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.

{{FoP-Taiwan-disclaimer}}

Is this template valid? Apparently used to tag images of works of art from Taiwan in which their designers or artists "waived" their rights to claim copyright if the photos of their works are commercially used (?). No image uses this template as of this writing. See recent changes at COM:FOP Taiwan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, this should be renamed as {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}, on the same pattern as {{Copyrighted free use}}. Technically this is not a Freedom of Panorama exemption, since FoP is only a legal privilege given by law. The waiver from the artists constitutes the precepts of the CopyrightedFreeUse template, not the FoP law of Taiwan (no disclaimer provided under Article 58). Ping @Teetrition: (who was one of the involved users in Taiwanese FoP discussions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've noted the changes at COM:FOP Taiwan, and it seems doubtful that any artists would actually use this disclaimer. Teetrition (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Teetrition I may boldly move the template title by myself, to {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}, if no one opposes. "BUMPING" this again to prevent bot archiving. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Support move, so the name will more clearly reflect the template's content and purpose. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Milad tower PD next year(?)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milad Tower from Goftogu Park 2.jpg, the architectural copyright expires next year (50+1 years after creation). Yet w:en:Milad Tower mentions the name of the architect. Which is true in accordance with COM:Iran: CREATE+50+1 or AUTHOR DEATH YEAR+50+1? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Milad Tower was not finished in 1975, so that date is not really relevant to anything. If a legal entity owns the rights on the building it will expire 30 years from publication. Also copyright does not run to the end of the year in Iran  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jeff G. on how come the year 1975 was comcluded in the discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• I submitted this to undeletion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Milad_Tower_from_Goftogu_Park_2.jpg. I think the 1975 date was a mistake but I wanted to see what undeletion thought and they don't agree with it either. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 11:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

US Passport photos

On the page for Category:United States passport photos there is a section about the copyright of passport photos. It raises the possibility that passport photos may not be eligible for copyright because they do not meet the threshold of originality. That seems to rely only on a statement found on this page. It is not at all clear that the statement was made in relation to US passports.

I believe that passport photos meet the deliberately low bar for originality despite the guidelines that photographers must follow. Regardless of my opinion, we should clearly be following the precautionary principle here. If we are not certain that US passport photos are ineligible for copyright, we should not have them here.

I don't believe that the discussion of copyright on the category page is normal or helpful. Any such statements belong in guidelines or help pages. I have read the recent discussions on this noticeboard and I learned nothing. Is there any settled case law about this? Is the entire "below the threshold of originality" just some editor's wishful thinking or is there a documented basis for it? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

My only problem with accepting passport photos is we reject other photos that are below TOO, There was a New York case that ruled thay clip art such as photos of food on a menu were below TOO but good luck gettinh Commons to accept them. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 12:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard I would be surprised by that ruling. What is the name of the case? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oriental Art Printing, Inc. v. Goldstar Printing Corp.; one of the photographs denied protection by that case is found on page 1522 of this Brooklyn Law Review article. prospectprospekt (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC) edited 18:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Per the US State Dept.'s website, it is clear that individuals outside the US govt may create and submit their own passport photos according to particular guidelines, so we cannot rely on arguments utilizing {{PD-USGov-DOS}}.

(Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, I am an amateur only attempting to make sense of what I have read.)

The only relevant case I can find with such routine portrait photography is the California case Dlugolecki v. Poppel, which dealt with unauthorized usage of yearbook photos of Meghan Markle in news broadcasts.

In its summary of the same preliminary finding, the US Copyright Office said "On [...] the nature of the copyrighted work, the court declined to “make any fine distinctions between creative and factual works,” accepting that there was a minimal measure of creativity in the photographs that slightly benefited Dlugolecki."

According to a 2025 article by law professor Paul Szynol, "A mug shot and passport photos are paradigm examples of an image produced in strict compliance with preexisting dictates that, by definition, not only don’t require creativity, but actively prohibit it. [...] Generic portraits—like high-school yearbook photos—are no more creative than mug shots." I am not sure if Dlugolecki v. Poppel went beyond a preliminary finding, or if its ongoing, but if it did ultimately conclude that such photographs were not protected by copyright, that would most likely mean that passport photos wouldn't be either.

Since I am not a lawyer, I therefore have to ask these questions:

1. Is Dlugolecki v. Poppel ongoing? Did the case conclude beyond anything other than a preliminary finding?
2. If so, would its verdict about the yearbook photos say anything about the copyrightability of passport photos?
3. If not, is its preliminary finding enough for "significant doubt" about such photos' copyrightability that COM:PCP will require us to delete passport photos?

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 I think you may have misinterpreted the statement in Dlugolecki v. Poppel. They were merely stating that despite the nature of the images, they met the standard for creativity. It wasn't in doubt. That statement is just checking off an item on the checklist.

Szynol isn't saying that passport photos and mugshots are ineligible for copyright. He is saying that they shouldn't be, which is very different. Right after the sentence that you quote, he says The formulae listed above would nevertheless provide courts with a doctrinal basis for finding creativity and lists the reasons. He is saying that mugshots and passports photos are, in the current interpretation of the law, copyrighted. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: thanks for clarifying. So should we take Szynol's statement about the current interpretation of the law (rather than his own advice) to mean that such photos are indeed copyrighted and therefore we should not permit them on Commons? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

(Or at the very least that such photos have such significant doubt regarding their copyright status that COM:PCP applies?) – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 That's how I take it but I'm just another editor like you and not an expert in these matters. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Has there ever actually been a case in the United States of anyone successfully registering copyright of a mugshot photo? Do we have any legal precedent here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

For me, almost any photo of a 3D object has enough creativity to merit a copyright. Even if I'm wrong, the issue is close enough to raise COM:PCP.

The arguments for mugshot and passport photos usually play in another sandbox.

The mugshot question is usually about whether photographs taken by government employees have a copyright. That question varies by jurisdiction. Criminals do not supply their own mugshots.

Passport photos are not taken by government employees. Is my passport photo a work for hire where I own the copyright or does the photographer still hold the copyright? There usually is not a written contract where the copyright is transferred to me. A similar situation is when a passerby snaps a photo of me using my camera. Ramanujan's passport photo is a complicated mess: an unknown Indian photographer took the photo, but Chandrasekhar's heir claims she got the rights from Ramanujan's heir.

Back to creativity. I like my current driver's license photo. I was told to stand on the mark; that does not require much creativity. The DMV employee then gave me two posing instructions — instructions not needed for the ID photo. For me, those instructions take the picture out of the carnival photo booth realm. Even without those instructions, a yearbook or passport photographer gets to set up the lighting, and that involves more than mechanically clicking a shutter release. Maybe the same spacing and lighting is used for hundreds of passport photos, but that does not mean no creativity was involved. A Kodak pamphlet goes into a lot of detail about setting up lighting for a portrait.

The Copyright Office has also registered CCTV footage, so there is a presumption that even some utilitarian imaging can have a copyright. There are utilitarian images that are outside of copyright. For example, my recent series of x-rays are medical images that fall outside of copyright.

Glrx (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Passport photos aren't typically works for hire in the legal sense, that requires an employee employer relationship. They fall under the legal category of commissioned works, where the photographer almost always retains copyright (LifeTouch sends me emails every year reminding me they have photos of my kid from every year of his life, should I choose to purchase). Unlike yearbook photos, however passport photo companies rarely retain originals once the transaction is done, which is a pretty clear sign of implied transfer of copyright (destroying all copies of a work is considered a sign of copyright abandonment per Pacific and Southern Co., Inc. v. Duncan) but again, good luck convincing Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The ground on which we deny copyright protection to X-Ray images is ridiculously flimsy, there has not once been a legal case on the matter. It is at least as originated by an human author as any passport photo or mugshot. The human author frames it, puts the subject into position, sets everything about how the image is going to look. If you think any photo of a 3D object passes the threshold of originality (which I don't agree with), I don't know why you would defend our practice of declaring those free based off of 0 legal precedent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging Glrx (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and that isn't legal precedent, and by your own admission here the exact same thing backing the medical imaging is free idea has been ignored previously. The case is just as flimsy as that of passport photos. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The US federal government body in charge of registering copyrights has declared that medical imaging is not eligible for copyright. That's the first line of the linked page. That's not flimsy; the first any US plaintiff is going to have to do is tell the judge that they applied to register their copyright but were denied one on the grounds that they did not have a valid copyright, according to the US copyright office. Then the defendant is going to provide the judge with the letter of final judgement where the Copyright Office explains that. That's pretty solid in my opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Those are not legally binding. And they decided that they will not register for works which are "produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author", but this does not apply to all, or even most, medical imaging. There is just as much intervention in the taking of medical imagery as that of a passport photo, if not more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

And the Supreme Court could rule that the copyright law was unconstitutional because it goes beyond the bounds of science and useful arts and because life+70 goes beyond "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors" as limited times is clearly bounded in that clause to authors, not their heirs. But we go to go with what we know right now.

When it comes down to PARAKANYAA's opinion or the US Copyright Office opinion, I'm going with the US Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives us guidance in many cases where we'd just be lost, and I don't want to delete a bunch of files that the Copyright Office says is okay but we're going to second-guess the government explanations on the issue. Again, if we're following the US Copyright Office, we basically automatically win any questions of willful infringement, which is the best we can do, short of deleting everything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The Supreme Court decides the interpretation of the law and that the law can change is not equivalent to basing current practice off of things other than the law. The copyright office can and does have its decisions challenged. Having an approach where we decide that works made with more human involvement are not copyrightable because of a supposed lack of human creativity, but ones with less human and creativity involvement are protected, is incomprehensible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The precautionary principle refers to "significant doubt". I don't think "the copyright office could be wrong about this matter where we have no other guidance from the federal government" is "significant doubt." It is not our job to argue for the broadest humanly imaginable interpretation of copyright protection. - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bremps @D. Benjamin Miller @Clindberg @Jeff G. You all participated in a similar discussion here in March 2024. Any thoughts? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we add a subsection "Passport photos" in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Miscellaneous addressing this? Perhaps something along the lines of:

ID photos in US passports may not be assumed public domain works of the federal government as private citizens may submit their own photos. The copyrightability of such photos which adhere to strict compositional standards is unclear, but are presumed to have such significant doubt as to be deleted under the precautionary principle. Passport photos known to be shot by employees of US embassies and consulates as part of their official duties may be tagged with {{PD-USGov-DoS}}.

? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 23:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the government specifies a size and a plain background does not limit the creativity of the actual photographer. Most formal portraits are made to a specified size with a background chosen by the subject. Therefore, if you argue that a passport photographer is not entitled to a copyright, you must argue that no formal portrait deserves one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact of being a passport photo doesn't really change the copyrightability requirements one way or another. Given that they do prescribe a straight-on photo and the basic cropping, does mean there is not a lot of room left for creativity. The angle and framing are generally two of the more copyrightable aspects of a photo. But, you can use your own photo for passports, and not sure what would make those uncopyrightable. It's possible that something like that could be ruled below the threshold depending on the circumstances, but we haven't had a ruling to that effect, or a statement like that from the Copyright Office. So, I would tend to avoid claiming PD status on them inherently. There is more creativity possible than say X-rays or other medical imaging, which do have such a statement, meaning we are on much safer ground there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

SVG renderings of proprietary fonts/typefaces

I am aware that raster renderings of any font made in the US are generally under the public domain. What is not clear to me is the copyright status of vector (SVG) renderings of proprietary font made in the US. {{PD-font}} lays out one of the following caveats:

Vector format images of fonts (such as SVG) may be copyrighted in the United States.

If "vector format images of fonts" means vector representations of any font, and "may be copyrighted" refers to the copyright status of an individual font (free or proprietary) that is determined on a case-by-case basis, almost all SVG entries in Category:Typeface samples and its subcategories (e.g., Category:Typeface samples (Font Specimen Creator)) would be at risk of deletion for copyright violations. Most of the fonts/typefaces present in the said categories are proprietary, with notable examples being Arial, Comic Sans, Futura, and Helvetica.

One might argue that the term "font" refers to the software that allows a computer to render a typeface, such as TrueType (TTF) and OpenType (OTF) files. Font file formats are not supported file formats.

I managed to find several deletion requests on the subject matter. Only one deletion request, as far as I found, resulted in the successful deletion of what I presumed to be a few vector typeface samples.

Note that I am basing this discussion on US copyright laws and how they apply to fonts/typefaces.

Here are the relevant questions:

1. Would vector representations of proprietary fonts on Wikimedia Commons, including vector-based typeface samples, be subject to deletion due to copyright (e.g., Microsoft YaHei.svg)?
2. Does Wikimedia Commons make a distinction between the terms "font" and "typeface", especially in copyright policies? Are users, especially nominators of deletion discussions I mentioned, aware of the said distinction?

AlphaBeta135talk 05:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Re. #1: in most cases, no. Under US law, typefaces are not protected by copyright; this extends to any representation of the typeface, whether it's in print, a bitmap image, or vector graphics. Font files may in some cases be copyrightable, but, as you noted, this is a moot point because they cannot be uploaded to Commons. The language in Commons:Licensing#Fonts which specifies "raster renderings" should be removed, as it has no legal basis. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The actual computer code is what might be copyrighted. The uploader would have had to independently create the svg, which probably explains why raster versions never have a concern. It's not a legal distinction, its a practical one. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It was a legal distinction, actually. Vector fonts have been protected as computer software (there is more information in those than just the font outlines, like kerning etc.), but not bitmap. Additionally, the choice of vector points by itself has been ruled copyrightable in a vectorization of a PD image (land maps). In general, I think trying to use copyright loopholes to copy fonts will fall down once you get back to a vector format. Typeface is the shape of the letters, and that aspect is not technically copyrightable in the U.S. (though can be in France and the UK and maybe other places). Fonts typically mean the computer files that make them usable; those are protected in the U.S. as software, and the vector points can be separately copyrightable. In general, usages of fonts are probably OK (we wouldn't delete a graphic because it made use of a commercial font), but copies of the typeface itself, particularly vector, are almost certainly a copyright issue even in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it the computer code that is present in TTF or OTF files? AlphaBeta135talk 16:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard I downloaded the SVG typeface samples for Arial, Comic Sans, Impact, Papyrus, and Wingdings 1, and checked the samples on Inkscape. In all of the five samples, the vector points are identical or identically proportional to what the respective font files produce on my computer. It is likely that many uploaders (including me, begrudgingly speaking) simply converted the text displayed in whatever font into path and uploaded the samples onto Commons. AlphaBeta135talk 04:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that SVG can be a font file format with the help of OpenType-SVG technology because SVG is a XML-based format. And other fonts' format such as OpenType, TrueType can be used to generate a SVG font with tool. 0x0a (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I brought up this discussion because, as I restated, there are many vector samples of proprietary fonts present on Wikimedia Commons like Category:Typeface samples (Font Specimen Creator). In fact, as an example, there are six Helvetica vector samples (including Helvetica Now and Helvetica Neue variants) in this aforementioned category. AlphaBeta135talk 04:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Can this be considered Public Domain

Hi,

I wanted to ask if this work can be considered Public Domain? I'm interested in a snippet of the title page for the book's article on the English Wikipedia, The Natives Of Mailu.

The book was first published in 1915, but this uploaded work was republished in 1988. The original author Bronisław Malinowski died in 1942. You can read the article for clearer details. Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Text that you are able to demonstrate was originally published in the 1915 edition (or any later edition prior to 1930) will be public domain and you can use it without concern. Any text that has been adapted for the 1988 edition (such as modifications by the named editor) will be in copyright in London for the editor's life plus 70 years. The copyright page indicates simultaneous publication in New York in 1988 but includes a copyright notice for the editor; my limited understanding of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States is that this was sufficient to establish copyright in the US at the time of publication (though I am happy to be corrected by a more experienced user) - though again this would only apply to text modified for the 1988 edition. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Considering what kingsacrificer wants is the a 'snippet' of the title page of the book, I think threshold of originality should be considered too

@Kingsacrificer, when you say "...a snippet of the title page" do you mean the top bit of what is page six in the edition you linked? Considering it would simply be the title of the book + the author, it might be too unoriginal to be eligible for copyright in the UK and US. The UK has a bit of a lower bar (or 'threshold') for originality which includes typographical copyrights*, but considering that the font doesn't look modified, It's probably fine. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't spent as much time staring at info about UK copyright law as I have for info about US copyright law, so take this with a grain of salt.

For more information, See COM:TOO UK

*I would like to note that typographical copyright apparently does not include the simple use of a typeface as I initially thought! According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

"It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work consisting of the design of a typeface— (a)to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing, (b)to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or (c)to do anything in relation to material produced by such use"

I add this because I initially was going to add a statement about how the typeface's copyright wouldn't be a concern as it'd be old enough for it to have expired (typographical copyright only lasts 25 years after publication), but it seems that it doesn't even need to be considered in the first place as artistic use of a typeface is not a part of typographical copyright. Again, grain of salt. Cawfeecrow (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cawfeecrow @From Hill To Shore

Thank you for responding.

My aim is to add the entire title page to the book's enwiki article. I cannot find anything useful pertaining to the original edition of 1915.

The fact that the editor's name will not appear in the original edition's title page, but appears in the 1988 editions' title page (yes, page 6) could also be over the copyright TOO, couldn't it? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so as it's just more authorial information (translator's name + academic titles) and a location, but TOO is finnicky sometimes and I'm not too familiar with where UK draws the line. Very inclined to say that the full page would be below TOO. For clarification, under TOO is good, above TOO is a copyright violation.

I would like to mention that (as this generally concerns an enwiki page), you can always use a free use rationale if you're still weary about it. The only thing would be is that it would be uploaded locally to enwiki and not into Commons. Cawfeecrow (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't use the fair use rationale in this case because there is always A POSSIBILITY that the 1915 edition appears from somewhere and is available for use under PD. Kingsacrificer (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer: Even though the cover page of the republished version was originally uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, it's really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and most likely under British copyirght law too given the new COM:TOO UK. So, I've converted the local file's licensing to "PD-simple" and re-added the file to the article. In my opinion, the file is OK for Commons but if others feel differently, it still seems too simple under US copyright law and can be treated as public domain for local use on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@MarchjulyCan this be the case for all title pages of all books (most of them look like this) that they can be uploaded as PD-simple? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Not Marchjuly, but from my understanding, yes. per COM:BOOK:

"...A rare exception to this rule would be a book cover which is simple enough to not exceed the Threshold of originality."

The United States doesn't recognize the mere use of a typeface in a artistic work as eligible for copyright(see COM:FONT) (as in, it's not a infringing work on the owner of the typeface), and and basic author information (such as just a name) isn't copyrightable either. A situation where a title page would be above TOO is if it had decorative garnish, in which the graphics would be eligible for copyright (unless its simple geometry like a square or two).

TOO laws of the source country applies, but if it's a US work, it'd generally be ineligible (and if it's not a US work, you can at the very least count on being able to upload it to enwiki per pd-simple). Though I do believe enwiki would prefer book covers and not necessarily title pages when possible, so it's not exactly a one-size-fits-all scenario. That's a Wikipedia editing issue though, not a copyright one, so I guess that line of thought ends here as it's not relevant to the current conversation. Cawfeecrow (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight into COM:BOOK. I'll study this in depth and take the right way ahead. Cheers! Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer: I can't really add much to what Cawfeecrow posted above. Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts in both the US and the country of first publication and whether it's within COM:SCOPE; the varous local Wikipedias are concerned with copyright status too, but they also deal with encyclopedic relevance and other stuff like that. So, whether an inner title page is enclopedically preferrable to the outer cover is probably something that would need to be sorted out either through article talk page discussion (for a specific article) or through WikiProject talk page discussion (for general guidelines). There is some general information at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Books (see the "Images" section) on what the preference seems to be for English Wikipedia, but the other Wikipedias might do things differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I am working as part of that very WikiProject haha. Yes, outer covers are preferred but in cases of old books they are not always usable hence the curiosity about the title pages. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

A image got deleted despite consent from the author

Hi, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefangrotz (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

In june the file File:Esperanto-Klubo-Amundsen-Scott-2022.jpg got deleted after a very short discussion. It is a picture of the first Esperanto-Club in Antarctica. (first published on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CdfZmkQuTjS/)

The owner of the picture assured me, that he followed the ownership process as it was described on the template that appeared on the file page. A week later or so the picture got deleted without any communication.

Since I still believe that this picture is already under a creative commons license and there shouldn't be any issues, I uploaded it again: File:Esperanto-klubo-amundsen-scott-2022.jpg But this time I would like to do things right.

What are the next steps to keep it online? Stefangrotz (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stefangrotz Please see COM:VRT. As the image was published first on another website, the photographer had to either add the appropriate licence at the source website or submit suitable evidence through the VRT process. The deletion of the previous image was due to the lack of that required evidence. I can't see evidence of the required licence at the source page, so I will mark your upload as lacking permission - this will give you a week to start the VRT process (please add the Template:Permission pending to the page after submitting the VRT email). Please note that as you have reuploaded a previously deleted file, an administrator has the right to delete the file immediately without waiting the normal 7 days for permission. If the file is deleted before the VRT process is completed, please do not reupload the same file. Instead, provide the name/link to the deleted file in the email sent to VRT. The VRT will restore the deleted image if the evidence is acceptable. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you please check the email for the old file name Esperanto-Klubo-Amundsen-Scott-2022.jpg? Stefangrotz (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stefangrotz Sorry, I don't have permission to access the VRT process, so I can't provide an answer. I'd recommend asking again at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard as that is the place to verify cases that are in progress. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stefangrotz: The Commons adminstrator who deleted File:Esperanto-Klubo-Amundsen-Scott-2022.jpg is Krd. Krd is also a VRT member; so, if an email was sent in before the file was deleted, there's a very good chance Krd would've seen it. If the photo's copyright holder did email VRT, they should've received a reply containing a VRT ticket number. If you check with whoever sent the email and can get that ticket number, it will be easier for VRT to check their records for any such email. In addition, you were notified that the file had been tagged as needing verification of copyright holder consent by another Commons' administrator named Yann, who posted here; you, however, removed that post along with several other notifications left on your user talk page with this edit right before posting your above query. So, an attempt to explain the issue was made. You posted this in response, made three more unrelated edits after that but then pretty much disappeared until yesterday. Commons administrators aren't going to wait any longer than they're expected to before taking action; so, you need to resolve issues within designated time period if you want to avoid any of your future uploads from being deleted.

Finally, it's also not really a good idea to re-upload a file that's been deleted. Pretty much all deleted files aren't gone forever; they're still on the Commons server and just being hidden from public view. A deleted file can be easily restored by a Commons' administrator if the issues that led to its deletion are subsequently resolved. Re-uploading the same file, particularly without addressing the reasons why it was deleted, tends just not only result in the file being nominated/tagged for deletion again for the same reason as before but also is viewed quite unafvorably by Commons administrators. If you do something like that too many times, your account might end up being blocked. So, for future reference, it's best to ask the Commons's administrator who deleted the file about it first. The name of the administrator who deleted the file can be found at the top of the deleted file's page, but you can always ask for help here if you can't figure out who that is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Also: File:Esperanto-Klubo-Amundsen-Scott-2022.jpg does not at any time seem to have been marked with either {{Permission pending}} (which you probably should have added when permission was sent}} or {{Permission received}} which would typically have been used by a member of the VRT if they received any relevant correspondence, even correspondence that was not sufficient to decide the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay good to know. That's weird, all I have is a massage from the original photographer, that Wikimedia contacted him and that things should be alright. I will try to contact him again and get more information. Stefangrotz (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi again Stefangrotz. Typically things work the other way around: someone emails VRT, and VRT responds. It's possible that some user contacted the copyright holder on their own since people have been known to ask for copyright holder consent on their own, but the copyright holder still, in principle, needs to email VRT to verify said consent. There's more information on this is COM:THIRD, but verbal consent or consent given by email outside of VRT (i.e., a copyright holder personally gives you their consent via email) is generally considered insufficient for Commmons' purposes, and some sort of more formal verification is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Digitized music licensing and a possible public domain source of notes for czech folkdances?

Hello folks,

I'm currently collecting sources and media for a hebrew article on the czech danceform the Furiant.

My question is threefold:

a) I have found a probably public domain sheet for an artistic furiant (pd in czechia (source material location), israel (my country) and the usa (wiki's location) since it's been more than a hundred years since the author's passing). Faithful and exact copying scans of pd manuscripts are pd themselves, right?

b) I midified another, definite pd sheet, and am trying to use a pd soundfont (Milton Paredes' airfont 380Final, which he seem to have released to the public domain on musical artifacts) to create a midi/mp3 audio file using musescore. Is there still any reason for me not to be able to release the product into the public domain as well?

c) Searching for a traditional rather than an artistic furiant, I found a sheet in "Beseda, cesky salonni tanec (1888): s tancepisnou taulkou a s prilohou hudebni" by Karel Link (1832-1911, should also be pd) in https://books.google.com/books?id=CJkjXbvbTRsC. However, it is seemingly in an addendum? I don't speak czech, but could someone verify whether the sheets are also part of the book and hence pd? פרוגנתודון (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@פרוגנתודון:

(a) Absolutely. {{PD-auto-expired}} if you know the precise death date, {{PD-100-expired}} if you don't.

(b) Nothing I'm aware of, and in general the software used to create a MIDI file doesn't impact copyright. The only exception I can think of might be if there was some sort of sampling of copyrightable material involved.

(c) That one I can't help you on, you might want to seek some specific individual who reads Czech. The only Czech-speaking admin here that I'm aware of is Podzemnik but he has been pretty inactive lately. Category:User cs-N shows a lot of native speakers; you might look through that for someone significantly active and who also has English and/or Hebrew. - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Jmabel, update on the third question;

found this in p. 45 of the book:

"Připojuji tedy ku každému vysvětlení národního tance, v besedě se vyskytujícího, mimo obvyklá slova příslušné národní nebo taneční pisně, v příloze také původní nápěvy*."

* vis hudební přílohu

which is

"I therefore attach to each explanation of a national dance occurring in the discussion, in addition to the usual words of the respective national or dance song, the original tunes in the appendix*."

* see musical appendix

So it seems like the sheets are indeed part of the PD book and therefore can be digitized :D פרוגנתודון (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Video of geometric shapes generated by a laser firmware

Hello, guys!

I've recorded and uploaded 3 videos into Category:RGB laser LY-RGBW01 show. All 3 videos show the same patterns in the same order, generated by a firmware of the laser.

I'm sure that video in a smoke should not have any copyright violation. But I have doubts about 2 videos of the geometric shapes itself. I would like to keep them here, because this is nice visualization how such lasers work. Also in File:Laser LY-RGBW01 presets bright background external mic MVI 8424.webm there is a sound of working Category:Mirror galvanometers.

I don't think firmware stores these geometric shapes directly, I think firmware generates them with some simple math. But I can't check this. Do we have any rule about geometric shapes generated by a (probably non-free) firmware? Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alexey Vazhnov: These recordings are derivatives of the presumably copyrighted laser software. I don't think they can be hosted on Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There's enough creativity in the choice and animation of these patterns that I would consider them copyrightable, making these videos non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nosferattus, @Omphalographer, so I'm going to keep the one in smoke, PC291932 and request deletion of MVI_8424.webm and PC291931.webm, right? Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion and Attribution of Reddit Video on Sri Lankan Home Guards

I recently came across a video on Reddit, recorded in 1986, that contains testimonies from Tamil civilians describing alleged abuses by the Sri Lankan Home Guards. The video has no listed author or copyright information. I’d like to know whether other Wikipedia editors consider this type of source appropriate for inclusion in an relevant article. Would it be seen as a valuable contribution? Additionally, if it were allowed on Commons, how should it be properly attributed? I noticed that a user on X uploaded the video, before it later appeared on Reddit. RajaRajaC (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

On what basis do you suppose it to be either free from copyright, or licensed in a manner compatible with Wikimedia Commons?

Commons only accepts material under one of those criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not assuming that the video is free of copyright or licensed in a way that would make it compatible with Commons. I was hoping to get input from other editors on whether this type of material might be considered appropriate or valuable for use in a relevant article, and how its copyright status and attribution should be evaluated given the lack of clear information. If the video were uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content, how should the non-free use rationale be filled out when the copyright holder is unknown? RajaRajaC (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You should ask there, but in principle, you could just state the author is unknown. Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The copyright of the video will expire in 2056 if you really want it here Trade (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Luigi Mangione/Killing of Brian Thompson content

Hoping for some more eyes on this. There are a range of files hosted on Commons now related to Luigi Mangione and the killing of Brian Thompson, some of which are using dubious licenses/rationales. Anyone want to take a look at some of these two examples?

• File:UnitedHealth Facebook post.webp - A screenshot of a paragraph-long statement by United Health on Facebook, with the supposed PD rationalization that the statement is just facts and is below US ToO. Seems suspect to me.
• File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV (uncensored).webm and related videos/derivatives thereof - All the CCTV footage of the killing of Thompson as well as video that captures Mangione in various locations, rationalized under the "PD automatic" license. There's obviously still no real consensus on CCTV footage in the US, but this seems like a prime example of why that discussion needs a resolution, considering how high profile this footage is. Further, some of the videos are actually somewhat shaky phone recordings of computers playing the CCTV footage, with camera pans and zooms in the phone footage, calling into question whether they're truly simple reproductions of the underlying CCTV footage.

Thoughts? This was sparked for me because the article on Mangione on EN Wiki was reproducing in its entirety the letter found on Mangione by police, a clear copyright violation; I removed that but wanted to check on other related media for similar copyright issues. --19h00s (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that anything in the text of File:UnitedHealth Facebook post.webp rises the level of being copyrightable. Consider the following scenario: an executive of some other company meets with violence. The other company puts out a notice, "We are deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague [FULL NAME], the [POSITION] of [COMPANY]. [FIRST NAME] was a highly respected colleague and friend to all who worked with him. We are working closely with the [LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT] and ask for your patience and understanding during this difficult time. Our hearts go out to [FIRST NAME]’s family and all who were close to him." Could United Healthcare sue for copyright infringement? I think not. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if they could, the point of the screenshot is likely to show the reactions to the post (i.e. lots of laughing smileys), so that even if we'd blur the text, the screenshot would be still in scope if an appropriate description were provided for its context (like "company expresses shock and condolences in a post and thousands of people react with a laughing smiley"). Nakonana (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh I agree there's a real purpose to having the file, but the length/nature of the text made me question whether it was actually below ToO. Thanks Jmabel for the analysis. 19h00s (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Fifa-world-cup-2006.png

I think this is a non-free logo. Maybe it should be deleted. What do you think? 321fire (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this logo simple enough?

Is the logo for Iris Angola Association (as seen in the upper left corner) simple enough to upload? It's kind of on the border between simple and not. Thanks! Urchincrawler (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

can someone help me with updating the cover art for an album?

I have physical copy of K.d. Lang's live by request and noticed the wikipedia upload is quite poor quality. I have made a high resolution scan of the original cd art and idk how to update the wiki page. LookingforalaskaOG (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons!

The Wikipedia version is low-quality on purpose for fair use purposes. The album cover is copyrighted and cannot be used in its original, high quality form without being a copyright violation under Wikipedia's fair use policies (which is informed by United States law). Also, Wikimedia Commons is the wrong place for this anyways because Wikimedia Commons does not work with fair use, Wikipedia does.

Physical ownership (such as ownership of a music CD or record) does not imply copyright ownership.

I hope this clears this up for you and I'm happy to answer more questions. If you'd like to learn more about Wikimedia Commons, start here. Cawfeecrow (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi LookingforalaskaOG. As Cawfeecrow points out, most album cover art is protected by copyright and can't be uploaded to Commons without obtaining the COM:CONSENT of its copyright holder: who is typically the musician who made the album or the record company that produced the album. Purchasing an album gives you the right to listen to it and own the physical object itself, but it doesn't give you any intellectual property rights with respect to the content of the album or its associated packaging. English Wikipedia does allow copyright-protected album covers to be uploaded locally to its servers as non-free content, but there are lots of restrictions placed on such content. One of these restrictions is that high-resolution content isn't allowed; so, it seems that the album cover image current being used in the infobox of en:Live by Request (k.d. lang album) might be as good as things can get for English Wikipedia's purposes. If you want more input on this, though, you can ask at en:WT:ALBUMS or en:WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

U.S. copyright registration dates

When would the U.S. copyright expire for a work that was published in 1931 and has a copyright registration for 1931 (with a valid renewal), but bears a copyright notice for 1930? hinnk (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Upload it. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 02:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi hinnk. There's some guidance on this in COM:HIRTLE, but a work is generally eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law for 95 years from January 1 of the calendar year after the year in which the work was published or 70 years from January 1 of the calendar year after the year in which the copyright holder died. So, a work first published on January 1, 2026, would (assuming there are no extenuating factors) enter into the public domain either on January 1, 2122, or 70 years after the calendar year its copyright holder died, whichever comes first. Back in 1931, US copyright law was different than today, and an intial term of 28 years of copyright protection was granted as long as en:copyright formalities were completed. Said copyright could be then renewed once for another 28 years as long as copyright formalities were completed. If copyright wasn't renewed prior to January 1, 1964, the work would've entered into the public domain on that date as {{PD-US-not renewed}}, while if copyright formalities weren't taken care of, the work would've entered into the public domain on January 1, 1978, as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If it can be verified that the copyright was renewed, then I'm not so sure the old-notice means that the work is no longer protected. It seems to me that published versions prior to renewal date would still have the old notice in place but not necessarily a new notice reflecting renewal. I think the original notice still covers the work throughout both its initial and renewal terms as long as the works copyright was renewed. So, a work published in 1931 or later most likely wouldn't enter into the public domain just because of its age until January 1, 2027, but it's possible it could be within the public domain if more than 71 or more years have passed since its copyright holder died (i.e., died before January 1, 1956). Could you be more specific about what type of work you're referring to here? Do you know who the copyright holder is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC); post edited to strike out incorrect information. -- 07:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC); posted edited a second time to strike out incorrect information. -- 06:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

What? That's not correct, at all. Life+n rules do not apply to works published before 1978 in the US, ever. Likewise, they didn't have to be renewed by 1964; they had to be renewed 28 years from publication, except that works that had to be renewed in 1992 or later (i.e. published in 1964 or later) were automatically renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct regarding 70 p.m.a.; so, my mistake and my apologies to the OP for any confusion caused. I had jumbled things up in my mind regarding the 1976 Act and subsequent Sonny Bono Act but should re-checked my post before hitting "publish". As for the 1964 date, you're correct on that too; I was trying to keep things simple so as to match the wording of the {{PD-US-not renewed}} license and the wording at COM:HIRTLE. Again, apologies for any mistakes made or confusion caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Also: the 95-year rule does not apply to works with a known author published on 1 March 1989 or later, so the part above about a work first published on January 1, 2026 is wrong, too. It is not a matter of "whichever comes first," it is a matter of whether the author is known or not. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for catching this: 70 p.m.a only matters if the author is known and their date of death is also known; otherwise (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), it's 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first. I should've been more careful when posting. My apologies to the OP and everyone else for any confusion caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Title 17, section 406b says "(b) Error in Date.—When the year date in the notice on copies or phonorecords distributed before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 by authority of the copyright owner is earlier than the year in which publication first occurred, any period computed from the year of first publication under section 302 is to be computed from the year in the notice." So, as of 2026, it's clearly out of copyright in the US, provided there's no later notice attached.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this applies to a work first published in 1931 with a copyright notice/registration for 1931 because I don't think the OP was saying the copyright notice was defective; they only stated the work was published in 1931 and its copyright was registered in 1931 (with a valid renewal). If the copyright of the work was renewed prior to the expiration of the 28-year initial term expired, then copyright protection would've been extended for another 28 years, wouldn't it? So 1931 + 1 year + 28 years + 28 years ends up being 1988, but by then I believe US copyright had changed again and the renewal period for older works still under copyirght protetion at the time was extended further (I think). Anyway, I'm not sure any of that meant that a copyright holder was obligated to go back and find all previously published versions of their work and re-add a new notice with the renewal year for the copyright on thw work to have been extended, but perhaps that was the case. Finally, my understanding has always been that the 95-year countdown for a work published in given year (for example, mid-year) starts on January 1 of the following calendar year because of the "year-end" rule to account for works published throughout the entirety of a particular calendar year because copyright expires at the end, not the beginning, of the 95th year after publication, So, a work published in 1931 would have its countdown to public domain start on January 1, 1932, and, therefore, wouldn't enter the public domain until January 1, 2027. If this understanding is incorrect, then my apologies to the OP for any confusion caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

If the notice says "©1930 Joe Shmoe", then the law says it would have left copyright by 2026. There may or may not be issues with the renewal timing, but even if it was renewed, it should have expired 95 years from the 1930 printed in the notice.

The other issue that strikes me is that we've seen modified copyright notices in scans before. If there's doubt that the copyright notice is correct, we should check or wait a year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! This is consistent with what I ended up finding through Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain. The work that prompted this question was the film The Criminal Code, but I'd run into similar questions with Cimarron and Little Caesar. The CSPD's article on Public Domain Day 2026 mentions Cimarron specifically but also links to this detailed report. It addresses the case of "antedated notices" on page 19–20, and makes clear that the earlier year applies. hinnk (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Glad things ultimately got sorted out. My apologies for any confusion the inaccuracies in my earlier posts might've caused, but I'm glad others were able to provide the correct info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Vince and Larry Crash Dummies PSA commercials, Are they Copyrighted?

So in the 1980's the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in conjunction with Ad Council made a series of PSAs featuring two crash test dummies, Vince and Larry, about the importance of seatbelt use. I first thought that i would just upload them with the DOT PD tag like this picture but then I thought if those commercials had a co-ownership with Ad Council. Also in this YouTube compilation I see that a lot of them have different notices, some of them don't have any copyright notice, others have © 198X-199X U.S. DOT, which is a bit strange because US Fed Works (which the DOT is part of) don't normally add Copyright Notices as they are PD works. How I should proceed with those commercials here? Hyperba21 (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick comment, is there any chance this was a work-for-hire/contractual job rather than being created by DOT employees? Works produced by contractors are not (typically) PD. The © notice is indeed attributed to just the DOT, which makes me think that it wasn't made by a contractor, but it is still important to note.

RE:Ad Council, if it was produced in cooperation with the ad council, it's also likely not PD a la what NASA does sometimes. I don't claim to know the extent in which the Ad Council was involved, however. Cawfeecrow (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Dubious undeletion

Hello.

Two photos of Betty Boop Christmas ornaments ([1], [2]) were undeleted today on account that Betty Boop's copyright expired (happy US public domain day, by the way!). However, I still think COM:TOYS would still apply, as these ornaments certainly don't come from 1930 (she is a human in these photos, not a poodle. 1930 Betty was a poodle), we'd have no reason to believe that these are pre-1978 with no copyright notice/renewal, nor do we have reason to believe that the Flickr photographer made these herself. What's stranger is the fact that these photos were nominated for deletion per COM:TOYS, but was deleted per Commons:Character_copyrights.

I figured I should start a discussion here before I go ahead with a DR, see what other people think. Cawfeecrow (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There are other PD representations of her (no notice, no renewal) that were waiting for the base Betty Boop to enter PD. The differences are trivial (the dog ears became earrings). Also, do you see a copyright notice on these ornaments? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard The copyright notice is not visible, but that does not mean that there isn't one. For example, see this eBay listing. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

My 1930 Betty comment was moreso disproving PD-95 on the ornament. If the ornaments are PD, it'd have to be through lack of renewal or notice pre-1978. Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't commentating on the copyright status of Betty Boop designs.

RE:Copyright notice, Fair enough, but do you have any reason to believe that there wasn't any? I've already found (2)'s source ornament (Ebay link, © 1998 KFS/FS), and While I haven't found the first one (simply entitled "A betty Boop christmas decoration"), I'm sure I will soon (probably by Kurt S Adler in the '00s to 2010s, as they've made many very similar ornaments, just haven't found this pose yet. Cawfeecrow (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

found it!. Just not in it's box yet, so I can't yet confirm who and where it's from just yet, though it looks like I'm right about it being from Kurt S Adler. Cawfeecrow (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I started a deletion request. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 00:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

2002, Kurt S Adler. photo 11 Cawfeecrow (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Moving w:vi:Tập tin:DoNgocYen AA.jpg to Commons

Hello, I am interested in using the photo w:vi:Tập tin:DoNgocYen AA.jpg uploaded by w:vi:DanGong in the w:Do Ngoc Yen article, hence, I wanted to see if it could be moved to Commons. While the image is the right license (CC BY-SA 3.0), I'm not sure on the procedure for transfer. There's a sentence that translated says: "Copyright belongs to the newspaper Người Việt who had given permission for publication, the letter for permission has been sent to permissions-vi@wikimedia.org" (note the file and this sentence was added in 2014). I believe that email is the Vietnamese language VRT team.

It looks like a user attempted to transfer it to Commons in 2024 but it got deleted: File:DoNgocYen AA.jpg. Johnkinslow (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Without a VRT ticket, I don't see how we could accept that on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Can I upload an old Winston cigarette commercial?

https://archive.org/details/wintasgo

After asking at Commons:Help desk, they told me to come ask here regarding if I can upload this video onto Wikimedia.

KneeHallHawk (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This would be a matter of A. whether or not this was published with a copyright notice and B. if it was, if the copyright was renewed (which can be found using the Copyright Office Public Records System.) I'm not seeing a copyright notice in the advertisement at first glance, but I may be missing something.

The Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society (CSTS) has filed this under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial No derivative (CC-BY-NC-ND) License, which is one of Wikimedia Common's forbidden licenses, but I don't think that would be valid if the advertisement is PD.

Relevant articles: COM:HIRTLE, COM:FORBIDDEN and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Advertisement. Cawfeecrow (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I won't upload it. KneeHallHawk (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

this ad appears to me to be PD. It does not have a copyright notice, RJ Reynolds did not file a registration for it, and there is no renewal in 1981-1982 when this would have been due. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I concur. The ad seems fine to upload. If there is later evidence of a registry/renewal, a Deletion Request can be started, but for now I would say it's good. Cawfeecrow (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks! KneeHallHawk (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick question: under what license should I upload it to Wikimedia Commons? KneeHallHawk (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@KneeHallHawk: it's {{PD-US-no notice}}, which properly speaking is not a "license", it's a rationale for why this is in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance! KneeHallHawk (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Public domain and intention

If a sheriff's department states that their mugshots are in "public domain" when there's a high chance that they meant to say "public access" instead is the email still considered valid evidence for the purpose of justifying a PD template? Trade (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: --Trade (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't want this discussion to be derailed by making it about a particular file but I think the context of the phrase is important. This comes from a decision relating to access to documents, images, and recordings from the police department of a city. The copyright of these items was not under discussion. This was about whether the city had to provide access to the requested items.

In that context, the phrase "already exists in the public domain" was used. As in, the city did not need to provide the items because they were already publicly available. The copyright status of the items had no bearing on whether or not they were accessible so it doesn't make sense that someone would say that the items were "in the public domain" in reference to copyright. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The term "public domain" has several meanings, as you can find in different English dictionaries. Cambridge, Meriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins. Some of those meanings relate to the issue of copyright, some to land ownership (not relevant here) and some to the state of being usable by the public (but without implying any particular state for the copyright). Unless it is clear which meaning the sheriff's department was using in their statement, it is unsafe to rely solely on the phrase "public domain." From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

How do you know they don't mean public domain for copyright? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard You may have misread what I wrote. Where did I say that they didn't mean the phrase in the context of copyright? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Because if they meant anything other than copyright, your question would make no sense. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe nobody talks like that nowadays? Trade (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard It was a case about access, not copyright. If "exists in the public domain" means "publicly available", that makes sense in the context of the case. If "exists in the public domain" means "is public domain", that doesn't explain why they wouldn't have to release the items. It would be a non sequitur. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't initially say this, and I agree it might change the meaning. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

LSB photography copyright

Hello.

Nard's question about sheriff department mugshots reminded me about a question I've been meaning to ask for a while, but always put off until now.

Template:PD-OK-LSBPD states that LSB Photo Division photos are Public Domain, and LSBPD's own resource page tells you that as well. however, It also says:

All images provided by LSB Photography are public domain. Images may not be used to make a profit. [3]

They seem to have attached a noncommercial clause to their usage statement. So, since they used the phrase "public domain", does that mean we ignore the second part? Or is there legislation/documents that negate this part?

Thank you for reading. Cawfeecrow (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You can ignore the second part. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Universal Adapter Brick

I'd like a second opinion on whether this image can be used on Commons (also see Talk page of relevant enwiki article). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The license is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, so no. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I was fairly certain that I saw another version of the same image with a different licence. I'll dig around and see what I can turn up. (Also, I'll move any further discussion to the article's Talk page.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Status of photos from personal social media accounts of members of the U.S. Congress?

Hello, so I am curious whether photographs posted by U.S. members of Congress on their personal Facebook page would count as {{PD-USGov}}? From my understanding it seems like it would not qualify as public domain works from the U.S. federal government. I am asking because several photos of Brilyn Hollyhand (1, 2, 3, and 4) are tagged as {{PD-USGov}} and are from the personal Facebook account (here) of U.S. representative Barry Moore and not his official Facebook account (here). I wanted to ask before I initiated a deletion request for them because I may be misunderstanding {{PD-USGov}}. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue would be who took the photo, not where it was posted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: well we do not know who took the photo, so do we assume it was him in his official capacity as a U.S. representative? CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I did find {{PD-USGov-Congress}} and it says it could be in the public domain if ...posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This can get tricky, like the one taken before attending the Charlie Kirk funeral. He was likely invited only because he was a congressman, but he was attending in a personal capacity (not part of any official delegation) and the photograph was likely taken by a personal cell phone (this isn't always determinative, we take official USG photos at work all the time with a personal cell phone because it's what was on scene) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Hungary

Hi, What was the copyright duration before the current law? Was it retroactive? I.e. this might change URAA application. Images from Category:Dezső Rozgonyi might be affected. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights 50 years P.M.A, authors who died before 1944. Abzeronow (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So should we have a new template for this? Yann (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Great Circle Mapper

There are many files apparently made with The Great Circle Mapper, but according to the FAQ, the maps have a non-commercial licence. The FAQ even allows using them on Wikipedia, with example markup, but that should be irrelevant if they are not freely licenced. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Antti T. Leppänen My interpretation of the different statements on the page is that the copyright owner endorses use of the maps on English Wikipedia under a fair use (non-free) rationale, which doesn't relicence the images for commercial use. Other Wikimedia projects that accept non-free files on a similar basis would also be able to upload the maps locally. Wikimedia Commons can't upload the images here because we need to be able to relicence the files for use both commercially and non-commercially. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like I misinterpreted the situation. While you provided an external link, you were pointing to a Google search showing uploads currently on Commons. Many of these appear to be stored in Category:Great Circle Mapper. Looking through the archives, Great Circle Mapper was flagged up in May 2016 and led to a mass deletion of files. Another file from the same site was discussed in July 2016 and subsequently deleted per this discussion. I'll run some more searches and add any other relevant files to Category:Great Circle Mapper. Unless anyone else has any comments, I'll start a deletion discussion for them in the next day or so. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

And we can't have Great Circle Mapper imagery here because Commons is not Wikipedia; the website operator clearly endorses only Wikipedia usages. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

To be more clear: the IP owner has all rights to grant or deny the access to their works for any and all purposes and under any and all prerequisites (even absurd ones like in the Beerware license - accepted on Commons! - or asking e.g. for that an individual who wants to use some intellectual property makes a handstand and barks to the full moon before using the stuff commercially. That's the principle of en:freedom of contract). Here, the statements for having the authorisation do work with the works are clear ("non-commercial", additionally "on Wikipedia"). We can't assume that something that isn't called Wikipedia can rely upon the blanket authorisation made for Wikipedia (even though Commons is of course an important service provider for the Wikipedias, but we've got to apply the wording literally!). So, the media are certainly not suitable for Commons, and doubly or even triply so: we don't have any OK by the author to host them (to reiterate: it's limited to "Wikipedia"), I don't see any legal statute of limitation like FOP or TOO that could be applicable, and our commercial licensing requirements are also an impediment. This latter point would be also true on any Wikipedia, so for that some WP language edition can use such Great Circle Mapper media, they must have a non-free media rationale, otherwise the given authorisation is likely unusable and moot. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Suriname

Hi, It seems we do not have a copyright template for this case: File:Surinaamse postzegels jaar van de vrouw, Bestanddeelnr 927-9174.jpg. Or do we use a generic one? Yann (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud Mugshot.png

I can't verify the license because the URL in the PD template is dead for me. Anyone else wanna give it a go? Trade (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: use a VPN exiting in North America, that does the trick. You can use the Opera Browser, it has such a functionality built-in. This way just worked for me. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That's likely a copyvio, I nominated it as such. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Max Havelaar English book cover

Hi, I recently noticed that the cover for the English language edition of w:en:Max Havelaar from NYRB Classics is using a piece of artwork for its cover that's in the public domain - specifically this file, which is already uploaded to commons and is tagged as PD. Is the extra text added on top of the image minimal enough that this can be uploaded due to being below the COM:TOO in the United States? And if so, what copyright template(s) should be used, as a mix of PD and TOO-based reasoning? Thanks, ScalarFactor (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is the same image. - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a re-drawing of the original. Is it different enough to create a new copyright? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It's similar but it's not the same picture. Bedivere (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The credit on the back of the book is: "Raden Saleh, Merapi Volcano, Eruption at Night, 1865", so I believe that even if it isn't the (exact) same image it should still be public domain? ScalarFactor (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably, could be a variant of the painting, the original painter could have done more than one version, who knows. The Amazon fragment I could read does not provide further hints. Bedivere (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@ScalarFactor It uses this version of the painting. So yeah, good to go. Bedivere (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bedivere Thanks for confirming it's okay, but I'm still confused on what copyright tag should be used: should it be both {{PD-old-100-1923}} and {{PD-textlogo}}? ScalarFactor (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Painting: PD-old-100-1923. Text: PD-ineligible.

Just be sure to mention each with a clarification. Bedivere (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Images on the Voyager Golden Record and PD US defective notice

I think all images on the Voyager Golden Record may be Public Domain because it don’t have years on copyright notice, but need more information to verify. 6D (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure launching them into space counts as publication. NASA definitely thinks they're still copyrighted. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

1875 US patent drawing

I'd like to upload this drawing (which appears in the book w:A Taxonomy of Office Chairs as well various other places such as this and these). Does it matter which reference source is used for the upload? Also, what is the best file format to use in this case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

US ToO - Scott Burton text artwork

I think this work by American artist Scott Burton is probably below the threshold of originality, but wanted some second opinions before I upload it. It's just a white page with a dotted vertical line on the left, with a line of text at the top center titled "Instructions", telling the reader to cut the page off at the dotted line, and the artist's name. Seems straightforwardly below ToO as information and PD elements, right? First published in the exhibition catalogue Art in the Mind in 1970, issued by Oberlin College (immediate source is an article in the journal Art History, accessed via Oxford Academic). Doing expansion/clean-up to the Scott Burton article on EN Wiki, this would be super useful. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems so to me. Basic geometric pattern, basic instructional phrase, and the artists name. Not much copyrightable here. Willing to hear what others think, though. Cawfeecrow (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The TOO in the US is very high. The image in question is much simpler than the examples we've listed as not being copyrightable in the US at COM:TOO US. Nakonana (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! I assumed as much, but I always prefer to double check when it comes to modern/contemporary art, even something as simple as this. The journal that republished that image added a copyright marking for the artist's estate in the caption ("© Estate of Scott Burton/Artist Rights Society"), presumably because Burton's estate is a member of ARS and the journal didn't want to risk a fight or didn't know better (even though there are huge questions around whether much of Burton's work was even copyrightable at all, as it's mostly just utilitarian, undecorated furniture made from industrial or natural materials like granite, but I digress). 19h00s (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

US PD-tagging

Hi. I would like help in figuring out how to figure out the appropriate US PD tag for the image Recueil. Portraits d'Allal El Fassi, homme politique marocain (XXe s.) - btv1b85299742.jpg. The image is in the public domain in France and was taken in the mid 50s. Thank you in advance Mayouhm (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What year was it taken and where was it originally published? The reason I'm asking is because this image appears to be {{PD-Morocco}}, not France, and there was a 50 year term for photographs post creation in Morocco, which means it's PD there but unless it was created before 1946, or you can find a US publication in the same month (even a domestic publication with US mail subscribers can count), then it was in copyright in 1996 and URAA applies, which means it is NOT PD in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Or it's unpublished, which means it's protected for 120 years in the US unless you can identify the author. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Getty Images says it was taken on 29 January, 1959 in Rabat, Morocco. Morocco became independent from France in 1956, which would imply Morocan copyright law, rather than French. However, the photograph was taken by Agence France-Presse (Q40464), a French press agency. As with many photo agencies, they are likely to have sold usage rights for the photo to media organisations in multiple countries. I'd guess the odds are fairly high that there may have been simultaneous (within 30 days) publication in the US. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The photographer appears to be Jacques Belin (Q55700640), who died in 1974. That would suggest source country copyright protection until 1 January 2045 (based on a photographer from a French press agency simultaneously publishing a photo in France and other countries). The US protection would be 95 years from 1959, suggesting 1 January 2055 (unless an alternative justification, such as improprer registration, can be made). From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Without proof of publication before the Getty upload, we can use pma+70 on the US chart for this, which simplifies things. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Placed online on Gallica in 2013 and on Getty in 2020. As a press photo, likely published in 1959. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to make the opposite argument, that it is public domain as a wire photo published without notice in the US. If you wish I can search the archives. 99% of these photos were never registered. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

"The opposite argument" of what? The first sentence are dates. The second sentence doesn't assume presence or absence of a copyright notice. Archives can help indeed. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-1978-89

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright of works in the PD but with restoration

With the new year, the 1930 film Hell's Angels has fallen into the public domain. However, a full version of the movie, with restoration and upscaling to 4K UHD by the UCLA Film & Television Archive, with approval from Univseral which has distributed that version, is currently in place on commons File:Hell's Angels (1930).webm. There's clear signs of improvement (steadying the film, etc.) so I don't think this is a simple mechanical change of format that is not eligible for copyright. I don't see anything on UCLA's site about copyright except they have licesning policies, and mention that its up to the user to verify the copyright status, which seems to mean that they assume some copyright of theirs is involved. Masem (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep A lot of films on Commons involve steadying, for example. If we were to delete every example, we'd have almost nothing to show. Also, I'm skeptical of the level of change to this actually making a case for a separate copyright. SnowyCinema (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Simple film restoration processes like denoising or image stabilization do not establish new rights in the work, because they are not creative processes - their goal is to more accurately reproduce the original contents of the film, not to create something different from it. Some more invasive film restoration processes like colorizing black and white film are sufficiently creative to create a copyrightable result. Omphalographer (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)