Chinese works before 1990

Concerned page: COM:CRT/China.

Upon closer inspection to the alleged retroactivity, the clause quoted on the page only meant that retroactive protection was for works that were still in copyright when China'a first-ever copyright law was enacted in 1990.

It appears the world's most populous country (until mid-2020s) had complicated history of copyright. An informal copyright law existed during the Sung dynasty. The three first official copyright laws were enacted in 1910, 1915, and 1928. When the Communist Party took over in 1949, the 1928 law was abolished, and no formal copyright law existed from that year until 1990, when PRC passed their first-ever copyright law. (read this)

Nevertheless, during 1949-90, informal aspects or copyright prevailed, mainly concerning remunerations between authors and publishers, in the form of administrative orders and regulations. The 1982 Audio Visual Measures stipulated reproduction rights on audio-visual materials and -for the first time in the history of the centuries-old land - permitted judicial action against infringers of protected material. Still, the international definition of copyright did not exist in China until 1990.

Assuming these facts by Yang (1993) are true, here are important questions:

1. Is it possible that all Chinese works before 1990 are automatically in PD, considering that Beijing refused to recognize the copyright law of the Nationalists from 1928, and only started (and enacted) their own copyright law in 1990?
2. Considering that the retroactivity clause quoted at COM:CRT/China is only valid for works that were protected when the 1990 law was passed, it may imply that some works (or categories of works) were protected before 1990. What are those or which categories are those?
3. Is it possible that there may be some parallel situation to that in the US? Considering that (per Yang 1993) informal copyright rules and regulations existed during 1949-90, mainly concerning remunations over uses of literary works and rules governing reproductions and royalties on audio-visuals. Could it be that copyright registration was the norm during 1949-90?

More insights and comments needed. This may mean that we must remove {{FoP-China}} tag from images of many Chinese buildings and monuments (completed before 1990), if these are found to be unprotected works from the beginning. Also, tons of deleted old Chinese photos may be restored as unprotected (unregistered) pre-1990 Chinese works (again, assuming the facts above are true).

Pinging some Chinese-speaking users @Teetrition, Liuxinyu970226, Wcam, Shizhao, 猫猫的日记本, 1969社论, 农业学大寨, N509FZ, 茅野ふたば, HingWahStreet, and 沈澄心: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably @BrightRaven, Jianhui67, Jusjih, King of Hearts, Minorax, Mys 721tx, VIGNERON, Clithering, Hehua, Sanmosa, Ghren, For Each element In group ... Next, Ericliu1912, 暁月凛奈, and 自由雨日: should also be mentioned due to recent likely matter on zhwiki VPC. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A complicated thing is that the ROC government actually moved to Taiwan, instead of being completely dissolved, in 1949, and some works created in Chinese Mainland before 1949 may be distributed in Taiwan after 1949, so the copyright law of ROC should still be in force (unless the copyright has been expired under the copyright law of ROC) for those works created in Chinese Mainland between 1928 and 1949. However, it still implies that any PRC copyright law-related tags should be removed from those works, as the copyright law of PRC is unrelated to those works.

For the works created in Chinese Mainland between 1949 and 1990, as the time gap for copyright law being absent in PRC is smaller than 50 years, the retroactivity clause may have effectively covered the time gap (50 years for legal bodies and organizations, 50 years after death for natural people) for all kinds of works intended to be protected by the copyright law of PRC. This implies that even if we know the absence of copyright law once happened in PRC, it does not change a lot for the current situation. Sanmosa _Outdia 02:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to add more difficulty to the issue: Mao Zedong did establish the current PRC 1st October, 1949, but they had control over areas since the very early 1930s, they proclaimed the Soviet Republic 7th November, 1931 and, even if somebody claims they were rushed then by the KMT, after the long march they did hold control of Yan'an until the PRC was established, and Yan'an was of importance for cultural works then.

I don't have a solution, but just to add more nuances to the debate. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The retroactivity clause could have covered most of these though. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 08:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked Deepseek and it seems like retroactivity happened:

The 1990 Copyright Law (Article 55) didn't require works to have formally held copyright before 1991. Instead, it asked: "Would this work have qualified for copyright protection *if the 1990 law had existed at its creation?"** 156. This is a legal fiction ("as if" principle), not historical reality.

Case Study:Black Cat Detective (1984)

• Creator: Zhu Zhixiang (died 2015).
• 1991 Status: Zhu was alive → hypothetical copyright term (life + 50) was still running → granted retroactive protection until 2065 15.
• Key point: The work didn't "hold" copyright in 1984, but it met the criteria for protection under the 1990 law's standards.

In short: The law created a hypothetical timeline for pre-1991 works. If their "as if" copyright term was active on June 1, 1991, they received protection. The absence of formal copyright pre-1991 was irrelevant to this legal fiction.

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Médicos Unidos

Kind regards. I wanted to ask if this logo () met the threshold of originality. I see it consists of the national flag of Venezuela and of text, so I've thought that it would not be protected due to its simplicity, although I wanted to confirm this. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. We have no info on the TOO of Venezuela, but I think this one is good to go Bedivere (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Roger that, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus:La bandera venezolana esta al Dominio Público pero el logo es simbolo circulo significa se puede publicar (Derivative of a PD image is below TOO). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight of the Amazon Queen license

So I've noticed some odd stuff on the screenshot File:Flight of the Amazon Queen.jpg.

• The licensing info is tagged as PD, but looking at the Debian COPYRIGHT file of the game, it never mentions anything about dedicating the game to the public domain, only the build/packaging scripts. If the PD tag is incorrect, how do you handle that then? I don't think it's worth creating a license tag just to be used for this single screenshot, and {{Attribution}} doesn't seem to fit. Any ideas?
• The game seems to be DFSG-approved since it's on the main Debian repositories, although some parts of the license seem a little questionable for me, like 2) says "[...y]ou may charge a reasonable copying fee for this archive, and may distribute it in aggregate as part of a larger & possibly commercial software distribution [...]", it doesn't specify what is a "reasonable copying fee" which could be something less than a cent, IDK.
• And also 3) has "[...y]ou may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes reselling the game as an individual item. […]" I guess that's kind of a similar situation to {{OFL}}? Since the "don't sell the font by itself" was brought up in DR, yet the template was kept.

Any thoughts or clarifications? :P SergioFLS (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

What matters for screenshots is the copyright status of the game assets (sprites), not the code. As long as the assets are released under the same license as the rest of the repository, all is good.

Regarding the SIL Open Font License, the FSF maintains that "a simple Hello World program" satisfies the requirement that the font be bundled with other software if it is sold, so it doesn't really prevent the OFL from being compatible with the open source definition.

(For those not familiar with the term, DFSG stands for Debian Free Software Guidelines.) Qzekrom (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Photo taken by an unknown German officer during World War II

Hello,

I'd like to have an opinion on the status of the photograph on the left of this French newspaper article, the one showing the Morlaix viaduct in the background, in Brittany (France).

This photo was taken from January 29 or 30, 1943 by an unknown German officer just after the Royal Air Force attempted to bomb the viaduct. The officer had the photo developed by a local photographer, Mr. Normandière, who took the opportunity to make a copy for himself. It's this copy that appears today in the press or in the book on this bombardment. I haven't found anything about this German officer. Having had this photo developed by a local photographer, he must have taken it privately. I've just written the article on this bombing on the French Wikipedia and I'd like to use this photo, which clearly shows the failure of this bombing. But what's the status of such a photo, whose author will probably always remain unknown ? TCY (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The photos still remain unpublished because their author have never authorized their publication. Though he may well have been killed in action during the war. This the latter case his works are in public domain in Germany, France and USA. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer. I find it curious that been killed in action during war places the author's works in the public domain. This is not the case in France, where there are even wartime extensions of copyright.

I did some research of my own in the case of an unknown author. It seems that under French law, copyright subsists, but that publication is authorized with the mention DR (droits réservés = reserved rights). A sum must be set aside for 10 years by the publisher in case the author or his successors are found. In practice, this reserve is never set up; only the mention DR with possibly the addition of unknown author is made.

TCY (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

been killed in action during war places the author's works in the public domain — being killed in action is not what would place it in the public domain. The rule is usually that a work remains protected by copyright for 70 years after the photographer's death. If the photographer had died in 1945, then the copyright would have simply expired in 2015 (or 2016) and that's why it would be in the public domain. It doesn't matter under which circumstances the photographer would have died in 1945 — be it by being killed in action or just of natural causes like a heart attack. What matters is the 70-years-after-death rule regarding copyright protection. Nakonana (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

in the case of an unknown author — I think there are some EU-wide laws when it comes to such cases? Are those laws overruled by local French law? See {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Nakonana (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

For anonymous works in the EU, the copyright is now 70 years after publication. If not published in the first 70 years after creation, then the copyright ends then. So if not legally published before 2014, it should be PD in the EU. Some countries could have older laws with longer terms, but not sure that's an issue here. The U.S. term could be longer, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

FOP-US vs US-gov

Which scripture to follow? If you have an opinion, please join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amelia Earhart Statue by Mark and George Lundeen.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

De Minimis enough?

Hi,

I just uploaded an image and wanted to get an opinion on if it's de minimis enough. I'm worried about the sculpture in the background (the sloping object). The focus is on the informational plaque but I wanted to have a slightly wide crop to have some element of the sculpture visible so you can see the location of the plaque.

Let me know if I should crop it more. Thanks! 9yz (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

We have Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. As you're referencing the sculpture in the description, it'll IMHO fall among the "Maybe" examples in the table below the guidelines. In my personal opinion, I think that the sculpture parts are not yet DM, but I may tend to have a rather strict interpretation of the subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If the sculpture was cropped out, would the image still be in COM:SCOPE? If so, then it's probably de minimis. The sculpture is also only partially visible. And the photo could not be used to depict the sculpture itself (e.g. if you cropped out the plaque and only left the sculpture, then the photo wouldn't be really usable). Nakonana (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Advertisements on buses in no-FOP countries

We seem to have accumulated a large number (14k+) of images of advertisements on buses. The vast majority of these advertisements are complex enough to be considered creative works, and many are in countries which do not have freedom of panorama for 2D works, including the US and UK.

Which of these is the case?

1. These photos should be deleted if they contain advertisements which are not clearly de minimis. (Cropping is generally impossible, as the advertisements are on the body of the bus, and blurring or pixelating thousands of images is clearly not practical.)
2. These photos can be kept as photos of bus advertisements, but should not be categorized based on the contents of the advertisement (e.g. Category:Film advertisements on buses in the United States).
3. These photos can be kept as photos of buses, but should not be categorized as containing advertisements at all.
4. These photos can be kept and categorized however we wish.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

For the Philippines, I have nominated at least one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:01739jfQuirino Highway Santa Monica Novaliches Proper Quezon Cityfvf 03.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Urgs. I doubt that we can truly work only on those 4 cases... In my opinion, it would rather often be option "1,3", meaning: deletion where the advertisements dominate as in JWilz12345's sample above, and on a case-by-case decision, keeping without ad-related categories (File:5505 NWFB 4X 11-08-2018.jpg and File:5214 at Cross Harbour Tunnel Toll Plaza (20180829104045).jpg could be OK as bus illustrations; n.b. I took them only as examples, not checking FOP rules for their country of origin). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It is ok to upload Burj Khalifa image to Wikimedia Commons?

Why many Burj Khalifa images are deleted on Wikimedia Commons? 6D (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The building is still protected by copyright. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content (Commons:Licensing), and there is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates (COM:FOP UAE). --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@6D just like what Rosenzweig said, it is a building that's still protected under copyright. Technically speaking, though, UAE has very limited panorama exception, but that only permits broadcasters (not photographers) to freely showcase or exhibit images of any copyrighted public landmark without permissions from architects, sculptors or other artists who authored those landmarks. So, we cannot accept any good quality image of the world's tallest skyscraper due to unfriendly UAE law. It may be OK though to upload images of general skyline or cityscapes of Dubai in which no single building (or two or three or so...) is the intended subject (that is, COM:De minimis). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Due to the recent nature of many cities in that country, we cannot host 70-80% of that country on Wikimedia Commons, due to unfriendly FoP law of UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It is so funny that Commons can host image of world’s tallest mountain (Mount Everest) but can’t even host image of world's tallest skyscraper (

Burj Khalifa). 6D (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@6D your logic is wrong. Mount Everest is a natural feature, not a work of an architect or artist. Here on Wikimedia Commons, respect to copyrights of architects and sculptors of landmarks from 100+ no-FoP countries precedes the need for supertall skyscrapers.

UAE law remains unfriendly for Wikimedia movement, since their Freedom of Panorama clause is Article 22(7) of their copyright law:

"Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places."

Broadcasting programs, not photographs or even videos of netizens/content creators. Unsure when UAE will be "slapped" with the IT/new media age, since their law was last updated in 2021 (just four years ago). Or, perhaps they do not agree that their art, including buildings, are to be exploited by anyone w/o needing architectural or sculptural copyright permissions, and that's why they retained the severely-restricted FoP rule concerning their landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Template show for unintended copyright violations on recent uploads

Hello,

I cam across some recent uploads tagged {{Mindef}}. Normally, that would be totally fine, but as recent uploads, the needed variable "BY-SA" wasn't set, so files actually under a share-alike condition were stated as CC-Zero. I fixed two of them (Special:Diff/1038278976 and Special:Diff/1038278588). But I do not think that we should falsely advertise files as being more free than they are in reality ASAP. I'm not proficient enough to set up a search query to get all uploads that came in since 2022-01-01 up to now, could somebody help out? Or would that be a bot task (simply add "1=BY-SA" in the template declaration)? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, this needs to be changed. I don’t think it is a good idea to have a default option when it comes to licenses, let alone making the default option to be PD. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is a PetScan query for files with {{Mindef}} in Category:CC-Zero uploaded after 2022-01-01. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked for a bot to do this maintenance: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Remediation of unintended copyright violations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Flickr photos with non-compatible terms in description

Hi, we have hundreds of photos like File:Del. Joseph McNamara, SOTC 2024.jpg from Flickr accounts like Glenn Youngkin and Virginia Office of the Governor that were uploaded to Flickr with {{Cc-by-2.0}} but their description on Flickr (and copied over to Commons) includes non-compatible terms like the following:

Please note that these photos are for personal use only. If posting to social media or sharing the photos, the following byline must be used: Official Photo by Lori Massengill, Office of Governor Glenn Youngkin.

^ Special:Search/"Please note that these photos are for personal use only" finds 1,989 files with this language

Some contain additional disclaimer such as

If you share them with friends or family, make sure to include the disclaimer below:
These photographs are provided by The Office of Governor Glenn Youngkin as a courtesy and may be printed by the subjects in the photograph for personal use only. The photographs may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated, or broadcast, without the written permission of the Governor's Office. These photographs may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, or promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the Governor, the First Family, or the Commonwealth of Virginia.

^ Special:Search/"The photographs may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated, or broadcast, without the written permission of the Governor's Office" finds 1,464 files with this language, overlapping with the above

My hunch is that the uploader to Flickr did not understand the terms of the CC license when they selected it, so I was thinking of creating a DR with the hundreds of photos in question, but I figured I'd ask here first. Thoughts - does the Flickr license override the description or vice versa? -Consigned (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned have you tried emailing them for clarification? Perhaps they thought CC was "copyright controlled" or "copyrighted (2x)" instead of Creative Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

On top of that, Virginia is not among the states that release their state works either in PD or in copyright-free CC licensing (COM:CRT/US#US States). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned: When the specific terms are in contradiction with the CC license tag, the writer did not have the intention to offer the CC license. There is no free license. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compete to Win, Richmond - 1-23-23 - 067.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compete to Win, Richmond - 1-23-23 - 075.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned As a counterpoint: Considering that they maintained both the exact same license and the same wording across uploads throughout Youngkin's governorship, with multiple photographers' works released this way, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the license usage; it does not seem like a one-time mistake that was made by someone careless with the drop-down menu. There is the option to fully copyright works, which they did not choose. If a public-domain release is irreversible, and if the licensing choice was so consistent, I do not see how release terms can override a clearly-and-consistently-chosen CC tag. (I'm not an expert, and @Asclepias seems to have provided evidence of precedent on this, but I wanted to add my two cents.) Packer1028 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the language in those restrictions seems more geared to non-copyright issues -- even if public domain, you can't use images to misrepresent things, or use them to suggest endorsement (those are publicity/personality rights etc.). Some of that may be boilerplate they post elsewhere, without considering the copyright license they put on it. But, a little of the language does directly relate to copyright. Normally I'm pretty leery of a specific statement on the page, but if that statement is pasted in many other places for their material, it's a harder question if it trumps the explicit copyright license they put on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If nothing else, the copyright status of a work licensed as "CC but it's for personal use only and you must contact us in writing before looking at the image" (or whatever) seems dubious. Even if the Creative Commons license technically renders any license riders ineffective, the fact that the author included this language at all renders their licensing intent unclear - per COM:PCP, we should probably treat this as non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The restrictions of that flickr account contradict practically all the principles of free licenses, including: use for any purpose, use by anyone, modifications allowed, no further permission required. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Photographs of people have a lot of other restrictions on them -- that is mostly reminding you of that. Political figures are probably mostly attuned to those, and that is most of what the restrictions are talking about. "Free" here just means you can use it without violating copyright -- many uses of those photos would violate publicity rights even if public domain from a copyright perspective. You can also violate laws if you modify stuff but represent it as being the original, if it's damaging somehow -- that again is mostly what the restrictions are about. But, the broadcast stuff is more directly copyright. It seems like the same generic boilerplate copied from www.governor.virginia.gov, where there is no free copyright license (though has a pointer to Flickr). I've seen similar wording at times on PD-USGov stuff (though the broadcast and "not otherwise reproduced" goes a lot further here). The question is if it's a significant enough doubt, or more theoretical, given that a presumably competent legal staff has placed a CC license on it after all of that. Normally I would say yes that an explicit license clouds a CC license, but if this was just straight-up copied from the web page without thinking about the copyright license, I'm less sure in this particular case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question here is: are we concerned with what is legally defensible, or do we wish to defer to a someone's more restrictive but unenforceable intent? The fact remains: they posted publicly with an irrevocable license. Legally, that would presumably be something any reuser can hold them to, as long as the reuser honors the terms of the license. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

According to this VPC discussion, the additional terms would constitute a separate license, so the CC license remains valid. However, I wonder what would happen if I were to release a work under a license where "This License constitutes the entire agreement" language is not present and included those terms. Would that also be considered multi-licensing, since by specifying the name of the license I am treating it as a separate thing? prospectprospekt (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Contestation

je viens de decouvrir d'une personne avait utilisé ma photo personnel sans autorisation, et je n'arrive pas a la rejoindre ; je voulais savoir comment puis-je la trouver ou contacter? la personne porte le nom du compte Shehuhikmah94 Raccih (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Raccih: Bonjour, Ça dépend des circonstances et si vous voulez vraiment contacter cette personne dans ce cas-ci. En théorie, si l'utilisateur a contribué relativement récemment, la manière habituelle de contacter un utilisateur d'un site Wikimedia est d'écrire un message sur sa page de discussion. Si l'utilisateur a fourni une adresse de courriel, il est possible aussi d'utiliser la fonction «Email this user» («Envoyer un courriel») qui se trouve dans la colonne des outils lorsque vous êtes sur sa page d'utilisateur. Toutefois, dans le cas particulier de la personne que vous mentionnez, Shehuhikmah94, il n'est pas certain que vous réussissiez à la contacter par ces méthodes, puisqu'elle n'a été présente sur ce site Commons que brièvement il y a plusieurs années, en 2020. Elle avait téléversé seulement deux fichiers, dont un a été supprimé, comme on peut le constater dans ses journaux d'opérations. L'autre fichier, encore présent, est celui-ci. Cet utilisateur a aussi été présent en 2020 et en 2021 sur le site de Wikipedia en langue anglaise, où il a tenté de créer quelques pages, qui ont été refusées par cette Wikipedia, comme on le constate sur sa page de discussion de cette Wikipedia. Si vous tenez absolument à tenter de contacter cette personne, vous pouvez essayer les méthodes ci-dessus, mais vous n'obtiendrez pas nécessairement de réponse de sa part puisque ses comptes n'ont pas été actifs depuis plusieurs années. Mais demandez-vous d'abord si vous avez vraiment besoin de la contacter. Ça dépend ce que vous voulez dire par «avait utilisé» et si votre problème est relatif à Wikimedia ou pas. Par exemple, si le problème est qu'il y aurait ici, sur le site de Wikimedia Commons, une photo sans autorisation, vous pouvez demander la suppression de cette photo, si vous dites de quel fichier il s'agit et d'où provient la photo et que vous expliquez en quoi exactement consiste le problème. Si votre problème est une utilisation à l'extérieur des sites Wikimedia, c'est différent. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Raccih and Asclepias: apologies here for a foreigner's question: does ma photo personnel here mean that Raccih is the photographer or the subject? - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's unclear as it would be in English with "my personal photo". It could be one or the other or both. That's why I suggested to the person to specify what exactly they mean. Given that not much is known about the other user nor about what photo it is, the photo in question could be a copyvio, or a violation of personality rights in a non-public context, or out of scope, or any combination of that. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't know if the question has something to do or not with the file uploaded by Shehuhikmah94, but anyway that file is a photo that was on the social media of the subject. So, possibly copied from there. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these derivatives?

Category:Internet memes by decade of introduction has very few files with none illustrating most of the even the most notable major Internet phenomena. Now the 2 only free-licensed illustrations of the This is Fine meme may get deleted but is an unworried mammal sitting in a room of flames, with reference to the meme in the title, a "major copyrightable element" (thus derivative work)? Maybe there's some copyright experts here who know more on that. From Derivative work:

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.

Prototyperspective (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these derivatives of what? I'm not familiar with the original meme image. Copyright does not protect an idea, and "figure sitting at a table in a fire" is pretty much an idea, not expression, which is more in the actual details drawn or photographed. But, if you put some other copyrighted figure sitting in the chair, it's derivative of that even if not the meme. You normally have to look at the original, and identify copyrightable expression (above the threshold of originality) that was copied from the original to the new work. I did ask similar questions on the DRs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The original work in question is this comic. Omphalographer (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say no. There are no specific parts of the drawing copied -- that feels more like an idea to me. Duplicating the entire original text may not be a good idea, but one short phrase should be fine. Something like the plot of a story can be copyrighted -- those often have many many particular details -- but the overall genre can not be. For graphic copyrights, you are looking at the copying of particular curves and graphic elements -- that is where the copyright is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Compare the first image with the first frame of the Gunshow comic. There's more than just an idea being copied here - the whole visual layout of the image is very similar, down to details like the doorway and painting in the background and the positioning of the fires. Surprisingly, the AI-generated image seems less derivative. Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the copyright. It's still pretty broad strokes. I mean yes there is smoke on the ceiling and a door, but usually you need to have a lot more specific copying than that. Is there a court case which ruled infringement along those lines? I don't recall any. If just those elements alone are copyrightable, then nobody else can make a drawing of a room with fire and smoke, a table and a door and a window. To me, it's not particularly close -- that's still an idea. You can describe the scene in text, and someone can take that text and make a drawing based on that, and that is a separate representation of the same idea. Similarly, per Commons:Coats of arms, you have a written blazon of the design -- any drawing made of that design is not a derivative work of the written text (they are separate expressions of the same idea), and any two drawings are not derivatives of each other unless they incorporated actual linear parts from the other drawing. It takes a *lot* of small details in say a book plot before it gets obvious that it was effectively copied in another work. It's virtually impossible for a graphic work to be derivative of a literary work -- they are different forms of expression. If there were lots and lots of details copied, it's probably possible for something to be derivative of a particular comic drawing, but there's maybe 3-4 elements, maybe replicated in a very broad way here. Most rooms have doors and windows, etc. I don't think you can copy all of the text from the comic -- that probably is copyrightable as a whole -- but one short phrase should also be fine. You can make references to something else, without actually copying the expression. In the Compendium, part 911, when it comes to characters -- Applicants should not refer to or assert claims in “character,” “character concept, idea, or style,” or a character’s generalized personality, conduct, temperament, or costume. If the applicant uses these terms, the registration specialist may register the claim with an annotation, such as: “Regarding authorship information: Registration based on deposited [pictorial, graphic, or sculptural] authorship describing, depicting, or embodying character(s). Compendium 313.4(H).” In other words, you get a copyright on that particular drawing, but not ideas extrapolated from it. When actual character copyrights get involved, it can be far easier to make a derivative work in these areas, but that doesn't exist here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a great point, and let me add this: when we're discussing whether a file is a derivative work or not, I think we should be making arguments rooted in formal substantial similarity tests to determine if expression was copied, not just eyeballing. With that said, I do have a feeling that the first image is substantially similar but not the second (though again, you may be right that the copying needs to be more concrete). Qzekrom (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that this needs to be made on a case by case basis. This is the purpose of the deletion request as it specifically should address whether the image is a derivative work.

Could I request the discussion be made at the specific deletion request, because that is the ultimate venue that will decide whether they are deleted or not. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, there are already open DRs for the two images: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023-06-29 This-is-not-fine by-David-Revoy.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png. Personally I don't see a problem with an empty Category:Internet memes by decade of introduction - internet memes are intellectual works, often copyrighted or fair use, so it's understandable and expected that not many are appropriate for Commons. Consigned (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The first image probably not. The second one I'd say is a derivative. Although if neither one is then I'd seriously wonder why they are being hosted on Commons to begin with since images like these only have educational value in so far as they suppose to depict the original work of art. Otherwise what exactly is educational here? The concept of a "this is fine" meme? Come on. Is anyone going to argue a depiction of the concept (whatever that means in this situation) of a non-notable meme is within scope? The fact that Prototyperspective or anyone else is claiming the images are educationally close enough to the original meme kind of proves they are derivatives. Otherwise File:This Is Fine (meme).png would just be an image of a dog in a burning building and this discussion wouldn't exist to begin with. Nor do I think the file would have been uploaded to Commons in the first place. But you can't have it both ways where it's close enough to the original to educate people on the meme but not close enough to be derived from it. There's no other instance where that would fly on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Hard disagree, I think the meme is notable; it's been called "the meme that defined a decade." Qzekrom (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Uumm OK. Good for The Atlantic I guess? The arguement here is supposedly that the images aren't based on or derived from the meme to begin with though. The whole thing is "Schrödinger's meme." The images are both close enough to the original to depict the meme but then somehow not enough to be derived from or based on it. Makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

They absolutely illustrate the idea of the meme (one sense of "based on"). They are not strictly "based on" in a copyright sense, which means copying more than de minimis specific expression (conflating those two meanings is what usually gives rise discussions like this). You then added an argument about notability and scope, and the above was a response to that. There are multiple articles from reliable sources on the meme, so it's an educational subject and worthy of illustration. Not all projects can use the actual strip under fair use. I'm leery of using AI in a lot of contexts, but using it as a tool to illustrate a concept could well be fine. We have no automatic policy to delete such works (and if these were in use on a Wikimedia project, they are automatically in scope, so arguing here is moot). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) An image can be close in style or even overall layout, but still not be close in terms of copyrightable expression. Think of it like photography: if I photograph the same person as someone else did, the results might look similar (same subject, same setting) but unless I’ve copied their exact composition, lighting, and angle, it’s still my image. Not a perfect analogy, but the point stands.

The idea of "a dog calmly sitting at a table in a burning room", or more broadly the concept of detached optimism or denial in the face of chaos, is not protected by copyright. What’s protected is the specific expression of that idea in a particular drawing: the particular dog design, the brushstrokes, the exact layout, coloring, and proportions used in the original comic. Any and all depictions of "a dog sitting at a table surrounded by flames" is not automatically the property of the original artist, just as no one owns the exclusive right to draw "a man screaming on a bridge" after The Scream.

Intentional homage, parody, or thematic reference does not equal copyright violation. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I nominated File:This Is Fine (meme).png for deletion not because of it being AI generated, but despite it. There's already established policy and/or consensus on here that unused amateur artwork is out of scope. AI generated artwork doesn't get a special pass from that just because it's created with a novel technology. Sure, there's no automatic policy to delete such works, but there isn't one not to delete them either and I would have nominated the image for deletion regardless. I'm not the one making this about AI. Nor am I acting like the image should be deleted because it's AI generated.

2. Have either one of you heard of ? If not, it's a Palestinian children's television show that featured a character losely based on Micky Mouse. Or at least it did until they killed it off supposedly because of copyright concerns. Are either one of you going to argue it would be OK for there to be an American television show featuring a mouse character called "Nicky the Mouse" or something that looks and sounds similar to Micky Mouse? I don't think a random image of "a dog sitting at a table surrounded by flames" would be a durative. A meme of a dog wearing a hat while sitting at a table surrounded by flames that someone specifically says illustrates the "This Is Fine" meme would be. "This isn't Captain America. It's someone who looks 99% him and I'm saying they depict the character" is completely different then in an image of some dude holding a shield while wearing a flag. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Pretty sure you nominated it because it's AI-generated or that this played a major role. And there is no policy against hobbyist/nonprofessional/user-made artworks and lots of them in for example the Fan art categories or generally across the huge Category:Visual arts category where somewhat good-looking modern digital are is pretty scarce and of particular usefulness. The meme is very notable and there are just 2 illustrations of it, making these useful in principle and also because it's one of the only if not the only illustration of a meme made with AI (which is why it was used for quite some while in List of Internet phenomena which further underscores its usefulness) and in an entirely different style (photorealism). 2. Very much doubt that. And it's not a character like Micky Mouse. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure you nominated it because it's AI-generated or that this played a major role. Yet I'm sure if I asked you for evidence of that you wouldn't be able to provide any even though you repeatedly go off about how everyone else makes baseless arguments. And to think, your one of the people who went off about how I should be indefinitely blocked for making things personal. Go figure.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this and talking to you about it is clearly a time suck. So I'm not going to discuss it beyond what I have already. I will say though that I'd probably be willing to retract the DR if you make an actual argument for keeping the image. I'm already leaning that way due to Qzekrom mentioning The Atlantic article and I have absolutely no problem doing that if your willing to come up with more sources and/or an actual justification to outside of making this about me disliking AI. Otherwise I'm done with it since we're just talking in circles at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What about the evidence that you nominated 5 other AI-generated images of mine at the same time and created 2 threads where you complained about specifically AI images / my AI images? I don't go off, I make rational ontopic points. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been on here for 7 years and spent a lot of that time doing deletion requests. How many DRs for AI-generated have I opened in that time outside of those 5? I'll tell you, maybe like 5 or 10 and I nominated plenty of non-AI generated amateur artwork for speedy deletion in the meantime. Sorry, but acting like me opening 5 deletion requests for AI generated images out of the thousands I've done on here for everything else (including non-AI generated artwork) as evidence that I have an issue with AI isn't rational or on-topic. Again though, I'm more then willing to retract the deletion request if you want me to and provide a valid reason. Otherwise I'm done with the conversation. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Doubt there are many users who have opened more AI-related DRs than you. I don't think you opened that many DRs in just 2 days nor a lot of new unrelated discussions. It doesn't matter. It's clear that this was a main issue you have with the image you also named that in the DR rationale regardless what you claim here but that doesn't matter either. I'm done with your walls of text so I won't continue this discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t you just ask me not to make presumptions, and now you are doing the same? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like forum shopping. We now have discussions on VP and on CFD. This seems out of order. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No idea what you mean; including what you mean with CFD. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, wrong acronym :-) I meant the dike deletion requests themselves. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "forum shopping", but I don't think the threads are redundant. VPC serves as a centralized discussion for this topic, while the two CFDs are specific to the files in question. Qzekrom (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine, but there is already an advanced discussion on the two deletion requests and Protoyperperpective is active on them already. I would prefer not to have to restate my detailed reasoning across three seperate forums.

Prototyperperspexyuce is clearly unhappy with the way the discussion is going, so has come here. It is rather unreasonable to make us discuss these specific images on so many forums. If this has a wider discussion about derivative works, there might be a point, but that’s not really the case. I’ve brought to admin attention for review, it might be that admins disagree with me but I think it’s more reasonable to close this thread and redirect people to the deletion discussions themselves. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a complex potentially/apparently difficult copyright question so it's more than legitimate to ask (more) copyright experts about it. Moreover, it doesn't just affect or is about these two files. Also please don't assume things about me and instead consider that this is a complex question with big ramification and asking here makes sense and is I think what this place is partly made for. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I am just giving my perspective on your actions, apologies if they are wrong but that is how it looks to me. I have decided to take the appropriate action, which is to ask for review by the admin group and let them decide what action (if any) to take. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is en:WP:Forum shopping - opening the same topic in multiple places. In the future please follow the recommendation of that page and notify participants of the other discussion(s) if you create a new discussion on the same topic. That's no longer necessary in this case as I've already done so. Consigned (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a super big deal but personally I'll usually wait until DRs are closed to ask questions them in other forums. Otherwise it makes things to hard to follow. Especially if people in the DR aren't notified about it like happened here. But IMO the less forums something is being discussed on at the same time the better. This stuff is hard enough to follow and keep track of as it is already. I don't necessarily have a problem with it as the person who opened the DR though as long as people in the deletion request are properly notified about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Article 32 of the North Korean copyright law and government works

Concerned page: COM:CRT/North Korea

There has been a heated deletion discussion over whether to keep the North Korean national anthem (Aegukka) on Commons for two months at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aegukka - National Anthem of North Korea.wav. I have seen several deletion requests of this file mostly concerning Article 12 and the URAA, but I discovered that Article 32 of the North Korean copyright law also has a special provision for documents and says: "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner...when a copyrighted work needed for state management is copied, broadcast or used in compilation". This would make the national anthem and other government works copyrighted free use. This is similar to Template:PD-IDGov because it allows reproduction and broadcasting of works without explicitly mentioning the public domain.

Other than the national anthem, my question is which government works are covered by this law. Article 12 clearly exempts documents for state management that are made without commercial intent, but unlike Article 12, Article 32 seems to cover at first glance all works needed for state management, regardless of purpose. Although there are copyright notices placed all over government websites, since the North Korean government heavily relies on state media propaganda to maintain control over the country's beliefs, Article 32's provision allowing works needed for state administration is possibly a loophole. I would like further discussion on this issue. VTSGsRock (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That gives the state itself the right to violate copyright for its own purposes, but doesn't make something free for everyone else. It clearly states that a work is copyrighted; it just makes a form of fair use that the government can use it if they deem it necessary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation is just the same as Carl's. It is a fair use/fair dealing clause or an exception that the North Korean government can use copyrighted works only for the purpose of "state management". It is not relevant for Wikimedia Commons because: a) we aren't part of Pyongyang regime, and b) media hosted here must be reusable for everyone for any purpose, not only for managing the states, be it North Korean government or governments of all countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, since there is definitely a reduced relative clause in this sentence of the English translation of the North Korean law. When the relative clause is added, the text would read "when a copyrighted work that is needed for state management is copied, broadcast or used in compilation", which would imply that works that are needed for government activities can be used freely. This is probably the most accurate reference since a very similar translation appears in WIPO Lex: "when a copyrighted work needed for the state management is copied, broadcast or used for compilation" VTSGsRock (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That's still the same thing. It makes that one particular use (by the government) OK, not any use by anyone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock assuming that it is indeed a possible valid copyright exception/limitation, I doubt that their national anthem qualifies as a "work required for state administration" (in this site, the translated term is "state administration"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

For reference, here is the complete translated version of Article 32 as per Law and North Korea, by Daye Gang.

Article 32 (Use of artistic works without permission)
Cases where artistic works are used without receiving the permission of the copyright holder are as follows.
1. In cases where artistic works have been reproduced or translated to be used by an individual or within the scope of family
2. In cases where places such as libraries, literary archives, museums, memorials reproduce artistic works to preserve, display, peruse, or lend
3. In cases where artistic works are reproduced, broadcast, or adapted for school education
4. In cases where artistic works required for State administration are reproduced, broadcast, or used in drafting compilations
5. In cases where an artistic work is to be introduced by broadcasting it or publishing it in a  newspaper or publication
6. In cases where an artistic work is quoted
7. In cases where artistic works are performed for free
8. In cases where artistic works installed in public places are reproduced
9. In cases where artistic works are sound recorded or reproduced in braille for blind persons

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Trying a different route: North Korea's first copyright law dates to 2001. The text of the law does not appear to show retroactivity. This Yonhap source (cited on enwiki article concerning their copyright law) claims there were no copyright laws in the North Korean civil law system prior to the enactment of their first-ever copyright law. Does that mean, all North Korean works are unprotected in North Korea before 2001? (Trying the similar logic as the copyright histories of the US, the Philippines, and the UAE, where some old works are automatically PD due to being unprotected and not given protection by newer, non-retroactive laws.) Though there a complication due to a 1996 court ruling (apparently by a South Korean court) that was criticized due to overstepping of South Korean copyright law outside the territory of SoKor, to include works from North Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a great and clever idea, since there aren't any provisions that specify retroactivity (e.g. one that says that all works published before the law was made will be protected)! This is unlike Poland, the EU or Uruguay (funny enough, the name coincides with the URAA itself while Uruguay took away public domain works twice in 2003 and 2019), where massive amounts of public domain works have been taken away by provisions. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock some caution is still adviced, though. Having no explicit retroactive provision doesn't mean that all prior works are magically in PD. If you haven't read it, I suggest reading the thread I started above, concerning the same issue for pre-1990 Chinese works. It appears that a single, simple clause magically slapped copyright to all Chinese works (as long as the author/s arent yet dead for more than 50 years), and this retroactivity was supported by Chinese court rulings. See COM:China: "The rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations as provided in this Law, of which the term of protection specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of this Law's entry into force, shall be protected in accordance with this Law." (Art. 55 of their first [1990] law) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The same clause still exists under Article 66 of the current/2021 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Clindberg: regarding the possible default PD status within NoKor of North Korean works made before 2001. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

North Korea's URAA date is 2003, so such work would would be restored in the U.S. as of then anyways. They were under no obligation to restore their own works, but the U.S. was. Also, for a sound recording, it also matters when the sound recording itself was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Their first copyright law was in 2001, and doesn't seem to show some sign of retroactivity. I assume that pre-2001 works are also unprotected in the US since they weren't protected in NoKor on the URAA date. Or is there something that US terms are restored to foreign works that are PD on the URAA date due to being PD in the involved foreign country? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The URAA did not restore works if they were public domain through expiration of a term of protection. They do restore works if they were never protected at all in their source country (such as below the source country's threshold of originality, but above the US'). North Korea is also under obligation to restore all foreign works to Berne minimums, just not their own. Unsure if they actually did, but it may not be worth it for other countries to press that matter with the WTO (when the U.S. tried to get away without doing that after joining Berne however, it was an entirely different situation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@VTSGsRock: seems Aegukka (the National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) has no chance of being hosted here. Even if it were not protected in NoKorea, it is protected in the United States due to URAA. Worse, the audio file under deletion discussion may be considered as a sound recording, eligible for more complicated US copyright terms. Final nail in the coffin for Aegukka. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

*sigh* VTSGsRock (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: JWilz12345, turns out that we were wrong about retroactivity for the whole time. In a lawsuit on the copyright of North Korean works in Japan, the Korea Film Export & Import Corporation tried to sue a Japanese film distributor over the use of North Korean films, including one film made in 1978. Furthermore, the second plantiff (referred to as X2) made an agreement with the Ministry of Culture that confirmed the copyright to the films. Although the case result was that North Korean works are not copyrighted in Japan (which is irrelevant anyways because Commons is hosted in the US), the case shows evidence that the North Korean government doesn't treat pre-2001 works as PD. The final nail in the coffin has been sealed. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg I'll also correct the part that I added on COM:CRT/UAE concerning pre-1993 works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Carl, this fact may affect several non-architectural Philippine works made before 1972, since several are unprotected due to lack of registration (formalities existed until November 1972, per COM:PHILIPPINES#General rules). It seems, Wikimedia Commons-wise, being public domain by default in the source country is worse than being public domain due to term expiry, due to URAA. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This stuff is rarely if ever tested in court, but when a copyright owner had no chance of protection, I think it's likely that the U.S. would consider a work restored. If it was PD due to the copyright owner's own inaction, that may be an entirely different situation. They were given the opportunity of a copyright term and basically declined it. That may count as expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg you mean, if (assuming) a pre-1972 Philippine work is unregistered, it is counted as "expired" under US URAA rule? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible to say with any certainty, but I'd lean that way yes. The term of protection was available and the copyright owner chose not to use it, so it made the term zero or very short or whatever the formalities were. (Which were of course inherited from U.S. law.) The URAA seems fairly clear that they will protect works above the U.S. threshold even if they were under the source country threshold. It does not say explicitly what would happen in a situation like North Korea. In the end, a judge would have to interpret the wording is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection with regards to the particular situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Marsha P. Johnson Image

Hi! I'm currently working on an article on the Wikipedia side and would love to use this image of Marsha P. Johnson for it. However, I'm a bit unsure about the PD justification and am wondering if anyone has any insights on what its copyright status might be. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any confirmation at the original source that the photo is PD. The photo needed to have been published without a copyright notice before 1989 in order to be PD, not simply printed once without notice. I'm not sure if Hank O'Neal (the photographer) made that image as part of a published series, but we would need confirmation that it was indeed published without a notice before it can be hosted on Commons. Given the annotations by Allen Ginsberg on the back of the photograph as described at the source, it may have been published; but those also could've been the annotations of a friend on an unpublished image. The auction house that was selling the image described it as part of an "archive", which could also imply that the works were unpublished. We need more info for any sort of decision imo. 19h00s (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agregar LicenseReview a las fotografías que están al Dominio Público

Buenas, se puede agregar el témplate {{LicenseReview}} a las fotografías,logos,etc. que han pasado al Dominio Público por ejemplo como este (File:Logo White House (USA) 2025.png) ,para mi opinión agregar este témplate (LicenseReview) fue buena idea?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

LicenseReview is for when a license specified on an external website needs to be checked by a license reviewer. It's usually not for PD works, as such evidence needs to be supplied with the upload. Or in the case of something like that, it's pretty obvious just by looking at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Scans of UK passport covers

Hi, What is the copyright status of these? Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Passports of the United Kingdom was closed as kept, but DeFacto has pointed out that the UK Gov document says The Controller of His Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), who manages Crown copyright, must give permission before a British passport and the Royal crest image on the front of a passport can be reproduced. What do you think? Yann (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

UK crown copyright would expire after 50 years. When was the first passport with that particular rendition of the crest? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a slightly more detailed document by the HM Passport Office regarding this issue: . Tvpuppy (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

1991 Polish newspaper photo

Does this photo (https://mieszkaniec.pl/henryk-machalica-mieszkaniec-nr-7-1991/) of a Polish actor published on this Polish newspaper in 1991 fall under PD-Poland? Lemonix1004 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Taxidermist works

Would the work of a en:taxidermist be something considered eligible for copyright protection? Could there be creativity involved in the way the work (e.g. an animal) is posed or otherwise costumed? For example, would File:Cocaine Bear, Kentucky for Kentucky Fun Mall (cropped).jpg be a derviative work in which the photgraphed stuffed bear is eligible for copyright protection? I tried Googling it and found what appears to be a US court case saying such works can be eligible for copyright protection here, but I can't read the full page without registering for the site. There's also File:Primate Taxidermy, Rahmat International Wildlife Museum and Gallery.jpg showing various monkeys. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: See also Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Taxidermy and Category:Taxidermy-related deletion requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Taxidermy is, in essence, a rather morbid sort of sculpture. While the animal's skin isn't a copyrightable work, there's plenty of creative work involved in posing it. Omphalographer (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Bundestag Image Database

Many of the works - though not all - in the Bundestag Image Database () have the licensing text "This image may be used for private and commercial, non-advertising purposes. Use of the image on social media is permitted." (example). Some do not have this text, instead saying "This image may only be used for private purposes, as well as for the purposes of political reporting or political education. Use of this image on social media is prohibited." (example), which is clearly unacceptable for Commons. So my question is, is the first one Commons-acceptable? It explicitly states commercial use is allowed but also non-advertising which I am confused by. And if so, what would be the license? Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment nothing in that explicitly authorizes derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I took a look through the database's terms of use. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 seem to indicate broad derivative use is not allowed beyond technical edits; 3.3 specifically says "More significant edits to an image are generally not permitted, particularly via drawings of the image, rephotography, colour changes, cropping or the use of montage techniques.". Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload this on wikicommons?

So, recently I've decided to upload photo from one of the scientific journals and it states that it is under a CC-BY license, but when I go to the RightsLink site it still requires permission (?), it also states that: "Note: This article is available under a Creative Commons License. Please return to the article and check the Copyright Information at the end of the article to clarify which Creative Commons License this article is published under and whether permission is required. Please see the following link for full details of license types: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/". Should I still upload it?

P.S. Here is the link for the article and its corresponding RightsLink site:

1.https://molecularcytogenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13039-015-0142-7#rightslink

2.https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?title=Cytogenomic%20delineation%20and%20clinical%20follow-up%20of%2010%20Brazilian%20patients%20with%20Pallister-Killian%20syndrome&author=Larissa%20Sampaio%20de%20Athayde%20Costa%20et%20al&contentID=10.1186%2Fs13039-015-0142-7&copyright=Costa%20et%20al.&publication=1755-8166&publicationDate=2015-06-26&publisherName=SpringerNature&orderBeanReset=true&openaccess=true

NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You can use this article under terms a CC-BY license but you want a different license you should use the RightsLink site. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

So it means that I can upload photo from this article without getting in trouble? NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly no copyright-related issue. Figure 2 (the photograph) certainly would need (at least) to be tagged with {{Personality rights}} and might violate Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. You won't "get in trouble" over this, but I cannot guarantee that the photograph would not be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I usually tag photos with an identifiable person with a personality rights warning.

Thank you for the clarification! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Toicon fandom series and possible derivative works

I am in the process of adding more images to Category:Toicon fandom series icons as many of the icons listed at https://web.archive.org/web/20201031052506/http://www.toicon.com/series/fandom (the site is currently defunct, so I am using an archive) are not listed there. All toicon icons were released by the copyright holder (Carol Liao) under the CC BY 4.0 license; however, most icons in this series derive from some element of pop culture (film, television, music, video game, etc.). Some icons depict enough creative elements from the underlying work that they would constitute derivative works; whereas, others may be permitted based on the rule that alternative depictions of an idea (without copying from a specific depiction of the idea) are permitted on Commons or because they derive from {{PD-textlogo}} elements (see further information at COM:FANART).

The main question for this discussion is this: which icons from this set should be disallowed as derivative works and which should be allowed as simply alternative expressions of ideas or as depictions of simple logos? (For example, the icon for "to uncover" should be allowed as it is similar to File:Bullwhip and IJ hat.jpg; and, the icon for "to defend" should be permitted as it depicts the PD File:Captain America Shield.svg.) Before anyone asks, this discussion may also be used as a starter for DRs for some files already in the category. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Spanish freedom of panorama and today's POTD

I was somewhat surprised by today's picture of the day, File:Oratorio de Santa María Reina y Madre, Málaga, España, 2023-05-20, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg, showing a church ceiling painting in Spain by a living artist (Raúl Berzosa Fernández (Q20013463)). The painting is not in the public domain, and I don't see any VRT tags on the file page.

Instead, there is the tag {{FoP-Spain}}, claiming that “The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 35.2 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, which states that: Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.”

The way I interpret that law is that it covers works located in public outdoors (parks, streets, squares, other public thoroughfares), but not inside buildings (public or not). The map in Commons:Freedom of panorama also shows Spain in light green color for a simple OK, not in the dark green color for OK, including public interiors.

Am I missing or misinterpreting something? Does Spanish fop cover indoor works after all? Or is the {{FoP-Spain}} tag just wrong for that file (which would ultimately mean it needs to be deleted)? Pinging @Poco a poco: as the uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 06:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is some minor reservation at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oratorio de Santa María Reina y Madre, Málaga, España, 2023-05-20, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg though; ping @BigDom: who uttered the reservation. See also Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 5#does FOP in Spain also apply to interiours of public buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)