Not sure about this.

Moved from Commons talk:Village pump/Copyright: --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been using a University digital image collection, I wanted to upload one of the images to WikiCommons, so I began to research their terms but it just left me with more doubts. (It might just be me having a hard time understanding copyright but I want to be sure) What Creative Commons category would this be under?

The exception to this at the University of St Andrews is if you create what are called materials of a scholarly nature such as essays, journal articles, books., or data underpinning publications. If you create a scholarly work it is likely that you will own the copyright in it.

Extracted from their copyright overview sheet. ManMadeHubris (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

From the quote you provided, the University of St Andrews seems to state that creators (like students or researchers) typically retain copyright over their own "materials of a scholarly nature" (e.g. essays, articles, data). However, this likely applies only to works you yourself have created while affiliated with the university.

If the image you want to upload was created by someone else (e.g. a photo in the university's digital image collection), then that statement probably doesn't apply. In that case, copyright is likely still held by the university or the original creator, and it can't be uploaded to Commons unless:

• It is clearly marked as released under a free license like CC BY or CC BY-SA, or
• It is in the public domain (due to age or other factors), or
• You have written permission to release it under a Commons-compatible license (needs to be verified through COM:VRT)

So unless the university's digital image collection explicitly provides a license (like CC BY 4.0), or you can confirm the image is public domain, it’s safest not to upload it. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The image is from a photo album from 1870, would that be enough to make it public domain or should it have a certain formality attached to it? ManMadeHubris (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@ManMadeHubris: Virtually anything from the UK in 1870 is out of copyright; the only imaginable exception would be juvenalia from a known creator who lived past 1954. You are not terribly specific about what is known about the photographer, so I cannot give you a "best" way to license it, but at the very least even for an unknown author it should be {{PD-old-assumed}} (for the UK, its country of origin) and {{PD-US-expired}} (for the U.S., which is the legal home of this site). If there is a known photographer with a known date of death, we can do better. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The photographer is Elmslie William Dallas from what I could find, he died in 1879. The photograph is a solo portrait, as such it was kept in a family photo album. From what you say perhaps it would be better just to categorise it as "Author had been deceased for more than 70 years". I would appreciate your opinion. ManMadeHubris (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@ManMadeHubris: {{PD-auto-expired|1879}}. We're stretching it a little on the U.S. side, because it is possible that the work was first published either 1930-28 February 1989 with conformance to U.S. copyright law for notice, renewal, etc. (very unlikely for UK work) or first published 1 March 1989 through 2002 (somewhat more likely), but I think on something this old it is unlikely that even if it was published at that late date it was a publication authorized by the photographer's heirs. So I think that slight uncertainty is OK. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ManMadeHubris (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Syrian Govt Photos

I've recently noticed many photos made by the Syrian govt being uploaded to Commons with the {{PD-Syria}}. I'm not exactly where in this statement is supposed to apply to govt photos but it says (emph. mine) The protection prescribed by the law herein shall not include [...] official documents such as laws, decrees, regulations, international agreements, judicial judgements, decisions of the administrative authorities and all other official documents and the official translation thereof. Does "all other official documents" include photographs produced by the government? It appears to me that "document" in this sense only applies to governmental literature, since all the given examples are works of literature.

Some examples of files using this justification:

• Recep Tayyip Erdoğan met with Ahmed al-Sharaa, April 2025.jpg
• A strategic agreement was signed between Syria’s General Authority for Land and Sea Ports, represented by Qutayba Ahmad Badawi, and DP World, represented by Sultan bin Sulaym, July 2025.jpg
• Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with Ahmed al-Sharaa, March 2025.jpg

Howardcorn33 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Usually "documents" is confined to laws, judgements, and the like unless the law explicitly says otherwise. People like to use government documents being PD as an excuse to upload essentially anything created by the government though, regardless of what it is or if it has to do with a law or anything else covered by the clause. The same thing happens with stamps all the time. Anyway, if it we're me I'd nominate the images for deletion. Although you should probably wait until more people agree with me (assuming they do) before doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The images above were merely examples. I don't know how to nominate every govt img tagged with "PD-Syria" for deletion since there are 2,142 photos with the license. I would like to re-open such a deletion request, since I think the deletion discussion linked below was inadequate. Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: I wasn't expecting you to nominate every file tagged with "PD-Syria" for deletion. A good percentage of the images are of currency that would be PD due to age anyway. The rest would be pretty easy to nominate for deletion in groups by subject using the VisualFileChange tool. Although it could take some time, but that's just how it goes. Looking it over though there's like 15 images of Bassel al-Assad from 20 years ago that can probably be nominated for deletion in the same DR since it's pretty unlikely their PD. 44 or 45 images in

Category:1982 Hama massacre using the template that can be grouped together since they we're taken by the same photographer (who clearly hasn't been dead for 50 years) Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Although now that I look at it photographic works produced before 1994 are apparently public domain. So maybe not those specific files but my general point still stands. Most things tagged with "PD-Syria" are correctly tagged as such. While it would be easy to nominate small percentage left that aren't for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Notifying the uploader HurricaneEdgar. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Before I uploaded the file, there was a nomination in March 2025 to determine whether the image was copyrighted, but it was kept under 'b) Daily news, whether published, broadcast, or publicly announced.' I believe this image is in the public domain since it was originally published by Syrian state media as part of an official daily news release. Pinging the admin who determined the Syria copyright, Bedivere, along with RamiPat, Kaliper1, Plumber, and Freedoxm. HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a run of the mill news article. Although it does include a page from a document, the photographs don't seem to be a part of it and the website says "© Copyright 2025, All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. For all we know the photographs were taken by some random person from the news agency. So there's no reason to think the images are PD. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If we delete this, it would affect the Syrian article, including Ahmed al-Sharaa. If the website says '© Copyright 2025, All Rights Reserved,' then the Syrian document should be deleted. But I think we need more opinions from those who were involved. HurricaneEdgar 12:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The document would still be public domain regardless. Since just reposting it somewhere on the internet doesn't inherently create a new copyright. I can't remember the exact section it's in, but Commons:Derivative works explains how it works. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh dont worry about that. Documents are public domain, safe and sound. Treaties, laws, and official declarations issued by governments are not subject to copyright in most jurisdictions, including the United States under 17 U.S. Code § 105 for government works (where the Wikimedia Foundation is based), Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia (as per their laws on official acts and public documents for example), and many more. International law, protected via the Berne Convention: Article 2.4 excludes "official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature." Last resort, the template used for commons concerning documents and laws is PD-EdictGov. Kaliper1 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kaliper1 while government texts of administrative, legislative or legal nature (i.e. public documents) are PD in most jurisdictions, they may be protected in some others, including Singapore and El Salvador. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The Syrian document should be safe. As mentioned by Howardcorn33 at the start of this discussion, {{PD-Syria}} says in Article 4 that official documents by the Syrian Government are in the public domain. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC) (Was notified of this discussion on en Wikipedia through Subscriptions.)

Thanks for the ping Edgar. During the nomination, I was primarily concerned about the presence of Syrian government images on Wikimedia Commons. Thus I opened the nomination. The core of the argument revolves around several key issues:

• Whether photographs published on official Syrian government Twitter/X accounts are automatically in the public domain.
• The correct application of Syrian Copyright Law (especially Article 3, Article 4b, and Article 16.
• The misuse of the "daily news" exemption (Article 4b) to justify retaining images without explicit release or license.
• The comparison to scanned government documents, and the legal distinction between photographic works and reproduced official texts.

I maintained that the images in question are not in the public domain, despite the opposing view. In the end, it was deemed public domain (which in hindsight turned out to be beneficial for articles concerned. As HurricaneEdgar said, a lot of Syrian Articles are affected.). It's been long since the nomination, so I apologize if it doesn't encompass all, but here's a summary of my reasoning using Syrian Copyright Law:

Photographs are explicitly protected under Article 3(c) of Syria’s Copyright Law No. 12/2001, which grants copyright to original photographic works from the moment of creation. Contrary to claims that publication on social media and news makes such images free to use, the law provides no automatic waiver of rights simply because the image is made publicly accessible.

Article 16 affirms that the rights holder, typically the photographer, maintains exclusive control over reproduction, distribution, and display unless those rights are expressly waived or fall under a listed exception. There is yet evidence that the Syrian government has officially released these images into the public domain.

The commonly cited exemption under Article 4(b), covering "daily news whether published, broadcast, or publicly announced", does not apply to photographs'. That clause refers to text-based news reporting, not visual media (photos), and extending it to include standalone photographs.

It was ruled public domain as the tiebreaker interpretation of Article 4(b) deemed photos as part of "daily news." I did skip over the Copyright symbol in SANA however. Kaliper1 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I apologize as I am very confused right now. You are saying that the photos are in the public domain because of Article 4(b) saying that the photos are part of "daily news", correct? If so, then I don't understand because the text you are quoting seems to say that photograph are excluded from Article 4(b) as it says "does not apply to photographs'" in the last paragraph. As for Article 4(b), from the document regarding copyright law: The protection prescribed by the law herein shall not include (...) [d]aily news whether published, broadcast or publicly announced.

So, I believe that the images are exempt from the exemption of daily news from copyright protection. Thus, they are copyright protected. I think?

(Again kinda confused. But that does make sense with what {{PD-Syria}} formerly said: Copyright has expired in both Syria and the U.S. if (...) created prior to 1994 regarding photographs before it was reworked as the template did not take into account anything where its publication was not required and Article 19 in the document regarding copyright law says: The copyrights are assigned in whole to the author's heirs after his death. Such assignment shall include publishing of the work if not previously published.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I was re-quoting my words from my previous Speedy Deletion. You may look here. I requested the speedy deletion that led to the conversation of For Deletion as the images are not within PD. But the tiebreaker eventually led to the ruling that it is PD. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TLDR from that speedy deletion: I am saying that the images arent PD. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to that DR page HurricaneEdgar. It explains why you believed in good faith that it was ok to upload similar files. Unfortunately, the decision in this DR seems a mistake, IMHO. The reasons for deletion were well explained by Kaliper1 and Anwon. "Daily news" provisions exist also in the laws of some other countries. It reminds article 2(8) of the Berne Convention: "The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information.". Information, facts are not copyrighted. It does not mean that news articles are not copyrighted and can be freely copied integrally. Such a notion would imply that full pages of The New York Times and full news bulletins from France Television are not copyrighted and could be freely copied. It would be unusual if Syria interpreted it differently from other countries. Anyway, it's not even necessary to argue if the Syrian law might have an unusual interpretation, there is a simple and straightforward way to decide the case: those works are not free in the United States. Of the five participants in the DR discussion, only one (Plumber) argued to keep the files. If we ping three participants (Kaliper1, Plumber, Freedoxm) plus another user (RamiPat), we might as well ping also the other two particpants to the DR: أنون, Applodion. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

After taking a better look at the template apparently "Photographic, fine arts or plastic arts shall be enforceable for ten years as of the date of producing such work." So this might be a non-issue. Although probably the template should be split into two or three separate ones depending on the type of work and source of the image. Since it's rather convoluted. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That is conditional on Article 19, I think. If a photograph wasn't published until after the photographer's death after 2004, then wouldn't it be under copyright protected? (I know that is unlikely for most of the images, but it might be the case for some of them.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Your probably right. The whole thing is super convoluted lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Changing the copyright of some German tram signals

When looking at the diagrams of some German tram signals, I noticed that some are licensed under CC-BY-SA which I have some problems with:

• From what I understand, most of these are far too simple to be copyrightable such as File:Sh 2c Schutzhalt U-Bahn Nürnberg.png which is a red circle with an outline in a gray square.
  • In some of the cases, the corresponding vectorisation (e.g. File:BOStrab Zusatz Hannover SH3e.svg for File:DFStrab Sh3e.png) is even licensed as PD rather than CC-BY-SA (which shows that the file licenses should be cleaned up)
  • In others, the submission is clearly modified from an existing PD submission (e.g. File:Vr 0 Ersatzsignal U-Bahn Nürnberg.png which you can easily recreate from File:BOStrab H 2.svg which is something I did).
• Even then, these symbols are usually officially defined in some German jurisdiction which should actually be marked as {{PD-GermanGov}} (the aforementioned Sh 2c PNG being one such example, being even depicted as such on BOStrab).
• Luquillas02's submissions (besides File:St1a.png which clearly is taken from File:BOStrab St1.svg) might be scans of some actual documents rather than being created on a computer directly (very visible at File:So 10RBGDVG.jpg with what it looks like some printing artifacts as well as fairly gray background) so this user might not even have the actual copyright, though it's better to ask the user in that case on where the diagrams ultimately come from.

Since copyright is a difficult topic (especially because I'm not a lawyer), I want to ask here to change the copyright tags for these diagrams into some more appropriate i.e. {{PD-GermanGov}} (where applicable) or {{PD-Simple}} (otherwise) and moreover, which files should actually be what. ManuelB701 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Improving an image

Currently the image options for EN:Boating Party are a low resolution image, a defective high resolution one and a cropped high resolution one. For a 147 year old painting like that are we allowed to copy images from museum websites?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: As long as it's just the image of the 2D work, yes; not if it includes the frame, though (which you can crop out). - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Jmabel I went to see the Caillebotte exhibition last Saturday here in Chicago and noticing that the work had no article I created it. I am realizing that musuems don't put such high quality files on line. I am not going to be able to get anything better than the current low resolution one. I intend to revisit the exhibit once or twice more between now and the end of its run in October. Am I also able to take a picture of this and post it? I am going to have to bring my own camera and take a picture to get something high resolution. I am not sure if I am allowed to bring a tripod or monopod, but I will try to get something high quality. -TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger You can definitely take and post a picture of that work, yes! If you're referring to the Caillebotte show at the Art Institute, just be aware of their visitor policies (they don't allow tripods if I'm reading that correctly). Jealous that you get to see that exhibition, I can't make it to Chicago before it closes. 19h00s (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

User:19h00s, if you are ever interesting in dropping in on Chicago and need a place to crash let me know. My mother has been with me since the pandemic, but spends several months a year with my sister. My Costco sleeper sofa is free well over 100 nights a year.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: The most important things technically in taking a picture like that (I'm presuming a DSLR here, but most of this is true regardless):

• Obviously, use the best lens you've got. I use a 24mm prime lens for this.
• Hold the camera as steady as you can.
• You want the highest resolution and highest quality that you can reasonably get.
• Among other things, this means you probably want the shortest exposure practicable, and only as much depth of field as necessary, but …
• … don't hesitate to take multiple pictures with different settings as insurance.
• Take at least onev photo as straight on as possible so that you have proportions right for reference [in this case, you already have that from other sources] but …
• … for the picture you are actually going to work with, a tool like GIMP or Photoshop is perfectly able to adjust perspective (and even lens distortion, assuming the distortion is "regular"), but cannot properly fix reflections, so if you have to aim other than straight on to get an image with no reflections, do that and fix it in post-processing.
• File:St. Nicholas icon - Banat - 18th-century.jpg is a good illustration of how much you can get away with in terms of underexposure and a weird angle and still get a pretty good image via post-processing (the file history shows the original for reference). There's a bit of reflection there even as it is, but it's tremendously better than what I could have gotten out of a more obvious way of taking the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• User:Jmabel, thanks for the advice. I will be returning to attend an August 7 Caillebotte lecture at the AIC. I do not have any prime lenses. I have a few lenses I would be considering for the task. The approximate ranking order is RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, RF28-70mm F2 L USM, and RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM. Do you think a monopod would be under the same restrictions as a selfie stick?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• I am going to check in with Canon Professional Services. I am suppose to be able to borrow stuff for up to 10 days. I am going to see if they have a prime available for loans.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: That would be cool.

• User:Jmabel I just got off the phone with Canon Professional Services. The following lenses are on the list I am eligible to borrow, but I won't know what is in stock until I send in an email request: 50mm/1.2, 50mm/1.4, 35mm/1.8, 24mm/1.4 and 20mm/1.4. What order would you rank these in for this shoot. What order would you rank my lenses in for this shoot if I am too late/too low a priority for an August 7 request (they like 2 weeks notice).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• I am home with my camera and using the 28-70 it seems that a 50mm prime should be able to capture a 4ft wide field at a reasonable distance. I will request 50mm/1.2 with 50mm/1.4 as my contingency request. I'll keep you posted.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • 24mm/1.4 would be comparable to what I use for this (mine's 24mm/1.8). I never shoot with a 50mm, but I can tell you that 85mm is quite inconveniently long for working in a museum. Most likely it is not a big deal to get down below f/4 anyway: unless the light is awful (or you are photographing something really small so it doesn't matter), it's usually good to have quite that little depth of field: it starts to matter that the corners of the painting are farther away than the center. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• On my RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM, RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, I end up having to deal with distortion on the edges in the 20something range and below. I don't know if that is true with the Primes and I put my order in for the 50/1.2. I wish I had seen this first, because I know I won't be able to use it for another article I am working on. I should have gotten one of the 20somethings to see if primes have less edge distortion. I may have to get another loaner from Canon and go back again before Caillebotte ends on October 5. Maybe I can change the order.-2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445 05:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • There are distortion issues, but they are very "regular" and pretty easily fixed in GIMP. See Nicolae Vermont - Femei jucând cărți - 1911.jpg (initial upload vs. current fixed version) for a good example. - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• • I have little idea what the museum's rules on a monopod might be, other than that I would think they would not look kindly on someone walking around the galleries with a long, moderately sharp stick. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I recall the rule of thumbs that 50mm focal length on full-frame is said to approximately equal the normal human viewing angle, that's why 50mm sets the limit between "wide-angle" and "telephoto", as far as I'm aware. For museum photography, something shorter than 50mm may be sensible, this way, you'll gain room on your still for perspective corrections and crops. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• • For a painting that is less than 4 ft wide, 50mm will be O.K. However, I am thinking that I probably also want to get an image for another one that is much wider. I'll see if it is too late to change my loaner request.-2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445 05:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Licensing for CC BY-IGO licensed data

Hello! So, I'm planning to upload a map I generated on QGIS using shapefile data from this dataset on the HDX. The dataset is licensed under CC BY-IGO, but only CC BY-SA-3.0-IGO is available here on Commons. Can I upload it using this BY-SA-3.0-IGO or are there other more appropriate license for it? AstrooKai 04:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The HDX web page says it's 3.0, so you can use that template. (Click on "Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations (CC BY-IGO)", then click on the "deed" link to confirm it goes to version 3.0.) Omphalographer (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm it does point to CC BY 3.0 IGO. But the template is ShareAlike which has another condition unlike the non-SA license, is that okay? AstrooKai 05:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I just found this template ({{Cc-by-3.0-igo}}) when I tried to remove the "sa" from the template's URL. I guess this one is more appropriate in my case, correct? AstrooKai 05:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nuevo template:TOO-United Kingdom (TOO-UK)

Buenas,necesito que algun administrador o un usuario cree el nuevo template TOO-United Kingdom (TOO-UK) ,por que según el DR (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Doctor Who (1963) logos) un usuario Yayan550 pidió que necesita nuevo template para el Threshold of originality en Reino Unido. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Translation/paraphrase: given the recent changes to TOO in the UK, AbchyZa22 is requesting the creation of a {{TOO-UK}} analagous to {{TOO-US}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:School card of Shihezi University.jpg

The item photographed is a school name logo only; I don't think the person who took the picture on the wooden table made the logo. So I think its probably some kind of violation? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Geographyinitiative: Are you saying that you believe that logo is above the threshold of originality in China? Seems simpler than the fourth example there, even if their threshold is low. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was questioning it. But I guess it doesn't have a "unique style" maybe? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Slovenia's national anthem, performed by the United States Navy Band.oga

The English translation of the lyrics to the song is copyrighted to J. Lavrin (d. 1986). Should it be deleted from Commons? --TadejM ^(t/p) 12:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@TadejM: Which translation is copyrighted to J. Lavrin? The one by Illegitimate Barrister or the one by Champion ? If the latter, it might suffice to revert to the former. If it is a personal translation by a Commons user and not plagiarized, it is fine. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for having spotted that. I've reverted the text back to the original version. --TadejM ^(t/p) 14:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of Cooke County Library photos?

A number of photographs from the Cooke County Library collection were recently deleted because their license only allowed personal and educational use:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The two libraries of Cooke County.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bookmoblie and Carnegie Library.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing of the Cooke County Library.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exhibit inside the Cooke County Free Library.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gunter's real diary.jpg

However, one image was kept due to {{PD-US-no notice}} claims. Both the front and back sides could be found at the source websites, and there is no visible copyright notice. While the creation date is listed as "unknown" for most of the photos, they all appear to have been created in or around 1963. I think {{PD-US-no notice}} could apply to all of those files. The only question is when the photos and book were first published.

Anyone have any more information? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If the last one is the same image as on Google Search I don't really see how it would be above the threshold of originality since it's just a title with an extremely generic old fashioned frame around it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Cropped photo

Hello, I have a photo of ballerino I photographed myself after ballet perfomance and I am curently preparing article about him at English wikipedia and I want to use it but there are other people on both sides of him. How I can prove that photo is mine? I can't upload it as it is bcs of other ppl. Or I can upload it cropped and put free use copyright as my own? Илона И (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Илона И: I'm confused: why does the presence of the other people mean you cannot upload it? - Jmabel ! talk 07:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Jmabel maybe they meant that there are other people present in the photo besides the balerino.

  @Илона И you may upload the original image here on WikiCommons and (if you have user rights) use COM:CropTool to crop away the other persons in the image to focus on the balerino. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Because I think it is violation of their privacy bcs they are not public people Илона И (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be a COM:Non-copyright restriction. Please read COM:IDENT, chances are that the other persons present are rather irrelevant when thinking about an upload here. Caring about them is more a question of courtesy and only then of laws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Илона И вы можете обрезать фотографию и потом загрузить её сюда. Если при обрезки нечаянно удаляться данные EXIF (которые иногда используются как доказательства авторства) и возникнут какие-то вопросы, то вы сможете предоставить не обрезанный оригинал по электронной почте группе COM:VRT. Группа VRT не будет опубликовывать оригинал, но сможет подтвердить что вы имеете оригинал фотографии, и если им ещё какие-то доказательства понадобятся, то они вам скажут, я думаю. Nakonana (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Спасибо, да, оригинал, конечно в наличии, без геометок, но со всеми другими данными. Илона И (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Ну тогда не должно быть никаких проблем). Nakonana (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to involve VRT. It's easy enough to upload the original, crop it as an overwrite, then have any admin suppress the content of the original upload. After that, only admins (or the few with even stronger rights) can see the original. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Just thought that they don't want the other people to ever be seen on Commons, not even for a second, so that's why they might prefer to crop the photo before uploading. VRT would only be necessary if they chose a cropping method that would remove the original EXIF data, just in case someone would take the missing EXIF data as a reason to question their authorship. In that case they could provide the original to VRT to prove that they indeed have the original file and thus are likely the author despite the lack of EXIF data on the uploaded cropped version. Nakonana (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Simone Leigh sculpture - de minimis?

• File:Brick House by Simone Leigh.jpg
• File:Sculpture Brick House by Simone Leigh.jpg

Both photos contain a copyrighted artwork by Simone Leigh, but I'm not sure if they're prominent enough to pass de minimis. Leaning toward nominating for deletion. Any thoughts? A photo of this sculpture as installed in New York was previously deleted. 19h00s (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I did not take the extra 30 seconds to realize these images were made in Switzerland, sorry about that. Gonna double check that the work is permanently installed at that site, but that obviously changes things re: FoP. Apologies again, this is why I asked instead of just nominating lol. 19h00s (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The sculpture was indeed acquired for permanent display at the resort in Bad Ragaz! Had no idea they bought it, great pics. Sorry again y'all.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 26 July 2025

19h00s (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Upload of a Book Cover

Hello! I'm putting together an article for the book Major Labels, and was wondering if its cover is covered by PD-Ineligible for being just text on a background? I see that other book covers with similar graphics are hosted on Commons (e.g. File:The Dawn of Everything.jpg), but I just want to double-check before I upload it. For reference, here is the cover from the book's Amazon listing: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71ov8gttazL.jpg . Leafy46 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. More precisely, it's {{PD-text}} - the cover consists entirely of text, and the text is not creative in nature (it's just the book's title and author). Omphalographer (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much for the confirmation :) Leafy46 (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

random passerby

I Know that the issue was discussed before. What is our attitude to cases when the depicted claim that the photo taken by random passerby. I tend to believe her statement. It's not a profesional photo. I'd like an advice - What is our attitude to this case. -- Geagea (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the country. In the US, iirc, the passerby doesn't hold the copyright. In Germany, iirc, the passerby is still the copyright holder because copyright is not transferable per the law and always remains with the photographer; the only thing that can be done per the law is granting (excessive) usage rights. Nakonana (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's in Israel. The discussion I have mentioned speaks about co-author. But it's might be about US. -- Geagea (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Geagea: Since this issue comes up so frequently, I created the page Commons:Bystander selfie to cover the previous discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nosferattus, thanks for the summarize. I think that WMF legal opinion is missing and also the disagreement by part of Commons users. Anyway thanks for your eforts.

Maybe the case of Israel is easier. According to the Israeli copyright low 35 (b): "In a work which is a portrait or a photograph of a family event or other private event, made pursuant to a commission, the first owner of the copyright therein shall be the commissioning party". So it's should be ok. The only problem is the name of the author. should be bystander selfie? unknown? -- Geagea (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If the legal owner is the subject, that should be mentioned with "taken by passerby". Yann (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow, what a strangely sensible copyright law! Nosferattus (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Likely inherited from older UK copyright law. I don't know if a bystander photo would count as a "commissioned" work, as that usually implies being paid for it. It's frankly a situation that I don't think is contemplated by actual copyright law, as the likelihood of suing is basically zero so the situation never comes up (it would be virtually impossible for the bystander to prove they took it). I do think we should allow them, using commissioning logic as mentioned above, or co-author logic, or whatever seems reasonable, at least until an actual court case comes up giving us some guidance. I don't think such photos should be inherently "unfree" as they are an edge case which has never really come up, and I'm guessing the person requesting the photo would be able to exercise the copyright in most places. At worst, it's an orphan work with basically a 0% chance of ever identifying the person taking the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I have already consulted with the legal advisor of the Wikimedia Israel association on the matter of "commissioned" because the original Hebrew law is clearer on this matter and the English translation implies an apparent payment. The Hebrew word "הזמנה" says invitation or asking for without any matter of payment. It's very clear in Hebrew. The official law is the Hebrew version. There is no official english translation and all the translation are just a translations. -- Geagea (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And also, when I was in an age of 13 I celebrated Bar mitzvah. My parents received all the negatives from the photos. This was the custom in Israel. In my opinion, the law is not related to the United Kingdom. This section was added later after the court rulings and in accordance with the practice in Israel. -- Geagea (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: under Israeli law (as I understand it), Section 35(b) applies only if there was an active request for the photo, a clear invitation before it was taken. A spontaneous passerby photo without such a request wouldn't qualify as "commissioned", and copyright would default to the (unknown) photographer under Section 33.

In US cases, when similar questions arise at VRT, I've asked the subject whether they directed the pose, framing, and overall composition, and whether the person who pressed the shutter was acting solely under their instruction. If so, the subject may be considered the copyright holder, but if the photographer contributed any creative input, we need permission from them directly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course, "request for the photo". That's how I understand bystander selfie. Most of the cases the photo taken with the phone of the depicted. -- Geagea (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And, the law is only for "portrait or a photograph of a family event or other private event". Not all the photos. -- Geagea (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Love of My Life

Would it be okay for me to publish a cover of the "Love of My Life" song by Queen? And if so, under what Creative Commons license? Thank you.
-- Silas Nicolaisen (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

A piano cover, I might add.

-- Silas Nicolaisen (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Silas Nicolaisen: unless somehow you can get a free license from Freddie Mercury's heirs for the tune (not likely), no. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah... a shame, given the song’s undeniable quality.

-- Silas Nicolaisen (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

1941 photos from Canadian government archive

Hi, I received some photos which would be helpful for illustrating an existing article about a historic building in Ontario, Canada. They were taken in 1941, and are held in the Archives of Ontario.

The archivist responsible for this particular collection confirmed to me via email that the copyright has lapsed and the photographs are in the public domain. However, this does not appear to be an allowable category for Commons upload. Am I interpreting Commons policy correctly? Might it be appropriate for upload to English language Wikipedia if not Commons? Thank you! Goyston (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Goyston: Usually, that could be uploaded to Commons with PD-Canada and PD-1996 (depending on the date of first publication). You're not telling much about the photos, their authors, their former copyright owners, how and when they arrived at the public archive. Some actual details could help. Are they documented on the website of the Archives of Ontario? Can you provide a link to the specific information? -- Asclepias (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Unfortunately there's not much known. Here's the detail link. We know the company that took the photos - a photography agency called Pringle & Booth Ltd - but not the specific photographer. They arrived at the archive because they were submitted by the building owner to the Theatres Inspection Branch (of the Government of Ontario), as visual proof of compliance with safety standards. Goyston (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I say upload them to Commons. It is probable that they are in the public domain in Canada, either because they were taken before 1949 and not published by the government or, alternatively, because they were published before 1975 by the government. There may be some possibility that someone might argue about their copyright status in the United States. From what you said, I understant that the photos were transmitted to the branch of the government soon after they were taken, in 1941. Here are some questions that you probably cannot answer, but anyway. Were the photos otherwise published, in the same year or in another year? In what year were the photos transferred to the Ontario Archives? When the photos were in the possession of the inspection branch, was it possible for members of the public to consult them and to request copies? The definition of publish in Canada is to make available to the public. In the case Keatley Surveying v. Teranet, in 2019, the Supreme Court judged that documents had been published by the government by being in the custody of a government office and the public could request copies. Your link seems to lead to some sort of restricted website that requires a login. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Goyston Any photo created prior to January 1, 1949 is Public Domain in Canada, and anything before 1946 is safe to upload if it meets {{PD-1996}}.

You mention "Theatre Inspection Branch", in relation to the Government of Ontario. That sounds familiar to an existing GLAM Category at Category:Images from Archives of Ontario – RG 56-11 Theatre photographs of the Motion Picture Censorship Theatre Inspection Branch. About half of the 2397 photographs from 'Series - RG 56-11' were uploaded to the Commons and have been released under an Open License by the Ontario Archives as they held Crown Copyright. I'm guessing they either never got around to uploading, or they don't hold Crown Copyright on the other half. However, it is very unlikely that these photos would have had any reason to be published in the USA, if they were simply being sent to the Ontario Government for inspection.

Your provided link does not work but based on the text of it, are you referring to "Item - RG 56-11-0-314 - Revue Theatre, Toronto"? For a 1941 photo, it is either {{PD-Canada}} & {{PD-1996}} or {{PD-Canada-Crown}}.

Regardless, it is safe to upload. PascalHD (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, nice find, the category "Images from Archives of Ontario – RG 56-11". Indeed, the photos described by Goyston seem to be part of the same collection. The description of the collection RG 56-11 at the AO website seems to imply that all photos were submitted to the government by the operators of the theatres. So, all photos in that collection should have the same type of copyright (whether ordinary or Crown, depending on the facts). The potential problem in relation to US copyright is not that the photos were published *in* the US, it is to determine *if* and in what year they were published in Canada (by a person or entity who had the legal right to do so and under what type of copyright). For example, if Pringle & Booth Ltd owned the ordinary Canadian copyright until its expiration in 1992, and if the photos were not legally published before 1989-03, the photos would be under copyright in the US by the legal successors of Pringle & Booth Ltd. If the photos somehow became Crown copyrighted because they were considered published at some time by the government in circumstances that meet the criteria described in Keatley (which is possible but disputable, considering the facts), then it is necessary to determine the year when such publication occurred, to know if that Crown copyright has expired or not. The photos already in the category "Images from Archives of Ontario – RG 56-11" have been tagged with a licence OGL-ON, presumably at the direction of the Archives of Ontario. I don't know if the Archives assumed that they hold a copyright on every item in their collection, or if they used a more specific rationale. Full details may not be necessary, but we need at least a plausible rationale to support either a conclusion that the Archives of Ontario actually hold a copyright and that it is not expired (in that case, Commons cannot host the specific photos without the Archives of Ontario offering them under a free licence), or a conclusion that the photos were published in a manner and at a time sufficient to avoid a US copyright and are in the public domain in Canada either because they were under ordinary copyright (privately held or contractually transferred to the government) or because they were deemed to have acquired a Crown copyright by being published by the government when they were held at the Theatre Inspection Branch or when they became held at the Archives of Ontario, in which case the year of publication determines the year of Crown copyright expiration, 50 years later. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:5 Pointz

After the deletion discussion for the "Non-free graffiti" template, I realized that there may be a bigger graffiti issue. Category:5 Pointz contains pictures of the famous 5 Pointz graffiti site in Long Island City, most taken before the site was redeveloped and the murals removed. A lot of the images could probably be de minimis or PD-Text for any basic text-based graffiti tags, but the vast majority seem to be clear violations of the graffiti artists' copyright. 5 Pointz was of course famously the origin point of a lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court which in effect confirmed that graffiti art is copyrightable in the U.S.

Anyone have the time to help sort through this? I feel bad about how much will need to be deleted - I do think it's important to have a solid historical record/historical images of 5 Pointz - but this appears to be straightforward copyvio for the plurality of images in the category. 19h00s (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Mayerberg and His Highly-questioned Copyright Status

Following an earlier discussion on the same images, which led to the pasting of an Email—which I have since deleted—from the Truman Library to verify the copyright status of multiple photos, @UndercoverClassicist remained questioning their copyright status in the subject's discussion for a DYK on Wikipedia. He spoke of a team—which he was unable to name—that verified Emails used for copyright verifications. What is the name of this team? Guerreroast (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hold on: you've deleted the email? If so, this is probably not going to get very far -- after all, how can a volunteer verify the authenticity of an email that no longer exists? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Guerreroast: The user was likely thinking of the Volunteer Response Team (VRT). That's where people send emails to confirm their permissions and other communications. From the way the information is organized on the website of the Truman Library, the line "credit" states the origin of the item. (For example the credit for an item originating from the NASA). In the case of the photos of Mayerberg, the origin is the Truman Library itself. Given that origin, and the fact that those photos were taken in the building of the library, and the statement that the item is in the public domain, and in the absence of anything that might indicate that it is not true, it seems safe enough to accept that the item is indeed in the public domain. The email may not be absolutely necessary but it is very useful, as it nicely confirms the situation and that the item was created by an employee of the Truman Library and it can be referred to if similar discussions occur. The usual procedure is that emails are sent directly by the external correspondents to the VRT. However, the VRT, at their discretion, may accept copies. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Venezolario

Kind regards. I wanted to ask if the text in this image(), and only the text, met the threshold of originality considering its design and the shape of the first "O". NoonIcarus (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

considering the o, it's probably above. JayCubby (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

IUCN

I was looking to upload a more accurate home range for the bullnose ray as created and distributed by the IUCN in their PDF assessment of the species. Its Terms of Use page appears to allow the redistribution of material found in assessments as long as it is not used for sold works, it is used explicitly for educational purposes, and provides a full citation to the IUCN. However, I can not find any specific creative commons license, so I don't know if it is actually okay to redistrbute on Wikipedia or not. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. ZonKonigin (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The condition that "it is not used for sold works" is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing, which requires that works be reusable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". Omphalographer (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Trying to correct public domain license

A photograph taken by me, Jay Eff, was uploaded by other people to the following page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Deer (plus one other page)

It has been challenged on copyright grounds and marked for deletion because the posters gave insufficient copyright information re derivatives. It should have been made clear that the image was a public domain donation by me, with all rights waved for this and any derivatives. I am the photographer and both I and the subject of the page wish it to be labelled as in the public domain.

The image is from this website page: https://briandeer.com/lourenco-veado.htm

However, I can find no way to amend the current image on Wikipedia, or upload another with the correct information. What should I do to correct the error? JayDSLR (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayDSLR: I presume this is about File:Brian deer.jpg (please link files when discussing them).

It looks to me like this matter is resolved, am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Music & Community - Inside the Chinchilla Café

With many other contributors, I produced this documentary about hosting queer music in a do-it-yourself community center in my small town of Charlottesville, Virginia, United States.

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and Wikimedia Commons contributor. As such, I recognize the novelty of many aspects of this video, including that we include clips of copyrighted music with Creative Commons licenses from the artists, and that video content is uncommon in Commons.

Along with this video, we have taken lots of photos of music groups in our town, built Wikidata items for them, and connected photos to Wikidata items. See Chinchilla Café for more files. The photos themselves are snapshots of queer Americana and fashion for a town this size. My colleague Robin presented about the project at WikiConference North America 2024, and we have the video for that here too.

If anyone has reactions, questions, or comments, then please sure.

Bluerasberry (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Providing internal links so you can readily see the file pages:

• File:Music & Community - Inside the Chinchilla Café.webm
• File:Chinchilla Café media permission documents.pdf
• File:WikiConference NA 2024： Wikidata profiling of small town art.webm

Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)