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.

Photo under "Creative Commons" with no further specification

Hello all,

this Brazilian website has an image that would be especially helpful in my Physella acuta article to describe the snail's unique musculature. At the bottom of the page, they wrote: The photographs by Walther Ishikawa and Felipe Aoki Gonçalves are licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.

Walther Ishikawa is the author of my photo of interest, however I don't know which specific CC it was placed under. The text above is all there is available on copyright. I wrote them an e-mail a month ago asking for details, but haven't got an answer. What is the procedure in this situation? Barbalalaika (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika: It's the same as if there were no license/permission at all. If they are not responding, then you are out of luck. - Jmabel ! talk 14:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What a tragic demise. Thanks for the input :) Barbalalaika (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You could try finding the photographer. There's a Flickr account[1], an iNaturalist account that also points to the website you linked but appears to not have been active since 2024[2], a Facebook account but also not active since 2024[3], and maybe your best bet: a YouTube account where they uploaded a new video just two weeks ago[4]. I didn't go down the rabbit hole any further, but basically, you could check if they are active somewhere on social media. Nakonana (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! I'll do it, I haven't thought of that! Barbalalaika (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I actually tried to check the image's EXIF data first to see whether it included any copyright or licensing information, and I did a reverse image search to see whether the image was used on another website with hopefully more specific license information, however, neither of the two attempts were successfully unfortunately. But in case you run into another such situation in the future, checking such things might be also worth a try :) Nakonana (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

How copyrightable is this image?

So there's this image hosted on the english Wikipedia of one of MTV's debut idents which uses a slightly modified image of Buzz Aldrin and the original MTV logo edited on top of the US flag with a very simple background (In press kits they used a yellow logo with a purple background). While I don't think the video ident is fully PD, I think the image could be passed here under PD Logo and NASA. What do you people think? Hyperba21 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it looks like they published that press kit without a copyright notice and therefore it's fair game, in addition to the other reasons it would be PD. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

European Parliament images

@Procrastineur49 claims there are thousands of images produced by the European Parliament which we may have to nominate for deletion. This comes about due to an apparent incompatibility with the EP's licensing with Commons rules. See here for further info. Should we initiate a mass deletion nomination of all these images? Howardcorn33 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for this potential mass deletion. A number of contributors, myself included, have been uploading files from the EP website using the {{European Union Government}} license template for years, seemingly without a hitch. They are a real treasure trove of high quality pictures related to European politics. To lose these thousands of files would be, to remain polite, a massive pain in the backside. Procrastineur49 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, this has been extensively discussed here throughout the years. See

• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/10#European parliament
• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/01#European parliament images
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/02#Feedback of a license template for the European Parliament
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/05#European Parliament images
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/07#European Parliament
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12#EP Media
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#Photographs of the European Parliament
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/12#Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Clarification on images from European Parliament (EP)

The conclusion seems to be the wording on EP's legal notice is unlikely to be compatible with licensing requirements of Commons. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

But at the same time there are successful undeletion requests[5]. Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This has come up before, see[6]. This appears to be a mistranslation into English, and artist integrity is more of a moral right than a core copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The mistranslation issue was discussed in Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/02#Feedback of a license template for the European Parliament. The EP's response to the user's enquiries back in 2016 doesn't seem to be very helpful, perhaps someone (from COM:VRT or COM:PR) can try asking the EP for clarification again? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Would they be willing to give a more straightforward answer now that 9 years have passed? Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

European Parliament terms have been considered incompatible with Commons and the files are deleted, see Category:European Parliament related deletion requests/deleted. There once was a short-lived Template:EuroparlTag, deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EuroparlTag and it redirects to speedy deletion as Template:Nonderivative. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana above linked to a discussion (which you attended) where such a file was not deleted. Was that somehow an exception or should it also be deleted? Howardcorn33 (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thank you and Nakonana for reminding this case. You're right, it shouldn't be an exception. The discussion in this case was an observation of a possible ambiguity. In practice, it seems that at least many photos of the members of the Parliament are not nominated for deletion. Maybe a more general conclusion can be reached to keep or to delete items that are under the same specific terms. If kept, maybe a template can be re-created, which would be better than the EU template. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Possibly public domain images published in book

I copied this question from the Help Desk at the suggestion of another contributor. There is a book titled Port Charlotte by Roxanne Read, and within it there are some old photos pertaining to Port Charlotte High School that were apparently provided "courtesy of Port Charlotte High School" (as well as some other public schools in Port Charlotte, including Charlotte Harbor Center). Public records in Florida are considered public domain, and apparently "public record" has a broad interpretation, so these are potentially public domain images. Would I need to try to hunt down either the author of the book or the school/school district officials that provided these to confirm their public record status (meaning that they were, in fact, government produced vs. a private individual or corporation with copyrights producing them for the government), or is the citation in the book enough to qualify them for inclusion in the Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikipedia? PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@PCHS Pirate Alumnus: "Courtesy of" in this case is likely to just mean who physically provided a photo. It would matter enormously whether or not the photo was taken by a school employee as part of their job, and nothing you say indicates that we can assume that.

Also, you don't say anything about the nature of the photo, or its date. If (for example) they were published in a school yearbook or a school newspaper before 1 March 1989, there is a very good chance of being PD for lack of copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Licensing for works containing other works

Is there a more structured way to record the copyrights at File:Poster_House_Dorothy_Waugh_exhibit.jpg#Licensing and File:Wikipe-tan_drawing_at_WCNA_2025.jpg#Licensing?

For the first one, it's not merely a scan, so {{PD-art}} doesn't seem to apply, but I've released my photograph under a free license. For the second one, {{PD-art}} doesn't seem to apply when it's a freely licensed work rather than a PD work. Sdkb ^talk 21:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: you can spell it out in the "Permission" field of the {{Information}} template. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio concern

Hello all,

I have a question pertaining to File:Dixit – How to Play and Tips.webm, a Media Of The Day video. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Board games states the following:

"Board games are usually of copyright design, and photographs that are intended to illustrate the game board and/or the box are not normally acceptable. Photographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image, but that is unlikely to be the case if the whole board or box design is clearly shown. The design shown does not automatically become incidental simply because there are some players in the frame along with the board."

To my understanding, the video clearly focuses enough on the cards (which meet the threshold of originality), board, and the fact it is illustrating the board game Dixit for de minimis not to count. And unless I'm missing something, these elements are all copyrighted, according to Dixit's publisher, Libbellud

"All Content is protected by copyright, legislation concerning data bases, designs and models, trademarks and, more generally, international conventions and other laws protecting the related intellectual property and exclusive rights. Any reproduction or representation of these components or of all or part of the Content in any manner and in any respect whatsoever is prohibited without the prior authorization of ASMODEE GROUP and, where applicable, the licensors and rights holders. The User acknowledges that s/he is only authorized to use these components and the information appearing on the Website to the extent expressly permitted BY ASMODEE GROUP. S/he further acknowledges and agrees that none of these Terms has the effect of transferring ownership of any trademark, trade name or other proprietary right to any part of the Content. S/he undertakes not to do anything that contravenes this clause or that is likely to harm, in any way whatsoever, the ASMODEE GROUP, its successors or assigns, in this regard."

I would rather not make a ruckus by nominating a main page media for deletion, but as a fairly new contributor of Commons, I can't seem to find the past discussion regarding this MotD nomination, so I can't get my questions answered too quietly. Can anyone with more expertise (more particularly one with more knowledge on Commons consensus) comment on this? Thank you. Cawfeecrow (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a valid concern. I also suspect that some of the photographs in Category:Dixit (card game), such as File:Dixit spiel p 014.jpg, are also impermissible derivative works of the game. Omphalographer (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns too. This video appears to have some derivative work issues that I think is substantial enough to warrant a deletion discussion. Same case for the other videos in Category:Tutorial videos of board games in English as well. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Are all Texas mugshots public domain?

I nominated Commons:Deletion requests/File:David koresh.jpg for deletion, on the grounds that it was not published until 1998, despite being taken in 1987 (it is licensed as PD-US-1978-1989- despite not being published until 1998) Everyone in the discussion agreed that this image was not public domain, and that it was first published in 1998.

However, it was closed as keep, and after discussion, @Jameslwoodward and @Abzeronow (the closer) have indicated they believe it to be free because "Texas law makes mug shots free" I do not see where this is indicated in Texas law, or on commons.

If this is the case, and I doubt it, could we write about this somewhere? Or clarify why this would be the case? If this is free, we would have many more public domain images, but I do not know where this information comes from. In any case, what tag would we use - because as it is, it is mislicensed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I just looked at the close of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:David koresh.jpg and it doesn't really say, Texas law makes mug shots free but rather per discussion, 1988 mugshot, public domain by formalities. This might seem like a minor distinction to make, but it's an important one. The close doesn't state all Texas mugshots are within the public domain just because they're mugshots taken in Texas (i.e. like {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-FLGov}}); rather it states this particular mugshot is in the public domain because there's no indication that the required en:copyright formalities were completed by whoever took the mugshot per {{PD-US-1978-1989}}.

Such copyright formalities apply to all potentially copyright eligible works created during that same time period. Even though US copyright law no longer required a visible copyright notice for works created between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, it still required copyright registration be made within five years after the publication of such work. So, it's entirely possible that a work created during that time period without a visible copyright notice that was also subsequently not registered for copyright protection within five years after publication entered into the public domain on January 1 of the sixth year after publication under US copyright law. At least that's my understanding of how US copyright law is applied for works created/published during that particular time period. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly No, this is the conversation that was had on Talk:Abzeronow after. Abzeronow agreed it was not published until 1998 but deferred to Jameslwoodward who said that all Texas mugshots were PD and that is where it stands now. So that is currently the rationale for its being kept; what tag would we use?

Yes, but the work was not published until 1998, as was agreed upon in the DR. Every single instance of that image says it was released in 1998 and no newspaper ran it until 1998. unless I am misunderstanding everything, and publication and creation are equivalent for copyright purposes? Is that the case? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What I said was that publication was a question (1988 or 1998). It seems that per below, 1988 appears to be the year of publication of the mugshot. Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Abzeronow has already clarified above what they meant by their close, and others have posted in more detail below. So, I'm not sure what more I can add other than to say you're correct that "publication", not "creation", is typicaly what matters more when it comes to US copyright law. Even though the definition of "publication" as it pertains to mug shots taken in Texas might seem odd, the explanations given below seem to be, at least to me, reasonable interpretations of how Texas treats such photos and how US copyright law treats such photos. I guess you can, if you want, seek wider community involvement again per COM:DR#Appealing decisions, but I'd expect many of the same arguments made in the first DR and posted below would just end up being made at another DR. If, however, you're subsequently come across any copyright-related court cases specifically related to mug shots or Texas law at the time where it clearly is stated that mug shots are protected by copyright regardless and not considered "published" as such, then that would almost certainly be enough to convince others that this file should've been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• I was once able to argue we didn't have to prove "publication" of a New Mexico mug shot because New Mexico law made all mug shots available for public use on creation, which met one of the definitions of publication under US law. You'd have to find out why this particular image wasn't published until 1998. If it was held by the authorities and not released until then, then it's hard to prove publication before then. But if the mug shot was available the whole time and just nobody requested it, that could qualify as publication. If you can find and quote the relevant Texas law in 1988 I might be able to help you craft an argument. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 10:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That's the argument developed along somewhat similar lines by Minermatt122514 in the deletion request discussion. CA and FL are special because their laws directly say that such items cannot be copyrighted. That doesn't mean that such items in Texas cannot have become public domain before 1989 due to copies being by Texas law automatically available to the public without restriction on distribution or usage, thus published. Different reason, same result. That might have been the reasoning for the conclusion to keep the file. It can be noted that Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov correctly deleted a template that mistakenly confused freedom of information with public domain. A crucial thing to examine may be if the Texas law before 1989 granted no access at all, or only freedom of information, or if it provided automatic availability of unrestriced copies. There seems to be deletion requests decisions in both directions. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Willie Nelson Mugshot 1960.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The image was never released prior to 1998 and no copies of it were made available. They do not automatically give these kinds of things out. I searched every single news story that referred to Koresh by any of his names in every newspaper that covered him pre-Waco and while multiple photos of him were published that specific photo never appeared until 1998. Minermatt came to agree with my evidence that it had never been published until 1998. So, for the purposes of copyright, are publication and creation equivalent? I can see no other way that this would be public domain, which was the closure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The photo *was* available to the public, under the law of the time (The Texas Open Records Act which was repealed and replaced with the Texas Public Information Act in 1995). For mug shots, this is sufficient to constitute publication under the copyright law (which included merely offering copies to the public, which is sort of an edge case, because most publishers would never put out a statement in advance saying they would release copies of their work without a copyright notice). Thousands of criminals get arrested all the time, and nobody ever requests their mug shots or publishes them because the person isn't famous or the crime isn't newsworthy enough. But for pre-1989 photos, a public records act stating the mug shots are AVAILABLE to the public was enough to constitute publication, and unless the state reserves copyright or actually registered the photo, it became public domain (Georgia's public records act reserves copyright, for instance.) David Koresh wasn't famous in 1987 and thus nobody physically published his picture in a newspaper. But the mug shot existed and was an open record, making it published under the definition in the Copyright Act. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard "public records act stating the mug shots are AVAILABLE to the public was enough to constitute publication" according to what? Publication is actually making those copies available, not hypothetically saying "we can if somebody asks". Commons:Publication was not done, unless, again, publication = creation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Read the legal definition of publication. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."

They did not offer to. That they could have done so is not offering. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

What template do you use for such mugshots? Trade (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videos by HoneyWorks

I was always wondering if the CC licenses on this category valid. I have seen the previous DRs and village pump posts, and it seems like the expectation is that we wait until Honeyworks requests takedown and that since the official channel released it that we should assume they have release rights. I've looked through their copyright FAQ and it seems like they are fine with most derivatives and performances, but there's a big caveat: they don't want their videos or music reproduced whole ("アルバム全曲を圧縮ファイルで公開する事や、動画配信する事は禁止します") and they also prohibit commercial distribution of derivatives of their illustrations ("ですが、販売・頒布に関してはご遠慮下さい"). In addition, performance rights are reserved by JASRAC. I don't think a CC license on a Youtube video fits with their official stance. Takipoint123 (💬) 16:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Doesnt matter. They released their videos under a Creative Commons license which they cannot retract under any circumstances Trade (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That's true in essence, but equally important is if the copyright owner intended to release it under CC BY SA at the first place. Also, YouTube does not allow CC licenses to songs which have a content identifier I believe (all Honeyworks songs are managed by JASRAC so they probably do). Takipoint123 (💬) 14:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, feel free to start a deletion request then Trade (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Music sheet of a still-copyrighted composition

The file in question is File:Sheet cau ho ben bo hien luong.jpg. The composer died in 2013, so the composition itself is still copyrighted. The file description says it was taken from this site; the description of the file there says it was uploaded by a user. COM:CRBSM doesn't say anything about music sheets. Is the file okay for Commons? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

No, this is not okay. If the composition is copyrighted, a piece of sheet music representing that composition is copyrighted as well. I've opened a deletion request - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheet cau ho ben bo hien luong.jpg. Omphalographer (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Royal Military College Duntroon badge

Hi, and hope you're well. If File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge cropped.PNG can be hosted here, can w:File:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif be imported? I don't know enough to evaluate the November 2023 discussion at w:File talk:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif#c-KarmaKangaroo-20231125160900-KarmaKangaroo-20231122204100. Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the templates that state it is public domain in both the US and Australia, I say we're good. Bremps... 03:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Banknotes of Poland

Hello. In March 2022, user Gonzuchna changed the Banknotes of Poland category to claim that the copyright of Polish banknotes was limited to legal tender banknotes (after Poland cut four zeroes from the złoty). I think the change may be (but not certainly) related to https://nbp.pl/en/coins-and-banknotes/good-practices/ (https://nbp.pl/banknoty-i-monety/wykorzystanie-wizerunkow/ in Polish), but I probably need a second opinion on how that exactly changes how the Commons hosts images of Polish banknotes issued after 1954. Best, --Minoa (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Food

Is it possible for food to be artistic creations with aesthetic value (which would make it subject to copyright)? Or are food inherently functional items which precludes them from being works of art subject to copyright? Trade (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible for food to be artistic creations with aesthetic value (which would make it subject to copyright)?

Yes, in certain cases. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Food. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on File:Kirby cafe - 52929755341.jpg and File:Kirby cafe - 52930193438.jpg? --Trade (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I voted  Delete for File:Kirby cafe - 52929755341.jpg more because of its packaging, rather than the food itself. However, for File:Kirby cafe - 52930193438.jpg, I think it is clearly a artistic food decoration, and it is creative and original enough to be copyrighted. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of your own render of a company's spacecraft?

Hi, I created an up-to-date render of SpaceX's Crew Dragon vehicle docked to Vast Aerospace's Haven-1 spacecraft and I'm wondering if it is okay to publish the render depicting the two on Commons? Edits4019 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Almost certainly allowed under COM:VEHICLE. Based5290 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

BBC audio files

I don't have much experience when it comes to audio files uploaded to Commons, but I'm hoping that someone who does will take a look at File:BBC Hebrew Final Broadcast.wav, File:BBC Hebrew Service 10th anniversary Oct 31, 1959.wav, File:BBC Hebrew, Queen's Coronation 1953.wav, File:BBC Hebrew Unit - Michael Almaz 1976.wav and File:BBC Hebrew First Broadcast.wav. These all appear to be legitimate recordings of BBC radio broadcasts in their entirety that are being claimed as own work by the uploader. Some of them might be old enough to have already entered into the public domain per COM:UK I guess, but it would be better for someone more experienced with audio files to do that assessment. I've let the uploader know about this discussion, and perhaps they'll clarify what they mean by "own work"; such a claim and the licensing used the files, though, seem incorrect to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright of audio files but these may not have originated in the UK. While the BBC home service is based in the UK, a service specifically in Hebrew may have been part of the BBC World Service. They could have recorded and broadcast the service from a location outside of the UK (I'd guess the intended audience was Israel). Some BBC World Service shows were recorded in (and broadcast from) the UK using native speakers from the intended audience (one example is how the Free French broadcast BBC radio shows from London during WWII). Further research may be needed on how the BBC managed this service. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel may be relevant here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Yann (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Not all the recording belong to the BBC. I recorded some myself with the individual broadcasters when I worked with them. Some are from discs belonging to the broadcasters who were presented with them. Leonard9ca (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leonard9ca: Did you produce the original broadcasts yourself or did you just make recordings of them? Typically, the copyright holder of something is considered to be original creator of the content, not someone who reproduces what was created. If the recordings you created were something considered to be an audio equivalent to Commons:2D copying, then what you created is considered in many cases to be simply a "mechanical reproduction" that in and of itself lacks sufficient creativity to be eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of many countries (e.g. the United States). Even for those countries in which it might be considered eligible for copyright protection (e.g. the United Kingdom), there's a good chance it would still be a Commons:Derivative work involving two copyrights for Commons purposes: the one for the original work and the one for your recording. Since the copyright of the latter doesn't automatically void or take precedance over the copyright of the former, Commons would still need some way of assessing the copyright of the original broadcast since it can really only keep content which is 100% free (either 100% within the public domain or 100% released under acceptable free licenses). The Creative Commons license you used might be OK for your recording, but it wouldn't automatically also cover the original broadcast. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

PD-Serbia for derivative works?

There's the image w:en:File:Album Tesko meni sa tobom.jpg on enwiki uploaded under a fair use rationale. It's an album cover from the late 1980s, but it is based on a 1943/1944 photograph by Žorž Skrigin (1910–1997), i.e. Kozarčanka, which is licensed as {{PD-Serbia}} because it's a photograph published before 1978 and Yugoslavia only provided a copyright term of 25 years after author's death for photos.

Now my question would be whether this PD rationale would extend to derivative works that were published after 1978, like the above album cover?

Or is the album cover maybe distinct enough that it crosses the Serbian TOO as a creative work of its own? Nakonana (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Looks all right to me, just link to the original in the other versions field of the information template when you upload it. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

CC licensed used by official channel in different region for Copyrighted Materials

The YouTube source for File:Overwatch_2_–_Trailer_de_lançamento.webm (as well as several files that have been cropped from screenshots of it) does list the standard CC YouTube license, but its clear that the material in question is normally 100% a copyrighted work from a US company. The uploader does appear to be an official agency of the US company that owns the copyright but this feels like copyright-washing that we should be avoiding. Masem (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Templates and categories were created in September 2024, April 2025 and July 2025 for videos of several official youtube accounts of that company. Not sure what we do with that but at least it's not an isolated mistake by one channel. Notifying JohnCWiesenthal. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Those channel-specific YouTube CC BY templates were created in response to {{Official Doctor Who YouTube channel}} and {{Official Star Wars Flickr stream}} (and actually started with {{Official NickRewind YouTube channel}}). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't deny its fine for those templates, it makes sense, for the channels of the programs in their original native country or language, as there's clearer line of authority for taking copyrighted material to release as CC. Here, though, this is a foreign language version of the main US entity, and posting videos that are under copyright from the official English channels, but where the foreign version simply uses the same visual elements and labels that CC. The cleanliness of the Brazilian Xbox division to do that is very unclear. Masem (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a straightforward rehash of the Vogue Taiwan situation. The foreign subsidiaries of a company don't automatically have the right to freely release content they're republishing from their corporate owner. They're two separate entities, so the republisher (the subsidiary) needs explicit permission from the content owner. As has been demonstrated in several other analogous situations, that required permission often never happens, as subsidiaries sometimes mistakenly believe they don't need to ask for it. So, IMO, we can't rely on the CC licenses for the non-English XBOX videos unless and until Microsoft/XBOX HQ confirms that their subsidiaries had permission to release the content as such. 19h00s (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

What you've encountered is a free depiction. There is a whole category for these types of files with constant arguing about whether some of this stuff should be allowed. The most recent deletion discussion about Minecraft content uploaded by Xbox Mexico veered heavily towards the fact that uploads by subsidiaries count as official (0 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes, excluding mine), but feel free to argue otherwise. This can be a pretty contentious topic and the fact that it has never been tested in court doesn't help.

Also, CC licenses are irrevocable, so even if one changes their license on YouTube, it is still fair game, as long as you can verify that the license was here in the first place (either with Internet Archive or if the reviewer verified it). So if the owner changes the license after being contacted, that doesn't mean anything unless the owner explicitly mentions that the license was not intended in the first place. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel you may be overlooking some factors here. We have several uploads of the video, two of which in the same locale (Overwatch BR), by subsidiaries of the same company. But only the XboxBR account posted it as free use. That wasn't the same issue raised in the Minecraft deletion discussion, and I share Masem's concerns about copyright-washing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn’t address whether XBOX’s Brazilian subsidiary had the right to publish the content under that license. That’s the core of the issue here, not the irrevocability of CC licenses. Subsidiaries don’t automatically have the same rights over content as their corporate parents. 19h00s (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

And just to put a finer point on it, I really do think this feels like the same situation as Vogue Taiwan (see the primary discussion and the eventual WMF response). In that case, a foreign subsidiary of Condé Nast (Vogue Taiwan, or VT) republished content from Condé under free licenses; that same content had been published elsewhere by other Condé entities without free licenses. After WMF got in touch with Condé to clear things up, Condé confirmed that the CC licenses on VT's content were an error; the consensus among admins was to then delete all of the content in question, not because VT had made a mistake (CC licenses are irrevocable, after all), but because VT likely never had the legal authority to make that free licensing decision in the first place, meaning the CC licenses were likely never even valid. I think that's exactly what's happened here with XBOX: the foreign subsidiaries of a company have released under a free license content from their corporate parents, even after that same content had been republished by other subsidiaries with restrictions. This resulted in that content ending up on Commons; but there is no evidence that the subsidiary had the legal authority to make that licensing decision, meaning we do not know if the licenses are valid or invalid. Given the context here (we're talking about a giant tech company that regularly pursues damages for IP violations), I do not think it's appropriate to just "assume" that the subsidiaries crossed their t's and dotted their i's on this, especially when other examples have taught us that assumption is not always correct.

I understand completely why it's so tempting to believe on its face the licensing situation here; there's even a part of me that feels a bit of satisfaction with XBOX's seeming mistake because I also love free media and hate it when corporations gatekeep everything they own. But loopholes or unique situations like this which seem to get around the IP practices of large companies are in fact usually too good to be true. 19h00s (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Burg_Rheinstein_2009-08-01_08.jpg und Burg Rheinstein 2009-08-01 07

Könnte es sein, dass diese wappenähnlichen Gebilde in einem nicht öffentlich einsehbaren Teil der Burg angebracht sind? Die Stelle sieht neu gestaltet aus, und es könnte sein, dass wir hier Probleme mit der Panaoramafreiheit und dem Urheberrecht haben. GerritR (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Laut Google Lens Bildersuche ist dieser Teil der Burg definitiv öffentlich einsehbar (und begehbar). Beispiele desselben Tores mit denselben Wappen:

• in einem Artikel vom Februar 2024[7]
• im März 2019 mit einer Besucherin auf dem Foto[8]
• in September 2010 mit einem Besucher[9]
• mit ganz vielen Besuchern in 2009[10]
• noch mehr Besuchern[11]
• auf Tripadvisor in einer Rezension aus 2016[12]
• in einem japanischen Blog im Jahr 2017[13]
• undatiert auf einer russischen Seite[14]

Ich würde sagen, hier kann von Panoramafreiheit ausgegangen werden. Nakonana (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Das scheint das aktuelle Eingangstor zur Burg zu sein. --Rosenzweig τ 21:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Question on en-wp on threshold of originality

 You are invited to join the discussion at w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Question(s) about Quaristice. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Aooo Album Cover & Band Photos

I'm not the best educated on on how wikipedia and wikimedia operate, but I wrote the article for J-rock band Aooo and was hoping to use a photo of their debut album and band photo on the article Feeeshies (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Feeeshies: did you take the band photo? If not, please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party.

As for the album jacket, assuming that it is not so simple as to be uncopyrightable, then it is certainly copyrighted, and cannot be on Commons without permission of the copyright-holder. Which language Wikipedia are we talking about? If it is the English-language Wikipedia, please see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Template:Album rationale for how you would do this entirely within the English-language Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How to put an image of Haikouichthys ercaicunensis in an article following the right Commons procedures ?

Concerning this file in Dutch Wikipedia article Cambrische explosie :

File:Haikouichthys ercaicunensis, an early Vertebrate (Agnatha) from the Lower Cambrian Chengjiang Biota, Helinpu Formation, South China.png

In the description, under permission I added : 'mail (2025-07-14) from Xiguang Zhang (xgzhang@ynu.edu.cn), The Research Center for Chengjiang Biota, Yunnan University, Kunming, Yunnan, 650091, China, with granted permission for the use of Figure 1 on page 1163.'

After receipt of the above mentionned permission-emails from Mr. Xiguang Zhang, article-author, I published the image, convinced these emails would suffice, but nontheless this permission, the file has been nominated for deletion.

After reading about how to follow the right Commons-procedures, I still don't have a clue how to do this.

I somewhere read that volunteers can reach out to the copyright holder(s) for obtaining the right license.

So, I would like to address myself to these volunteers. Ronny MG (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The same request towards these volunteers for the files below, concerning uploaded images for which I have permission by email from authors to use them in the article (see reference to these permission-mails under 'Beschrijving', Toestemming'):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schematic_structure_of_Kimberella_quadrata,_Upper_Ediacarian_of_South-Australia_and_Northwestern_Russia.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Body_impression_of_Kimberella_quadrata_;_Upper_Ediacarian_section_of_the_Arkhangel%E2%80%99sk_region_at_Zimnie_Gory_site...png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kimberichnus_teruzzii,_holotype_PIN,_no._3993-5619_;_grazing_traces_from_Kimberella_(Upper_Vendian,_Zimnie_Gory_Formation_of_Arkhangel%E2%80%99sk_region,_Russia)..png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_of_Kimberella_with_grazing_traces_Kimberichnus_teruzzii_(Upper_Ediacaran_of_South-Australia_and_Upper_Vendian_of_White_Sea_Region).png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_drawing_of_Myllokunmingia_fengjiaoa,_a_stem_Vertebrate_from_the_Lower_Cambrian_Chengjiang_Biota_Konservat-Lagerst%C3%A4tte._Helinpu_Formation_at_Haikou_(Kunming_City,_Yunnan_provincie,_Southern_China).png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Accumulations_of_the_primitive_Chordate_Yunnanozoon_lividum._Lower_Cambrian_of_Chengjiang_Biota_Konservat-Lagerst%C3%A4tte,_South_China.png

Many thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny MG (talk • contribs)

• Have the article authors directly email COM:VRT instead of you, they need to state the following three points:
  1) the file name they are emailing about
  2) they own the copyright of the image in question (either because they drew it or in the case of the publisher the rights were transferred to them)
  3) the specific license they are releasing the image under, "permission to use in wikipedia" is not enough. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that most of the images used in the article in question (wikipedia:nl:Cambrische explosie) were uploaded by yourself, and many of them overlap with existing images. File:The Early Cambrian Vetulicolian Nesonektris aldridgei. Buck Quarry, Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte (Kangaroo Island, South Australia).png for example, have same content as File:Nesonektris aldridgei.gif. This image was originally CC-licensed anyway, but even for images that require the permissions listed above, there are likely alternatives that are perfectly acceptable for use in articles. See Category:Kimberella fossils or Category:Yunnanozoon fossils for example, you can find good fossil images that is usable for article, usable without getting permission from author. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the title and author name under CC BY-SA 4.0 and the image under CC BY-SA 3.0??

I was looking at older image dumps and I released some are liscensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 but the structured data is sparse, with only the name of the author in some cases even though for a CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution the title is required. Perhaps this has been asked before, or I simply do not understand this correctly... Sloemaxez (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Huh, @Sloemaxez, your posting is somewhat hard to sort out and understand (notably due to a lack of punctuation). Did I grasp correctly that you're asking about licensing combinations on Wikimedia dumps? If yes:

- for some time already (several years, I think), the standard license on WMF projects was switched from CC-By-SA 3.0 unported to CC-By-SA 4.0 unported. I don't recall the exact date at the moment, but this date serves as cut-off between the default licenses. Anything that carried a valid license at the time of upload is available under that exact license.

- an author name is pure information and does not amount to any expression of creativity. Only human creative results warrant copyright protections, which are the base of licenses. So, author names are not within the purview of copyrights.

- an author is free to provide a title for their work(s). If such information is given, then it must be included in any license-compliant usage. But: authors are also free to forego the selection of a title. If they don't state a title, then the licensing requirement of stating one is moot - you can't use something that isn't present. For Wikimedia Commons images, you can and maybe should default to the filename as title surrogate as that would help in searching the actual source file. It is also quite difficult (but not impossible) to create a title which is creative enough to warrant a copyright in its own right, as default, use the same license for it as the underlying work. Other licensing constructions must be clearly declared.

- the Creative Commons licenses are quite permissive when it comes to make correct attributions in compilations using licensed material. You will need to simply list what compiled part is available under what kind of license. There are other en:FOSS licenses around which are "more virulent", meaning, they pervade compilations and are often incompatible with other kinds of free licensing models. Further reading is likely to be gleaned by actually googleing "viral license" or at en:Copyleft#"Viral" licensing.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see, my english has been getting worse(despite me being a native speaker), I am sorry for my lack of punctuation. Your response is appreciated. Sloemaxez (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sloemaxez: nevermind - I struggled at sorting out the meaning of the 2 verbs in "I was looking at older image dumps and I released some are liscensed under CC BY-SA 3.0". But apparently I got your intentions right enough?! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

released -> realized Sloemaxez (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

AAAHHH! Thanks, that really makes sense. - I forgot to give Commons:Multi-licensing as link in my first answer, by the way. It may also be a helpful reading. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)