Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
2. Have you read the FAQ?
3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Photographs of Voltairine de Cleyre

Hey all. I'm preparing the en-wiki article on Voltairine de Cleyre for FAC, and I wanted to make sure I had ensured the public domain status of some photographs being used in the article.

• 
  1891 photograph by William J. Kuebler Jr. (d. 1913), Philadelphia
• 
  1897 photograph by [Unknown], London
• 
  1898 photograph by Adelaide D. Thayer (d. 1945), Philadelphia
• 
  1901 photograph by M. Herbert Bridle (d. ?), Philadelphia

The trouble comes from a lack of evidence of early publication of these photographs. The earliest publication evidence I could find of these photographs was from Paul Avrich's 1978 book, published by the University of Princeton, but he didn't provide any information about their copyright status, previous publication history or photographers. The 1901 photograph was also published by Black Bear (London) in a 1978 book by Marian Leighton, without a copyright notice. They had clearly been distributed before 1978, as they have been discussed in contemporary letters from de Cleyre and have been archived in places such as the Labadie Collection, but I can't find if they were published per se beforehand. The date of death of two of the photographers is known, but the date of death of Bridle and the identity of the 1897 photo is unknown.

If anyone here can help me figure out the PD status and conditions for these photographs, I would very much appreciate it. Also if anybody here is able to help with finding out details about M. Herbert Bridle, I'm sure that would be useful to know as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Since these photos are over 120 years old, you can use {{PD-old-assumed}} for works with unclear publication info, such as unknown author or death dates. Without further investigation, they can at least be hosted here. PascalHD (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

My experience with FAC has been that image review there is extraordinarily strict, so I'm not sure they would allow an image with only a PD-old-assumed tag. I've had to remove images from articles before because FAC considered their status "theoretically uncertain". They tend to only allow images that are provably PD in the US, beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I suppose the best bet at finding info about the 1901 photographer would be Ancestry searches. From clues and info I found online was that it might actually be W. Herbert Bridle. It seems there is some confusion and contradiction weather it is an M or a W, with the cursive writing from the time making it harder to understand. M or W could be the first name and Herbert could be the middle name. I did some grave searches for Pennsylvania but no results. I currently don't have my Ancestry subscription but I'll see what else I can find. PascalHD (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I put my Bridle research in wikidata:Talk:Q135272927. Ancestry is part of en:WP:TWL but I didn't see anything major there. Might be Martin Herbert Bridle (1860–1942) perhaps? The 1900 US federal census would be key there for establishing that he stayed in Pennsylvania after his marriage there. czar 23:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I've resolved the Bridle image. Summarized on its talk page. czar 03:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Nothing in any newspapers or any book I can find. Honestly, is it a given that these photos were published before then in that book? Plenty of photos circulate in private collections but that usually does not count as publishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was a given, was just pointing out that they had been circulating beforehand. Despite having been doing this for years, the intricacies of American copyright law are still an enigma to me, so I was just trying to provide as much context as I could for people who might know better. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time of creation. That is specially the case for studio pictures (3 of them here), as leaving the photographer's custody counts as publication. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Derivative work using ArcGIS as a tool, OpenStreetMaps as the base layer, and USGS as the data source

I have several maps that I created before I understood how to use GIS well and they are rightly being taken down. I think that by using the guidelines of ARCGIS and OpenStreetMaps that it is permissible to post the map printouts. I have performed all the analysis of the various user agreements and can provide that if necessary. While I don't care about personal attribution since I only use a username, I think it is appropriate that I enter the "own work" checkbox with explanations in the section provided. Thank you. Deanrah (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Content from OpenStreetMaps should be tagged as {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}. I don't know a lot about ArcGIS, but I presume that it is involved only as a tool, and no attribution to that is legally required, though it would be appropriate to add {{Created with ArcGIS Pro}} to the description. And, yes, if there is enough work of your own involved to be copyrightable, you should probably give an appropriate CC license.

I assume that when you refer to "the 'own work' checkbox" you are talking about UploadWizard. Yes, that is probably the easiest way through the Wizard if it is your chosen method of uploading; just go back at the end to fix anything you couldn't do with the wizard. - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel -- I referred @Deanrah here regarding this file. The issues I brought up with Deanrah (which were not addressed here, and so far have only been addressed through an AI-generated wall of text that they have since removed from their user talk page) are that (1) the file is tagged as "own work" without crediting the actual sources or including the proper license tags, and (2) the file itself claims copyright from "Esri contributors", Esri, and Microsoft, which may not be freely licensed. I asked Deanrah for clarification regarding the Esri and Microsoft copyrighted items, but have not gotten an answer. Jay8g (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All of which is very confusing.

@Deanrah: do you care to explain? - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Jay8g said that I was rude to show my entire analysis, so I took it down. Would you like to see the full analysis or a summary? Deanrah (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is the file that I have made as a beta that I asked help with evaluating since I did not understand the copyright problems with the base layer when I originally took screen shots of a couple of dozen maps of this data set. They should be taken down.

(map illustration)

It was made with ArcGIS as are many other files in Wiki Commons (search "ARCGIS"). It uses a background map that comes from Open Streetmaps. It uses a USGS data set. ArcGIS generated the attributions on the printout. I think it would be instructive to set standards for using ARCIG maps given the ease of using that tool. However, I have plans to move to QGIS which is a clunky open source version. Deanrah (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So, as I said above, the map from OpenStreetMap must be indicated as using {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}.

It looks like ArcGIS is not involved only as a tool if its output is attributing Esri and Microsoft for content. Do you know what comes from those sources? - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The ArcGIS FAQ says "When an ArcGIS Online basemap is used in printed materials such as books, articles, brochures, and research papers, attributions must be provided on or near the map or image that includes the ArcGIS Online basemap." Ersi owns ArcGIS. OpenStreetMaps uses Bing (owned by Microsoft) as basemaps in its open source work. Do a search on ARCGIS to see how many of the maps in Commons must come down if this is not allowed. Deanrah (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So it sounds like this from ArcGIS effectively an attribution-only license. Does this image use an ArcGIS Online basemap (you haven't shown the OpenStreetMaps map, so I have no idea if any other basemap is involved)? That would presumably entail something like {{Attribution only license|text=This incorporates an ArcGIS basemap.}} in addition to any other necessary licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There are 83,000+ images that use ARCGIS in Wikimedia Commons. Deanrah (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The same page gives an example attribution of "Maps throughout this book were created using ArcGIS software by Esri. ArcGIS and ArcMap are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri software, please visit www.esri.com." That doesn't sound like a free license to me, but I could be wrong. It seems like that page is talking about academic attribution, not copyright status. Jay8g (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this a copyright violation?

The Roskilde museum states that photos taken in the museum must not be used commercially without permission. [1]. I believe, but do not know for certain, that File:Krummträ.JPG is a photo of a display in that museum. The lines drawn on the timber to show how a shipwright would use the raw materials to make parts of a ship are clearly a creative work by whoever prepared this exhibit.

Who should investigate this?

Could someone ask the museum to waive copyright for this picture? How would we find someone in the Wikipedia and Commons community who has a useful relationship with the museum to make the approach? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It is actually a copyright violation, I think, but not because of these museum rules. These are a COM:Non-copyright restriction, but the drawings and explanatory texts are copyrightable. There's no suitable COM:FOP Denmark that would allow the hosting of this image. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The interpretative signs could easily be cropped out of the photo. The wood itself and the markings on it seem unlikely to be copyrightable; the markings are purely utilitarian in nature, not a creative work. Omphalographer (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more about the status of the marks on the wood. This sort of thing is often illustrated in books on maritime archaeology and in every case, the precise detail of the markings are the whole object of the illustration. Put another way, the intellectual input of the person who drew the lines is absolutely key. Ignoring this would be like copying one of the illustrations out of the major textbook Steffy, J. Richard (1994). Wooden ship building and the interpretations of shipwrecks (5th printing ed.). College Station: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781603445207, a source of many illustrations very similar in nature. The fact that these lines are drawn on wood rather than on paper should not confuse us. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Krummträ.JPG. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Epstein files release from House Oversight Committee

Are the files released a couple of days

1. Trustworthy that they are authentic files from DOJ? (since they're shared in Google Drive and Dropbox and not on a .gov website)
2. If so, I believe they fall under Template:PD-USGov-DOJ, wouldn't they? (If not, the broader PD-USGov should do it, which altho is overcrowded)

Link: https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-epstein-records-provided-by-the-department-of-justice/ -- DaxServer (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is safe to presume that the documents come immediately from DOJ, but that doesn't meant that they won't contain copyrighted materials. For example, if the infamous "birthday book" is in there, the government certainly has not copyright claim on that. Similarly for anything else copyrightable and not created by a government employee. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a +1 to Jmabel's reply. Each file needs to be examined individually; there's no way the entire cache of documents/images/media is PD, only the materials created by a federal employee. 19h00s (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmabel @19h00s. Yes, as you observed correctly, some docs are not created by USGov. It'll be painful, if not impossible, to review the whole lot when someone wants to upload. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking to upload logo: do you think it's PD-shape?

I think that w:en:File:Las_Vegas_Aviators_Cap.png could be a simple enough color/shape/text logo to upload here but wanted to run it by some other users to see if they agree. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:YouTube CC-BY

I'm noticed, that current page of "YouTube CC-BY" license led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (I don't know since when). But Template:YouTube CC-BY still led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

What should I do - update this template or create a new one and mark this one as obsolete? --Kaganer (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. As of July 30, it was still 3.0. The Wayback Machine normally archives that page frequently, but at least currently does not have any captures available between then and August 11 (today). Technically, I think any videos we copy off from the date of the change would have the 4.0 license, but any we copied earlier would still have the 3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m wondering if changing the link on YouTube’s help page from CC BY 3.0 to CC BY 4.0 really does automatically relicense older uploads (on YouTube). Currently older videos on YouTube which are marked as Creative Commons also link to the same help page where it specifies the version number. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Commons just "upgrade" all older CC-BY files to 4.0? How did Wikipedia go about it when they switched from 3.0 to 4.0? Is there some part of YouTube's TOS which allows them the right to sub-license under a newer version or something which allowed this? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#27dc3bf5d9 "By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable licence to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display and perform it) for the purpose of operating, promoting, and improving the Service." I don't know if that is enough  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   04:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly not enough... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: not enough for what? "Sublicensable" may well give YouTube the right to "update" a CC license at their discretion (and quite possibly to do far more than that). Commons, of course, does not have similar terms of use. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The TOS clause that was quoted gives YouTube a sublicensable license to use the content themselves for operating and promoting the service, but it does not automatically change the license granted by the uploader to the public. In other words, it lets YouTube reproduce, distribute, and modify the content internally or for the service, and even sublicense those rights to third parties, but it does not retroactively alter the Creative Commons license the uploader applied at the time of upload.

Just as if you had uploaded a video under "all rights reserved", YouTube could not decide to license it under a CC license without your permission.

CC licenses are irrevocable and granted by the copyright holder to the public. Only the copyright holder can choose to "upgrade" or change the license version of their own work. YouTube’s ability to sublicense the content for service purposes does not include the right to relicense public CC BY videos under a newer version, because that would require a separate permission from the original uploader.

(From what I’ve read about Wikipedia’s switch from 3.0 to 4.0, articles were effectively dual-licensed: past revisions remained under 3.0, but any new revision constitutes a new work, which can then be licensed under 4.0. WMF were not able to just decide all past 3.0 revisions were automatically 4.0) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's consider four groups of works.

Two groups of works are relatively easier to handle.

A. Files present on Commons of which the Youtube source has been deleted from Youtube, or had its CC license removed, before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube. Those works were never offered under version 4.0 on Youtube. Given that Commons cannot review every file ever copied from Youtube to check if it is still present on Youtube now, and still under a CC license there, those files must remain under version 3.0 on Commons. They must keep their version 3.0 template.

B. Works uploaded to Youtube for the first time after the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube and offered under the CC license. Those works were never offered under version 3.0 on Youtube. They must be under version 4.0 on Commons. They must get a version 4.0 template.

Two other groups of works could present more difficulty. It has to do in large part with the question: could Youtube change unilaterally the license offered by the copyright owners? It is dubious. The section of the Youtube terms of use quoted by 999real says the license granted to Youtube is "for the purpose of [...] the Service". In the FAQ section of the "License types" page [2], Youtube adds "YouTube can’t grant you rights to use someone else’s content [...]. YouTube cannot grant you the rights to use content that has already been uploaded to YouTube. If you want to use someone else’s YouTube content, you may want to reach out to them directly." My understanding is that there is nothing there that authorises Youtube to offer a work, for a use outside of Youtube, under a free license different from the CC license that was offered by the copyright owner. But can it be said that after a certain time, the copyright owners implicitly consent to the change?

C. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, and were also uploaded to Commons before that change. Given that they were under version 3.0 when they were uploaded to Commons, and that license is undoubtebly valid for the Commons copy and for any subsequent copies made from the Commons copy, the simple solution is to keep that version 3.0 license for those files. There's no reason to complicate matters on Commons. If an external reuser wants and feels comfortable to use the version 4.0, they can copy the work directly from Youtube.

D. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, but were uploaded to Commons for the first time after that change. They were (and may still be) offered under version 3.0 by their copyright owners. But now they are presented by Youtube (validly or not) as offered under version 4.0. The problem is worsened by the fact that there may not be (or is there?) a way to know the precise day when a work was uploaded to Youtube. There may not be a good solution for this group of works. I suppose that users will upload those files to Commons under version 4.0, because that will seem the easy thing, the chances of complaints by copyright owners may be low, and users may think that if complaints occur, it could be the responsibility of Youtube.

-- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

One can hover the mouse over the "2 weeks ago" on YouTube and be presented with the upload date. However, we don't know the date they selected the file to be freely licensed (they could e.g. have applied the CC license a year after upload).

Given the size of our project, and WMF in particular, dont't we have any contacts within Google/YouTube to help with these questions? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I re posted this discussion since there was no conclusion.

In this case YouTube is not just giving away rights to other people's content, those people granted the (main) rights when they selected the Creative Commons license on YouTube.

Generally 4.0 version of CC licenses are regarded as better than 3.0, is upgrading the version really unreasonable to be "improving the service"? We know that Google does not care a lot about the CC license but would they really do something like this without thinking about the risks?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I just checked and realized there are 2 different version of this statement in the terms of service

I think the one above (..."operating, promoting, and improving the Service") is actually from https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms

For https://www.youtube.com/t/terms / US version I see

"By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube’s (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service."  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we somehow ask YouTube to change the link back to CC BY 3.0 to solve this whole mix-up? Or perhaps request them to add a two CC BY options for their videos? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe move the old template to YouTube CC-BY 3.0 and start using a new 4.0 one for the others? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've designed a new template here: {{YouTube CC-BY 4.0}} Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Photo of Joanna Penson

https://gdansk.gedanopedia.pl/gdansk/?title=Plik:1_Joanna_Penson.jpg if i were to add this image to wikimedia would it be fair use Brewling (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There's not fair use allowed on Commons. And I do not think that this image could be used under the EN-WP fair use provisions, as it's seemingly not irreplaceable by free media. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The soundtrack of Night of the Living Dead

The Wikipedia page for Night of the Living Dead says that "[m]uch of the soundtrack had been used by previous films." The footnote for that sentence goes on to list a number of cinematographic works whose soundtrack the creators of the film borrowed from, namely the TV series Wanted Dead or Alive, the episodes "I Remember a Lemon Tree" (RE0000458541) and "Bullets Cost Too Much" (RE0000377846), as well as the movies Teenagers from Outer Space (copyright not renewed), The Devil's Messenger (copyright not renewed, however it is a derivative work of the TV series 13 Demon Street) and The Hideous Sun Demon (RE0000361389). My concern, as you have probably already realized, is that portions of the soundtrack are still copyrighted due to statutory copyright being first obtained in other places. If that is the case, then we may need to selectively mute portions of the film. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Copies of Night of the Living Dead have been produced, and television stations have aired the show for many years as a work in the public domain. This has stood up to scrutiny in court when the creators of the film filed lawsuits to get back the copyright in some way. I don't see anywhere where a DVD, VHS, broadcast, or streaming service has muted portions of the film. Rjjiii (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The potential copyright for the soundtrack likely lies not with Image Ten but with Capitol Records, the owners of w:en:Hi-Q (production music) who I'm assuming licensed parts of that to Image Ten. The problem is that in Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. and Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., the Second and Fifth Circuits held respectively that a copyright notice with the name of a licensee was sufficient to secure copyright for a licensor, even though technically incorrect. Assuming that the contents of the music library remained unpublished unless incorporated in a film, a part of the soundtrack could have been first published in a film with said type of copyright notice whose copyright was then renewed, making it still copyrighted.

Also, I can't find any case law regarding the film's copyright. What are the lawsuits that you are thinking of? prospectprospekt (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Image Ten, Inc. v. Walter Reade Organization, Inc. and later Dawn Associates v. Links Rjjiii (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Page Commons:Free depictions of non-free works

What is the actual relevance for that page and its contents? Is that a policy or guideline in the making, an essay, something else? It claims "Current consensus holds that unlicensed derivative graffiti is not covered even in jurisdictions that otherwise grant commercial FoP to two-dimensional artistic works. (DR1, DR2)", but this contradicts the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg, for instance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The conclusion of the Alan Kurdi Graffiti DR (of which I closed) was that the graffiti was not a COM:DW of the photograph. Whereas the other DRs were DW of copyrighted characters. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the Alan Kurdi decision was that the graffiti was not a derivative work of the photograph in the first place, despite looking similar. It was a copyrighted painting which was photographable due to FoP. So, that was rather different than unlicensed usages of copyrighted characters, which are fairly obvious derivative works. Derivative works of photographs are a far more difficult area than derivative works of paintings or drawings -- the visible content is often not part of the photographic copyright. It's certainly possible to make a drawing which is derivative of a photograph; it's also quite possible to make a drawing of the same subject which is not derivative. It's pretty impossible to make a drawing of a cartoon character which is not derivative, on the other hand. There are not many court cases over FoP to begin with, and edge cases like FoP of unauthorized works are probably completely untested. But, using FoP as a backdoor to depict an otherwise copyrighted work, which was in place illegally in the first place, does seem to rub the community the wrong way (particularly when it comes to things like copyrighted characters). I think long ago we did delete a photo of an unauthorized copy of Picasso's Guernica in Spain, as well. Every situation could have some details that could affect that -- always hard to say for sure. I'm not sure if that page is supposed to be a policy -- don't think that was ever voted on -- but more seems like an essay summarizing the results of DRs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

CCTV and Iryna Zarutska footage (public domain question)

At what point does editing CCTV footage (which typically has no copyright due to its lack of human author) create a derivative work that is eligible for copyright protection? After the recent killing of Iryna Zarutska, editors have uploaded screenshots and video described as CCTV footage of death. These two videos are used in the English Wikipedia article, but both show some degree of editing (cuts, freeze frames, color shift, zoom, cropping, and a logo):

• File:Man murders 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Irina Zarucka for no apparent reason in the Charlotte, North Carolina subway.webm
• File:Man murders 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Irina Zarucka for no apparent reason in the Charlotte, North Carolina, subway.webm

Do these changes amount to enough for copyright protection or is the "Author: CCTV" in the description correct? Rjjiii (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Marianne Bielschowsky

Hey guys, I uploaded File:Marianne Bielschowsky 1939.jpg yesterday. Per the source, [3], the copyright conditions are: No known copyright or other restrictions on use exist in this image. Permission to use this item for any purpose, including publishing, is not required from the Hocken under these conditions of use.

I don't exactly know what license this translates to. The description currently says it is missing a source. Useful info: Taken in 1939 in Spain. Anyone know what the issue is? jolielover♥talk 10:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the website is incorrect- if it was taken by her or her husband, then it's still under copyright in Spain- if it was taken by someone whose identity is not known, then it would probably not be copyrighted in Spain, but would still be copyrighted in the US, for a decade at the least. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. I uploaded a local, enwiki version. Should this be deleted then? jolielover♥talk 11:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, if it's in fact under copyright. I have started a DR(deletion request) for it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The photo looks like a professional studio photo. The fact that the source of the copy does not mention, or does not know, the author does not necessarily mean that the author is unknown. But after diligent research, the author may indeed be unknown or unidentifiable. Not sure if the year 1939 is a guess or if there was information on the reverse side of the copy. If information about the date is there, there could also be information about the author or the studio. If the photo is really from 1939, or if it is from between 1939 and 1948, then it would likely have been taken in England. And possibly published there. If 1939 is a guess, the photo could be from later. It looks later than the 1936 identity photo from Spain [4]. For the internal policy of Commons, that would probably mean to apply the copyright conditions of the United Kingdom, the country likely associated with the photo. The mention of "no known copyright" by the New Zealand source of the copy may just mean that the photo, as a photo taken before 1944, would not be under copyright in New Zealand, without implying anything about copyrights in the United Kingdom, the United States or other countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way, it's unlikely that it would be free of copyright in the US. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

About the technical aspect of your question, the missing source warning was displayed because with the PD-author template you forgot to start the parameter with "1=" when inserting that particular string of characters. The template interpreted that as an absence of parameter. Anyway, in this case PD-author is not the right template because that source website is not the author and not the owner of the copyright and it cannot release a copyright that it does not own. It uses the photo as copyright expired in New Zealand. -- 17:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

US Military images with different usage terms in EXIF metadata vs current license tag

I came across this interesting image of some Mazda racing automobiles on a US Marine Corps Air Station installation (Marine Corps Air Station New River to be precise):

While adding the additional categories, I noticed the usage terms in the EXIF metadata: "NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE". Interestingly, the picture was originally imported from a US Marine Corps media website with the PD-USGov-Military tag. But this is in complete contradiction with the EXIF metadata. Also, the image is not available anymore from that source (maybe because the Marine Corps media unit noticed they published a picture that shouldn't have been public ?)

Since it is unclear which usage terms apply (EXIF metadata or imported license tag) I thought it was best to raise the question here. I already tagged the picture with a Disputed and License Review needed template. Could someone point me to a more specific template/category for US Military images if I encounter more in the future ? Or do I just use the same templates as in this instance ? Btrs (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Works of the US government are not copyrighted. If this was a photograph by a Marine photographer doing their job, then it doesn't matter whether it was approved for public release or not, we legally can keep it. There could be copyright issues in nonUS government works included in the photograph, there could be ethical issues, but the US government has no right to license its work or use copyright to prohibit its reproduction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

At the time it was created (2010), it appears it was not meant for release. At some point it was clearly made available to the public on the internet (~2012) by the United States Marine Corps via their website. Someone might have just forgotten the change the EXIF metadata, although there's a chance it could have been an error. Regardless, its not a copyright issue as a US Government work. PascalHD (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Mute audio

Could someone here help me mute a video with copyrighted audio? The rest of the video is otherwise free Trade (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop? - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

South Korean state media may be free content now but login required

Hi everyone,

The South Korean government (via KTV) has launched the Nanuri Portal (nanuri.ktv.go.kr), where a large collection of state media videos are being released for public use, probably under {{KOGL}}.

• According to the official press release (in Korean), about 30,000 clips are being opened first (from ~750,000 total), with KOGL/public-use labels attached to each video.
• Downloads are supported in 1080p MP4.
• However, the site requires account registration with a (presumably) Korean phone number, which makes access difficult for many editors here.

Another issue is that the Nanuri portal distinguishes between ‘personal,’ ‘media,’ and ‘government’ members. It’s not clear which category Wikimedians would fall under. Uploading to Commons is arguably more than ‘personal use,’ but we are not traditional press or government either, so clarification may be needed.

I’d like to ask: How should we handle confirming/reviewing licensing for KOGL-labeled videos when access is login-restricted? Should we ask/wait for easier access, or is there a way Commons can verify the KOGL labeling (maybe similar to Commons:License review)?

I haven't created an account (yet).

This is (kind of) a continuation of an earlier discussion:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#File:President_Yoon_Suk_Yeol_Declares_Emergency_Martial_Law.webm_+_Potential_upcoming_South_Korean_state_media_free_content

Thanks! Reepy1 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that they made this an option but typical of the Korean government, they make it an absolute nightmare to deal with. Normally we would deal with this using something like Commons:License review, but most license reviewers won't get to see it if its blocked behind a phone number. I do have a Korean phone number, but its not very realistic either that me and the few Korean admins/ license reviewers would have the ability to go through the potential 750K files that might be uploaded to Commons. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. Takipoint123 (💬) 03:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

+ For those unfamiliar with how Korean services work: you can't use any phone number. It MUST be a +82, Korea-based phone number which is tied directly to your national identity number (I.e. you must have a phone number from a Korean telecommunications provider). So if you're not a Korean national or foreigner with a registration number, you are out of luck.--Takipoint123 (💬) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That certainly does make it difficult for a non-Korean national to review these files. Hopefully the Republic of Korea also clarifies what kind of usage conditions are under this portal. Abzeronow (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's KOGL, it is likely that the site will also have ND or NC version of KOGL files (Type 3 and 4), which is not allowed on Commons. Personally think the only solution to this issue would be to continue the existing workflow of getting VRT confirmed for files that don't specify KOGL licenses: ideally, we would get confirmation for an entire category of files (e.g. like Template:Korea.net). There is realistically no way to incorporate Nanuri into our LR workflow, considering the size of the Commons Korean community. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just used a Korean phone number (not sure if foreign numbers work, the text box imply Korean phone numbers only but not sure) and managed to get an account without having to verify any identity. So it's not that kind of registration we worried about. I just put a fake name and it worked.

More findings in other reply... Reepy1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Foreign numbers won't work. There isn't even an option to put a country code. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can inquire them about expanding to foreign phone numbers at some point, if we feel the need to do so someday. This will make Commons:license review easily possible. I'm actually not sure about the phone number having to be tied to national ID, not familiar with that. Reepy1 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just logged in and some contents (stuff in front page etc) are labelled with {{KOGL}} Type 1. The >3 hour news broadcast download that includes Yoon's martial law declaration (https://www.ktv.go.kr/news/latest/view?content_id=716002, this is outside of Nanuri, publicly accessible which still (wrongly) says copyrighted; uploaded then deleted to commons before here File:President Yoon Suk Yeol Declares Emergency Martial Law.webm) is under KOGL Type 2, which has a non-commercial requirement, presumably because it's part of the news.

I suspect the actual broadcast of the martial law declaration would be {{KOGL}} Type 1, but we may have to enquire with KTV, or even the Presidential Office, to be sure.

w:Korean News are not labelled with any KOGL yet from a quick look. Reepy1 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Idea: let me see if there are potentially any content that includes the martial law speech that's under {{KOGL}} Type 1... Reepy1 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't find it for now, there's a lot of content, I have a feeling it doesn't exist but anyone who manages to find Yoon's martial law speech under {{KOGL}} Type 1 will be greatly appreciated by me, please tell me if you do. Reepy1 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well besides martial law etc, again, there seems to be a lot of content such as State Council (i.e. cabinet) meetings (most contents with the current president I think?) that are under {{KOGL}} Type 1. Might be of note in the future, such as when events under the current gov't is documented in Wikimedia Projects. I think Commons has a lot of equivalent material from the U.S. White House.

Many old stuff are under KOGL Type 2-4 or even no KOGL license though. They are probably working on it, not sure if it will be under {{KOGL}} Type 1 though.

As for license review in the future, maybe we'll have to set up some internal VRT-style check for a case-by-case basis, going to be extra work for the admins though. Not sure if enough content will be relevant enough for upload in the future though. Reepy1 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Side note to express my frustration: US gov't works are under {{PD-USGov}}, but in South Korea, despite there being a similar law (Article 24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act), it seems like in practice, both the gov't interpretation and Wikimedia consensus is that a KOGL license is separately needed to enforce Art. 24-2. Also see: {{KoreaGov}} for 24-2 that is not explicitly under {{KOGL}}. Reepy1 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I pondered this a lot when trying to figure out if Yoon's martial law speech was free content here, the law states all works made entirely by the state (i.e. gov't) are free content under 24-2, but gov't practice and Wiki consensus may differ, which is why I made discussions and inquiries, leading up to this etc. Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Website also has state visits Reepy1 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The main problem is that the Korean government has included not only KOGL Type 1 but also Types 2, 3, and 4 as part of its public works open policy. These are used interchangeably without clear distinction across diffrent platforms, which only adds to the confusion. The registration wall for the new website further complicates the situation. Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness.--Namoroka (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Argentina)

Hey! I found the current new logo of the Supreme Court of Argentina, from their official website https://www.csjn.gov.ar/. Am I allowed to upload this to use on the articles of said court?

Image: https://www.csjn.gov.ar/imagenes/logo_CSJN_top5.png Rubiserr (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't access either the root Supreme Court website nor that png link, can others?

Update: Just tried using a proxy and it worked... strange. Maybe it's some DNS or whitelist (region restricted?) problem. Reepy1 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if meta:Be bold applies to stuff like this? As in, is it accepted if someone uploads, presuming it's public domain etc, then someone disputes later? Reepy1 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons specifically and overtly does not have a "be bold" policy. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

PNG image above consists of File:Coat of arms of Argentina.svg which is out of copyright, and text, meaning the only copyright we have to deal with is literally just text (if we don't count putting those two things together as copyrightable work).

COM:TOO Argentina says there's no threshold of originality in Argentina, meaning even text logos could be a problem.

License on (old logo?) File:Corte suprema argentina logo.png claims it is out of copyright because it's old.

I might be completely wrong on this, I'm a random user. Reepy1 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Illustration of Josipina Eleonora Hudovernik by Saša Šantel copyright

Is this illustration (inncorectly stated to be illustration of Marija Hudovernik.) of composer Josipina Eleonora Hudovernik by artist Saša Šantel protected by copyright? Saša Šantel died in 1945, so his work become public domain in Slovenia in 1995 (Slovenia upholded the old Yugoslavian law of copiryghts lasting for 50 years after death of author until March 1996.) Ihana Aneta (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn

Hello! I recently sent an email To Gunther Fehlinger-Jan if he agrees that his work can be classified under Creative Commons. He said yes, and I sent him the VRT release, alongside the link to the photo I uploaded here. File:Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Will I get to know if it was approved?. He has already publicly shown great happiness that he has finally gotten a photo on his own wiki page. Right here

Thank you for your time

Best regards

JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome @JonasJorgensen4, if you didn’t get a reply here from someone in VRT, you may want to ask this again in Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ill wait a few days, if I dont get any, ill ask them.

Thanks for your time JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@JonasJorgensen4: This was uploaded only today. VRT has a weeks-long queue. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

O dear lord. I do hope mr Gunther sent in the proper details then JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Well I just checked, it got confirmed by VRT so JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Bud Hobbs

Link to the original discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#c-Marchjuly-20250910125300-Kingsacrificer-20250910090800

Basically, I want to add a photograph of Bud Hobbs on his Wikipedia Biography page. He is a musician who passed away in 1958. There are no CC licensed images available on the internet based on my search.

I figured, as he is dead for so long, that I can use one of his non-free images in Wikipedia on account of fair use. But @Marchjuly suggested in the discussion above that given his time of death, the currently available images online may be wrongly copyrighted, and hence I should reach out here for experts to assess the copyright of those images.

Would be eager to be guided on the subject matter.

Links to the available images:

1. Find a Grave page
2. Discogs Artist page
3. Audio CD on Amazon
4. Last.fm page
5. A Rock & Country Encyclopedia
6. an unofficial Youtube Video of one of his songs

Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads review of User:Mhmmdihsn

Hi. Could someone review the uploads: Special:ListFiles/Mhmmdihsn. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like copyvios to me, starting DR. Thanks for the tip! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

though some are too simple for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

considering their lack of response to talk page messages, would a IDHT block be in order? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

NC licensing?

Is the license on File:Neglinka007.jpg compatible with Commons? The uploader has several uploads seemingly with the same license. Nakonana (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It is only allowed because the photo was uploaded in 2008. For new uploads these license combination is not accepted anymore. GPSLeo (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Nakonana (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)