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.

Photographs of Voltairine de Cleyre

Hey all. I'm preparing the en-wiki article on Voltairine de Cleyre for FAC, and I wanted to make sure I had ensured the public domain status of some photographs being used in the article.

• 
  1891 photograph by William J. Kuebler Jr. (d. 1913), Philadelphia
• 
  1897 photograph by [Unknown], London
• 
  1898 photograph by Adelaide D. Thayer (d. 1945), Philadelphia
• 
  1901 photograph by M. Herbert Bridle (d. ?), Philadelphia

The trouble comes from a lack of evidence of early publication of these photographs. The earliest publication evidence I could find of these photographs was from Paul Avrich's 1978 book, published by the University of Princeton, but he didn't provide any information about their copyright status, previous publication history or photographers. The 1901 photograph was also published by Black Bear (London) in a 1978 book by Marian Leighton, without a copyright notice. They had clearly been distributed before 1978, as they have been discussed in contemporary letters from de Cleyre and have been archived in places such as the Labadie Collection, but I can't find if they were published per se beforehand. The date of death of two of the photographers is known, but the date of death of Bridle and the identity of the 1897 photo is unknown.

If anyone here can help me figure out the PD status and conditions for these photographs, I would very much appreciate it. Also if anybody here is able to help with finding out details about M. Herbert Bridle, I'm sure that would be useful to know as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Since these photos are over 120 years old, you can use {{PD-old-assumed}} for works with unclear publication info, such as unknown author or death dates. Without further investigation, they can at least be hosted here. PascalHD (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

My experience with FAC has been that image review there is extraordinarily strict, so I'm not sure they would allow an image with only a PD-old-assumed tag. I've had to remove images from articles before because FAC considered their status "theoretically uncertain". They tend to only allow images that are provably PD in the US, beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I suppose the best bet at finding info about the 1901 photographer would be Ancestry searches. From clues and info I found online was that it might actually be W. Herbert Bridle. It seems there is some confusion and contradiction weather it is an M or a W, with the cursive writing from the time making it harder to understand. M or W could be the first name and Herbert could be the middle name. I did some grave searches for Pennsylvania but no results. I currently don't have my Ancestry subscription but I'll see what else I can find. PascalHD (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I put my Bridle research in wikidata:Talk:Q135272927. Ancestry is part of en:WP:TWL but I didn't see anything major there. Might be Martin Herbert Bridle (1860–1942) perhaps? The 1900 US federal census would be key there for establishing that he stayed in Pennsylvania after his marriage there. czar 23:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I've resolved the Bridle image. Summarized on its talk page. czar 03:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Nothing in any newspapers or any book I can find. Honestly, is it a given that these photos were published before then in that book? Plenty of photos circulate in private collections but that usually does not count as publishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was a given, was just pointing out that they had been circulating beforehand. Despite having been doing this for years, the intricacies of American copyright law are still an enigma to me, so I was just trying to provide as much context as I could for people who might know better. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time of creation. That is specially the case for studio pictures (3 of them here), as leaving the photographer's custody counts as publication. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of that precedent before. Where is it documented? czar 01:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably the only documentation is the arguments on many DRs. But if you think about it, it makes sense that studio photographs were generally created at least for the subject of the photo, so they would have left the photographer's hands, which in the U.S. at that time was generally considered publishing. (I say "generally" because there was no definition of "publishing" a photograph in statute law, and unsurprisingly case law does not all point in one direction.) Similarly for things where family photos had multiple copies given to different family members. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that context! I've added this text to Commons:Copyright rules/Photographs for others to reference. czar 02:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The soundtrack of Night of the Living Dead

The Wikipedia page for Night of the Living Dead says that "[m]uch of the soundtrack had been used by previous films." The footnote for that sentence goes on to list a number of cinematographic works whose soundtrack the creators of the film borrowed from, namely the TV series Wanted Dead or Alive, the episodes "I Remember a Lemon Tree" (RE0000458541) and "Bullets Cost Too Much" (RE0000377846), as well as the movies Teenagers from Outer Space (copyright not renewed), The Devil's Messenger (copyright not renewed, however it is a derivative work of the TV series 13 Demon Street) and The Hideous Sun Demon (RE0000361389). My concern, as you have probably already realized, is that portions of the soundtrack are still copyrighted due to statutory copyright being first obtained in other places. If that is the case, then we may need to selectively mute portions of the film. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Copies of Night of the Living Dead have been produced, and television stations have aired the show for many years as a work in the public domain. This has stood up to scrutiny in court when the creators of the film filed lawsuits to get back the copyright in some way. I don't see anywhere where a DVD, VHS, broadcast, or streaming service has muted portions of the film. Rjjiii (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The potential copyright for the soundtrack likely lies not with Image Ten but with Capitol Records, the owners of w:en:Hi-Q (production music) who I'm assuming licensed parts of that to Image Ten. The problem is that in Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. and Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., the Second and Fifth Circuits held respectively that a copyright notice with the name of a licensee was sufficient to secure copyright for a licensor, even though technically incorrect. Assuming that the contents of the music library remained unpublished unless incorporated in a film, a part of the soundtrack could have been first published in a film with said type of copyright notice whose copyright was then renewed, making it still copyrighted.

Also, I can't find any case law regarding the film's copyright. What are the lawsuits that you are thinking of? prospectprospekt (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Image Ten, Inc. v. Walter Reade Organization, Inc. and later Dawn Associates v. Links Rjjiii (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The former is about breach of contract and the latter is about unfair competition and copyright infringement of a phrase found in Dawn of the Dead. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

South Korean state media may be free content now but login required

Hi everyone,

The South Korean government (via KTV) has launched the Nanuri Portal (nanuri.ktv.go.kr), where a large collection of state media videos are being released for public use, probably under {{KOGL}}.

• According to the official press release (in Korean), about 30,000 clips are being opened first (from ~750,000 total), with KOGL/public-use labels attached to each video.
• Downloads are supported in 1080p MP4.
• However, the site requires account registration with a (presumably) Korean phone number, which makes access difficult for many editors here.

Another issue is that the Nanuri portal distinguishes between ‘personal,’ ‘media,’ and ‘government’ members. It’s not clear which category Wikimedians would fall under. Uploading to Commons is arguably more than ‘personal use,’ but we are not traditional press or government either, so clarification may be needed.

I’d like to ask: How should we handle confirming/reviewing licensing for KOGL-labeled videos when access is login-restricted? Should we ask/wait for easier access, or is there a way Commons can verify the KOGL labeling (maybe similar to Commons:License review)?

I haven't created an account (yet).

This is (kind of) a continuation of an earlier discussion:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#File:President_Yoon_Suk_Yeol_Declares_Emergency_Martial_Law.webm_+_Potential_upcoming_South_Korean_state_media_free_content

Thanks! Reepy1 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that they made this an option but typical of the Korean government, they make it an absolute nightmare to deal with. Normally we would deal with this using something like Commons:License review, but most license reviewers won't get to see it if its blocked behind a phone number. I do have a Korean phone number, but its not very realistic either that me and the few Korean admins/ license reviewers would have the ability to go through the potential 750K files that might be uploaded to Commons. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. Takipoint123 (💬) 03:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

+ For those unfamiliar with how Korean services work: you can't use any phone number. It MUST be a +82, Korea-based phone number which is tied directly to your national identity number (I.e. you must have a phone number from a Korean telecommunications provider). So if you're not a Korean national or foreigner with a registration number, you are out of luck.--Takipoint123 (💬) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That certainly does make it difficult for a non-Korean national to review these files. Hopefully the Republic of Korea also clarifies what kind of usage conditions are under this portal. Abzeronow (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's KOGL, it is likely that the site will also have ND or NC version of KOGL files (Type 3 and 4), which is not allowed on Commons. Personally think the only solution to this issue would be to continue the existing workflow of getting VRT confirmed for files that don't specify KOGL licenses: ideally, we would get confirmation for an entire category of files (e.g. like Template:Korea.net). There is realistically no way to incorporate Nanuri into our LR workflow, considering the size of the Commons Korean community. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just used a Korean phone number (not sure if foreign numbers work, the text box imply Korean phone numbers only but not sure) and managed to get an account without having to verify any identity. So it's not that kind of registration we worried about. I just put a fake name and it worked.

More findings in other reply... Reepy1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Foreign numbers won't work. There isn't even an option to put a country code. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can inquire them about expanding to foreign phone numbers at some point, if we feel the need to do so someday. This will make Commons:license review easily possible. I'm actually not sure about the phone number having to be tied to national ID, not familiar with that. Reepy1 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just logged in and some contents (stuff in front page etc) are labelled with {{KOGL}} Type 1. The >3 hour news broadcast download that includes Yoon's martial law declaration (https://www.ktv.go.kr/news/latest/view?content_id=716002, this is outside of Nanuri, publicly accessible which still (wrongly) says copyrighted; uploaded then deleted to commons before here File:President Yoon Suk Yeol Declares Emergency Martial Law.webm) is under KOGL Type 2, which has a non-commercial requirement, presumably because it's part of the news.

I suspect the actual broadcast of the martial law declaration would be {{KOGL}} Type 1, but we may have to enquire with KTV, or even the Presidential Office, to be sure.

w:Korean News are not labelled with any KOGL yet from a quick look. Reepy1 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Idea: let me see if there are potentially any content that includes the martial law speech that's under {{KOGL}} Type 1... Reepy1 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't find it for now, there's a lot of content, I have a feeling it doesn't exist but anyone who manages to find Yoon's martial law speech under {{KOGL}} Type 1 will be greatly appreciated by me, please tell me if you do. Reepy1 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well besides martial law etc, again, there seems to be a lot of content such as State Council (i.e. cabinet) meetings (most contents with the current president I think?) that are under {{KOGL}} Type 1. Might be of note in the future, such as when events under the current gov't is documented in Wikimedia Projects. I think Commons has a lot of equivalent material from the U.S. White House.

Many old stuff are under KOGL Type 2-4 or even no KOGL license though. They are probably working on it, not sure if it will be under {{KOGL}} Type 1 though.

As for license review in the future, maybe we'll have to set up some internal VRT-style check for a case-by-case basis, going to be extra work for the admins though. Not sure if enough content will be relevant enough for upload in the future though. Reepy1 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Side note to express my frustration: US gov't works are under {{PD-USGov}}, but in South Korea, despite there being a similar law (Article 24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act), it seems like in practice, both the gov't interpretation and Wikimedia consensus is that a KOGL license is separately needed to enforce Art. 24-2. Also see: {{KoreaGov}} for 24-2 that is not explicitly under {{KOGL}}. Reepy1 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I pondered this a lot when trying to figure out if Yoon's martial law speech was free content here, the law states all works made entirely by the state (i.e. gov't) are free content under 24-2, but gov't practice and Wiki consensus may differ, which is why I made discussions and inquiries, leading up to this etc. Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO Wikimedia consensus is correct. While government owned workd are free, other factors involved include works that can be asserted by outside factors like contractors or legal exceptions which specifically make the copyright status non-free unlike the US government (e.g. state secrets or those pertaining to privacy). This is why Template:PD-KoreaGov is only used for works that are almost certainly held solely and their copyright exerted by the Korean government, such as official seals/insignias/logos or certain legal documents. KOGL is used to make our lives easier in that we KNOW the government and its contractors WANT us to use it. Without KOGL, everything would be a guesswork and most government files wouldn't be hosted here. Takipoint123 (💬) 18:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wondering how KOGL relates to Art. 24-2 though. Are KOGL Types 2-4 not completely free because the content isn't completely state-owned, or are they completely state-owned under 24-2 but have restrictions? If it's the latter then 24-2 by itself becomes (even more) useless to us...

From your post, it seems like it's the former. I think maybe there's some subsidiary regulation that defines 24-2/KOGL works, think it was this, but I think I'm done reading laws for now: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulLsInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000216859 (in Korean) Reepy1 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

KOGL claims it's legal basis is Article 24.2. As for why there's non-free license types is because 1. They do whatever they want 2. Some sort of legal exception applies against the commercial portion. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Website also has state visits Reepy1 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The main problem is that the Korean government has included not only KOGL Type 1 but also Types 2, 3, and 4 as part of its public works open policy. These are used interchangeably without clear distinction across diffrent platforms, which only adds to the confusion. The registration wall for the new website further complicates the situation. Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness.--Namoroka (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed to Namoroka. While the initiative is a good step forward, I don't expect that they are completely willing to release their entire collection of government images, videos and other content to free culture, commercial-friendly licensing. In fact, two of their public monuments/statues, despite being probably funded by taxpayers' money, is unfree for commercial use and distribution, and commercial use requires permission from the relevant cultural ministry. I don't expect the real sincerity of Seoul in promoting free culture in that country pretty much soon, from commercial Freedom of Panorama to the 100% release of all their archives and media either to public domain or to commercial-type CC licensing. (disclaimer, I'm not a Korean user). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, this (probably) happened because the President stated these KTV contents are (now) free content under §24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act back in early July. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202507091104001 (Korean article). So I think there might be some intent, implementation may differ (like this case) though. Reepy1 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Translating the article (using Brave browser's translation feature)... there's some inconsistencies. First to second paragraphs: In the future, videos produced by KTV (National Broadcasting Service) will be freely available to anyone without being subject to copyright. The President's Office issued a press release on the 9th “to fully open the video works of KTV, a state agency, for free use by the public and the media”. KTV is a public broadcaster operated by the state. But for the sixth paragraph: In the future, based on the principle of Article 28 of the Copyright Act ‘publicized works may be cited within a reasonable scope and according to fair practices for purposes such as reporting, criticism, education, and research’, the government will ensure that all media and new media can be cited and utilized fairly. The President's Office reported that it plans to open KTV video works for this purpose. "Reasonable scope and according to fair practices" seems to contradict "freely available to everyone", since if you're releasing your content freely (like under commercial-type KOGL CC licensing, which is Type 1), you should not expect that uses must be limited to fair uses like criticism, research, and education. Such licensing also allows derivatives from the videos (like screenshots) to be utilized in commercial products (e.g. T-shirt designs), advertising, and for-profit vlogs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I just saw a photo of that King Sejong statue (it's related to US news right now, can share if appropriate/curious), and got reminded of this again...

Just did a Google search, for the w:Statue of Yi Sun-sin, because it was being used for "parodies" and "caricatures", the author registered copyright, and later the author transferred copyright to Seoul gov't, and the royalties are "used to help the socially disadvantaged", according to this. Reepy1 (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 so it seems it's now illegal to use the statue in parodies? Well, SoKor seems to be placing too much restrictions over monuments that were funded by the people (not by the artists or architects), in my opinion. At the very least, Denmark handles the parody freedom prudently. Like both Japan and Russia, Denmark only grants liberal panorama exception to images of architecture, not including monuments. The heirs of the sculptor behind the Statue of the Little Mermaid once slapped Berlingske with lawsuit, but they were ultimately defeated by the Danish Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the newspaper. It has been considered by Berlingske as "a victory for the satirical freedom" in political cartoons and caricatures. In a nutshell, in Denmark the artists or their grandchildren have no rights to restrict satirical/parodical uses of the public monuments they designed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the Koreans might view those as exceptions to freedom of parody as they are the most revered persons in Korea.

Whether or not this is justified, I don't know. Reepy1 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, maybe there are different ways to deal with disrespect of these persons other than copyright, I don't know. Reepy1 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You'd use defamation against living persons but deceased persons generally can't be defamed (not sure in Korea) Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like there are laws for defamation against deceased persons in Korea but the government or any person cannot sue, only descendants. Reepy1 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

(when I say Korea I mean South Korea) Reepy1 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 just a question, are there any laws for defenation against living persons there? COM:CSCR#South Korea does seem to imply restrictive use of images of almost everyone. Is this perhaps one reason why some images are not Type 1 licensed because they depict "sensitive" figures or objects in SoKor? (Instead, Types 2-4 licensed?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard some people think defamation is used excessively in S. Korea, so yeah, your guess seems grounded. Reepy1 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 perhaps "sensitive objects" include the buildings and monuments themselves, making SoKor an outlier among all East Asian countries (having most restrictive law and rules, prohibiting all types of commercial uses of works permanently placed in public spaces). Mongolia just slightly liberated their rules in 2021, now permitting reasonable uses of buildings and 3D artworks, as long as these are not reproduced in exact 3D reproductions that are for direct or indirect commercial use (see COM:FOP Mongolia). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Curious; if the Seoul govt owns copyright to the Yi Sun-sin statue, if it releases images of the statue under permissive licenses, does that mean we can use such images on Commons despite lack of freedom of panorama? I'm looking on the copyright registry to try and confirm the owner but their search engine is so poorly designed I can't find the entry lol... grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon there is a similar case (see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-07#File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg). Requested by @Nonabelian: , but I had some reservations, considering the ministry of culture (which holds the sculptural copyright on the statue) not permitting any commercial exploitation of the publicly-funded monument without formal permission from them, even if the Flickr account of the representative agency released the image under a commercial-type CC license. In my opinion, the court would recognize the parent ministry's commercial use restrictions more than the CC licensing on the Flickr image given by the representative agency. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, interesting read. It's a bit too much for me to research at moment. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Where can I see if a picture is a free use?

I'm trying to make an page for Le Sserafims Hot, Ep in Finnish Wikipedia. I don't know if I can upload the album civer Nokotiinus (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nokotiinus: assuming "civer" means "cover", you almost certainly cannot upload that to Commons. You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, especially the section Understanding copyright - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You can't upload to Commons, but you might be able to upload on Wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree-albumcover Reepy1 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

De minimis in videos

Is there a de minimis for the length of a copyrighted work that appeared in videos? For example, if a copyrighted work is the main focus of the video, but only for just a few seconds, does de minimis apply? What if the whole video was couple hours long, does that matter in this case? I was just asking because of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Killing of Charlie Kirk. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guideline for that. But, if I'm not mistaken, if you upload a video to Youtube with, let's say a current pop song as background music, then Youtube permits around 10-15 seconds of copyrighted audio without treating your video as a copyright violation. But I'm not if that's (still) true. Might be a starting point to figure out what length might count as de minimis, though. Nakonana (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

5 seconds, actually, per a tweet from their official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1162064808830627840?t=5QgqEGbJSiz4tNps6Fn_sw&s=19 as of 2019. Nakonana (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

But these are fair use policies and has nothing to do with de minimis. I would say a copyrighted work full frame in a video is never de minimis. An example for de minimis in a video could be an interview where there is some music from the background audible. GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with GPSLeo. Plus, if something copyrighted is intended as a focus of attention, then it cannot possibly be de minimis. Druation, size, etc. do not even enter the matter (though whether it is legible does). - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to say something like Jmabel already did. A reasonable baseline for De minimis reviews can IMHO be taken from an amalgamation of COM:DM France and COM:DM Germany. Both rundowns describe an inclusion of copyrighted works as being De minimis when they do not have any importance whatsoever for the photographic work taken as a whole; the included work shall not have any meaning related to the content of the photo or video, no influence on the message of the photo or video and not deliberately being used as part of the scene as it is framed (on the contrary, if it's seeable as a [slight] nuisance, then its inclusion may be DM). Of course, any inclusion of a protected work under the De minimis limitation statute must be small in size, so that this inclusion cannot serve as master for work copies. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that, except for two points: (1) "small" => "small or well out of focus". (2) Not sure it needs to have "[no] importance whatsoever". Consider Molotov Man. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer images from

http://digital.bib-bvb.de/view/bvb_mets/viewer.0.6.5.jsp?folder_id=0&dvs=1757833545426~875&pid=16068031&locale=en&usePid1=true&usePid2=true

to Wiki Commons? Sir Edward 2 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As this is a work created more than 120 years ago, it can be presumed to be public domain. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Mugshots from law enforcement agencies

Hello,

I encountered a mugshot from one of the 9/11 terrorists in the recent files (File:Majed Moqed 2.jpg). Allegedly, it was sourced from the FBI (the given source page was dead when I looked at it, an version from 2006 did not actually hold this image, but a different one; versions from 2016 and 2024 were dead, too). I'm harbouring doubts that this and the other mugshots in Hijackers in the September 11 attacks were actually taken by US government officials (and then, most likely not someone from the FBI, but more likely the TSA or CIA), the quality of them is much too disparate (sharpness, noise, coloured or not). It's much more likely that they were sourced from passport scans or the like, even though some of them carry a watermark of "government exhibit". All things considered, this seems to be a case of "Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. For example, government publications may include works copyrighted by a contractor or grantee; copyrighted material assigned to the U.S. Government; or copyrighted information from other sources."

While I also strongly doubt that anybody will sue or ask for image removal from abroad: should we delete those images as they infringe upon our licensing policy to only host free works? Or is this alleged appropriation of foreign IP rights by the US government sufficient for the licensing? This question, expandable upon other police mugshots is indeed only about how stringent we shall implement our own policies. Please share your opinions! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

were actually taken by US government officials (and then, most likely not someone from the FBI, but more likely the TSA or CIA) -- I suspect neither of them took the photo because the depicted guy died on 9/11, so how would investigators have taken such a good quality mugshot of a person who died in an airplane crash? Nakonana (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

An occasion could have been when the individuals entered the States (and a TSA agent made photos), or when some intelligence officer conducted interviews abroad. But these are surely only marginally realistic options, other sources are certainly more plausible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Motion Picture Copyright

Hello! I noticed a movie from 1914 was uploaded here in full. That movie of course is public domain given its age. The problem is is that the source is given as a home media release by a for profit company. Surely taking their restoration of the film is a copyright breach. Here is the file in question.File:The Lumberjack (1914).webm Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Restoration is not generally copyrightable in the US; it has to be creative work, not merely reproducing something someone else has done, i.e. the original film. And I'm not sure what restoration you're seeing there? Seems like a pretty direct scan of the film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The scan was done by a for profit company so I thought they may have rights to the specific copy of that film. Not the print but any clean up work or digital restoration they did to it for release. Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@You're apparently thinking about the effects of the en:Sweat of the brow doctrine. This doctrine is not really widespread in modern copyright laws, AFAIK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by OneUnknownDude

User:OneUnknownDude has uploaded a bunch of files from https://gahs.edu.ge claiming they are licensed under CC0. However, I see no such notice on the website. Can someone experienced with checking copyright verify these claims? Thank you. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus "gahs.edu.ge + own involvement" makes no sense as a source. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@OneUnknownDude: can you explain what is going on here? For example, at File:All-GAHS ICYS team in 2025.jpg you say the photographer is unknown, but then you claim to be the copyright-holder offering a cc-zero license. To me that makes no sense at all. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

アニメなどのロゴの著作権ってどうなってるの？

日本語で失礼します

まず謝りたいことがあります

無断で3点のロゴをアップロードしてしまいました、申し訳ありません

さて、本サイトにある、アニメなどのロゴは「図形やテキストのみであるコトによりパブリックドメインとなっています」がこの基準とは何か詳しく教えてください

またコレに関して著作権者の許可は必要か教えてください

返答お待ちしております H2-T2 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for a brief English reply, but these might help you:

COM:Threshold of originality/ja

COM:Copyright rules by territory/Japan/ja#独創性の水準 Reepy1 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Atoms for Peace speech

Are the audio and transcripts of the Atoms for Peace speech OK to upload? I performed a possibly flawed registration search, which turned up nothing. JayCubby (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status and eligibility of the old World Trade Center logo.

I recreated the old World Trade Center logo and uploaded it to Commons under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license, here. I originally researched the eligibility of logos to be copyrighted and came to the conclusion that they are not, so I chose the CC0 for people to not have to worry about crediting my recreation.

On September 11th, it got the speedy deletion notice for lack of permission from the copyright holder. After asking around and a lot of reading, I decided to send the probable copyright holder, the PANYNJ, an email asking them about the status of the logo. They responded in a very concise manner. Here's the main part of the response (everything else is email formalities and a link to the 9/11 Museum):

"Thank you for contacting the World Trade Center. Due to intellectual property rights, we are not authorized to grant any kind of design licenses for the Twin Towers at this time."

Being a bit confused by the vagueness of "we are not authorized to grant any kind of design licenses for the Twin Towers at this time", I sent a detailed email asking for guidance to commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org. What they told me is to just "prove that the logo is in the public domain", otherwise I "can't grant it a license", which didn't bring as much clarity into the issue as I had hoped, so I'm now asking here.

Does the logo and its recreation in question fall under the threshold of originality, making them uncopyrightable? What is there to grasp from the PANYNJ response? Does it bar any depiction of the Twin Towers from being used under a free license, forbidding them all from Commons? FenX2016 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@FenX2016 per enwiki, it was first used in 1993. If it was indeed first published in 1993, then it is automatically copyrighted from the moment of creation, but we all know that US courts and US Copyright Office typically reject copyright eligibility of many minimalist logos (see COM:TOO US) that are mere geometric shapes or typefaces, setting a very high bar of creativity required to gain copyright protection. Another question: are you also referring to the actual buildings themselves? The port authority has no rights whatsoever, more so the heirs of the deceased Japanese architect who authored the buildings, since all buildings can be exploited as per Sec. 120(a) of the US Copyright Code (the architectural Freedom of Panorama). More so, all buildings completed before 1990 are completely in public domain, because the 1990 AWCPA which granted copyright protection for architectural works did not retroactively restore the architects' copyrights on all existing buildings during that time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not any sort of legal expert, so I never meant to specify what part of the logo was copyrightable or not! I just relayed what the PANYNJ told me so that one of the much smarter people here could elaborate on what it would mean for this particular case.

Because of that, my only concern is whether or not any part of this logo potentially makes it all protected by copyright. Which now leads to the question of the logo's copyright eligibility under the threshold of originality. So... is it complex enough to be copyrighted or is it not? FenX2016 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/World_Trade_Center shows 3 WTC logos including a twin towers logo used 1989 to 2001. The newer 2014 logo is below TOO-US, but I would not claim the 1989 logo is below TOO; it is either above or too close to the line to be sure. Glrx (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That looks to me to be well above TOO in the United States.

Also: Pinging @JWilz12345, I doubt that Minoru Yamasaki, born in Seattle, Washington, graduate of Garfield High School and the University of Washington, and an active opponent of the internment of ethnic Japanese in the U.S. during World War II, would have appreciated being called a "Japanese architect". We would not call Frank Lloyd Wright a "Welsh architect". - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I stand corrected. (Perhaps because I am accustomed to the Philippine immigration laws, in which citizenship is only possible either by blood [at least one parent is a Filipino] or by naturalization [with hefty naturalization fees]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thanks. As you can imagine, in our current politics this is pretty fraught. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've speedied the 2001 logo. Bedivere (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

DigitaltMuseum, Category:Photographs by K.W. Gullers, and CC-BY-SA 4.0

License reviewing had me stumble upon File:NMAx.0016423.jpg and a bunch of other files in that category sourced to the Swedish DigitaltMuseum. The images on the DigitaltMuseum site have something that say they are CC-By-SA 4.0, but K.W. Gullers died in 1998 and there is no indication about this collection that the copyright was ever ceded to the various museum institutions to license those images. The other collections involving this artist have conflicting licenses, like CC-By-NC-ND. I am suspect to think that this is some kind of accidental license laundering on the museum's part, but wanted to get second opinions before I email them for more information or DR these files. Sennecaster (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

UN report covered by PD-UN-doc?

Is this UN report covered by PD-UN-doc? It does not, so far as I can tell, have a document symbol, which is the main category from ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, but I wanted to get others’ opinions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: would you know? - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf is currently listed as PD-USGov. While the redactions may be the work of a federal employee, the contact book obviously was not. However, I believe that this is still PD due to Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Can someone double check this interpretation, and if it is correct, does anyone know the template for this kind of situation? Based5290 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The arrangement seems to be alphabetical. So, such arrangement is not original. The element that might distinguish the contact book from the directory is the existence of a selection. The court observed that the directory simply listed the telephone subscribers, so there was no original selection (if any) and it could even plausibly be said that there was no selection at all because the publication was required by State law. For the contact book, there was certainly a particular selection of which names were selected. The crucial point is to tell if that selection would be considered original. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• I’m not sure what the utility of this file is. I’ve seen the full version, without redactions, on-line, so I don’t know why we have a redacted version. As it is now, it’s raw text in PDF form and therefore out of scope. I also think that there’s enough selection to be copyrightable, but I think that’s a closer call. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias @TE(æ)A,ea. I've nominated the file for deletion, since it's PD status seems suspect. Based5290 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

When can we assume anonymous author?

RAN has repeatedly used a rationale in DRs that I disagree with, most recently (that I've seen) at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clémence MOSSÉ.png. Basically, his argument (RAN, please indicate if I'm mischaracterizing) is that once we've done due diligence, if we cannot find original publication and cannot otherwise find an author attributed, we may assume an anonymous author and use a tag such as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. I say that we need at least some sort of evidence for the author being anonymous (typically, early anonymous publication), not merely the absence of evidence to the contrary, and that in a situation like the one described we need to wait until 120 years from creation, then use {{PD-old-assumed}}. In my view, RAN's argument amounts to saying that in any jurisdiction that allows anonymous works only 70 years protection starting from creation, we may apply that whenever we cannot determine authorship, and that the 120 years required for PD-old-assumed applies only to the case of a known author with an unknown death date.

There is no point to he and I repeating this disagreement on multiple DRs, and I would prefer some sort of determination about the argument in general. Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• A combination of Tineye and Google Image search looks at 14 billion images. It is impossible to prove a negative by the constraints of logic. The best you can do is perform due diligence. The argument is always if you just look under one more rock, you may find what you are looking for, but looking under 14 billion rocks represents the limits of trying to prove a negative. Most copyright jurisdictions allow a clawback from the public domain if a creator is discovered and the copyright term is still active at less than 70 years pma. We have always honored that rule, even when an archive claims that an image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• There's at least two interrelated issues here:

1. If we don't know where or how an work was first published, we cannot and should not make licensing statements which make specific assertions about its publication, e.g. that it was published anonymously or without a copyright notice. All we can say under these circumstances is that the origin of the image is unknown.
2. Independently of this, the fact that reverse image search services like Google Images or TinEye cannot find an image does not mean that the image is an original work, that it was previously unpublished, or that it was published anonymously. These services are notoriously unreliable; I've frequently had them fail to find images which are offered for sale on stock photo sites, or which have been posted on large public image galleries. Their failure to find a source for an image should not be treated as indicative of anything.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• If you don't know the original publication of a work, it is very hard to clearly say anything about the copyright status of the work is. How can we assume it's an EU work at all?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  A French midwife in the first half of the 20th century was most likely photographed in France, or in one of the other countries sharing a border with it. Googleing "Clémence Mossé" brings up a mention of her in https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/126221146.html#dbocontent : Im Juni 1936 auf dem von der Reichsfachschaft organisierten Internationalen Hebammenkongress in Berlin zur ersten Präsidentin der International Midwives Union (IMU) gewählt, nutzte Conti dieses Amt als Propagandaplattform für das „Dritte Reich“. Von 1942 bis 1945 amtierte sie in der Nachfolge des Weltverbandgründers Frans Daels (1882–1974) als Generalsekretärin der IMU und verlegte deren Geschäftsstelle gegen den Willen und hinter dem Rücken der Präsidentin Clémence Mosse (gest. 1949) von Gent nach Berlin. This places a probable place of work of C. Mossé in Belgium (Ghent). So the EU assumption seems valid.

  But I don't think that {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is something can can be easily and broadly used, if at all. The template claims, and that fits with the statutes as far as I know them:

  To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions:
  1. published over 70 years ago, and
  2. the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.

  That alone, and the policy Commons:Project scope/Evidence mandates that indeed a negative proof is needed before relying on the actual PD statute. COM:PRP comes on top. So, while I know that logic doesn't show for negative proof, the law, our policies and our layman's summary in the template in my opinion mandate exactly that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's a fairly specific licensing template, but there are some common cases where it can be applicable - news photos, maps, and incidental illustrations in books are three big ones. Omphalographer (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't even limit this template quite as far a Omphalographer, let alone Grand-Duc. I'd say that if we can find what appears to be the original publication of the photo (typically, publication very shortly after it was taken) and there is no photographer credit, then the burden would go to proving that the photographer later became known. But if the earliest publication we can find is years (in this case, decades) after the photo was taken, and it seems plausible (in this case, highly probable) that the photograph had prior publication, them we know exactly nothing about whether the original publication gave a photographer credit. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• The template has two requirements:
  1. Age: Published more than 70 years ago. So we would need to prove that it was published at least 70 years ago. If we can't find evidence of a publication which took place more than 70 years ago, then we can't use the template. For Commons purposes, there is also a requirement that the file must be in the public domain in the United States, which normally extends this from 70 to 95 years.
  2. Anonymity: This means that it is not possible to identify the author. On the Internet, you can often find photos which have been taken from an unspecified source without crediting the author, but this does not mean that the author is anonymous. If the author has once been known, he can't become anonymous, so you must check the original, unspecified, source.
• If you identify a print of the photograph which can reasonably be argued to be the original print, and the author isn't credited, then you can in my opinion assume that the author is presumably anonymous. However, if the original print is unidentified, we should not make assumptions about the author's anonymity.
• In some cases, we need further checks. For example, if the photo is credited to a news agency such as AFP, then the photo probably appeared in multiple newspapers at the same time, and then there is a risk that some newspapers credited the photographer and that some other newspapers did not. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I need assistance with the "Release Rights" section of some images I wish to upload.

I recently took some screenshots to use as sources for this section of this article en:Sky Kid#Other appearances in media and the "I don't know if they are free to share" button said to ask for assistance. What do I do? SpyroFan123 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@SpyroFan123: could you be clear about what these screenshots show?

You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, but this may be a tricky enough case that that introduction may not go deep enough for this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The page I wish to add these screenshots to has these bullet points

"In Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies, the narrator frequently spends his time in a bar named "Sky Kid"."

And

"In Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, the character Chopper has a poster with Red Baron's aircraft on it in his room."

The screenshots I've taken are from the games' respective cutscenes showing the aforementioned bar and poster. SpyroFan123 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You are likely trying to upload non-free images for Wikipedia. If so, it cannot be done here on Commons. You can ask for comments at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)