors. So, if the U-Bahn station is underground, it's indoors, and its architecture is under copyright and we can't host images of the station (unless, maybe if the architectural element in question is below the threshold of originality). As for the signature/graffiti, it might depend on how artistic the font/lettering is.

2) Photos of buses and airplanes that prominently feature copyright protected artwork (for example, advertisements, or characters from Star Wars/Pokémon etc.) are usually being deleted on Commons for being derivative works of the copyright protected artwork. Nakonana (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the Berlin U-Bahn stations are out of copyright by now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject but it looks like there were major expansions to the network starting in the 1930s and then after the war in 1953, so the last big expansion happened only 73 years ago. With Germany's copyright protection duration of 70 years after the death of the author, all involved architects had to die between 1953 and 1955 for the post-1953 stations to be in the public domain. Generally speaking, even the 1930s are a rather recent creation date, but given that there was WW2 and that the architects of that time were mostly male there's indeed a rather high-ish chance that they didn't live past 1955. Really not sure about the post-1953 stations though. Nakonana (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lukas: railway and subway stations are actually a contentious point when speaking about FOP, the legal commentary seems to be rather split on the question of applicability of that statute of limitation, cf. de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“, second from last paragraph. On the other hand, there's the Kussmund-Urteil from the Federal High Court / BGH (COM:FOP Germany#Permanent), which certainly allows the recourse on FOP for vehicle liveries. Graffiti could be deemed as permanent in regard to FOP, as it stays on the vehicle for an indeterminate amount of time, but I don't think that especially advertising liveries are regularly permanently affixed to the vehicle (that's evidently true for ads for time-limited events like movie or fair premieres, and somewhat contentious for e.g. a Märklin fullbody artwork on a de:DB-Baureihe 101 loco, the latter example may constitute a borderline for applying FOP here).

@Nakonana: The issue with Pokémon and Star Wars is that lots of (mostly) planes with such liveries aren't underway around Germany, but only in countries with not enough FOP (especially Taiwan, China, Japan and USA). I only recall seeing two Pokémon Jets that were shot in FRA (one and two), in fact using them as example for keepable images in other FOP cases to prove any individual wrong when somebody argues that en:Pokémon Jet cannot be illustrated otherwise. As far as I know, only Germany has a solid ruling that FOP is applicable to vehicles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Two questions about license and pd-textlogo

The en:Norwegian Ski Federation has a "media bank" on their web page, one of the galleries is labeled «Fritt for kommersiell bruk v. kreditering» – translated: «Free for commercial use with credit». Does this comply with either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license?

The same federation changed their logo a couple of years ago, with a much more simplified design than the old one which can be seen in the en-Wiki infobox (which is legal at en-Wiki as a non-free logo, but not legal at Commons). The new logo is however of a more generic and geometric design: logo & logo with name. Will one or both of these comply with {{PD-textlogo}}?

Thanks in advance! 1000mm (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@1000mm: «Fritt for kommersiell bruk v. kreditering» would be {{Attribution}}, which is acceptable, but you cannot magically turn it into {{CC-BY}}. The only way to have {{CC-BY}} is for it to be explicitly granted by the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I find image licensing and all the variants a bit hard and confusing, so I feel it’s better to ask for advice before I upload anything where I’m not 100 % certain. Then I will use {{Attribution}} if I upload any of the images. Just need to identify some of the athletes and check if they already have a photo in the infobox. :-) And I better not upload the logo then. 1000mm (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't explicitly allow derivative works, though. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

No, but it also doesn't in any way indicate a restriction on derivative works. I think that is pretty normal for {{Attribution}}. People don't typically think to mention derivative works, unless it is to restrict them. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Logo looks complicated enough to be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Lyrics of AI-generated music

File:We Are Charlie Kirk - SPALEXMA.wav is asserted to be in the public domain because the audio is presumably AI-generated. But if the song lyrics are not completely AI-generated (which seems plausible to me), wouldn't that make the file copyrighted? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, it doesn't seem plausible to me. What on earth does "we carry the flame" even mean? JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not an uncommon phrase; it could be AI or human generated, but Who's Who in India (2002) says "We carry the flame of knowledge, ideas and energy.", The Christian Conjurer Magazine (2004) says "We carry the flame of His love" (edited Google snippet; Google Books doesn't show me the original), and The Camp Fire Girl (1942) says "We carry the flame of friendship. May its light guide us to lives of wider fellowship . 2nd Girl : We carry the flame of understanding . Through study and thought may we help to create a more tolerant world. 3rd Girl : We carry..." (again, limited by Google Snippet) In this case, I'm thinking of more of a direct reference to the Olympic flame, as it is carried from one person to another. Again, it could easily be AI or human written.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Additions of Czech literati

In 2017, User:Filons uploaded a number of high quality images from the 70s and 80s of several Czech literati under a CC license and described as the user's own work. I suspect that this is not the case, but I am uncertain how to proceed. Does the burden of proof fall on the flagging editor or the uploader as to whether a piece is theirs or not? If it falls on the editor, if my hunch is correct, is there a way to correct the copyright vio en masse? ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The burden of proof always lies on the uploader. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I figured as much. Any advice on how to proceed? ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You could nominate one for deletion as a test case and mention in the DR that if this is deleted, then the entire tranche need to be looked at. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Photo of Islamic State dinar

Hello, colleagues! A photo of Islamic State dinar (File:IS dinar obverse.jpg) loaded by me was nominated for deletion – allegedly for copyright violation. I wonder whether the design of a coin issued by a terrorist organization which has been outlawed and proclaimed illegal by all the international community can be protected by law of any country. Bapak Alex (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/01#Work created by terror group. Nakonana (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Bapak Alex (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

What happens when a file is marked with different licenses in different places?

File:Adam Aleksic on vertical short-form content, 2025.ogg comes from a podcast episode released on YouTube under {{YouTube CC-BY}}. However, the episode in question comes from Lingthusiasm, whose website states the license as CC BY NC-SA 4.0. Which one ought to be followed? JJP_Master (she/they) 23:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• As a general rule, when multiple licenses are offered, you are free to choose among them. The only limitation on that would be if the license you prefer was "issued" by someone who, in fact, does not appear to have had the right to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• @JJPMaster: A copyright holder can release their work under different licenses for different platforms if that's what they want to do; if one of these licenses is free enough for COM:L, then you can upload that particular version to Commons. The problem, as Jmabel points out, has to deal with whether there's reasonable doubt as to whether the "freer" license could be a case of COM:LL. You have to be careful of this in general, but particularly so for user-generated content, like COM:YOUTUBE and COM:FLICKR. FWIW, you don't really need to understand the motivation of the copyright holder when it comes to using multiple licenses for the same work. If they choose to upload their creative work to YouTube and release under a YouTube's CC licensing, then it should be assumed they understood what that meant because they could've chosen the more restrictive standard license if they wanted a NC type of license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

AGPL's compatibility with CC licenses?

Hello.

I've been noticing quite a few fanarts/derivative works of AGPL characters licensed under CC (ex. David Revoy's Masto Don illustrations), and I was wondering if AGPL is compatible with CC BY and CC BY SA. FSF's page only describes compatibility it terms of GPL, not AGPL.

Thank you. Cawfeecrow (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The CC licenses compatibility is only one way. A CC-BY or CC-BY-SA work should be usable with an AGPL work, as you can convert CC-BY-SA to GPL3 which is compatible with the AGPL. A GPL or AGPL work can't be licensed as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA; if you're a derivative of a GPL or AGPL, you're required to offer a GPL or AGPL license, not a Creative Commons one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing if I understand you, that means File:Pleroma-tan.jpg by is a mis-licensed work as pleroma-tan is AGPL, right? Cawfeecrow (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Ignore, I think the file description on File:Pleroma-tan.png (and other official Pleroma-tan illustrations) isn't accurate. from Pleroma's COPYING file:

the following files are copyright © 2019 shitposter.club, and are distributed

under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license,

you should have received a copy of the license file as CC-BY-SA-4.0.

priv/static/images/pleroma-fox-tan.png

priv/static/images/pleroma-fox-tan-smol.png

priv/static/images/pleroma-tan.png

I will fix those files, it look like Revoy's illustrations are fine. Cawfeecrow (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Western Hotel

Am I correct in saying that Western Hotel was published in 1957 when it was sold? It would have needed a renewal in 1985, which puts it conveniently in the Copyright Offices online database, which shows no such renewal. A quick search through visual arts records show no registration for it, either. I'd prefer a second opinion before loading it here, but Hopper didn't seem to be concerned by copyright formalities.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Greater Morocco map Doubts

On the talk page of Category:Greater Morocco, a user doubts the accuracy of the map. However, they seem to have been inactive since December 2024. Is it possible for someone to verify the accuracy of the map (I put two references for the map) so the tag can be removed?

Thank you in advance Mayouhm (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

American painter in Spain

File:The Entry (1914-23) - Arthur Grover Rider.jpg: painted by an American painter in Spain. Painted no later than 1923, and almost certainly exhibited before 1930, so almost certainly out of copyright in the U.S., but the artist lived until 1975, so certainly copyrighted in Spain through 2045. Not clear in which of the two countries it would first have been exhibited: Rider exhibited in both countries. Are we obligated to delete and only restore in 2046? I suspect so. (If so, then of course I would like to copy it to en-wiki, and mark for undeletion here in 2046.)

Also: I'm very surprised at how {{PD-old-expired}} handles a death date of 1975. I would have expected it to say "this work is in the public domain… where the copyright term is the author's life plus 50 years or fewer," but it says "70 years or fewer." - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's just a redirect to {{PD-old-70-expired}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, It is now in the San Diego Museum of Art. Do we know when it got there? I think that is what matters. Searching on the museum website doesn't work. Yann (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: San Diego Museum of Art have only owned it since 2021. I do not know its prior exhibition history, or whether it was ever in a catalogue. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Don't they have a history of exhibition? Yann (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: "They" => who? - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Sorry, I mean the San Diego Museum of Art. Yann (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: It's probably in their files someplace, but I don't have any access to that. They do not reproduce any significant portion of their collection online, and when they do the information they provide is very sparse. I'm working off of the wall text here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

Hello, i want to upload a range map of Romerolagus diazi, but the map i used is OpenStreetMap, is there any problem? ಠ ಠ 06:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vaquita marina: license: {{OpenStreetMap}}. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ಠ ಠ 20:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

1914 Photo album

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)

Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs

I checked Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and it says that several countries in the EU maintain copyright for faithful photographic reproductions of 2D artworks, however according to Title III, chapter 4, article 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, this should not be the case? Specifically:

Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation.

Should the reuse page be updated to reflect this or am I misinterpreting the directive? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Creative Commons says of this directive that it "includes a provision to ensure that digital reproductions of public domain works don’t get a separate copyright and will also be in the public domain." – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

See Commons_talk:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#New_law_in_the_European_Union. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asclepias: according to here, it appears all member states have since transposed the directive. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

NASA images processed by third parties

Moved from Commons:Village pump § NASA images processed by third parties

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, 2019
• Trivial 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)

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

File: File:Miranda mosaic in color - Voyager 2.png

Description: 8-frame mosaic taken by NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft. Frames were stitched together in GIMP - the perspective was locked to the view from the last wide-angle frame, and the last two frames. Colorized using GCV color data taken earlier in the flyby calibrated against published spectra.

Current license tag: {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}

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)

Policy/practices not very clearly defined

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)

Digitized Sky Survey

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)

Copyright on Tops' NFL player cards

I'm not so sure about the {{PD-US-no notice}} licensing for File:EmmittThomas.png. While it's true that there's no notice visible of the front the card as seen here, it's seems possible that there could be such a notice on the back of the card. For example, This 1972 Tops card does have a copyright notice on the back (at least it looks like there's one to me), and it's very likely this was standard practice and Tops put such notices on all its NFL cards for that particular year. So, without seeing the back of this particular Emmitt Thomas card, I'm not sure Commons can keep it as licensed it COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to mention for the record that the back of the card for the Thomas.png is right here Wikidude10000 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Which clearly has a copyright notice on the bottom of the card. So why was it uploaded?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that copyright notice is invalid - it doesn't include a date. Omphalographer (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting catch and could be a indication that someone from Tops screwed up big time when it came to copyright notices. For example, This is the back of Thomas' 1975 Tops card and the year is clearly indicated. As a point of comparison, these are the backs of Thomas' 1972 and 1974 cards, and neither indicates a year. Was it possible at that time for a copyright holder to fix a defective copyright notice after the fact? Obviously, Tops couldn't do this for individual cards that had already been sold. Could they do so for an entire year after the fact? Out of curiosity I checked some Tops baseball cards from that era. It seems Tops did something similar for its MLB cards as well; here's the back of Johnny Bench's 1972 card and here's the back of his 1975 card. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

US Copyright Office Compendium II, section 1000

Visually perceptible copies. For visually perceptible copies the notice of copyright shall consist of: 1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr.," 2) the year of first publication of the work, and 3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles. See 17 U.S.C. 401(b).

I don't know if that means that they don't require the year; they could call them toys.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that part for 1978- and before 1978 year was only needed for "printed literary, musical, or dramatic"? Well I was wondering about that what about books or comic books without a year in the notice, will that mean only the text is public domain or will the illustrations be too $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that the notice is defective. Several movies lost their copyrights from a defective notice involving no-year, or the wrong year. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

These aren't movies. I'm not entirely sure how the 1978 law would treat this, and what exactly the pre-1978 law says, but it should be pretty obvious that however they're treated, it's not as movies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Works by Tsukioki Yoshitoshi from yoshitoshi.net

Forgive me if this is an obvious question; I've never uploaded something to commons before and I was wondering if it would be permissible to upload images from this page (warning for blood/imagery of murder in his works). The site says that their images are taken from things such as online galleries from museums, so I'd assume they're public domain but I just want to be sure. Many thanks! :) Hexes54 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hexes54: online scans of public domain artworks are themselves public domain and thus permitted on Commons. Since Tsukioki Yoshitoshi died in 1892, any scan of his artwork is in the public domain. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Public domain photos published under a non-commercial license?

This might have been asked before, so apologies if so. There are certain Mexican photographs which are certainly in the public domain which I would want to upload to Commons. The photos themselves are in the public domain because they were taken around 1910 and 1915, making them public domain both in Mexico ({{PD-Mexico}}) and in the US. However, the scans of the photographs were published under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which is not permitted in Commons due to prohibiting commercial use. My question is, would it sill be ok to upload the photographs despite being published under this license, because the photographs themselves are public domain? If so, what license template should I use?

Here's one of the photos I wish to upload, as an example. ErickTErick (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Assuming those works were published before 1918, I cannot imagine a basis on which there is any legitimate copyright there for someone to license. However (for example) a photo taken in 1915 but not published at that time could easily still be copyrighted in Mexico and/or the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I did find this thesis from 1991 (PDF, in Spanish) that suggests that the photograph I linked earlier as an example was published and sold in the 1860s originally, along with photographs of other famous figures from the time, and I have found higher quality copies in other sites after searching a bit further, thankfully, so I believe this photograph in particular should be ok to upload. I suppose, however, that photographs such as this one could be copyrighted? This one appears to be a private family photo that ended up in a collection that was eventually published online by the INAH. The photograph was produced approximately in 1915, as the site itself states, but I haven't found any publication of this photograph earlier than the 2020s (I assume the photograph has been available online for longer, but still). ErickTErick (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You can see also Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DanielDavid Ministrul Educatiei.png

I asked the admin hat closed the DR, but didn't get a reply, so I thought to duplicate my question here.

I was going to create a DR for this file but then noticed it had been kept in the past. I am very confused about the justification: Plausible referenced link for copyright release. If closing admin meant https://gov.ro/ro/conditii-legale then it might be a mismatch, because the file came from edu.ro and not gov.ro.

Other files in the same situation are File:Sebastian Burduja.jpg (and an extracted portrait), File:Alexandru Rafila.jpg.

Rest of files that came from gov.ro directly I've gathered under Category:Gov.ro. I'd like to point out that there were tons of files deleted from gov.ro in the past, this DR holds links to such discussions. Gikü (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Broadcasts on LED Projection

Hello. Kindly check the ff. file: File:Miss Kaogma Festival 2017 winners.jpg and act on it whatever appropriate. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Les image DSS

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)

https://www.dosdays.co.uk/topics/networking_in_dos.php

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=MOZB&form=MOZMBA&q=spintime

https://de.pornhub.org/view_video.php?viewkey=66d5c4dbd453f

https://h99901.com/channel.html?trackCode=831ef57cfa67ee6865f2a9956c2e8ff7&spreadCode=3janmokvetks&fbPixelId=1891727951432990&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMABhZGlkAAAGT6tNTnRzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8yNzUyNTQ2OTI1OTgyNzkAAR45igfdBpWMGXyosdcX1Ts9zVD2qtg71hICsFyYmaIjVp-TmLxn-4-fVW2GgQ_aem_P9dhs5semOg93uUMXMXN9A&utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=6939245745132&utm_content=6939245745732&utm_term=6939245745932&utm_campaign=6939245745132 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3513#section-2.5.2 https://cdn.taboola.com/hosted-display-creatives/video/c298a229f463297d8f2108b4555d29db.mp4 Guindulman res (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)