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.

Taiwanese originality threshold

See this: https://tipnlaw.blogspot.com/2025/09/taiwan-court-found-mass-produced-work.html

Possibly an update to COM:TOO Taiwan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• I read the court ruling. It ruled that, “美術工藝品乃具有藝術品價值，可表現思想情感之單一物品創作，如係多量生產，則屬工業產品，不受著作權法保護” (A rough literal translation: a work of artistic craftsmanship is a singular work that possesses artistic value and can express thoughts and emotions. If it is mass-produced, then it is an industrial product, which is not protected by copyright).
• The ruling also stated that “industrial products” include “works that were made by injection moulding or mass-produced with machinery”.
• This means some mass-produced works that were previously considered as works of artistic craftsmanship and images of them were not allowed due to the FOP restriction, may now be allowed.
• For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Green ^ Pink 粉粉與綠綠 - panoramio.jpg may now be allowed as the image contains “artistic” bins, but it appears that they were mass-produced.

Tvpuppy (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy it may be eligible now, but I have one doubt, over the mascot itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 When I read the court case above, I was surprised that the court ruled against the plaintiff. The ruling recognized:

• The plaintiff was the designer of the sculpture (he drew the 2D sketch which the sculpture was based on).
• The plaintiff hired a sculptor, who based on the 2D sketch, sculpted a wooden sculpture
• A mould was created from the wooden sculpture, which was then used to mass-produce the sculptures in question
• The mass-produced sculptures have a same appearance as the wooden sculpture
• The 2D sketch and wooden sculpture is copyrighted, but the mass-produced sculptures are not copyrighted
• Since the mass-produced sculptures are not copyrighted, the defendant’s derivative work of the mass-produced sculpture does not constitute as a copyright violation of the plaintiff’s work.

I was surprised because clearly the mass-produced sculptures are derivative works of the 2D sketch and the wooden sculpture, so I had expected either (or both) the plaintiff or the sculptor would have copyright claims over them. However, the court ruled the mass-produced sculptures are simply not copyrighted (this means neither the plaintiff or sculptor have claims over them), just because of their method of creation (injection moulding).

I’m also surprised the ruling indicated any derivative works that were solely based on the mass-produced sculptures will not constitute as a copyright violation of the original 2D sketch or the wooden sculpture.

So, I agree the mascots (in the DR linked above) are clearly copyrighted, and the design of the artistic bins are clearly based on the mascots. However, according to the ruling, it is possible that just because the artistic bins are mass-produced, the bins have no copyright protection at all, and derivative works of them are allowed. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: you wrote "the court", but assuming that there's a system of appellate courts: how high ranked is the institution that passed this actual ruling? Is it something likely to prevail, are there appeals possible or is the judgement definitive? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc The court is the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (see en:Judicial Yuan#Intellectual Property and Commercial Court , or its English website here). So, the court is more specialized than the district courts, but in terms of ranking, I think it is between the district courts and the high courts.

This court ruling is the first ruling of this case (made by 1 judge), the plaintiff can appeal to the same court for a second ruling (3 judges instead of 1). If the plaintiff still loses, they can appeal for a final ruling in the Taiwan High Supreme Court.

So yes, it is possible that there are appeals. Per the court document, the plaintiff would need to appeal within 20 days of the ruling (the ruling was made in August). However, I cannot find any records of the plaintiff filing an appeal, although it is possible that the records haven’t been publicized yet. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

That are helpful details, thanks Tvpuppy. So, I think that we should abstain at the moment in updating COM:TOO Taiwan, as there's not sufficient evidence of that view having become legally binding. By the way: is Taiwan more comparable to a en:Common law country with binding case law or does it function more like a civil law country where courts can deviate from preceding rulings? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Taiwan is more like a civil law country. So, I agree it make sense to abstain at this moment. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Nadezhda Bravo Cladera photos

The uploader of File:Nadezhda Bravo Cladera in a school photography. Angloamerican School, Oruro, 1952.jpg appears to be en:Nadezhda Bravo Cladera, the subject of the photo as a young girl. I doubt the current licensing of the file is correct since the uploader seems to be misunderstanding the meaning of "own work" (see also File:Nadetif4-bmp.jpg). I'm wondering though whether this can be relicensed as {{PD-Bolivia}} due to the fact that Bolivian copyright law seems to allow copyright protection for only 50 years after creation for anonymous works. Since the uploader describes the photo as something taken while she was a student in 1952, I'm guessing it's probably en:work for hire kind of photo taken by an employee of the school. As for File:Nadetif4-bmp.jpg, this was taken in 2004 and is attributed to some newspaper. I don't really see any way for Commons to keep this without VRT verification because it's too recent, but perhaps someone else can think of one.

FWIW, several of the other photos uploaded by this user as "own work" also have licenses that need examining. Some of these might also have entered into the public domain by now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

What about URAA? This is probably copyrighted in the U.S. until 2048. - Jmabel ! talk 07:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Nadezhda Bravo Cladera, who probably should have been notified here. - Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So the subject of the article uploaded these a decade ago and nobody has questioned them since then? Other than no external proof of the licenses, they aren't on their face unreasonable. At least the yearbook photo, we can guess she owns the copyright or at least a license. And we can contact the University paper to verify the cc license. I'll email them later today. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 09:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: How long ago something was uploaded doesn't necessarily mean it's licensed correctly; it could just as easily mean that nobody noticed it until now. Like Wikipedia articles, some files just fly under the radar (sometimes for a long time) until they're noticed by someone for whatever reason. As for At least the yearbook photo, we can guess she owns the copyright or at least a license., I don't really follow that. Being in physical possession of a copy of the photo doesn't make someone its copyright holder, at least that's my understanding of things. Most student yearbook photos are taken by third-parties (perhaps someone directly working for or contracted by the school), not the students themselves; so, any copyright associated with the photo most likely belongs (belonged?) to that person or the school. Regarding the paper's photo, as I posted above, VRT verification seems to be needed. So, if that can be obtained, then there should be no issues hosting the photo. How it's obtained is irrelevant, I guess. However, it's ultimately the responsibility of uploaders to provide evidence their uploads are licensed according to Commons policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: URAA did cross my mind but thank you for bringing it up. It seems like a PD-Bolvia photo would've need to been taken prior to January 1, 1946, for URAA to not apply, right? Finally, I will post a {{Please see}} on Nadezhda Bravo Cladera user talk page about this discussion. I posted on their English Wikipedia user talk page about some images they uploaded locally to English Wikipedia and some other things, but forgot to do the same on Commons. My bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

prior to January 1, 1946: yes. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nadetif4-bmp.jpg -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

When to upload stuff from sketchfab?

Hey folks. The National Heritage Institute in Romania has a lot of 3d scans of artefacts in sketchfab under a free license (CC-BY-4.0). It's all automatically verifiable. With the potential (certain? haven't followed lately) sketchfab closure, I thought it was a good time to download that data.

Now, onto my dilemma. I would like to upload the data to Commons, but without support for textures, it will mostly be for nothing (imagine hundreds of white crosses all looking the same), so I would like to wait until phab:T246901 is solved. However, by then the site might be closed and the licence would be impossible to verify. What would be the best way to approach this problem? Should I wait? Should I upload now for the license to be verified, then see later what can be done? Strainu (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Strainu: my guess would be upload now while we can verify the licenses, worry about display later. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Any feedback on the content in File:Situl_arheologic_de_la_Măgura_-_La_Biserică_-_0ad28701d6a14e52953862323ecd04b0.stl? After I setup a gltg2stl pipeline I will ask for permission to run a bot. Strainu (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's good. @Strainu: May I take it that the text at the source is also under the same license as the model? Relevant, because we import that as a description. - Jmabel ! talk 12:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The definition of user content in the ToU seems to include everything the user uploads. Further down, the user chooses a license for the user content, including CC licenses. If you read it otherwise, I'd be happy to only keep the title, it's not critical to have the description. Strainu (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Strainu: I actually am not certain even what the licensing is for text descriptions here on Commons. It's not mentioned in Commons:Licensing. I put in a question on the talk page there, let's see if someone has something more definitive. It would be nice if we could keep these.

Do you know the timeline for when the site is closing? If it is really tight, let's save the files with descriptions ASAP, and sort out later whether we may need to delete some descriptions & hide those versions of the file page. - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I logged Commons:Bots/Requests/Strainubot (5), let's discuss the specifics there. Strainu (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

1500c AD image licenanced as share-a-like

This image is marked as Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, but I think since it is a faithful reproduction of an image from the 16th century, it should likely be marked by some sort of PD template? But I am not confident enough to go changing someone else's image's license. Similarly this image from the 19th century. Tideflat (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tideflat: They are part of mass uploads copied from the Wellcome collection, whose website licenses its items with CC BY 4.0 by default, so it was likely easier for the mass uploads to just use that license tag without adjusting it individually for each file. I suppose that you could change the status tag to public domain tags if you wish. If you want to be less bold and more cautious, you can use something like {{Licensed-PD-Art-two|PD-old-100|PD-US-expired|Cc-by-4.0}}, in case a few countries might have laws that grant copyright or publication right to reproductions. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The UK notably uses the sweat-of-the-brow standard for copyright, so plausibly scanning in old books grants a new copyright. Tideflat (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

UK case law has made the "sweat-of-the-brow" argument practically obsolete (I say "practically" as a caveat in case there is some weird edge case where it may still apply). See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Digital copies of images. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Goran Jelisić face

Considering ICTY doesnt exist anymore, what can be done for Jelisić face to be seen? Sreća-91- (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

If you are asking whether Commons can make an exception and upload non-free material, no, we can't. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Mohammed Daoud Khan

Can anyone who has access subscription to Newspapers.com crop the portrait of Afghan leader Mohammed Daoud Khan as Prime Minister and publish it in the Commons on {{PD-US-no notice}}? The source is here. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Facebook page content of my faculty

I am willing to improve my faculty page but I don't have copyrights of logo and other media. Can I upload content from the official Facebook page of the faculty to Wikimedia Commons and use it in the page? Also, other changes happened like changes to the buildings like removing a whole building out of four buildings but that is not stated in the official page, how to add them in a way that the reviewer won't reject it. El ratón de biblioteca (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@El ratón de biblioteca: you almost certainly cannot take content from Facebook. Commons can only accept material that is either in the public domain or free-licensed; very little on Facebook will meet that criterion. You may want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party.

As for questions about Wikipedia pages, you need to ask that on Wikipedia. Usually the main way to have your edits accepted is to base what you write on solid citations. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely you could just take new photos yourself? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion actually but it would require me to travel to get them. I will keep it in my mind once I go there, I will take some. Thanks Nard. El ratón de biblioteca (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)