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)

I have received a reply from TIPO for the email I said "If they confirmed notes are in the exempt scope", and they wrote as "依本局歷次函釋(90年3月15日智著字第09000011490號函、電子郵件109021及電子郵件1101217)，有關中央銀行依中央銀行法所發行之新臺幣，如屬於公務員職務上製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款所稱之公文，除其他法令有特別規定者，任何人均得自由利用之，不涉及著作權的問題，如您欲進一步確認，建議可逕洽中央銀行。". Demonstrably, they neither define nor confirm notes are in that scope, instaed they used "如屬"(if it is in that scope) again and asked me to send my enquiry to the bank. Then, as the bank said they are protected by the Act, CUR Taiwan is  Not OK.--Hamish (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

OK sir, reverted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Zy26: I have received another reply from the Bank, provide as is. Thank you for your email dated July 3, 2025, regarding the use of New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) banknote images. Please be informed that the use of banknote images requires prior approval from the Central Bank. However, it is unlikely to be approved for commercial use due to concern about potential illegal use. Your understanding on this matter would be much appreciated. I consider those two emails can fully address my opinion, but I still wish to know if you have got any other official perspectives. --Hamish (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Mary Taviner in about 1939.jpg

When I access source url for File:Mary Taviner in about 1939.jpg, I don't see anything indicating the file has been released under a {{cc-by-4.0}} license. Said license seems unnecessary to me if the photo is really {{PD-UK-unknown}} since the CC seems to imply the website copy of the photo is somehow eligible for copyright protection separate from the original photo, even though that's typically not the case for slavish reproductions per COM:2D copying. Since the PD-UK-unknown license was added by the uploader after the file had been uploaded, I wondering whether the uploader just forgot to remove the CC license after doing so. I've asked the uploader to comment here, but if anyone can think of another explanation, please feel free to add it below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The text at the source is CC BY 4.0. Apparently, the uploader mistakingly applied it to the photo. The erroneous Cc-by-4.0 template should be removed. The UK and the US status of the photo must be determined. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, if the two licenses had both been correct, they might not have been redundant. A {{PD-UK-unknown}} work originally published in the UK after 1939 would not have been in the public domain there in 1996, so URAA restoration is likely to be an issue. If {{Cc-by-4.0}} doesn't apply, this may still be under copyright in the U.S. hinnk (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not good at this licensing stuff. My understanding is that the photo is British, dated around 1939, by an unknown photographer. It is in the collection of the British Library, who published it on their blog website https://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2023/06/the-actor-the-fascist-and-the-reincarnated-queen.html. I have contacted the British Library Licensing Department to ask them if I could download it and use it to illustrate the WP article. They replied "you are allowed to download the images and use them in your article. Please acknowledge the Library accordingly: From the British Library Collection:  (followed by the shelfmark including folio/page number)" and "the only images freely downloadable from the resources you have sent us is the image from our blog. You are able to download and use it in your publication crediting the Library."

I'd appreciate your help to get the licensing correct for this image. Masato.harada (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masato.harada: There are two potential issues with the situation you decribed above. The first one has to do with something called the en:URAA date under US copyright law (mentioned above by hinnk), and the second has to do with COM:LJ. A photo taken in 1939 by an unknown author in the UK could've had its copyright restored under US copyright law on January 1, 1996, which is the URAA date for UK works, if it was still under copyright protection under UK copyright law at that time. This would mean that Commons might not be able to host the photo if it's still not PD in the US even though it might now PD in the UK because Commons policy requires that the content it host meet COM:L in both the US and in the country of first publication. (FWIW, a photo taken in the UK by an unknown author and first published in 1939 is eligible for copyright protection for 95 years after first publication under US copyright law.)

Another potential issue has to do with you are allowed to download the images and use them in your article part of the reply you received from the British Library Licensing Department (BLLD). Commons can't host content that places any restrictions on commericial or derivative re-use; in other words, it can't host content limited to "Wikipedia use only", "educational use only", "non-commercial use only", or any similar restrictions. The license you're using allows anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and reuse for any purpose as long as they comply with the terms of the {{CC-by-4.0}} license. This is why Commons tends to require explicit COM:CONSENT from copyrights holder to make sure they understand and agree to release their works in accordance with COM:L. Only the consent of the original copyright holder or their heirs matters and for works with an unknown authors this is practially impossible to obtain. It's possible the BLLD (mistakenly) believes it can claim a new copyright over old photos it has digitalized, but there have been several court cases in both the US and the UK (see en:Copyfraud) that have stated this isn't the case. So, it seems unlikely (at least to me) that the BLLD wouldn't have a valid claim of copyright ownership over this photo without a en:copyright transfer agreement stating so or some kind of en:work for hire agreement, but such agreements don't seem like they can really exist if the original photographer is truly unknown. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this.

Any suggestions for how to resolve it, or do we have to remove the image? Masato.harada (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the only way this can most likely be resolved is most is going to be copyright holder consent being verified as explained in COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. If you can get the BLLD to email Wikimedia VRT stating it's agreeing to release the photo under an acceptable free license, then VRT might decide that's enough to keep it. Under current US copyright law, a photo taken by an unknown author and first published in 1939 won't enter into the public domain because of its age until January 1, 2035, (1939 + 95 years + 1 year); so, it's most likely going to be considered still protected and not OK for Commons until then unless copyright holder consent can be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Kloster Lüne Kreuzgang Fenster 2

Das Bild ist kein "eigenes Werk". Für den Fall, dass die abgebildeten Fenster nicht alt genug sein sollten: Kann man hier Panoramafreiheit beanspruchen, weil der Standort des Fotografen potentiell öffentlich ist? Es handelt sich um den Kreuzgang von Kloster Lüne. GerritR (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@GerritR: it is presumably "own work" in the sense that the uploader Heideröslein took the photograph. Obviously, they did not create the stained glass. It's an interior shot, so German Panoramafreiheit does not apply. The question then becomes whether the stained-glass window is still copyrighted. I have no idea of the age of the work, do you? - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. But if the Panoramafreiheit (FOP) should apply, age won't matter. So this question first, then the next... GerritR (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@GerritR: In Deutschland kann die Panoramafreiheit nicht für Innenansichten beansprucht werden, wie JMabel völlig zurecht anmerkte. Deswegen kann dieses Bild nur dann bestehen bleiben, wenn der Glasmaler, welcher das Fenster schuf, mehr als 70 Jahre tot ist (und damit sein Werk durch Zeitablauf gemeinfrei wurde). Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Das stimmt in Prinzip, aber ich hatte neulich einen Fall, bei dem das Werk sich in einem umfriedeten Friedhof befand, der sogar zeitweise abgeschlossen wird - der Bereich galt gleichwohl als öffentlich zugänglich. Die Frage ist, ob das auch für den Kreuzgang des besagten Klosters gelten kann? GerritR (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Friedhöfe sind eher der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet, Kreuzgänge eher nicht. Das dürfte so ähnlich wie der Innenhof eines Mehrfamilienhauses als Privatgrund ohne Eröffnung der Panoramafreiheit sein, oder, @Gnom? Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Ähm, ist der Urheber dieses Fensters nicht schon länger als 70 Jahre tot?! Gnom (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Zitat von dieser Webseite: Der Kreuzgang besteht aus vier gewölbten Flügeln die den Remter, die Brunnenhalle, die Kirche, die Barbarakapelle und den Kapitelsaal miteinander verbinden. Gleichzeitig umschließen sie den Friedhof, der ausschließlich für die Bewohnerinnen von Kloster Lüne bestimmt war und ist. Alle Fenster des Kreuzganges waren ursprünglich kunstvoll bemalt und blieben erhalten bis 1946. Damals sprengten die britischen Besatzer in der Nähe eine Eisenbahnbrücke. Durch die heftige Detonation zersprangen die meisten Fenster und viele Dachziegel. Die wenigen erhaltenen Fragmente hat man bei der Reparatur sinnvoll zusammengefasst.

Daraus ergeben sich zwei Schlussfolgerungen:

1. Der Friedhof ist womöglich nicht öffentlich zugänglich.
2. Die Glasmalerei wurde höchstwahrscheinlich nach 1946 angefertigt. Wenn der Künstler unbekannt ist, dann wäre das Werk gemeinfrei, sofern die Glasmalerei vor 1954/1955 angefertigt worden ist. Wenn der Künstler bekannt ist, müsste er spätestens 1954/1955 gestorben sein, damit das Werk gemeinfrei ist. Das Werk ist vermutlich zu neu, um das mit Sicherheit annehmen zu können. Außerdem kommt hier noch das Problem des Urheberrechtschutzes der USA hinzu (URAA), aber da bin ich überfragt.

Nakonana (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

If they replicate the older windows, there would be no new copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I remember reading that there were (at least some) new designs among the post-1946 windows, but I've also found a website (posted below) that mentions some reconstructed windows. This might need a case-by-case assessment. Nakonana (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Löschantrag: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kloster_L%C3%BCne_Kreuzgang_Fenster_2.jpg GerritR (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Die wenigen erhaltenen Fragmente hat man bei der Reparatur sinnvoll zusammengefasst. Heißt das nicht, die existierenden Fenster bestehen aus Originalmaterial aus dem 15. Jahrhundert und wären damit gemeinfrei? Oder schuf das zusammensetzen der erhaltenen Teile ein neues Werk mit neuen Rechten? Die Webseite des Kloster sagt dazu übrigens nur: Kreuzgang und Buntglasfenster In den Kreuzgangflügeln finden sich die ältesten Glasmalereien des Klosters aus dem frühen 15. Jahrhundert. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Es blieben aber nur wenige Fragmente erhalten, was vermutlich kein allzu gutes Argument ist. Die Informationen von der Kloster Webseite klingen dagegen eher vielversprechend. Befindet sich der Kreuzgangflügel eventuell im Innenhof? Dann würde es Sinn machen, dass diese Fenster von den Detonationen nicht beschädigt wurden, weil sie wohl von den Außenwänden usw. vor den Druckwellen geschützt wurden. Nakonana (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Diese Seite könnte eventuell auch hilfreiche Informationen liefern. Nakonana (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Weiterer Link: . Nakonana (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Hannoverscher Rennverein e.V. Logo mit steigendem Pferd nach links und dreiblättrigem Kleeblatt.jpg

I think this file is too complex for PD-textlogo, but can it be free anyway because of old age? Jonteemil (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ping uploader @Bernd Schwabe in Hannover. Jonteemil (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I gave the right trademark warnung. Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bernd Schwabe in Hannover I don't question the trademark, but the license. Jonteemil (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bernd Schwabe in Hannover: Where does the information that this is a ca. 1900 drawing come from? Is this the exact original drawing, or was the original drawing just similar with some horse and cloverleaf? --Rosenzweig τ 22:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pan American Games bids

Are the logos in Category:Pan American Games bids covered by {{PD-PE-insignia}}? I believe so, but I'm not 100% certain. ----Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Danish AI "deepfake" law

Flagged this on the Danish Copyright page and realized that might not get much traction there. But if anyone's interested, Denmark seems likely to pass a new law soon restricting all deepfake/synthetic/AI-generated media of living people, might be good to start thinking about what would need to be added to the copyright page. This law would go beyond other proposals that only limit sexual or pornographic media. More info at the discussion over there. 19h00s (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Another related discussion: Commons:Village pump#"Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features". Nakonana (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Wappen brilon wald.svg

zu dieser Datei gibt es einen frisch abgelehnten Löschantrag: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wappen_brilon_wald.svg. Der Entscheider - User:ChemSim - argumentiert insbesondere mit fehlender Schöpfungshöhe. Ich meine aber aus der bisherigen Erfahrung gelernt zu haben, dass die Latte der Schöpfungshöhe ziemlich niedrig hängt. Diese Grafik würde demnach locker drüberhüpfen. Oder doch nicht? GerritR (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@GerritR: Please read COM:L and COM:TOO before arguing! ChemSim (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

{{PD-Coa-Germany}} seems to be applicable since the coa is used in an official manner. But even if it wasn't, the key at the bottom would definitely fall under PD-Coa-Germany as it was taken from the official coa of Brilon (File:Stadtwappen der Stadt Brilon.png), and the stylized river at the top right is also close enough to depictions of rivers on other official German coas (e.g. File:Coat of arms of North Rhine-Westphalia.svg), so the only thing that might be copyrightable about this coa would be the forest in the top left and/or the composition/arrangement of the images. Nakonana (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. It's a non-official coat of arms (or better: logo), of a so-called "Stadtteil" (part of a municipality in Germany). It has never been official. And the COA-like shape (shield) is not enough to make a COA of it. In fact, it is an example for paraheraldry. The template is made for real coats of arms, not for paraheraldism. GerritR (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it's used in an official manner even if it's unofficial. But as I said, even if the coa-template does not apply, then the key and river would still not be copyrightable because they can be found in other official coas of Germany. The only things that could be copyright protected are the trees in the top left and/or the arrangement of the images. Nakonana (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, if a part of a thing is protected, the whole thing should be protected. And if the arrangement of elements leads to something new, it may be protected, too. GerritR (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, Meinung bitte, danke! GerritR (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's obviously not an official coa and never was (de:Brilon-Wald#Logo explicitly says that it was created in 1992 as a logo shaped like a coa), so PD-Coa-Germany cannot apply, and it's not old enough for PD-old. Germany actually has a rather high threshold of originality, and I could see the whole thing being below COM:TOO Germany. But we have to consider US copyright as well, and I'm not so sure if the whole logo is below COM:TOO US. So we'd need to determine that. If doubt remains if the logo is actually below COM:TOO US, then delete at Commons per the precautionary principle. And possibly relocate the file to de.wp as below COM:TOO Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 22:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Danke. Ich habe den Löschantrag reaktiviert. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wappen_brilon_wald.svg GerritR (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

TOO is very high in the United States, see COM:TOO US. Nakonana (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Possibly illegitimate / overextended Flickr licensing

Hello,

a fellow Wikimedian noticed conflicting licensing statements in File:Salzgrotte in der Limes-Therme Hilft bei Atemwegserkrankungen und Erkältungen (9298253229) (3).jpg and opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salzgrotte in der Limes-Therme Hilft bei Atemwegserkrankungen und Erkältungen (9298253229) (3).jpg. It's a valid concern. I think that the operator of this German municipality's Flickr account overextended a bit their licensing and made a erroneous statement of CC-By on Flickr (this is the short of what I wrote as commentary in the DR). As a erroneously granted license was never valid to begin with, as far as I know German law, I don't think that this image can be kept. The same issue is surely present with other photographs in Category:Limes-Therme (Bad Gögging), from the same source and photographer:

• File:Bad Gögging - Thermalwasser (9206265061) (3).jpg
• File:Badespaß in der Limes-Therme (9298249981) (3).jpg
• File:Die Römer-Sauna der Limes-Therme befindet sich in einem nachgebauten römischen Wachtturm (9298265633) (3).jpg
• File:Ein beruhigendes Bad in Naturhopfen (9301039426) (3).jpg
• File:Erholungsbad der Limes-Therme (9298268305) (3).jpg
• File:Gesundheitsförderndes Mineral-Thermalwasser in allen Becken der Limes-Therme (9298258731) (3).jpg
• File:Limes-Therme bei Nacht (9301054020) (3).jpg
• File:Naturmoor (9298182215) (3).jpg
• File:Römer Sauna in der Limes-Therme (9300922670) (3).jpg
• File:Römer-Sauna in der Limes-Therme (9298244663) (3).jpg

Furthermore, there's File:Bad Gögging Winter Limes Therme (10169857276).jpg, apparently from another photographer. There, there's not such wording like in the imagery listed above, but it may be safer to deal with it in the same manner as with the files with presumed untrustful licenses. My idea would either to delete them or to go through VRT to get confirmation that the municipality is indeed entitled to grant a CC-By license despite some current evidence of the contrary. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Wrong licensing happens often enough on flickr. Clearly delete. If someone wants to go through the effort of requesting a real license, the contact should be with the copyright owner: . Chances are probably very low, given the statements. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

PD-USGov on derivative works

File:Superman Trump.jpg is a light edit of a poster for the new Superman film with the actor's face replaced by that of Donald Trump, the chest logo changed to a more retro version, the background filled out to the sides, and some text alteration. The rest of the image is identical. It's been shared on X by the official White House account, presumably without the permission of the copyright holder.

Does PD-USGov apply to this? Belbury (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, therefore Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman Trump.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Fox Kids images

Hi, Are images uploaded by JHughesWiki (talk · contribs) OK? File:Fox Kids ID 2019 (Hughes-verse) 2.webp and File:Fox Kids ID 2024 (Hughes-verse) 2.webp may be OK with {{PD-shape}}, but I am not sure. I suppose these are from USA. Yann (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Not OK for a non-copyright reason - these are all fictitious "alternate universe" logos. I've opened a mass DR - Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JHughesWiki. Omphalographer (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I warned the uploader about Commons scope. Yann (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Possible case of Licence laundering?

So I was looking at images of the premiere of Sonic 3, here: Category:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film). I saw that the video has a correct CC 3.0 licence. But the problem is that the description of the video mentions "All Materials Provided by EPK TV" and "All rights, title and interest to the Materials, including the copyrights and trademarks therein, shall at all times be and remain with the studio and any other co-owner(s) of such copyrights and trademarks in the Materials.". While checking on EPK.TV's website the site metnions is a distribution site for press materials provided by Movie Studios, so I'm doubting if the uploader of the video (in this case Our Movie Guide) is the Copyright owner. I think this could warrant a Mass DR for all premiere images and the video right? Hyperba21 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the YT account is not the copyright holder, therefore the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, uploads from the Our Movie Guide YouTube channel are a known and recurring problem. Can't uploads from that channel be blocked? Or are they already blocked? Or is that not possible? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We should have a list of not-to-be-trusted YT channels as a guide, similar to the existing list of questionable Flickr users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We already have that at Commons:Questionable YouTube videos  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's nice! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies, Here's the DR if anyone wants to add anything else or speedy delete it. Hyperba21 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

David Hammons sculpture, Gansevoort Peninsula NYC - Architecture vs Sculpture ToO

Back with another annoyingly esoteric threshold of originality question if anyone wants to spare a second or two. American artist David Hammons, with the support of the Whitney Museum, permanently installed the sculpture Day's End in the water off Hudson River Park at Gansevoort Peninsula in Lower Manhattan (Meatpacking/lower Chelsea). The sculpture is a full-scale steel rod skeletal outline of a pier building that used to stand on the site; detailed history/pictures from the Whitney here, scroll down to "Installation photography" for the most detailed images. Do we think this would qualify as a work of architecture under U.S. law and thus be allowable on Commons under architectural FoP, or do we think it would count as a sculptural work? And if it's a sculptural work, do we think it rises above the ToO in the U.S.? It's such a simple structure but I really am struggling to gauge it.

There are only a few images of the work on Commons so far (most seem de minimis to me if this work is indeed a copyrighted sculpture, 1, 2, 3), but it's permanently located in a very prominent spot in New York so it's bound to end up in some more pictures sooner or later.

I'm not very clued in to the architecture side of U.S. copyright so I really don't know what this qualifies as. On the sculpture side, I'd say an interesting precedent is Cady Noland's Log Cabin, denied registration for ToO-related issues (final denial language here). An image of the Hammons work is currently on EN Wiki as non-free fair use in the article about the work (uploaded by me as non-free out of caution instead of hosting here without checking first).

Thanks in advance! 19h00s (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s Re: Log Cabin, it is eligible for {{PD-structure|USA}}. US Copyright Office's denial of registration means it becomes public domain by default. We can now host that structure (I don't treat it as sculpture). I have no comment on Day's End, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the fair use en.wiki image you're referring to is that of Log Cabin. Apologies, my wrong comprehension. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jwilz - would love to upload a pic of Log Cabin if I had a freely licensed one (I believe at this point whatever was left of it may have been completely destroyed, sadly).

Anyone wanna take a stab at the Hammons sculpture? Happy to let it lie if there aren't any takers (will probably bring this back up if/when I see an image on here that rises above de minimis). 19h00s (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Need help regarding uploading an image from ScienceDirect

I am writing an article on Kopili Fault in Assamese wikipedia. This is regarding the image File:Kopili fault.jpg I need for the article.

I took the image from the paper 3D structural modelling of the Kopili fault zone in North-East India: Seismotectonic analysis utilising focal mechanism solutions of small-to-moderate earthquakes - ScienceDirect, and am currently trying to get permission from them. But their process is very complicated, and I am trying to navigate through it.

Yesterday I tried our commons IRC irc://irc.libera.chat/wikimedia-commons-lr to get some guidance regarding it but nobody responded. My basic question is this: We often reuse research materials, including materials from ScienceDirect, in our research papers with proper attributions free of cost. Can we do the same for Wikipedia, too?

I'll be grateful if anyone can guide me.

Prabhakar Sarma Neog (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Psneog: Firstly, I think you need to distinguish between uploading images to Wikipedia and uploading images to its sister site Commons. Commons only accepts images that are public domain or freely licensed. It appears you've taken a copyrighted diagram from a science journal and uploaded it to Commons before obtaining a copyright clearance from that journal. This goes against Commons policy, and that is why the image is now in the line for deletion.

Now, the English-language Wikipedia (which is hosted in the USA) does allow certain non-free images to be uploaded there without copyright clearance under U.S. "Fair Use" law, but the rules around this are rather strict - see w:Wikipedia:FAIRUSE vs. Commons:FAIRUSE. However, not all Wikis in other languages allow "Fair Use". The table at Metawiki:NFC says the Assamese-language Wiki's policy on non-free content is "unclear", so I'm not sure whether you'd be permitted to upload the image there either. Muzilon (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to create a section COM:CRT/Italy#De minimis and shortcut COM:DM Italy

Hello,

during the last few weeks, I pondered the question whereas Italian copyright rules show for a COM:De minimis principle; there are several deletion requests as case background:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Freedom (ship, 2001)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Fantasy (ship, 1976)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Dada (ship, 1981)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Wonder (ship, 2001)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Aki (ship, 2005)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Baby (ship, 1966)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moby Otta (ship, 1976)

Several Wikimedians participated already in pertinent exchanges: Eustace Bagge, Ruthven, Gnom, Friniate, Jim, Pi.1415926535 and Carl, be it in the DR or in my thread on Gnom's talk page. I think that the current state of affairs can be summed up as:

• the it:Diritto d'autore italiano (official page: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1941/07/16/041U0633/sg , easier readable full text on https://www.dirittodautore.it/legge-22-aprile-1941-n-633-legge-sul-diritto-dautore/) does not contain pertinent De minimis exceptions, especially not in the exception sections in art. 65-75.
• court cases are far and few in between, one example is https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2016/03/14/musica-nello-studio-dentistico-nessuna-lesione-del-diritto-d-autore about music played as background in a dentistry cabinet (result: no licensing fees due because the music is minimal when compared to the main purpose and amount of public present)
• Friniate found a legal thesis from 2020, https://ulb-dok.uibk.ac.at/download/pdf/4973654.pdf . It's written in Italian from a student at the Leopold Franzens university of Innsbruck (Austria). There, a source by Italian legal scholars, referencing De minimis is quoted: Il termine francese delle larcins imperceptibles, piccoli furti impercettibili, è usato dalla dottrina italiana per riferirsi proprio a queste riproduzioni minime che non sono in grado a recare un danno rilevante agli interessi dell’autore originario e che quindi non costituirebbero plagio. La parola “minimis” non deve indurre a pensare che l’eccezione dipenda solamente dall’entità misurabile (in percentuali o sim.) della riproduzione in relazione all’opera; un’eventuale violazione non è questione di quantità, bensì di qualità. (Piola-Caselli A./Arienzo A./Bile F., voce Diritti d’autore, in Azara A./Eula E. (a cura di), Novissimo Digesto Italiano, vol. V, Utet, Torino.). I tried and failed to find an ISBN or another bibliographical reference for that work, though.
• Ruthven said that we mai rely upon general European Union rules which allow De minimis generally, see COM:DM EU.

I tend to contest the last point, though. The wording of the relevant directive is that member states may allow DM exceptions, among others (AI training, work transformations to show for that disabled persons can consume works in fashions suited for their limitations, etc.). I also found Italian copyright law amendments which do exactly that: referencing this exact EU directive and amending their law to provide for some exceptions. But: the De minimis exception is conspicuously absent, at least as far as I saw in https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/13209 (there are also other amendments later on, but again without anything De-minimis related, but I forgot their URL and couldn't retrace my searching with my browsing history or Google yet. Will try later again).

License question

I'm wondering if it's possible to use a file from this document. The document says on page 52: "Nichtkommerzielle Verwendung mit Quellenangabe gestattet (CC BY 4.0)" is that now CC BY 4.0 or CC BY-NC 4.0? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Currently I would say no. Though it is not entirely clear it seems that they meant CC BY-NC 4.0. As it is not clear, according to Commons:PRP you cannot use it. If you want to upload the file I would suggest you ask them and clarify the licence. --Isderion (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of postal covers of Russia in the United States

I've been organizing images of Russian postal covers for a while now and although most of them have licenses for Russia, since stamps of the country are PD, they all seem to lack licenses for the United States. Per Commons:Licensing Commons only accepts works "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." A lot of the covers also seem to have copyright notices, meaning they are clearly not PD in the United States regardless of their copyright status in Russia.

The problem is that potentially thousands of files would have to be nominated for deletion if the guideline was being followed and I'm hesitant to just mass nominate every single image of a postal cover, stamp, or similar item from Russia that was created in the last 70 years just because they don't contain licenses for the United States. Obviously, that would be a big blow to the area. I'm not sure what other option there is though. So does anyone have thoughts about it before I move forward with doing mass DRs or have an issue with me doing that? Again, I'm not sure what alternative there is given the circumstances and how clear the guidelines are about it. So at least base comments on policy and provide an alternative if you decide to reply to this. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Anything before 1 March 1989 should be good, because it would not have had notification/registration as then required in the U.S., and would not have been restored under URAA because it was not copyrighted in its home country. I don't know about anything after that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, a position supported by users on Commons is that such work would have been restored under URAA, because the very specific condition for a work for not being restored by URAA is that the work was "in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection" (104A(h)(6)(D)). Not just in the public domain for any reason. But in the public domain specifically through expiratiom of its term of protection. I.e. it must have been protected by copyright in the first place, and then that copyright expired. It's the same problem with other types of works, published before 1989, that were never under copyright in their source country but are copyrightable in the U.S. See the explanations by Carl Lindberg in discussions related to that topic since at least 2012, for example in a recent discussion about North Korean works. Other previous discussions relate also for example to non-artistic Brazilian photographs published before 1989. (However, the wording of a template created by a user in 2022 seems to completely ignore the problem.) Other examples could be found. That's how the U.S. Copyright Act is worded, but it causes some situations that seem almost absurd. As noted in previous discussions on this topic, «due to URAA, being public domain by default in the source country is worse than being public domain due to term expiry» (to quote the words of JWilz12345 in the recent discussion). For that reason and others, Commons might prefer to not go out of its way to delete such files. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I don't nominate images for deletion mainly (or purely) because of the URAA myself. It's really a side thing in this case anyway. Although I still appreciate the extra context around it. I've never been a big fan of the law or following it on here though. For all intents and purposes we should just nominate files for deletion based on less ambiguous criteria and mostly ignore it outside of talking about how ridiculous the whole thing is. But it doesn't matter here because there's other reasons to nominate the files for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: speaking of absurdity, if taken at face value that would typically mean that other countries' laws are copyrighted in the U.S. if they were written in 1930 or later. This would, of course, include copyright laws, so you could theoretically be sued for quoting the law that says some work is not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That would not work, because all non-US laws can be used freely in the US. Commons uses Template:PD-EdictGov for that. (Laws can, however, be under copyright in other countries and the policy of Commons does not allow files that copy laws that are not free in their countries of origin, but quotations are accepted in text pages.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, how about the text content of COM:Singapore? Singapore does not place their government works and their "official texts" in the public domain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a media file, it should be good. By the way, in case of substantial copies, does Commons apply a "country of origin" requirement to content other than media files? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that might be one of those cases where we ignore US copyright law? Like with recent statues and sculptures in Germany that are covered by German FoP but would be copyright protected in the US? Nakonana (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm probably going to do that for anything published before 1990 per Jmabel's comment. I think its to risky with more recent stuff though. Especially since the copyright guideline for Russia specifically says "any work originating in Russia must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both the Russian Federation and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons" at the top of it. You can't really ignore something that obvious outright. Otherwise, the guideline should be changed. After doing more research I don't think it really matters with stuff published before 1990 though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that your plan of action is good. Works that are under copyright in the U.S., for reasons other than the URAA, cannot be on Commons. That includes works that complied with U.S. formalities and works first published after February 1989. For works that were first published before March 1989 and that are or may be under copyright in the U.S. because of the URAA, this would be a good opportunity to actually follow the guidance of the Wikimedia Foundation, to leave to the WMF the evaluation of potentially URAA-related files and the decisions to keep or to delete them. The bit about the United States in the paragraph at the top of COM:CRT/Russia is not a special guideline. It is merely a reminder of that point of the policy COM:L that applies to all files on Commons, regardless of their countries of origin. A similar reminder is present at the top of the COM:CRT pages for most countries. The actual policy (COM:L) would apply even if that reminder wasn't repeated in the informal COM:CRT pages or if the COM:CRT pages did not exist. In the case of Russia, it's probably more the bit of the intro about Russia that may be useful to remind users of this. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this a breach of copyright?

It appears that the description in is a copy of the information provided on the museum website at . I am not clear if it is OK to copy the text on the museum website – I don't believe it is. I could provide an entirely different description, based on the types of ships shown. (So, from a history of maritime technology point of view, not that of an art historian.) Should I delete what is there and provide this alternative version? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired I believe you're correct, the description is definitely copyrightable and should be removed/replaced. The museum's terms and conditions say that "Where the NMM has the right to do so, and where indicated, it has also made its collection records and images available for non commercial reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence." A) The linked image page/description is not marked with a CC license, and B) the CC license the museum sometimes uses is not allowable on Commons because it's non-commercial/no derivatives. 19h00s (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I have provided an entirely different description. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Dresden-Innere Neustadt: Albertstraße 14, Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv

Ist die hier abgebildete Glaskunst alt genug? GerritR (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sind das offizielle Wappen?

Unabhängig davon fällt das ganze vermutlich unter De Minimis. Nakonana (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Das sind wohl offizielle Wappen sächsischer Städte. Beim Fenster in der Mitte, das zweite Wappen von oben auf der linken Seite ist das Wappen der Stadt Dresden (File:Dresden Stadtwappen.svg), das Wappen direkt unter Dresden ist von der Stadt Chemnitz (File:Coat of arms of Chemnitz.svg) und das neben Dresden ist das Wappen der Stadt Leipzig (File:Coat of arms of Leipzig.svg). Ohne jedes Wappen einzeln zu identifizieren, denke ich, dass es sich bei allen Wappen um offizielle Stadtwappen handelt, die in Deutschland gemeinfrei sind. Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Gemeinfrei in diesem Sinne sind nur die Wappen an sich, nicht deren gestalterische Interpretierung und Einbettung in ein Gesamtkunstwerk. Als solches muss man die Fenstergruppe sehen. GerritR (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Emperor Naruhito 2025 (cropped).jpg

I'm wondering whether there's a better way than {{PD-US}} to license File:Emperor Naruhito 2025 (cropped).jpg. The photo is sourced to the official Flickr account of the Government of Guatemala and is licensed as PD. If there's no specific COM:GUATEMALA license that can be used here, maybe one could be created (particularly if official Government of Guatemala Flickr photos are regularly licensed as such, which seems to be the case); if one can't be created, then maybe {{CC-0}} could be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Generally the correct tag in this case would be {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}}, along with {{FlickrReview}}. You can overide the incorrectly placed PD-US tag with those ones. PascalHD (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest PDMark-owner. The uncropped version is already reviewed by the bot. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Jewelry and copyright

Are contemporary jewelry pieces protected by copyright as works of art? E.g., File:BulgariFuji.jpg? Quick1984 (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984: Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Jewelry "Jewelry designs are generally protected by copyright so long as they exhibit originality and creativity. However, since items of jewelry don't normally carry a copyright notice, any jewelry sold in the United States before 1989 is probably in the public domain." --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Overhaul of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/European Union

Hello,

I think that the page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/European Union needs an overhaul. There are several points that feel misleading or inaccurate. I already began (and will continue) writing on Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/European Union, please join in! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) Grand-Duc (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Moon map public domain?

https://trek.nasa.gov/moon shows a whole map of the moon. The whole image has 109164 × 54582 Pixels and offers unpredecented details. It looks very NASA, but contents by LRO may be restricted, for example. Can somebosy help? Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Marine Institute Vessels

Hello All, I would like to upload and use the ship images of the Irish Marine Institute on this page. https://www.marine.ie/site-area/areas-activity/fisheries-ecosystems/interactive-marine-archive/vessels

Reading this page https://www.marine.ie/site-area/online-policies/re-use-public-sector-information?language=en, it looks like they are happy for images to be used

Just double checking to be sure, before I upload the images?

Thanks. Finestat (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Finestat: Thank you for checking first before uploading. The licensing page you linked to above states the following: "It also covers non-commercial research and study." and "Not use the information for the principal purpose of advertising or promoting a particular product or service." Those two things imply that the IMI is placing non-commercial and possibly non-derivative restrictions on the re-use of its original content, and content licensed under such restrictions can't be hosted on Commons per COM:LJ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks for the reply, that rules out using IMI's images.

I have a further question. One of the images on IMI's page is for the Fort Rannoch. Viewing the HTML source, they said they got the image from http://www.grantontrawlers.com/Trawlers/Fort%20Rannoch%20GN%2014.htm

This website no longer exists, but the page is archived here https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203304/http://www.grantontrawlers.com/Trawlers/Fort%20Rannoch%20GN%2014.htm

The relevant image is at the bottom of the page where they said that they don't know the origin.

I guess I know the answer, but I will ask anyway, can we use an image from a website that no longer exists and whose provenance is unknown? Finestat (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Finestat: As with any other image from the Internet: not unless we have grounds to say it is either free-licensed or in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thanks for the clarification. Finestat (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Help with licensing

Hello. I am hoping I can talk with you about a question about licensing images. Can someone help me? Many thanks, Harlan Hjlebo (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

just write your question here --Isderion (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. First, my apologies for being dense about this.

I am an author of an upcoming book on technology, and I have selected several images from Wikimedia that I would like to use. The photos are all listed as free to use, with attribution, which is listed as give appropriate credit, AND PROVIDE A LINK TO THE LICENSE.

I understand what "appropriate credit," but in this context I don't understand the link to the license.

So two questions:

1. Does "link to the license" mean including a link to the Attribution 2.0 Generic License that is shown in the line, "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license."

2. If so, do I include that link once on the "image credits" page for all of the images I use?

For instance, if I was using a photo of a box of crayons by Collin Anderson at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Box_of_crayons_IMG_0009.jpg, what would be the correct way to credit the image?

Many thanks,

Harlan Hjlebo (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

In books, it is common practice to list image sources en bloc at the end. So, you've got to reference the pages and images there and write a line like: "Photo of SUBJECT page XY: by NAME, licensed with LICENSE NAME [and ideally: via Wikimedia Commons]." The NAME is the civil name when known (look into the EXIF when applicable) or at least the Wikimedia username. Then, at the end of the bullet list, you should reference the used licenses with a hyperlink in text unter a section header "Work licenses used:". For the crayon box, the license text and link could be "CC-By 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en".

You should stick to the Creative Commons licenses (alternatives: public domain material and Free Art license) and avoid stuff that's only available under the GPL, that's the easiest way. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah -- this helps. But I'm not completely familiar with your terms. So for three images, would this be acceptable?

page 76 (Crayons): Collin Anderson, licensed with Wikimedia Commons

page 87 (Motorola G): AnVuong1222004, licensed with Wikimedia Commons

page 126 (Waymo car): Dilu, licensed by Wikimedia Commons

Work licensed used: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

Or, could I use an asterix after their names, with the asterix going to text at the bottom of the page that says, "Licensed by Wikimedia Commons." Hjlebo (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's more concise, but sadly, not fitting. The licensing statement is wrong, at the very least, it has to be:

• Image page 76, crayons: Photo by Collin Anderson, via Wikimedia Commons, License CC-By 2.0
• Image page 87, Motorola G: Photo by AnVuong1222004, via Wikimedia Commons, License CC-By-SA 4.0 (I assumed you meant File:Motorola Moto G.png).

Licenses used:

• CC-By 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en
• CC-By-SA 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

"Wikimedia Commons" is just a source reference, not the license. You could actually dispense with it, but NOT with the licensing statement.

I just remembered, it's an affair of courtesy and soundness in quoting to include exact sources for your imagery. For instance, when my son had to do a school homework about passenger shipping, he used Commons' media and included credit lines like: "Page 16, left: Queen_Mary_2_outbound_from_Southampton_Sept_2013.jpg, CC-By-SA 3.0, Brian Burnell via Wikimedia Commons".

So, I advise to use a complete credit line like this:

• Image page 76, crayons: Photo by Collin Anderson, "Box of crayons IMG 0009.jpg", License CC-By 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
• Image page 87, Motorola G: Photo by AnVuong1222004, "Motorola Moto G.png", License CC-By-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

It's a simple pattern:

-> Your own reference with page number, SUBJECT: AUTHOR, "Name at source", LICENSE STATEMENT (facultative: content provider)".

At the end, the URL for the licenses used., examples:

-> Licenses used:

• CC-By 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en
• CC-By-SA 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

You get the gist? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. It means restating "License CC-By 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons" more than 100 times, but it's more than worth it.

I will use the pattern just as you describe. Many thanks!

Harlan Hjlebo (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way: did you see the link with the globe and the text "Use this file on the web" on top of each media page? You can click on it to get a attribution line. And if you want, you're of course free to make groups of attributions under fitting section headers, examples:

Large number of copyvio uploads

In Special:ListFiles/Mkrax. I checked about a dozen bird photos from the set, and every one was a copyvio, mostly from facebook from up to 3-4 years before being uploaded here, but some from other published reports, etc. I suspect the entire set of uploads from this user are all copyvios, but I don't have time to deal with the whole lot. Anyone want some deleting work?! Thanks - MPF (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I randomly checked a few files and they had the same problem. Not sure if we really have to through every file. I would suggest giving the user some time to explain, otherwise Special:Nuke. --Isderion (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I left the user a message --Isderion (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of New Zealand state portrait of Queen Elizabeth II

I am in the process of tracking down copyright on File:The Queen of New Zealand, 1986 crop.jpg. There was some discussion in an RfC on Wikipedia about using it for the infobox photo of Elizabeth II on her article.

tl;dr: at this stage, I am leaning towards there not being permission for it to exist on Commons.

Uploading a logo?

I'm currently writing several articles for the German Wikipedia. All of them are about online marketplaces and internet auctions. F.e. Im writing articles about two or three relatively new auction platforms: Zaster.ch and Orsetto.ch (among others). I would like to include the platform logos in the articles (as is the case with eBay, Etsy, etc.). This should also be in the interest of the auction platforms. However, the logos can currently only be found on their websites. Am I violating copyright if I upload these logos? What's the best way to proceed? Hortulana (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Hortulana

pauschal lässt sich das nicht beantworten. Man müsste prüfen, ob die Logos Schöpfungshöhe haben oder nicht, siehe dazu am besten Commons:Threshold of originality sowie ausführlicher de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/angewandte Kunst. Zudem solltest du vorher prüfen ob die Platformen die Relevanzkriterien der deutschen Wikipeida erfüllen (siehe de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien). Nicht dass du dir Arbeit machst und der Artikel dann wegen mangelnder Relevanz gelöscht wird. Viele Grüße --Isderion (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Isderion,

danke Dir für die Rückmeldung. Sieht so aus, als ob es kein Problem sein sollte die Logos hochzuladen, da bei "Threshold of originality" als Beispiel das Logo von Amtrak verwendet wird. Die Logos von Zaster.ch, Orsetto.ch, Chrono24.ch, wodo.ch oder Delcampe.net etc. bestehen ebenfalls praktisch nur aus einem Schriftzug. Aber beim Upload Wizard weiss ich jetzt nicht welche Optionen ich wählen muss, damit das klappt, wenn ich nach der Lizenz gefragt werde.

Was die Relevanzkriterien angeht: Delcampe.net sollte kein Problem sein, Chrono24 womöglich auch nicht. Anders sieht das wohl bei Zaster.ch, Orsetto.ch und wodo.ch etc. aus - dessen bin ich mir durchaus bewusst. Es sind alles (noch) sehr kleine Plattformen mit einer kleinen Anzahl von Nutzern. Mit einem Wikipedia-Artikel könnten diese aber an Bekanntheit gewinnen. Gerade in der Schweiz hat die de:Swiss Marketplace Group eine ziemlich ungesunde Monopolstellung eingenommen, nachdem Sie sich alle anderen grösseren Portale (ricardo.ch, tutti.ch, anibis.ch etc.) einverleibt hat. Das Unternehmen dominiert den Schweizer Online Markplatz daher mittlerweile praktisch konkurrenzlos und strukturiert die Seiten auf ziemlich unpopluläre Weise um (viele Massnahmen werden erzwungen). Denen dürfte es durchaus gelegen kommen, wenn die anderen Marktplätze bei Wikipedia unsichtbar bleiben. Ich denke aber, dass es durchaus von Interesse sein könnte, wenn auf Wikipedia mögliche Alternativen für einen marktbeherrschenden Player aufgezeigt werden. Oder was meinst Du? Gruss

Hortulana (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)