< Commons:Village pump
(Redirected from Village pump/Copyright)
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by B jonas in topic Legal status of Freddie Mercury quote


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
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.

Syrian Govt Photos

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I've recently noticed many photos made by the Syrian govt being uploaded to Commons with the {{PD-Syria}}. I'm not exactly where in this statement is supposed to apply to govt photos but it says (emph. mine) The protection prescribed by the law herein shall not include [...] official documents such as laws, decrees, regulations, international agreements, judicial judgements, decisions of the administrative authorities and all other official documents and the official translation thereof. Does "all other official documents" include photographs produced by the government? It appears to me that "document" in this sense only applies to governmental literature, since all the given examples are works of literature.

Some examples of files using this justification:

Howardcorn33 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Usually "documents" is confined to laws, judgements, and the like unless the law explicitly says otherwise. People like to use government documents being PD as an excuse to upload essentially anything created by the government though, regardless of what it is or if it has to do with a law or anything else covered by the clause. The same thing happens with stamps all the time. Anyway, if it we're me I'd nominate the images for deletion. Although you should probably wait until more people agree with me (assuming they do) before doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The images above were merely examples. I don't know how to nominate every govt img tagged with "PD-Syria" for deletion since there are 2,142 photos with the license. I would like to re-open such a deletion request, since I think the deletion discussion linked below was inadequate. Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Howardcorn33: I wasn't expecting you to nominate every file tagged with "PD-Syria" for deletion. A good percentage of the images are of currency that would be PD due to age anyway. The rest would be pretty easy to nominate for deletion in groups by subject using the VisualFileChange tool. Although it could take some time, but that's just how it goes. Looking it over though there's like 15 images of Bassel al-Assad from 20 years ago that can probably be nominated for deletion in the same DR since it's pretty unlikely their PD. 44 or 45 images in

Category:1982 Hama massacre using the template that can be grouped together since they we're taken by the same photographer (who clearly hasn't been dead for 50 years) Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Although now that I look at it photographic works produced before 1994 are apparently public domain. So maybe not those specific files but my general point still stands. Most things tagged with "PD-Syria" are correctly tagged as such. While it would be easy to nominate small percentage left that aren't for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Notifying the uploader HurricaneEdgar. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Before I uploaded the file, there was a nomination in March 2025 to determine whether the image was copyrighted, but it was kept under 'b) Daily news, whether published, broadcast, or publicly announced.' I believe this image is in the public domain since it was originally published by Syrian state media as part of an official daily news release. Pinging the admin who determined the Syria copyright, Bedivere, along with RamiPat, Kaliper1, Plumber, and Freedoxm. HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That looks like a run of the mill news article. Although it does include a page from a document, the photographs don't seem to be a part of it and the website says "© Copyright 2025, All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. For all we know the photographs were taken by some random person from the news agency. So there's no reason to think the images are PD. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If we delete this, it would affect the Syrian article, including Ahmed al-Sharaa. If the website says '© Copyright 2025, All Rights Reserved,' then the Syrian document should be deleted. But I think we need more opinions from those who were involved. HurricaneEdgar 12:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The document would still be public domain regardless. Since just reposting it somewhere on the internet doesn't inherently create a new copyright. I can't remember the exact section it's in, but Commons:Derivative works explains how it works. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh dont worry about that. Documents are public domain, safe and sound. Treaties, laws, and official declarations issued by governments are not subject to copyright in most jurisdictions, including the United States under 17 U.S. Code § 105 for government works (where the Wikimedia Foundation is based), Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia (as per their laws on official acts and public documents for example), and many more. International law, protected via the Berne Convention: Article 2.4 excludes "official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature." Last resort, the template used for commons concerning documents and laws is PD-EdictGov. Kaliper1 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kaliper1 while government texts of administrative, legislative or legal nature (i.e. public documents) are PD in most jurisdictions, they may be protected in some others, including Singapore and El Salvador. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Syrian document should be safe. As mentioned by Howardcorn33 at the start of this discussion, {{PD-Syria}} says in Article 4 that official documents by the Syrian Government are in the public domain. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC) (Was notified of this discussion on en Wikipedia through Subscriptions.)Reply
Thanks for the ping Edgar. During the nomination, I was primarily concerned about the presence of Syrian government images on Wikimedia Commons. Thus I opened the nomination. The core of the argument revolves around several key issues:
  • Whether photographs published on official Syrian government Twitter/X accounts are automatically in the public domain.
  • The correct application of Syrian Copyright Law (especially Article 3, Article 4b, and Article 16.
  • The misuse of the "daily news" exemption (Article 4b) to justify retaining images without explicit release or license.
  • The comparison to scanned government documents, and the legal distinction between photographic works and reproduced official texts.
I maintained that the images in question are not in the public domain, despite the opposing view. In the end, it was deemed public domain (which in hindsight turned out to be beneficial for articles concerned. As HurricaneEdgar said, a lot of Syrian Articles are affected.). It's been long since the nomination, so I apologize if it doesn't encompass all, but here's a summary of my reasoning using Syrian Copyright Law:

Photographs are explicitly protected under Article 3(c) of Syria’s Copyright Law No. 12/2001, which grants copyright to original photographic works from the moment of creation. Contrary to claims that publication on social media and news makes such images free to use, the law provides no automatic waiver of rights simply because the image is made publicly accessible.

Article 16 affirms that the rights holder, typically the photographer, maintains exclusive control over reproduction, distribution, and display unless those rights are expressly waived or fall under a listed exception. There is yet evidence that the Syrian government has officially released these images into the public domain.

The commonly cited exemption under Article 4(b), covering "daily news whether published, broadcast, or publicly announced", does not apply to photographs'. That clause refers to text-based news reporting, not visual media (photos), and extending it to include standalone photographs.

It was ruled public domain as the tiebreaker interpretation of Article 4(b) deemed photos as part of "daily news." I did skip over the Copyright symbol in SANA however. Kaliper1 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I apologize as I am very confused right now. You are saying that the photos are in the public domain because of Article 4(b) saying that the photos are part of "daily news", correct? If so, then I don't understand because the text you are quoting seems to say that photograph are excluded from Article 4(b) as it says "does not apply to photographs'" in the last paragraph. As for Article 4(b), from the document regarding copyright law: The protection prescribed by the law herein shall not include (...) [d]aily news whether published, broadcast or publicly announced.
So, I believe that the images are exempt from the exemption of daily news from copyright protection. Thus, they are copyright protected. I think?
(Again kinda confused. But that does make sense with what {{PD-Syria}} formerly said: Copyright has expired in both Syria and the U.S. if (...) created prior to 1994 regarding photographs before it was reworked as the template did not take into account anything where its publication was not required and Article 19 in the document regarding copyright law says: The copyrights are assigned in whole to the author's heirs after his death. Such assignment shall include publishing of the work if not previously published.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was re-quoting my words from my previous Speedy Deletion. You may look here. I requested the speedy deletion that led to the conversation of For Deletion as the images are not within PD. But the tiebreaker eventually led to the ruling that it is PD. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
TLDR from that speedy deletion: I am saying that the images arent PD. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for linking to that DR page HurricaneEdgar. It explains why you believed in good faith that it was ok to upload similar files. Unfortunately, the decision in this DR seems a mistake, IMHO. The reasons for deletion were well explained by Kaliper1 and Anwon. "Daily news" provisions exist also in the laws of some other countries. It reminds article 2(8) of the Berne Convention: "The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information.". Information, facts are not copyrighted. It does not mean that news articles are not copyrighted and can be freely copied integrally. Such a notion would imply that full pages of The New York Times and full news bulletins from France Television are not copyrighted and could be freely copied. It would be unusual if Syria interpreted it differently from other countries. Anyway, it's not even necessary to argue if the Syrian law might have an unusual interpretation, there is a simple and straightforward way to decide the case: those works are not free in the United States. Of the five participants in the DR discussion, only one (Plumber) argued to keep the files. If we ping three participants (Kaliper1, Plumber, Freedoxm) plus another user (RamiPat), we might as well ping also the other two particpants to the DR: أنون, Applodion. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
After taking a better look at the template apparently "Photographic, fine arts or plastic arts shall be enforceable for ten years as of the date of producing such work." So this might be a non-issue. Although probably the template should be split into two or three separate ones depending on the type of work and source of the image. Since it's rather convoluted. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That is conditional on Article 19, I think. If a photograph wasn't published until after the photographer's death after 2004, then wouldn't it be under copyright protected? (I know that is unlikely for most of the images, but it might be the case for some of them.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Your probably right. The whole thing is super convoluted lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Improving an image

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 hour ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Currently the image options for EN:Boating Party are a low resolution image, a defective high resolution one and a cropped high resolution one. For a 147 year old painting like that are we allowed to copy images from museum websites?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@TonyTheTiger: As long as it's just the image of the 2D work, yes; not if it includes the frame, though (which you can crop out). - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:Jmabel I went to see the Caillebotte exhibition last Saturday here in Chicago and noticing that the work had no article I created it. I am realizing that musuems don't put such high quality files on line. I am not going to be able to get anything better than the current low resolution one. I intend to revisit the exhibit once or twice more between now and the end of its run in October. Am I also able to take a picture of this and post it? I am going to have to bring my own camera and take a picture to get something high resolution. I am not sure if I am allowed to bring a tripod or monopod, but I will try to get something high quality. -TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger You can definitely take and post a picture of that work, yes! If you're referring to the Caillebotte show at the Art Institute, just be aware of their visitor policies (they don't allow tripods if I'm reading that correctly). Jealous that you get to see that exhibition, I can't make it to Chicago before it closes. 19h00s (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:19h00s, if you are ever interesting in dropping in on Chicago and need a place to crash let me know. My mother has been with me since the pandemic, but spends several months a year with my sister. My Costco sleeper sofa is free well over 100 nights a year.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger: The most important things technically in taking a picture like that (I'm presuming a DSLR here, but most of this is true regardless):
  • Obviously, use the best lens you've got. I use a 24mm prime lens for this.
  • Hold the camera as steady as you can.
  • You want the highest resolution and highest quality that you can reasonably get.
  • Among other things, this means you probably want the shortest exposure practicable, and only as much depth of field as necessary, but …
  • … don't hesitate to take multiple pictures with different settings as insurance.
  • Take at least onev photo as straight on as possible so that you have proportions right for reference [in this case, you already have that from other sources] but …
  • … for the picture you are actually going to work with, a tool like GIMP or Photoshop is perfectly able to adjust perspective (and even lens distortion, assuming the distortion is "regular"), but cannot properly fix reflections, so if you have to aim other than straight on to get an image with no reflections, do that and fix it in post-processing.
  • File:St. Nicholas icon - Banat - 18th-century.jpg is a good illustration of how much you can get away with in terms of underexposure and a weird angle and still get a pretty good image via post-processing (the file history shows the original for reference). There's a bit of reflection there even as it is, but it's tremendously better than what I could have gotten out of a more obvious way of taking the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel, thanks for the advice. I will be returning to attend an August 7 Caillebotte lecture at the AIC. I do not have any prime lenses. I have a few lenses I would be considering for the task. The approximate ranking order is RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, RF28-70mm F2 L USM, and RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM. Do you think a monopod would be under the same restrictions as a selfie stick?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I am going to check in with Canon Professional Services. I am suppose to be able to borrow stuff for up to 10 days. I am going to see if they have a prime available for loans.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel I just got off the phone with Canon Professional Services. The following lenses are on the list I am eligible to borrow, but I won't know what is in stock until I send in an email request: 50mm/1.2, 50mm/1.4, 35mm/1.8, 24mm/1.4 and 20mm/1.4. What order would you rank these in for this shoot. What order would you rank my lenses in for this shoot if I am too late/too low a priority for an August 7 request (they like 2 weeks notice).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I am home with my camera and using the 28-70 it seems that a 50mm prime should be able to capture a 4ft wide field at a reasonable distance. I will request 50mm/1.2 with 50mm/1.4 as my contingency request. I'll keep you posted.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 24mm/1.4 would be comparable to what I use for this (mine's 24mm/1.8). I never shoot with a 50mm, but I can tell you that 85mm is quite inconveniently long for working in a museum. Most likely it is not a big deal to get down below f/4 anyway: unless the light is awful (or you are photographing something really small so it doesn't matter), it's usually good to have quite that little depth of field: it starts to matter that the corners of the painting are farther away than the center. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I have little idea what the museum's rules on a monopod might be, other than that I would think they would not look kindly on someone walking around the galleries with a long, moderately sharp stick. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For what it's worth, I recall the rule of thumbs that 50mm focal length on full-frame is said to approximately equal the normal human viewing angle, that's why 50mm sets the limit between "wide-angle" and "telephoto", as far as I'm aware. For museum photography, something shorter than 50mm may be sensible, this way, you'll gain room on your still for perspective corrections and crops. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445, I fixed in place the broken link to the example image and example article, hope you don't mind. – b_jonas 12:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:b_jonas, Thx-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I got tracking info from Canon. AM delivery expected today. I am just realizing that although I want to take images for 4 or 5 (potential) articles, most of them are still under copyright so having 45 megapixel images with a really fast lens is not going to make that big of a difference. Maybe I should have gotten the 50mm rather than the 24mm, because the 4ft wide w:en:Boating Party might have been better with it while for the images from the 12 stop Art Institute of Chicago app Essentials Tour that needed images and articles w:en:America Window and w:en:User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/City Landscape, the fancy gear is not going to be as meaningful. I shouldn't have factored the larger works into the decision making.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel, I have about 2 dozen photos to work from. E.g. do you have any suggestions on judging which one is best to work from. Is it better to start with a brighter one or one that is closer to perfectly rectangular?-2601:240:C481:5B0:6DF5:95B2:FB81:703C 10:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Photos in "The Militant" and "Intercontinental Press" (1978-89)

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all. I have recently been trying to obtain free photos/portraits of Thomas Sankara as the only photos we have of him on Commons currently are of very poor quality (1, 2). While digging around, I found a decent quality original portrait of him in this 1988 issue of The Militant and a photo in this 1985 issue of the Intercontinental Press. Both are credited in the captions as original works, but neither paper appear to carry an explicit copyright notice. Both papers are affiliated with (produced by? published by?) the Fourth International (post-reunification). According to COM:US, since these items didn't have an explicit copyright notice on the publication, they required a registration, but I was unable to find any such registration. Does this mean these pictures are in the public domain? Howardcorn33 (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Howardcorn33: I'd say you are good on both.
Aside: I don't know much about Intercontinental Press, but definitely if The Militant was consistently failing to copyright, then the entire run up through February 1989 (when it would start to be copyrighted by default) would be worth uploading. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just to be transparent, I did the following searches when it comes to The Militant:
The only publication that appears to have had a valid registration is the International Socialist Review, which was a supplement to The Militant. I therefore believe it is acceptable to upload the Sankara portrait. Howardcorn33 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have now uploaded Thomas Sankara drawing by Bob Allen.png Howardcorn33 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As for the Intercontinental Press photo, I regret to say that I found an applicable registration just now, so it is ineligible to be uploaded to Commons. I'll try to find some more portraits of Sankara in The Militant from this period and upload them. Howardcorn33 (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
And finally, I uploaded these other two photos by The Militant:
Howardcorn33 (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think I encountered a bit of a mess in copyrights and documentation among the uploads of User:Rabbi Mendl (signing as Tatiana Markina). There are quite a lot of images in the lot which include glass artworks or paintings and who currently (at the time of writing) lack a documentation about the age and artist of the depicted works. I already filed several DR, but I think that it'll become too much of a spamming of the user's talk page if I continue with that. A mass DR is also not really sensible, as the reasons to ask for a review or a deletion are similar, but not outright identical. Furthermore, several images on which I grew suspicion are from Belarus. Our info page at COM:Belarus is not really comprehensive, so my DR rationales may not be founded on facts currently unknown to me. Are there some Russian speakers here who can provide more reviewing, information and insights? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just clicked randomly on the last one that you had nominated. It's a work by the Minsk porcelain manufacturer w:ru:Минский фарфоровый завод which operated from 1883 to 2009, so there's a chance that some designs are PD. Belarus has also a rather short term for copyright protection: 50 years after the author's death. I'll see if I can find some time to investigate some of the things. But you might also need someone who speaks Belarusian because not all information is available in Russian. Nakonana (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pre-1996 Sudan

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I've just expanded COM:CRT/Sudan to cover salient things from the repealed 1974 act. There are two remarkable facts: the term was shorter (25 years after author's death or after publication), and protection wasn't automatic (registration was required). One suspected fact may be architecture being not among the eligible works under the 1974 act. This may mean we may host some (not all) Sudanese works made before 1996, though we need to analyze the transitional clause of the 1996 law, found under Section 2: "The Copyright Protection Act 1974 is hereby repealed but all regulations, orders and rules made under it shall remain in force until amended or repealed in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The current 2013 act bears the identical transitional provision, though targeting the 1996 act. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The fact that registration was required should have no effect on whether a work was restored by the URAA, which says that a work needed to be "in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection" (emphasis added). A failure to follow formality requirements should not be an "expiration of term of protection", though, as Carl Lindberg points out here, Alameda Films S a De C v v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp. held otherwise. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Prospectprospekt I'm not questioning on the US status. Rather, I'm asking about the transitional clause from the 1996 law of Sudan. If it implied any unregistered work remained PD in Sudan (as well as architecture because it isn't listed as an eligible work under the 1974 law), we might host a few more works from that country and undelete some previously-deleted images of that country. Though if it is intepreted as giving copyright to all previously-unprotected works, then no substantial change in our treatment on Sudanese works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Official Photo for Politican

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

Am I able to use a picture of a politician from the legislative body's official government page as their Wikipedia photo? This photo would be taken from the About section for the politican. This is the website, https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/

Thank you! InterestInsomniac (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unless the NYC council grants a free license to the photo or dedicates it to the public domain, no, you cannot use their photos. New York is not one of the states in which government works are public domain. I will be going to NYC in October, I could try to take a photograph of this politician for you if I have the time. Abzeronow (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Which politician are you talking about here? The link you gave has no photos of politicians. Howardcorn33 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mil insignia license enigma

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Several versions of an insignia from the 152nd Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) have been uploaded and either put under the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license" [1], or "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" [2], or "PD-UA-exempt" [3]. Which one is correct?

Second question: The 152nd Brigade has FPV drone unit attached, which features a Disney Corp character (B. Yoda) on its insignia. I assume this can not be uploaded to Commons under any of the mentioned licenses? Thx Alexpl (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the first question: Why not {{PD-UAexMilitary}}? Nakonana (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Is it OK to upload a picture of a site of a demolished church in Finland? On the pic is also a memorial, which is essentially a shelter with two church bells attached to the roof.

I'm thinking also, could the bells be protected by copyright? Rle32795 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Rle32795: should be fine. It is possible that some detail of the bells is unusual enough to merit copyright, I could not guess without seeing them. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel could it be possible to show the bell picture on this topic or to someone for review before uploading to Commons? Rle32795 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Rle32795: Just upload it and indicate here that you have done so. It isn't a calamity for us briefly to have a picture that is a copyright violation, happens hundreds (if not thousands) of times every day. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just a general note: while Commons benefits from safe harbour provisions (meaning the platform itself isn't liable for infringing content it hosts temporarily), individual uploaders are still legally responsible for what they upload. If something turns out to be a copyright violation, the project can remove it, but that doesn't protect the uploader from potential legal action by a rightsholder (even if that's unlikely in practice). So although accidental violations do happen and are routinely cleaned up, it's still best not to upload anything unless you're reasonably confident it's OK. You could also consider emailing a trusted admin or reaching out to a local Wikimedia chapter (such as Wikimedia Suomi) for advice on specific cases. And Jmabel, I know you're being pragmatic here, but we probably shouldn't give the impression that it's fine to upload something that might be a copyright violation, just speaking to the general framing of your comment, not necessarily the image in question. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Josve05a: it seems to me that there is a very small chance that a church bell raises copyright issues, and a vanishingly small chance that if it is here briefly so that an admin can get a look at it someone will discover that and pursue the matter legally. Yes, you are technically correct. And it is technically correct that there is a law against driving 2km/h over the speed limit. If the picture is a copyright infringement, then I believe there is literally no way the user could show it to someone online or via email without technically infringing copyright; temporarily uploading it here seems as good as any.
Seriously, Josve05a, have you ever in your life heard of anyone getting in trouble for such a thing? - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've uploaded pictures of the site and inside of the memorial now. Rle32795 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pankakoski_church_after_demolition_-_memorial.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pankakoski_church_after_demolition_-_site.jpg Rle32795 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I want to mention one thing about the bells, that there's some text on the upper part of the bells. "rvi" or järvi"? Didn't think about the copyright aspect then. Rle32795 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's also an information sign on the right hand pillar, with a probably copyrighted photo. Though it may not matter here, as the bells or the inside is the main subject. Rle32795 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My thought exactly. I'll blur out the info sign. Everything else is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Qatari emblem

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Qatari government does not mentioned copyright in Emblem of Qatar (see {{PD-QatarGov}}). But trademarks apply, it does not allow commercial use of a newer emblem. Unlike the State Emblem of India for example, the commercial use of the state emblem is forbidden by the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Absolutiva 14:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Absolutiva: there is no link here to any Commons content, so I'm not sure what you are driving at changing.
Trademarks can be handled with just adding {{Trademark}}.
Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
See this file locally en:File:Emblem of Qatar (2022–present).svg on English Wikipedia, before it was deleted on Commons. Absolutiva 21:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I came across Special:ListFiles/Cromemco in the newest files and encountered File:Cromemco CS-460 brochure (1988).pdf with a clear copyright notice on the last page. The User:Cromemco claimed to have been "associated with Cromemco and have the rights to all the material posted, including the picnic pictures that I took myself!" (Special:Diff/92591983/92600133). I think that VRT has to get involved to archive a sound proof of that claim, and that the user has to get verified per policy (-> Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations). Please advise! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc, there was a discussion a while ago about weather or not that verification will serve as VRT verification for all files, but that result was inconclusive. ( I can't remember where the discussion took place, other wise I would link it.) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I know about that, I was involved a bit myself in Commons:Village pump/Proposals#remove mandatory username verification from username policy. I think that in this present case, if Cromemco offers some proof that they are indeed a valid copyright holder, then it could be similar to the blanket VRT permissions for planespotter works that float around here (I do not have a concise example for that, sorry), combining verification and permission. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
VRT permission almost always involves some degree of validating that the party giving permission is the copyright-holder. Yes, this should go through VRT. Presumably straightforward for the picnic pictures, might be trickier for showing they are the rights holder for the brochure. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Current state of photography of objects that are part of the Italian cultural heritage

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm getting a bit confounded by several seemingly conflicting rules concerning photography of Italian cultural heritage, e.g. of churches centuries old. As a baseline, we have COM:FOP Italy cautioning for Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. At this moment, there won't be copyrights left due to age in my example. BUT: meta:Italian cultural heritage on the Wikimedia projects from 2015 seems to advocate for an enforceable restriction that is not copyrights/author rights related and codified in other laws, the even older page Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC supports this. Then, there's Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy which is, for me, also not providing clarity for the question "Uploading OK or not in 2025?", the same for Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets. Maybe I've overlooked something due to inattentiveness. But is there any clear statement to be made whether Commons as of today can host photographs of Italian cultural heritage assets, at least those that are several decades or centuries old? It would be nice to be able to consolidate the guidances of COM:CRT/Italy, at least. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Uploading to Commons is ok. Template:Soprintendenza sums it up. (However, by exception, some files uploaded under a particular agreement follow special rules.) -- Asclepias (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Dick Powell - Publicity Photo.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments4 people in discussion

File:Dick Powell - Publicity Photo.jpg is almost certainly incorrectly licensed and not the uploader's own work based on the file's description, but it might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Is there any way to try and figure that out? There are lots of photos of en:Dick Powell found online, but I'm not seeing this one anywhere other than Wikipedia. The file's description also seems to imply the uploader might've modified the image in some way (they stated which I scanned and color and age corrected), but I'm unable to find anything even close to this photo being used anywhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Album cover. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for finding that Asclepias. That's certainly the same photo. Whether the album cover just used a previously taken photo or the photo was specifically take for the album cover is unclear, but the album is at least an acceptable instance of publication. The link you found states the album was released in 1963, which means (I think) both {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-US-no notice}} are still possible as a license. Pinging Yann and Jmabel for input since Yann has tagged the file for speedy deletion per COM:F5 and Jmabel has tried to help sort this out on the uploader's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't have anything really to add to what I wrote on the uploader's talk page. I'm not interested in doing the research myself to possibly salvage a photo of Dick Powell. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know the copyright status, but the current source, author (not own work), and license are wrong. Yann (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So I saw that the Hollister apparel Logo has been uploaded to Commons since 2020 by user 17jiangz1, they have put that the logo is below TOO under PD-logo. I'm not really sure the Seagull is below the US TOO. Has the logo been registred by Abercrombie (Hollister's Parent company) in the copyright registry? Hyperba21 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated it for deletion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does Computer Screen cover under countries with 2D FOP or Text FOP

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

COM:FOP don’t say that. 6D (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@6D: I have no idea what you are asking. If there is some language in which you can ask this question more clearly than in English, would you please try that? - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notice of giveaway nomination

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've nominated Clindberg for a giveaway as a small gesture of appreciation for what he has done here.

Glrx (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 hour ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have been hearing a quote from Freddie Mercury floating around the internet, particularly in YouTube comment sections on videos of derivative works of Queen songs. Reportedly, shortly before he died Mercury said about his legacy, "You can do what you want with my music, but don't make me boring." Does this statement classify Mercury's compositions (not the sound recordings owned by record labels) as {{Copyrighted free use}}, or is what he said meaningless copyright-wise? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

An interesting quote perhaps, but I would think it would be meaningless from a real world copyright standpoint in general and almost certainly too vague to be considered to be anything close to resembling COM:CONSENT per COM:PCP. I think any attempt to upload any of Mercury's work to Commons simply based on that would probably end up either quickly tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for deletion. Out in the real world, you might be able to argue en:fair use perhaps as a fall back position to claiming the quote was equivalent to Mercury releasing his work into the public domain, but that won't work on Commons. I think you're actually going to need some kind of court ruling that validates such a claim for it to be considered to be valid. All of this, though, is just my opinion and perhaps others will feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The copyright law of Hungary specifically says that copyright licenses are only valid if written, spoken isn't enough (with an exception that doesn't apply here). I don't know if other countries' laws say something similar, but I'd expect so. – b_jonas 11:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Correct US license for aerial imagery of Puerto Rico

[edit]
Latest comment: 18 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Via this link aerial photographs of Puerto Rico can be obtained. The responsible organisation are the Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of eXpertise (JALBTCX), a subsidiary of the US-American military, and NOAA (FEMA was the effort). What could be the proper license template? PD-USGov-Military? Thanks and regards --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

PD-USGov is really the only actual license; the rest of the related tags are more for categorization purposes even though it's the same copyright reason. I'd probably just use {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks :). If even if another PD-USGov-Template is more appropiate, this can be changed easily --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Photograph of book cover

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, If an editor takes a high-res photo of a (presumably copyrighted) book cover, would it be considered CC0 under ‘own work’? My gut instinct / best guess from googling is that a reproduction would still have associated copyright from the original owner, but I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer. Thanks, Zzz plant (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The book cover would definitely still have the copyright belonging to the original. CC0 would only cover the photograph itself, it wouldn't override the copyright of the book cover. Abzeronow (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thank you for confirming! Follow up question, what do I do in this situation? It likely could be re-sized and used under fair-use in the article, but since it's on the commons under CC0 should it be nominated for deletion? Zzz plant (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Linking the file in question would be helpful (I could always nominate it for deletion). Abzeronow (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
File:A Haunting on the Hill.jpg Zzz plant (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Speedied as a copyvio Bedivere (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just going to add that a straight-on photograph of a book's cover most likely would be considered a case of COM:2D copying, meaning the photo itself wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This question was dealt with in COM:BOOK, actually. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Valid prison photo?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all. I just now uploaded this photo of Nizar Trabelsi in 2021, a former Tunisian footballer who was convicted of terrorism in Belgium and later extradited to the US, where he was found not guilty. According to this source, Trabelsi was detained in a US federal prison around this time. I therefore assumed that these photos were taken by an employee of the DOJ, and I added the license accordingly. Can anyone check to see if this reasoning is valid for Commons? I'm unsure if I have done too much speculation in the licensing. Howardcorn33 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The blog that published these images described their provenance thus: "Les photos que je publie ici, me sont parvenues comme a message in a bottle, comme une bouteille jetée à la mer. Peut-être m'ont-elles été envoyées par les autorités américaines qui me considèrent comme, je cite, 'Luk Vervaet, a Belgian supporter of Nizar Trabelsi' (sic) ? Pour me montrer qu'elles ont tenu parole, que leur proie est dans leurs mains, sous leur contrôle total, et tant pis pour tous ceux et celles qui ont cru aux garanties américaines sur un traitement humain pour obtenir son extradition." (machine translated to EN: "The photos I publish here came to me like a message in a bottle, like a bottle thrown into the sea. Perhaps they were sent to me by the American authorities who consider me, I quote, 'Luk Vervaet, a Belgian supporter of Nizar Trabelsi' (sic)? To show me that they have kept their word, that their prey is in their hands, under their total control, and too bad for all those who believed in the American guarantees of humane treatment to obtain his extradition.")
Even the publisher of these images is unsure who created them. American prisons - even military prisons - are notoriously leaky ships, with contraband constantly entering and exiting the facilities. There is a very distinct possibility that this image was created by another detainee or another party who is not an employee of the federal government. If this were officially published by the US gov, I'd be way less suspicious. But the author of the blog post is clear that these photos did not come from official channels and were shared surreptitiously. That makes the authorship incredibly difficult to ascertain. I would say these don't belong on Commons without more evidence. 19h00s (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see. I will nominate the photo for speedy deletion then. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OffenauS%C3%BCdzucker.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 23 hours ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Die Löschdiskussion zu dieser Datei wurde zu meiner Überraschung mit dem Argument mangelner Schöpfungshöhe beendet - Anlass für den Löschantrag war die Frage, ob es sich um ein Werk im Bereich der Panoramafreiheit handelt. Wie auch immer, ich halte das für eine schutzwürdige Steinmetz- bzw. Bildhauerarbeit, die zwar ein recht simples Grundmotiv umsetzt, aber auf die eigene Art des Bildhauers. Bildhauerei ist keine ClipArt, sondern man muss es erst einmal können. GerritR (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wenn es nicht die Schöpfungshöhe gewesen wäre, dann wäre wohl es die Panoramafreiheit gewesen, oder der Umstand, dass es sich um ein offizielles Wappen handelt, welches entsprechend nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt ist. Nakonana (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
1. Die Panoramafreiheit ist nach wie vor nicht bewiesen 2. Ungeschützt ist immer nur das Wappen an sich, nicht dessen künstlerische Umsetzung, hier als dreidimensionale Bildhauerei. Sonst wäre auch alle Wappen des Münchner Kalenders von Otto Hupp auf der Stelle gemeinfrei gewesen. GerritR (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks like a photo of a relief sculpture. If so, the file is missing a license for the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

w:en:File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png

[edit]
Latest comment: 23 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, me and @UndercoverClassicist were debating whether this file is PD, and have decided to come here. Please feel free to leave comments here or participate in the original FFD. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

JAXA Photos

[edit]
Latest comment: 22 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Recently I have been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut sub-project where we develop / upgrade astronaut pages to B-class on assessment scale. However, while developing a page on JAXA Astronaut Ayu Yoneda, I wanted to add her profile image to the Template:Infobox astronaut. I have selected the image for this provided by JAXA on Material Details|Search Results|JAXA Digital Archives. However, I am unsure which CC License to use, some users have previously used Template:Cc-by-2.1-jp while others have used CC 3.0 along with it. Can someone please tell me which license would be appropriate according to JAXA's policy stated here Manav2311 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also a quick look at [[Category:License tags of Japan] shows that already special tags for agencies such as JHOD and OPA have been created so can someone well experienced in this matter kindly make one for JAXA too? It will be way more convenient for future image licensing for these types of images. Manav2311 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is THJ v Sheridan retroactive?

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I know the decision in THJ v Sheridan has considerably raised the UK's threshold of originality. Is the new ToO retroactive, or does it only apply to new logos? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I am correct, the THJ v Sheridan judgment didn’t create a new originality threshold so much as confirm the one the UK has been bound to since at least the 2009 Infopaq decision (and arguably since the 2002–2003 implementation of relevant EU directives). The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the correct test is whether a work is the “author’s own intellectual creation,” replacing the older "skill and labour" approach.
Because this is a clarification of what the law has been for years, it applies when courts assess any work today, including those made before the case was decided. In practice, that means the standard is effectively retroactive for logos created after the EU standard took effect. For older works, the difference may be academic, and in most cases the threshold remains low enough that a logo which met it before will still meet it now. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So does this mean en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg may still be non-free? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
info: Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos Glrx (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 15 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg was uploaded back in April 2017 and appears to be the only contribution of Special:Contributions/Martial arts central. The file's description claims the photo to be the uploader's "own work", but the EXIF data includes a clear claim of copyright ownership for a facebook.com/AynasFoto. I tried checking the Facebook account listed in the EXIF data but can't find it; so, I can't determine whether that's really the source for the photo. Another url in the EXIF data is given as [email protected], but that just leads back to Commons. Since this does look to be a professionally take photo given the way the dubject is posing and the tape mark on the floor indicating where the subject should stand, I'm wondering whether VRT verification (even 8 years after upload) might be necessary here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Egyptian FoP

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have some doubts about our acceptance of Egyptian Freedom of Panorama (COM:FOP Egypt), which claims FoP is permitted implicitly by expressly denying the author the right to control reproduction if the work is located in public places. I revisited the unofficial English translation of the 2002 law as held by WIPO (linked at the bottom of CRT page), and based on my comprehension, the clause is not independent from other clauses under the same article (Article 171). It is connected to the second clause. Here is the full version of the relevant parts:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author under this Law, the author may not, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts:

(2) Make a single copy of the work for one's exclusive personal use, provided that such a copy shall not hamper the normal exploitation of the work nor cause undue prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or copyright holders;
However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization:
Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture;...
— Article 171(2 and the first bullet)

The second clause is clear that it is permitted to reproduce a single copy of the work for one's own personal use. The FoP clause that accompanies it is directly connected to this clause, not an independent (third) clause. The third clause is an unrelated clause concerning computer programs.

Based on my understanding, Egyptian FoP is invalid for Commons, since it is only for personal use of applied, fine, plastic arts, and architecture found in public places. If it were a separate clause not subordinate to the second clause, then there would have been no "personal use" only restriction. I would still need third opinions on this. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply


Translating the relevant section of the Arabic text of the 2020 revision of the law gives me the same clause. For the original, from the 2020 version of the 2002 law:

مادة (۱۷۱) مع عدم الإخلال بحقوق المؤلف الأدبية طبقاً لأحكام هذا القانون، ليس للمؤلف بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بأى عمل من الأعمال الآتية:

...

ثانياً عمل نسخة وحيدة من المصنف لاستعمال الناسخ الشخصي المحض وبشرط ألا يخل هذا النسخ بالاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو يلحق ضرراً غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة للمؤلف أو لأصحاب حق المؤلف. ومع ذلك يكون للمؤلف أو خلفه بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بدون إذنه بأي من الأعمال الآتية:

- نسخ أو تصوير مصنفات الفنون الجميلة أو التطبيقية أو التشكيلية ما لم تكن في مكان عام أو المصنفات المعمارية.

نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لنوتة مصنف موسيقى.

نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لقاعدة بيانات أو برامج حاسب آلي.


_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ping some interested users here: @Summering2018, دنيا, and Mohamed Ouda: , organizers of some previous editions of WLM in Egypt as per the participating countries lists (2024, 2023, 2022). For their comments on the possible unacceptable Egyptian Freedom of Panorama. If it's a sub-provision of Article 171(2), then the Egyptian FoP is for private use by individuals only (not OK for Wikimedia Commons which mandates free or commercial-type licenses). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1068914580"