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.

Similar DRs with different result (COM:TOO UK and Stik graffiti)

One of the kept files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik

Last month I submitted a few DRs about Stik graffiti, two of them in the UK. Photos of graffiti in the UK are typically not allowed per COM:FOP UK, but this graffiti is basically stick figures (very simple). Files in one of the DRs were mostly kept as below COM:TOO UK while those from the other were deleted, though the complexity of the art across the two DRs is very similar, so we have an inconsistent result.

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik (7 of 8  kept as below TOO, 1 deleted)
2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik in London (84  deleted)

Could others please take a look and advise on how to resolve this inconsistency - should the deleted files be requested for undeletion, or should the kept files be DR'd again, or something else? (BTW I posted about this here last month before submitting the DRs but didn't get any responses. Pinging closers @Infrogmation and @Blackcat.) -Consigned (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The UK has a rather low TOO, however, the TOO was recently made higher, iirc. It might be worth checking what the exact recent changes to the UK's understanding of TOO were and whether they might have any implications on this graffiti. Going by the old TOO regulations, I'd say they'd need to be deleted, but I don't remember how high the TOO was made now. Nakonana (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright rules of which country?

Would you clarify when we look at copyright rules, which country's copyright rules shoud we refer to?

For example, if I took a photo in country A, with the subject of an artwork that was created in country B by the artist with a nationality of country C, which copyright rules apply? Country A/B/C's or all of them? Onthewings (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Onthewings: Hi, The only thing which matters is the country of first publication. For an artwork displayed in a public place, that's easy. For an artwork kept in a private place, it may be published in a different country than the one it was created: the place where it was first displayed to the public. For your picture, if you first upload it to Wikimedia Commons, the country which matters is USA, where Wikimedia servers are located. Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yann Thanks for the answer. Please allow me to ask another question to make sure I understand correctly.

In another scenario, for example there is a sculpture first published in a country. It was fully protected by the country's copyright law (no FOP etc). Then, the sculpture was transported and permanently placed in a public space in the UK, where sculptures are covered by FOP. Are we allowed to upload photographs of that sculpture in the UK to Wikimedia Commons? Onthewings (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that should be OK because the picture of the artwork is taken in UK, where FOP allows publication under a free license (assuming all conditions are met: permanent, public place, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. In that case what matters is where I took the photo (UK) instead of where I publish the photo (Wikimedia server in USA)? Onthewings (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Onthewings: For the FOP aspect, what matters is the law where the photo is taken and where the object is located. In your example, that’s the UK, which allows FOP for sculptures permanently in public places. So a freely licensed photo taken there is fine under UK law, even if the sculpture came from a country without FOP. On Commons, such images are accepted if they’re free in both the country of origin and the US. Since the US only has FOP for buildings, Commons uses {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to flag that reuse in the US may be restricted (but not really that widely used). (And just to correct a common misconception: it’s not about "servers in the USA". The WMF is US-based, so US law matters, but Wikimedia runs infrastructure worldwide.) For FOP, the relevant law is where the photo was taken. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the main servers are in USA. That may not be applicable for Wikimedia, but I was able to use the shorter duration of copyright when renting a server in Canada. Yann (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Contradictory deletion nomination results on US passport photos

Recently the deletion request I initiated for the Tupac passport photos has been closed as "keep". I nominated those for deletion because an earlier deletion request for a passport photo of Ross Ulbricht was closed as "delete". These are contradictory deletion outcomes as both concerned passport photos of U.S. citizens. There are also the discussions for Janis Joplin's (delete) and Andrew Anglin's passport photo (keep). Thus we are forced to make a decision between:

1. U.S. passport photos are public domain
2. U.S. passport photos are not public domain

Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How are passport photos taken in the United States? In Sweden, you go to a police station, and then the photo is taken by a policeman (so the photo is always a government work). Is this also the case in the United States; that is, can {{PD-USGov}} be used for passport photos from the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had one taken by the post office once, but you can also supply your own. Unsure about old ones. There is very little variation/creativity on such photos, as the angle and the cropping are usually roughly all the same. There are gray areas of threshold of originality, and if something was considered published or not (important for U.S. copyright yet difficult to determine). Not surprised people come down on different sides of those, and it's just about impossible for there to be a copyright case on them, and there could be different situations for different ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In theory anyone can take them; requirements are rather specific.

• Color photo 2 x 2 inches in size, printed on thin, photo-quality paper.
  • Before circa 1980, they required black and white instead.
  • In recent years (don't know start date) they offer the alternative of color JPEG image between 600x600 and 1200x1200 pixels, with a square aspect ratio and a file size between 54 KB and 10 MB.
• Between 1 inch and 1 3/8 inches from the bottom of the chin to the top of the head.
  • Presumably the same ratio to file dimensions for a JPEG.
• Taken within the past 6 months at time you apply for passport, "showing current appearance."
• Full face, front view with a plain white or off-white background.
• Cannot have a smile that shows teeth.

Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you think these photos surpass the COM:PCP to be kept? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Passport photos need a free license. In the US, they are privately made; the government only gets the use of the photo rather than the copyright. For me, the debate is who owns the copyright: the photographer or the subject. I lean to the latter as the photograph would be a work for hire, but there is seldom a written contract where the photographer transfers the work. Skill is involved. I just got my driver's license renewed at the DMV, and the person running the camera was giving explicit posing instructions about tilting my head and where I should be looking. There may be requirements, but there is still some level of creativity involved. Glrx (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Conversely, for passport photos before 1978, the passing of the photo from the photographer to the subject, and thence to the State Department may well constitute publication, and certainly no copyright notice would be present, so quite possibly these would all have passed into the public domain for being published without notice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Bodycams and PD-automated

@Trade recently added a statement to {{PD-automated}} stating this template doesn’t cover bodycam footages. I know from past discussions that there wasn’t any clear consensus on whether bodycam footages are copyrightable, so I wanted to ask here again for other’s opinion on the added statement on the template. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It's long been an unwritten rule not to use PD-automated on bodycams and for us to delete such videos and screenshots. It's possible we have just never declared it an official policy

As for the DRs i was waiting for

Commons:Deletion requests/File:(Explicit Violent Content) Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing the Nova music festival area on 7th October.webm before taking any action against those Trade (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

For the DRs that voted kept it's worth keeping in mind they either had very fed participants. In other cases, most of the vote keeps were people engaging in personal attacks against the nominator --Trade (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• One problem with the template is that it doesn't properly address differences in national law. For example, under Swedish law, the only requirement is that the photograph has a producer, in which case it is automatically protected for 50 years from creation. Originality is only a concern if you still seek copyright protection after more than 50 years from creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  No one is stopped from making changes that adresses differences in national law Trade (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  So how do this work with CCTVs in Sweden? Trade (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  As long as the photograph has a producer, the copyright expires 50 years after the photo was created. I don't know who the producer is in the case of CCTV. Maybe it is the technician who last pressed the on/off switch. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just flagging that we previously went through a similar discussion on CCTV/automated camera videos a few months back, might be some useful insights in there. 19h00s (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Either we are allowed to host CCTV footage or we are going to have to delete hundreds of videos and screenshots. There's no compromise to be made here Trade (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Decorated sculpture trails

Regarding Category:Decorated sculpture trails, I believe most photos there were taken when the sculptures were temporarily exhibited in public prior to the auction, which decides who will get the sculptures and where to put them. Here is a Wikipedia article about one of such trails in the UK.

I wonder whether the photos are acceptable in Commons as I believe for example the UK FOP covers only works permanently placed in public spaces? Onthewings (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Country of publication and copyright for works created in the United Arab Republic

Hi. I was just looking through some files in Category:United Arab Republic and it seems like the licensing for them are all over the place. Since the United Arab Republic was a union attempt between Egypt and Syria, North Yemen, and Iraq depending on the years it was tried. My inclination is to say the proper licenses for works created during the republic would be "PD-Egypt", since they were the main country involved in the unification attempts, but I'm not really sure if I'm correct or not. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a copyright guideline for the United Arab Republic either. So does anyone know what license, or licenses, would be correct? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW I removed some pictures from Category:United Arab Republic which probably belong to Category:United Arab Emirates. Yann (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

1943 title page for Talking to India

en:File:Talking to India.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a non-free license, but it seems too simple to be eligible for copyright in the US per COM:TOO US. I'm curious though as to whether it might also be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the UK based on the UK's new TOO. Even if that's not the case, perhaps the book itself is now PD for some reason per COM:UK because of its age. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, The cover is probably OK, but the book is not in the public domain, as en:E. M. Forster died in 1970. Yann (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. Based on what you posted, I'm assuming a {{PD-text}} license is probably OK for both the US and UK, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• COM:UK#Typographical copyright indicates that there is a typographic copyright which expires 25 years after publication, but that has obviously already expired. Furthermore, I would think that the title page is normally not created by the author of the book and the person who created the title page is probably anonymous, so any copyright in the title page would have expired 25 or 70 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Stefan2. Based on what you posted, it appears the title page could be no longer eligible for copyright protection for two reasons: COM:UK#Typographical copyright and COM:UK#Unknown author. What licenses would you suggest using in the first case and in the second case? In the "unknown author" case, though, I'm wondering whether the page would've still been protected on the UK's URAA restoration date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if there is a copyright tag for the UK typographical copyright. For the 70-year term, use {{PD-UK-unknown}}.

  For the United States, use {{PD-ineligible}} or a variant of that copyright tag. As it is below the threshold of originality in the United States, you don't need to consider the URAA stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality of logos

The shield in this logo appears to be something that is beyond "simple design" to qualify as public domain, but not so certain that I wanted to get some opinions before proposing deletion. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for VP/C rather than the now-open DR? - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , Easy on acronyms and abbreviations which took me a moment to decode. This discussion at Village Pump/Copyright was started 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC) by me as a broader discussion by me to really get a good idea of the boundary between simple and complex. Someone else filed a Deletion Request 3 1/2 hours later on the same file at 19:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC) which is beyond my control. So I'm not sure why you're asking the question? Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking why there was any reason to continue discussion here, given that there is now (or, more accurately, was at the time of my remark) an open DR. That DR has now been resolved. Again, is there anything that needs to be discussed here that was not covered in the DR? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

In broader picture, Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States shows nVidia logo is copyrightable but the Subway and Geek Squad ones aren't. At first sight, I'm not quite grasping what makes the nVidia one at the threshold. For those that haven't been through court/administrative dispute, how do we go about what's above below threshold for Wikimedia upload purposes? Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, partly informed by rationales given in court rulings. This is almost all case law, not statute law. Even actual copyright lawyers will sometimes disagree; because of the precautionary principle, we try to set Commons' threshold relatively near the low end of the gray zone. I am sure our decisions are not completely consistent over time, but I'm also sure that the consequences are not enormous (having a particular logo hosted on Commons or not is not of enormous importance). As far as I know, we've had few, if any, takedown notices for logos that had had any scrutiny. As in most things related to copyright, Commons tends to stay in a range that most copyright lawyers would find conservative. (Compare almost any other media site on the web that accepts user uploads.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

We have actual rulings on the Subway and Geek Squad logos. Nvidia logo does not have an official ruling, which means we use editor consensus, which as Jmabel pointed out runs rather conservative. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads from HighHeist

HighHeist (talk · contribs) has uploaded several logos for various Indian television stations. They described them all as own work, with is clearly false. My question is if these logos are simple enough for COM:TOO India to apply? Ravensfire (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

WBNX-TV and License Washing

Hi all. I noticed File:Tyla in 2025.jpg on the main page of enwiki, and caught that it happened to be from my local affiliate for en:The CW, which happens to be en:WBNX-TV. I noticed that the source video was listed as CC-BY, and I was able to verify that the source video showed the same license. However, it appears that everything on their YouTube channel is licensed CC BY, including nationally broadcast TV shows that are not typically released under a free license. I'm wondering if we're looking at another case of the Vogue Taiwan issue. Any input folks may have would be greatly appreciated! Phuzion (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Phuzion I think this is less complicated than the Vogue Taiwan issue, since Vogue Taiwan was releasing content fully owned by their parent company (or other subsidiaries) under CC licenses, but in this case WBNX-TV is simply releasing content that doesn’t appear to be owned by them or their parent company under CC licenses.

For example, File:Tyla in 2025.jpg is a screenshot from the Jennifer Hudson Show. The show’s connection to WBNX-TV is very minimal, as the show is only partly owned by a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery, and Warner Bros. Discovery is only a minority owner of The CW, which owns WBNX-TV. So, I think it is very unlikely that WBNX-TV are authorised to release such content under CC-license, so I think you can safely nominate this and other similar images for deletion. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Tvpuppy, although this is essentially the same issue as Vogue Taiwan. WBNX-TV definitely does not have authorization to release those videos under a free license, just as Vogue Taiwan didn't have the right to release Condé Nast's original content under free licenses. This is just another case of a faraway subsidiary assuming they own the rights to content they're re-publishing from their corporate owner, which is almost certainly an incorrect assumption. I would only trust a free license from WBNX's YouTube if the content in question originated with WBNX (e.g., their local newscast or other content created by WBNX). 19h00s (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Nominated the file for deletion per recommendations. Thanks for the help! Phuzion (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Nominated another 22 images from WBNX-TV. Phuzion (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Are these in the public domain?

This is about two files - one of which I'm about to upload and the other that has already been uploaded.

The file that hasn't been uploaded yet:
This is the file I'm planning on uploading: https://x.com/MatPatGT/status/1932458863619404194/video/1
I would like to upload the audio of this video. I believe it is in the public domain as the video is formatted and angled in a way that makes it seem like it was originally recorded and published by a congressperson. However, I am not sure if that applies to videos, and if it doesn't, please let me know.

The file that has been uploaded:
This is the file that has been uploaded: File:Matpat aurafarming cropped even more.png
While I do believe the file was formatted very badly and uploaded by a careless contributor, what I also believe is that this was taken by a congressperson - possibly the same congressperson who took the other photos that have been uploaded here. What I'd like for this is a source to attach to the file, although I'd probably want to verify the source first. Regardless, it seems like a safe file to me and, if the file really is in the public domain, I might consider replacing the image in MatPat's Wikipedia infobox with that image, as I believe it is the best recent file of him on commons. I changed the license from a CC0 license to a PD-Congress license earlier tonight and I do believe I was correct with that change.

I would like to know if both of these files are in the public domain - if they are, I will upload the former while the latter's info can be cleaned up. If not, the latter can be deleted while the former will not be uploaded. I am making this as I believe this will require some form of discussion. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see any evidence here that any of this media was actually made by a member of Congress or a federal employee. Press events like the one pictured are attended by many different people whose photos would not be PD, including press, Congressional campaign staff (not federal staffers), outside partners (like MatPat and his entourage), or members of the public. Notably, MatPat tagged several large companies in his post, presumably because they are involved with this effort; how do we know that YouTube or Jubilee didn't send a photographer or set up the livestream to ensure the event was documented and well-covered? MatPat posted the video and photograph himself, it was not posted by a federal source; we'd need confirmation of some kind, whether that's an original image source or a photo credit listed in another place, to show that it was in fact a federal employee who made the photo. I also don't really understand what you mean when you say the photo is angled in a way that makes it seem as if a member of Congress took it, but I could just be misreading that.

From where I sit, Commons:PCP would necessitate deletion of the photo and no uploading the other media unless/until we have a definitive source on who made the images/video. 19h00s (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Which is what I was hoping could be found.

The reason why I believe these were made by congresspeople were because of files such as this, which have similar camera quality. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, that image sourced from Rep. Yvette Clarke changes it a bit for me. It's very possible that the images came from Clarke's office, but we'd still need confirmation I think. And I apologize for my "don't really understand" comment, I more meant that I didn't see the connection between the angle of the image and it being made by a member of Congress or their staff, but after seeing the photo's from Clarke's office I see what you mean. 19h00s (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully someone will be able to determine this soon. I think we're getting closer to finding out these files are fine to be here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: I found out where the latter file came from. It came from the same Tweet the video came from. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Right now, however, we are still determining whether or not they came from a congressperson. While I personally believe that that is the case, it is not definitive and that's why I'm forwarding this to the village pump. Sorry if I say things that don't make the most sense, by the way, English is not my first language. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Uluru

There has been some media attention recently (e.g. [1]) concerning photos of Uluru. Essentially, you need a "media permit or license" to "capture, use or create images,footage, recording, artwork or likeness of Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park for commercial or public purposes" [2], or you face fines.

For existing photos, they must be "reviewed and approved by the Media Office before use". These permits/licences are valid for 10 years, after which you apparently have to reapply. They also have a broad ?request? to not "capture or use existing images or footage of people climbing, the base of the climb, the chain on the climb or views from the climb, including from the top of Uluṟu."

Can any media depicting Uluru or the national park be included on here? Even on Wikipedia, CC-BY-NC would seem to not be permitted, as you need a licence for "public purposes". 128.250.0.194 11:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an example of a Commons:Non-copyright restrictions (unless you can show me where in their copyright law they literally copyright this mountain). Commons generally permits this type of photo, with a warning. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Looking at Template:Australian Commonwealth reserve, it seems insufficient, as restrictions are not merely on commercial purposes, but "commercial and public". It may need to be edited, or another template made for gradations of restrictions. 49.183.93.101 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Images Published by Sri Lankan Army in July 2009 (Subsequently Deleted from their Website)

Appendix 2: In response to a government-declared amnesty on July 4, 2009, several Muslim militant groups in the Eastern Province surrendered dozens of weapons

These 6 photos were released by the Sri Lankan Army as part of a press release on their Website. [3] The thing is the Sri Lankan Army deleted those photos but once they had uploaded those photos.[4] The footer of the Sri Lankan Army Website says:

© Reproduction of news items is permitted when used without any alterations to contents and the source. All Rights Reserved. Ministry of Defence - Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Did I amend it to the copyright tag? (CC0) Zero Public Domain, "No Rights Reserved". I don't know which License is appropriate for it. Also AFP used these exact images but it doesn't seem like they asked for copyright permissions?[5]

What do I do now? If I wait it out the images will be deleted in 6 days. Wikipedia Commons is asking me to provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Then update the tag with on file description page. This is really complicated for a noob like me.

The Images are being used for the following page: [6] {{Permission pending|year=2025|month=September|day=28}} RajaRajaC (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@RajaRajaC Do you have permission to upload these photographs? As you have mentioned, the footer states these images are non-free (“All rights reserved”) and no derivatives allowed (“without any alterations to contents”), so they cannot be uploaded to Commons, hence should be deleted. Please read Commons:Licensing for more details. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of March 1941 of Luftwaffe image

Hi folks!! I have this image located on page 22 of [7]. 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)

Somalia

Hello. I'm requesting for someone to update COM:SOMALIA and possibly some related pages. Accordingly, their intellectual property office reopened in 2019 and resumed operations in 2021. It also means PD-Somalia is no longer default, as it is now possible to register copyrights of Somali works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Potential Nirvana photo

Hi all. I am currently trying to find a free or otherwise public domain of Kurt Cobain and/or his band Nirvana. The current photo on Cobain's Wikipedia article is unsatisfactory, and the latter's article uses a fair use image. There is a very short window of time between 1987 (when Nirvana formed) and February 1989 (when US copyright laws got stricter) where photos of the band could have been published without copyright notice and without being renewed, thus being in the public domain in the US.

I have found one such potential photo, the Love Buzz cover art. This is the packaging of the band's first single released in 1988, and as can be seen on the gallery, there isn't an explicit copyright notice on the jacket itself. Both photos on the front and back are rather blurry, so their usefulness for illustrating Nirvana or Cobain is debatable. There are primarily two issues relating to the copyright, the first is that the vinyl itself does contain a copyright notice reading "Produced by Jack Endino ©+℗". The second is that the photographer, Alice Wheeler, appears to indeed have registered the copyright for "Nirvana first photo sessions" in 1993. However, this record appears to only claim photos created in 1989, whereas the Love Buzz cover was released in 1988.

Does the above issues prevent scans of the cover art from being uploaded to Commons as {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-US-defective notice-1978-89}}? Howardcorn33 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no copyright notice in this Discogs page containing scans of the vinyl record, so I think it should be fine. But I'm no expert on US copyright law, so another opinion is preferable. Bedivere (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Only one way to find out. Upload it and see if someone deletes it :) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploading an alternate print of a negative?

BEGIN moved from Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Somewhat recently (2021) an alternate print of the famous File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg photograph was published [8] in the journal "Holocaust and Genocide Studies". This print is in the possession of the United States Holocaust museum ([9]) and was probably photographed/scanned by the authors themselves since the museum itself does not host a digitized copy. An additional digitized copy of higher quality was published in 2024 ([10]) in an article by welt.de ([11]).

I want to upload this alternate print to Wikimedia commons but I am unsure about the copyright situation with this image. The original print seems to be part of the public domain due to being published in the US between 1930-1977 without a copyright notice. I am wondering whether the public domain status also extends to this alternate print, since the exact photographic reproduction of a work in public domain is not protected by copyright (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp). The key question seems to be: Is the alternate print considered the same work as the already published print or not?

The alternate print shows a larger section of the image (two additional soldiers watching are visible) and is of higher quality (buildings in the background of the image can clearly be seen) which is why I think it is relevant to upload this print. Since the copyright situation for the two scans of the images should be the same I would choose to upload the scan by welt.de due to its higher resolution Veryspecific (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Veryspecific: subtle questions about copyright are much better asked at COM:Village pump/Copyright. Mind if I move this there? - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No, go ahead. Veryspecific (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

END moved from Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Question about collective works published before 1978

Would a collective work whose only copyright notice bore the name of an author of a contribution have the copyright to the rest of its parts not forfeited? The Copyright Office's Jaws decision seems to suggest yes, since it goes great lengths to emphasize that the Jaws novel is not a collective work. I'm asking because this is directly relevant to Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Power Broker book cover.tiff and the copyright status of File:Houseboat Days - Ashbery.jpg. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)