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.

Wappen Schützenverein - Tell Reidelbach

Kein eigenes Werk, aber: Reicht die Kombination aus Form, Schrift und typischen Symbolen für Schöpfungshöhe? - No own work, but is it enough for TOO? GerritR (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Selbstantwort, damit die Sache nicht automatisch archiviert wird. Meinungen, bitte. GerritR (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not consider this below threshold of originality. But this is always a bit subjective. I, myself, could not easily make such a design, it would undoubtedly look different. You can look at COM:TOO Germany for more examples. Ellywa (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wenzel Wirkner 1864- - Klid v horach - Horska idyla.jpg

Any idea why the files from this DR were redeleted? The summary just says "A Deletion Request" which is vague as hell... DMCA maybe? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That does seem odd. The "Undelete in 2018" category was removed when that happened. Seems like they should be restored, unless they were made/published after 1930 (in which case they would still be under U.S. copyright most likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The deleting admin is still active. Pinging @Gbawden: . Nakonana (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Léna erred here. When removing Category:Undelete in 2018 on 1 Jan 2018, probably Category:Undeleted in 2018 should have been added and the files should have been undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by NGCZ. I did a bulk delete which is why it just says Per a deletion request. Gbawden (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gbawden: If that's the case, it looks to me like you linked the wrong DR in the log, so that would have been very hard to guess. Let me know if you think I'm misreading. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense then. Deleted for reasons other than copyright, really. Unsure if there is a way in the future to get the DR linked in the logs somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Only way to do that is to undelete & redelete. Might be more useful to add a permalink to this discussion than just a link to the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

FoP-Uruguay again

Freedom of Panorama: Between Copyright and Enjoyment of Cultural Heritage, by Beatriz Bugallo (Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de la República, Uruguay). Published on: 28-10-2025.

Per the abstract (translated version, with underlined emphasis added by me):

Freedom of panorama is an exception to economic copyright of copyrighted works located in freely accessible public spaces. It seeks to balance social and cultural interests with the interests of creators. Its regulation is fragmentary in comparative law, since it is not especially enshrined in international regulations, and the States that regulate it do so with variations. Its growing regulatory provision is a consequence of the technological evolution in the possibility of reproduction and public communication. In the digital environment and due to the different economic activities affected in the cultural, touristic and educational fields, it is increasingly important to consider its regulation. We propose its concept, foundation and historical origin as a starting point. By means of a selection of comparative law experiences and a survey of aspects of diverse normative scope, we present the existing range of its regulation. Guidelines are included as a proposal for its inclusion in Uruguay.

The part that I highlighted seems to imply that there is no valid FoP in Uruguay (notwithstanding our interpretation at COM:FOP Uruguay). The Uruguayan chapter of Creative Commons is also of the view that FoP is not recognized in Uruguay, and that's why they are repeatedly calling for its introduction in that country.

Some past discussions on Fop-Uruguay: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Statues images and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06#Renewed review of Uruguayan FoP.

Here is the link to the full paper of Bugallo (2025), which is in Spanish. Pages 48–49 mention about Uruguay's FoP status.

Excerpt in Spanish

Algunas legislaciones no hacen referencia al tema. En Argentina la ley 11.723 de 26 de setiembre de 1933 y sus modificaciones, no hay referencia expresa. Tampoco la hay en la ley 9.739 de 17 de diciembre de 1937 de dere-chos de autor y conexos, y sus modificaciones, en Uruguay. Cualquier uso que quiera realizarse y que esté relacionado con reproducción, comunica-ción pública u otro derecho de explotación del autor requiere la autoriza-ción del titular del derecho, sea el arquitecto o cualquier otro a quién se los haya cedido, a menos que se aplique otro tipo de excepciones previstas. En un caso uruguayo se filmó una pieza publicitaria al aire libre en una calle, delante de un muro que tenía un graffiti visualizable libremente – típi-co uso comercial -, sin requerir consentimiento del autor. Si bien este tema no fue el centro de la discusión (la discusión versó sobre la atribución de autoría al reclamante), como no hay ninguna referencia en la ley respecto de este tema, en definitiva, se consideró que era ejercicio de derechos pri-vativos del autor y se fijó una suma como indemnización por el uso no con-sentido (Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022). Según las disposiciones del Derecho comparado que contemplan la libertad de panorama, podría haber sido o no admitida como excepción (creo que mayoritariamente no comprendida por su dimensión teleológica). Este tipo de conflictos no son difíciles de encontrar en la juris-prudencia de distintos países. En EEUU, donde la ley referida a la protección de las obras arquitectónicas consagra expresamente excepción de panora-ma limitada y que se interpreta además según la regla del fair use o uso justo, se había presentado antes un caso relativamente similar al uruguayo. Se trató de un artista plástico contratado para realizar una pintura mural en un parking, la cual fue fotografiada por un tercero y utilizada para avi-sos publicitarios de una empresa. El autor reclamó que no había autorizado el uso y la empresa demandada contestó que como se trataba de una obra visual incorporada en obra arquitectónica estaba comprendida en la excep-ción. En definitiva el tribunal actuante entendió que si bien un parking se puede calificar como obra arquitectónica, la creación visual objeto de la litis no era parte funcional del parking, sino independiente de él. De esta forma, no podía incluirse en la excepción que hubiera permitido el uso a la deman-dada (Falkner v. Gen. Motors LLC, 393 F. Supp. 3d. C.D. Cal. 2018) (Bugallo, 2025)

Re-mentioning everyone mentioned in those two older discussions: @Ganímedes, Leiro & Law, and Clindberg: from the 2011 discussion at FoP talk page, and @Ruslik0, Bedivere, and Ymblanter: from the discussion in June this year. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Some addition: Bugallo (2025) proposes (on page 53) a sufficient FoP to be applied in Uruguay, either following the German or the Andean Community models (both balanced according to Bugallo (2025)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the tag links to a version of Uruguayan law, the one which the articles states has no FoP provision, yet article 45.8 seems to be directly on point. It's possible the qualifier at the end (left the private domain) is fuzzy enough that it should be made more clear in the law, but to state there is nothing at all in the law seems incorrect. Unless that section has been removed more recently, or the author was looking at an earlier law which did not have it. Does the document discuss that article in particular? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg the document doesn't discuss the article, but I have a stronger feeling that 45.8 isn't a valid FoP, but more of an exception that guarantees free uses of works of art that are already outside the private domain (in other words, copyright has expired). This webpage (by IMPO Uruguay) is explicit in its Q&A explanation:

¿Qué usos están permitidos y no son considerados reproducción ilícita?
Los llamados usos “libres”, no considerados reproducción ilícita son:...
8. La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que hayan salido del dominio (propiedad) privado.

In their version, it's legal to reproduce works of art in public spaces provided they have "left" the private property domain. (Property, in the sense, intellectual property). There is no logic for equating "private property" with ownership, considering that works inside museum indoors also fall under this exception (yet museum indoors are typically privately owned).

The document itself mentions a Uruguayan case law concerning the inclusion of an outdior graffiti in an advertisement. Case file: Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 3er turno, Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 (English translation by Google: Civil Appeals Court, 3rd Division, Judgment 44/2022 of April 21, 2022). Per the author of the document, the case mainly concerned on "attributing authorship of the claimant", the case concluded with "a sum awarded as compensation for the unauthorized use". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to tell this too: The Article 45.8 in the Uruguayan copyright law has been intact since the law first came into effect in 1937. No revision has been made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg. Here is the link to the 2022 court casefile from Uruguay mentioned by Bugallo (2025). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's only allowed if the copyright has expired, then it wouldn't need a special clause in the law. I certainly don't speak the language and there may well be a reason, but there should be a discussion as to that clause specifically as to why our interpretation is wrong. I can't see the link you posted, but the court case described seemed to be for a film, whereas the clause's permission is limited to photographs. Secondly, the court case seems to have been mostly about attribution, and did not address FoP, per the description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems the website doesn't post the casefiles in dedicated webpages and instead reliant on providing content while still using search. Here is the link to search. Search term is Sentencia 44/2022 de 21 de abril de 2022 Tovagliare Note the website doesn't allow copy paste options. The relevant casefile to be selected from the search is "44/2022 DEFINITIVA - Tribunal Apelaciones Civil 3ºT° - PROCESO CIVIL ORDINARIO". Case name: "REOLÓN, GUZMÁN C/ BANCA DE CUBIERTA COLECTIVA DE QUINIELAS DE MONTEVIDEO".

The summary (in Spanish) is: Revocando la sentencia impugnada en cuanto desestimó la demanda y en su lugar se condena a la demandada a pagar al actor la cantidad de $ 40.000 por concepto de lucro cesante, y el importe de $ 160.000 por concepto de multa, cantidades éstas que deberán reajuste de conformidad con el DL 14.500 y generarán intereses legales desde la exigibilidad hasta su efectivo pago.
La Sala coincide con el apelante en cuanto a que la exigencia de que el autor de la obra estampe en la misma su nombre completo constituyó un error de interpretación de la normativa aplicable al caso, que no tomó en consideración la normativa internacional que inspira nuestra ley, así como el principio del informalismo, conforme al cual el autor puede identificarse con su nombre, firma rúbrica o símbolo.
El Tribunal entiende que la reproducción de la obra del accionante por parte de la demandada sin su previo consentimiento, resultó ilícita, por lo que corresponde ingresar a examinar la pretensión indemniztoria formulada.

Some salient points in the appellate court's ruling

▪︎ The defendant's claim on the graffiti's lack of protection was overthrown (being an illegal work doesn't deprive the artist of his copyright).

▪︎ The defendant indeed failed to attribute the artist in the advertisement, despite having been contacted by the plaintiff (the artist)

▪︎ (Here is one thing that may change our perspective on Uruguayan FoP) the court also ordered the defendant to pay 40,000 Uruguayan pesos (that's distinct from 160,000 Uruguayan pesos of fines). The 40K payment is for the lost profits due to the defendant's unauthorized reproduction of the graffiti. The court explicitly ruled on the unauthorized inclusion of the graffiti in their advertisement.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The attribution is a moral rights issue, not economic right. Or maybe failure to attribution makes it an economic right violation. Anyways, the clause in their law does not allow inclusion by video, just photograph, so this does not directly address it anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure how "official" is the opinion of Creative Commons Uruguay. I'm not sure if it's or not a Non-Profit Organization, a government Organization or simply enthusiastics of the free culture. At least one of the members seems to be a lawyer, but there are musicians, psychologist, sociologist, etc. With that said, not much I can add to this topic. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of old Bangladeshi (East Pakistani) Newspapers

I’ve recently got digital copies of The Daily Azad newspaper of Jan-Feb & Jul-Aug 1952. It’s an important historic paper, especially related to the Bengali Language Movement, and the newspaper is now defunct since 1990s.

Before I start uploading, I want to confirm is it OK under Commons policy and current Bangladeshi copyright law to upload newspapers published before 1964?

From what I’ve read in the Bangladesh Copyright Act (2000, now 2023) and law firm summaries, corporate works like newspapers are protected for 60 years from the year of publication. That means issues published before 1964 should already be public domain.

For old newspapers, my understanding of copyright as follows:

1. If the writer was not employed by the newspaper: copyright lasts for the author’s lifetime + 60 years.
2. The newspaper’s layout and design (excluding text and images) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication. Reference
3. If someone writes something in a newspaper as part of their employment, the copyright belongs to the newspaper company. Reference
4. The editor of a newspaper is not the copyright owner. Reference
5. If the report was written by the newspaper’s own staff — being a corporate work — copyright lasts for 60 years from the year of publication. This means that all original photographs and staff-written reports published before 1964 are now in the public domain. Source: Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh
   (Note: The Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023 does not explicitly state that a corporation’s copyright expires 60 years after publication. but the previous Copyright Act 2000 states, "Term of copyrights in works of local authorities.⎯ Copyright in the work of a local authority shall, where the local authority is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following year in which the work is first published."
   According to 2023 law:
   1. The law says that if the author is known, the term is 60 years after the author’s death for literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.
   2. For anonymous authors, films, sound recordings, photographs, digital works, government publications, and international organizations, copyright lasts 60 years from publication.
   3. Since newspaper reports are generally not authored by individual editors or writers but by the organization, they can be treated as corporate works.
   4. Although the law doesn’t specifically mention Bangladeshi corporations, based on law of 2000 and and the legal opinion in the Chambers Practice Guide – Bangladesh — my conclusion is that the term is 60 years from publication.)

Arguments against say that if any article was written by an outside author (not staff), it might still be under “life + 60 years.” But The Daily Azad was mainly staff-written, and the paper closed long ago.

So, before I do the uploads, I just want to ask: Would you consider 1952 issues safe to upload as public domain?

Thanks for any thoughts. I just want to make sure it’s OK before I start. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment After reviewing the above comment and the relevant laws of Bangladesh, it appears that newspapers published 60 years ago are in the public domain.
  However, since they were published during the East Pakistan era, the interpretation under Pakistani law is also a relevant factor.≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 13:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @MS Sakib It is not a relevant factor. East Pakistani works published during the Pakistani era are still Bangladeshi works because East Pakistan is Bangladesh now. So it doesn't matter. The newspapers were published from Dhaka which is now in Bangladesh. Pakistan has no authority over Dhaka. Mehedi Abedin 13:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  
  I do believe rule of land applies here. Copyright law 2023 applies here as Dhaka is part of the Bangladesh now.

  Regardless of "Rule of land" vs "Rule of time", I want to cover my bases. The relevant law at the time of publishing these newspaper was British India copyright law 1914 (Pakistani ordinance was issued in 1962)

  If rule of time was to apply here: according to 1914 law

  1. Newspapers are explicitly defined as "collective works" along with encyclopedias, dictionaries, year books, reviews, magazines, or similar periodicals.
  2. For collective works, there's a special provision: any agreement by an author regarding assignment of copyright doesn't apply to "the assignment of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work or part of a work as part of a collective work".
     In simple terms, The work of an author cannot be published outside of the work without his/her permission if the work is collective work. The work can be PD as whole work but his work can not be published separately if author's copyright has not been expired. (This provision only applies to non-staff reporting or work)
  3. Where the author was in the employment of some other reason under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of· any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar Periodical.
     TL;DR: Copyright of staff reporting is held by the newspaper; not the staff reporter.
  4. When Owner is a body corporate, "the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts". The copyright term of corporate work is 50 years after publication.

  Tausheef Hassan (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Anything that was still protected by copyright in Bangladesh in 1996 would have its US copyright restored (Commons:URAA), and Commons requires works to be free both in their source country and the US (Commons:Licensing). URAA-restored 1952 works would enter the public domain in the US at the beginning of 2048. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig so, yes or no in your opinion? Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes or no to what? To uploading to Commons: No. Unless we delete them again immediately and add the files to an undeletion category like Category:Undelete in 2048 (assuming they're not still protected in Bangladesh by then). --Rosenzweig τ 10:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your clarification Tausheef Hassan (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Saudi Photos platform

The official licensing announcement document

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) recently announced the Saudi Photos platform, which states in it's terms that "the media content on this platform is available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. Under this license, all media content published and owned by SPA on this platform may be utilized across all media outlets, online servers, or other informational platforms, and creatively reused without restrictions on the volume of materials or duration of use."

I noticed that a number of users were uploading images from this platform, so I created {{Saudi Photos platform}} with tracking category (79 files).

Any suggestions, comments, or feedback? The platform seems to contain hundreds of great images. --Alaa :)..! 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The Arabic Wikipedia community informed at w:ar:special:diff/72389097. Also ping @Dyolf77: one of the ar-N sysops at Wikimedia Commons --Alaa :)..! 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They are only about 10 years behind Iran..  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@999real What is the reason for this comment? And what does "Iran" have to do with the above topic? I still assume good faith. --Alaa :)..! 08:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you think? Iranian news websites started releasing all their content under a free license 10 years ago  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to them, and this is a positive step that we hope all countries of the world, from east to west, will follow. --Alaa :)..! 17:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@علاء seems a good start. Will it also mean that Saudi Arabia may become more "open" in terms of licenses that are friendly for commercial reuses and reuses on IT/digital/new media soon? For example, concerning the unrestricted pictorial and photographic reproductions of recent buildings and sculptures in public places without needing licensing permissions from the architects, sculptors, and artists of the said landmarks, or the so-called Freedom of Panorama which Saudi Arabia currently lacks right now? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, JWilz12345. I have the same questions as well, so I think the answers to these questions should be left for the future to see, but it seems that "maybe" the future is better. I don't know if the Saudi Wikimedia User Group can answer them? --Alaa :)..! 15:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Image Upload Query

Hello! I'm new to the wikipedia community, and I'm trying to make a wikipedia page for the Soviet 130mm S-70 Cannon, but I'm unsure about the image I found for it. Could I have some help determining if I can upload it? This is the link with the S-70 details: [1] Admiral Orazark (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any indication of a Creative Commons license on this website and/or the websites it references. The images might be in the public domain but to establish that we'd need more information on the images than the website provides.

I guess we don't have any images of that cannon on Commons yet? Somewhere in those categories maybe:

• Category:Self-propelled artillery at the Tank Museum, Kubinka (the website you linked has one image that was taken in this museum)
• Category:Self-propelled artillery in the Patriot Museum Complex, Kubinka
• Category:130 mm artillery
• Category:Tanks of the Soviet Union
• Category:Automatic cannons of the Soviet Union
• Category:Cannons in Russia
• Category:Cannons

Nakonana (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are those the correct categories?

• Category:Object 260
• Category:IS-7

Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked around and couldn't find a direct reference or separate cannon image anywhere on the commons yet, that's why I tried to find a good outsource for the image. It's unfortunate that the images are undetermined; I'll try to do some digging with lens, but I don't know if I'll find anything. Thank you anyway for your time, I apologize for taking it up. Admiral Orazark (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Simon Dwain Kalavazides

This is my first time reporting an issue on Commons, apologies for any breach of etiquette. This user's contributions seem very problematic to me. They were brought to my attention from an edit request at an en.wiki article. The lead photo featured the subject making a rude gesture (and was claimed stolen from its actual owner), so when I searched Commons to see if an alternative was available, I discovered this account that has uploaded numerous photos of the subject, taken over the span of many years, and all licensed as "own work" with the caption "When I met <subject> at <place>. I have cropped myself out." And they have done so for many other subjects than just the one. It seems likely to me that they are all improperly licensed. Please let me know if there's a more suitable noticeboard or action I should take. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Judging by his Instagram[2], I've reached the opposite conclusion, it's probably a real person who has the hobby of meeting celebrities. Commons policy requires anything that has been published somewhere else first needs permission from COM:VRT. If you find any specific files that meet this criteria, it would go further to bolster the case these are copyvios. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well I'll be. Apologies for not digging deeper, but thanks for looking into it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lesley Joseph 2025.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are circuit diagrams below TOO?

I've found this image on English Wikibooks, and am considering whether it should be exported to Commons. The question is: are educational circuit diagrams below the threshold of originality in the United States? JJP_Master (she/they) 02:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say one that simple certainly is below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What about this one? b:File:Mesh1.png JJP_Master (she/they) 19:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. The key question would probably be: would anyone else diagram this significantly differently? If not, then it is probably below TOO. Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The annotations there—"loop1", "loop2", and "I₁", "I₂"—would probably be a more likely issue than the completely conventional circuit diagram. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you. I'd like to ask about just one more: b:File:Electronics TTLNOTPRAC01.PNG. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd expect that to be below TOO. Certainly without the colors it would be, and it's hard to see how adding color to highlight something would push it over the line.

In case I haven't said this: TOO is always a judgement call. My opinion is just that: my opinion. Someone else might disagree, so please do not be offended if you upload these and they are later deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable Source?

Is this page on the Supreme Court of India website an acceptable source for an image to be added to Commons? I ask this because I've seen other officeholders from the Indian Government have their pictures used on Wikipedia. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for it, but there appears to be no GODL release or anything of the sort. Indian government works are not automatically freely licensed, so unfortunately, probably not. Based5290 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Canadian FoP and interior photographs

File:Playhouse Cinema Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Concession Stand.png shows the concenssion stand of the en:Playhouse Cinema located in Canada. COM:FOP Canada states there's freedom of panorama for buidlings and other architectural structures under Canadian copyright law, but it makes no mention specific mention of photos taken inside such structures, and there doesn't appear to be any copyrightable elements in the photo that wouldn't meet the definiton of incidental/de minimis per COM:CB#Museum and interior photography. Is this photo OK for Commons as licensed or does it need another license (e.g. {{FoP-Canada}}) for the photographed interior? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Whether there is FOP or not for interior photographs in Canada doesn't matter in this case. Whatever would have a copyright is not sufficiently prominent to be an issue. All artworks are de minimis, and the rest is utilitarian. Yann (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

US paintings 1930-1955

Hi, What is the best license for these artworks, e.g. File:Untitled (Mt. Denali in Summer) by Sydney Mortimer Laurence, c. 1920-1940, Anchorage Museum.jpg. I mean for US artworks from after 1930 who author died before 1954 (1955 next year). There are either published without a notice and/or without a copyright renewal (therefore {{PD-US}}), or unpublished (therefore {{PD-US-unpublished}}). It is difficult to know for sure the publication history, except for famous painters. So what is the best solution? Yann (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think most other editors here are not going to like my answer. My take is if the art is "out there" (which it is since we have the art available), then it was probably published, but you still must do the due diligence of searching the Copyright Office filings to ensure it was never registered. You can never assume publication without notice, unless you find an art catalog or similar that lacks it. As you said, proving publication for some of these works is very burdensome, also the transitional rules for unpublished works 1997(1997 date only applicable for foreign works)1978-2003 are especially ridiculous (copyrighted until 2048). Again, I think some editors would object to my take, they want you to prove publication. This particular work seems especially troubling, as you don't even have a firm date when it was created/published. Therefore, whether it's actually PD is very debatable. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: The whole point is that, if the painting was not published, then it is in the public domain per {{PD-US-unpublished}}, as I said above. If we know the date of publication, it is easy to check for copyright renewal. I think that most of these paintings were published, even if it cannot be proved. So my question is, where we should use {{PD-US-unpublished}} which is true for all unpublished works, or {{PD-US}}, which is the most likely copyright status, even if we can't find the exact detail. We have the choice between an always-true license for unlikely situation, or an uncertain license for the most likely situation. Yann (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This particular work has some problems. If created between 1920-1930, and either published, or unpublished until 2003, then ok. If created 1930-1940, and published, possibly ok, depending on notice and registration/renewal. But if first published 1978-2002 you have a huge problem. From 1978-1988, notice was required (though omission could be cured by registration within 5 years), and the term is life+70 or until 2048, whichever is later. If first published 1989-2002, notice was optional, but still the term extends to at least until 2048. Which is why I said, your best bet is to assume publication, and focus on searching for a copyright registration. Proving publication can be very hard, as a lot of the primary places this would have occurred (art catalogs and the like) are not available online, but stating you have searched the copyright records and didn't find a registration is a firm step you can do.

To answer your question as to when to use PD-US-unpublished, this would only be a specific case, the artist never distributed copies of the work to the public, or it was a private commission and not reproduced until 2003. Some works this is easy to prove, Mark Twain famously hid his autobiography, and his heirs chose to publish it to take advantage of the transitional copyright rules, otherwise it would have immediately fell into the public domain.-Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: Registration is meaningless for such works, unless they were first published between 1978 and 1989. If they were *renewed*, then yes that could be an issue. If they were published though, they needed a copyright notice on the painting or frame. Determining publication for paintings can be extremely difficult, mainly because there was no set definition of publication in the U.S. at the time, and different courts had different standards. Unless there is some documentation that a painting was kept by the artist's family for a long time, we generally do assume publication around the time they were made (most works were made to be published). Given all the gray areas, there can be lots of theoretical doubts on such works, but the standard is significant doubt -- that would probably need some specific information that a painting could really have been first published between after 1978 (and before 2003) for an artist who died in 1940. That is exceedingly rare. You can throw theoretical doubt on a great many works here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was trying to convey this. Unless the work was bought for a (very) private collection or held in storage, it was effectively published. And you do raise a valid point, for pre 1964 works we only have to worry about renewals. Related DR for a work that falls into this category.-Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically, publication without notice overrides renewals -- it became PD immediately regardless of its current status. Granted, the copies without notice did need to be distributed. In general though, I don't like deleting where lack of information on U.S. publication status is the only doubt. If we do get some concrete publication information, we should of course follow that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:James D Watson crop.jpg et al.

Looking for a sanity check before I cause a disaster. This and the related versions are getting a lot of eyes at the moment because of the death of the subject.

The problem is that this is tagged as an official work of the NIH but it doesn't seem the NIH took the photo. What appears to be the original source identifies it as Courtesy: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Now, CSH undoubtedly makes use of a boat load of NIH funding, but it is not a government organization; it's a private non-profit. I've run into this before with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which similarly takes a lot of government money, but is actually run by UT–Battelle, a non-profit.

The NIH source identifies the Watson photo as "freely available and may be used without special permission." But as we all know, simply saying something is free in a non-descript way doesn't constitute a specific rationale for why it's free, and doesn't amount to a specific license.

I'm sure nominating this for deletion will cause a stir about Commons meddling and being nit picky, but unfortunately that doesn't have any bearing on whether the image is actually free and properly licensed. GMG^talk 13:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You're sane, don't fret. Looking at the file and links, I'd agree with you; works by CSH are not automatically PD and certainly aren't NIH works, and the genome.gov link is way too vague about the freeness. This will probably cause some arguments and folks may try to dig up more sources, but barring major conflicting info I'd agree these should get a deletion nom. 19h00s (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I updated File:James D Watson Genome Image.jpg with an archive.org link and links to the copyright pages. genome.gov's copyright page at the time said to obtain permission for third party works, but this particular image said permission was already granted. Not an NIH work, I also changed the license. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

uncredited OSM tileset use Category:Maps_of_exclaves,_enclaves_and_salients_of_the_United_Kingdom

I have just discovered the various maps such as File:Exclaves_Derbyshire.jpg. These appear to be photographs (!) of a monitor displaying old openstreetmap tiles, with an overlay showing pre-1844 county borders. credited with source "Wikimapia Historical Counties Map With Exclaves" and "Historic County Borders Project". At the very least they need an OSM credit, is my understanding. Having done a bit of cursory checking I'm not able to find these boundaries on wikimapia either, although i'm not super familiar with that site. Thoughts about what should be done about this would be welcome. The uploading user appears to have retired only a few months after these were put up, five years ago. Morwen (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Embedded YouTube videos

The Serbian military at vs.rs has generously licensed all the content on their website under a CC-BY license, as seen in the terms and conditions. They also publish a large amount of 'video-news', some of which might be nice to get on to Commons. However, while 'on their website' in spirit, the videos are technically embedded YouTube videos from their channel. The videos are theirs, and considering they used to upload them directly, it's obvious they upload them to YouTube for convenience, but they don't have a CC license on YouTube. Would these videos be ok to use? If not, how would I go around getting permission to use them if I ever need one? I don't need a full release, so is it just enough for them to send VRT an email saying 'we consider YouTube videos embedded on our website to be on our website'? JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If it is clearly their content and they clearly grant a license, it doesn't matter that they post the permission on a different site than the content. However, you'd need to explain the situation in the "permission" section of the {{Information}} template and should certainly tag with {{LicenseReview}} so that a license reviewer can sign off. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is that simple. Putting this example in other terms, we can consider an English Wikipedia article containing a mixture of fair use images hosted locally and freely licensed images hosted at Commons. Both the fair use images and the freely licensed images have separate sets of terms that are available for people to access. Does the presence of the freely licensed content overule the terms of the fair use content just because they are displayed on the same web page? Similarly, I think we would need an explicit statement to say that the website licence also applies to the embedded YouTube videos, which have their own licence terms already.

As an addition, I have run a machine translation on the terms of use for that Serbian website and it says, "The content on the site is available under the conditions of Creative Commons Authorship 3.0 Serbia license, if not otherwise indicated". The presence of that last statement would appear to exclude the YouTube videos, as they are otherwise indicative of a different licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't read Serbian, and I also don't know exactly what page is being discussed for what videos. I was going by JustARandomSquid's statement (possibly false, per From Hill To Shore)t that they "licensed all the content on their website under a CC-BY license". If that is not the case, we would certainly have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid, I think it is best to just contact the website to ask for clarification, since the license status for the YouTube videos is not clear, as others pointed out above. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's very much what I was afraid of. What would I say in the email? Would they need to forward their reply to VRT? Kind of new to this so bear with me JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid Please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party#If you need to obtain a license for copyrighted work, hopefully this should answer your questions. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for review

To interested users based in Belgium or possibly Benelux area, kindly review all of the images under Category:FOP (tagged with {{FOP}}). These apparently show stained glass windows in the city of Gent. Unsure if those are eligible for {{FoP-Belgium}}. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia:en:File:Conservatives logo.svg

File was removed from Commons in 2022 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservative Party UK Logo 2022.svg) but since then UK TOO has risen significantly (COM:TOO UK) and I believe it would fall under it now. Any advice? Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The tree is not a simple shape, so it may exceed TOO-US and have a thin copyright. Glrx (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah even in America the tree would be on the edge. Text styling is regarded more simply than any symbol/shape. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

R/place copyright

What circumstances would have to occur in order to take a screenshot of r/place (disregarding UI)? As in, given that most people only contributed a few pixels to the project, does that mean that nobody owns r/place, Reddit owns r/place, or that EVERYONE who contributed owns at least a part of r/place? If it’s the latter, do they still own copyright even after their placed pixels have been overwritten, and what is the best way to contact EVERYONE? And finally, looking at the canvas at a whole, at what point in the timeline does it start being original and not just a mess of unoriginal colours? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN _{wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo} 22:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anohthterwikipedian: Sounds like you are speaking of something where Commons' precautionary principle means we could not host it. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

EU Parliament copyright

Are images created by the European Parliament that are available at the European Parliament multimedia page free use as an Attribution-only license on Commons? If they are, is Template:European Commission the correct template to be using? Because, as I understand it, the European Parliament and European Commission are not the same thing and therefore have different copyright policies, like this EU Parliament notice DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/10#European Parliament images and the many past discussions also linked in that thread. The summary is the copyright status of EP images is currently "ambiguous". Their wording of their legal notice appears to be incompatible with licensing requirements of Commons, while others said it could be due to a mistranslation. Currently, Commons are still hosting many EP images, most of those that were nominated for deletion were deleted, but some were kept. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, the consensus on EU Parliament images seems to be that where the usage terms are marked with "Identification of origin mandatory", that marks them with Attribution-only licenses, and therefore commons-compatible. So I'm tentatively uploading MEPs portraits with the Template:European Parliament tag keeping in mind that two such tags have existed and been deleted previously DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Review request

Kindly review File:Adelaide Airport old international check in terminal.jpg, which is claimed to source from an Australian news outlet in which the website is paywalled. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Of course I don't have access to the paywalled site, but the combination of unknown author, paywalled site, and CC-0 seems unlikely, at best. Uploader has had a fair number of files deleted as copyvios. I'll start a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Are composite outdoor information boards in Germany FoP-eligible or not? (Maps + photos + graphics + text)

I would like to request clarification about a possible ambiguity in our copyright/FoP policies regarding composite outdoor information boards — i.e. signs that combine text, photographs, maps, graphics, and designed layout, and are permanently installed in public space (e.g. touristic or educational information panels). The German version of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter (section “Anzeigetafeln und Schilder”) contains the following passage:

“Als Faustregel gilt, dass detaillierte Informations- und Aufklärungsschilder […] fast immer urheberrechtlich geschützt sind und Fotos davon normalerweise nicht akzeptiert werden können. […] 2D-Kunstwerke sind in den meisten Panoramafreiheits-Ländern in der Panoramafreiheits-Ausnahme enthalten, aber nicht in: […]. OK: Text ist enthalten in der Panoramafreiheits-Ausnahme von […] Deutschland […].”

English translation:

“As a rule of thumb, detailed information and explanatory boards […] are almost always protected by copyright and photos of them usually cannot be accepted. […] 2D artworks are included in the freedom-of-panorama exception in most FoP countries, but not in: […]. OK: text is included in the freedom-of-panorama exception of […] Germany […].”

The potential ambiguity is the relationship between these two statements: Initial rule:

Detailed information boards (with maps, photos, graphics, layout, longer text) are normally not acceptable due to copyright.

FoP exception:

The FoP table seems to indicate that in Germany both
– 2D artwork (column: “2D works”) and
– text
are covered by FoP.

Because information boards typically contain both 2D works (maps, photos, graphics) and longer text, it is unclear whether Germany should be read as an exception that does allow FoP-based uploads of such boards, or whether the initial “not acceptable” rule still applies to composite informational panels regardless of FoP. My question about interpretation of these rule:

• How should this be interpreted according to current Commons policy and practice?
• Are detailed information boards located outdoors and permanently accessible in Germany considered FoP-covered (as 2D artwork/text), or are they still not acceptable on Commons due to being composite works?

So the resulting question is: Can an image like this Example published on Wikimedia Commons? Any clarification or link to previous consensus discussions would be very helpful. Thank you! August (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The standing practice, as far as I'm aware, is to accept such kind of imagery under German FOP rules. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the previous comment. But could someone please help me with a verifiable clarification?

I am not looking for personal impressions (“as far as I’m aware…”), but for either

(a) a link to an existing Commons policy page,

(b) a previous consensus discussion, or

(c) a specific deletion review / admin decision

that clearly states whether composite outdoor information boards in Germany (signs combining text, maps, photos, graphics and layout) are or are not covered by German FoP under Commons rules.

At the moment, I only see two plausible interpretations of the policy text, and I do not want to rely on assumptions. If there is an established practice or a policy-backed interpretation, I would really appreciate a concrete reference.

Thank you very much! August (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A relevant link would be COM:FOP Germany (and its subsections). There is also a plethora of FOP DR in Category:German_FOP_cases/kept, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berlin-Steglitz Gutshaus Steglitz Tafel.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stuttgart SI Centrum Informationstafel 2003.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spanisches Kreuz Pforzen schild.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mykonos restaurant plaque.jpg. That would be ample enough to corroborate "standing practice", I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Christmas tree and de minimis + other possible copyright issues

Earlier this month, I took a photo of a Christmas tree that contained multiple copyrighted works (found here). Should the file be uploaded, would it meet the de minimis guidelines and what other copyright-related issues would it encounter aside from freedom of panorama? Looking forward to your comments. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ianlopez1115 i'd rather say no. Almost all of the ornaments are non-traditional designs, most noticeably Labubu characters. The SM Megamall management even labels the Labubu-themed Christmas tree as "Pop Mart Christmas tree. See also this When in Manila article. Very likely, only SM has the licensing clearance from the Chinese toy company (w:en:Pop Mart) for them to use their characters in Christmas tree designs, and we can only take photos of the trees for personal uses. Freedom of Panorama is irrelevant (even if one day it is introduced here), because it is very likely the Pop Mart-themed tree won't be exhibited there either on a long-term or on a permanent basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Are images and videos of North Korean weapons systems or military parades in the public domain?

Dear community.

This question has been on my mind for about two weeks now. It's about whether images and videos from North Korea depicting weapons such as missiles, vehicles, or other items, or even videos of military parades, are truly in the public domain? The license used for these images and videos is {{PD-KPGov}}, but upon closer inspection, this license does not mention images in this sense. Furthermore, it requires an additional license for the United States, which cannot be provided in this case. It also mentions other countries where the material may not be in the public domain. As I interpret the license, such photos or videos do not fall under 1. Documents for state management, 2. Current news, or 3. Information data. The suggestion was made to open a thread here so that more users could comment on the problem. What I expect: A consensus should be reached that the license and also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea should be adjusted accordingly. The aim should be to make it easier in the future for such material to be deleted more quickly, or to allow it to be uploaded to Commons with a clear conscience.

I would like to invite the following users to participate in the discussion: @Klgchanu: who uploaded the files and videos, @King of Hearts: , which converted my speedy delete requests into normal delete requests or restored files upon request under COM:UNDEL, @Yann: , who has speedy deleted some files in the recent days, and also @Namoroka: , who the following mentioned at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea: To summarize, documents for state management, current news or information data, and notifications created after February 1, 2006, cannot be used commercially and should be removed from Commons. e.g. And regardless of above, videos, photos, and other content from Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Korean Central Television (KCTV), or other similar government agencies have always been protected by copyright. e.g. That is exactly how I feel in this case and the problem is being discussed there, but no result has been reached so far.

Further links

Open deletion requests in this regard:

Note: The videos are from YouTube and they have no YouTube license.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:KN-25 TEL.webp (A webp extension suggests that the file was not extracted from the linked video as indicated, but rather originates from some website.)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jong Un Oversees Test-fire for 600mm Multiple Rocket Launcher.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-20.jpg (We have the same problem here. It's an Allamy stock image.)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-18.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:First Test-Fire of New-Type ICBM Hwasongpho-18.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miltary Parade Marks 80th Founding Anniversary of WPK.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Hardware Exhibition Defence Development-2024.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-11E.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hwasong-19.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:최신형대륙간탄도미싸일《화성포19》형시험발사 성공적으로 단행.webm
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:화성-16나형.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:미싸일총국 신형극초음속중장거리탄도미싸일시험발사 진행.webm
• External link: http://kcna.kp/en (Which contains the copyright notice: 조선중앙통신 Copyright © 2000-2025 by www.kcna.kp)

Let the discussion begin. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion. My thoughts are as follows:

I saw a similar discussion taking place at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea, but there seem to be some differences.

Although copyright fees are technically being paid to North Korea, it is also true that the money is frozen in court due to the ban on remittances to the North. However, in practice, only one news agency (YNA) actually pays copyright fees to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). Other news organizations do not pay any copyright fees at all and still use the photos.

Even YNA, the only outlet that pays copyright fees, does not pay for photos from Rodong Sinmun, even though those also require copyright payments.

Ironically, there are cases where the North Korean government has used photos from South Korean news agencies without paying any copyright fees.

(They stated: “We used a photo, which is a still frame from videos reported by various global media such as NBC in the U.S., Fox News, and Reuters in the U.K.”)

Due to the closed nature of North Korea, it is practically impossible to raise legal copyright claims.

Lastly, uploading photos of North Korean weapons is done to help readers understand the articles, not for any other purpose. If I were a reader, I believe it would be much easier to understand if images of the weapons were included.

Klgchanu (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Klgchanu. Thank you for your quick reply. Your desire to illustrate an article is perfectly understandable, as you want the readers of the article to be able to visualize the weapons. That's precisely what Wikimedia Commons is for: hosting free media so that language projects can use it to populate their articles. Wikimedia Commons isn't just for Wikipedia, though; anyone can copy a link and embed it on their own websites. Even news portals use images from Commons for their articles and label them accordingly. However, this is not the real problem; Commons only hosts material whose origin can be clearly proven and correctly licensed, which, in my opinion, is not the case here. However, I am happy to be convinced otherwise. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyrightability of AI works in Austria, Hungary and Türkiye

I will probably try to research this separately since someone is appealing a keep I made to a DR about an AI-generated file that is still in use across multiple Wikipedias. The sources seem to be from websites or authors in Austria, Hungary and Türkiye so I figured I might as well ask here to get some answers quicker about whether AI works can be copyrighted in those European countries. Abzeronow (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Turkey is not really European, it's rather a country of Asia. Its capital Ankara is certainly not on European soil. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Though geopolitically it is European and part of Western realm (Asia is considered the Orient or the East). NATO member and member of the Council of Europe. No Asian country is a member of NATO. I also treat Cyprus as European too because it's a member of both CoE and EU. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There is some previous discussion on the meaning of country of origin for an AI-generated work: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/04#{{PD-algorithm}} revisited. My opinion is that we should follow only US law for Internet-published works, since country of origin is impossible to define rigorously. In practice, since Internet-published works are pretty much never old enough to be expired in any country, they fall into three categories:

1. Created with non-trivial human input, freely licensed: OK worldwide since free licenses generally do not have a geographic restriction.
2. Created with non-trivial human input, not freely licensed: Not OK.
3. No non-trivial human input (e.g. graph of factual data or AI-generated image): OK in the US and many other countries but not all.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2016 World Series.svg

I'm not sure what to do with this file? It's currently having a duplicate version in enwiki (en:File:2016 World Series logo.svg), which is currently fair-use. But in Commons, it has another license. Is this logo accepted on Commons? Nvdtn19 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I tagged the fair-use file on enwiki for speedy deletion under enwiki's F8 criterion, it should be deleted soon if I'm doing this right. HyperAnd (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)