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.

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)

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)

So things are still radio silent (apart from VRT's response), I'm going to go ahead and request undeletion of the original Sinn Sisamouth photo we had and go from there. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:15, 6 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)

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)

Yes)) Ruslik (talk) 19:19, 4 March 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)

Thank you, that is what I have in fact been wondering. With a Germany-based website, this would most certainly be a personality rights violation (Recht am eigenen Bild). These models gave their consent for a certain use, but clearly not for this type of license.

I don't know what the legal situation is for pictures taken within the realm of German law but published on a website outside of it. --~2026-14006-37 (talk) 14:10, 4 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)

Someone like that needs to be banned from every Wikimedia project, they're right to do this. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:34, 4 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)

"between 1931 and 1989, and the website looks like it was made after that"— Given that the WWW only opened to the public in 1993, I think that's a fair bet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

1927 & 1928 recordings, UK

In the UK, the 1927 & '28 Armistice night commemorations were recorded and released on gramophone discs, now on YouTube:

• H.R.H. The Prince of Wales - Speech on Armistice Night, 11 November 1927
• "Daily Express" Remembrance Festival Recorded Live at the Royal Albert Hall Nov 11 1928 HMV C1601

I should like to upload the audio to Commons; is it OK to do so, as UK-PD-anon? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Any answer here needs to take into account U.S. status as well. Commons:Hirtle chart#Sound recordings indicates the dates on which these will become OK in the U.S. are 2028 and 2029, respectively. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

A few questions

• What are some of the most absurd things ruled copyrightable by the US copyright office?
• Can people challenge copyright registrations from some people and entities based on threshold of originality at the US copyright office, and get the registration cancelled?
• If a work for hire is only registered years later, when does the copyright expire? 95 years from publication or registration?

Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55:

On your first question: we don't usually have open-ended discussions like that here.

On your second question: (clueful but non-expert reply) challenges don't normally go through the copyright office, they go through courts. And it is very difficult to challenge preemptively because of lack of standing; more likely you could only challenge if you were sued by the putative copyright-holder for infringement.

On your third question: if we are still talking U.S.-published works:

• For any work first published in 1977 or earlier, registration is largely irrelevant. If there was a proper copyright notice at time of initial publication, then the work was immediately copyrighted; if there was no proper copyright notice, then it passed immediately into the public domain.
• For any work first published from 1978 through 28 February 1989, the situation is similar; the only difference is having up to five years to register and thereby remedy any lack of notice (which does not change the date of publication, still the basis for the duration of the copyright).
• For any work first published 1 March 1989 or later, any registration is irrelevant to the term of copyright.

Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Files backed up by web.archive.org but no longer freely licensed

Given:

1. some websites were once freely licensed (declaring all content to be cc-by, public domain, or something like that).
2. files (together with the websites and the explicit free licence) were backed up by https://web.archive.org .
3. now the websites and the files still exist, but the licence has changed to something like "All rights reserved. Copyright @ 2000-2026." (The time period covers the time when they were backed up.)

Question: can commons users still upload the files backed up by web.archive.org and cite the free licence backed up there?

I'd like a clarification of this probably quite common scenario, and hope that this question and its answers can be recorded for future reference. RoyZuo (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

CC licenses are generally non-revocable. So, if something is licenced under one of them this cannot be later changed. Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The Internet Archive received the files under CC license and is redistributing them under the same conditions. It’s simple as that, I think. --Geohakkeri (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is not the copyright holder of anything there, except what they themselves produced. So they can't set the licensing terms. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

They're not setting the license terms; they're just reporting them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• If the website is republishing historic public domain images, "Copyright @ 2000-2026", would only cover their original text or original images. --RAN (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

A [For 100 Cars]

Would a recording of A [For 100 Cars] fall under copyright? The composition was done by Ryoji Ikeda and performed in 2017 in the US (afaik only official performance), but only consists of chosen sine waves played in cars. This is one of the recordings I found. Dentsinhere43 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of some Mongolian images

Hello, I've recently come across some images regarding Mongolia that have dubious copyright status. Here are some examples I've found:

• File:Chimediin Khurelbaatar.jpg — This image has a watermark from the State Great Khural and lacks EXIF data.
• File:Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa.png — The source of this image is a now-deleted tweet.

I’ve also identified other users who seem to be uploading similarly questionable images:

• Egzs (see above)
• Batzul25 — Uploaded a baby photo of a politician labeled as "own work."
• Davaadorj Ganbaatar
• AmarjargalR

I also believe most of the images in Category:Logos of political parties in Mongolia are incorrectly labeled with either CC or {{PD-Mongolia-exempt}} licenses. According to COM:NOP Mongolia, "state emblems" are exempt, but I think that's moreso for stuff like flags and coats of arms.

I think that Egzs also has at least some legitimate images uploaded, but also a lot of images from the 90s claimed as own work, which is suspect in my opinion.

What do you think? Should I create a deletion request for these images? I'm also not entirely sure how to even do a DR for so many photos, as so far I've only ever DRed single photos. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I did {{Noping}} to these contributors, so here are courtesy pings to involved editors: User:Egzs, User:Batzul25, User:Davaadorj Ganbaatar, User: AmarjargalR. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

WWII photos query

Hello, I'm wondering about the copyright status of some recently discovered photographs taken in Greece during WWII. The informational details of the photos can be read about here:

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260219-unseen-photos-nazi-executions-greek-resistance-fighters-wwii-ebay

https://greekcitytimes.com/2026/03/06/kaisariani-execution-photo-greece-wwii/#google_vignette

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: Hi, These are very interesting documents, but the copyright status can be very complex. The article says that they were taken by Gunther Heysing or Hermann Heller. So the photographer's date of death is essential to the copyright status. Then the issue of the date of first publication arises. This can be partly answered in the section How did they end up on eBay? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Have I sufficiently documented that an early-20th-century US copyright was not renewed?

I have an historical image of a figure with an EnWiki page who is definitely notably in my opinion. The image is published in a physical autobiography. The first edition of the book where the image was published was copyrighted in 1939 (so logically, that should be the latest date for the image copyright) in New York. As I understand it, US copyright law at the time required renewal of copyright 28 years after publication. So from August 1939, this would be August 1967. I have searched United States copyright renewals from 1967 archived online and it appears that the copyright was not renewed. If this is the case, the image would be free for use here, correct?

Original copyright: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/application-card/card_catalog_CC19381945A_131700-132399.0092 Renewals archive: https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112libr/page/1728/mode/2up

The author's name was "Demosthenes Petrus Calixte." He was the inaugural commander of the Haitian interwar Haitian gendarme force - "Garde" - following the American withdrawal in 1930 which lasted until the rise of Papa Doc. The relevant pages of the archive are: new copyright (just in case) - page 300 on archive, 1729 in the physical book for Demosthenes, page 204/1632 for Calixte, 818/2246 for Petrus; renewal - page 1160/2589 for Calixte, page 1168/2597 for Demosthenes, page 1208/2636 for Petrus, 1232/2660 for Wendell-Malliet (original corporate assignee).

Let me know if it looks like this image can be uploaded. If so, let me know if this would be the correct process to follow with other historical images which appear to have not had copyright protections renewed. Pietrus1 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The usual practice is to check for a renewal in any of three years: one year prior, the expected year (1967), and the year after.

Hathi Trust believes the book is public domain:

• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011954354&seq=1

That a book fails to renew a copyright does not mean that everything in the book goes out of copyright. A photographer may have given the publisher a license to use his work and separately renewed his copyright on the photo. (There is no credit for the photo in the book, so it is probably a work for hire by the publisher.)

Glrx (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

On the basis of Hathitrust seeming to believe the book is not in copyright and includes the photo in their upload, can the photo be uploaded here? Additionally, can the image from Hathitrust be used (for this image and in the future) rather than relying on my own upload which will almost certainly be lower quality. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe that is the case, but I would check all six copyright volumes before uploading the image. Your link above was only one of the volumes (July–December 1967). BTW, Hathi Trust used Google's scan. Glrx (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

What other five are you referring to? I was under the impression there were two others from your post? Pietrus1 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pietrus1: Two volumes per year, three years. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. To ask a couple of follow-up questions? Am I able to use the Hathitrust upload if this is in the public domain? Do you have any alternatives that could result in a higher-quality image than I will likely produce with a home scanner? A public library perhaps? Additionally, could you provide some color on how copyright worked at the time? Specifically, could you tell me if the renewal term did not necessitate renewal in the 28th year? Pietrus1 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pietrus1: If it is demonstrably public domain, the Hathitrust upload is as good as any. Given that, your next couple of questions are probably largely irrelevant; Commons:Extracting images from PDF gives a pretty comprehensive overview of ways to extract images from a PDF.

The rest of this all has to be qualified by "as I understand it." I am not a lawyer, just a layperson who has dealt with this a lot.

Prior to the 1976 law, U.S. copyrights expired on the exact anniversary of publication or registration; that law made all copyrights (including older ones) expire on December 31, so before that it can all get a bit tricky, especially if registration was not filed on the exact day of publication; that precise date couldn't always be determined.

If a work was demonstrably published 3 August 1939, then it was copyrighted through 3 August 1957 without renewal. You had to renew between 3 August 1956 and 3 August 1957, but in practice year of publication could be clear without day-within-year being clear; the people who've dealt with this aspect a lot on Commons seem to find it safer to look at everything 1956-1958, rather than just 1956 vol. 2, 1957 vol. 1 and 1957 vol. 2.

(If anyone thinks I have that wrong, please chime in. I was an adult dealing with the very tail end of that copyright regime as a writer, but of course I never had to deal with renewals; I'm old, but not that old.)

I hope that answers your questions. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That does answer my questions :). Pietrus1 (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No entries in the other five that I can find:

Calixte:

New -

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/1792/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/186/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/1660/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/168/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/172/mode/2up

Renewal -

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2764/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1258/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2560/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1128/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1142/mode/2up

Petrus:

New -

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2410/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/874/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2236/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/780/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/794/mode/2up

Renewal -

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2818/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1316/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2604/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1178/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1190/mode/2up

Wendell-Malliet:

New -

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2696/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1180/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2498/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1062/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1078/mode/2up

Renewal -

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2842/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1340/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2622/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1202/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1212/mode/2up

Demosthenes was in error looking more into it.

Let me if this is sufficient documentation. Pietrus1 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright status of photos distributed by the National Library of the Philippines

I received an email from the National Library of the Philippines regarding works uploaded to Flickr that have their watermark. Accordingly, photos distributed with their watermark do not mean they are government works, so they retain their original copyrights. A majority of files in this category are tagged under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} and may risk deletion.

Mentioning @JWilz12345 for awareness on the matter.

--Aristorkle (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aristorkle PH govt works are really a major source of "headaches". At least I have relicensed one as {{PD-Philippines-1972}}: File:Senator Pablo A. David in 1948.jpg. I don't believe that Maglalang's Photo is a government employee or agency. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Toniker0501: concerning another file under the same problematic category, File:Pres. Garcia with US President Dwight Eisenhower.jpg. This is obviously NOT a work of the Philippine government. This is an Associated Press wire photo from 1958, as seen at the right edge of the scan [!]. This may be PD though, but a US photo, not a Philippine photo. One should check the copyright notice of the AP newspaper that first published this image. Major research project is required. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#Copyright for wire photos published from 1963-1978 - this discussion may be of relevance concerning AP photos before 1978. I can't immediately find an online copy of the issue where this 1958 image was first used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oakland Tribune, June 17, 1958 shows the image. I'd say that AP photos published pre 1964 are pretty safe, given that the Library of Congress was unable to locate any renewals. Based5290 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aristorkle Google Lens reverse image searches do not yield meaningful findings. I won't act on most of the images. It's a considerable "headache." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Valid PD justification?

Hello all, is my PD justification in this file valid? Just want to be sure here: Joe Johnson (snooker player, 1988).jpg. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: It would also require that The Times did not provide a U.S.-style copyright notice, have you verified that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I flipped through the pages of that issue and did not see any such copyright notice. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

{{Copyvio}} → {{No permission since}}?

I tagged a few files to be speedy deleted for copyvio (example).

The uploader claimed they received permission from the original author, which obviously needs to be received by VRT.

{{Copyvio}} outlines that challenged speedy deletions should be converted into deletion requests. Can {{Copyvio}} instead be replaced with {{No permission since}}? Or must there be a deletion request and {{No permission since}} as {{Copyvio}} was there first?

Thanks, Wracking (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted them as copyvios. They can have the author contact VRT to verify permission for a free license if they wish, but there is no evidence of a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

John M. Culkin infobox/ID photo needed

Are any of these sources (1, 2, 3) acceptable for an image to be used as an infobox ID photo in the enwiki article about the academic w:John M. Culkin? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cl3phact0. Your question seems to be more about using images on English Wikipedia than about whether the images are OK to upload to Commons. Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts (i.e., whether it meets Commons:Licensing). How such content ends up being used on one of the different language Wikipedias depends on the image use policies of that Wikipedia. For English Wikipedia, that's en:Wikipedia:Image use policy. Commons requires that the content it hosts be "free" in the sense that it's either something that is within the Commons:Public domain (i.e., no longer or never was eligible for copyright protection), or it's content that has been released under a copyright license which meets Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses.

Those three sites are not, at least in my opinion, the original sources of the images of Culkin they're using; in other words, they're just using an image that was taken by someone else. Sources 2 and 3 are using essentially the same image, which means there's a good chance they got it from the same place. Moreover, those sites also don't seem to provide any information on the en:provenance of the images they're using; so, there's no quick and easy way to determine where they got the images. My quick assessment, therefore, is that none of those images would be OK to upload to Commons per Commons:Fair use and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images unless a way can be figured out to better verify their copyright status and their provenance. However, one of the images might be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. English Wikipedia is one of the projects which allows copyright-protected content to be uploaded and used locally (i.e., only on that project). English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) is quite restrictive by design, but it might be possible for a non-free image of Culkin to be used on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, you are correct that primarily, I'm simply trying to find a photograph of Culkin that can be used in the English Wikipedia article (although having a photograph of him on Commons would be a plus). I'll see if any of the various image search tools might give a better idea re: provenance of the photos. Failing that, I suppose I'll try the non-free image route (although I've struggled in the past trying to make sense of how this works on the enwiki side – where the rules appear to be fuzzier and somewhat subject to subjective interpretation). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Holly Wells Jessica Chapman CCTV Soham Murders 04 August 2002.jpg

File:Holly Wells Jessica Chapman CCTV Soham Murders 04 August 2002.jpg appears to be CCTV footage from the UK. Is UK copyright law on such footage clear that it meets {{PD-automated}}? I know the same license is often used for footage taken in the US, but COM:PUBLISH also requires it be PD in the UK. The information posted at the top of Category:Security camera footage by country doesn't seem to imply it is (but that could be outdated or wrong) and Category:Security camera footage of the United Kingdom is empty. COM:UK also doesn't mention it. This Gov UK webpage seems to be more about data protection/security than copyright (no mention is made of the latter). This lists a number of restrictions placed on such footage, but also doesn't mention copyright. Can this be kept as licensed or is some kind of COM:CONSENT needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Aside from what has been specified, this footage was freely released to the public (into the public domain? as part of an ongoing nationwide investigation) by Cambridgeshire Police in August 2002.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Being freely released to the public doesn't automatically mean something is within the COM:Public domain. Lots of content found online that is freely made available to public is still under copyright protection. It's only within the public domain if its copyright holder states as much. If you can find a clear statement in which the Cambridge Police (assuming they control the CCTV camera) states such a thing, please add it to the file's description. The question regarding footage taken by CCTV or other pre-positioned devices is whether it actually has an author who can be its copyright holder or whether its simply a mechnical process ivolving very minimal or no degree of creativity/input. For Commons to keep hosting an image like this, such would need to be the case in both the US and UK. If it's not within the public domain of either country's copyright law, the file can't really be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Reverend Gary Davis1960s LOC.jpg

This image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverend_Gary_Davis1960s_LOC.jpg was uploaded in 2020 with the associated information "Reverend Gary Davis (no copyright notice could be found anywhere on the original source, thus public domain is assumed) |date=1963 |source=LOC (page 14) |author=American Folklife Center, Library of Congress". It appears to originate from a poster at that URL which includes small shots of a lot of American folk and blues artists without creator information, all presumably re-used from elsewhere. I note that this shot was published in 1960 on the cover of an issue of "Sing Out" magazine, volume 9 number 4, and presumably would have had a credit there, although I have not located an original copy to see (you can see a reproduction here, it is at the bottom left: https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/issues-Sing-Out-Vol-NYC/32180228428/bd#&gid=1&pid=1 ). To my mind this may invalidate the "public domain" presumption, what do knowledgeable persons think? BTW I extracted a better version of the same image and posted it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverend_Gary_Davis1960s_LOC_Restored.jpg for use in a Wikipedia article, however I am happy for both to be deleted from Commons if they are deemed to be copyvios. Regards - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I don't have a copy of that issue of Sing Out, but I do have enough issues from a few years after that to say that even in the early 1970s they did not routinely have a copyright notice on the issues. Work was generally credited, but without a statement of copyright, in that era in the U.S. that would still have gone straight to PD. Typically, they placed notices on individual songs, copyrighted by their respective authors, but that's all. Hard to imagine they were more careful earlier. - Jmabel ! talk 07:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Well I just thought they would most likely have credited the photographer but do not know if that also implies copyright for the photo also resides with that person... happy to go with whatever you think best. Tony 1212 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Quite likely that they credited the photographer, but credit in an uncopyrighted work did not give you copyright. Assuming the publication of the photo was authorized, it lost copyright the moment it was in an uncopyrighted magazine. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

... as long as that publication was with permission, and represented more than a "relative few" of the copies out there. If that photo was widely used in publications which did have notice, such that this was relatively small percent (say 1 or 2 percent), copyright was not lost. Of course in this case for a 1963 publication, the copyright would have needed to be renewed as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel "credit in an uncopyrighted work did not give you copyright. Assuming the publication of the photo was authorized, it lost copyright the moment it was in an uncopyrighted magazine". Interesting, I guess this follows https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States ... under the category "During 1931–63: without notice" (the photo was taken prior to Feb 1960, we do not know exactly when). The author may be traceable (via credit) but that does not seem to affect anything, then. Thanks! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:ONTIVA.COM -Isabelle-Is-a-Balloon-by-Ridiculouscake-720p.gif

While fixing infoboxes I noticed this animation: File:ONTIVA.COM -Isabelle-Is-a-Balloon-by-Ridiculouscake-720p.gif. It looks professionally made but I don't know where it's from. The uploader claims authorship but points to a non-existent user. I wasn't sure the best way to proceed so I'm asking here. Thanks. --Stux (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

From the filename alone the creator is likely RidiculousCake, see YT channel or Redbubble shop. There is a copy in YouTube suggesting it as created in 2021 and the source is likely DeviantArt. The filename also suggest that the video was downloaded from YouTube using Ontiva[1][2]. I would say the upload is likely a copyvio. Günther Frager (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I was definitely not expecting to see Animal Crossing inflation fetish fan art here. Regardless of the source, this is a DW copyvio (of the Isabelle character); so tagged. Omphalographer (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Günther Frager and Omphalographer for confirming it was sus and for providing source information! --Stux (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this map series okay?

Is uploading this map and similar from the series okay? They only consists of shapes of US counties, colors and text which is too short to copyright. BorysMapping (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Luffykudo/Dobutsu Chess

Wouldn't all the images of en:Dobutsu shogi pieces in User:Luffykudo/Dobutsu Chess be considered derivative works or simple slavish copies of the same pieces developed/designed by the original creators of the game regardless of whether they're the vector creations of the uploader? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly, good day! Thank you for bringing this up. Yes, these are just derivative works. I got these vector from Kadagaden (which is link in all Dobutsu Chess images as original author). His vectors have a CC-BY-4.0 licenses. Luffykudo (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Luffykudo: The person who designed the pieces for Dobutsu Shogi is a former women's professional shogi player named Maiko Fujita and her company is/was Pieco Design. Are you saying she is the same person as Kadagaden? What makes you think that Kadagaden is the original designer of the pieces and thus the copyright holder on their design? If Kadagaden is not Fujita, then perhaps their vector versions of the pieces are also derivative works and the CC-by-4.0 license they're using doesn't cover the original design of the pieces. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly, thank you for the clarification and for pointing that out. I was not assuming that Kadagaden is Miss Maiko Fujita or the original designer of the Dobutsu Shogi pieces. My understanding was only that the vector versions I used were uploaded by Kadagaden under a CC-BY-4.0 license, which I relied upon in good faith when using them.

That said, you raise a valid point regarding whether those vectors themselves might be derivative of the original artwork designed by Maiko Fujita (Pieco Design). I have not verified whether Kadagaden had permission from the original rights holder to license those designs under CC-BY-4.0. Thank you again for bringing this up. Luffykudo (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Young pictures of Mojtaba Khamenei

In 2021, Tasmin News Agency shared previously unseen pictures [3] of the newly-elected Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei during his service on the Iran-Iraq War. Despite being more than 30 years old, I guess Template:PD-Iran would not be valid because there is not prove these pictures were published before 2021. However, may they be licensed under the Template:Tasnim CC-BY 4.0 licence, as they were published with the Tasnim watermark. Given that Tasmin's owner is the IRGC and the pictures were taken during his service with the IRGC, I think it could be argued that Tasnim is the owner of the copyright of the pictures. Basque mapping (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

CC BY releases by Urdu Magazine

This YouTube channel known as "Urdu Magazine" uploads single-frame videos of photos of Pakistani actors and releases them under CC BY licenses. In the description of many of the videos they say the following:

Lollywood Archives: Rare, Unseen Images #Lollywood.
Blast From The Past: Rare Vintage Photos Of Lollywood Celebrities.
Urdu Magazine Since 1975-2017

Reverse image searching a handful of the photos did not bring up older instances of the images, so this could be a legitimate archive of photos released for free, perhaps the official account of a magazine which dates to 1975. Could this actually be the case? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Prussian standard.jpg

I might be wrong but I've noticed that this file claims the image is out of copyright because the term is author's age + 70 years, yet the author has not been dead for that long (having passed in 2010), and the file was uploaded in 2006 with the tag stating the author was dead (when he wasn't)

And also, the image is from a book published by Osprey, who I believe holds the rights to the image(?)
Quinoa Grain (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Israeli CoA

Most such files (an example) carry some kind of 'permission', which looks dubious for me, cause it's about reproduction of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place. Instead I see an emblem which taken from a copyrighted website (and not shown to be situated in a public place), with cc-by-sa-3.0 licence, added by the uploader and seemingly taken from nowhere. Is everything fine here? Komarof (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)