Commons:Village pump/Copyright
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.
- 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.
- Have you read the FAQ?
- 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).
- 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.
- Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
Copyright status and licensing path for Kovno Ghetto photographs of Avram and Emanuel Rosenthal
[edit]Hello,
I am preparing an English Wikipedia draft about Avram / Avraham and Emanuel Rosenthal / Rozental, two Jewish children photographed in the Kovno Ghetto shortly before the March 1944 Children's Action.
I would like advice before uploading any files to Commons. I am not the copyright holder and I do not want to upload archival images unless the copyright status or permission path is clear.
The photographs I am trying to evaluate are:
- Avram and Emanuel Rosenthal in the Kovno Ghetto, February 1944. USHMM collection record PA1035323: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1035323
- The related Yad Vashem photo record 4789/1: https://collections.yadvashem.org/api/Names/GetSingleFullDetails?id=52262&lang=en&source=Photos
- Shraga Wainer in the Kovno Ghetto, USHMM collection record PA1037634: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1037634
- Kovno Ghetto Jewish police group with Elchanan Rosental identified, USHMM collection record PA1037636: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1037636
The photographer is generally identified as George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin. The photographs were taken in the Kovno Ghetto, Lithuania, around 1942-1944. The current online copies are held by institutions such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Yad Vashem. Some records credit the photograph to George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin or his collection.
My questions are:
- Is there any plausible public-domain basis for Commons upload for these photographs, considering the date, photographer, location, later publication history, and possible United States / Lithuanian / Israeli copyright issues?
- If George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin is the photographer, would Commons require permission from his estate / rights holder rather than from USHMM or Yad Vashem as holding institutions?
- If USHMM or Yad Vashem can only provide publication approval for a specific article, but not a free license such as CC BY-SA 4.0 / CC BY 4.0 / CC0, am I correct that the images should not be uploaded to Commons?
- If the images are not Commons-compatible, would the safest route be to keep only external links in the Draft article, and later consider one local non-free image on English Wikipedia only after the article is accepted into mainspace?
- Is there any existing Commons precedent for George Kadish / Zvi Kadushin Kovno Ghetto photographs that would clarify the correct licensing approach?
I have already contacted Wikimedia VRT, and they suggested asking this question here. I would appreciate guidance on the correct Commons approach before taking any upload action.
Thank you. Markas.krasovskis (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- (1) it depends; (2) if the rights weren't transferred, answer is "yes", otherwise permission from institution is required; (3) yes; (4) yes; (5) I don't know. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- The text in the first link clearly identifies George Kadish as the photographer. Zvi Kadushin might own copies of the photo but that wouldn't make him the copyright holder in most cases. So, assuming that George Kadish is the copyright holder, things get tricky for Commons because he lived until 1997 and most countries offer copyright protection for the duration of the photographer's life plus another 70 years after the photographer's death. To my knowledge, this is the case for all countries of the European Union (with some exceptions for "simple photos" here and there), and Lithuania is a EU member and the country of origin here. PD status is extremely unlikely, I'd say, and the safest route would be to seek permission / clarification regarding the copyright holder. Nakonana (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also, Zvi Kadishin might actually be something like a pseudonym of George Kadish going by the wiki article and Wikidata entry.
- And we have a photo by George Kadish on Commons: File:Workshop in the Kovno Ghetto.jpg. The source website of this photo says, that this photo is in public domain (but not sure on what grounds exactly). Nakonana (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would contact the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and ask them if Zvi Kadishin has released all his images into the public domain. --RAN (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Environment and Climate Change Canada Data Servers End-use Licence
[edit]Hi, I was looking to upload an image generated with MSC AniMet, but ran into some confusion with the license. The underlying data products (in this case GDPS) uses something called the Environment and Climate Change Canada Data Servers End-use Licence, version 2.1. It appears to be the same as Template:OGL-C, with two modifications. Section 3 provides additional guidance on how to attribute multiple sources along with Environment and Climate Change Canada, without changing the terms. The more significant change is in section 2 (changes in bold):
2. You are free to: Copy, modify (see note), publish, translate, adapt (see note), distribute or otherwise use (see note) the Information in any medium, mode or format for any lawful purpose. Note: In the case of weather alerts (i.e. watches/warnings), any information shall be reproduced in such a way that there is no alteration of the content or intent of the alert.
Searching the village pump archives, the only relevant topic I saw mentioned was regarding moral rights, and that the added clause may fall under that, but I'm unsure if this qualifies as a free licence. Thanks! Racer J77 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- It strikes me as a naïve modification, very poorly drafted and ultimately counterproductive. They probably mean well, but the implementation leads to considerable ambiguity, not to mention that it cedes many of the benefits of standardization. I think they are supposing that this is a substantive term of the copyright licence, and thus that it would be a violation to alter the content of the alert. Though you ordinarily would have the right to do so (particularly for legitimate purposes), by accepting.the licence, you agree not to. For the purposes of weather alerts, I think that makes it non-free. For other things, to the extent it directly reproduces OGL-C, I guess it's still free, but for Commons purposes, I don't think we should be in any hurry to embrace licences with clumsy carve-outs. I don't think it resembles a moral right that exists independently of the agreement between the parties. TheFeds 20:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, that’s what I was concerned about. I might contact ECCC to see if they can explicitly license the non-alert content under OGL-C, but for now I’ll hold off from uploading the images. Racer J77 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the tool, but do you think that the output represents a derivative work of some copyrighted original? Or, for example, is it creating an image from uncopyrightable facts (e.g. the numbers corresponding to a meteorological reading)? They may not own any copyright in the output, because if the input is your query + uncreative data + their code, and the output is an image that does not include that code, it seems like they have no copyright to licence. (Maybe you do, if your query is copyrightable.) They could theoretically refuse you permission to use the service if you do not agree to their terms, but whatever copyright does or doesn't exist upon creation of the output won't change because of that. TheFeds 01:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- The tool basically lets you overlay ECCC meteorological/climate data onto a map, so you can create an image or animation with it. Since it comes out of their forecast modelling, I don’t think it would count as an uncopyrightable fact?
- I looked into a bit more, and the GDPS data is actually available via the Open Government portal, where it’s licensed under OGL-C. It seems the approach they’ve taken is “since GDPS data could be combined with alert data into a single map, we’ll relicense all outputs of this tool under something new.” Or that’s what I thought until I also found Weather Alerts under OGL-C on Open Government, which means all the underlying data is freely licensed. The one thing that stands out is the generated map includes the ECCC logo as a form of attribution, so that may be why they’ve chosen this route? But now I feel that it shouldn’t be a problem to try to switch back the licence. Racer J77 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the bare facts of a weather forecast are copyrightable, because they are merely descriptive of a phenomenon in a utilitarian way (like a recipe); the software implementation (human-written computer code) of the model is; and the theory of the model is not (algorithms, as distinct from their software implementations, are not copyrightable).
If the base map is under a free licence, in the public domain due to U.S. government authorship (GOES imagery apparently has often been accepted on Commons as this), in the public domain due to being automated surveillance footage (somewhat unsettled), or not copyrightable, that would alleviate that concern. The Canadian government wordmarks aren't copyrightable (too simple), but they are protectable under trademark (official mark) law; I don't think that makes any difference from the licence standpoint.
Speaking practically, there is a potential risk to the way that they let any user create a wordmarked output that no government employee directly supervised—but as long as we don't misrepresent it as the government's actual work, I don't think there is a concern. TheFeds 23:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help @TheFeds. I've uploaded the image as licensed under OGL-C, indicating it was generated by the tools. I've also been in contact with ECCC, who have indicated their intent was for the End-user license to apply to dynamic tools that call and interpret their APIs. Roughly speaking, the AniMet tool itself is subject to the licence, not necessarily the image I exported from it.
- They are looking into clarifying the licence for the future, and will also use the interactive release tool to confirm this image. Racer J77 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks to you as well for engaging with the department and discussing it. If they also concede the image is not necessarily itself OGL-C, how about this: {{copyright information|map={{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}|data={{PD-algorithm|disclaimer=no}}}}? Looking at the image, and the licences (currently {{OGL-C}}, but with a {{Self}} as well), and referring to Wikipedia's articles on 2 major copyright cases (CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada and Feist v. Rural), I don't actually see that the government's "skill and judgment" is embodied in the work. It was your query (presumably not creative, or I assume you intend it to be PD), the tools' algorithm (output of an algorithm is not copyrightable by the designer or copyright/patent owner of the algorithm), and OpenStreetMap's base map (chosen for being under a free copyright licence, ODbL presumably). TheFeds 21:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, your explanation makes sense and I looked at those court cases you referenced. I’m still learning the smaller details of copyright, so I really appreciate your patience with me.
- I see you’ve already corrected the image licence, so I’ll mention this to ECCC to make sure they have the right info. Racer J77 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks to you as well for engaging with the department and discussing it. If they also concede the image is not necessarily itself OGL-C, how about this: {{copyright information|map={{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}|data={{PD-algorithm|disclaimer=no}}}}? Looking at the image, and the licences (currently {{OGL-C}}, but with a {{Self}} as well), and referring to Wikipedia's articles on 2 major copyright cases (CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada and Feist v. Rural), I don't actually see that the government's "skill and judgment" is embodied in the work. It was your query (presumably not creative, or I assume you intend it to be PD), the tools' algorithm (output of an algorithm is not copyrightable by the designer or copyright/patent owner of the algorithm), and OpenStreetMap's base map (chosen for being under a free copyright licence, ODbL presumably). TheFeds 21:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the bare facts of a weather forecast are copyrightable, because they are merely descriptive of a phenomenon in a utilitarian way (like a recipe); the software implementation (human-written computer code) of the model is; and the theory of the model is not (algorithms, as distinct from their software implementations, are not copyrightable).
- I'm not familiar with the tool, but do you think that the output represents a derivative work of some copyrighted original? Or, for example, is it creating an image from uncopyrightable facts (e.g. the numbers corresponding to a meteorological reading)? They may not own any copyright in the output, because if the input is your query + uncreative data + their code, and the output is an image that does not include that code, it seems like they have no copyright to licence. (Maybe you do, if your query is copyrightable.) They could theoretically refuse you permission to use the service if you do not agree to their terms, but whatever copyright does or doesn't exist upon creation of the output won't change because of that. TheFeds 01:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, that’s what I was concerned about. I might contact ECCC to see if they can explicitly license the non-alert content under OGL-C, but for now I’ll hold off from uploading the images. Racer J77 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Any help here is appreciated Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
This item says that it is triple-licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL, however, I found this webpage under the Mozilla's Foundations website that seems to suggest that the icon is in public domain
Relevant excerpt:
The feed icon is freely available for general use in connection with web feeds using open web syndication formats, without the need to enter into a trademark license agreement or similar legal arrangement. Note that these guidelines are not legally binding.
Oakchris1955 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Red bull logo
[edit]Does ticket:2025020610011248, present at File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png, make the Red Bull logo free? And hence w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg among others can be relicensed and transfered to Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
NZ Copyright
[edit]im attempting to get images deleted which are copyright in New Zealand. I'm struggling because editors who don't understand want to keep them.
I've provided the relevant legislation.
Surely the burden should be on them to show where it is public access.
Help. Do I just have to jump to a DMCA? Māori M (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to the relevant deletion discussion (scroll to the second discussion). I'm not familiar with NZ copyright threshold of originality case law, but I imagine that's at the core of this dispute. 19h00s (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- It is under copyright. I know the holder.
- There is zero proof that it meets the criteria for use on Wikipedia. Any options about threshold of originality is their opinion and nothing more. It is irrelevant to the use. Māori M (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't see how a DMCA notice would apply to anything that is not copyrighted in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- I refer to this guidance.
- https://www.copyright.co.nz/about/news-and-blog/what-is-a-dmca-take-down-notice Māori M (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's a bit simplified. The formal form of a DMCA is a US specific work, but it has been coöpted as an easy way to make a copyright demand anywhere on the Internet. I don't think WMF has any obligation to act on a DMCA notice that's not based on US law, but it is a way to communicate them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- On the Wikipedia take downs they lost by country. These include those outside the US.
- https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/transparency/2024-1/dmca/ Māori M (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- requests by country.
- I know this is from 2024. Just one that came up in my search Māori M (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- People from any nation can submit a DMCA takedown. That's not the issue. The issue is that your work is not eligible for copyright in the US, so you're not filing based on a US copyright like other works might have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- both NZ and USA are signatories to the Berne Convention which means that this design which has copyright also has copyright in the USA.
- I link to guidance from the NZ government https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/business/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-protection-overseas
- Guidance from WIPO (which NZ and USA are member states)
- "Firstly, copyright protection is automatic in all states party to the Berne Convention"
- https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright/faq-copyright#accordion__collapse__04 Māori M (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, so you're quoting FAQs to people who have studied this stuff. A NZ work gets US copyright as if it were a US work. If it wouldn't get copyright as a US work in the US, it won't get copyright as a NZ work in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- 2 genuine questions. 1.Are you an IP lawyer? My understanding of the Berne Convention is that if it is copyright in the home country then it is copyright in all countries across the signatories to the conversation. Is that incorrect? Māori M (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- however this is also a diversion. This design has been tagged as being in the public domain which it is not.
- No-one who is objecting can provide any evidence that it is in the public domain. Māori M (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Māori M: I'm not an IP lawyer, but I'm comfortable saying that your understanding of the Berne Convention is wrong, at least as you've stated it. An obvious counterexample would be that any works published anywhere in the world before 1931 are now out of copyright in the U.S. regardless of the death date of the person who created them. So, for example, a work from Aldous Huxley published in the 1920s is copyrighted in his native UK through 2033 (1963 + 70), but is already in the public domain in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- however an I correct in that copyright works in a country who is a Bern signatory have copyright transferred to the other countries which also are signatories ie copyright work in NZ is automatically copyright in those countries. Māori M (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- No. It depends on the rule of shorter term, and other local laws. NZ has a shorter term than European countries, so anything still in copyright is probably also in copyright in Europe, but it is not automatic. USA doesn't use the use of shorter term, only US law applies. Yann (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- this design is copyright in NZ. The remaining designer is still alive. Hence it is copyright in Berne signatory countries. Correct? Māori M (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, no. Only in countries where it would also pass that country’s own threshold of originality. It almost certainly has no copyright protection in the United States, for example, regardless of its status in NZ, as it seems to fall below the pretty well-established US threshold. 19h00s (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- this design is copyright in NZ. The remaining designer is still alive. Hence it is copyright in Berne signatory countries. Correct? Māori M (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- No. It depends on the rule of shorter term, and other local laws. NZ has a shorter term than European countries, so anything still in copyright is probably also in copyright in Europe, but it is not automatic. USA doesn't use the use of shorter term, only US law applies. Yann (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- however an I correct in that copyright works in a country who is a Bern signatory have copyright transferred to the other countries which also are signatories ie copyright work in NZ is automatically copyright in those countries. Māori M (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Māori M: I'm not an IP lawyer, but I'm comfortable saying that your understanding of the Berne Convention is wrong, at least as you've stated it. An obvious counterexample would be that any works published anywhere in the world before 1931 are now out of copyright in the U.S. regardless of the death date of the person who created them. So, for example, a work from Aldous Huxley published in the 1920s is copyrighted in his native UK through 2033 (1963 + 70), but is already in the public domain in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- 2 genuine questions. 1.Are you an IP lawyer? My understanding of the Berne Convention is that if it is copyright in the home country then it is copyright in all countries across the signatories to the conversation. Is that incorrect? Māori M (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, so you're quoting FAQs to people who have studied this stuff. A NZ work gets US copyright as if it were a US work. If it wouldn't get copyright as a US work in the US, it won't get copyright as a NZ work in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- People from any nation can submit a DMCA takedown. That's not the issue. The issue is that your work is not eligible for copyright in the US, so you're not filing based on a US copyright like other works might have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's a bit simplified. The formal form of a DMCA is a US specific work, but it has been coöpted as an easy way to make a copyright demand anywhere on the Internet. I don't think WMF has any obligation to act on a DMCA notice that's not based on US law, but it is a way to communicate them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- No. The Berne Convention does not impose one country's laws onto other countries -- just provides a certain amount of similar treatment. There are many details left open to each country, the threshold of originality among them. All it means is that any Berne signatory agrees to protect works from any other Berne signatory the same as their own citizens. If a work is copyrightable in New Zealand but not the U.S., it won't get a copyright in the U.S.. Conversely, if a work is not copyrightable in New Zealand but is in the U.S., a New Zealand author will get copyright protection on it in the U.S. even if not in their home country. It does not force every country to interpret every other countries' laws to find out if something is copyrightable -- just their own. Similarly, if a work expires in New Zealand but has a longer copyright in the U.S., a New Zealand author will still get that longer protection in the U.S. (length of copyright is another thing that can differ between countries, sometimes greatly -- and the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term). Laws only apply within a country's borders, basically. A DMCA notice is something that comes from U.S. law in particular, and technically only has any legal applicability in the U.S. -- and for a work which has no U.S. copyright, it would be irrelevant. That all said, Wikimedia Commons' policy (which is not law) is to respect a country's laws for works which come from there. If we kept the Australian Aboriginal flag deleted for years (even though even more clearly below the U.S. threshold) until the Australian government stepped in to purchase the copyright and make it virtually public domain, I don't see why we wouldn't do the same here, as New Zealand has the really really low threshold of originality that they (and Australia and others) inherited from UK copyright law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks I appreciate the clarification.
- I am struggling with those who are debating the status of the flag when it is under copyright in New Zealand. There are a range of strawman arguments being raised, when the application of the law here is quite simple. Māori M (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- No, the application of the law here is not quite simple. US law is relatively simple because we have a history of and laws about registration, and the Copyright Office publishes letters about works it refused to register and works it registered after first denying registration. The line is well illustrated. At a fundamental level, this is not going to be simple, as there's going to be a collection of works that are almost copyrightable and works that are just barely copyrightable. And you have provided zero evidence at where that line is found in New Zealand. Would a purely red flag be copyrightable? What about a blue/black/green striped flag? What about a blue four-leaf clover on a red flag? What about a blue four-level clover on a blue/black/green striped flag?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Australia ruled a simple circle on a flag with two other background colors as copyrightable. Both countries' copyright laws were taken pretty much verbatim from older UK laws (their 1956 law in particular), and I think this area of the law hasn't changed in either country's newer laws, such that they can still look to UK court precedents from their earlier laws. So, I think it's a similar "skill, judgement and labour" decision, and that "original" just means that it originates from a person, not implying any level of creativity. One of their Supreme Court cases is here; they do say: There need be nothing novel in a work to qualify it for copyright protection.24 To be original for copyright purposes the work must originate from its author and must be the product of more than minimal skill and labour., and The threshold for originality is a low one and it can be material for other purposes how original the work is; that is, how much skill and labour has gone into its creation. In general terms the greater the originality, the wider will be the scope of the protection which copyright affords and vice versa. They cite a number of UK decisions there, meaning it would seem to be the same line the UK used to have (and which Australia shares). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. To reply to @Prosfilaes the guidance states "Only original works are capable of copyright protection. The work must be original to the author,
- meaning that it has involved some independent skill, labour or judgement by the author. A simple
- poem that took five minutes to write is just as eligible for copyright protection as a heavily
- researched academic article or a prize-winning novel. To qualify for protection, a work cannot
- infringe another work."
- https://www.copyright.co.nz/downloads/assets/5428/1/what%20copyright%20protects%20and%20how%20it%20works%20march%202022.pdf
- You are conflating US law with NZ.
- It is not up to you to judge the design. Original works are copyright here by virtue of being made.
- 1. It is an original works. 2. The work must be original to the authors, it involved some independent skill, labour or judgement by the authors.
- As I mentioned before until it is disputed the design is copyright. The Tino Rangatiratanga Kara is copyrighted by virtue of the Copyright Act 1994. Should you wish to dispute that, you go and test it in court. Māori M (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- "until it is disputed the design is copyright" is nonsense. I could claim copyright over your post. I could claim copyright over "Oliver Twist". Nobody has to pay any attention to those claims. Like all legal matters, until it goes before the court, the answer that will be held correct is technically unknown.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Australia ruled a simple circle on a flag with two other background colors as copyrightable. Both countries' copyright laws were taken pretty much verbatim from older UK laws (their 1956 law in particular), and I think this area of the law hasn't changed in either country's newer laws, such that they can still look to UK court precedents from their earlier laws. So, I think it's a similar "skill, judgement and labour" decision, and that "original" just means that it originates from a person, not implying any level of creativity. One of their Supreme Court cases is here; they do say: There need be nothing novel in a work to qualify it for copyright protection.24 To be original for copyright purposes the work must originate from its author and must be the product of more than minimal skill and labour., and The threshold for originality is a low one and it can be material for other purposes how original the work is; that is, how much skill and labour has gone into its creation. In general terms the greater the originality, the wider will be the scope of the protection which copyright affords and vice versa. They cite a number of UK decisions there, meaning it would seem to be the same line the UK used to have (and which Australia shares). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- No, the application of the law here is not quite simple. US law is relatively simple because we have a history of and laws about registration, and the Copyright Office publishes letters about works it refused to register and works it registered after first denying registration. The line is well illustrated. At a fundamental level, this is not going to be simple, as there's going to be a collection of works that are almost copyrightable and works that are just barely copyrightable. And you have provided zero evidence at where that line is found in New Zealand. Would a purely red flag be copyrightable? What about a blue/black/green striped flag? What about a blue four-leaf clover on a red flag? What about a blue four-level clover on a blue/black/green striped flag?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- slightly off topic but connected to the different version of the choice of law principle
- @Clindberg "The Berne Convention does not impose one country's laws onto other countries -- just provides a certain amount of similar treatment. " -- this isn't the case for the Philippine law, at least concerning infringements committed by an entity based or hosted outside the Philippines and the person or camp infringed is a Filipino. See w:en:Copyright law of the Philippines#St. Mary's vs. Chinese firm and local partners (which was my contribution on that article). Based on the source I used, https://manilastandard.net/news/national/296289/infringement-on-copyright-vs-chinese-trader-upheld.html:
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) litigator Oscar M. Manahan, counsel for the plaintiffs, said he believes that the CA in toto affirmation of the decision rendered by RTC of Manila City, Branch 24, is consistent with Philippine commitment to recognize and to enforce Copyright Laws in the Philippines being a party to the Berne Convention.
Atty. Manahan said that the RTC decision affirmed by the CA highlights the importance of copyrights protected under Philippine Copyright law (RA 8293) and the Berne Convention and enforceable against both the foreign company based in China and three local defendants. Copyright owners and publishers of copyrighted works can fully avail of their legal remedies citing this landmark jurisprudence.
Philippines and China are party signatories to the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic works.
- No. The Berne Convention does not impose one country's laws onto other countries -- just provides a certain amount of similar treatment. There are many details left open to each country, the threshold of originality among them. All it means is that any Berne signatory agrees to protect works from any other Berne signatory the same as their own citizens. If a work is copyrightable in New Zealand but not the U.S., it won't get a copyright in the U.S.. Conversely, if a work is not copyrightable in New Zealand but is in the U.S., a New Zealand author will get copyright protection on it in the U.S. even if not in their home country. It does not force every country to interpret every other countries' laws to find out if something is copyrightable -- just their own. Similarly, if a work expires in New Zealand but has a longer copyright in the U.S., a New Zealand author will still get that longer protection in the U.S. (length of copyright is another thing that can differ between countries, sometimes greatly -- and the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term). Laws only apply within a country's borders, basically. A DMCA notice is something that comes from U.S. law in particular, and technically only has any legal applicability in the U.S. -- and for a work which has no U.S. copyright, it would be irrelevant. That all said, Wikimedia Commons' policy (which is not law) is to respect a country's laws for works which come from there. If we kept the Australian Aboriginal flag deleted for years (even though even more clearly below the U.S. threshold) until the Australian government stepped in to purchase the copyright and make it virtually public domain, I don't see why we wouldn't do the same here, as New Zealand has the really really low threshold of originality that they (and Australia and others) inherited from UK copyright law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- And another:
While defendant Fujian is a foreign corporation based in China, its act constitute copyright infringement pursuant to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on 1 August 1951, among the members of which is China which became a party to the Convention on 15 October 1992.
- In this context, the Philippine copyright law (Republic Act 8293) is enforceable outside the territory of the Philippines, in any of the countries that are fellow members of the Convention, and if an action committed by someone based outside harms the economic rights of the Filipinos.
- I don't know if New Zealand courts have the same perspective, that New Zealander copyright law can be enforced outside their country, provided that both NZ and the concerned country are Berne signatories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are saying there. A Philippine court used Philippine law to render a judgement on infringement in the Philippines. I don't see anywhere that Chinese law was applied. Chinese authors get protection in the Philippines for their own works, but can't commit infringement either -- they are subject to Philippine law for actions taken in the Philippines. A country may use the text of the Berne Convention itself as part of its own law (the U.S. does not, but many countries do). In general though, a country's own laws specify the scope of copyright protections a lot more precisely than the Berne Convention does (just can't do anything in contravention of any terms in the Berne treaty). Countries may choose to use foreign law in some situations -- The Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. ruling used foreign law to determine who the copyright owner was, but U.S. law to decide if infringement occurred and what the penalties would be. But that's up to the country really. I see nothing in your cited case which goes against that. If you commit infringement in a country, it's that country's laws which apply, not the country of the author or first publication or whatever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Clindberg you missed my point. One of the infringers is a company based in China who doesn't even have offices here. Their printing press is in Fujian, not here, yet they breached the contract with the local textbook author St. Mary's. In fact, the St. Mary's case is a landmark ruling that submits a foreign entity under the PH law if they violate copyright contracts with the local counterparts. And no, it's not Chinese author here. It's a Chinese infringer who violated the copyright of a Filipino company by breaching the agreed terms in the contract. Excluding the two local Filipino partners of Fujian printing company in the equation, the infringement made by that Chinese company occurred in China because their printing press is in China. Still, Philippine law overrides Chinese law, because they violated the copyright of and contract with the Filipino textbook author St. Mary's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, a company in China was a party to a copyright infringement in the Philippines (the infringing copies were distributed in the Philippines). So they got a ruling against them. If they have no actual presence in the Philippines it may be difficult to actually obtain payments from them, but they are still guilty. That has nothing to do with my point, in that the Chinese threshold of originality had no applicability in that case. If the work was not copyrightable in the Philippines but was in China, there would be no guilty verdict there because there would be no way to raise an infringement case in the Philippines, since there was no copyright to infringe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes
- Your analogy is obtuse. You are not engaging in good faith. Your example of claiming copyright over "Oliver Twist" or anything else fails at the first step, because you didn't create it.
- The Copyright Act 1994 test is about who made the original work. Three named designers made this flag in 1989. That's not a comparable situation to a false claim over a pre-existing work you had no hand in.
- It's also diversionary. It sidesteps the actual point: copyright vests automatically at creation under NZ law, no court filing nor registration required. Your personal opinion on design is irrelevant.
- Whether a specific claim holds up if litigated is a separate question from whether copyright exists on creation. In this case the flag has identified authors, a documented creation context, and an active rights claim from the surviving designer. Māori M (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Which doesn't understand what I was saying at all, or even give me the feeling that you tried to understand. Let's take an example that's physical and tangible. Is there a cat in this box? It is not true that until it is disputed there is a cat in the box. There is or is not a cat in the box. Nobody is obliged to accept your claim that there is a cat in the box. There may be consequences if there is a cat in the box and we refuse to believe that, but that doesn't mean we have to believe that.
- The argument is that this work is not eligible for copyright. Nobody is contesting that works eligible for copyright aren't copyrighted when they're created. Nobody is obliged to accept your claim that it is eligible. There may be consequences if we act like it isn't and a court says it is, but that doesn't force us to accept your claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Again you are choosing not to engage in good faith. You have presented no evidence that this work is not suitable for copyright under S14 of the NZ Copyright Act 1994.
- I refer you to Wikipedia policy.
- You are correct that "Nobody is obliged to accept your claim that it is eligible." As per policy it the onus is on the uploader and those wishing to keep the file to demonstrate that this design has appropriate permissions.
- Until you or the uploader can provide the information to confirm the validity of hosting there is no point in continuing this discussion.
- "Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept."
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests Māori M (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Just a note: you keep calling this site "Wikipedia". This is not Wikipedia, it's Wikimedia Commons. They are separate projects with separate rules and standards. Content on Commons is often used on Wikipedia, but they're not the same thing.
- And on that point, if the image of the flag is deleted from Wikimedia Commons (this project), it will almost certainly be uploaded directly to English Wikipedia, as English Wikipedia follows American copyright rules only, and the consensus here appears to be that the flag is not copyrighted in the U.S. as it's below the American threshold. This is not me trying to be rude or imply that your deletion argument on Commons is somehow for naught. But you need to understand what these projects are and the differences between them so you can be prepared for an eventual outcome. 19h00s (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Clindberg you missed my point. One of the infringers is a company based in China who doesn't even have offices here. Their printing press is in Fujian, not here, yet they breached the contract with the local textbook author St. Mary's. In fact, the St. Mary's case is a landmark ruling that submits a foreign entity under the PH law if they violate copyright contracts with the local counterparts. And no, it's not Chinese author here. It's a Chinese infringer who violated the copyright of a Filipino company by breaching the agreed terms in the contract. Excluding the two local Filipino partners of Fujian printing company in the equation, the infringement made by that Chinese company occurred in China because their printing press is in China. Still, Philippine law overrides Chinese law, because they violated the copyright of and contract with the Filipino textbook author St. Mary's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are saying there. A Philippine court used Philippine law to render a judgement on infringement in the Philippines. I don't see anywhere that Chinese law was applied. Chinese authors get protection in the Philippines for their own works, but can't commit infringement either -- they are subject to Philippine law for actions taken in the Philippines. A country may use the text of the Berne Convention itself as part of its own law (the U.S. does not, but many countries do). In general though, a country's own laws specify the scope of copyright protections a lot more precisely than the Berne Convention does (just can't do anything in contravention of any terms in the Berne treaty). Countries may choose to use foreign law in some situations -- The Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. ruling used foreign law to determine who the copyright owner was, but U.S. law to decide if infringement occurred and what the penalties would be. But that's up to the country really. I see nothing in your cited case which goes against that. If you commit infringement in a country, it's that country's laws which apply, not the country of the author or first publication or whatever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
copyright on materials prohibited by law in china (before 1996)
[edit]would any of these be available for upload to commons due to the following clause in the 1990 law?
Article 4 Works the publication or distribution of which is prohibited by law shall not be protected by this law.
this was still on the books as of the uraa restoration date for china (1 jan 1996) and until being removed in the 2010 version of the law which would exempt them from any uraa restoration when banned before that date (ie no content relating to falun gong due to being banned from 1999)
and if any works count, they mightve been restored in china (and only in mainland china) when that clause was removed similar to the retroactive clause in 1990/1991 which might mean local file uploads for content instead
assuming this is correct and provable, this would allow for the upload of content for the great chinese famine, cultural revolution and tiananmen protests that were not simultaneously published outside (relevant for the last one, though it may be covered by shorter term?) that was not allowed as well as miscellanous items like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Snow,_Red_Blood to be uploaded to chinese wikisource?
Noob282 (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- To be ineligible for URAA restoration, the work must be in the public domain in the source country "through expiration of the term of protection"[1] and it sounds as if these Chinese works were in the public domain in the source country for some other reason, so they may not have been ineligible for copyright restoration.
- Note that works from China may be protected by having a subsisting copyright; see w:WP:NUSC#Chinese copyrights. In particular, the 4th of June Incident was after the United States dropped the copyright formalities, so everything would be protected due to subsisting copyrights. Before this, there was a long period where you only needed a copyright notice, so many things may have a subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- so its likely local file uploads are okay for them but them being hosted on commons itself not okay due to them probably fulfilling all requirements for restoration, is my understanding correct?
- in that case i assume https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Rim_Kkok_Jong and its associated things would need to be deleted due to the same reasoning applying Noob282 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- another thing, would march 2 1989 to december 31 1995 works be okay to upload on english wikipedia? because it would fail the point regarding copyright formalities and as far as i can tell it requires that as well to be eligible for restoration in the us Noob282 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- No, beginning 1 March 1989 copyright in the U.S. no longer requires any notice or registration. Any works from that date or later would have had U.S. copyrights beginning at the moment of creation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Copyright of pictures of the AEG-Hauptverwaltung
[edit]I would like to upload the pictures of the building "AEG-Hauptverwaltung" from the website "Bildindex". This would be my first time to do that. The website states that the photographer is unknown, but the owner of the images is listed. The license on the linked site states "CC BY-SA 4.0" which seems to allow the usage and upload to other sites, as long as the original author (or owner) is named? Can I upload these images, or images under other versions of the CC BY-SA license without issues?
https://www.bildindex.de/document/obj20555657?medium=fm1066069 Monkelbear (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- If the image is from 1895, then yes (but under a public domain license like {{PD-old-assumed}} instead of a creative commons license). If, however, the image is from 1920, things might get a bit trickier.
- Any chance the date could be narrowed down further? Was the building damaged in World War I by any chance? Nakonana (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- Further down it says the date is 1905-1907. This could sort of work with {{PD-old-assumed}} (although maybe we'd need to delete it for a year before undeleting it again). Nakonana (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- The dating of 1905-7 refers to the construction of the building (see the biographical information of the architect). The image is part of the "Fotokonvolut Dr. Franz Stoedtner", apparently a collection of more than 200.000 glas negatives which was purchased by the Bildarchiv Marburg in 1977 ([2]). Dr. Franz Stoedtner ran a professional enterprise for photography, so it is not out of the question that he held the copyright to the photographs and that the rights transferred to Bildarchiv Marburg, justifying the cited CC-BY-SA 4.0 license regardless of public domain status. Felix QW (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Further down it says the date is 1905-1907. This could sort of work with {{PD-old-assumed}} (although maybe we'd need to delete it for a year before undeleting it again). Nakonana (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- See the terms of {{PD-anon-70-EU}} which are applicable. --RAN (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the check and suggestions. Monkelbear (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
National Portrait Gallery, London
[edit]On this page, it says "The National Portrait Gallery's website is here for your enjoyment. You may access, download and/or print contents for non-commercial purposes. If you wish to use this material in any other way, you must seek separate permission from us." Does that mean I can upload the top photo on this page or would I need permission? APK (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- No, we need permission for commercial use as well. The NPG does have items where the copyright has expired in both the UK and the US; those can be uploaded. If you are talking about the portraits of Dame Louisa Brandreth Aldrich-Blake, those are complicated, but probably not enough info to upload. Those were created by Bassano (a private firm) in 1925. If they were published, or even "made available to the public", in 1925 the copyright would have expired. However, the only copies that seem to be available are negatives, where it's unknown if they were published or not. The negatives were given to the National Portrait Gallery in 1974, meaning the copyright term *might* have started then, if previously unpublished, which would make them under copyright in both the UK and the US. The NPG often does have prints from Bassano as well, which indicate that those were published. The negatives are a thornier question though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like at least one was published [3] This is her obituary in The Vote published on 8 January 1926. The image is credited to Bessano. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- I can't see that, but at least the version published in the newspaper (with its crop and quality) should be PD in both the UK and the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. APK (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like at least one was published [3] This is her obituary in The Vote published on 8 January 1926. The image is credited to Bessano. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Can i upload a bands logo?
[edit]hello! i was planning to upload the logo for the japanese band 'Cymbals' the logo has been only used in the music video 'Visualized' i'm wondering am i allowed to upload it or should i even upload it if its only been featured in one music video. please let me know thank you -iluvwkipedia (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Without actually seeing the logo it is impossible to answer this question. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- [4]
- this is the logo -iluvwkipedia (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would say that is right on the edge of what is copyrightable. It would probably be safest to try to get a free license from the copyright-holder, which would probably be the designer of the logo. (see COM:VRT, or for a broader picture COM:THIRD).
- Independent of that, any upload should certainly use {{Trademarked}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Distinction between simple and not-simple photos in Italy
[edit]Hi everyone, I'm opening this thread because I've found new legal material about the distinction between simple and not-simple photographs in Italy. This distinction is really important because simple photographs enjoy a reduced copyright duration of 70 years after creation (and not pma), which for photographs created before 2005 is even shorter (20 years after creation). Here on commons this means that we can host the photographs created before 1976.
Now, in the last years we tend to be quite liberal, considering "artistic photographs" only the ones that were clearly staged. But in the past it wasn't so. In Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy it's still written that However, which kinds of photographs are considered "simple photographs" is rather vague; this rule is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should be used on Commons very carefully. The Template:PD-Italy itself was deleted in 2006 and even after it was restored there were DRs such as this one in which some normal postcards were deleted per PCP. I guess that most of the images deleted in those years haven't been restored.
As I started to look up for legal commentaries on the matter, I've found this sentence of the Tribunal of Rome in 2025 .It highlights two tests that a photo must pass in order to be considered "creative":
- First of all, according to the judge it is not sufficient that a professional photographer has made a very good photo, but there must be a creative element that goes beyond the technical ability (let's take into account that Italy has a very high ToO). In other words: if the same photograph could have been made by another photographer, then it's simple. It becomes "artistic" only when there are very particular elements such as a light that alters the atmosphere, a selection of a unique moment that can't be repeated, etc...
- Then, it mustn't be just "descriptive", but it must use the subject to express an emotion, a point of view, etc and create impressions that go beyond what it's depicted.
As everyone can see, these conditions are pretty high and difficult to meet and they are really different from the practice that was applied here on commons, especially in the past. Therefore I think it's worthy to add something to COM:Italy in order to reflect the Italian jurisprudence on the matter (and maybe also add something about it also to Template:Pd-Italy?). Any opinion? Friniate (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Adding something to COM:Italy for clarification of what a simple photograph is. I have not read the original sentence, though, so I'm wondering whether the parts
In other words: if the same photograph could have been made by another photographer, then it's simple. It becomes "artistic" only when...
andmust use the subject to express an emotion, a point of view, etc
are your own reading of the sentence, or the actual statements of the judge? It might be good to stick to the original statement as close as possible, and even describe the exact case of the ruling. Nakonana (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)- @Nakonana It's my summary of the article which reported about the sentence, I tried to find the original sentence without success (you can download it only by paying money and quite frankly I already give my time to Wikimedia...), but I can translate literally the relevant parts of the article. Friniate (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Nakonana Here it is the translation of the most important parts:
- "The skills in the attention of the framing is not sufficient to give to a photograph a creative character" The Tribunal argued that the photograph documented in the place in a substantially objective way. There wasn't an unusual perspective that inverted the perception of the space, or a light that transfigured the scene, nor a decisive moment that went beyond the mere reproduction of the reality. It was a technically excellent photograph, but that it didn't have that subjective interpretation that transformed the document in a (photographic) work. The principle is the same of the verdict about the photograph of Falcone and Borsellino: the exceptionality of the photograph lies in the exceptionality of the depicted subject, not in a particular artistic character of the photograph.
- From the verdict of 2025 and the jurisprudence it emerges a test in two steps used by tribunals to classify a photograph:
- First step: is there a recognizable subjective choice? The judge looks for a personal influence of the photographer. It's not the technical ability, which is neutral, but choices that only that photographer could take in that way. Unusual framing, usage of a light that alters the atmosphere, selection of a particular moment, a subsequent processing adding significance. If there are such choices and they are recognizable, then there is creativity. If the same photograph could have been taken by any good photographer in that place at that time, then it's simple.
- Second step: does the photograph go beyond recording the subject? A photograph showing a place, an event, a person, in an informative manner, even if technically well done, remains a document. A photographic work uses the subject as raw material to say something different: an emotion, a point of view a visual tension. The subject is a means, not the end.
- To give some context: the case was about a photograph of the Dome of Milan made by a professional photographer in high resolution, with an carefully studied framing and that denoted an high technical ability. According to the photographer it couldn't be classified as simple photograph and it should be protected until 70 years pma. The judge disagreed with the photographer on this, while it agreed with the photographer that it should be protected as a simple photograph and therefore condamned a firm that had used the photograph without permission even though the 20 years (now 70, but always since the creation, not pma) had not passed (see here for another article talking about the verdict). Friniate (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Nakonana It's my summary of the article which reported about the sentence, I tried to find the original sentence without success (you can download it only by paying money and quite frankly I already give my time to Wikimedia...), but I can translate literally the relevant parts of the article. Friniate (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
United Nations "No Excuses" campaign
[edit]I am a bit confused on the license of the files in Category:No Excuses. All the files whose name starts with "No Excuses " say they are licensed under the CC-BY-SA and reference an OTRS ticket, while the rest of the files say they are copyrighted free use, referencing a quote from the website saying "The spots may be downloaded and used free of charge". The only difference from what I can tell between the copyrighted free use files and the CC-BY-SA files is that the latter are high resolution. What's the actual license the videos there are under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosAmber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
PD status of unpublished 1941–42 letters, author died 1942, first published 2005 (Serbia/US)
[edit]I'm trying to determine whether scans of Hilda Dajč’s letters (written between December 1941 and February 1942, at Sajmište concentration camp in Serbia) can be uploaded to Commons.
Known facts:
- Author: Hilda Dajč, died 1942 (murdered at Sajmište).
- Letters created December 1941 – February 1942, unpublished at the time.
- First published 2005, in Jaša Almuli’s anthology Jevrejke govore (Signature, Belgrade).
- Currently held by the Jewish Historical Museum, Belgrade, and the Historical Archives of Belgrade; also digitised by USHMM ("Courtesy of the Jewish Historical Museum, Belgrade").
Serbian side: under both the old Yugoslav 1978 Act's 50 year term (expired 1992, grandfathered under the 2004 transitional rule) and the current 2009 Act's life+70 term (expired 2013), the letters appear to already be in the public domain in Serbia.
My question is about the US side: given the letters were unpublished until 2005, does URAA restoration or the US's unpublished work rules change the calculation? I want to confirm before uploading rather than assume. Any guidance on the correct US side analysis for a foreign author, unpublished work, posthumous 2005 publication, would be appreciated.
Thank you Aeengath (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- URAA restored the copyright if the letters had previously fallen into the public domain in the United States due to failure to comply with the copyright formalities or due to lack of copyright treaties with the country of origin. Unpublished works had perpetual copyright in the United States (later fixed), so they never fell into the public domain. Such works would be protected under COM:SC instead.
- As the letters were not published before 2003, the copyright term in the United States is 70 years from the death of the author. See {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you @Stefan2 this is exactly what I needed, really appreciate you working through the URAA/unpublished work distinction, that clears it up completely. Aeengath (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
How long to wait when date of death unknown?
[edit]Hi, Jeanne Rouvière translated Einstein's work of general relativity into French. This was published in 1921: File:Einstein - La théorie de la relativité restreinte et généralisée, 1921.pdf. Jeanne Rouvière was born in 1892, but her date of death is unknown. I have found her birth certificate, but curiously there is no mention of her death, which is usually added in the margin of the certificate (e.g. the previous and the next births in the register: [5]). So, in such a case, how long do we have to wait before making the work available on Commons? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- The safest route is probably 120 years after creation ({{PD-old-assumed}}). Nakonana (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell without speaking French myself, this bulletin of her school's alumni association dates her death at 1970. That would come out as 2041, so almost exactly the same time as under {{PD-old-assumed}}. Felix QW (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Felix QW: You're right on the mark. The PDF contains the sentence "Retenons que la contribution de Jeanne Rouvière (1892-1970) à la science ne fut pas négligeable, puisque c’est à elle qu’Albert Einstein confia en 1921 la traduction en français de son ouvrage La théorie de la relativité restreinte et généralisée.", clear evidence of the actual date of death of the translator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Issue solved. Yann (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Felix QW: You're right on the mark. The PDF contains the sentence "Retenons que la contribution de Jeanne Rouvière (1892-1970) à la science ne fut pas négligeable, puisque c’est à elle qu’Albert Einstein confia en 1921 la traduction en français de son ouvrage La théorie de la relativité restreinte et généralisée.", clear evidence of the actual date of death of the translator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Photos taken abroad - which law to apply?
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yolandal got me thinking: It seems that the photographer of most of these photos is from the Netherlands. Some of them are taken on vacations in Italy (and other countries). Not just specific to this case (which is complicated by the uploader claiming "own work" for everything when it's probably not), I wonder: If someone from a country like the Netherlands or Germany, where photographs of landscapes or people usually enjoy the full copyright protection term of 70 years after the creator's death, goes to a country like Italy which has {{PD-Italy}} (photographs only protected for 20 years), takes some photos there, then goes back home, never publishing the photos in Italy, are the photos considered works from Italy (where they were undoubtedly created - but in the case of old photos on film, maybe not developed) or from their home country? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- As author of the comment about PD-Italy, you've a fair point actually, I didn't think about it. I agree with you that since Italy is not the country of origin we should apply the Netherlands' law, I'll strike my comment. Friniate (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think we use freedom of panorama type stuff based on where the photo was taken from. But, "country of origin" is the country of first publication. So someone taking photos in one country, and publishing them in another, the country of origin is the latter country (and per policy the one we would use for term). In real life of course, even if first published in a country with a longer term, the term inside Italy is still the shorter one -- the term always depends on the country where copies are actually distributed, regardless of first publication.
- In the internet age of course, there is a question if it's simultaneously published in many countries, which would get into all sorts of strange tiebreaker rules in the current Berne text. I'm sure there have been some discussions on how to adapt the Berne rules for cases like that, but don't think any have gotten close to actually amending it. Granted, this is mainly only an issue when the rule of the shorter term is in question, which is pretty rare in a copyright case. "Country of origin" is more important to Commons due to our policy, but it usually doesn't matter much elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- Well, regarding the specific case, these photos by a (probably) Dutch photographer (or photographers), taken in various countries including Italy, are apparently personal family photos (and that was the nominator's reason for the DR, though I think there are good reasons to consider many of them as being in scope, as discussed there) that were previously unpublished, so their publication on Commons constitutes simultaneous world-wide first publication...? (in all countries where Wikimedia Commons is accessible, so probably most excluding possibly a few including China, North Korea, Iran...). Though specifically {{PD-Italy}} apparently doesn't base its protection term on the date of publication, but of creation of a photo ("a period of 20 years from creation"), so for Italy, the creation in Italy might still be of relevance...? But I don't suppose the Netherlands would consider such a photo a "work from Italy"... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
While reviewing some other files, I stumbled upon this category of files from a museum. All of the files in the category are claimed as CC-BY 4.0, even for content which is clearly copyrightable and is probably still protected, e.g. File:"The Quests in Concert 1994" brochure.jpg (a 1994 concert poster) or File:Magazine - Hong Kong Entertainment Magazine 1974.jpg (the cover of a 1974 magazine). Does this license seem plausible to anyone, or should I start a bulk nomination? Omphalographer (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mycommunitysg, User talk:Mycommunitysg#File:Magazine - Our Home, Feb 1980.jpg. @Mycommunitysg: what came of that last? Have you been able to clean up any of the licensing issues with your uploads, or are you just leaving them sit until they are each individually challenged? - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Given that the user hasn't edited since early 2025, I doubt they're going to respond.
- I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mycommunitysg to start addressing some of these files. Omphalographer (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
I believed this logo could be upload because it has only used text and geomitrical. Can? Thebaldball (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Thebaldball: I would think so. Certainly no problem in the U.S.; I know nothing about copyright law for Borneo/Malaysia. Category:AirBorneo already includes two photos that show this logo. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Crown copyright for Canadian stamps with artistic contents
[edit]I posed a question at Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Canada#Crown_copyright_or_other_rationale? expressing some concern with the premise of {{PD-Canada-stamp}}. TheFeds 06:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Ruth Sienkiewicz-Mercer wordboards
[edit]I came across File:Wordboard 1.jpg, File:Wordboard 2.jpg, File:Wordboard 3.jpg, and File:Wordboard 4.jpg while checking on the another image in en:Ruth Sienkiewicz-Mercer. I'm not sure these images of these particular en:wordboards are 100% the COM:Own work of the uploader. While believe the uploader could've photographed them, the copyright status of the actual wordboards themselves is unclear. Since Sienkiewicz-Mercer or one of her assistants seem more likely to have created the wordboards and also since this doesn't appear to just be some random display of words, it's possible that the boards themselves could be considered a form of prose eligible for copyright protection. Sienkiewicz-Mercer was born in 1950 and died in 1998 and was also an American. The wordboards, therefore, don't seem to be old enough to have entered into the public domain just because of their age. It's not clear, though, when the wordboards were created. Could they possibly be PD for some other reason? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I can not imagine that this could be protected by copyright in the United States. The threshold of originality is very high (see COM:TOO US). This probably qualifies for {{PD-text}}. Nakonana (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think COM:TOO US saves us. That's a lot of words chosen and arranged creatively and carefully. I might handwave at functional object and limited copyright for user interfaces, but APPLIED INNOVATIONS v. REGENTS OF THE U (1989), a case about the w:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory points out how use of a series of questions, any one of which would be uncopyrightable can violate copyright. This is ~1200 words/short phrases, deliberately chosen. If this were a commercial work, I don't think I could argue for keeping it. This is part of the reason I like the requirement of a copyright notice, because I don't think there was any intent to make a copyrightable work or to restrict anyone from using it, but I can't say the same about the legal heirs; museums and organizations often like to squeeze every cent out of such works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- On one hand, I'm inclined to agree that there's a nontrivial creative element in selecting the words and phrases to appear on the wordboard. On the other hand: the US copyright office has held that "systems of communication" are ineligible for copyright (see e.g. File:Re. Newly created symbolic characters for new language.pdf; would this be considered one? Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% convinced it would fall under that, but that feels like a good enough fig leaf to say that we're keeping it for copyright reasons, not because we don't think we'll get sued. I wonder if anyone has ever tried copyrighting a keyboard layout?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- On one hand, I'm inclined to agree that there's a nontrivial creative element in selecting the words and phrases to appear on the wordboard. On the other hand: the US copyright office has held that "systems of communication" are ineligible for copyright (see e.g. File:Re. Newly created symbolic characters for new language.pdf; would this be considered one? Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think COM:TOO US saves us. That's a lot of words chosen and arranged creatively and carefully. I might handwave at functional object and limited copyright for user interfaces, but APPLIED INNOVATIONS v. REGENTS OF THE U (1989), a case about the w:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory points out how use of a series of questions, any one of which would be uncopyrightable can violate copyright. This is ~1200 words/short phrases, deliberately chosen. If this were a commercial work, I don't think I could argue for keeping it. This is part of the reason I like the requirement of a copyright notice, because I don't think there was any intent to make a copyrightable work or to restrict anyone from using it, but I can't say the same about the legal heirs; museums and organizations often like to squeeze every cent out of such works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Copyright issue with File:Friendshiplogo.png
[edit]
This logo is not Creative Commons-licensed as stated on its Commons page. The Fandom article listed as a source for this image does not even mention CC. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've tagged the file for speedy deletion - there is, indeed, no evidence that the logo is freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Copyright issue with File:Scotland in Union logo.png
[edit]
This logo is not Creative Commons-licensed as stated on its Commons page. Based on other similar logos such as File:BBC Logo 2021.svg, it could be eligible to remain on Commons in light of the UK's lower threshold of originality compared with other countries. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
