Library back up project

These files are uploaded in Library back up project. Besides them, More copyright books was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This problem must be solved. Biáng (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Biáng: Hi, You can simply nominate them for deletion, and add the DR in the appropriate "Undelete in ...." category. Yann (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

However, The number of books that to be inspected their condition of copyright is over a million. I can’t finish this by myself. Additionally, some of libraries don’t allow to use their own resources for free. For example, Waseda university library requires a fee for using their contents on business (please read this Japanese page). For these reasons, it seems that we must delete files by their sources firstly. Biáng (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Biáng: We don't care what other sources say if the works are in the public domain. For that, all we need to know are the author's death and the date of publication. We can create mass-deletion requests if we have these information. All files should have a category for the author. Then it is easy to delete a whole category. Yann (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. I wanted some collaborators for deleting files that violate Copyright, but I found it difficult. Biáng (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Or add the filenames to the specific categories of Commons:Library back up project/deletion requests and nominate the files for speedy deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Andy Warhol's soup cans (was: Licensing verification)

File:Campbell's Soup Cans by Andy Warhol.jpg was uploaded yesterday and inserted into Wikipedia article space. Is its claimed PD-US-not renewed/cc-by-2.0 licensing correct.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

We have two more photos of these paintings in Category:Campbell's Soup Cans and have also deleted several files showing them over the years. MOMA and Campbell's Soup Cans (Q2697937) say they are copyrighted. Is there any evidence that they are in fact PD-US-not-renewed as claimed? --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, MoMA is probably relying on the Warhol Foundation's claim of copyright, not their own analysis/research.

The uploader appears to be correct that the paintings in the image are indeed the same set that were first exhibited at Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles in 1962 (Warhol made many additional versions of his soup can works as both paintings and prints, but we can rule out the possibility that the pictured works are from a later version/set). Unclear if the works sold at that specific show; is the offer of sale enough for publication?

I have never seen the back of these paintings (nor could I find a photo with a cursory Google search) so I don't know if they truly lack a copyright notice, but I've also never been clear on whether the notice needs to be on the front of 2-d works of art like this - I've always just assumed that the notice can be anywhere on the work, even the verso.

But if there is indeed no notice on the paintings, and if the exhibition in Los Angeles counted as publication, and if the uploader/others were/are unable to find a renewal, then it would seem they're PD.

Late addition: Didn't think about the Campbell's of it all. Not sure how their IP plays into this situation; I believe Warhol got permission to make these works originally, but I have no idea what kind of agreement might have been made re: ownership. The uploader says they couldn't find a renewal under Campbell's name either, so it might be a moot issue. --19h00s (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagging in @Toohool as a courtesy as the uploader! 19h00s (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any Campbell's issue. Likely not copyrightable in the first place, published without notice anyways, de minimis in the paintings even if it was under copyright, and the design dates from long before 1930 as well so it's expired. The paintings come down to whether the they were legally published before 1964, which is very possible but a thorny question, and can be possibly be different based on judicial circuit and precedent court cases. Before 1976, Melville Nimmer's 1956 distillation of court cases said: The relevant decisions indicate that publication occurs when by consent of the copyright owner the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur. The Copyright Compendium of the era was a bit more equivocal if it was a single painting being sold. Sale or offering for sale of a single copy could be publication, depending upon the intent of the copyright proprietor. When the applicant states that only one copy has been sold, registration will be made if the applicant also indicates that he considers this publication. Post 1978, the 1984 compendium said that a sale of a painting to a private collector was not publication. The reference cited did seem as though the works were up for sale to the general public -- unsure if those were the originals, or a print. But that is a pretty good case for publication. The exhibition alone is not publication, unless they allowed photographs etc. inside (which is hard to know). But the offering for sale, documented in the 1962 newspaper article linked from the image, is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like only two of the paintings actually sold and left the gallery during that exhibition (plus several others that were paid for but bought back by the gallery before being picked up), but they were indeed the originals and they were indeed available for public purchase. It seems like the price on the paintings changed between the article and the show actually opening - they went for $100 each, not $200 as the LA Times says. (Perhaps the works just weren't selling and they had to cut the price). But yes, based on your analysis and the history of the exhibition/sales, it seems like these paintings were all published by virtue of being offered for public sale at this exhibition. 19h00s (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am going to assume all is well, since a lot of eyes have taken a look at this without action or suggestion of action.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will say, I believe this image raises some sticky questions, particularly in re: Commons's/other projects' relationship to GLAM institutions and the art world. To my eye, we have an essentially airtight case for the paintings being PD, just based on the public record alone. But Wikidata had apparently been relying on MoMA's presumption of copyright for years. MoMA almost certainly was just basing their presumption off the Warhol Foundation's claim - there are very few museums that don't defer to the artists/their estates when it comes to copyright. That calls into question the entire idea of using museums as sources for copyright information at all for any recent (past 100 years) works. (On the other hand, there are almost no museums equipped/funded to do the work that LOC is able to do in tracking down authoritative copyright statuses, so I don't exactly blame them for just doing the easy thing; and structurally, it doesn't make sense to tick off artists/their estates by denying them a claim of copyright when you as a museum need them to be willing to loan works/participate in shows/give you donations).

  The second element is this specific artist and the kinds of powerful market institutions that represent this kind of artist (certainly a very small slice of the totality of visual art in the world, but a high-profile slice). If Oldenburg's estate was willing to issue a takedown notice, might the Warhol Foundation try it too? Not raising that as a PCP issue, but genuinely wondering what would happen in that situation. Because it doesn't feel implausible; other estates/foundations have tried similar things in situations just as "airtight" as this one.

  (I say this all with peace and love to GLAM folks, artists, and anyone else; this is a touchy subject, don't want to inflame anything). --19h00s (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  (Understandable if no one wants to open this can of worms, but I fear it will be forced opened eventually if we continue to host works that we determine are PD through clear commonsense analysis but that high-profile artists/estates/museums claim are copyrighted.) --19h00s (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think there's much to worry about. For one thing, works that are PD-US for lack of formalities like this one are still under copyright in most of the rest of the world; Warhol's works are still protected until at least 2038 (50pma) most everywhere. So the assertions of copyright aren't entirely wrong. Also I don't think that identifying these works as PD really has much effect on the market for them. Companies that want to republish or merchandise artworks are pretty cautious about copyright, so they'll still probably seek licenses from the rights administrators, rather than trusting the conclusions of some amateurs on a website.

If they were to send a takedown, WMF tends to not honor it unless there's a credible legal argument behind it. The Oldenburg case isn't really comparable, because the law was on their side (imho); EU freedom of panorama laws don't apply in the US. Toohool (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• @TonyTheTiger and 19h00s: There is a copyright renewal for "Campbell Soup cans : no. SC14.001." by Andy Warhol (Registration Number: VAu000275303; Date: 1993-06-01). However, the renewal says that the work was created in 1964. Nosferattus (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Now that is interesting. The version renewed seems to be a later version of one of the soup can works - which can/version, I'm not sure (there are over a dozen variations, in painting, print, and sculpture form). The medium line is kinda throwing me off; I'm not aware of any Warhol soup can 2-D paintings that were produced on wood.

  What this could be is one of the Campbell's box sculpture-paintings, which would seem to match the medium in the renewal (here's one that seems to match, also in MoMA's collection). But the year on the renewal doesn't match the year on the original soup cans exhibited/offered for sale in LA in '62. 19h00s (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Or possibly one of the can sculptures, like this example in the Chrysler Museum in Virginia? 19h00s (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Neither of those seem especially likely to me. There is a separate renewal for a Campbell's Soup Box, and the renewal mentioned above is for "Soup cans" plural, so the sculpture doesn't seem likely either. The description at https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_1813291 is mangled for some reason. The description in the old database says "Paint + pencil artwork on wood", which I'm guessing is the non-mangled version. I also have no idea which artwork it is referring to. Nosferattus (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Still digging, still can't find anything that exactly matches the description. If anyone has a copy of the catalogue raisonné it's almost certainly in there (not holding my breath that anyone does, that thing is like 6 volumes and costs almost $4k USD for the whole thing). I can take a look next week when one of the libraries with a copy nearby is open. But it feels like it was a work associated with w:The American Supermarket exhibition in '64, or else a one-off piece similar to the painting he made for the Campbell's board chair that same year. And I actually do think the renewal was for a single piece, based on the numbering in the registration - "SC14.001" isn't a USCO number, that's a Warhol/Foundation catalogue number (SC = soup can), presumably it would be ".001-.00X" if it were a set of works. 19h00s (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Toohool Not to put you on the spot but I'm presuming you already did some digging to cross your t's and dot your i's here while searching for a renewal; did you figure out which soup can work was actually renewed, or did you assume the mismatched dates meant it was a nonissue for this file (as I kind of assumed tbh)? 19h00s (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Toohool's original upload said "No relevant copyright renewals were found through searches for "Warhol", "Campbell's", and related terms." So I guessed they missed it somehow, possibly because the registration title is for "Campbell Soup cans" instead of "Campbell's Soup cans". Nosferattus (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not a renewal, it's an original registration. The "VAu" prefix indicates an unpublished visual arts work. So it's a work that was created in 1964, and by 1993 had never been published (at least not in a legal sense). There are a lot of registrations of unpublished works by the Warhol Foundation through the 1990s. Presumably they were trying to protect what they could, since most of Warhol's works had probably gone into the public domain due to lack of copyright notice. It might be interesting to know what that work is; but it couldn't have any impact on the copyright of the paintings that were published in 1962, and whose copyright (if there even were a copyright notice) had expired by 1991. Toohool (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

OK then it seems like we're back where we were before -- the pictured works are PD, the file is allowed on Commons (thanks for looping back, Toohool, appreciate your insights here!). Unless we really need to prove that the above registration is for a different work, I'm gonna go ahead and cancel the library hold I put on the catalogue raisonné (I don't feel like schlepping to LOC unless I really need to).

Happy to let sleeping dogs lie if no one wants to discuss the broader questions this image raises. 19h00s (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

El Salvador

• Relevant page: COM:CRT/El Salvador

Page needs to be updated, new (2024) copyright law now in force. Luckily, FoP provision remains intact under Article 45(f). Still, other provisions may have changed, though. Ping also @Sebastian Wallroth: who posted the update on Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/El Salvador (even if it's possible that there are very few or no page watchers for it). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done updating. Some noticeable points:

• Government works are protected by default. The only "public thing" from them are "documents of a strictly historical nature contained in the National Archives", but the free use right is only granted to "private individuals", so not sure if Wikimedia Commons can benefit.
• A possible red flag on Salvadoran Freedom of Panorama. There was no subheading for Article 45 in the 1993-2017 version of the law, but in the 2024 version of the law, the subheading "Uso personal, académico y cultural de obras sujetas a protección" was added, denoting that all of the free uses under that article, including the Freedom of Panorama clause (clause (f)) carried over from the 1993-2017 version, must be of a "personal, academic, and/or cultural nature". As a media archive and repository site, do we fulfill the last-mentioned requirement of hosting their landmarks and public heritage for cultural purposes?

The 2024 law is apparently retroactive in the context of procedures and actions concerning copyright registrations, as per Article 335. ("Distinctive signs, patents, acts, and copyright contracts registered pursuant to previous laws shall retain the validity granted to them by said laws, but any procedure or action initiated regarding said registrations after the effective date of this law shall be processed in accordance with the provisions contained therein.")

There are no changes in terms and durations.

The updated Salvadoran FoP rule needs discussion. Ping @Sebastian Wallroth: (who posted message on CRT talk page) for an opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JWilz12345, thank you for your efforts. I'm sorry, but my legal knowledge is only sufficient to understand explanations on Commons to a limited extent. I don't feel confident enough to engage in a discussion. Kind regards, --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also mention for their opinions: @VTSGsRock and Clindberg: . This is reminiscent to the questions on the Ecuadorian FoP status recently. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the best expert on FoP since I "specialize" on historical copyright terms (which have changed over time), but I'd lean OK. The definition of cultural use is very broad and is similar to COM:FOP Ecuador before 2016, which had FoP as long as the images were made for disseminating culture (which practically applies to any taking of photograph or video). Because of this I'll assume that FoP is covered by cultural usage. VTSGsRock (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

My hunch, though, is in negative side: purely cultural purpose ≠ free / commercial uses of buildings and monuments. This parallels COM:CRT/El Salvador#Stamps, in which an official email response (see here) asserts Salvadoran stamps can only be used for philatelic, cultural, and educational purposes (informatory media), and all commercial uses of stamps are punishable by Salvadoran law. In the parallel logic, with the 2024 "restriction" (introduced by possibly retroactive law), it is an offense to freely photograph and share El Salvador's buildings and monuments for commercial/lucrative purposes. Nevertheless, I'm waiting for other responses if they have different opinions on this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The FoP provision is different from the restriction on Salvadoran stamps because there is a non-commercial restriction on stamps, unlike FoP, although both restrict use to academic and cultural uses. VTSGsRock (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock perhaps "cultural" use may include lawful commercial uses like dissemination of images in postcards and commercial blogs to promote Salvadoran culture. I'll wait for more opinions, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Questions about a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service video

Hello, I was doing license review and I came across this video:

• File:Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) scolding call in response to Pied-billed Grebe broadcast- Great Meadows NWR, Concord, MA (7245585004).webm

The Flickr source (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) has put the video under PDM 1.0, and the upload-bot has put it under {{PD-USGov-FWS}}. However, the watermark in the video clear states the author is a USFWS “volunteer”. So is the {{PD-USGov-FWS}} template applicable to the video? If it is not, then which license template should it be under? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, let us approach this from a viewpoint of employment laws. If I'm not mistaken, volunteers to some organisation are usually integrated in the chain of command and reporting of that organisation, even if they are not paid for their work. They still take charge of duties for the benefit of the organisation and are likely protected by workplace insurances against bodily harm incurred during working (if applicable). I think that such a person can be seen as being in the employ of the organisation. So, I would assume that a work made by a volunteer affiliated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service falls under the PD tag Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Philippine copyright guide chart similar to COM:Hirtle_chart

I revised the copyright chart based on this discussion. Please tell me if there are any problems with it. Thanks. --Aristorkle (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aristorkle how about tables similar to those used under COM:Japan#Terms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Should I add it under the already existing tables? —Aristorkle (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Translated Work

I had previously uploaded a translated work here: File:The 'Gang of Four' Sabotaged the Campaign to Learn From Tachai in Agriculture in a Vain Attempt to Restore Capitalism.pdf. I'm sure the translator's copyright is okay, but my issue is whether the writers of the original, presuming it existed, have copyright claims. Please let me know. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The description states the original document was authored by the Taning County CCP Committee. Per the discussion in Chinese Wikisource in wikisource:zh:Template_talk:PD-PRC-CPC#中共地方委员会的其它文件, their opinion is that the documents by local CCP committees are not copyright-exempted under {{PD-PRC-CPC}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the PDF is now deleted, so I wanted to add that the original text should enter PD in China in 2027. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: : You say 2027, is that because fifty years would have passed, and hence {tl|PD-PRC}} would apply?? I may start uploading things over 50 years old. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-PRC}} would apply since it is a organisation work and in 2027 it will be 50 years after it was published. Also, just a reminder, when you upload PD works from China, just make sure it is also in PD in the US as well. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Works that can be freely used for non-commercial purposes only

I'm new to Commons. {{Copyrighted free use}} allows commercial use, but are there any copyright tags to indicate that commercial use is not permitted?I don't speak English very well, so this text is machine translated. OUT is this (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@OUT is this: Hi, non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Commons. You can ask questions in another language. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok.thank you OUT is this (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Public domain - Serbia

The copyright law in Serbia states that "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions" is not copyrighted work. Is the public service broadcaster a state body or a body performing a public function? ImStevan (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

New uploader here, just looking to clarify

Howdy! I've been a Wikipedia contributor for several years but I'm still new to Wikimedia. I've been wanting to upload some images for a while now, but was holding off on doing so as I researched the copyright policy. I believe I've come to some conclusions, but I just wanted to check before I actually uploaded anything to make sure that I am in the clear. All images that I discuss are sourced from newspaper archives accessed via ProQuest.

First, and presumably least contentious, there are a couple images from newspapers in 1929 that I was hoping to upload. From everything I have read, I believe images published in 1929 should unambiguously be in the public domain (and therefore clear for uploading), even assuming maximum possible copyright renewal. I believe the "PD-US-expired" tag would apply in this case? If it matters, the main image I am wanting to upload is a sketch of a canceled skyscraper, although there is an image or two of the construction site of a different skyscraper that I may wish to upload as well.

I was more concerned about a different batch of images. The skyscraper in question was mainly built in 1930, so there are several images in The Cincinnati Post and The Cincinnati Enquirer of the construction process that were published in 1930. If I understand Wikimedia policy correctly, these images would clearly enter the public domain on January 1, 2026 and be eligible for upload, but that's only assuming maximum possible renewal. I manually checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries for 1957-58 (when works from 1930 would have been renewed) and could find no mention of any either newspaper being renewed. There is another image from 1931, which I also could not find any mention of in 1958-59. On a different subject, there is also a photo of an architect from a 1940 obituary in the Enquirer, and again, I found no relevant mentions in the 1967-68 catalog. To the best of my knowledge, none of the photos mentioned here were attributed to a syndicated source. Do I need stronger proof of non-renewal, or would these images most likely fall under "PD-US-not renewed"? Thank you in advance for any advice! Silver181 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

John Mark Ockerbloom has a great resource for this. Cincinnati Enquirer is in the clear until 1964 as nothing was renewed. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/enqohcincinnati Cincinnati Post started to renew contributions for their July 11, 1938 issue, so everything before is fair game. Afterwards, checking the Post's renewals should be done. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/postohcincinnati Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Colorized reproduction of PD original?

If an art-print company takes an old PD black-and-white line drawing and colorizes it, can they claim a new copyright for this derivative work? Asking because a question was raised on the WP helpdesk about this upload: File:Governor John Winthrop. Muzilon (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: If the colorizing is done by a human (not AI) and rises to the level of the copyrightable, yes. The example there looks like the colorization would be copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In the US? The Copyright Office has been really leery of giving copyrights for colorization. They invited public discussion in 1987 before accepting that if you colorized a whole movie, you could claim copyright for that. https://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html quotes them as saying "The overall appearance of the motion picture must be modified; registration will not be made for the coloring of a few frames or the enhancement of color in a previously colored film." I think this would akin to coloring a few frames, and not eligible for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The image is clearly a colorized version of a line drawing originally published in a 19th century work, Cassell's History of the United States. The artist's signature reads "Whymper sc.", so likely w:Josiah Wood Whymper (d. 1903). Although the original b&w image is PD, the immediate source of the colorized image does have a copyright notice. At the very least, the uploader's claim of a "CC-0" license doesn't seem to be quite correct. Muzilon (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Photo of the Millwall FC crest.jpg

Does this file violate COM:FOP UK or is it okay to host it on Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean COM:TOO UK? I don’t see why would this be related to FoP. The logo is surely above COM:TOO UK (which is very low), and per this website , the version of the logo was first used in 2014, and the lion design in it was first used in 2007. So the logo is most likely still copyrighted and should be deleted. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy No, I was referring to FOP. It's clearly above COM:TOO UK so the question is if it is copyright exempt because of FOP, since it's a photo. If not, then it can be speedily deleted as {{Logo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. So no, this is a 2D “graphic work” and it is not allowed under COM:FOP UK. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

PD-BrazilGov

Are these correctly licensed with {{PD-BrazilGov}}? Jonteemil (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

These images appear not to be related to the Brazilian government. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tiberio Silva Souza. Jonteemil (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump Truth Social profile pic

Is this depiction of Donald Trump in American flag () which is public domain per {{PD-USGov}}? Absolutiva (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Depends on (1) Who to the photo; (2) who made this derivate work/design? Not simply on who uploaded the image to social media. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Logo de ChatGPT

Buenas administradores, una pregunta el logo de ChatGPT (File:ChatGPT-Logo.svg) esta por debajo de Umbral de Originalidad (below TOO) o encima del Umbral de Originalidad (above TOO) en Estados Unidos (USA) porque no sabemos si ese logo es un tipo de cuerpo geometrico? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This question is important because point 3 of the license ("The ChatGPT mark should not be featured more prominently than the user's own company name or marks") is probably beyond what is allowed by the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and point 6 ("We may terminate permission to use our Marks at any time, and usage must stop promptly.") says that it's revocable. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Flagging that I asked this back in March and only got one response, saying it's above ToO in the U.S. 19h00s (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying that @Glrx was also on the fence about ToO in this case but recommended a PCP deletion. I should've reread that archive page more closely! 19h00s (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt: those would presumably be restrictions based on trademark law, not copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Buenas ,ya comenzé el DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChatGPT-Logo.svg). AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The license is a trademark license; that is irrelevant. Less sure on the copyright. But... it's really one graphic shape repeated in a non-original way. I'm not sure that one shape is enough for a copyright. Compare some decisions by the Copyright Office: . Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fox-Howl.ogg

Reposting this from Wikipedia's Copyright Questions:

I don't know where the sound originated from exactly (as that seems lost to time, though it was in many early Disney movies/shorts) but I definitely know that User:LokYYs did not create it, as this sound effect has been used in media since the 1940s. Currently you can license the sound from Sound Ideas. The original file name is "ANMLWdog_Coyote_HB02-78-4" and is on Hanna-Barbera Sound Effects Library disc 2. I don't think Wikipedia has the legal right to use this sound on their page, but I'm not entirely sure what to do about it. Thank you. Migsy1 (talk) Migsy1 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of IUCN species distribution/range maps

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this question! I'm looking to update the distribution/range map for Keel-billed toucan, which currently uses File:Ramphastos sulfuratus range.png. Firstly, this is a .png, so the range itself is pixellated, and ideally there would be a .svg (scalable) version. The main issue is that the data seems to be out of date; according to the 2021 IUCN Red List, the population trend is decreasing and so the range has reduced in size.

With this goal in mind, I looked at pre-existing species range maps, and most seem to cite IUCN Red List data. Commons:IUCN Red List includes a link to IUCN's Spatial Data Download page, implying that (at some point in the past, at least) this data was released under a free licence. However, as the page currently states, "The data are made freely available for non-commercial use, to help inform conservation planning and other non-commercial decision-making processes (see Terms and Conditions of Use)." See also The IUCN Red List Terms and Conditions of Use, updated June 2024.

I'm aware that content licensed for non-commercial (NC) use is not allowed on Commons, so for instance this map can't be directly uploaded. Am I right in thinking that tracing (or even approximating) the distribution regions would make the resulting map a derivative work, and therefore also NC use only and not allowed on Commons?

This question also extends to non-IUCN spatial data, for instance derived from maps published in non-free-use journal articles. If the only part of the map that is reproduced is the spatial data (ie. species distribution/range), with no transfer of any stylistic elements aside from that, is the resulting map classed as a derivative work? My gut instinct says that it will be, but I just want to check before I embark on trying to find a Commons-friendly source for up-to-date distribution maps. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

In case it helps, the potential derivative work would be an .svg version of this map: keel-billed toucan range no labels.png (Google Drive). The range has been traced from the IUCN map but no stylistic features have been replicated. As mentioned above, I'm assuming that because of IUCN's non-commercial limitation on usage of their data (not just their graphics), this wouldn't be allowed on Commons, but it would be great if someone with more expertise/experience with copyright issues could confirm that this is the case. Thank you! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Commissioned works and work for hire agreements

Having the precautionary principle in mind, do we require creators of commissioned works to prove that they did not enter into a work for hire agreement? If the answer is "it depends", then where should the line be drawn?

These questions are related but different to one I asked on the VRT noticeboard; I'm asking here because I asked this question on Discord and obtained two contradictory answers. I'm trying to obtain permission for the original Kind of Bloop cover art; I initially told its creator that if they were paid, then I had to also seek permission from the person who paid them, the idea behind this being that if both released the same work under a free license, then it would not matter who owned the copyright. But on second thought, it's very likely that the cover art's creator was not an employee, but the possibility still remains that they signed a WFH agreement. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how this is much different than the possibility that the author of any given work might have granted an exclusive license to someone (with or without the transfer of copyright) that contradicts the granting of a free license. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The original Kind of Bloop album art is unusually problematic because it is likely a derivative work of Jay Maisel's photography for Kind of Blue. Obtaining permission from the pixel artist is probably not sufficient. Omphalographer (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The cover art seems to be only a derivative of Maisel's photograph as published on the Kind of Blue album cover, so whatever copyright Maisel asserts on his work should not be an impediment. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Er... seems like the copyright owner of that photograph would be the one that matters. If Maisel sold his copyright to the record company, it would be them. If just partially licensed, then the photographer likely still owns the derivative rights for other uses. Plus of course, the copyright of whoever pixellated it, unless that was done via algorithm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The only ways for the album cover to still be copyrighted are 1) if Columbia Records' publication of Maisel's photo was unauthorized or 2) it was somehow restored by the URAA. My question is solely about obtaining permission for the derivative work; I would request that you at least pretend that the underlying work is PD or does not exist at all. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah OK right, it was 1959. Unsure if the phonogram renewal would apply to the album cover, I have my doubts. On the derivative work, it would come down to the agreement between the parties, which we would not know. They could have agreed to make it a work for hire, or it could simply be licensed meaning the original artist retains the copyright. Or there could be an exclusive license, which would basically mean two parties basically each own parts of the copyright and you may need permission from both. It may be easier to start with one party (the artist maybe), and seek their permission, and also enquire as to the agreement such that you would need permission from the other party instead (or in addition to). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

(Regarding your second sentence, you might find Jefferson Airplane v. Berkeley Systems, Inc. (holding that the copyright registration of a sound recording does not encompass the accompanying album cover) to be of worth.) prospectprospekt (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Before the source country established copyright relations with the United States

For this part of {{PD-1996}} The U.S. only became a party to the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989. Some countries signed Berne Convention before like Libya on Sept. 28, 1976 and didn't have any other copyright relations with the United States. So which date is actually "before the source country established copyright relations with the United States" for Libya? March 1, 1989 or Sept. 28, 1976?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The earliest URAA date is January 1, 1996. It would only be different if the source country first established copyright relations after that date. While the U.S. joined Berne in 1989, it did not restore foreign copyrights to Berne minimums as required by the treaty. The URAA was the result but it did not take effect until 1996. The U.S. would not have had copyright relations with Libya until 1989 really -- don't think Libya ever joined the UCC. Libyan works were not protected at all before 1989, and while their works were after that date, they were still fully subject to the U.S. notice and renewal requirements for works published before 1989. They would have remained PD in the U.S. until the URAA took effect. So for that part, the answer would be 1989. If a country only established relations in say 1993, I'm a little less sure -- but that seems to say anything published before 1993 remained unprotected in the US until the URAA; only unpublished works (where the Berne country of origin was not yet set) could have had protection. After the URAA date, the URAA restorations happen at the same moment relations come into effect (meaning the vast majority of PD works in that country at that moment remain PD in the US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:PD-NL-Gov

This depreciated license template currently redirects to Template:PD-NL-Gov/en. But the Dutch version {{PD-NL-Gov/nl}} remain, it needs to be deleted/depreciated. It was nominated for deletion after 12 years ago, see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en. Absolutiva (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

KG Steel logo

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de KG Steel como este (http://www.kgchem.co.kr/eng/contactus/family.php) fue creado en Corea del Sur (South Korea) el logo es por debajo del Umbral de Originalidad (below TOO)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

COM:CUR Taiwan

This section was recently changed so it currently states all banknotes and coins of NTD (New Taiwan Dollar) are OK to be uploaded (previously it was  Not OK). I have read the previous discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes, but I still don’t fully understand the copyright situation of them.

So, I want to ask is the current statement correct that NTD banknotes and coins are OK to upload to Commons? (Pinging @Zy26 who changed it to “OK”, and @Liuxinyu970226 who added the “Not OK” mark originally) Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Did this user read ticket:2020051710002624? See also zh:Talk:新臺幣#c-Hamish-2020-05-17T11:15:00.000Z-Liuxinyu970226-2020-05-05T11:34:00.000Z:

“

本地合理使用吧，開放宣言不適用紙幣和硬幣圖檔，而且著作權法適用。--Hamish論 2020年5月17日 (日) 11:15 (UTC)

”

I would suggest to revert Zy26's edits as Central Bank Act didn't exempt them from copyrights Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, Thanks User:Liuxinyu970226 for bringing me here. I am not in OTRS now but I can still recall something related to this, and the answer from me is Not OK, at least as of 27 June 2020. For now, from my point of view, I endorse Liuxinyu970226's suggestion after looking into Copyright Act of Taiwan. I'll prepare a detailed thinking after I complete my other stuff. Hamish (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified VRT noticeboard. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

VRT agent (verify): As someone with access to the relevant VRT tickets, I can confirm that the Central Bank has previously clarified, both in 2014 and in 2020, that the images of NTD banknotes and coins are considered protected under the Copyright Act of Taiwan. These statements are consistent and unambiguous about the Bank’s position that copyright applies to the visual elements of currency, and that their Government Website Open Information Announcement (GWOIA) does not apply to banknote or coin imagery.

This latter point is worth emphasizing, as some users previously assumed that {{GWOIA}} could cover currency images. However, the Central Bank has explicitly stated that this open data policy only applies to certain content such as policy texts or employee-created photos published on their website, and not to money or the designs on it.

Because of this, and in line with how we treat similar currency cases on Commons, I believe the earlier  Not OK guidance was more accurate. The recent edit asserting that all NTD currency is in the public domain (due to Article 9 of the Copyright Act) goes beyond what has been confirmed either in law or by the Central Bank. While there may be debate about whether banknotes fall under the "official document" exception, there is no formal ruling establishing that all visual elements of the NTD are therefore public domain, nor has the Central Bank endorsed such an interpretation.

Unless a reliable third-party legal source or a court decision supports this new interpretation (or explanation by the user who made this change why this is correct), I would suggest reverting the change and restoring the  Not OK status. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Central Bank has the authority to make definitive legal interpretations, I trust their clear and repeated statements over a single bold, undiscussed change and interpretation by one editor. Until there’s broader consensus or third-party legal support, we should avoid overturning established guidance. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like we have a prompt VRT agent, I'll state in short. IMO, I trust myself, from the above "本地合理使用吧，開放宣言不適用紙幣和硬幣圖檔，而且著作權法適用", the central bank must have said that the Act applies to banknotes and GWOIA does not (confirmed above). For the banknotes, they are made up of patterns, words, artwork and etc., so I even consider it's an artwork, and the Article 9 of Copyright Act of Taiwan("Act") only exempts "公文"/"其他文書"("scope"), which I think we should interpret to document mainly presented by text. Although there may be a consensus that the NTD is in the type of scope, the copyright of the artwork on notes is still protected and NOT affected under Article 9 of Act, as the issuer officially clarified that the GWOIA does not apply to the banknotes, I have a reasonable assumption that artworks are under no business license, Derivative works of non-free content are not allowed here, hence not ok.

FYI: "文書" is also translated to "text" by Ministry of Education, Taiwan. --Hamish (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy and fellow editors: Thank you for raising the question about the copyright status of New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) banknotes and coins. I’ve reviewed the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes, as well as the subsequent comments by @Liuxinyu970226, @Hamish, and @Jonatan Svensson Glad, including the VRT agent’s input. I’ve also reviewed the key 2021 document from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO, Email 1101217), which provides critical clarity on this issue.

I updated the status to OK based on the 2021 TIPO document, which clarifies that NTD banknotes and coins, as official documents under Article 9 of Taiwan’s Copyright Act, are not protected by copyright as a whole and are in the public domain. This means full images of NTD banknotes and coins can be freely uploaded to Commons. However, individual designs (e.g., portraits or landscapes) may be copyrighted under Article 5 if they are original artworks, requiring permission for separate use.

Here’s how the TIPO document responds to the concerns raised:

Central Bank’s Claims and GWOIA

@Jonatan Svensson Glad noted that the Central Bank stated in VRT tickets 2014050810011876 (2014) and 2020051710002624 (2020) that NTD images are copyrighted, particularly the visual elements, and cannot be used commercially without permission. This likely refers to individual designs that may qualify as original artworks under Article 5 of the Copyright Act. The Central Bank also clarified in the 2020 ticket that their Government Website Open Information Announcement (GWOIA) does not apply to currency images, only to policy texts and employee-taken photos. However, the 2021 TIPO document, from Taiwan’s official intellectual property authority, outweighs these earlier claims. It states that NTD banknotes and coins are exempt under Article 9 as official documents created by public officials, contradicting the Central Bank’s broader copyright claims. TIPO’s interpretation is more authoritative than the Central Bank’s, and the TIPO document relies on Article 9, not GWOIA, making GWOIA irrelevant.

Definition of “Official Document” (公文)

@Hamish suggested that “公文” (official document) in Article 9 refers to text-based documents, not visual artworks on banknotes. The TIPO document explicitly includes NTD banknotes and coins under Article 9, indicating that “公文” covers currency as a whole, not just text. This supports the OK status for full images.

Lack of Court Ruling

@Jonatan Svensson Glad also noted there’s no court ruling confirming NTD’s public domain status. While true, the TIPO document is an official interpretation from Taiwan’s IP authority, sufficient for Commons’ purposes unless contradicted by a higher authority (e.g., a court). It provides a reliable third-party source supporting OK.

Individual Designs

The TIPO document agrees that specific designs on NTD (e.g., images of a person or a mountain) may be copyrighted under Article 5 as original artworks. Cropped or modified images of these designs are  Not OK for Commons without permission from the copyright owner, but full banknote or coin images are fine under Article 9.

Conclusion

The current OK status is correct for uploading full images of NTD banknotes and coins, as they are public domain under Article 9, per the 2021 TIPO document. However, we must warn users that individual designs may be copyrighted.

I encourage @Tvpuppy, @Liuxinyu970226, @Hamish, @Jonatan Svensson Glad, and others to review the TIPO document (below) and share feedback. Let’s work together to ensure the guidance is accurate and clear. Thank you for your input! --Zy26 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

按著作權法第9條(下稱本法)第1項第1款及第2項規定，憲法、法律、命令或公文，不得為著作權法之標的，復按中央銀行法第15條第2、3項規定：「本行所發行紙幣及硬幣之面額、成分、形式及圖案，由本行擬定，報請行政院核定之。本行應將紙幣及硬幣之規格於發行前公告之。」依上述條文規定，中央銀行所發行之新臺幣，如認其係屬公務員職務上制作之文書或處理公務之文書，則屬著作權法第9條第1項第1款所稱「公文」，除其他法令有特別規定外，任何人均得自由利用之，不涉及著作權的問題。惟縱使認新臺幣紙幣不得為著作權之標的，然如其上各別圖案構成本法第5條所定著作，而非前述公文時，欲單獨利用該圖案仍應經各該著作權人同意或授權。

@Zy26: the currency items themselves are not copyrightable per TIPO, but the same agency also states that the designs embodied in the items are copyrightable. However, since those embodied designs or artworks are copyrightable, does that make the currency items derivative works of copyrighted artworks or designs? How does the Taiwanese law treat the publication of copyrighted artworks in documents? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The 2021 letter from TIPO does clarify that New Taiwan Dollar banknotes, as official documents, are not protected as a whole under Article 9 of the Copyright Act. However, it also emphasizes that individual visual elements—such as portraits, landscapes, and artistic designs, may still qualify as protected works under Article 5. That means while the documentary or administrative nature of the banknote might be exempt, the embedded artworks are not necessarily free to use. Since these designs are not merely decorative but are often the creative work of artists under contract, they retain their own copyright status.

Under Commons’ policy on derivative works, any image that includes protected elements, whether or not the full object is exempt, must not be hosted unless all components are clearly in the public domain or freely licensed (unless de minimis). So even if the banknote as a document is not protected, the presence of copyrighted designs within it makes uploading full images legally and policy-wise problematic. Until a court ruling or official licensing makes the situation clearer, the safer and more compliant status would be not OK for full banknote images. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on my native understanding of Chinese, I think "如認其係屬" of what TIPO said is implicting "if it is recognised that.....", that means TIPO didn't define the notes are 公務員職務上制作之文書或處理公務之文書, and "公務員職務上制作之文書或處理公務之文書" is the scope of the Act above exempts. I don't translate it to avoid potential misunderstanding. (Amended)Anyway, if DWs on notes passed the local copyright test, we still need the consensus to "recognise" that notes are the scope mentioned above, but I don't really think that can pass. --Hamish (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, the TIPO's 2021 statement only suggests "任何人均得自由利用之" (lit. every peoples are feel free to use it/them), but not "任何人均得自由改作之" (every peoples are feel free to modify the works). I'd love to consider sending a separate inquiry to TIPO for clarification. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I already sent. Hamish (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26: For reference, your "conclusions" are therefore disputed above. That said, unless and until if TIPO published any clarifications that why derivatives of NTDs are allowed regareless of copyright status, their statement doesn't really qualify for general "Public Domain" as defined by Berne Convention, but rather a facet of CC BY-ND (means, that you're feel free to use, even for commercial purposes, but not allowed to modify and distribute your derivatives without separate, case-by-case consents). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345, @Jonatan Svensson Glad, @Hamish, and @Liuxinyu970226: Thank you all for the excellent and detailed follow-up points. This is exactly the kind of rigorous discussion needed to ensure our policy is accurate. I'd like to address the very valid questions raised about derivative works, the interpretation of TIPO's language, and the scope of "free use."

My core position remains that full, unmodified images of NTD banknotes are OK, and this is based on a careful reading of the authoritative TIPO interpretation in the context of Taiwanese law.

On Derivative Works and the Publication of Artworks in Official Documents

This is the core of the issue, raised by JWilz12345 and Josve05a. The question is: if the individual designs are copyrighted, doesn't that make the full banknote a non-free derivative work?

My argument is that under Taiwanese law, the act of incorporating these designs into a banknote—which is legally defined as a "公文" (official document)—changes the status of that specific version of the artwork.

The government did not simply copy and paste existing art. For the 500 NTD note, they entered into a formal contract with the photographer, Mr. Zhong. Crucially, this contract granted the government the right to modify the original photograph for use on the banknote. The final image on the banknote is, in fact, different from the original photo. This means the government legally created a derivative work.

This legally created derivative was then published as an inseparable part of the banknote. According to TIPO's interpretation of Article 9 of the Copyright Act, the banknote as a whole is a "公文" (Official Document) and thus "shall not be the subject matter of copyright" (不得為著作權法之標的). When a work is published as an integral part of a public domain official document, that specific manifestation of the work enters the public domain along with the document itself.

This is distinct from simply publishing a collection of copyrighted photos in a government report. The banknote's design is part of its legal specification, mandated by the Central Bank Act to be drafted, approved by the Executive Yuan, and publicly announced. The artwork becomes part of the "law" of that banknote. While Mr. Zhong's original, unmodified photograph remains his copyrighted work, the modified version on the banknote is part of a public domain government document. Therefore, Commons is hosting the public domain document, not an infringing derivative work.

On the Interpretation of "如認其係屬" ("if it is recognized that...")

@Hamish makes an excellent point about the conditional phrasing in the 2021 TIPO letter. This is standard language for an administrative agency providing a legal interpretation; TIPO is not a court and cannot make a final judicial ruling. It is explaining the legal framework that would apply.

However, we have more direct guidance from TIPO. On their official website's FAQ page, they are much more direct. When explaining that "公文" are not limited to text, they state: "舉例來說，新台幣的圖案...都是屬於「公文」的一種，不受著作權法的保護。" ("For example, the designs on the New Taiwan Dollar... are a type of 'official document' and are not protected by the Copyright Act."). This is a clear, non-conditional statement from the competent authority, using the currency as a direct example. This confirms their consistent position that the banknotes fall under Article 9.

On "自由利用之" (Free to Use) vs. "自由改作之" (Free to Modify)

@Liuxinyu970226 correctly notes the TIPO letter says "freely make use of" but doesn't explicitly mention modification, leading to a CC BY-ND concern.

This concern arises from a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be "not the subject matter of copyright." Under Article 9, it's not that a limited license is granted; it's that no copyright exists in the first place. If there is no copyright, there are no exclusive rights to reserve. This includes the right of adaptation (改作權). The term "自由利用" (free use) is a general term encompassing all forms of use that would otherwise be restricted by copyright, including modification. If the law intended to create a "No Derivatives" restriction on a public domain work, it would have to be explicitly stated, which it is not. The work is simply outside the scope of copyright protection entirely.

The Precedent of Japanese Currency

This approach is consistent with how Commons handles similar cases. For example, Japanese currency is considered OK because its designs are published as official notices, which are exempt from copyright under Japanese law . Taiwan's legal framework, where currency designs must be formally "announced" (公告) as part of a public, official process, is directly parallel to the Japanese case. Adopting a similar stance for Taiwanese currency ensures consistency in our application of copyright principles.

Conclusion

The TIPO interpretation, being the most recent and from the most authoritative body on Taiwanese copyright law, should be our guide. It clarifies that the banknote as a whole is a public domain "公文". The government's actions in legally acquiring and modifying the source artworks before incorporating them into this public document mean that the full, unmodified banknote image is not an infringing derivative work.

Therefore, I maintain that OK is the correct status for full images of NTD banknotes, with a clear note of caution that separate use of the individual design elements may be restricted.

Thank you again for this crucial debate. --Zy26 (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

For the section about derivative works, I think it is important to also mention Article 6 of the Copyright Act, which states:

「就原著作改作之創作為衍生著作，以獨立之著作保護之。衍生著作之保護，對原著作之著作權不生影響。」

“A creation adapted from one or more pre-existing works is a derivative work and shall be protected as an independent work. Protection of a derivative work shall not affect the copyright in the pre-existing work.” Tvpuppy (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting Article 6. This is a crucial point, and it perfectly supports the distinction I've been making.

Article 6 confirms that the copyright in the pre-existing work (e.g., the photographer's original photo) is not affected, which is precisely my position. The original artist absolutely retains their copyright. My argument is that the derivative work itself—the version legally created and integrated into the banknote by the government—becomes part of an official document ("公文") which, as a whole, is explicitly excluded from copyright protection under Article 9.

This article helps clarify that important separation between the status of the original work and the status of the final, state-issued document. --Zy26 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, are you using LLM? Hamish (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Zy26's comments above look rather either ChatGPT-like or DeepSeek-like. I would again suggest a revert on their CUR Taiwan section's edits due to potential copyright violations. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I use tools for translation, editing, polishing, etc. but I don't know if they can be considered large language models. Is this relevant to this question? --Zy26 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26 Yes, because such sentences are not your original texts but generated from 3rd tools, which may sometimes vary copyright concerns since such long texts aren't "simple works". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't use ChatGPT or DeepSeek. Will using DeepL, Grammarly, ProWritingAid, or Microsoft Word cause any copyright issues? --Zy26 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26 Better to not use them on such serious discussions as Grammarly is a Proprietary software, and Microsoft Word is a Trialware, both aren't freewares, for ProWritingAid, its Terms of Service§4.2 told me that Use of our content without our express prior written permission is strictly prohibited. As for DeepL, their Terms and Conditions gave worldwide rights as non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, which may sometimes meant to be revocable, the situation if their rights violate COM:L or not would need separate discussions, but I would rather avoid from directly using DeepL-generated texts here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. The core issue is whether text contributions to Wikimedia are licensed under CC BY-SA. I am fully responsible for all content I submit, ensuring that it is original or an authorized derivative work approved by me. Whether written with pen or software, the ultimate copyright responsibility lies with me as the editor. The tool I use does not change this fact. If you have any questions about the copyright of a piece of content I edited, we can discuss the specific content itself, not the writing tool I used. Can we get back to discussing the content itself? --Zy26 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to reply Zy26's opinions, for 'On the Interpretation of "如認其係屬" ("if it is recognized that...")' para., they describe my point as "excellent", I appreciate and assume that they agree with the translation, afterwards they indentified TIPO's email as interpretation & explaining the legal framework. Shortly after that, they quote TIPO's FAQ page, in which directly confirms the notes is exempt scope, as a reference to state notes' copyright status, why the same agency used two different way to describe the same thing? As Zy26 said, it's not court and even court's ruiling can be appealed, so I think we should comment out TIPO's email or FAQ. Hamish (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Reverting the edit per the position of the Central Bank. The only exception to it seems to be if the design isn't "original" enough to be copyrighted but such cases are already covered by regular de minimis laws and the same could be applied to the copyright of essentially anything on here. Obviously un-original designs aren't copyrightable. That's really relevant to the broader question of if bank notes and coins of Taiwan are copyrightable though and it seems as if they are. No offense to Zy26's, but their follow up comments just seem like personal interpretations of the law that go against the clear statement by the Central Bank. So the edit should be reverted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Morally  Support as said and per several individuals above, nothing else to reply. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Thanks for your response, and for ringing the bell on the Central Bank’s statement—I hadn’t found it until you mentioned it. I now find the copyright statement in the English version of the Central Bank Virtual Money Museum’s FAQ page: "All formats and images are protected by copyright… any use of New Taiwan dollar images in commercial advertisements or products may infringe the Central Bank’s copyright…"

However, I find it interesting that I can’t find a similar copyright statement in their Chinese FAQ page or anywhere else. This makes me wonder: why would the Central Bank Virtual Money Museum’s English and Chinese FAQs differ so much on such a critical point? Does this mean that the statements in the Chinese version and other places have been updated or revised, while the English version here has not yet been updated?

This discrepancy deserves further investigation, especially since we rely on the detailed and consistent guidance from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) as the primary authority on Taiwanese copyright law for our shared policies. I have already sent an email to TIPO to ask whether this English version of the FAQ is consistent with current copyright law. I hope to receive a reply soon. --Zy26 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Backrooms images

We have a couple of backrooms images hosted under subcategories of Category:The Backrooms. Those images are alleged to be under free CC licensing from the fandom wiki dedicated to this Internet phenomenon. However, does this CC licensing extends to the underlying photos used in the Backrooms images?

For example, File:Skin-Stealer OG.jpg is technically a derivative work. We can treat the image of the supposed monster as freely licensed, created by the uploader from the fandom wiki, but how about the image of the lobby/room? Is that image own work of the Backrooms wiki uploader? Is that image derived from freely licensed media files here (on WikiCommons) or from Flickr/elsewhere? If both aren't the case, is the lobby image computer generated by the Backrooms wiki uploader? Or, (the COM:PCP side or the worse case) is the image grabbed somewhere on the Internet and edited by Backrooms wiki users to add the image of the monster, and released under a free CC licensing on their fandom wiki?

Unless there is an explicit statement claiming that the source image of the room/lobby is freely licensed, we cannot be sure if the image can be freely hosted here on WikiCommons. Both COM:EVIDENCE and COM:PCP warrant transparency on the sourcing of the images, as well as the underlying works, as much as possible. I'm going to open the discussion here before making any possible action (like COM:Deletion request). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The underlying photos are CC0; they were released by the original photographer (!) at https://archive.org/details/backrooms-photos. However, the background image used in File:Skin-Stealer OG.jpg does not appear to be among those photos, so its copyright status remains unclear; I'd recommend a DR.

That being said, some cleanup here may be in order - starting on the Wikidata end, where there are entities for dozens of minor entities in that work (e.g. levels, creatures, etc). I'll follow up on that over there in a bit. Omphalographer (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer I agree that the original Backroom image is CC0 based on the licensing given by the copyright owner (Bob Mazza) as per IA's Nimaid. I'm talking about the other images that apparently do not use the images from Mazza. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the other photos I saw seemed to be either plausibly self-authored (e.g. File:Backrooms Wikidot Logo.png, File:Backrooms Visualized.jpg), or attributed appropriately to an author (typically a Flickr account, e.g. File:Underground area of condominium.jpg). There might be some exceptions but they didn't seem to be pervasive. Omphalographer (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done nominating the Skin Stealer image for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these photos properly licensed?

Hi, I was redirected to this page. May I verify with you guys that these photos are properly licensed on Wikimedia?

• File:Cupofjoe-auroramusicfestival-2025-multo-screencap.jpg
• File:Vivoree Esclito in March 2025.jpg
• File:Maris Racal 2024.jpg

I'm used to seeing the "This file is free to use" golden banner. How do I know that these files have been properly licensed? Thanks so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

File 1 and 3 seems to have been taken by the uploader. I dunno how file 2 is supposed to be free Trade (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Have Files 1 and 3 been verified as Own Work? Also, the owner of File 2 said he'd sent the email to Wikimedia already, so I was wondering what was up with that. It usually gets tagged within the same week of uploading, if there's no license evidence. Bloomagiliw (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You are the one who uploaded file 2. Shouldn't you know yourself if the license is valid? Trade (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually, when I upload a file and know that the owner of the photo has sent an email, it either shows the golden banner saying that the file has been verified to be free or immediately gets flagged (i.e. failed verification). :)

Neither of those things happened this time. As you can see, that photo was up for months without getting flagged. I knew that the owner of the photo told me in private correspondence that he'd sent the email. He had successfully provided a valid license for another photo, which you can see on that actress' page.

Bloomagiliw (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bloomagiliw you haven't tagged the description page of images with pending permissions with {{subst:PP}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it okay to change the license of file:Intel Spiral.flac to PD-music-ineligible?

In 2017, the United States Copyright Office registered a copyright claim to the 1994 sound recording of the "Intel Spiral", as it "contained a perceptible and sufficient amount of creative production authorship." However, registration was refused for the underlying musical composition, a perfect octave followed by a four-note arpeggio, as it was below the threshold of originality.^[1]

Trade (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the current license should be left in place. While the musical composition in the abstract may be PD, Qzekrom's rendition of that composition as an audio file is nonetheless a copyrightable work, just like the official recording by Intel. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Notification regarding DR for {{Non-free graffiti}}

A discussion has been opened (by me) regarding the possible deprecation or deletion of the {{Non-free graffiti}} template and a review of the related guidance at Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti, in light of specific court rulings that may affect Commons' handling of graffiti-related content. Comments are welcome: here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rail tickets of China all with wrong copyrights?

Category:Rail tickets of China all with wrong copyrights? I think so, all the uploaders are pretending they have copyright on their tickets. Are the tickets copyrighted? Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The copyright, if any, belongs to the issuing company or government. But there is certainly no copyright on simple tickets like File:1995年柳州铁路局季节上浮票.jpg. Only tickets with a complex artistic design would have a copyright, i.e. File:密云北站站台票.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Translated Work from over 50 years ago

File:Party, PLA Strengthen Sinkiang Militia-Building Work.pdf

Okay, I have uploaded a translated work published by the US government from a China PRC source in Mandarin over 50 years old. I believe I have met the copyright for both USA and China, let me know if I'm wrong. Now I'm wondering if there's an issue because it was digitized by Google. Here's the statement I see that they write:

"Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

 Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images." https://www.hathitrust.org/the-collection/search-access/access-use-policy/#pd-google

So, does the upload satisfy China and USA copyright rules, but not meet Google's rules? Or is this okay for Wiktionary?? If you're interested, I want to upload this because it contains a relatively rare geographical term in it that I am documenting for Wiktionary- 'Chiehshih'- see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chiehshih. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The exact copies produced by Google lack originality and are uncopyrightable. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous NZ photos from 1950s?

I am not sure about the large batch of b&w New Zealand newspaper photos from the 1950s (depicting w:Sir Edmund Hillary et al.) uploaded by this contributor, which lack any PD-US tag. If published anonymously in the 1950s then the images probably entered the public domain in New Zealand 50 years after publication (i.e. from the year 2000 onwards), but I suspect they would remain copyrighted in the USA until 95 years after publication - meaning they're not eligible for Commons until 2045 at the earliest. (At any rate, the images would not have been PD in the country of origin in 1996, which seems to be key year for URAA purposes.) Muzilon (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That analysis sounds correct. This all of course assumes that NZ is the relevant country of original publication for those photos. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the images have been sourced from the NZ National Library, which in turns credits NZ newspapers like the Evening Post. The National Library itself also has a notice forbidding commercial use and derivative copies of the historic images hosted on its website, although this may be w:Sweat of the brow territory. Muzilon (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

DM or not?

The image concerned is File:Zc museum 7.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a good test is to see if the image is still useful if the copyrighted material is blurred. If it's not, then it should be deleted. Bremps... 22:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)