Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Hi, and hope you're well. If File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge cropped.PNG can be hosted here, can w:File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif be imported? I don't know enough to evaluate the November 2023 discussion at w:File talk:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif#c-KarmaKangaroo-20231125160900-KarmaKangaroo-20231122204100. Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Judging by the templates that state it is public domain in both the US and Australia, I say we're good. Bremps... 03:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Imported to File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif. Thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The YouTube source for File:Overwatch_2_–_Trailer_de_lançamento.webm (as well as several files that have been cropped from screenshots of it) does list the standard CC YouTube license, but its clear that the material in question is normally 100% a copyrighted work from a US company. The uploader does appear to be an official agency of the US company that owns the copyright but this feels like copyright-washing that we should be avoiding. Masem (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Templates and categories were created in September 2024, April 2025 and July 2025 for videos of several official youtube accounts of that company. Not sure what we do with that but at least it's not an isolated mistake by one channel. Notifying JohnCWiesenthal. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those channel-specific YouTube CC BY templates were created in response to {{Official Doctor Who YouTube channel}} and {{Official Star Wars Flickr stream}} (and actually started with {{Official NickRewind YouTube channel}}). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't deny its fine for those templates, it makes sense, for the channels of the programs in their original native country or language, as there's clearer line of authority for taking copyrighted material to release as CC. Here, though, this is a foreign language version of the main US entity, and posting videos that are under copyright from the official English channels, but where the foreign version simply uses the same visual elements and labels that CC. The cleanliness of the Brazilian Xbox division to do that is very unclear. Masem (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a straightforward rehash of the Vogue Taiwan situation. The foreign subsidiaries of a company don't automatically have the right to freely release content they're republishing from their corporate owner. They're two separate entities, so the republisher (the subsidiary) needs explicit permission from the content owner. As has been demonstrated in several other analogous situations, that required permission often never happens, as subsidiaries sometimes mistakenly believe they don't need to ask for it. So, IMO, we can't rely on the CC licenses for the non-English XBOX videos unless and until Microsoft/XBOX HQ confirms that their subsidiaries had permission to release the content as such. 19h00s (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That doesnt explain why a subsidary suddenly decided to release everything under CC BY SA (and in the case of XBoxBR, seemingly only for videos posted in a specific time period) Trade (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if this info is going to be useful, but XboxBR stopped CC BY licensing after October 2023 (with the last CC BY video being 11 segredos que você não sabia sobre o Xbox, which I also wanted to upload, but now I'll wait). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 10:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean I don't think we're ever going to get a direct explanation as to why they made that choice unless the rightsholder confirms it was on purpose and authorized. No one from Condé ever gave a full reasoning of why Vogue Taiwan made those licensing choices. I was chastised in that last discussion by several folks for conjecturing about the intent of VT, so I'm just gonna wait until WMF or a rightsholder responds. 19h00s (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What you've encountered is a free depiction. There is a whole category for these types of files with constant arguing about whether some of this stuff should be allowed. The most recent deletion discussion about Minecraft content uploaded by Xbox Mexico veered heavily towards the fact that uploads by subsidiaries count as official (0 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes, excluding mine), but feel free to argue otherwise. This can be a pretty contentious topic and the fact that it has never been tested in court doesn't help.

Also, CC licenses are irrevocable, so even if one changes their license on YouTube, it is still fair game, as long as you can verify that the license was here in the first place (either with Internet Archive or if the reviewer verified it). So if the owner changes the license after being contacted, that doesn't mean anything unless the owner explicitly mentions that the license was not intended in the first place. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I feel you may be overlooking some factors here. We have several uploads of the video, two of which in the same locale (Overwatch BR), by subsidiaries of the same company. But only the XboxBR account posted it as free use. That wasn't the same issue raised in the Minecraft deletion discussion, and I share Masem's concerns about copyright-washing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This doesn’t address whether XBOX’s Brazilian subsidiary had the right to publish the content under that license. That’s the core of the issue here, not the irrevocability of CC licenses. Subsidiaries don’t automatically have the same rights over content as their corporate parents. 19h00s (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

And just to put a finer point on it, I really do think this feels like the same situation as Vogue Taiwan (see the primary discussion and the eventual WMF response). In that case, a foreign subsidiary of Condé Nast (Vogue Taiwan, or VT) republished content from Condé under free licenses; that same content had been published elsewhere by other Condé entities without free licenses. After WMF got in touch with Condé to clear things up, Condé confirmed that the CC licenses on VT's content were an error; the consensus among admins was to then delete all of the content in question, not because VT had made a mistake (CC licenses are irrevocable, after all), but because VT likely never had the legal authority to make that free licensing decision in the first place, meaning the CC licenses were likely never even valid. I think that's exactly what's happened here with XBOX: the foreign subsidiaries of a company have released under a free license content from their corporate parents, even after that same content had been republished by other subsidiaries with restrictions. This resulted in that content ending up on Commons; but there is no evidence that the subsidiary had the legal authority to make that licensing decision, meaning we do not know if the licenses are valid or invalid. Given the context here (we're talking about a giant tech company that regularly pursues damages for IP violations), I do not think it's appropriate to just "assume" that the subsidiaries crossed their t's and dotted their i's on this, especially when other examples have taught us that assumption is not always correct.

I understand completely why it's so tempting to believe on its face the licensing situation here; there's even a part of me that feels a bit of satisfaction with XBOX's seeming mistake because I also love free media and hate it when corporations gatekeep everything they own. But loopholes or unique situations like this which seem to get around the IP practices of large companies are in fact usually too good to be true. 19h00s (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I sent messages to Activision/Microsoft/XBox's PR and legal teams to try and sort this out. Does anyone else have any interest in reaching out to any of the rightsholders here to get clarity? Should we ask WMF Legal for an opinion on what they would do if Microsoft/XBox/Activision send DMCA takedowns? 19h00s (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

WMF legal could definitely provide help. Although it would make sense to remove the content under the DMCA takedown, I feel like going with a full lawsuit could be more beneficial, since there has been no precedents on free depictions and one could be set, resolving most of the future conflicts. Though I don't know how costly it would be and how strong the Wikimedia lawyers are. Still, it would be nice to know the legality of free depictions once and for all, including ones made by subsidiaries. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 04:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why do i feel like this is gonna end up with companies pressuring YouTube to remove CC licensing as an option entirely? Trade (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Certainly not my intention, but... oof, yeah.

FYSA, I flagged this for WMF legal in the same place where Yann flagged the Vogue Taiwan issue. 19h00s (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Once again I'm struggling to wrap my head around the ins and outs of copyright law for a GA review. In 2023, Jpmanganiello (talk · contribs) uploaded this photograph of the Dubovsky family, claiming to be the copyright holder and releasing it under a CC license. I can't find any evidence that this photograph was published prior to its upload here. I also don't know the identity of the photographer. I estimated that the photo was taken in the late 1920s or early 1930s, judging by the age of the children, which would imply that it was created before Argentina established its own copyright law in 1933. I've tried reaching out to the uploader for more information, but they have been inactive since uploading it. Based on all this info, was the uploader correct in uploading it under this license, or is it in the public domain based on the known information about it? LEvalyn (talk · contribs) believes it might fall under PD-1996, but I'm not sure that's the case, due to a lack of prior publication. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

If the photo was taken and afterwards given to the family by a professional photographer, then, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beverly J. White portrait.jpg, it was published if it wasn't a work for hire. So either Jpmanganiello has to be the copyright holder or we are certain that the photo is not a work for hire. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

How is "for hire" defined? It definitely seems like it was taken in a studio. But again, I have very little information about it :/ --Grnrchst (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking through that discussion thread and some linked from it, I don't see a clear explanation of "for hire" , but I do see a recurring idea that when a photographer gave a studio portrait to the subjects of the photo, this actually constituted its "publication". That's new information to me and very helpful to know! I agree with Grnchst that this certainly appears to be a studio portrait of the family. I'm more convinced now that pd-1996 is appropriate here. LEvalyn (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

My understanding from reading Nimmer on Copyright § 5.03[B][2][c] is that under the Copyright Act of 1909, commissioned works are presumed to be made for hire, but (as Nimmer speculates at the end of the section) it is possible that the photographer published the photo before implicitly transferring their common law copyright. However, since this is a photo from Argentina, I'm not sure if US copyright law is the correct point of reference. Maybe Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., a case that I don't fully understand, could offer some insight? prospectprospekt (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was editing the article on Plants vs. Zombies on the English Wikipedia, which itself had a screenshot of the game, uploaded under the fair-use license. I uploaded a screenshot of my own to add to the section of the article talking about other game modes. It is just a screenshot of the game just like the existing photo in the article. As I am still quite an inexperienced editor, I couldn't figure out how to set the license under fair-use. This seems to have lead to the removal of the image, along with a warning issued to me regarding a copyright violation, and how repeated offenders could be banned.

Clearly, I had no intention of violating any copyright laws, and I had thought that any issues with not selecting the right license would be rectifiable after the image was uploaded, and not lead to a copyright violation. I am concerned that this might mean my account is flagged for having a copyright violation, and I would like to appeal for this record to be removed, as I am sure that fair-use applies to the image that I had uploaded, as it does for the existing image featured in the article.

Could anyone educate me on what I might have missed? How was I supposed to get the image to be uploaded under fair-use, and how can I go about rectifying this record for a copyright violation? Who could I contact or appeal to regarding this issue? Thank you.

-- Sentimex (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair use images should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, they are not allowed on Commons. Spinal83 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ditto as to what Spinal83 said, Fair Use is outside the scope of Commons as it is supposed to serve as a library of freely-licensed images.

Furthermore, when uploading a fair-use/nonfree image to Wikipedia, one must make sure it follows the Free Use Rational. One of the most important aspects of this is that the file is low enough quality as to make it unfit for reproduction.

With all that said and done, I'd like to say "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons!". Start here if you'd like to know more about this project and it's policies. I hope this moment doesn't scare you off. Cawfeecrow (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for your responses, and doubly so for the warm welcome! I needed that if I'm being honest, that copyright violation notice did scare me quite a bit, haha. I had no idea that there was a distinction between uploading to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, which explains my initial confusion during the upload. I'll try to be more careful moving forward. Glad to have had a positive encounter with the community come out of this! -- Sentimex (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

We mark everything as "copyvio" even if the usage here (or Wikipedia) would fall under fair use and be legal. Fair use, as it exists in the United States, is not common elsewhere (though a few countries have copied the language into their laws in the last few years). Most have something somewhat similar but not as wide-ranging or flexible. Since Commons is used by projects of all languages, we don't allow fair use images here at all -- those have to be uploaded at local projects such as English Wikipedia (and they try to limit their use there, so if there are many fair-use images on an article, they may try to whittle those down). Fair use implies that it's legal in some circumstances, and not in others (which would then be copyright violations if used in those other situations). The marker here was more of "it could be a copyvio if people use in ways we claim it can be used", as images here should also be OK for e.g. commercial use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's really good to know, really appreciate your detailed explanation. I did intend to upload the image to the English Wikipedia as I was editing an article, but I did not realise that the image ended up being uploaded to Commons instead. This is something about the interface that I am still confused about and would like to figure out moving forward. -- Sentimex (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sentimex: you should probably read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Will check this out. Thanks! -- Sentimex (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I already presume colorizations meet TOO, I'm not talking about them.

Per Bridgeman v. Corel, I know that static reproductions of PD 2d works do not meet TOO. However, I'm a little lost on moving reproductions. You know, movies. Template:PD-scan doesn't specify format.

I see that per Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp., "pan and scan" reproductions are copyrighted (though I'm no film aficionado, not too sure I'd be able to identify a pan and scan work myself), but I can't find policy on simple "transfer this to digital HD" reproductions. Attempting to look at Commons precedent, /wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm appears to be lifted from Disney Video and /wiki/File:004_-_The_Barn_Dance.webm seems to be from a DVD version, and I know that everyone gets a heart attack from even the slightly-dodgy mention of Micheal Rat and his henchmen (reasonably so), so it's looking good for "hd rescans of moving pictures do not meet TOO"...I think. But I'd like an actual expert rather than relying on my iffy guess-work

It feels silly that I'm even asking this question in the first place, since I feel like I should know this by now, but I don't. Not just asking for the purposes of Commons, but also for personal use purposes. Thank you for listening. Cawfeecrow (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any motion picture consists of many still frames that are displayed sequentially. So, any digitization of a movie involves digitization of a large number of still pictures, none of which creates any new copyright. The pan and scan is different in this respect as in involves digitization of only a portion of each still image. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks! Cawfeecrow (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

There have been several deletion discussions on this topic, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Common issues that have disqualified movie reproductions from being hosted on Commons include re-editing, creation of new intertitles in silent movies, and new soundtracks. Tinting and recolorizing is a bit of a grey area and these probably have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Just remastering from studio negatives doesn't create a new copyright, nor does minor cleaning and restoration. Significant restoration of a damaged film is another grey area and this can sometimes warrant copyright protection. Hope that helps. Sorry I don't have better resources to point to. Nosferattus (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yemen apply to the areas in Yemen that are being governed and controlled by the Houthis? It doesnt really make sense for Commons to be bound by the FOP of a internationally recognised government which lacks any ability to enforce their laws in the area. Trade (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we recognize the treaties that govern copyright in Afghanistan even if the Taliban do not care to enforce copyright (and thus also the no FOP in that country). I don't see a reason for us not to uphold Yemeni copyright in Houthi-controlled areas. Courtesy ping to @Abo Yemen: Abzeronow (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wasn't the whole argument to follow Russian FOP in Crimea that the Ukrainian government did not had any ability to enforce the law in the area? Not that i wish to bring up that argument again

I find the argument with Afghanistan curious because as far as Commons is aware there is little to suggest that the copyright law has changed since the fall of the republic Trade (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Crimea argument essentially boils down to Russia being slightly more liberal on FOP than Ukraine, and thus a policy-based reason to keep Crimean buildings without violating COM:PCP. Abzeronow (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

So if the Houthis had a more liberal FOP you would be onboard with recognizing their law instead? Trade (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The houthis still follow the yemeni constitution and its laws and are pretty much a de facto state, so yes, it does apply 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Trade recently created categories Category:Videos without human authors and Category:Images without human authors which made me wonder whether satellite imagery and videos – including from cameras on the ISS – should also be in it.

If so, doesn't that mean those are not copyright protected either? And doesn't that mean that all Google Earth media also is CCBY? Please clarify.

Moreover, for now I've added Category:Photos taken with camera traps and Category:Self-portraits of animals (non-human animals) to the former – please comment if these don't belong there or should be distinguished somehow from the rest of the cat contents. There probably are a few more similar categories still missing there. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Some completely automated photos and videos may be public domain, ie surveillance cameras that run 24/7, the webcam that has pointed at a coffee maker for 20 years, possibly body cam footage (although you can make an argument that officers definitely control what they point their cameras at and turn them on and off subjectively, and Commons hasn't decided to allow that category of photos). Telescope and satellite photos are typically controlled by a person (or at the very least, a person selects which photos are kept) and Commons does not accept them without a free license. The categories you've added, for trail cams or the like, are most likely allowed, since they continuously run without human interaction. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for the explanations! I wonder though about satellites that just record 24/7 with automatic or static positioning of the camera. I guess most public satellite imagery already is PD but I was wondering if there maybe are some treasures out there where people didn't realize it's just images & videos taken without human authors entirely automatically. I've also added Category:Videos taken with camera traps and maybe more useful files could be added to that category, not just of animals. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  What about security cameras which are not at a fixed location, for example, this footage from a YouTube video captured from a rear security camera of a Tesla car. You can turn them off and on, but once they're turned on, they record without explicit human input, similar to Amazon's Ring cameras. TansoShoshen (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a request to put a PD template to the Commons logo (thus deny its copyrightability) at File talk:Commons-logo.svg#Edit request. I invite opinions because this can be controversial. whym (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Shot in the dark here, but does anyone have info on the copyright/renewal history of the Johnson Publishing Co? They were most famous for publishing Jet and Ebony magazines and other periodicals aimed at African–American audiences; the company wound down a few years ago and their huge archives, including tens of thousands of seminal historical photographs, were jointly acquired by the Getty Research Institute and National Museum of African American History & Culture. I have zero clue whether they followed formalities and submitted renewals, but it's such a famous collection I assume someone here may have done some digging before. Absolutely no worries if no one knows! Most of the institutions that own images from the company say there is an active copyright for the company's works but I assume that's just deference to the rightsholder.

This was sparked by looking for images of Ronald Stokes for the Wikipedia article for the sculpture series Lynch Fragments. Found quite a few images of Malcolm X protesting the 1962 killing of Stokes by police and acting as a pallbearer at Stokes's funeral, most of which are sourced to Johnson publications. The image that made me think to dig deeper and ask here is from the Saint Louis Museum of Art (fair warning, this image contains a very distressing representation of Stokes after an autopsy, link). 19h00s (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of fact, this was covered recently in a DR, see[1]. They were religious about their copyrights, although they do seem to have missed copyright renewals on most of the 1956 issues of Ebony, see [2]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well that was simpler than I expected! Thanks Nard :) 19h00s (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what is simple there Johnson didn't publish only Ebony, there was Jet, Hue, Negro Digest, there is no issue renewals for those, there was also Tan magazine I can't find any renewal for it either.

I was also looking at other black magazines that are more rare today and have no big scans archive like Ebony, there is no renewals for Sepia or Brown magazine and from the few issues that are archived some by that company (Good Publishing Company/SEPIA Publications) they seem to have no copyright notice at all except for Sepia magazine itself, Example:

Hep magazine 1971

cover https://megalodon.jp/2025-1027-0515-47/https://www.ebay.com:443/itm/167429532157

title page https://megalodon.jp/2025-1027-0515-49/https://i.ebayimg.com:443/images/g/VssAAOSwMIln8KQr/s-l1600.webp

Bronze Thrills - 1976 no notice https://archive.org/details/bronze-thrills-v-25n-11-1976-11.-good-d-m-ia/page/63/mode/2up

Jive magazine - 1958 appears to have no notice https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/jive-negro-magazine-vol-feb-1958-4724642958

Brown magazine January 1954 invalid notice  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   15:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Related: Do we need to make our own scans of PD publications like newspapers, or can we use any we find as it's public domain material? I realize this is rudimentary but better safe than sorry. Specifically thinking about the Nation of Islam newspaper Muhammad Speaks - @999real, funnily enough, I notice you actually just created a category for this publication. I found a bunch of scans of old copies of the paper, but I'm not sure if they're OK to upload. I'm specifically hoping to use one of the front pages that covers the death of Stokes; those front covers became quite famous after Malcolm X and others were photographed holding them in protest in the months after Stokes was killed. 19h00s (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, If the content is in the public domain, a scan will be in the public domain, whoever made it, per {{PD-scan}}. Yann (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually I was scraping all the issues from Jstor (here) but the quality in that archive is much better  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   21:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think these were uploaded by someone connected to the NOI or a descendant of someone who was, they have special issues that JSTOR doesn't. And yeah I saw the JSTOR versions and was disappointed by the quality, then did some more searching and found these versions which are way better. Thanks y'all! 19h00s (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So the current licenses on these files are obviously nonsense, but before I tag them as {{Logo}}, I'm wondering if there's any chance these might be public domain or otherwise freely licensed as Indian government works. I've seen some Indian government works are freely licensed, but COM:INDIA isn't particularly helpful. @Ksh.andronexus has uploaded a ton of Indian military logos/badges under the same obvious nonsense licenses, so they might all have to go. Jay8g (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, In addition, File:Indian Embassy in Argentina.jpg is unlikely to be own work: small file, no EXIF, and I doubt this user went to Argentina to take only this picture. Yann (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The files mentioned, uploaded by me are digitally enhanced and redrawn representation derived from publically available references of the Indian Armed Forces, for the sole purpose of educational and encyclopeadic representation within Wikimedia projects. It does not support, claim, imply or stimulate any official status or authority of Government of India or it's defence services.

I acknowledge that the underlying insignia is protected under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; however the Act's scope pertains primarily to commercial or misleading use, NOT to accurate descriptive or informational deceptions used in an educational and non-commercial context such as Wikipedia. This work is NOT a reproduction of an copyrighted file but a faithful artistic redrawing, produced solely for identification purposes.

While precedents exist on Wikimedia Commons wherein comparable protected insignia, military symbols and official emblems of US and the Commonwealth countries exist when used solely for identification, historical, and educational documentation. In the same spirit, I request the file to be retained under a educational and illustrative rationale. Further the images are technically under the combination of tags {{PD-India}}{{Indian Army}} {{Indian navy}} while similar tag DOES NOT exist on commons for Air Force.

However, if Commons policy ultimately decides that holding such insignia contravenes free licensing requirements, I request that the file to be transferred to the appropriate Wikipedia project under fair-use grounds, rather than deleted outright, given it's clear contextual relevance and informative necessity.

Also the Emblem of Indian Air Force if gone would affect a ton of Wikipedia articles. Ksh.andronexus (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If the the uploaded images were drawn by the uploader after the general design, I don't see that the license would be wrong. Per Commons:Coats of arms, each different rendition typically has their own copyright. If these were someone else's drawings copied here (or started with someone else's drawing then enhanced some but there is still some of the original drawing remaining), then yes they would be a problem. But you would need to show that, and otherwise any new creative expression would need to be licensed. You would have to compare versus an original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to upload an image for an article, but it always gets deleted, i am a brazillian and beginner, i don't know how to do that. AloneSlk (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Olá, AloneSlk! Entendo que você está tendo problemas com o upload de imagens no Wikimedia Commons, e como iniciante, isso pode ser confuso. O motivo pelo qual suas imagens estão sendo deletadas é que os uploads para o Commons precisam seguir regras estritas de direitos autorais: a imagem deve estar em domínio público (ou seja, livre de direitos autorais) ou você deve ter uma licença explícita do detentor dos direitos autorais permitindo o uso livre.Para mais detalhes, recomendo ler estas páginas em português:

• Commons:Licenciamento – explica as licenças aceitáveis.
• Commons:Copyright_rules/pt – sobre normas de direitos de autor.

Se a imagem for de sua autoria, você pode liberá-la com uma licença livre, como CC-BY-SA. Se precisar de mais ajuda, pergunte aqui ou na página de discussão do Commons! -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado, mas tem como eu usar essa imagem só pra esse artigo em especifico? AloneSlk (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

See, for example, this. It was sent by "Remove Your Media LLC" (on Behalf of Crunchyroll) and addressed to Google LLC. Dated November 1, 2025. Here are some of the details under the "Copyright claim 3" under which wikimedia is mentioned:

Desc: "Copyrighted Japanese anime merchandise owned by Crunchyroll LLC. Pursuant to 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii) the official website for 'Dr. Stone' includes a commulative episode list at the below url:"

Orig URL: "store.c[redacted]l.com - 1 URL"

One of the alleged infringing URLs: "upload.wikimedia.org - 5 URLs"

I'm not sure if it's Commons or one of the other Wikimedia sites (enWiki etc.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can request a one-time link to a full view. In this case, it's utter slop; it's not copyvio, it's not cosplay or something we could debate about, it's a bunch of US magazines published before 1930 and copied to Commons. I'm guessing the works mention Dr. Stone and the senders didn't bother looking at the context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/The_Billboard_1919-11-29-_Vol_31_Iss_48_%28IA_sim_billboard_1919-11-29_31_48%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Men_of_progress%3B_biographical_sketches_and_portraits_of_leaders_in_business_and_professional_life_in_and_of_the_state_of_New_Hampshire%3B_%28IA_menofprogressbio00hern%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/The_Billboard_1920-05-22-_Vol_32_Iss_21_%28IA_sim_billboard_1920-05-22_32_21%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Chicago_medical_review_%28IA_chicagomedicalre41881chic%29.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/The_Glendale_Evening_News_1923-05-02_%28IA_cgl_004984%29.pdf

--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another one: this. Sent by Buteor.com (on behalf of e____) to Google LLC on October 20, 2025. Some salient points:

Desc: "Removal of explicit non-consensual material DMCA protected by "ONLYFANS.COM" paywalls system. Legal notice on my client's page."

Orig URL: "o[redacted]s.com - 1 URL"

One of the alleged infringing URLs: "upload.wikimedia.org - 3 URLs"

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, if we search Google with site:upload.wikimedia.org "onlyfans", it returns 3 urls of pdfs, two of which mention "onlyfans" [3] [4] and the third one is of a 1909 book [5] which contains the passage "Chinese gentlemen and their clerks are vigorously fanning themselves, [...] A Chinese not only fans his face, but opens his long silk tunic and fans his body". -- Asclepias (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Asclepias copyfraud in this case, like what is stated on w:en:Digital Millennium Copyright Act#Criticism. The Lumen database should include the status of whether the online host provider responded affirmatively or negatively. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there no provision penalizing blatantly frivolous takedown demands? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is, but someone affected (usually the victim of the false demand) has to actually pursue it in court. Unfortunately, that rarely in practice happens. Seraphimblade (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Assassination attempt on Hendrik Verwoerd 2.jpg (ignore the deletion, that was me being stupid) is taken from a newsreel that has been unambiguously released into the public domain. However this British Pathe clip [6] seems to contain the same clip as the newsreel. Given that this has much higher quality, I believe a Pathe employee produced the clip, which was subsequently copied by Universal (presumably with permission). Given this info:

• Should we presume that the release into the public domain by Universal is legally valid?
• If not, is the Pathe clip PD in the US by virtue of copyright notice and renewal shenanigans, much like early AP photos?

Based5290 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It sure was nice of them to "release" something into PD that was already PD, due to no notice... If it was first produced by Pathe, it wouldn't be PD in the UK, it's not even 70 years old yet. But if simultaneously published in the US and UK, it would be PD at least in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

According to the National Archives,

"MCA/Universal donated the collection to NARA in 1970, and deeded the collection’s rights and title to the United States Government in 1974, although the films may still contain material which is protected by copyright or other proprietary rights and restrictions." [7]

Which was not a release to the public domain. The template PD-Universal Newsreel may be confusing copyright held by the government with public domain. Still, individual items may be in the public domain if they did not have a copyright notice and they were published by Universal as their own works or with the permission of the copyright holders. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we host File:The Paoay Church Symphony of Lights.jpg? Is the still image of the lighting show not infringing on the lighting organizers' copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, lighting like this can only have a copyright in France. Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I want to upload the following Logo from the 2025 IHF Men's U17 Handball World Championship to use it in my German Wikipedia article: https://www.ihf.info/competitions/u17-men/10169/1st-ihf-mens-u17-world-championship-morocco-2025/216491 Is this allowed? The Logo is also used in the English Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_IHF_Men%27s_U17_Handball_World_Championship#Final_ranking Balou20 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, This logo is under a fair use rationale at en:File:2025 IHF Men's U17 Handball World Championship.png. It is certainly complex enough for being under a copyright in Morocco. So it can't be on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jak zrobić odpowiednią licencję do pliku https://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Plik:9997_ORG.1520.2.2025_odpowiedz_na_BIP_bez_danych.pdf ? Zgodnie z polską ustawą o prawie autorskim, pisma urzędowe są domeną publiczną zaś anglojęzyczny użytkownik Wikimedia Commons prosi o uwzględnienie licencji na commons Argonowski (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

How should I license this file? It is a letter from a Polish government agency, and such letters are in the public domain under Polish copyright law Argonowski (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed the licensing, and added appropriate categorization and English language description. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is also File:9998 skan ORG.1520.1.2025.pdf. I suppose the same license applies. Please also add categories there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I applied the closest category I could find, Category:LGBT-free zone declarations in Poland. Not 100% right but close enough for people who care to find it. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Kein eigenes Werk, aber: Reicht die Kombination aus Form, Schrift und typischen Symbolen für Schöpfungshöhe? - No own work, but is it enough for TOO? GerritR (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikipedia article en:List of passports is pretty much one big gallery of photos/scans of passport covers. Most of the images seem to have been uploaded to Commons, and many are uploaded under under claims of "own work" with COM:CC licenses, which seems odd given COM:2D copying; File:Rwandan Passport.webp, File:Madagascar passport.webp, File:Azerbaijan Passport.svg, File:E-passport of Bangladesh.png and File:Diplomatski Pasoš Srbije.png are some examples of such uploads found just by random clicking. It's possible that some of the files might only need to be relicensed, but most of the "own work" ones probably need to be assessed. Can anyone think of an efficient way to do this or does each file need to be DR'd individually. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

DR'd individually in the sense of going through a deletion request? If so, then I'd say no. I didn't click all but most of them seem to show

1. text that is below the threshold of originality (COM:TOO and {{PD-text}}).

2. state symbols, which in most countries appear to be exempt from copyright.

3. official documents issued by states, which also oftentimes are exempt from copyright.

There may be a few exceptions (or not). Nakonana (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Relicensing might be necessary, however, in case of SVG files those might actually be own works because they are not photos but, if I'm not mistaken, created with software by the uploader. So they are own works or derivative works of things that are likely in the public domain. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Azerbaijan one seems to have used the vector from File:Emblem of Azerbaijan.svg, just recolored, which is probably below the threshold of originality (as is the rest). But, there is always gray area around TOO, so I'd be loathe to remove a self-license, provided the rest is documented. So there may be some technical relicensing file-by-file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Chaotic Rage - Beta 18 Screenshot.jpg

The uploader (and developer) says it's Creative Commons 3.0 and yet the GitHub lists the license as GPL-2.0 license

Which license should take precedence? Trade (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is conflicting, the uploader can license their game under GPL-2.0, while they license the screenshot under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adding to this; both licenses are compatible with Commons regardless, though it is better to include both, with clear labeling as to what license applies to screenshot and the content. Actually, since the image has already been uploaded, I can do that myself. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fan art of fictional characters seems more strict in terms of copyright compared to fan art of live-action characters, with the former constantly getting deletion requests, both successful and unsuccessful. I think we should establish clearer guidelines so that there wouldn't be that many debates. Maybe add more examples in the COM:FAN page other than Harry Potter? (say, Mario, as another example) Or info about the difference between derivative and transformative works? Or a dedicated COM:Transformative works page? (seriously, how is this not a thing yet) I'd gladly contribute myself, but I don't think I have the full understanding of it. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

First, sorry to using translater. In {{PD-KPGov}}, It is written as follows:

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that this work might not be in the public domain in countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term and have copyright terms longer than life of the author plus 50 years. In particular, Mexico is 100 years, Jamaica is 95 years, Colombia is 80 years, Guatemala and Samoa are 75 years, Switzerland and the United States are 70 years, and Venezuela is 60 years.

However, it seems that no United States public domain tag can be used to tag North Korean material. Because it's public domain and Article 12 of the Copyright Act of North Korea, it is explicitly stated that there is no copyright for materials published by government agencies. Government data templates from other countries do not contain this provision; only North Korea does.

when I go to Category:PD North Korea government, no material displays the United States public domain tag. Do I have to tag all materials? Klgchanu (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I Know CC license with NC and/or ND are not acceptable on Commons, also GFDL only license are not acceptable if this work are licensed on or after 15 October 2018 and it is not a content that is extracted from GFDL software manual, but what about content that explicitly allow commercial free use but don’t allow AI training on that content, it is ok to upload to Commons? 6D (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not OK to upload. Commons licensing requires that files be usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". Omphalographer (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between CC-ND license and license that don’t allow AI training? 6D (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As far as Commons licensing is concerned, nothing. Neither license is permitted here. Omphalographer (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know images with this license are not permitted on Commons, but what is the main difference of the two licenses (CC-ND license and license that don’t allow AI training)? Also, does CC-ND license allow AI training? 6D (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any files uploaded to Commons must be usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose"; AI training is one such purpose, restricting it would violate the terms. ND licenses don't allow any derivatives to be made; again, this goes against the terms. Files that have either license are incompatible with Commons. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was searching "Djo" here and found File:Joe Keery "DJO".jpg, which is not only a very professionally posed and edited photo, but was the artist's Instagram profile picture for a time. With how much trouble I've had finding photos for a related band, my gut tells me this might not actually be free or taken by the user and they just uploaded it anyway. Is there a non-invasive way to check? Or a way we're supposed to bring up discussion for it? I don't want to falsely report, but I also don't want anyone else on the internet to use it in the event its not actually free.

(update: also found the album cover File:DECIDE.jpg)

(EDIT: i added a speedy deletion thing to the album page and it looks like someone's gone ahead and put one on the first one too, so im assuming this is the correct way to go about it?) Devonias (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Devonias I'm the one who added the speedy deletion request tag. It's a right thing because: a) the uploader claimed the image as their own work (false authorship claim), and b) the image got registered in the reverse image search results of Google Lens. The earliest instances were January 23, 2025 uses of the image in the FB page and Instagram account of the artist. We cannot safely assume that LuisArig (talk · contribs) is someone working under the artist, considering their user page is blank and has no public disclosure on their ties with the artist (if this is the case). Such disclosure is also needed to avoid any needless claims of conflict of interest. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh good, thank you! And extra thank you for explaining everything! Devonias (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I want to upload the album "The Angel, The Demon," by Cacola. All the songs from the album have been uploaded on Cacola's Newgrounds page under a CC BY license. However, the album is also available on Bandcamp under the Business Casual label, who set the license to "All rights reserved". I feel like the artist officially releasing his works under a free license has more weight than their label assigning copyright (likely automatically, since this is the default license on Bandcamp), but just in case there are some nuances, I'm making a post here.

I'd also like some info on the album cover, since it seems to be different enough to count as transformative and not derivative, but that is better discussed in the #Clearer guidelines of fictional character fan art post, which I made yesterday with no replies so far. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you give a direct link to where the band has stated that they are releasing the album under a CC-BY license? Because the Cacola's Newgrounds page you linked to says "All rights reserved" at the bottom, and when I click the YouTube link there, I also can't see any indication of CC-BY. Nakonana (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The licenses are stated on each respective song (here are pages for The Angel and Lit Fuse for example). Also, it's CC BY-SA, not CC BY; still okay for Commons, though. The "All rights reserved" at the bottom is the copyright of the website Newgrounds. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.

Is it common practice for Bandcamp to sell albums for $0? If not, then I'd consider the stated price of $0 as confirmation that the album is available under a free license, i.e. CC-BY-SA. But we might need to know under which version of CC-BY-SA. Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the licensing section links to CC-BY-SA-3.0, so that part is cleared, too. Nakonana (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the correct tag to be placed on a file when it has a stated source but is not available at that source? E.g. File:Cristina Gherasimov official portrait.jpg, File:Alexandru Munteanu official portrait.jpg. Gikü (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The images on the website seem to be derivative versions of the portraits you linked. It is likely that the portraits can be found on the other pages of the website (probably on subpages of the linked source). The portraits may have also been featured in an earlier revision of the page, in which case they could potentially be found with Wayback Machine. Don't place any tags, just try finding the actual source and replace the current one. Regardless, this is definitely a genuine photo from the government (with the website even using derivative versions of the portrait) so it is not a copyright violation. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tried what you suggest, I myself was involved in importing portraits of these newly appointed ministers. I recognize that the small circular crops that we can see now on the Government site are derivatives of the photos on Commons, but I have not observed the full pics at any moment on the site, neither could I find a webarchive version. I have tagged the images with {{LicenseReview}} and I will await a LR-er to take a look. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reverse image search reveals that there were usages of those images on other websites 4-5 days before they were uploaded to Commons: [8] [9] [10] [11] Nakonana (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and reviewed the licenses. General consensus on Commons has typically been that when something is licensed (or becomes PD), other crops or higher or lower resolution versions are fair game, since they fall beneath the COM:TOO (this can be debatable for certain edge cases but the corners of these photos do not seem particularly above the TOO to me). -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 03:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's an interesting unwritten rule I had not known about. Thank you @Nard the Bard. Gikü (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've contacted a copyright holder and they seem open to putting a section of their database under a free license. Given that this is a large collection of images and not individual ones, would sending an email to the appropriate permissions wikimedia email still be sufficient (there's no link to be given)? Also, they seem to have a pre-filled letter; can this substitute the template given in Commons:Email templates? Bastobasto (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would presume there is nothing magic about the email template, it's just intended to spare people from each having to draft their own letter. And as long as it is clear what materials are covered, I would expect it to be OK, but really questions about VRT should be at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Anyone (like me) not on the VRT can only guess at how the VRT will handle something. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In Category:Protogen, there are five pieces of artwork (per the finickiness of COM:COSTUME I shall ignore the photographs), three CC-BY-SA, two CC0. However, I have my concerns as to if (some) derivative works are compatible with free CC licenses and the definition for free cultural works in general.

Finding usage terms for protogens was a little tricky, but i am led to believe that this website is the official hub for protogen info, as it's linked on the ZOR FurAffinity page, which is ran by "Koinu [the original author of protogens] and staff". In this info page lies the Protogen guide, which features an FAQ section that states the following:

"Public use/features of Protogen in artwork, media, books, games etc is fine with no royalties or specific permission required. A royalty would only be arranged if the works by Cool Koinu are being resold / used for profit. You retain all rights to your artwork/product and by featuring Protogen you have agreed to the community creation guidelines."

A restriction on commercial use would be in violation of the Definition of Free Cultural Works, the guideline Commons uses (and the reasons that CC-NC and CC-ND are forbidden from Commons), particularly The Freedom to Distribute Derivative Works. Additonally, the Protogen Guide mentions "restricted" traits which would seem to not meet The freedom to use and perform the work, but whether or not these restricted traits are binding to the actual usage terms or are simply out of "respect" for the creator is somewhat vague ("Restricted traits on the other hand are more about respect for Cool Koinu as the creator of the species as well as other original species creators within the furry community. We also don't moderate those outside of our official hubs, but we kindly ask that you refrain from breaking these more than the non-canon traits.".

With all this information, it would seem that artistic works featuring protogens would be disallowed from Commons, however, copyrightability and COM:FANART should always be considered. I personally think that Protogens in their classic, canonical form (that are also called Protogens would be copyrightable or at the very least be deemed suspicious per the Precautionary Principle. various non-canon and/or "restricted" Protogen depictions would have to be reviewed case-by-case. Additionally, CoolKoinu (the aforementioned author), is Australian (1, 2), so copyrightability laws of Australia would also have to be considered. This is where my knowledge falls short, ergo my desire to ask this in village pump before any DRs. I would greatly appreciate if someone with sizable knowledge of Australian copyright law would contribute to this discussion. As always, thank you for your time. Cawfeecrow (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any idea why the files from this DR were redeleted? The summary just says "A Deletion Request" which is vague as hell... DMCA maybe? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

That does seem odd. The "Undelete in 2018" category was removed when that happened. Seems like they should be restored, unless they were made/published after 1930 (in which case they would still be under U.S. copyright most likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The deleting admin is still active. Pinging @Gbawden: . Nakonana (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think Léna erred here. When removing Category:Undelete in 2018 on 1 Jan 2018, probably Category:Undeleted in 2018 should have been added and the files should have been undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment This was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by NGCZ. I did a bulk delete which is why it just says Per a deletion request. Gbawden (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Freedom of Panorama: Between Copyright and Enjoyment of Cultural Heritage, by Beatriz Bugallo (Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de la República, Uruguay). Published on: 28-10-2025.

Per the abstract (translated version, with underlined emphasis added by me):

Freedom of panorama is an exception to economic copyright of copyrighted works located in freely accessible public spaces. It seeks to balance social and cultural interests with the interests of creators. Its regulation is fragmentary in comparative law, since it is not especially enshrined in international regulations, and the States that regulate it do so with variations. Its growing regulatory provision is a consequence of the technological evolution in the possibility of reproduction and public communication. In the digital environment and due to the different economic activities affected in the cultural, touristic and educational fields, it is increasingly important to consider its regulation. We propose its concept, foundation and historical origin as a starting point. By means of a selection of comparative law experiences and a survey of aspects of diverse normative scope, we present the existing range of its regulation. Guidelines are included as a proposal for its inclusion in Uruguay.

The part that I highlighted seems to imply that there is no valid FoP in Uruguay (notwithstanding our interpretation at COM:FOP Uruguay). The Uruguayan chapter of Creative Commons is also of the view that FoP is not recognized in Uruguay, and that's why they are repeatedly calling for its introduction in that country.

Some past discussions on Fop-Uruguay: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Statues images and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06#Renewed review of Uruguayan FoP.

Here is the link to the full paper of Bugallo (2025), which is in Spanish. Pages 48–49 mention about Uruguay's FoP status.

Re-mentioning everyone mentioned in those two older discussions: @Ganímedes, Leiro & Law, and Clindberg: from the 2011 discussion at FoP talk page, and @Ruslik0, Bedivere, and Ymblanter: from the discussion in June this year. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some addition: Bugallo (2025) proposes (on page 53) a sufficient FoP to be applied in Uruguay, either following the German or the Andean Community models (both balanced according to Bugallo (2025)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean, the tag links to a version of Uruguayan law, the one which the articles states has no FoP provision, yet article 45.8 seems to be directly on point. It's possible the qualifier at the end (left the private domain) is fuzzy enough that it should be made more clear in the law, but to state there is nothing at all in the law seems incorrect. Unless that section has been removed more recently, or the author was looking at an earlier law which did not have it. Does the document discuss that article in particular? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg the document doesn't discuss the article, but I have a stronger feeling that 45.8 isn't a valid FoP, but more of an exception that guarantees free uses of works of art that are already outside the private domain (in other words, copyright has expired). This webpage (by IMPO Uruguay) is explicit in its Q&A explanation:

¿Qué usos están permitidos y no son considerados reproducción ilícita?
Los llamados usos “libres”, no considerados reproducción ilícita son:...
8. La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que hayan salido del dominio (propiedad) privado.

In their version, it's legal to reproduce works of art in public spaces provided they have "left" the private property domain. (Property, in the sense, intellectual property). There is no logic for equating "private property" with ownership, considering that works inside museum indoors also fall under this exception (yet museum indoors are typically privately owned).

The document itself mentions a Uruguayan case law concerning the inclusion of an outdior graffiti in an advertisement. Case file: Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 (English translation by Google: Civil Appeals Court, 3rd Division, Judgment 44/2022 of April 21, 2022). Per the author of the document, the case mainly concerned on "attributing authorship of the claimant", the case concluded with "a sum awarded as compensation for the unauthorized use". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to tell this too: The Article 45.8 in the Uruguayan copyright law has been intact since the law first came into effect in 1937. No revision has been made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg. Here is the link to the 2022 court casefile from Uruguay mentioned by Bugallo (2025). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it's only allowed if the copyright has expired, then it wouldn't need a special clause in the law. I certainly don't speak the language and there may well be a reason, but there should be a discussion as to that clause specifically as to why our interpretation is wrong. I can't see the link you posted, but the court case described seemed to be for a film, whereas the clause's permission is limited to photographs. Secondly, the court case seems to have been mostly about attribution, and did not address FoP, per the description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems the website doesn't post the casefiles in dedicated webpages and instead reliant on providing content while still using search. Here is the link to search. Search term is Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 Tovagliare Note the website doesn't allow copy paste options. The relevant casefile to be selected from the search is "44/2022 DEFINITIVA - Tribunal Apelaciones Civil 3ºT° - PROCESO CIVIL ORDINARIO". Case name: "REOLÓN, GUZMÁN C/ BANCA DE CUBIERTA COLECTIVA DE QUINIELAS DE MONTEVIDEO".

The summary (in Spanish) is: Revocando la sentencia impugnada en cuanto desestimó la demanda y en su lugar se condena a la demandada a pagar al actor la cantidad de $ 40.000 por concepto de lucro cesante, y el importe de $ 160.000 por concepto de multa, cantidades éstas que deberán reajuste de conformidad con el DL 14.500 y generarán intereses legales desde la exigibilidad hasta su efectivo pago.
La Sala coincide con el apelante en cuanto a que la exigencia de que el autor de la obra estampe en la misma su nombre completo constituyó un error de interpretación de la normativa aplicable al caso, que no tomó en consideración la normativa internacional que inspira nuestra ley, así como el principio del informalismo, conforme al cual el autor puede identificarse con su nombre, firma rúbrica o símbolo.
El Tribunal entiende que la reproducción de la obra del accionante por parte de la demandada sin su previo consentimiento, resultó ilícita, por lo que corresponde ingresar a examinar la pretensión indemniztoria formulada.

Some salient points in the appellate court's ruling

▪︎ The defendant's claim on the graffiti's lack of protection was overthrown (being an illegal work doesn't deprive the artist of his copyright).

▪︎ The defendant indeed failed to attribute the artist in the advertisement, despite having been contacted by the plaintiff (the artist)

▪︎ (Here is one thing that may change our perspective on Uruguayan FoP) the court also ordered the defendant to pay 40,000 Uruguayan pesos (that's distinct from 160,000 Uruguayan pesos of fines). The 40K payment is for the lost profits due to the defendant's unauthorized reproduction of the graffiti. The court explicitly ruled on the unauthorized inclusion of the graffiti in their advertisement.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm not sure how "official" is the opinion of Creative Commons Uruguay. I'm not sure if it's or not a Non-Profit Organization, a government Organization or simply enthusiastics of the free culture. At least one of the members seems to be a lawyer, but there are musicians, psychologist, sociologist, etc. With that said, not much I can add to this topic. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:UPS Airlines Flight 2976 moments before crash.png is sourced to a dashcam and tagged with PD-automated. I know that previous wording of PD-automated included dashcams, but it no longer does. However, I don't think there's been a discussion here centered on just dashcams, so I'm looking for some thoughts for future reference.

Personally speaking, I lean towards PD in this case. There are much fewer creative choices one can make about dashcam video compared to bodycams. The only creative decision I could conceivably see in this video is the driver stopping the vehicle, but it's hard to say that that's creative. Based5290 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed Bedivere (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is also File:UPS Airlines Flight 2976 crash still.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was coming here to ask about this. Doesn't the person operating the vehicle, regardless of intent, mean there is human input in capturing the video? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Human input for dashcam videos? Perhaps, but quite certainly not of the creative kind or above any relevant threshold of originality. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It may actually be enough. There are several dashcam videos registered with the Copyright Office. A simple search of "dashcam" in the online USCO search returns a number of videos that would seem to be simple dashcam footage that happened to capture something interesting. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't this agency also register copyright for things that are clearly below TOO (like textlogos?). I think I remember that there have been instances like that. (was it maybe regarding the Tesla logo...?) Nakonana (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are many things registered with the USCO that, if they went to court and were fully adjudicated, might be ruled un-copyrightable. But under US law, the existence of a registration puts the entire onus on the re-user to fight the claim; courts are directed to automatically assume that a registration implies the work is copyrighted. And there are several recent registrations for dashcam footage, so presumably the USCO would continue to grant registrations to such works. 19h00s (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

And I believe what you're referring to re: Tesla is the DMCA takedown they sent last year over several of their "T" shield logo variations. WMF only removed one requested file as it was the only one registered with the USCO - it was the most complex variation on the shield logo, with several additional shading elements that seem to have pushed it above the ToO under USCO's analysis. 19h00s (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was figuring since w:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices only refers to pre-position cameras, which doesn't apply here since the vehicle is not pre-positioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve recently got digital copies of The Daily Azad newspaper of Jan-Feb & Jul-Aug 1952. It’s an important historic paper, especially related to the Bengali Language Movement, and the newspaper is now defunct since 1990s.

Before I start uploading, I want to confirm is it OK under Commons policy and current Bangladeshi copyright law to upload newspapers published before 1964?

From what I’ve read in the Bangladesh Copyright Act (2000, now 2023) and law firm summaries, corporate works like newspapers are protected for 60 years from the year of publication. That means issues published before 1964 should already be public domain.

For old newspapers, my understanding of copyright as follows:

1. If the writer was not employed by the newspaper: copyright lasts for the author’s lifetime + 60 years.
2. The newspaper’s layout and design (excluding text and images) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication. Reference
3. If someone writes something in a newspaper as part of their employment, the copyright belongs to the newspaper company. Reference
4. The editor of a newspaper is not the copyright owner. Reference
5. If the report was written by the newspaper’s own staff — being a corporate work — copyright lasts for 60 years from the year of publication. This means that all original photographs and staff-written reports published before 1964 are now in the public domain. Source: Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh
   (Note: The Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023 does not explicitly state that a corporation’s copyright expires 60 years after publication. but the previous Copyright Act 2000 states, "Term of copyrights in works of local authorities.⎯ Copyright in the work of a local authority shall, where the local authority is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following year in which the work is first published."
   According to 2023 law:
   1. The law says that if the author is known, the term is 60 years after the author’s death for literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.
   2. For anonymous authors, films, sound recordings, photographs, digital works, government publications, and international organizations, copyright lasts 60 years from publication.
   3. Since newspaper reports are generally not authored by individual editors or writers but by the organization, they can be treated as corporate works.
   4. Although the law doesn’t specifically mention Bangladeshi corporations, based on law of 2000 and and the legal opinion in the Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh — my conclusion is that the term is 60 years from publication.)

Arguments against say that if any article was written by an outside author (not staff), it might still be under “life + 60 years.” But The Daily Azad was mainly staff-written, and the paper closed long ago.

So, before I do the uploads, I just want to ask: Would you consider 1952 issues safe to upload as public domain?

Thanks for any thoughts. I just want to make sure it’s OK before I start. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

•  Comment After reviewing the above comment and the relevant laws of Bangladesh, it appears that newspapers published 60 years ago are in the public domain.
  However, since they were published during the East Pakistan era, the interpretation under Pakistani law is also a relevant factor.≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 13:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @MS Sakib It is not a relevant factor. East Pakistani works published during the Pakistani era are still Bangladeshi works because East Pakistan is Bangladesh now. So it doesn't matter. The newspapers were published from Dhaka which is now in Bangladesh. Pakistan has no authority over Dhaka. Mehedi Abedin 13:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  
  I do believe rule of land applies here. Copyright law 2023 applies here as Dhaka is part of the Bangladesh now.

  Regardless of "Rule of land" vs "Rule of time", I want to cover my bases. The relevant law at the time of publishing these newspaper was British India copyright law 1914 (Pakistani ordinance was issued in 1962)

  If rule of time was to apply here: according to 1914 law

  1. Newspapers are explicitly defined as "collective works" along with encyclopedias, dictionaries, year books, reviews, magazines, or similar periodicals.
  2. For collective works, there's a special provision: any agreement by an author regarding assignment of copyright doesn't apply to "the assignment of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work or part of a work as part of a collective work".
     In simple terms, The work of an author cannot be published outside of the work without his/her permission if the work is collective work. The work can be PD as whole work but his work can not be published separately if author's copyright has not been expired. (This provision only applies to non-staff reporting or work)
  3. Where the author was in the employment of some other reason under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of· any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar Periodical.
     TL;DR: Copyright of staff reporting is held by the newspaper; not the staff reporter.
  4. When Owner is a body corporate, "the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts". The copyright term of corporate work is 50 years after publication.

  Tausheef Hassan (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anything that was still protected by copyright in Bangladesh in 1996 would have its US copyright restored (Commons:URAA), and Commons requires works to be free both in their source country and the US (Commons:Licensing). URAA-restored 1952 works would enter the public domain in the US at the beginning of 2048. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Rosenzweig so, yes or no in your opinion? Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes or no to what? To uploading to Commons: No. Unless we delete them again immediately and add the files to an undeletion category like Category:Undelete in 2048 (assuming they're not still protected in Bangladesh by then). --Rosenzweig τ 10:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

thanks for your clarification Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) recently announced the Saudi Photos platform, which states in it's terms that "the media content on this platform is available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International () license. Under this license, all media content published and owned by SPA on this platform may be utilized across all media outlets, online servers, or other informational platforms, and creatively reused without restrictions on the volume of materials or duration of use."

I noticed that a number of users were uploading images from this platform, so I created {{Saudi Photos platform}} with tracking category (79 files).

Any suggestions, comments, or feedback? The platform seems to contain hundreds of great images. --Alaa :)..! 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment The Arabic Wikipedia community informed at w:ar:special:diff/72389097. Also ping @Dyolf77: one of the ar-N sysops at Wikimedia Commons --Alaa :)..! 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are only about 10 years behind Iran..  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   22:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@999real What is the reason for this comment? And what does "Iran" have to do with the above topic? I still assume good faith. --Alaa :)..! 08:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@علاء seems a good start. Will it also mean that Saudi Arabia may become more "open" in terms of licenses that are friendly for commercial reuses and reuses on IT/digital/new media soon? For example, concerning the unrestricted pictorial and photographic reproductions of recent buildings and sculptures in public places without needing licensing permissions from the architects, sculptors, and artists of the said landmarks, or the so-called Freedom of Panorama which Saudi Arabia currently lacks right now? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What do you think? Iranian news websites started releasing all their content under a free license 10 years ago  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   15:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, JWilz12345. I have the same questions as well, so I think the answers to these questions should be left for the future to see, but it seems that "maybe" the future is better. I don't know if the Saudi Wikimedia User Group can answer them? --Alaa :)..! 15:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@EF5 recently found File:May 3, 1999 Moore F5 tornado.jpg over on a verified U.S. Government Flickr account (Flickr upload here). The Flickr license is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. After some investigation, I found the original publication of the photo here, on an August 2001 archives NOAA website, attributed to Mike Eilts, the-then assistant director of the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory. Noting NOAA-use of the photo here, three years after the Flickr upload.

I know various government agencies have warnings/alerts regarding their photos, like {{PD-LosAlamos}}, {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, {{PD-NWS-employee}}, or {{PD-USGov-NOAA-GLERL}}. So, is the Flickr upload confirmation regarding special perms/a warning for the image? If Yes/No, how should the Flickr warning be displayed to the public if the image is kept on the Commons? WeatherWriter (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• It's unlikely the assistant director of NSSL took this image on duty. That plus the timestamp (to me) indicates a personal camera took this. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:May 3, 1999 Moore F5 tornado.jpg. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I don’t think it being a “personal camera” means it wasn’t taken by the NSSL while monitoring the storm. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • FWIW, from what I've seen in the past, photos like that rarely originate with NOAA employees. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg
• File:ĐB Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg
• File:ĐBQH Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg

I couldn't find these images elsewhere using Google Lens. The first's EXIF data says Made with Google AI. The third has a watermark pointing to this government portal. How should these be handled? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg exif literally says made with Google AI. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dai bieu Hoang Thi Hoa.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please review this? I've done what I can to help the uploader, but a more experienced person is needed. Thank you for your time. Geoffroi 21:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What's to help with? Looks fine. (I didn't examine the history; I assume there was some issue in the past.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I didn't want to tell the uploader it was ok for sure without getting a second opinion. Geoffroi 23:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm new to the wikipedia community, and I'm trying to make a wikipedia page for the Soviet 130mm S-70 Cannon, but I'm unsure about the image I found for it. Could I have some help determining if I can upload it? This is the link with the S-70 details: [12] Admiral Orazark (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply