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.

Is the Iron Maiden logo above TOO?

Hello!

I saw that the Iron Maiden logo is uploaded here on Commons and I thought that it might be above British TOO due to its distinct font.

It's apparently a modified version of a font called Busk. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: Are you talking about File:Iron Maiden logo black.svg or something else? Please, when asking a question about a particular file or files, link! - Jmabel ! talk 07:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes, that and File:Iron Maiden logo.svg (different color variant of the same logo).

I was wondering because of the UK's low threshold of originality. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Didn't the UK hightened the ToO since THJ v Sheridan? COM:TOO UK mentions this, though I'm not sure about typographical copyright. HyperAnd [talk] 09:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Martin Puryear Sculpture ToO

Looking for some ToO feedback. This photo contains a sculpture previously installed at the Rosemont CTA station in Chicago (formerly River Road station), created by sculptor Martin Puryear. It's a super simple sculpture, an overlapping circle made of a wood rod with slightly ridged edges. I think it's probably below US ToO, but I'm not totally sure; the surface of the work is giving me pause. I'd love for us to be able to keep this photo, as this was an important installation by Puryear which has since rotted and been removed, but I figured I'd ask here before leaving it alone. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we know anything about date of creation? Because in the U.S. a piece like that, if exhibited before 1979, is very likely never to have been copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

1985, so unfortunately too late for permanent public placement-as-publication. 19h00s (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

A sculpture/statue installed in 1985 for which tangible copies were made available to the public would still (I believe) require copyright registration within five years of installation to not be considered within the public domain per {{PD-US-1978-89}}, wouldn't it? That would mean a formalities would've need to have been completed before January 1, 1991, or else the work would've entered into the public domain on that date. The meaning of "tangible copies" does (I think) include small mockups/replicas or photos of the work sold to the general public. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know Puryear never sold models or photographs of the sculpture - it was indeed installed without notice, but I don't think it was ever formally published in the copyright sense, as public installation alone wouldn't have counted as publication in 1985. 19h00s (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily referring to the artist with respect to the selling of models or photos but rather the CTA. Perhaps it sold something related to work or published something related to it. I think, in such a case, it could be assumed that the CTA received the artist's permission to do such a thing if it actually did do such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Did some more digging, still can't find any photos originating from Puryear or CTA back then. It was photographed for several newspapers after it was unveiled (mostly Chicago-area papers), but it was always in a newspaper with proper notice. --19h00s (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hearing no other takes, I'm going to assume this is public domain as a simple geometric work and not bother with a deletion nom. Feel free to to disagree or otherwise chime in! 19h00s (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment at RfC/When does PDART apply to textile works

There is a request for comment about when photographs of textile works (like historical flags) must be considered copyrighted. Discussion began in 2023, but stalled. More input is needed. Thanks for your consideration! Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Add picture of war hero

hi! I'm new to this. Never something but Ann a Wikipedia sponsor for years I,dd like to add a picture of great uncle who is a war hero and more. His Spy gear is even in the museum, they made a play about him. And there are several websites and books about his life: including photos. There used to be an elaborate Wikipedia page about him, including photos and a link and mention of him on several pages. All are gone. Last year the play started and I find it hard there's no picture of him. We do have family photos but they have nothing to do with the army. I think his grandson had a them but we're not in touch.

How can I add a picture that's already online on war hero sites?

he actually accomplished the most successful missions and even went to see to Queen when she was in England.

who can help me?

Wil text

Example

https://nllegioen.eu/oorlogsheld-jacob-beekman-en-het-vreemdelingenlegioen-1942/

War sources & pictures

A.Q. Beekmsn (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Q. Beeksmn: please see COM:THIRD.

Also: when you say "There used to be an elaborate Wikipedia page about him", in which language Wikipedia? - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The very first link labeled "Wil text" leads to Dutch Wikipedia. Nakonana (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Q. Beekmsn: To be used on Commons, a picture must be either free-licensed or in the public domain. Is there any picture of him that would qualify, or where it is possible to trace who would currently own the copyright and to try to obtain a license from them, as explained in COM:THIRD and COM:VRT?

Some Wikipedias (but not the Dutch-language Wikipedia) make a narrow allowance for local uploads of non-free images. However, that does not involve Commons at all and, as I say, is not applicable to the Dutch-language Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Likely copyvio

There are quite a few copyvio images of the singer Adéla uploaded recently by new accounts (see my contribs for other cases). I suspect File:Adéla IMG 5022.jpg is one of these, but couldn't easily find what its original source would be (though it appears similar to this article [1])

Is the template {{Copyvio}} still appropriate in cases like this, or is there a different route that should be pursued? Wracking (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wracking: no, {{Copyvio}} is a speedy-deletion template for blatant copyright violations. If you are unsure, please start a deletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

L.A. Gear

• 

Is this logo OK?-- Carnby (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Should be under TOO in the United States, assuming that is the thrust of your question. I added {{Trademarked}}, which was missing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Carnby (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Contact with publisher over copied image on Commons

I wanted to use File:Austronesian Sail Types.png for something outside Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It was not clear to me from the Commons page whether or not permission had been obtained for this close copy of figure 21 in Doran, Edwin B. (1981). Wangka: Austronesian canoe origins. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-086-8 and its caption. The only differences are that the Commons version has had the sails coloured green and the caption has slightly different punctuation. I therefore got in touch with the publisher to see if they had released the image to Commons. They have come back with an informal e-mail saying that they don't have any problem with this, though expressing surprise that the diagram had ended up on Commons. Is this informal e-mail OK for Commons, or do some more formal procedures need to be followed? Would the result of that be clearly shown on the Commons page, so that I could tell any person who needed to know that Commons had adequately policed this issue? If you give me an e-mail address I can forward the informal e-mail to you. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: We cannot give you legal advice. The uploader Obsidian Soul claimed that this is CC-zero, which is to say that you can treat it as if it is in the public domain. Although Commons performs more diligence of claims like that than (say) Facebook or Flickr, we make no claim to being thorough. At any given time, in my estimation, it is likely that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% or the content here is not appropriately licensed (as against maybe 10% on Flickr, or over 50% on Facebook).

Obsidian Soul has edited here in the last week, so you can reach them either on their user talk page or through the "Email this user" feature on their user page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way. This diagram and its associated caption seem to be a pretty clear case of copyright infringement. Fortunately the publisher seems unconcerned. With that in mind, do we need to regularise their agreement on the matter? If so, how?

I am familiar with the uploader, and I regret to say that I very much doubt that they would co-operate with anything I did, even if it were to resolve a problem with something that they had uploaded.

My objective is to get it recorded on Commons that the publisher has given their permission for the diagram and caption to remain in Commons. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a permission from the original author or publisher, so I started a deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Austronesian Sail Types.png. Yann (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Just delete it. I am tired of ThoughtIdRetired's bullshit. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Creating new public domain license for New Jersey

I requested the creation of a New Jersey Public Domain license, and I have listed my rationale for the request in my original post in Commons:Template requests. I was informed that such a license template used to exist but was deleted in 2013, and again in 2018. Has this consensus changed such that it could permit the creation of a new public domain license for New Jersey? ForeverFlying (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, convenience links:

• Template request: Commons:Template requests#New Jersey public domain license
• Template: {{PD-NJGov}}
• Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NJGov

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparent small error in Commons:Hirtle chart

Previously asked at Commons talk:Hirtle chart#Apparent small error, but it's been 2 weeks without a response there, - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
The combination of "31 December 2047" and "n/a (earliest 2049)" doesn't make sense, there is an entire year between those dates, so one of them is presumably wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

White House photos

There are a few White House photos in Category:Flickr images not found for example File:20260206PR-0610 President Donald Trump boards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House.jpg. On Commons:White House photostream there is a clear concensus to ignore the restrictions mentioned in the meta data and file page. But the problem is that we can't verify that the photos were from White House photo stream. The bot failed to review minutes after upload. If there are more recent discussions perhaps add them to the page mentioned. Thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I had removed the flickr not found tag on that image above based on the metadata but I did not pass this poor quality image also sourced to the White House flickr photostream: File:20260206PR-0109_President_Donald_Trump_boards_Marine_One_on_the_South_Lawn_of_the_White_House.jpg Please feel free to delete both images if you wish as they are not poor quality images and we have thousands of images of President Trump. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Do Newspaper Staff photos qualify for {{PD-US-1978-1989}}?

Would older Newspaper Staff photos be considered published without notice to qualify for {{PD-US-1978-1989}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}? I found a few fantastic photos of Michael Jackson, examples;
- File:Michael Jackson waving to fans at Hollywood Boulevard in Nov 1984.jpg
- File:Michael Jackson with the Jacksons at Victory Tour, July 1984.jpg
- File:The Jacksons Victory Tour by Michael Goulding Nov 30 1984.jpg
- File:Michael Jackson by Michael Goulding Dec 2 1984 2.jpg
I can't help but notice that it looks to be more of an internal staff photo, a presumed/potential work-for-hire by an employee/contractor of/for the 'Daily News' than a more widely distributed publicity or press/wire photograph. Were 'Daily News' photos sent to other newspapers? Certainly the newspaper would have had a notice in the header by this point which would have protected the photo? I'm not calling for deletion, just genuinely curious if it can be legally considered 'published' without notice. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@PascalHD: Clarification requested: are you saying that as late as 1984 the Daily News did not have a copyright notice on its masthead? I thought that by then all the major NYC papers did. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Not quite. I’m seeking clarification on if these news photographs themselves specifically are considered published without notice. What actually constitutes ‘publication’ in this case? The uploader is claiming {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but I don’t understand where the publication without notice would have occurred. From what I can see, these are internal photographs taken by the staff of the newspaper and only used by the newspaper itself. Publication would not have occurred until it was in the newspaper right? I assume it had a notice in the header by this time. I’m seeking others opinions whom are more familiar on this then I am. I hope this makes sense. PascalHD (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, presumably first publication would have been their own paper. Occasionally things like this did get sold through syndication; I'm not sure if the Daily News offered a syndication service, but the New York Times certainly did (and, I presume, does). For example, in that period the Seattle Times had a license to use five NYT stories per day, credited, of course. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If it was syndicated beyond their own paper, would that be enough to be considered published? PascalHD (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. And presumably any syndication would be close enough to initial publication that this would all count as simultaneous. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the Los Angeles Daily News not the New York Daily News $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• My apologies; when some says "Daily News" without qualification, I think of the one in New York. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we know if the LA Daily News syndicated their news photos? PascalHD (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so, I couldn't find any matches on newspapers.com by searching the description that is on the back of the photos, Newspapers.com doesn't have the new Los Angeles Daily News $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 17:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Children's artwork

Well, we might've broken the world record for youngest author of a copyrighted work (File:Child scribble age 1y10m.jpg). 😅

Since minors can own copyrights to works they create, I think the files in Category:Drawings by children should be reviewed for their copyright status. It's unclear to me whether and how children as young as 1 year old can meaningfully give consent to their works being posted online (and this raises ethical issues like sharenting). However, it's probable that a child author's parents or guardians have the authority to grant licenses on their behalf (like Child Art Aged 4.5 Person 2.png, which was uploaded by the parent), as long as doing so is in the child's interest. Some child drawings may also be below COM:TOO.

At the very least, I think the child should, as an ethical matter, be credited as the author on the file description page if the uploader is not the author of the work - preferably anonymously if the uploader doesn't wish to reveal the child's identity. For example: "Author: Child of User:Example". Qzekrom (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That category could also probably use some review for scope. Some children's drawings can be useful for illustrating child art, but we don't need to collect every single child's drawing - we're not Grandma's refrigerator. :) I've nominated a bunch of images from the category for deletion which were created by children as part of educational events and subsequently uploaded by the institution running the event - the copyright situation for these images seems particularly questionable. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "your day as president"; Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 131313484@N06 "Mummia Egizia". Omphalographer (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Kash Patel with the US Hockey Team

Is this photo posted by US FBI Director Kash Patel in the public domain?https://x.com/Kash_Patel/status/2025663993205936176/photo/4 Victorgrigas (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be Patel's personal account. Should we consider these photographs taken in the course of his duties as the Director of the FBI? Abzeronow (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

His account in his official capacity as FBI director is @FBIDirectorKash, so I would presume not. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think he took the photos? - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Are old, no longer used logos (of existing entities) possible to be uploaded?

I recreated in Blender a logo of RTCG (Montenegro's public broadcaster) which was used from the 90s until around 2005. However, I'm not sure if it is possible to be uploaded. Can someone provide me with further insight? Missileboi (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Missileboi: Is it simple enough to be below the threshold of originality? Otherwise, it is almost certainly copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It's only four coloured spheres (two blue, a white one, a red one), so I believe it is below the threshold. Missileboi (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Missileboi: sounds like {{PD-ineligible}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Wrong copyright license in structured data

Another case of SD showing false data for many files: when changing the license template of files, the SD is not corrected as well. Maybe somebody here knows how this could be fixed. I think a bot could scans files where the Commons category/ies for the file license mismatch with the ones set in the structured data.

Examples are many files in Category:Our World in Data that were uploaded with a false license which I corrected using VisualFileChange and which now have both licenses in the SD instead of just the correct one. Example: File:Fishing-methods.png. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: As far as I know, we have no rule that says you could not have a license indicated in the SD that is not explicit in the Wikitext; if I'm right about that, we could not delete it automtically. - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You mean there is page that says the license has to be specified in the file description and that it could not be deleted because of that....well a bot(s) already tag files for automatic deletion if there is no license info on the file page and that we could not delete the copyright structured data automatically due to what you described is I think inaccurate.

Moreover, it shouldn't be deleted but corrected. That is inconsistencies of the copyright license(s) specified in the structured data – which originally got set in at least 99% of cases based on the license specified in the UploadWizard and/or file description page – is (or are) not the same as license in the structured data. Maybe the best approach would be to first of all create a report that shows all the affected files, ideally with a column 'Licenses set via templates (cats)' and 'Licenses set in SD'. I certainly won't do that because I don't wish to spend time on fixing the extra workload due SD duplicating other things. I guess there can also be inconsistencies in other fields where files got edited after some bot import data into the SD. I just thought I'd notify people here. Currently, lots of files have wrong claims in the structured data. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Austrian Motorway Vignette

I am not quite sure whether the Austrian motorway vignette is in the public domain, also in the US. It is issued by the company ASFINAG, which is owned by the Austrian state; does that make it an official work by an Austrian state authority, eligible to PD-AustrianGov? And as a consequence, can graphics depicting the vignette (like this one or this one) directly be uploaded to Commons? Also, photos of vignettes on WP could be transferred to Commons, right? --Aciarium (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: your first link gives me an error.

Going by the other two links, that is way above TOO. What would be the basis for PD? - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Strange, that link works fine for me.

As stated in PD-AustrianGov, the reason for PD would be: "This image is in the public domain according to Austrian copyright law because it is part of a law, ordinance or official decree issued by an Austrian federal or state authority, or because it is of predominantly official use." This would override TOO concerns, if I understand correctly. I am just not sure if PD-AustrianGov also applies to vignettes. --Aciarium (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Photos of Felix Gonzalez-Torres works

Just hoping to get some other eyes on this deletion nom concerning photos I uploaded of art by Felix Gonzalez-Torres (d. 1996). Some interesting questions re: threshold of originality, "fixation" requirements, and "country of publication". I've previously raised these questions here and in discussion with @Toohool. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Question

Are the CCTV footages of México on public domain? ಠ ಠ 05:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.
Same user asked same question below; please don't ask you question twice. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Augmented Reality for eCommerce.jpg

Kindly check this 2016 cross-wiki upload (from enWiki), if this is a legit image or a stolen image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually couldn't find anything before the upload date of 2016-12-05. I think it's a legit image, given that all of the uploader's contributions on enwiki were related to that Augment company and the description is promotional. HurricaneZeta^C 16:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Paulist-logo-wordmark.png

This is likely not the uploader's own work [2] but is it possible that the logo is eligible under PD-textlogo? P-JR (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC) P-JR (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Archdiocese of Manila Vectorized.svg

This image, except the heraldic charges (crescent, castle, and merlion, which are from this file), is an exact vectorization of the depiction designed and used by the Archdiocese of Manila. [3] [4] Does this constitute a copyright violation? As I understand, coats of arms themselves are instructions that cannot be copyrighted, but depictions or representations of them are. P-JR (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Assuming publication

On Commons, can it ever be simply assumed a work was published at a particular time, without hard evidence it was? I'm asking because the current lead image for Mahatma Gandhi on enwiki (Mahatma-Gandhi, studio, 1931.jpg) does this. Of course, as an anonymous UK photo created more than 70 years ago, it has lapsed into the public domain there. But in the US the copyright is based on date of publication, and the description only says that it was a 1931 photo and "was most probably published in USA at the time." Is there a Commons page which explains whether publication can be assumed? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My take: sometimes you have to go with common sense. It is very likely that the picture would have been published in the U.S.; remember that if it was published in a UK periodical that had U.S. subscribers, that would count. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in Dominican Republic has been dead since 2006

Proof: Law No. 424-06 of November 14, 2006, on Implementation of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). The clause of this law (which fulfills the Central America-United States agreement) RESTRICTING Freedom of Panorama is Article 38.

Article 38. Article 39 of Law No. 65­00 on Copyright is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Article 39. ­Works permanently located on public roads, streets or squares may be reproduced for personal use by means of painting, drawing, photography or audiovisual fixations. With regard to works of architecture, this provision shall apply only to their external aspect."

Affected: COM:CRT/Dominican Republic#Freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, COM:CRT is severely outdated. DomRep has been a 70-year p.m.a. regime since that same year, also part of the law that fulfills their treaty with the United States. So in fulfilling the treaty to align with American standards: FoP was restricted to personal use only, and copyright duration was extendes to 70 years after the artist's/author's death. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Justia.com provides a Spanish text of the consolidated version, see here. Relevant text affirming the "death" of panorama exception in that country (courtesy of the law in compliance with the treaty with the United States):

"Artículo 39.- (Modificado por el Art. 38 de la ley No. 424-06 del 20 de noviembre de 2006. G.O. No. 10393 del 22 de noviembre de 2006). Se podrá reproducir para uso personal por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías o fijaciones audiovisuales, las obras que estén colocadas de modo permanente en vías públicas, calles o plazas. En lo que se refiere a obras de arquitectura; esta disposición es sólo aplicable a su aspecto exterior."

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info I finally revised the page, despite in the midst of my internship schedule. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Dust jacket with copyright notice for one specific portion

The dust jacket for The Tie that Binds bears a copyright notice referring only to the photo on the front cover. Does anyone know if the photo of the author on the inside of the dust jacket gained copyright protection from this? Based5290 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That copyright notice clearly affects only the photo on the cover. It only mention the Amon Carter Museum as copyright holder and I think that neither Laura Gilpin (1891-1979) took the photo of Haruf nor that the potarit is part of the museum collection. Günther Frager (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Question

Are the CCTV footages of México on public domain? ಠ ಠ 00:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Should be in public domain? I would recommend to apply the license Template:PD-automated if you plan to upload a picture of said CCTV footage. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Scootacar badge.jpg

I'm looking for some other opinions on the licensing of File:Scootacar badge.jpg. This is a photo of the logo/badge of en:Scootacar that was taken by the uploader. The photo looks like a derivative work of a potentially copyright protected logo and seems to be nothing more than case of COM:2D copying; however, the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} might still be necessary for it under UK copyright law. It's the copyright status of the logo that needs to be assessed. In a discussion about this on the uploader's user talk page, the uploader posted that the logo was never trademarked and that any intellectual property rights would have vested in the Crown on the company's dissolution in 1964., i.e., a case of en:bona vacantia. If this is truly the case, then perhaps COM:CROWN applies. Could the badge/logo have had it's copyright restored under under US copyright law (COM:URAA) on the UK's URAA date even if the logo did enter into the public domain under UK copyright law 50 years after commercial publication? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The way English law works is that creating something as part of employment means employer owns all IP rights, so copyright would vest in the company (and now the Crown). In practice there's no way of working out who created the badge, it would have been 70 years ago or so.

There's the issue as well of anything along these lines being uploaded - not just car badges but e.g. football club badges. There seems to be at least an understanding that it's OK for reference or ID purposes, as it's not for commercial use. In Vitrio (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Logo of the government of Iran

if you go onto https://irangov.ir/, you can clearly see some sort of emblem/logo that says "GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN". I have just made a vector version of this and I wanted to know if I can upload it as a free file on commons, free file on wikipedia, or non-free file on wikipedia?

Planning to upload the said logo on article Government of Iran in case if you want to know about that.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality Inquiry

Hi, was looking at this image. I know that the text on it's own isn't a question, but can anyone tell me if the "blood" in the 'U' pushes this above the U.S. threshold of originality? I find it doubtful, but figured it was better to be safer than sorry. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Diaphonémer_conjugaison. webm

La licence de ma vidéo n'est pas définie. Pourquoi ma vidéo peut être supprimée après sept jours. La désynchronisation de Video2commons n'incombe que Wikimedia Commons d'avoir adoptée une application moins performante. Diaphonémus-Galaxie (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Photo of German Templer Bank in Jaffa of 1935

I'm working on a Draft page with information about a German Bank that existed in 1935 in Jaffa, them under the Mandate for Palestine and wanted to use a photo taken by Carl Luts who passed away in 1975: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bank_of_the_Temple_Society

The photo of the German bank in Jaffa in 1935 by Carl Lutz, I have further investigated this issue as per your suggestions and found the following:

I checked the first publication of the photo of the German bank which was taken in 1935 by Carl Lutz. It was published in Yad Vashem as part of his collection: https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/photos/12106979

This was the Swiss Diplomat that took the picture: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1170532

Then I checked the link to the Copyright rules that you forwarded to me and I think it comes under the following rule: Works Published Abroad Before 1978 10 1923 through 1977 Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) 20 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Copyright_rules_chart_2014_-_Peter_B._Hirtle%2C_Cornell_University.pdf

The photo is cleared for use according to Israel laws: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בנק_אגודת_הטמפלרים

Can I use it also on my Draft to be published in English?

Sincerely

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)