Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
2. Have you read the FAQ?
3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Copyright status of March 1941 of Luftwaffe image

Hi folks!! I have this image located on page 22 of [1]. The image was taken by a Luftwaffe reconnaissance flight in March 1941. The site was subsequently bombed. I'm currently unsure about the copyright status of such images. I've had a chat with User:Marchjuly today at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright on Luftwaffe images and he identified "property as spoils of war angle" as a possible avenue for the image being in public domain and suggested posting the question here after having a look at the policy articles. Certainly it seems to be true in the US case but is it the case that the UK government took a similar approach by seizing such property as spoils of war and making the image public domain? As is an annoted intelligence photo taken by Luftwaffe Command Staff Ic/II, it would have been seen as a valuable items. Thanks.Scope creep (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Does nobody have any idea about this? Scope creep (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Hi, This is certainly in the public domain in Germany, which satisfies one of Commons conditions. The trickier issue is the copyright status in USA, and whether URAA applies or not. We have had discussions about such images, and the result was not clear. Personally, I would accept this, but others may disagree. Yann (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann. Does that mean I can upload as a public domain image? And concomitantly, what licence would I use for this, for example if I uploaded to Commons? Scope creep (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

template:PD-EU-Anonymous should work as a license. The URAA has provisions to prevent Nazi works from regaining copyright and while this photo may not fall 100% in the wording of the law it is doubtful Nazi copyrights are enforceable in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 11:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: "The URAA has provisions to prevent Nazi works from regaining copyright...": do you have something citeable on that, because this comes up often, and different admins seem to make different determinations. Just last week an image was deleted that I certainly would have wanted to keep, on the basis that because of where/when it was taken it couldn't have been in American hands before the end of the war and therefore the Alien Property Custodian was irrelevant. If what you are saying is true, it should have been kept. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

[2] To be eligible, a work must meet all of the following requirements:

1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country.

Is modern Germany the legal successor of Nazi Germany or not?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• This work appears to be public domain in the US. I've uploaded File:Treatment by United States of World War I and II Enemy-Owned Patents and Copyrights.pdf which is an excellent law review article written in 1955 explaining the issue. I've also found 2 higher quality scans of the image at [3] and [4]. Both of these can and should be uploaded here. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  @999real The Federal Republic of Germany is the successor to the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich (and absorbed the German Democratic Republic in 1990). There's ample legislation and material to read: en:Potsdam Agreement and en:Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany are prime candidates for a first read. Due to the fact that the Allies didn't destroy and take over all governmental structures in Germany during the occupation (local governmental bodies like Landkreise - Counties - or municipalities and their mayors often simply carried on and over before and after VE day), the scientific consensus is that the Federal Republic carried on the statehood legacy of the previous German state(s). This is also evidenced by the fact that the Holy See and Germany both assume that the en:Reichskonkordat is still in effect.

  About Nazi copyrights, something to read for Jmabel et al.: en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Wartime copyrights and en:Office of Alien Property Custodian. As far as I understood the matter, IP rights that were seized by the US during or as result of war weren't returned, so only US rights apply (IIRC that's why there are templates around warning about any use of these media on DE-WP, as it could be a possible rights infringement). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Grand-Duc: Scientific seems a questionable word here. Certainly it is 'Wissenschaftlich, but scientific is narrower. Probably scholarly.

  Nothing in your links that I don't know. If we had evidence that U.S. forces had obtained this image before the German surrender, then the U.S. copyright case would be clear-cut on that basis. However, I have seen nothing solid either way as to whether that affects the status of intellectual property obtained after the end of hostilities. - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've seen some good arguments here that basically all U.S. copyrights of WWII German material were technically owned by the property custodian regardless if actual copies were actually obtained or not. Non-government works were returned to their owners but if the copyright was still owned by a government, that may be a reasonable path to take, for the U.S. side at least. The entire point of that exception was to not suppress such works under copyright reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like VE day is the cutoff: en:Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917#Germany has it that "Sanctions were lifted in 1946 by Executive Order 9788 and the Office of Alien Property created in the Department of Justice. As Germany was judged to have a primary role in starting both world wars, the United States policy was to confiscate and sell off German assets that Germans acquired before 1946." That executive oder is from the 14th of October, 1946. Even in the light of COM:PRP, I'd say it is sufficiently safe to assume that military imagery, especially material produced by aerial reconnaissance, was seized by the Western Allies until then (if only to deny the access to the communists). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  What if the image fell instead into the hands of the UK? Or the USSR? (Etc., but those seem the main likely cases.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean exactly by "fell instead into the hands of the UK?" (I'd add Canada and France, too). Do you mean that the imagery was only in the hands of officials of those countries and never shared among other Allies? Or do you mean that only the troops doing the actual seizing of the folders, crates or whatever material object containing the imagery where from the respective militaries? In the latter case, if it ended somehow in US hands, then US rules would be enough.

  I can't form an informed opinion about any potential USSR situation yet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Copyrights are owned territory by territory. The U.S. can only control the copyright inside the U.S. In time of war, all foreign copyrights are basically seized. Thus, they are conceptually owned. Private copyrights were returned but not governmental ones. The UK did something similar, which is independent of the U.S. (no matter who actually seized the material), and whether they are under copyright in the UK depends on changes there (arguably not). Or Russia (that depends on their own laws). The APC situation only affects the copyright status inside the U.S., not the country of origin or anywhere else. See the arguments of Benjamin Miller and others at:

  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Non_policy_based_closure_decision
  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Alien_copyright_works
  • Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Alien_copyright_works_(resumed)

  It's very arguable, as something like this was the entire point of that exception. I would not keep it if it's not also PD in Germany, but I would not delete solely under the URAA -- the burden of proof is a bit different there, where you have to show the copyright was indeed restored, and I'm not sure that's easy at all. I don't think it's worth deleting over. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'd really like us to create a page—at least an essay, but ideally a guideline—expressing what seems to be a consensus here that for German government works from the Nazi era, URAA would not typically apply. I have definitely seen a fair number of files be deleted on the opposite assumption. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Was there even a US copyright for this photograph in 1941? A notice and registration would have been needed for that I think. If no copyright existed, none could have been owned/vested by the Alien Property Custodian. That in turn would mean the URAA restored the US copyright in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm honestly not at all sure that is the way that materials captured in the war and occupation have been treated by the courts. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Are there any pertinent US court decisions, and if so, what do they say?

A while ago, I found this: PLUNDER AND RESTITUTION: Findings and Recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States and Staff Report from December 2000. In chapter 3, titled Assets in the United States, there is also a section called Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, in which it says that “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. Vesting being what this process was called in the WW II era. Which contradicts the claim above “that basically all U.S. copyrights of WWII German material were technically owned by the property custodian” and “In time of war, all foreign copyrights are basically seized.” --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This reading, although technically correct, feels like it shouldn't be. Commercially exploitable copyrights, and particularly the royalty rights, were "vested" (seized) by the APC. Any military photographs seized by the Army are similarly treated as PD by NARA, although they have been careful to draw a distinction with images that were not taken as military spoils[5]. For the most part copyrights owned by the Nazi government are treated as "de facto" public domain in the US (The English Wikipedia seems to liberally apply Template:PD-US-alien property to these images without worrying about URAA, and adds a warning not to upload to Commons if they are possibly still in copyright source country). The 1941 military photo that is the subject of this discussion is over 70 years old in Germany, and appears to be PD there. And no US court has ever enforced a copyright on Nazi military photographs. Probably because the German government has never tried to enforce such a copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I have suggested the other approach, that they are not eligible for restoration if Nazi Germany was never an eligible source country. I know there is a treaty between Germany and the US from 1892, the question is if the US considers Nazi Germany as a valid successor for the treaty to apply to them.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It does. --Rosenzweig τ 15:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what this document is supposed to show. We know the 1892 treaty is valid for Germany today, the question is if it was ever valid for Nazi Germany.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it have been? The German state from 1871 to 1945, called Deutsches Reich, was the same state all the time. It was a parliamentary federal monarchy at first, then a republican federal state, and officially that did not change in 1933. The constitution still existed, but was sidelined by emergency laws. And according to the German constitutional court, the current German state is still identical with the Deutsches Reich from 1871, just with a new name and new constitution. Which makes sense, because a lot of laws from that time are still valid. As is said 1892 copyright treaty. --Rosenzweig τ 15:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Nationaal Archief photos

Malenkov photo is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 NL, but there is no indication of that license in the site. Does it mean that these photos of Andropov, Kuznetsov, Podgorny, and Suslov under the same license too? I don't know copyright policy of Nationaal Archief. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"You cannot download the photo because it is not copyright-free."

NA has released lots of images, but this does not seem to be one of them. You can safely rely on their website for the most up to date information. Ciell (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The 2014 upload of File:Georgy Malenkov 1964.jpg by User:Materialscientist under CC BY-SA 3.0 NL was likely in good faith if the Nationaal Archief webpage had that license in 2014. The file File:Malenkov (kop), Bestanddeelnr 916-3070.jpg of the same NA image uploaded in 2018 by another user used the NA template stating that they made the upload as part of the 2010 partnership program with NA, but that seems dubious, considering that the file was uploaded in 2018 and was not uploaded by the NA upload bot. However, the CC0 template seemed used in good faith at the time of upload in 2018. Until at least 2021, the NA webpage indicated a CC0 statement [6]. Apparently, at some time between 2021 and 2015, NA changed the information on their webpage. Not sure if the present information there is correct either. Don't know why a user added to File:Georgy Malenkov 1964.jpg a warning template stating that the face of Malenkov is a prohibited symbol. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Also Malenkov's image possibly was made by employee of en:Soviet Information Bureau (or TASS (?); RIA Novosti) [7], and according to {{PD-Russia}} This work is photo report, which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925[3] and January 1, 1955 (made in 1953), provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993. So we have to find the source of the USSR that it was published no later than 1955. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It sort of looks like the photo used on this 1954 stamp. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Found the following information on this photo on this website: Официальный портрет Г.М. Маленкова из 2-го издания Большой советской энциклопедии, 1954 год (translation: Official portrait of G.M. Malenkov from the 2nd edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1954). Nakonana (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Could it be even older? There might have been a Time magazine cover in 1950 that looks like a derivative work of the photo: [8] Nakonana (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh. That's interesting. That's really from 1950. [9]. Is cover in PD? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Not that issue. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• This isn't unknown for the Anefo-sourced photos in the Nationaal Archief. Anefo was a news agency, so sometimes they needed a photo of a particular subject that wasn't local to be photographed. They'd then copy an existing non-Anefo photo (note that here it's pinned to a cork board) and then use that under a rather ad hoc claim of fair use. It's not our job to investigate mid-century copyright elasticity. These are then not usually author-credited through Anefo (but then, many aren't anyway) but they did pass through the Nationaal Archief under their blanket free licensing, what we use for the main collection.

More recently, some of these non-Anefo originated images have started showing clearer copyright statements. Such as here, where it's credited to Workers' Press / IISG. This may or may not have been evident at the time of upload here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you please provide your opinion on each of the photos that I have attached, are they under a free license? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hard, other than 'probably not Anefo'. If they're credited to TASS, then we'd have to treat them as images from TASS and can't simply assume any blanket licence from Anefo would be applicable.

But watch out for the (quite a few) photos of Soviet politicians and diplomats passing through Schiphol or addressing political meetings in Western Europe etc. that were regular Anefo photographs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

These are than not usually author-credited through Anefo (but then, many aren't anyway): Pinging @Andy Dingley, I can't parse that, and it could say two opposite things. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the Anefo collection are credited to specific photographers, and their status is clear. The ones from Anefo that are 'fair use' like this are nearly all uncredited (although many of the pre-war ones were credited to named photographers, and harder to spot). Generally looking for the cork pinboard background is the best hint. We also have a very large number where we know they're from Anefo, they show no reason to suspect they're not taken by Anefo photographers and simply licensed, per the collection, but the credit to a specific photographer has been lost.

We also have some (hard to spot) where they're duplicates or members of a series that's from a known photographer, but individual photos have lost their author credit. There are even a few where the upload process here was faulty and they've been assigned to the wrong photographer, but the details at Nationaal Archief are correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. So, as a result, Andropov's photo is under a free license? ANP is a Dutch news agency. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The NA page credits the Andropov photo to the Lehtikuva photo agency of Finland, but the page says that ANP is the rights holder. That sounds a little strange. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If ANP is a copyright holder, does this mean that it is under a free license? (by default, I don't mean this particular case) Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. It does not look like this photo has a free license. Maybe other users know more. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If I stick to the Anefo-Malenkov-photos: a few things are clear. I can largely confirm Andy Dingley's statement. As to the date: the Malenkov photos are clearly not from 1964: Malenkov was at the height of his power in 1953, but was forced to resign as Premier of the Soviet Union in Febr. 1955 and dismissed from the Praesidium in 1957. The presumed 1964 photo is in fact a 1953 photo, most likely the official Politburo photograph. As to copyright: at the time of the upload to Commons the copyright was (according to Dutch National Archives) at Arbeiderspers; in the meantime Nationaal Archief changed that to Arbeiderspers / IISG. The photo can't be found at the image database of IISG Amsterdam, but that doesn't matter. According to Russian copyright law the photo is Public Domain: official photo, published before 1 Jan. 1955, no photographer mentioned. I will change the dates (to 1953) and copyright (to PD-Russia-expired) in all Anefo-Malenkov photos. (The photo doesn't look to have been the basis of the 1950 Time-photo, in my opinion.) Vysotsky (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked the original file from Anefo again: the date 9 Febr. 1953 is clearly visible in the "N.V. De Arbeiderspers"-mark on the left. Vysotsky (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"are clearly not from 1964" - that's probably uploader's mistake cause date indicated in source shows definitely not 1960s.
"The photo doesn't look to have been the basis of the 1950 Time-photo, in my opinion" - but it looks very similar. How did it happen?
Also Malenkov image says: "Repronegatief 14-4-1956. Datum 1955-02-09". It indicates 1955, not 1953 or 1954. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The RIA Novosti source you found says 01.03.1954. I'd rather trust a Russian source for a Russian photo because any non-Russian source will be a reuser who likely got the photo at a later point.

I also feel like the Time cover is based on this photo. It's the same pose and the same facial expression. It's just unlikely that the US had a photo of their own of a Soviet politician that resembles the official portrait so much. They likely used an existing one. It also seems like they made him look less favorable on the cover (he looks chubbier around the neck and has more wrinkles) which would be in line with the anti-Communist stance of the US. Other Time covers that feature him also paint him in a rather negative light, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

1964 was a mistake by Nationaal Archief, not by the uploader. As mentioned, the NA page had different information then. Cf. the web.archive link. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Are FOIA responses edicts of government?

File:FOIA 10-202 Nov 04 2010 Correspondence between NIST and David Cole OCR redacted.pdf has a significant portion of its text composed by NYC, which is obviously not PD-USGov-NIST. However, it may be PD if the response (NYC portions included) qualify as PD-EdictGov. Thoughts? Based5290 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Glrx (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

pd-philipinesGov in twitter images

Does images published on twitter by person covered by {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Affected file: File:Picture of Franciz Zamora.jpg.—KEmel49(📝,📤) 13:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of images on "The Cape: Miltary Space Operations 1971-1992"

Looking into the Titan III operations, a friend of mine has shown me this website: https://spp.fas.org/military/program/cape/cape2-5.htm Few of the figures in it would be handy, but I don't know what the copyright status could be, or any further details about the page. Could you help? Hal Nordmann (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If an audio file is CC-BY-3.0 because it is marked as such on Youtube, is the higher quality studio CD version also CC-BY-3.0?

Long story short, File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん（CV：早見沙織）／HoneyWorks.ogg is CC-BY-3.0 because it is the audio extracted from File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん（CV：早見沙織）／HoneyWorks.webm, which is CC-BY-3.0 because it was marked as such on Youtube. However, because the audio file is extracted from a Youtube video, it is an inferior, lower bitrate version compared to the studio album CD version. I am in possession of the original studio CD version, and can potentially provide it to Commons in lossless FLAC format, see this screenshot for a night-and-day comparison in quality as compared via spectral analysis. The audio content is almost exactly identical if you played both files on $20 budget Chinese speakers, but you'd notice warmer tones if listening on a $2800 HIFIMAN HE1000se. The version on Commons also cuts off at the 20 kHz mark (as one would expect from Ogg Vorbis), however humans can't hear between 20 kHz and 24 kHz anyway.

My question is, would the higher quality version also be CC-BY-3.0 if the lower quality version on Wikimedia Commons is CC-BY-3.0? --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 14:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Usually copyright can only refer to things where creativity is involved. I doubt the two would vary by any relevant criterion. But others may view this differently. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That's nearly the same issue as the question whether a license for an image only covers the exact file version (when looking at the pixel sizes and compression) or any fixation of the creative work, no matter what pixel size and quality. I'm not aware of any court ruling on this subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In general, we respect these sorts of arrangements because it leads to more freely licensed media overall (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Grand-Duc that we should treat this issue just like we deal with different image resolutions. Gnom (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. I've uploaded the higher quality FLAC version to File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん (CV：早見沙織) by HoneyWorks.flac, and have superceded usage on various projects where the older OGG file was used (Chinese Wikipedia, English Wikipedia). For the record, I'll hold no hard feelings if anyone in the future decides to nominate a deletion request because they disagree with the above, for whatever reason. If there is a good copyright-related reason to delete this file, I won't contest it. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 06:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

various grub stake images copyright

I reviewed en:The Grub-Stake for GA status at en:Talk:The Grub-Stake/GA1. long story short it's very close to passing but the only matter left is the copyright of some files. I was told some files were public domain due to publication pre 1930. However the file pages at the source assert copyright and the nominator says it's too tedious to find the images in the original trade publications. Given that they're supposedly promotional photos for the film I am inclined to believe they are PD. The files in question are: File:Nell Shipman Promotion.png, File:The Grub-Stake in Spokane.png, File:Nell Shipman cliffhanging.png, File:Nell Shipman's Company.png, and File:The Grub-Stake ad.png. Any help? Therapyisgood (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm File:Nell Shipman Promotion.png is PD. Shows up in the archive at [10]. Can confirm File:The Grub-Stake ad.png is PD, shows up at [11]. Based5290 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not notice your discussion on this page Therapyisgood. For added context: I searched for the original trade magazine publications of these images. This is rather hard as I initially searched for these images months ago under different parameters. I was able to find the original publications of File:Nell Shipman Promotion.png and File:Nell Shipman cliffhanging.png. Jon698 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sculpture ToO - Larry Bell

Another sculpture/U.S. threshold of originality question for ya.

I was thinking of uploading a few photos I took of American artist Larry Bell's latest installation in New York's Washington Square Park, consisting of six sculptural installations. His primary medium is glass and plexiglas, and he is most well known for his clear or translucent boxes of varying colors. Much of his work would seem to fall below the threshold of originality for copyright in the U.S. There is currently one image already on Commons relying on that assumption (Untitled (Golden Box)); there are also two images of an installation in Germany that rely on FoP allowances (1, 2), but I have questions about whether that installation is copyrighted in the U.S.

What do we think about the copyrightability - and thus allowability on Commons - of the six sculptures pictured here (scroll to image gallery). They all appear to me to be basic geometric shapes (boxes, triangles, angled lines, etc.). Some of them are multiple shapes, but again they seem to be below the ToO line to me. Thanks for any advice! (didn't want to upload without gauging opinions first) 19h00s (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It reminds me of this DR about a big oval shape. Bell's installation seems to have more originality. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Renovation record of Padmashree Haldhar Nag Kavi Kutir.png

I'm looking for some opinions on the licensing of File:Renovation record of Padmashree Haldhar Nag Kavi Kutir.png. The file originally comes from File:Haldhar Nag Kutir 05.png, which is sourced to a YouTube video. The YouTube video does have a CC license, but I'm not sure that license applies to the plaque itself per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. Moreover, even if it original watermarked file is OK and the plaque could be considered incidental to the video screenshot as a whole, further cropping to just show the plaque seems problematic unless the plaque itself is PD for some reason per COM:India. Can Commons keep these two files as licensed? File:Haldhar Nag Kutir 04.png is another image of the same buidling sourced to YouTube that might also need to be assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

VOA exclusive video

A video statement by ethnic Mongol activist Hada was given to Voice of America, which was first published on their website. VOA offers the video for download, which AFAIK, they only do for videos that are in the public domain. Would this video then be in the public domain per {{PD-VOA}}? Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Which have higher Threshold of originality? China or United Kingdom after THJ v Sheridan case in 2023

UK Threshold of originality used to be very low, even EDGE (magazine) logo are copyrightable, but after THJ v Sheridan case in 2023, which have higher Threshold of originality? China or United Kingdom after THJ v Sheridan case in 2023 6D (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Image Upload guidelines

Hi knowledgeable peoples of wikipedia. Please I have a question that have been battling with but do not know how to go about it.

I just created a draft article page for my client who is a Town Councillor, so I needed to use his image also in the article but I do not know how to go about it. I have the images already sent to me by the client but then wikipedia is requesting for copywrite of the image. I do not clearly understand how to go about it uploading to Wikipedia commons.

Anyone who could gladly explain the processes to me, I would really appreciate.

Regards, Creative Contents Creative Contents (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Creative Contents: Wikimedia Commons (this site) and the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki) are two separate projects, though both are umbrella'd by the Wikimedia Foundation..

Just to be clear, you do not need to use his image in an en-wiki article. Not all articles contain images.

Probably the big question is going to be: who owns the copyright to these images? That is the only person (or organization) who can license them.

You would probably do well to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. It should answer most of your questions. Feel free to come back here with more specific questions if it does not answer all of them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Germany's TOO

en:File:Logo Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. The logo seems simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US, but I'm not sure about COM:TOO Germany. Is this logo OK for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Some German Wikimedians use to say that logos are inherently unsafe on Commons (and in jeopardy of deletion), but your example would be, IANAL, a textbook example for a {{PD-Textlogo}} upload. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The file is ok for Commons with PD-textlogo IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 04:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Grand-Duc and Rosenzweig for the responses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of text on plaques/ historic markers

More input is needed at:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Cape Town
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Johannesburg

on the question of how much text is required to generate a copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of a still from YouTube

File:Samyuktha Viswanathan.jpg has been uploaded as CC-BY-SA 3, with the justification

This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC BY license.
Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license."

But I looking at it in YouTube, I cannot see any indication that it has actually been uploaded with that licence. (This may be because I am inexperienced with YouTube, and don't know where to look). "Their website" links to Google, not to Nagaraj Rathod Reviews.

Nor do I see anything about licensing on the Nagaraj Rathod Official Reviews page on YouTube.

Can anybody clarify whether this is acceptable, and if so, how I could tell? ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

In the actual case, the source was really CC-BY-licensed at the time of upload, as the archived shots of the Youtube-page from July 15th and 16th, 2024 show. Thereafter, the license seems to have been removed from this video on Youtube, as an archived shot from August 15th, 2025 shows. So, the upload to Commons was formally legitimate in this case.--Túrelio (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Book cover for The Sword and the Sickle"

The book cover for en:The Sword and the Sickle was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but it seems too simple to be eligble for copyright protection in the US per COM:TOO US; I'm not sure, though, about COM:India, where the book was first published in 1942. Since the author of the book en:Mulk Raj Anand died in 2004, it's not even close to being the 60 p.m.a. required by Indian copyright law; the cover, though, is really nothing but text and a quote from en:William Blake's en:Notebook of William Blake according to s:The sword sung on the barren heath, which means the quote itself probably entered into public domain well before the book was published because Blake died in 1827. Would something like this be OK for Commons as {{PD-text}} for the cover and {{PD-old-100-expired}} for the quote? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, looks all PD. You are going to have a bit to fill out in the "Permission" section of {{Information}} to explain why (a shorter version of what you wrote above). - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Лицензирование иконописных изображений

Автор иконы неизвестен. Изображение иконы есть в свободном доступе. Какой тип лицензии применить в данном случае при загрузке файла, чтобы файл был корректно принят на викисклад? 666wiki999 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Иконы не отличаются от других произведений искусства. Применяются те же правила. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright on Wiktionary

Hello friends. I often edit Wiktionary and make minor edits on Wikimedia Commons. But the Wikimedia Commons copyright regime seems to be so much better organized. Hence I would like to request that the experts here review the draft copyright policy Wiktionary:Copyrights. See this discussion: Multi-sentence_Quotes:_Copyright/Fair_Use. Please go over there and see if you can strengthen Wiktionary's copyright regime. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Vladimir Musaelyan - TASS

Hi. I wanna see official photos of Soviet leaders on Wikipedia. The official and well-known photographer of Leonid Brezhnev, Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Andropov is photographer Vladimir Musaelyan. He died in 2020, and according to Russian law, his photos are protected until 2020+70+1=2091. This is outrageous, of course. I know he has heirs, children Marina, Alexey, and granddaughter Anastasia. I know for sure that Alexey and Anastasia work as photographers too. I have their Telegram and VKontakte accounts for contact.

But... Vladimir Musaelyan was a photographer for the TASS and worked on behalf of the state (the Central Committee of the CPSU, the government of the USSR). The photographs taken by him as part of his official duties are "official works".
According to Article 14 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights" (which was in force at the time of Musaelian's death and the creation of most of these photos), as well as according to art. 1295 of the current Civil Code of the Russian Federation:

The copyright to the official work belongs to the author (photographer). The exclusive right (the right to use, reproduce, publish) belongs to the employer, unless the contract provides otherwise.

Vladimir Musaelian's employer was the STATE, represented by TASS. Does it mean that even Musaelian's heirs are not the copyright holders of these official photographs? They inherited personal non-property rights (the right of authorship, the right to a name), but not the exclusive right to use the images themselves.

Then who is the copyright holder and what about the protection? What should I do in this case? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• {{PD-Russia}} says that TASS photos taken before January 1, 1955 are PD in Russia. Can you share more information on the photos you want to use? When were they taken, when were they published? Are any of them published also in the United States or only Russia? Maybe with more info we can help you narrow down the possibilitites for your images. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 10:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know about pre-1955 stuff. So I did several days ago a bunch of uploads with that license. For example, I uploaded the official portrait of Joseph Stalin made by TASS photographer, which for some reason was previously deleted, allegedly referring to the fact that it was unfree.

  For example, we have official portrait of Leonid Brehzhev on Wikimedia Commons. Actually, it was also made by Musaleyan, but formally it is under CC0, because it was provided to the Dutch National Archives. (For me, this is license laundering, but in any case, it's the way it is).

  At the moment we also have an official portrait of Yuri Andropov. I took it out for deletion because page of the Soviet party ticket is PD-RU-exempt. The photo cut from this page is not PD-RU-exempt. The photo may be protected by copyright by default (for example, the copyright still belong to the TASS photographer, Vladimir Musaelyan). Only the entire stamps/documents are in the public domain, and not any cut-out objects located on them.' This photo also was published in American Soviet Life without copyright notice and so it's (possibly) PD in US.

  So I wanna upload (for example) these photos:
  - Official portrait of Chernenko
  - Official portrait of Andropov
  - Official portrait of Gorbachyov (and this) Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  The Soviet Life magazine doesn't just make it PD in the US. If a work was also published in the US then Commons can skip the home country copyright check and just use the US status. So it's PD. I can't think of any reason the newer stuff would be PD though. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Andropov Soviet Life was deleted. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for design of website screenshot?

The screenshot image at the article w:NCAA transfer portal is marked as a Template:Non-free web screenshot.

But the NCAA logo image right above it is marked as public domain for not meeting the Commons:Threshold of originality.

The logo seems arguably more artistic than the very barebones text website. Is there an argument to be made that the design of the website as depicted in the screenshot also does not meet the threshold of originality? Opinions appreciated.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)