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.

Template:PD-US-1978-89

As was recently discovered and laid out plainly in this deletion discussion, there was a November 1981 ruling about audiovisual works that said:

In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work.

What this basically means is that our template {{PD-US-1978-89}} should be modified so that it's made clear that "untitled motion picture[s] or other audiovisual work[s] whose duration is sixty seconds or less" that were made after November 1981 have different rules, and should be used far more cautiously (if uploaded at all). As was mentioned in that discussion also by Clindberg:

[...] to show "published without notice" is extremely difficult given that federal regulation. That is the critical part here, to me. They were undoubtedly published, and I'm satisfied that a registration was never filed, but unless we can identify actual physical copies without a notice, copyright may not have been lost [...]

A number of commercials and other videos under 60 seconds made after November 1981 have been added to Commons over the years because the omission of this legal matter in our template, as well as at Commons:Hirtle chart and other policy pages that discuss specific US copyright terms, misled uploaders into believing that these were in the public domain. This is why I believe that some kind of comment on this should be added to our template and other places, though I can't modify the template because that requires admin rights, so I'm thus requesting it be done here.

Pinging everyone involved in that discussion: @SomeFancyUsername, ZigZagTheTigerSkunk, Nard the Bard, 999real, and Clindberg: SnowyCinema (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We can keep all commercials made before November 1981 like Fred the Baker, Wilkins and Wontkins and more. They are undoubetly in the public domain. Because they , Works made after that after 1981 like Arnold escapes from Church can also stay because it is more than 60 seconds.

However, i am still questioning if commercials made after November 1981 are REALLY under copyright or not..? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, as far as I gathered from all this discourse, the commercials could be in the public domain, possibly, but we could never prove it or disprove it, because proving it would require getting access to the physical master tape of that commercial, which is extremely unlikely for a Commons editor to be able to do. Perhaps a picture of that tape was posted online in some cases, or something, and could be used as evidence? Well, anyway, it's not really safe for us to assume a public-domain status on works like that given the ruling. (Isn't it kind of messed up that it was rigged so only the corporations who would own the tapes can produce legal evidence of their own products being copyrighted or not? Ha!) SnowyCinema (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

So stick to commercials made before November 1981? Tbh, those master tapes are pretty much lost or destroyed.. Making it a mess. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much... SnowyCinema (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

okay.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• I don't like using Energizer Bunny as an example, an actual court ruled it was under copyright. Other commercials without litigation might indeed be PD. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, like Ronald Mcdonald and Wilkins and Wontkins. Those commercials are indeed public domain, i and 999 alongside Gilimaster was the one who did find out Wilkins and Wontkins are public domain tbh. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Technically, it was not ruled. That implies that one party claimed it was PD, another party claimed it was not, and the judge looked at the evidence and made a decision. Rather, that part was not in dispute so it would just be assumed to be copyrighted (which it probably was; companies were a lot more aware of copyright by the late 1980s). And at the time of the lawsuit, Eveready could have registered it (among other actions) to recapture if it was lost. But probably still not a good example -- if they actually do have a character copyright, that muddies the waters too. Even if a particular commercial is PD, if a character copyright had been established previously which was still under copyright, that commercial is a derivative work and still not OK to upload. Commercials from before the character got established are still OK. That should be rare for commercials. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  at least with Ronald and more, we know when they first appeared and their debuts had no copyright. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Just to make positively sure, am I understanding the situation behind under-60-second videos from after 1981 correctly, or are there any nuances I'm missing? If we were to update our template and project pages on copyright, how should that be done? Any opinions on the wording? Do we need a new template like {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} for "Video under 60 seconds, between Dec. 1981 and Feb. 1989, proven to have no notice on the master tape" (which I think should almost never happen...but maybe there are cases)? Is VPC the right venue to ask for this kind of thing, or would there be a more surefire way than this to get the modifications done? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I don't think we need a new tag. It's more that the "no notice" situation for {{PD-US-1978-89}} is near impossible to determine for audiovisual works of less than sixty seconds published November 1981 or later, due to the regulation. So we just need to update the documentation on that tag -- that tag remains the one to use, I think, as that is still the PD reason if valid to upload -- we just need to make sure that audiovisual works sixty seconds or less published 1981 or later do not qualify for that tag, thus there is no PD tag to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the best venue to sort this out. In my opinion, the proposed {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} is worth creating only if we really think there is any prospect of using it. What is probably more important would be to link permalinked or archived version of this discussion at Template talk:PD-US-1978-89 and possibly add a concise mention of the issue in Template:PD-US-1978-89. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say at least a concise mention on Template:PD-US-1978-89 is definitely called for, or else users are likely to continue to mistakenly add more short videos from 1981–1989 that would fail this legal test. Other copyright templates have similar notices about these kinds of edge cases (some of them would be far more bloated from theirs than this case would be, see Template:PD-RU-exempt for example). At least if it's on the template and someone adds a short film from 1985 anyway, the template itself can be cited in discussions. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This only applies to shorts under 60 seconds afaik. More than 60 seconds if published are likely to be allowed on Wikimedia and are safely PD. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: It's probably easiest to keep the explanation at {{PD-US-1978-89}} concise if we create {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} (or maybe call it {{PD-US-short-film-1981-89}}, since anything over a minute can just use {{PD-US-1978-89}}). Do you want to take a shot at creating this new template? - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Apologize for the late response as I thought I'd already responded to this. To be honest, I am myself less concerned about the creation of {{PD-US-film-1981-89}} or whatever the name would be, and much more concerned about the concise blurb that should be created at {{PD-US-1978-89}} warning uploaders and downloaders about the 1981 federation. As is done in many templates, I would suggest a short sentence or two about it with File:Dialog-warning.svg to the left of it, and a link to the legal statute referenced. I think we will need to update Commons:Hirtle chart and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States as well, probably with more detail than the template's blurb provides. Are we at a stage where this is possible to do? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: The main reason I want us to create {{PD-US-short-film-1981-89}} is so that {{PD-US-1978-89}} can refer to it, and keep its own explanation concise. If you want, I can take on this whole thing, but I have a lot else on my plate and am also going to spend much of tomorrow in transit, so it won't happen as soon as if someone else gets it started.

Yes, probably deserves a small note at COM:Hirtle chart. I'll do that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is a new tag, it would only be for the years 1978 to 1981. Short films in the 1981-89 range mean we cannot determine "no notice" so are ineligible for either tag -- they are not PD most likely. I think I would just add a short note to PD-US-1978-89 that short films from November 1981 and later do *not* qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: no, the new tag would be for the rare case where you actually had your hands on the distribution media.

But if you think you can edit {{PD-US-1978-89}} to explain this situation without horribly bloating the template or creating a distinct template for that special case, please go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You mean the ones under 60 seconds right? Sorry i'm just confused.

I think any post November 1981 short films more than 60 seconds are allowed on Wikimedia but would require big search through copyright records. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Clindberg: Thanks for all the continued discussion around this. I think we can just add a sentence of two to the current {{PD-US-1978-89}} template and then we can call it a day for now, IMO. What do you guys think? SnowyCinema (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: So propose a wording. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry for the late response. I'll get to the wording today. (Mostly leaving a note here in the hopes that the bot doesn't archive this.) SnowyCinema (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Clindberg: Okay, so here's my proposed wording:

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and February 1989, inclusive, without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art after 1977.

Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (70 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macau), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.

Note: For works published after November 1981, this does not apply to untitled motion pictures or other audiovisual works that have a duration of sixty seconds or less, as a copyright notice on the master tape/film leader satisfies notice requirements (37 CFR § 202.2(c)(8)(ii)). Additionally, this does not apply to audiovisual works distributed to the public for private use after November 1981, where there is a copyright notice placed on the permanent housing or container (e.g., VHS case) ((c)(8)(iii)).

The added note at the end about containers was something else I found when looking through the same act of law, which we should probably also mention in Commons:Hirtle chart. Change it up how you'd like. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd probably rather a short note with a link elsewhere, where we can explain it. It's a very small edge case, and is more about notice placement than the copyright rule not applying -- the problem is the fact of "published without notice" in the first place is basically impossible to determine. Just trying to think of the best place to link to, and where to document that stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We could put all that in a noinclude section, so it comes up when you look at the template page, but not when the template is displayed. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

NOAA library confusing rights statement

NOAA's library has an online copy of a book published in 1985 about a series of public artworks at a NOAA facility in Seattle. Their online catalogue says the book is public domain (they weirdly link to the Creative Commons PD-zero "license" instead of just saying "Public domain). But the actual book was published by an alternative press in Seattle in association with NOAA, and it has a clear copyright notice for the publisher (download PDF from the catalogue link above). I'm not sure if I'm missing something here or if the NOAA library staff made a mistake when cataloguing this. I would love for this book to be PD so we can use the photographs, which were made for and first published here, but it doesn't make sense as the book seems to have been a work created for the federal government, not by the federal government. Any thoughts? Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Any work by a Federal government employee can not be copyrighted. The primary text was written by a National Endowment of the Arts employee it would seem, and a couple of the forewords by an NOAA employee. One of the forwards was made by a city government official though, and apparently most of the photographs were also made by a different city employee. (Three pages of photos were by two other people, and their association is not named.) So I would say the bulk of the text is fine, but the photos are not.

There is a clause in the law (17 USC 403) which invalidates a copyright notice if it is partly government work and does not includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title. But, there is a page giving the association of everyone involved in the project (outside of three pages of photographs), and the authors are all named, so that probably qualifies in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

"forwards" => "forewords"? Or something else? "forewords", yes, corrected.

If a Seattle city government employee did this in their working capacity, copyright would probably be administered by the Seattle Municipal Archives, who are very liberal in granting licenses. It would be worth contacting them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly I think the only Seattle government employees involved were those who wrote the forewords; but thank you for this suggestion, because I found several photos of the site in question in the Seattle online archives (unfortunately they didn't photograph the Scott Burton works I was looking for, but they have some great related PD images nonetheless).

I'm still baffled by the NOAA library rights statement - there's even a copyright *registration* for the essay in the book (TX0001715777), registered by the small press that published it. NOAA's library has a whole explainer on their use of the Creative Commons PD-0 mark (which they only apply to works they say are government works), so it was definitely intentional. I emailed them to ask for clarification (maybe the press folded and NOAA bought the copyright just to release it? who knows) but I imagine I might not get a quick reply. 19h00s (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

An unfortunate conclusion (though a very quick one by government standards): The book was mislabeled in the online repository created by NOAA's library. They told me they'll be adjusting the rights statement momentarily.

As disappointing as that is, it's also a perfect example of the kinds of errors we should keep our eyes peeled for when dealing with large amounts of ostensibly PD content found in government sources. Everyone makes mistakes, including government librarians and archivists. 19h00s (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Patricia Fuller is listed as being with the National Endowment of the Arts. It's possible she wrote that on her own time, meaning it could be a work for hire as claimed. If it was written as an employee though, the text should not have been copyrightable. But there are clearly non-federal-government works in there, and the text did get a copyright registration -- unsure if that was granted just because of the foreword, or if the Copyright Office agreed it was a work for hire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wikipedia:File:Liberal Party of Australia logo.svg to be moved to commons under {{PD-text-logo}}?

Take a look at the file, you would see that the logo itself seem to be simply made out of text and shapes. This may be eligible for either uploading it as a free file on Wikipedia or be straight up on commons!

But I may be wrong on that one, so feel free to correct me on that one!

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope! Threshold of originality in Australia is very low. So simple logos that would be PD in the US are copyrighted in Australia, so cannot be uploaded onto Commons. Bidgee (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

So, upload the image as a free file only on Wikipedia's side? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

On en-wiki, yes. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do that GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist: I suggest you use the license en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for English Wikipedia and not Template:PD-logo. The syntax would be {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia}}, and you can use en:Template:Information for the file's description. Use can also add en:Template:Insignia as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist: I posted about this is more detail on your English Wikipedia user talk page, but a PD version of this logo already exists on English Wikipedia; so, your upload just created a redundant file that now needs to be dealt with. There was no reason for you to reupload the same file under a different file name since the licensing of the other file could've simply just be changed to "PD-ineligible-USonly". It looks like another English Wikipedia user did exactly just that after your post and the other comments given above, and nobody seemed to notice the redundancy until after you uploaded your version of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

BOLD Systems image

Here is the image, a moth towards the bottom of the page. Usually a license is specified. This one doesn't. Leave it and don't upload in an abundance of caution or can you see with better clarity what the license is for this image? Rjgalindo (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a license, but you could contact the license holder[1] and ask him to either specify a CC license on the website or to sent an email to the COM:VRT if he's willing to release the image under a CC license. Nakonana (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Ukraine FoP

COM:FOP Ukraine seems to imply that Ukraine's freedom of panorama disallows commercial reuse for publicly displayed creative works, and, thus, photos of such works aren't OK to upload to Commons. Is my understanding of this correct? If this is really the case, I'm wondering how this might apply to a photo such as en:File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, which is currently licensed locally on English Wikipedia as {{PD-UA-exempt}}. The {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} licensing provided for the photo seems fine, but the copyright status of the photographed monument is unclear. Is the monument's design and text simple enough to be ineligible for copyright protection under Ukrainian copyright law? Would it be too simple under US copyright law even if protected in the Ukraine? The latter could help in determining whether to treat the file locally on English Wikipedia as either non-free content or as public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The Commons PD-UA-exempt-template has more bullet points listed than its enwiki version. Maybe the uploader was going for a "below threshold of originality"-rationale per the Commons template? ("photographs not featuring signs of originality (are not photographic works)") Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't notice the difference between the English Wikipedia and Commons versions of that license. However, even with that last bullet point, I'm not sure the Commons version would still be applicable. That bullet point, at least the way I'm reading it, seems to mean that photographs which are merely nothing more than a slavish reproduction (i.e., COM:2D copying) of someone else work aren't in and of themselves eligible for their own copyright protection.

A photo of a 3D work typically is assumed to involve an element of creativity that's sufficient enough to warrant copyright protection for the photograph itself given the various factors the photographer (either consciously or subconsciously) takes into account when taking the photo. If this photo would've been a straight-on photo of just the monument/wall, then such a photo probably could be argued to not be eligible for its own separate copyright protection, but that's not really the case here. The other thing is that the photo that was uploaded is acceptably licensed; so, its licensing isn't really the issue per se. The issue is whether the monument itself, the text on the monument, or both are eligible for copyright protection (in a manner akin to c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs). If none these things are eligible, then this is probably more of a case of {{PD-simple}} than {{PD-UA-exempt}}; if one or more of them are, then photo would be a COM:DW and the copyright of the monument/text itself would matter.

Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this here is that the copyright status of the local file is being discussed on English Wikipedia. One of the participants in that discussion posted that this is (to paraphrase) just a wall with some words in two languages on it. If this assessment is accurate, things are fairly easy to resolve, and the file can be tagged for a move to Commons. If, on the other hand, it's not accurate, then the file's not OK for Commons and probably is also not OK for English Wikipedia (at least as currently licensed) since en:Template:FoP-USonly doesn't seem to apply here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Questionable Japan copyright claim

Hey all. I came across this image from enwiki. Upon seeing the images, they interested me so I clicked on this one - which brought me to Commons where I saw the following:

The current copyright template on the image ({{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}) states the following:

This is when the photograph meets one of the following conditions:

1. It was published before 1 January 1957.
2. It was photographed before 1 January 1947.

I can't see any evidence on this file's infopage specifically that it was published before 1 January 1957 - and given the date of the incident that caused this irradiation (March 1, 1954), it is impossible it was photographed before 1947. The source given was a book published in 1987 - as confirmed by WorldCat for the ISBN referenced. I don't have access to the physical book to confirm, but I'm posting this on the assumption that is the accurate (and earliest) source.

I'm unsure if this image may have been published in another work before 1957 - for full disclosure, other images on the page have other dates and sources (examples: 1 and 2) which claim to be published at a time for which the PD-Japan-oldphoto would apply to them - but this image is a different source from much later. And in any case, if it was published earlier (and thus is eligible for the tag), the source needs updating to reflect that - however, it's almost certain that such a source (if it exists) is going to be a physical copy and likely not digitized, thus difficult to find (at least for me).

I'm posting here to request more eyes - especially from those who are more experienced with Japanese copyright laws and/or may have some better insight into sources from this time that may have published this image before 1957 thus making it PD still (i.e. just needing the source to be updated). I figured better to ask here rather than just starting a deletion discussion - apologies if that would've been better.

Regards, - berch Berchanhimez (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The file name and author parameter in the file description indicate that the photo was published in the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun in 1954. The 1987 book that is named as the source for the photo is seemingly titled "Photojournalism", so I'm guessing it is a book about photos that are used in journalistic works like newspaper. Therefore I'd assume that the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper is probably the original source of the photo and the first place where the photo was published. Nakonana (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The file description infobox has also a "Note" parameter at the bottom that says 増田三次郎は第5福竜丸事件の被害者の1人。毎日新聞社の吉村正治が撮影。 (Google translate: "Sanjiro Masuda was one of the victims of the Lucky Dragon Nr. 5 incident. Photographed by Masaharu Yoshimura of the Mainichi Shimbun.") so that confirms that the newspaper is the original source rather than the 1987 book. Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw that too, but if it was actually published in the newspaper at that time, then the source should be updated to reflect that - ideally with details of the publication (such as at least the date it was published in the paper). As of right now the "Source" parameter just gives the paper as the source but doesn't confirm it was actually published in the paper in 1954. Failing that, I believe COM:PRP may come into play - as it's possible this was an image taken by a photojournalist but not actually published at the time. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This news website also sources the photo to Mainichi Shimbun. Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The original appearance in Mainichi Shimbun should be mentioned in the description and/or permissions section of {{Information}} but unless you had your hands on a copy of it (or at least a reliable online scan of it), it is not your source, it is your source's source, or maybe even further levels of indirection. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Technically it is already mentioned in the Information template (in the "Note" parameter at the bottom in Japanese), I quoted it above. Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Portal (sculptures)

I took the liberty to contact the people behind the famous art installation of modern era, through the contact form at their official website.

Very soon, I got a decent response from them. The response reads (with some redactions by me):

Hi <redacted>,

Thanks for reaching out.

Yes, Portals are copyrighted works of art, but we are generally fine with people sharing images of them for non-commercial use, including on Wikimedia Commons.

If you have any further questions, just let me know.

Best,
<redacted>

Apparently, Portals are copyrighted artworks and people can only share the images for non-commercial use. Perhaps understandable, considering that the team behind the Portals is based in Lithuania, where free use of public landmarks is not allowed.

Two of the Portals are in Ireland and Poland, both permitting Commons-suitable FoP (COM:FOP Ireland and COM:FOP Poland). The other two at the moment are located in Lithuania and in the United States, both not providing full FoP especially for public art.

Anyway, in response, I have suggested them of sending correspondence to COM:VRTS so that the VRT can validate the permission. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The limited noncommercial license they're offering wouldn't be sufficient for Commons anyway. Probably not worth engaging further unless they've indicated they're willing to offer a more permissive license. Omphalographer (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I also have doubts about the copyrightability of these as sculptures vs. useful objects under various countries' ToO standards (what are they if not just utilitarian, circular video screens with a camera?). Though the footage captured by the Portals and livestreamed onto the screen seems copyrightable in the US to me based on all the other recent discussions about "automatic" works of video (a person installed the Portals and chose the framing, the videos are not free of human creativity). 19h00s (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@19h00s@Omphalographer at the very least, the images of the New York Portal focusing on the front screen at Category:New York–Dublin Portal must be nomimated for deletion, due to both no Freedom of Panorama for non-architectural works and the possible ToO on the video footage itself. Category:United States FOP cases/deleted shows that images of Chicago's Crown Fountain were also removed in the past, though Crown Fountain case was in the form of video projections. But still, US FoP does not extend to creative video projections and video footages permanently exhibited in public spaces. The same will be treated to the Lithuanian copy of the Portal. There are no images of Vilnius Portal as of the moment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Crown Fountain is a rather different case; the video projection in that work is a fixed set of prerecorded videos deliberately created as part of the sculpture, whereas the projections in Portal are a live stream from the "other side", not a work created by the artist. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The livestreams aren't copyrightable. They operate as a fixed camera without human intervention, like a cctv. Also they aren't recorded, making them unfixed works under copyright law. (Yes I'm aware that on some level someone is or could be recording them but this is not the same thing as the artist themself doing so) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun copyright

Looking for some confirmation on the PD status of an issue of the Baltimore Sun. A comment by @999real on the main VP sparked this for me. Seems like the Baltimore Sun didn't add notices to their print newspapers throughout most of the 20th century. I was hoping to use a photograph from the December 7, 1986 issue - there's no notice that I can find in the digitized newspaper on Newspapers.com (I have access via Wiki Library), and I didn't find any renewal or registration for this date of the paper or under the photographer's name. Am I good to assume it's PD? I just wanted to double check as this is a pretty recent work that originates with a media company with a vested interested in preserving their own IP, wasn't sure if I was missing something right in front of me. Specifically looking to use the photograph of artist Scott Burton published for the first time on this page of the paper. 19h00s (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Took a look at all the files in the Baltimore Sun categories, seems like my assumptions are correct. Thanks 999real for the comment that showed me this! 19h00s (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Virginia National Guard

Hello! Wanted to get some other thoughts on these Flickr posts by the Virginia National Guard. They are tagged with a CC-BY-NC license. They're from the Virginia Guard Public Affairs, but that is just the "command information, media relations and community relations support for the Virginia National Guard".

But as works of the National Guard wouldn't we consider them public domain? What do people think? The images in here would be very useful for documenting the recent inauguration of Abigail Spanberger as Virginia's Governor. SDudley (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sanity check on La Grande Voile by Alexander Calder (1965).

Recently I took a few photos of the sculpture en:La Grande Voile (The Big Sail) by en:Alexander Calder in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I see that there are a few photographs of it already on Commons, but when I search for copyright status, I see "fair use" and copyright claims to Alexander Calder or the Artists Right Society and so I feel a bit cautious about uploading my photographs. Anything actually solid about whether it is public domain by formalities, or still under copyright by the estate of Calder. Abzeronow (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright for publicity photo

How do I fill in the copyright information for a publicity photo given to me by an actor who is the subject of the actor's wikipedia article I am updating. The photo was commissioned by the actor from a professional photographer whose business it is to create these portraits for a fee. It has not, so far, been published anywhere. The actor owns the copyright. Professional film actors freely provide such photos to be used wherever they can be published> MarthaAnsara (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have not exactly answered my own question -- but I decided to look at the images of other actors on their wikipedia pages, and I see that ALL are taken from sources published on the internet and NONE are their own publicity shots. So -- I think I can assume that this is the protocol. I now know where to look for an image. The image that I uploaded will in due course be deleted. MarthaAnsara (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons!

Files have to be Freely licensed, meaning that they ensure anyone can use them for any purpose. This typically (though not always) means that they are licensed under a Creative Commons License, as they are very user/licensee friendly (more info here and here). We here at Wikimedia Commons cannot accept most publicity photos, as we need to ensure that this photo is free for any purpose, not just on one English Wikipedia page.

If the actor who supplied you this photo is willing to re-license it, you can contact the Volunteer Response Team with relevant proof. Cawfeecrow (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You also might find it useful to read COM:THIRD. In particular, if you are going to solicit content from third parties, reading that will help you have your ducks in a row so you do not waste that person's time. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright Question Austrian Fire Departements

Hi can i upload the Badge of the Volunteer Fire Departements of Austria? Im not sure if its Open source But it should be the same License as any other Official Badges like the Bundesadler or the Badge of the Police should it?

This is a Link to the official Describtion

Here you can Download it StVeit Maps (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Those are not government departments like police, are they? Going by the PDF file you linked, there may be restrictions regarding commercial use, which would mean that they cannot be uploaded to Commons (quote from the PDF: Für die kommerzielle Nutzung der Korpsabzeichen gelten die aktuellen Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen des ÖBFV Generalsekretariats zur kommerziellen Nutzung des Korpsabzeichens). Though a little further down the PDF it seems like those commercial use restrictions are rather a matter of trade mark rules than copyright rules, which would mean that the badges can be uploaded on Commons. We'd need to know what exactly the Terms of Use say regarding commercial use of the badges. Nakonana (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you create specific license tags describing the situations below?

The file is public domain in the United States, but available under a free license in the source country (and vice-versa). The Australian aboriginal flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg) would be one example. It is available under a free license in Australia but it is ineligible for copyright in the United States. The same thing would occur with the logo of the Australian Greens (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AustralianGreensLogo_official.svg). Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, create a personalizable, customable tag for situations involving non-US works where the copyright tags are different. It could be PD-US but CC-BY in the source country, and vice versa. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not understanding what you are asking for, but I don't see the reason to create a single license tag for these situations. The current setup for these situations is just have separate license tags, one for the source country and one for the United States, just like in File:AustralianGreensLogo official.svg. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It was me who put these two tags in the (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AustralianGreensLogo_official.svg). I tried to do the same on (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg) in the past, but it was reverted by another user. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

My guess would be that someone did not understand just how low the threshold of originality is in Australia. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Australia's threshold of originality is low. I already knew that. But what I meant is that I want a single tag for works under different free licenses in other countries, but public domain in the US (and vice versa). Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Just not needed. It would create hundreds of superfluous tags. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Faroe Islands copyright for photos and the URAA

COM:Faroe Islands states that photographic works are eligible for copyright protection for 50 years after creation, but it makes no mention of a URAA date in the infobox for that page. COM:Faroe Islands#Background states that the islands are an autonomous country of the Kingdom of Denmark but the 2014 Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright laws doesn't apply to the Faroes. Does this mean that photos taken in the Faroes have no URAA date or does it use Denmarks's date by default? The reason I'm curious about this is because there's a photo on page 32 (Mynd 4) of this 2019 publication of some Faroese fishermen doing some counting of cod tongues, and I'm trying to help sort out the copyright status of the photo. The photo was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content but was deleted for not being in compliance with English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If the photo has already entered into the public domain under Faroese copyright law, then it might be OK for Commons depending on US copyright law. The photo is attributed to "Tjóðsavnið" which is the en:National Museum of the Faroe Islands, but there's no more information provided about the photo. Perhaps the photo is part of the museum's permanent exibition. Based on the discussion over on English Wikipedia, this cod tongue counting practice has been obsolete since 1958; so, I the photo might've been take prior to 1959. The Commons page about the Faroe Islands doesn't seem to make any distinction between works with a known author and anonymous works when it comes to photographs. It also doesn't seem to make a distinction between creation and publication. Does anyone have any ideas on how to assess the copyright status of a photo like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

URAA has nothing to do with Faroe Islands or any other country. It is a very specious USA law. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Commons requires something be PD in both its country of first publication and the US per COM:PUBLISH for it to be OK to host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I was notified about this because I'm from Denmark. Even if the Faroe Islands is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark I do not speak the language. But as I understand it since Faroe Islands is not a country of it own therefore the US treat the Faroe Islands as a part of Denmark in relation to the URAA date. So the photo is most likely PD in the Faroe Islands because it is taken before 1958 but there is a risk it is copyrighted in the US because of URAA. --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I kind of feel the same way, and a photo would need to have been taken prior to January 1, 1945, for it to be PD in the US if Denmark's URAA is applicable, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly yes. Unless it is possible to find a loop hole if published in the US but not renewed. It's been a while since I checked the URAA rules in details because in most cases there are no proof of publication in the US etc. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be much other useful information about the image in the article (mynd 1 on the previous page is from 1793 and should therefore be safer, if it's of any use). So my best bet would be contacting the museum about photographer and date. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office Circular on International Copyright Relations of the United States does not mention the Faroe Islands. However, Denmark joined the Berne Convention in 1903, before any independence of the Islands, and unless they have repudiated that, it would still be be binding on them, meaning that they had copyright relations with the US on 1/1/1996, and thus that would be their URAA date.

Basically if a country had signed the Berne Convention or joined the WTO before 1996, their URAA date is going to be 1/1/1996. If not, it's generally going to be the day they signed the Berne Convention or joined the WTO or had a bilateral proclamation (Vietnam, Dec. 23, 1998).--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

How many copyright violations here come from Spanish-speaking countries?

Spanish Wikipedia doesn't allow local files at all, and any file used there must be hosted here. I guess it's very common. Just for curiosity. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't noticed an unusual amount of copyvios from eswiki. Certainly not more than enwiki, which does allow local files but people mistakenly copy fair use files from there to here. Abzeronow (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

South Korea FOP

User:JWilz12345 has nominated a number of photos of Korean buildings for deletion (see Category:South Korean FOP cases/pending) on the basis that "There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea." So on that basis, won't most photos in Category:Museums in South Korea and Category:Buildings in South Korea by location be deleted? Is that policy even correct and being properly applied? How do South Korean media organisations publish or broadcast anything in public then? Is it useful that we would have almost no photos of buildings in Korea? Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist South Korean media and broadcasters are allowed to publish buildings without architects' permissions due to Article 26 of their copyright law: In cases of reporting current events by means of broadcasts or newspapers, or by other means, it shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute, perform publicly, transmit publicly a work seen or heard in the relevant courses, to the extent justified by the reporting purpose.

Wikimedia Commons, however, is not a broadcasting organization or an information service provider. It is a media repository and archive where all content must be free for commercial reuses, in accordance with Commons:Licensing. The Korean copyright law's FoP rule is simply against this freedom. To quote in full Article 35(1 and 2), with underlined parts for emphasis of FoP rule:

Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.
(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the exterior of a building, or other places open to the public, the same shall not apply.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced and used by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:
1. Where a building is reproduced into another building;
2. Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1);
4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.

Many of the permitted licenses on Wikimedia Commons do not allow restrictions to commercial reuses, such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and {{Cc-zero}}. Due to the prohibition of commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea, Wikimedia Commons cannot host images of recent art and architecture (whose designers have not yet died for more than 70 years) from that country. Simply put, South Korean FoP under their law is not compatible with COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist additionally, thousands of images from South Korea have been deleted in the past. You can see the closed deletion requests at Category:South Korean FOP cases/deleted. So for your final question, "is it useful that we would have almost no photos of buildings in Korea?" Yes and no:

No, because there will still be a couple of images of very old Korean buildings (temples and ancient Korean gates for example), even if it will inevitably misrepresent our coverage of that supposedly-democratic country. Furthermore, cityscape images where buildings and statues/monuments are incidental (de minimis, in accordance with COM:DM South Korea) are fine and can stay here. No contemporary South Korean landmark must be the main focus.

Yes, because Wikimedia Commons should only host media that does not infringe copyrights of architects (and also, sculptors and street artists or muralists). COM:PCP policy means we must aim to reduce takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters from the artwork designers, if not totally eliminate. Proactive vs. reactive. Commons has tolerated (since late 2000s) having no high quality images of Louvre Pyramid from France, Burj Khalifa from U.A.E., and Malacañan Palace (the Presidential Palace) from the Philippines.

Note that I intentionally added "supposedly-democratic", because the Korean democracy – as far as my hunch as a WikiCommoner is concerned – does not extend to the rights of content creators, consumers, and professionals. This can be inferred from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09#South Korean state media may be free content now but login required, concerning the "public" release of alleged freely-usable media from their state media but login is still required for access, with one commenter in that Village pump forum remarking, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

So you are saying that a building is a "work of art"? In that case Art 35(2) clearly applies and any building "exhibited at all times at an open place... may be reproduced and used by any means." Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist you forgot the fourth restriction. The free use "by any means" no longer applies if "the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Photography is a method of reproducing buildings and artworks. The law is clear that there is no exception for commercial exploitations of images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Posting images on Commons is not "for the purpose of selling its copies" If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist and you've said it: "If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright." Allowing images for non-commercial use only is against COM:Licensing policy. Non-commercial licenses are perpetually forbidden here. In fact, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and many others are commercial-type licenses. Restrictions on commercial reuses are not allowed under CCBYSA, CCBY, CCzero, and PD terms. South Korean FoP is simply incompatible with COM:L, so modern buildings and monuments from that country are not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

So we can't have pictures of modern Korean buildings solely because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially? That seems to be completely opposed to the foundational policy of usefulness of images. Why can't we create non-commercial licenses? There is nothing stopping us from doing so. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Because non-commercial licences do not meet the definition of free content, and per the official description of the project, Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content, not a repository of useful content. Allowing non-commercial licences would go against the intention of the project, even if such a change is well-intentioned and has merit on the basis of being helpful for Commons' users. Greviances are better placed on South Korean law, rather than Commons, because Commons hasn't done anything wrong, it is South Korea that is the problem here. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 06:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially? @Mztourist: with due respect, I believe you are confused. This is not about what "Wikimedia users" may do.

Commons has a specific role assigned to it by the Wikimedia Foundation. We specifically host content that, with regard to copyright, may be freely used by anyone (including commercially), in any manner (including derivative works), as long as they conform to an available license. (Aside: this is specifically about copyright: many images may have their use limited in one or another country by personality rights, trademarks, etc.). Unlike any other WMF project, Commons is not free to establish an meta:Exemption Doctrine Policy that would allow exceptions to this. We simply are not allowed, as part of our charter, to host such images. This policy is not a matter of law (we could legally host such images) but, on the other hand, it is not an internal Commons policy that we could change: it is part of the basis on which Commons is funded and hosted by the WMF. Pictures of recent buildings in Korea (or France, or Romania) can conform to this criterion only by getting an additional "free license" from the architect. - Jmabel ! talk 06:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikimedia Project Scope, its states: "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." I don't see any mention of commercial there. Further down is a section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". So given the educational purpose it seems contradictory that under the Non-allowable license terms it states "The following licensing terms are not allowed: Non-commercial or educational use only." How is that in compliance with the main aim? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

These photos are not freely-licensed even if the photographer gives a free license to their creative work, there is still the copyright of the architect, who also needs to release the work under a free license to make the photo really free. GPSLeo (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist don't look at just one aspect of COM:SCOPE. Another aspect (which is one section higher than "educational purpose", therefore more important to consider) is Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain, specifically (with underlined passages for emphases):

Required licensing terms
To be considered freely licensed, the copyright owner has to release the file under an irrevocable licence which:
- Permits free reuse for any purpose, including commercial.
- Permits the creation of derivative works.
Non-allowable licence terms
The following licensing terms are not allowed:
- Non-commercial or educational use only.
- Restrictions on the creation of derivative works, except for copyleft.
- A requirement for payment or for notification of use; these can be requested but not required.
- Restrictions on where the work may be used, e.g. use allowed on Wikipedia only.
Licences with these restrictions are allowed as long as the work is dual-licensed or multi-licensed with at least one licensing option that does not include such a restriction.
"Licences" which purport to allow fair use only are not allowed. Fair use is not a right that can be licensed by a copyright owner, and is in any event never accepted on Commons.

That's why the South Korean rule on free use of public landmarks is against both COM:Licensing and COM:SCOPE. This Commons perspective will remain unchanged until South Korean government changes their mind and become more open to digital, I.T., and new media era where everyone can exploit public landmarks even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Still falls under Aims which refers to education, with no reference to commercial use. Its educational to have photos of modern Korean buildings for use on WP pages, other Foundation projects and just for public knowledge. Instead by requiring that images must be commercially exploitable, we are, by our own policies, undermining education. Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist read again Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. A file should not only be usable for educational purpose; it must also be usable for commercial purpose. How many times will I repeat that "non-commercial or educational use only" (as listed among non-allowable license terms under "COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain") content is not allowed here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat it. I am raising a bigger question of why if this is an educational project we impose policies that limit education because commerce isn't served? Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

We are not even save that no court would consider our project an commercially as we ask for donations and sell merchandise. There are interpretations of non commercial they reduce non commercial basically to personal use only. GPSLeo (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really relevant unless the merchandise incorporates picture(s) of modern Korean buildings. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Four experienced users here, two of us admins, have now told you essentially the same thing, but you keep telling us that the mandate of our site is not the mandate of our site. At some point, you either have to abide by a clear consensus, or decide that this is not the site for your work. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither you, nor anyone else has explained why the policy contradicts the stated educational Aim of this site, just that the policy must be obeyed. How am I not abiding by consensus in raising this? Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There are many educational things that are not included in the scope of Commons. Among them are original, previously unpublished academic papers; academic classes; user-written encyclopedia articles of the sort found in Wikipedia; and works that are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed (where the latter is defined to include allowing for commercial re-use) either in their country of origin or in the United States. The fact that something has educational value is not sufficient to place it in Commons's scope.

Some aspects of Commons' scope are negotiable: the degree to which we allow AI-generated or AI-enhanced works, the degree to which we host previously published text articles, the degree to which we host archives of websites that fall within our requirements for free-licensing. Other parts are basically not, and you are hitting upon one of the least negotiable, mainly because, as I wrote above, Commons charter from the WMF does not allow Commons to have an Exemption Doctrine Policy. The norm for WMF sites is to host only public-domain and free-licensed materials. Other sites are allowed to make certain limited exceptions under an approved policy. Commons literally does not have that option. What you are asking is like asking why the vegan restaurant won't serve cow's milk, or eggs, or maybe some fish. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The point I am making is that nothing in Korean copyright law prevents Commons from hosting pictures of modern Korean buildings, only Commons' policy prevents that by insisting that images must be able to be sold. That does not serve education, so maybe the policy needs to be changed. Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Allowing NonCommercial was discussed in 2019 at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/08#Proposal to introduce Non-Commercial media on Wikimedia Commons, you can see the community strongly opposed it; the reasons why and the links provided (e.g. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC) might help to further explain why why Commons doesn't allow NC. Like any policy, though, if you don't agree with it, you can propose changing it at COM:Village pump/Proposals. -Consigned (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Have you had a chance to review COM:LJ?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it contradicts the educational aim. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist no, it actually reinforces the aim for freely accessible educational content. Non-commercial licensing impedes the freedom to distribute, sell, and publish educational materials. Furthermore, in their 2022 policy guide, Creative Commons suggested the "exercise freedom of panorama" as one of the "minimum necessary exceptions for the Cultural Heritage Institutions and Their Users". GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) benefit from commercial Freedom of Panorama of outdoor works as well as building exteriors by the freedom to exhibit or publish images of contemporary monuments and buildings without any restrictions, further benefitting the mission of GLAMs to provide educational content on the architectural and sculptural heritages of their respective countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There it is "sell". Nothing in Korean copyright law prevents Commons from hosting images of modern Korean buildings, only Commons' rules prevent that by insisting that images must be able to be sold. That's not educational. Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist I'll reiterate again that "educational" is just one aim under COM:SCOPE. The another (and more important) aim is freely-licensed or public domain material. "For educational purpose only" material is against the mission of WikiCommons to provide media content "that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose" in accordance with COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

for such countries, ultimately as photographers we have only 2 options:

1. upload here; let them be deleted, and then in future be undeleted and rediscovered (when the photographed objects' copyrights no longer apply).
2. upload to websites like flickr.com .

RoyZuo (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, once battery technology becomes sufficiently advanced enough, as Commons contributors we can travel to North Korea, fly a drone over the DMZ, and photograph buildings in South Korea that way. Because you are physically standing in North Korea while you are controlling the drone, North Korean law applies, and North Korean FOP is more liberal than South Korea. Seoul is only 60 kilometres from the DMZ, and I have flown my DJI Mavic 4 in a straight line for 8 kilometres without any problems, so we're nearly there. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 14:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this strategy will fly very far (pun intended). The FoP laws were designed without thinking of drones, and may have to be updated. But the copyright should be decided by where is the camera, not where is the drone controller. For Mztourist defense, I think that that law is weirdly worded. Yann (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann or the FoP rule was meant to be worded that way, and Wikimedia Korea chapter should have a very convincing argument about why a commercial outdoor FoP in Korea (similar to Belgian or German models) or at least unrestricted architectural FoP (similar to American, Taiwanese, and Russian models) would be good for the dissemination of cultural heritage of their country, especially on foreign-hosted sites that are seen as "competitors" of South Korean ones. As I can infer from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09#South Korean state media may be free content now but login required, the South Korean establishments and authorities do not appear to be open ("genuine openness") to the free licensing concept. The SoKor online community has a direct "competitor" of Wikipedia, Namuwiki (enWiki article: w:en:Namuwiki), which draws more Internet traffic than KoWiki (despite having lesser quality control over their content), and is under a non-commercial CCBYNCSA licensing. SoKor politicians prioritize more on curating their entries on NamuWiki than either Kowiki or EnWiki. Connecting these dots, I have inferred that SoKor, in general, is unwilling to be submitted under free culture movement being advocated by the Wikimedia and Wikipedia communities. I can bet that within five years the non-commercial SoKor FoP will remain, even towards 2030s. It's only a miracle if the SoKor society suddenly embraces the free culture and free licensing, and follows (at the very least) the partial (architectural) FoP identical to the FoP rules of Denmark, Finland, Japan, Malawi, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, and the United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Do also note that there is a mention of an existing casefile concerning commercial use of buildings at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea#Add example of FOP?. Though according to @Nuevo Paso: (citing Beomnyul Sinmun), the case never concluded in court and was settled out of court, although in the first trial the architect lost because the advertiser only used a small part of the building in their commercial ad (here is the video of the incrimimated ad). The small inclusion in the video may be covered under Article 35-3 (apparently a later amendment of the SoKor law since it used the original numbering of the non-commercial FoP and artwork exhibition clause): "A work seen or heard in the courses of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), where it is incidentally included in the main object of shooting, etc., may be reproduced, distributed, performed in public, displayed, or publicly transmited. That where it unreasonably prejudices the interest of the holder of author's economic right in light of the type and nature of the used work, the purpose and character of use, etc, the same shall not apply." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I was responding to Benlisquare about used of drones to circumvent the limitation. I don't dispute the interpretation. May be this wording is usual legalese text, or due to language and translation, or both. Yann (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann it's my take on your comment "I think that that law is weirdly worded." For me, while initially "weird" for me (considering that the democratic R.O.K. does not grant liberal FoP unlike the dictatorial D.P.R.K.), I eventually understood that it may be normal after all. Not weird, just expected. SoKor, in general, isn't generally open to free culture movement. If they were, they would had allowed free exploitations of their architecture even for selling copies of images of those (just like in USA, Russia, Japan, and Taiwan). They would also had only authorized one type of {{KOGL}} (the present Type 1), and namuWiki would have been CCBYSA-licensed. But no, it seems normal to place commercial restrictions there. Even their state media website, which allegedly contains freely-licensed content, can only be accessed by logging in. As one commenter in the state media topic once said, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." I do not expect SoKor liberating their FoP anytime soon, at least within the next 5 years, except if there is a "miracle" more elaborate than the events at the w:en:Miracle in Cell No. 7. This time, "justice" for Wikimedia Korea peeps and free culture advocates there in South Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about South Korea, but in France, absence of FoP is mostly due to strong lobbying by architects and artists' organizations (ADAGP, etc.). Yann (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Please move threads like this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, which is the discussion boards for topics exactly like this one. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved here from Commons:Village pump#South Korea FOP.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

(Replying to a comment far above by JWilz12345, unindenting for readability) "Photography is a method of reproducing buildings and artworks." - can this statement be backed up with sources? I was under the impression that a reproduction (or a copy) of a building must be another building in this context, while a reproduction of a 2D painting can be a photograph. whym (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Whym similar logic when we draw or make a painting of a building or sculpture, we are reproducing these through mechanical reproduction. Reproduction or replication of buildings, sculptures, and monuments in two dimensions. This is backed by Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017). It all boils down to the humble German origins of Panoramafreiheit in the 1870s in the German Confederation (now Germany).

Mechanical reproductions - photography, lithography, and industrial presses - were introduced in the mid-19th century, and this meant easier access for anyone to copy anything, even if those were not their creations. To quote from Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017), with underlined words for emphases:

To paraphrase Walter Benjamin, the work of arts came to the "age of mechanical reproduction": new techniques, such as photography, industrial presses or lithography lifted significant restraints to replications.

France immediately enacted measures to restrict photography, but mainly for privacy reasons. Italy also enacted anti-photography measures in belief that reproduction of their ancient archaeological sites through photography is a disrespect to their cultural heritage. We should not be surprised by the attitudes of Franco-Italian regimes towards photography going forward, and the resistance to Freedom of Panorama. In contrast, Germans embraced photography. The Kingdom (now State) of Bavaria introduced the earliest Panoramafreiheit rule in 1840. To quote from Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017), with underlined words for emphases:

German law was at the time a complex by-product of confederate agreements and, still, widely autonomous small states. In 1837, the German Confederation approved a new author right disposition against reproductions ("gegen den Nachdruck"). As was the use at the time, it made a special case of mechanical reproduction ("auf mechanischem Wege"). The reform aimed to establish a common standard on copyright law within the Confederation (with a minimal protection length of 10 years).

Several members of the German Confederation quickly attempted to soften some aspects of this stricter legal frameworks — a process somewhat analogous to the subsidiarity principle in the contemporary EU. Three years later, in 1840, the Kingdom of Bavaria edicted the very first "freedom of panorama": an exception to this general rule regarding the "work of arts and architecture in their exterior contours" situated in a public space (quoted in Chirco, 2013).

Other German kingdoms imitated, until the Confederation finally enacted a harmonized FoP rule in 1876 based on Bavarian model, and this is inherited in today's German FoP model. Germany, in effect, is the birthplace of this crucial legal right for Wikimedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Re @Whym: It comes down to COM:Derivative works - a photo of a building is a derivative work of that building. Consigned (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

German FOP

I took two photos at a Berlin U-Bahn station.

1) Someone tried to immortalize themselves overnight on the tiled walls with a large signature. This 'artwork' consists only of black lettering. Does this reach the threshold of originality?

2) I also photographed a U-Bahn carriage covered in graffiti (which definitely reaches the threshold of originality). Since this is a mobile object, to what extent does copyright protection apply here? I would like to publish both files on Wikimedia Commons.

Regards Lukas Beck (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

1) The U-Bahn station (and its tiled walls) itself is/are protected by copyright because German FoP only applies to outdoor spaces and excludes indoors. So, if the U-Bahn station is underground, it's indoors, and its architecture is under copyright and we can't host images of the station (unless, maybe if the architectural element in question is below the threshold of originality). As for the signature/graffiti, it might depend on how artistic the font/lettering is.

2) Photos of buses and airplanes that prominently feature copyright protected artwork (for example, advertisements, or characters from Star Wars/Pokémon etc.) are usually being deleted on Commons for being derivative works of the copyright protected artwork. Nakonana (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the Berlin U-Bahn stations are out of copyright by now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject but it looks like there were major expansions to the network starting in the 1930s and then after the war in 1953, so the last big expansion happened only 73 years ago. With Germany's copyright protection duration of 70 years after the death of the author, all involved architects had to die between 1953 and 1955 for the post-1953 stations to be in the public domain. Generally speaking, even the 1930s are a rather recent creation date, but given that there was WW2 and that the architects of that time were mostly male there's indeed a rather high-ish chance that they didn't live past 1955. Really not sure about the post-1953 stations though. Nakonana (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lukas: railway and subway stations are actually a contentious point when speaking about FOP, the legal commentary seems to be rather split on the question of applicability of that statute of limitation, cf. de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“, second from last paragraph. On the other hand, there's the Kussmund-Urteil from the Federal High Court / BGH (COM:FOP Germany#Permanent), which certainly allows the recourse on FOP for vehicle liveries. Graffiti could be deemed as permanent in regard to FOP, as it stays on the vehicle for an indeterminate amount of time, but I don't think that especially advertising liveries are regularly permanently affixed to the vehicle (that's evidently true for ads for time-limited events like movie or fair premieres, and somewhat contentious for e.g. a Märklin fullbody artwork on a de:DB-Baureihe 101 loco, the latter example may constitute a borderline for applying FOP here).

@Nakonana: The issue with Pokémon and Star Wars is that lots of (mostly) planes with such liveries aren't underway around Germany, but only in countries with not enough FOP (especially Taiwan, China, Japan and USA). I only recall seeing two Pokémon Jets that were shot in FRA (one and two), in fact using them as example for keepable images in other FOP cases to prove any individual wrong when somebody argues that en:Pokémon Jet cannot be illustrated otherwise. As far as I know, only Germany has a solid ruling that FOP is applicable to vehicles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

About Template:Artwork

I would like to ask whether, aside from ancient Chinese calligraphy and paintings, ancient Chinese bronzes, porcelain, pottery, lacquerware, books, inscribed stone tablets and inscribed stone steles also use "Template:Artwork" to mark the copyright and information? Huangdan2060 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Huangdan2060: It is almost always acceptable to use {{Artwork}} or {{Art Photo}} where they may be useful. It is rarely (maybe never?) required. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Huangdan2060 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Two questions about license and pd-textlogo

The en:Norwegian Ski Federation has a "media bank" on their web page, one of the galleries is labeled «Fritt for kommersiell bruk v. kreditering» – translated: «Free for commercial use with credit». Does this comply with either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license?

The same federation changed their logo a couple of years ago, with a much more simplified design than the old one which can be seen in the en-Wiki infobox (which is legal at en-Wiki as a non-free logo, but not legal at Commons). The new logo is however of a more generic and geometric design: logo & logo with name. Will one or both of these comply with {{PD-textlogo}}?

Thanks in advance! 1000mm (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@1000mm: «Fritt for kommersiell bruk v. kreditering» would be {{Attribution}}, which is acceptable, but you cannot magically turn it into {{CC-BY}}. The only way to have {{CC-BY}} is for it to be explicitly granted by the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I find image licensing and all the variants a bit hard and confusing, so I feel it’s better to ask for advice before I upload anything where I’m not 100 % certain. Then I will use {{Attribution}} if I upload any of the images. Just need to identify some of the athletes and check if they already have a photo in the infobox. :-) And I better not upload the logo then. 1000mm (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Logo looks complicated enough to be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Lyrics of AI-generated music

File:We Are Charlie Kirk - SPALEXMA.wav is asserted to be in the public domain because the audio is presumably AI-generated. But if the song lyrics are not completely AI-generated (which seems plausible to me), wouldn't that make the file copyrighted? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Additions of Czech literati

In 2017, User:Filons uploaded a number of high quality images from the 70s and 80s of several Czech literati under a CC license and described as the user's own work. I suspect that this is not the case, but I am uncertain how to proceed. Does the burden of proof fall on the flagging editor or the uploader as to whether a piece is theirs or not? If it falls on the editor, if my hunch is correct, is there a way to correct the copyright vio en masse? ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The burden of proof always lies on the uploader. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)