• 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.

Buenas se puede publicar a Wikimedia la sede de Cervecería Polar como esta imagen en 1941 para agregar {{PD-Venezuela}} (60 años) ósea en Venezuela estará al Dominio Público en 1965 o antes? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, AbchyZa22. Los 60 años empiezan desde la fecha de publicación, no de creación. No es claro cuándo se publicó la imagen. Es decir, si no se publicó antes de 1965, creo que no está en el dominio público en Venezuela.

La imagen también debe estar en el dominio público en los Estados Unidos (donde están localizados los servidores de Wikimedia Commons). Creo que los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. permanecen por 95 años desde la publicación, según la URAA/LARU. (En detalle: La URAA restaura los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. si la imagen estuvo protegida en el país de origen en la fecha de restauración [1 de enero de 1996 para la mayoría de países, incluso COM:Venezuela. Aunque se publicara la imagen en 1941, los derechos de author todavía no vencerían en 1996, entonces los derechos de autor son restaurados en los EE.UU.)

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon126:Abajo de la imagen aparece 1941 como fecha de publicación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: Bueno, pero como lo dije antes, creo que la imagen aún no estaría en el dominio público en los EE.UU. La política sobre material en el dominio público requiere que la imagen esté en el dominio público tanto en los EE.UU. como en el país de origen. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon126:Buenas,no todos los logos pasaron al Dominio Público en EE.UU. pero existe logos que ya pasó al Dominio Público en Venezuela no en EEUU por ejemplo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, Unicode has interesting multilingual data under a new Unicode licence approved by the Open Source Initiative. This Unicode license states :

We (Lingua Libre/Commons contributors supported by Wikimedia France) would like to import such data on Commons in order to feed Wikimedia tool Lingua Libre. But I'm not jurist. I put in bold the points which seems the most relevant to us : the widely open sharing conditions similar to CC licenses (first bold section) and the second bold section requiring to display their UNICODE license with the data.

Therefor, from my non-jurist understanding maybe adding the UNICODE license text at the end of the Wikipage would be enough to respect both the source's UNICODE license and the host's Commons CC-BY-SA license ? What do you think ? Comments and thoughs welcomes. Yug (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that appears to be a free license; it satisfies all the conditions set out in Commons:Licensing. Which Unicode data are you referring to in particular? Omphalographer (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your answer Omphalographer. The Unilex project. It provides lists of words like this one which we use to record audio files for Commons and Wiktionaries as in Category:Lingua_Libre_pronunciation-eus.

Wikimedia France is funding a code revamp and we want to move our open lienced lists to Commons so they stays editable in a crowdsourced wiki way. Yug (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, People with visual impairments face many challenges accessing Wikipedia articles. In most cases, the audio version of the articles is not available. With the advent of AI tools capable of transforming text into voice (such as ElevenLabs), I think it would be a good idea to conduct a test, starting with high-quality articles and featured articles. Here’s an example from the lead section of the article (in French) on Elizabeth Willing Powel (using ElevenLabs). However, I am unsure about the copyright implications regarding these generated audio files. Does anyone have information on this issue of usage rights? Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be whatever the copyright of the original text is. Automated transformation does not add any copyrightable expression, and in this case sounds like it would pretty much contain all of the expression from the source work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Riad Salih,

ElevenLab and jurisprudence are clear that ML generated transformations are Public Domain. The text being from wikipedia, the audio would be CC-BY-SA as per Wikipedia's license.

An user group interested by this avenue ML speech synthesis is gathering at meta:Wikimedia_machine_learning_text-to-speech_group. Yug (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I would like to ask for clarification regarding the copyright status of a CCTV image from a Transport for NSW surveillance camera, dated 26 January 2024 (direct link, article source). according to this template, automated surveillance footage might not reach the threshold of originality in some jurisdictions and and may therefore be in the public domain. however, I am unsure whether this would apply under Australian copyright law. is there any precedent or community consensus about CCTV footage from Australian government bodies, especially Transport for NSW?

thanks in advance for your help! GloBoy93 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is much precedent anywhere. That tag is under discussion (the U.S. Copyright Office has registered a few security videos as being copyrightable). Australia has a very, very low threshold of originality. I'm not aware of any court cases though.

Should files with restored copyright by the URAA speedied as copyvios? 2A02:A31B:20DD:6F80:4425:79F0:ED98:FDAA 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have regular deletion discussions IMO, to give room for debate and time to check the several factors there are to be considered when it comes to URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to ask whether images from European Parliament (EP) is allowed here in Commons. In the copyright notice [1] on their website, it states:

• it “authorized…commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.” Clearly it allows for commercial use, but does the pharse “entire item is reproduced” means their images are non-derivative?

I am asking because me and another user (pinging @PascalHD) were in a discussion whether this portrait of Mark Carney is allowed in Commons since the EXIF data credited EP as the source. PascalHD mentioned that it is allowed by law, but I was confused because in a previous DR, images that were also credited to EP in the EXIF data were deleted. So should these images be undeleted if they are freely licensed by law? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the law itself does not restrict non-derivatives, only the disclaimer- I think the license is fine as you can't make a copyright more strict later. I also think the images should be undeleted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I linked the wrong EU law, that one was for the EU Commision. However, I found the law specifically for the EU Parliament - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj/eng. The law is in line with the Commons. Perhaps the template should be updated or a new one should be created specifically for the works of EU Parliament. PascalHD (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that if you read the Copyright notice for any other language than English (Italian for example;[2]) it states: "...for which the European Union holds rights of use is authorised for personal use or for commercial or non-commercial rebroadcasting, provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected and the source is acknowledged...". My guess is that the English Copyright statement is a mis-translation of this. PascalHD (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected" and "provided that the entire item is reproduced" both sound roughly similar, and both seem to be putting limits on changes and derivatives. Is there a European law which states that a "© European Union 2020 - Source : EP" photo is considered free by our definition? Consigned (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see this copyright renewal entry. COM:US says copyright needs to be renewed in 28 years. the renewal was after 28 years and 3 months. is it still copyrighted? ltbdl (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the [actual law] and it says copyright expires after one year if the request is not made in the first 28 years. As this has a renewal entry, I believe they probably filed it before the end of the 28th year and were thus allowed to keep copyright (the three months was probably bcs it took time for the application to be approved). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

darn! thanks. ltbdl (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

I'm hoping this may have been discussed before. Can anyone tell me what laws would apply to freedom of panorama for photos taken on land which has a diplomatic purpose? My understanding is these places are not subject to the host country's laws. The example I have is a current deletion discussion for UN building taken from within the UN compound in France. France does not have freedom of panorama however my understanding is that the UN building isn't in France and French law does not apply.

• https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_UNESCO_headquarters

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following research into the legal framework, it appears that French copyright law applies to photographs taken within the UNESCO compound in Paris, including restrictions related to freedom of panorama. Although the compound serves a diplomatic function, it is not extraterritorial in the sense of being outside the host country's legal jurisdiction. This is similar to embassies, which (contrary to popular belief) remain the sovereign territory of the host country. The laws of that country continue to apply, with exceptions limited to those explicitly granted under diplomatic treaties, such as diplomatic immunity for accredited personnel.

The 1954 Headquarters Agreement between France and UNESCO (Art. 5, para. 3) confirms this by stating that "the laws and regulations of the French Republic shall apply at Headquarters", except where overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not appear to address copyright. Accordingly, France's lack of FOP for modern architecture applies, even within the UN compound.

This reinforces the fact that the building is still under copyright (last architect Bernard Zehrfuss died in 1996, copyright expires 2066), and since FOP is not permitted in France for modern buildings under COM:FOP France, therefore, photos taken from within the UNESCO grounds are not freely usable on Commons without permission from the copyright holder.

While some users have drawn analogies to embassies or diplomatic zones, diplomatic status does not negate the applicability of copyright law. I can't find any legal or treaty-based exemption that would override the host country's copyright framework in such cases. The precautionary principle supports deletion in light of this legal uncertainty. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand of previous discussions on this, extraterritoriality doesn't apply to copyright so these UN buildings are subject to French copyright laws. (Jonatan basically ninjaed me here, thanks for laying out why French law applies) Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply, do I understand correctly?

1. That French copyright law applies to UNESCO HQ in this specific example.
2. That the laws which apply to embassies, UN compounds etc are agreed by country, rather than a blanket worldwide rule we can apply to all embassies or UN buildings etc. In this example I would assume there is this agreement with UNESCO but also a separate law governing embassies in France.

Is this correct?

Thanks again

. John Cummings (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your understanding is correct on both points:

1. French copyright law applies to the UNESCO headquarters. The 1954 Headquarters Agreement states that French law governs the site unless overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not address copyright, so France's lack of freedom of panorama applies.
2. You're absolutely right that the legal status of embassies, UN compounds, and similar diplomatic premises is determined by specific agreements with the host country, not by a blanket rule. These places are often misunderstood as being "foreign soil" or fully outside the legal reach of the host country, but in reality, they remain part of the host country’s territory. The key distinction is that they benefit from certain immunities and privileges, which are granted through treaties or headquarters agreements.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks so much, I'll think about how best to include this information into copyright guidance pages. John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I wanted to ask if it would be possible to upload pictures of Erika Szeles and Roza Shanina.

There are some of Shanina under Category:Roza Shanina, but my favorite picture of her is missing. The image (I love her smile in this photo). Author is unknown, unless one of you knows more. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Russia-1996?

There are no images of Erika Szeles on Commons, but her photos went around the world in 1956. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3 (on the front page of a Danish weekly magazine). They were made 1956 by the Danish photographer Vagn Hansen. Unfortunately, there is no further information about the photographer here, including whether he is still alive or when he died. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Denmark50?

Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For Shanina's case: No, there is not enough information about this photo for PD-status. Alex Spade (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For Erika / Vagn Hansen's case: in 2008 he was 94 years old -> so he was born in 1914 -> as I understand he died in 2014 [3][4][5]. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A colored version of one of the photos of Szeles is on Ru Wiki[6], but it's marked as a copyrighted, non-free image.

Maybe you could upload a local version on the wiki where you want to use the photo instead of uploading it to Commons? Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

@Alex Spade: Thank you for your detailed information. It's a shame that nothing more specific can be found about Shanina's photo. Regarding Szeles, the question remains how exactly one interprets the description "Note that "photographic works", which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer...". Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Any other opinions?

@Nakonana: I know the colorized version from Szeles, and there are also colorized versions of Shanina's image, but they are derivative works. I didn't want to upload it for a specific wiki, but rather so that all language versions can benefit from it. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Russia's threshold of originality is very low, so there's a high chance that the photo would be deemed original by a Russian court, too, and thus would qualify for copyright protection as outlined by the law. We would need to know who the photographer is and when they died to determine whether 70 years have passed since their death for the copyright protection to have expired. Without this information, we must assume that it's still protected per the precautionary principle. Nakonana (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn das Foto um 1980 aufgenommen wurde, ist leider anzunehmen, dass die unbekannte verstorbene Person, die als Urheber angeführt ist, noch das Copyright hat. Oder irre ich mich? GerritR (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn der/die Uploadende das Foto der Bekannten geerbt haben sollte, dann würde die Person u.U. die nötigen Rechte haben, um das Foto unter einer CC Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Zum Beispiel mit der Lizenz {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Nakonana (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently working on updating the Wikipedia page on Rosa Parks to FA status. It has been brought to my attention in Peer Review that the public domain status of this image is potentially questionable. Per the reviewer:

File:Rosaparks.jpg needs better documentation of its PD status. I searched archive.gov for "306-PSD-65-1882" and couldn't find anything. The fact that it is marked "unknown author" casts doubt on the claim; typically US Government photos come with extensive documentation including the name of the photographer.

I also found a discussion about the status of the image here, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to shed much light on the topic. If anyone could help clarify or help find more information on this image's status, that would be great. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: several images, including this one, this one, and this one seem to be marked as "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", but the reviewer has pointed out that it seems as if they were prepared by municipal employees, not federal employees. However, the use of these images is marked as "unrestricted" on NARA, and it seems like they were maybe included in a report as part of a federal court care. What would be an appropriate tag for these images? Spookyaki (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly doubtful those paper forms are protected by copyright in the first place -- it's just factual information at most, and "blank forms" are listed as one of the types of works not protected by copyright, so there is no issue on the form either. If there was a copyright, it would be PD by now as either no-notice or not renewed. Those I would not worry about. The photo of Parks, another matter entirely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a relevant licensing template that could be used for these images then? Spookyaki (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image is probably {{PD-US}} for publication without a copyright notice, or failing to renew the copyright 28 years after publication. Please note that the original link doesn't work, but the image is available from [7].

I don't think this is from the US government. There is a mention of the Ebony magazine. Copyright notice and renewal should be checked for that magazine. Yann (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, verifying U.S. federal government origin of images related to the civil rights struggle has just become tremendously more complicated because of the Trump administration's purge of many such materials from public display, including on line. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it is a very unlikely image to have been taken by a government photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a copy on NARA here with a note that The copyright for this image is held by Ebony Magazine, and it's listed as "Fully Restricted". So looks like USIA took that from a magazine. It looks like all 1955 issues of that magazine were renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Maybe outside your jurisdiction, but on the Wikipedia side, do you think it could be used in Rosa's article under fair use? There are maybe other pictures that could be used of her in that space, but none that are as clear, as close to the Montgomery bus boycott, and as demonstrative of her connection to the Civil rights movement. I also think it's unlikely that its use would limit that original issue of Ebony's commercial commercial sales. Overall, I just think it'd be a shame to see it go (though obviously it couldn't be used as the FA image). Spookyaki (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carl. Too bad, so I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rosa Parks in 1955. Yann (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to use a family photo of my great great grandparents taken well before 1875 as one of the subjects died that year. Photographer unknown but the photo has been in the family ever since. see here en:Boyup Brook, Western Australia. How do I acknowledge the photo. Petermw2 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to your description, you can use any of our license templates (to claim any Publication rights). Otherwise, {{Pd-old-assumed}} is a valid choice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a featured article about a song some time ago. I'd like to upload a short video I took myself showing it being played as the encore of the group's 2025 world tour, to add to the 'live performances' section of the article. The video consists of about 25 seconds of the song being introduced as the final song, and then about 20 seconds of the song itself, basically just enough for it to be fully recognisable. It there any copyright restriction on uploading a short live-recording of a song that is obviously copyrighted? Obviously the audio quality in the crowd could never compete with the actual audio, and I deliberately only uploaded a portion of the song significantly less than 10% of the full-length. Can this theoretically be uploaded on a Creative Commons licence with myself being the author? And if not, could I upload it under non-free FUR? Thanks. I've never tried to upload video of anything before. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Damien Linnane: Absolutely not possible. If you don't want to take my word and need the reasons spelled out, let me know. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jmabel: I'm happy to take your word for it; thanks for replying. Just clarifying, would it still not be acceptable under FUR? If not, I might just upload the first half of the video where they just talk about what the encore will be, without any actual music. Thanks again. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Commons does not allow the upload of materials under fair use. Omphalographer (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia. I thought someone here might just happen to know the answer. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Having poor quality audio and video does not give one a pass on copyrights. Even the first half of the video would have a copyright — not just the music and lyrics. So do not upload any part of the video. You have a derivative copyright on your video, but you need a free license from the performers. Glrx (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Linnane should ask on Wikipedia first but I wonder if it could be uploaded there under fair use since it's going to be used in an article. I have no clue what their policy is for music or videos, but this would be an acceptable use case if it was an image. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. FYI, the Wikipedia FUR policy for music is it's OK to upload a portion of a song as long as it's less than 10% of the song length, but I don't know if this also applies to video. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In the discussion page of the deletion request[8], I provided evidence and sources that these graphic creations are indeed protected by copyright, and that the criteria of "simplicity" or lack of "originality" cannot be retained, due to the sources highlighting that in 1984, they were considered avant-garde and particularly original. And at least, if Commons precautionary principle rules applies[9], these files has to be only uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org. Tisourcier (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been "avant-garde" for the area of logos, but ultimately it's just text and the font isn't particularly artistic or unusual. There have been court rulings that logos that consist of simple text are not copyrightable. The only thing I can think of that might justify a deletion based on the precautionary principle is that the logo is from a country where simple text logos are copyrighted and/or a country with a very low threshold of originality, so that even simple designs are copyrighted, for example a simple Black Square. Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I harbour the doubt that a lot of imagery in Category:2001: A Space Odyssey - film props and subcats is actually a copyvio when I'm going with Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Movie props, as space suits, spacecraft models and other things are most likely not utilitarian. Am I mistaken or not? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume things like cutlery and functional chairs are fine, whatever drove their design. The space suits are probably OK: I've never really heard of a U.S. case where anything this close to being clothing was deemed copyrightable. Models of spaceships might be problematic: if there's an issue, that would be the most likely. The images of HAL 9000 look awfully simple to be granted copyright: it's hard to imagine what could be copyrightable in File:Stanley Kubrick The Exhibition - TIFF - 2001 A Space Odyssey (15781843143).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules on using channel logos for articles?

For context, I am attempting to use https://www.youtube.com/@kairikibear/, for a draft, and since other channels have their profile picture listed, or a photo of the person, I wanted to double check. Alex.Dybala (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex.Dybala: The logo there (if I'm looking at the right thing, the manga-ish image of a head) is way too complex and recent to even possibly be in the public domain. There is a small chance you could get the copyright-holder to license it. If you are thinking of getting it onto Commons (which I don't think is very likely), start by reading Commons:Uploading works by a third party.

Assuming you are talking about the English-language Wikipedia, what is much more likely is to get it directly into en-wiki on a non-free basis, and not involve Commons at all. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Logos. NOTE that you cannot upload a non-free logo to use in a draft article. Get the article accepted in en-wiki first, then add the non-free logo. But that is all en-wiki stuff, and any further questions you have about that should be asked there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, para los administradores, una pregunta es posible publicar logos,imágenes, etc. que fueron expirados bajo las leyes anteriores por ejemplo como este (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) el logo de Acción Democrática en Venezuela fue expirado bajo la ley anterior (antes de que creara la URAA)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: ¿En que año expiró? En 2006, según el enlace. Claro que 2006 es más tarde que 1996. En 1996, obtuvo derechos en el EEUU por medio de URAA; estos derechos duran 95 años, desde la creación del logo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel:OK,como creo nuevo template en caso que que Parlamento creara nueva ley? AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Créeme, si el parlamento venezolano aprueba una nueva ley, alguien creará el template. Pero no le veo la relevancia: si el gobierno venezolano cambia la ley venezolano, eso no afectará los derechos de autor en Estados Unidos, y los últimos son el problema aquí. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my addition to COM:CRT/France for some context.

In a nutshell:

• Before 1902, the French law only protected paintings, engravings, and other assorted literary and artistic works but not sculptures (and architecture).
• Protections were 10 years p.m.a. in 1793–1866, extended to 50 years p.m.a. from 1866.
• In 1902, the author's rights law extended this protection to sculptures, but also including architectural works despite not reflected in the amending law's title. The amending law only explicitly cited "sculptures" in its title and in the first paragraph but the amendment includes "les architectes, les statuaires". This implies the French law treats eligible buildings as equivalent to sculptures, since at most 1902 (so in France, buildings = sculptures, not utilitarian objects). At least, we know one aspect of French opposition to US or UK-style FoP rights: buildings are no different from sculptures in France.
• The 1902 amendment seems non-retroactive (my hunch knly), so all French buildings and sculptures that aren't engravings finished before 1902 are public domain by default (perhaps?). Yet it may no longer be relevant, as it is most likely that the designers of all works made from 1902 and before are already dead for more than 50/70 years.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EU copyright directive was fully retroactive so it does not matter much what the old laws were (unless possibly longer). They are at least 70pma regardless of what the old laws were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg does that also mean any unprotected work (like, for example, pre-1902 French buildings and sculptures) becomes protected courtesy of the French law's compliance to the EU Copyright Directive? [Provided that the architects or artists aren't yet dead for more than 70 years.] JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It just takes one fully retroactive law to render all earlier ones mostly irrelevant. It could still have an effect on the URAA since that law did not happen until after the URAA in France, but that's moot for architecture since U.S. law doesn't protect pre-1990 buildings at all (and photos of architecture are not derivative works there anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a lot of Norwegian politicians lack their portraits on Wikipedia. Based on the Stortinget's official website "Portrettene kan lastes ned og benyttes fritt, men ikke til videresalg." which, when translated, means "The portraits can be downloaded and used freely, but not for resale."

Can the portraits from the website then be reuploaded to the Commons based on that statement?

Halikandry (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That notice isn’t enough for Commons. “Free use but not for resale” is a non-commercial restriction, which conflicts with Commons’ requirement that all files be usable for any purpose (including commercial) under a free license. Because Commons must allow downstream users to redistribute or relicense images (including for commercial projects), a “no resale” clause makes these portraits ineligible for Commons. You could:

• Ask Stortinget for a fully free license (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0) that permits any use, including commercial.
• Host them on English Wikipedia under local fair-use or local-only licensing, if allowed (probably not in case they are still alive)

Until they are explicitly released under a free license compatible with Commons policy, they can’t be reuploaded here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that logos of the Council of Europe were uploaded locally, except those without lettering:

Former logo (1999-2013)

• 
  Former logo (1999-2013), no lettering
• 
  Current logo
• 
  Current logo, no lettering

Aren't they {{PD-simple}} or {{Textlogo}}/{{Trademarked}}?--Carnby (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We have File:Logo Consejo de Europa.png, probably others. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which I see someone has now added above. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That was me. Still missing the former logo with lettering (which I suppose it could be uploaded here). Two questions:

    1. may I require a vectorization of the raster logos?
    2. could exact duplicates be deleted?

    -- Carnby (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Carnby: You can upload a vectorization yourself, or request one at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, but you can't require it. Exact duplicates can always be deleted, use {{Duplicate}} (with the relevant parameters) on the page you want to delete. - ~~``

I have uploaded a copy of a Sanborn Insurance Map available from the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Sanborn Maps Collection. The LOC says "The content of the Library of Congress online Sanborn Maps Collection is in the public domain and is free to use and reuse." What is the appropriate tag/licensing to use? It is not PD-old, since the file happens to be from 1944. It is not PD-Gov, since the map was not made by the US government. What do I use? TwoScars (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any particular reason why maps published after 1 January 1930 should be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOC explicitly says all the material in the collection is PD. LOC (USCO) is the foremost authority alongside the courts on copyright in the US, I would trust their assessment. 19h00s (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: Probably the same as the other files in the Sanborn maps categories, such as Category:1944 Sanborn maps, PD-US-no notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]