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.

Photographs of Voltairine de Cleyre

Hey all. I'm preparing the en-wiki article on Voltairine de Cleyre for FAC, and I wanted to make sure I had ensured the public domain status of some photographs being used in the article.

• 
  1891 photograph by William J. Kuebler Jr. (d. 1913), Philadelphia
• 
  1897 photograph by [Unknown], London
• 
  1898 photograph by Adelaide D. Thayer (d. 1945), Philadelphia
• 
  1901 photograph by M. Herbert Bridle (d. ?), Philadelphia

The trouble comes from a lack of evidence of early publication of these photographs. The earliest publication evidence I could find of these photographs was from Paul Avrich's 1978 book, published by the University of Princeton, but he didn't provide any information about their copyright status, previous publication history or photographers. The 1901 photograph was also published by Black Bear (London) in a 1978 book by Marian Leighton, without a copyright notice. They had clearly been distributed before 1978, as they have been discussed in contemporary letters from de Cleyre and have been archived in places such as the Labadie Collection, but I can't find if they were published per se beforehand. The date of death of two of the photographers is known, but the date of death of Bridle and the identity of the 1897 photo is unknown.

If anyone here can help me figure out the PD status and conditions for these photographs, I would very much appreciate it. Also if anybody here is able to help with finding out details about M. Herbert Bridle, I'm sure that would be useful to know as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Since these photos are over 120 years old, you can use {{PD-old-assumed}} for works with unclear publication info, such as unknown author or death dates. Without further investigation, they can at least be hosted here. PascalHD (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

My experience with FAC has been that image review there is extraordinarily strict, so I'm not sure they would allow an image with only a PD-old-assumed tag. I've had to remove images from articles before because FAC considered their status "theoretically uncertain". They tend to only allow images that are provably PD in the US, beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I suppose the best bet at finding info about the 1901 photographer would be Ancestry searches. From clues and info I found online was that it might actually be W. Herbert Bridle. It seems there is some confusion and contradiction weather it is an M or a W, with the cursive writing from the time making it harder to understand. M or W could be the first name and Herbert could be the middle name. I did some grave searches for Pennsylvania but no results. I currently don't have my Ancestry subscription but I'll see what else I can find. PascalHD (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I put my Bridle research in wikidata:Talk:Q135272927. Ancestry is part of en:WP:TWL but I didn't see anything major there. Might be Martin Herbert Bridle (1860–1942) perhaps? The 1900 US federal census would be key there for establishing that he stayed in Pennsylvania after his marriage there. czar 23:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I've resolved the Bridle image. Summarized on its talk page. czar 03:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Nothing in any newspapers or any book I can find. Honestly, is it a given that these photos were published before then in that book? Plenty of photos circulate in private collections but that usually does not count as publishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was a given, was just pointing out that they had been circulating beforehand. Despite having been doing this for years, the intricacies of American copyright law are still an enigma to me, so I was just trying to provide as much context as I could for people who might know better. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time of creation. That is specially the case for studio pictures (3 of them here), as leaving the photographer's custody counts as publication. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of that precedent before. Where is it documented? czar 01:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably the only documentation is the arguments on many DRs. But if you think about it, it makes sense that studio photographs were generally created at least for the subject of the photo, so they would have left the photographer's hands, which in the U.S. at that time was generally considered publishing. (I say "generally" because there was no definition of "publishing" a photograph in statute law, and unsurprisingly case law does not all point in one direction.) Similarly for things where family photos had multiple copies given to different family members. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that context! I've added this text to Commons:Copyright rules/Photographs for others to reference. czar 02:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:YouTube CC-BY

I'm noticed, that current page of "YouTube CC-BY" license led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (I don't know since when). But Template:YouTube CC-BY still led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

What should I do - update this template or create a new one and mark this one as obsolete? --Kaganer (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. As of July 30, it was still 3.0. The Wayback Machine normally archives that page frequently, but at least currently does not have any captures available between then and August 11 (today). Technically, I think any videos we copy off from the date of the change would have the 4.0 license, but any we copied earlier would still have the 3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m wondering if changing the link on YouTube’s help page from CC BY 3.0 to CC BY 4.0 really does automatically relicense older uploads (on YouTube). Currently older videos on YouTube which are marked as Creative Commons also link to the same help page where it specifies the version number. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Commons just "upgrade" all older CC-BY files to 4.0? How did Wikipedia go about it when they switched from 3.0 to 4.0? Is there some part of YouTube's TOS which allows them the right to sub-license under a newer version or something which allowed this? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#27dc3bf5d9 "By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable licence to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display and perform it) for the purpose of operating, promoting, and improving the Service." I don't know if that is enough  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   04:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly not enough... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: not enough for what? "Sublicensable" may well give YouTube the right to "update" a CC license at their discretion (and quite possibly to do far more than that). Commons, of course, does not have similar terms of use. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The TOS clause that was quoted gives YouTube a sublicensable license to use the content themselves for operating and promoting the service, but it does not automatically change the license granted by the uploader to the public. In other words, it lets YouTube reproduce, distribute, and modify the content internally or for the service, and even sublicense those rights to third parties, but it does not retroactively alter the Creative Commons license the uploader applied at the time of upload.

Just as if you had uploaded a video under "all rights reserved", YouTube could not decide to license it under a CC license without your permission.

CC licenses are irrevocable and granted by the copyright holder to the public. Only the copyright holder can choose to "upgrade" or change the license version of their own work. YouTube’s ability to sublicense the content for service purposes does not include the right to relicense public CC BY videos under a newer version, because that would require a separate permission from the original uploader.

(From what I’ve read about Wikipedia’s switch from 3.0 to 4.0, articles were effectively dual-licensed: past revisions remained under 3.0, but any new revision constitutes a new work, which can then be licensed under 4.0. WMF were not able to just decide all past 3.0 revisions were automatically 4.0) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's consider four groups of works.

Two groups of works are relatively easier to handle.

A. Files present on Commons of which the Youtube source has been deleted from Youtube, or had its CC license removed, before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube. Those works were never offered under version 4.0 on Youtube. Given that Commons cannot review every file ever copied from Youtube to check if it is still present on Youtube now, and still under a CC license there, those files must remain under version 3.0 on Commons. They must keep their version 3.0 template.

B. Works uploaded to Youtube for the first time after the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube and offered under the CC license. Those works were never offered under version 3.0 on Youtube. They must be under version 4.0 on Commons. They must get a version 4.0 template.

Two other groups of works could present more difficulty. It has to do in large part with the question: could Youtube change unilaterally the license offered by the copyright owners? It is dubious. The section of the Youtube terms of use quoted by 999real says the license granted to Youtube is "for the purpose of [...] the Service". In the FAQ section of the "License types" page [1], Youtube adds "YouTube can’t grant you rights to use someone else’s content [...]. YouTube cannot grant you the rights to use content that has already been uploaded to YouTube. If you want to use someone else’s YouTube content, you may want to reach out to them directly." My understanding is that there is nothing there that authorises Youtube to offer a work, for a use outside of Youtube, under a free license different from the CC license that was offered by the copyright owner. But can it be said that after a certain time, the copyright owners implicitly consent to the change?

C. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, and were also uploaded to Commons before that change. Given that they were under version 3.0 when they were uploaded to Commons, and that license is undoubtebly valid for the Commons copy and for any subsequent copies made from the Commons copy, the simple solution is to keep that version 3.0 license for those files. There's no reason to complicate matters on Commons. If an external reuser wants and feels comfortable to use the version 4.0, they can copy the work directly from Youtube.

D. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, but were uploaded to Commons for the first time after that change. They were (and may still be) offered under version 3.0 by their copyright owners. But now they are presented by Youtube (validly or not) as offered under version 4.0. The problem is worsened by the fact that there may not be (or is there?) a way to know the precise day when a work was uploaded to Youtube. There may not be a good solution for this group of works. I suppose that users will upload those files to Commons under version 4.0, because that will seem the easy thing, the chances of complaints by copyright owners may be low, and users may think that if complaints occur, it could be the responsibility of Youtube.

-- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

One can hover the mouse over the "2 weeks ago" on YouTube and be presented with the upload date. However, we don't know the date they selected the file to be freely licensed (they could e.g. have applied the CC license a year after upload).

Given the size of our project, and WMF in particular, dont't we have any contacts within Google/YouTube to help with these questions? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I re posted this discussion since there was no conclusion.

In this case YouTube is not just giving away rights to other people's content, those people granted the (main) rights when they selected the Creative Commons license on YouTube.

Generally 4.0 version of CC licenses are regarded as better than 3.0, is upgrading the version really unreasonable to be "improving the service"? We know that Google does not care a lot about the CC license but would they really do something like this without thinking about the risks?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I just checked and realized there are 2 different version of this statement in the terms of service

I think the one above (..."operating, promoting, and improving the Service") is actually from https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms

For https://www.youtube.com/t/terms / US version I see

"By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube’s (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service."  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we somehow ask YouTube to change the link back to CC BY 3.0 to solve this whole mix-up? Or perhaps request them to add a two CC BY options for their videos? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe move the old template to YouTube CC-BY 3.0 and start using a new 4.0 one for the others? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've designed a new template here: {{YouTube CC-BY 4.0}} Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The soundtrack of Night of the Living Dead

The Wikipedia page for Night of the Living Dead says that "[m]uch of the soundtrack had been used by previous films." The footnote for that sentence goes on to list a number of cinematographic works whose soundtrack the creators of the film borrowed from, namely the TV series Wanted Dead or Alive, the episodes "I Remember a Lemon Tree" (RE0000458541) and "Bullets Cost Too Much" (RE0000377846), as well as the movies Teenagers from Outer Space (copyright not renewed), The Devil's Messenger (copyright not renewed, however it is a derivative work of the TV series 13 Demon Street) and The Hideous Sun Demon (RE0000361389). My concern, as you have probably already realized, is that portions of the soundtrack are still copyrighted due to statutory copyright being first obtained in other places. If that is the case, then we may need to selectively mute portions of the film. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Copies of Night of the Living Dead have been produced, and television stations have aired the show for many years as a work in the public domain. This has stood up to scrutiny in court when the creators of the film filed lawsuits to get back the copyright in some way. I don't see anywhere where a DVD, VHS, broadcast, or streaming service has muted portions of the film. Rjjiii (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The potential copyright for the soundtrack likely lies not with Image Ten but with Capitol Records, the owners of w:en:Hi-Q (production music) who I'm assuming licensed parts of that to Image Ten. The problem is that in Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. and Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., the Second and Fifth Circuits held respectively that a copyright notice with the name of a licensee was sufficient to secure copyright for a licensor, even though technically incorrect. Assuming that the contents of the music library remained unpublished unless incorporated in a film, a part of the soundtrack could have been first published in a film with said type of copyright notice whose copyright was then renewed, making it still copyrighted.

Also, I can't find any case law regarding the film's copyright. What are the lawsuits that you are thinking of? prospectprospekt (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Image Ten, Inc. v. Walter Reade Organization, Inc. and later Dawn Associates v. Links Rjjiii (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The former is about breach of contract and the latter is about unfair competition and copyright infringement of a phrase found in Dawn of the Dead. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

US Military images with different usage terms in EXIF metadata vs current license tag

I came across this interesting image of some Mazda racing automobiles on a US Marine Corps Air Station installation (Marine Corps Air Station New River to be precise):

While adding the additional categories, I noticed the usage terms in the EXIF metadata: "NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE". Interestingly, the picture was originally imported from a US Marine Corps media website with the PD-USGov-Military tag. But this is in complete contradiction with the EXIF metadata. Also, the image is not available anymore from that source (maybe because the Marine Corps media unit noticed they published a picture that shouldn't have been public ?)

Since it is unclear which usage terms apply (EXIF metadata or imported license tag) I thought it was best to raise the question here. I already tagged the picture with a Disputed and License Review needed template. Could someone point me to a more specific template/category for US Military images if I encounter more in the future ? Or do I just use the same templates as in this instance ? Btrs (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Works of the US government are not copyrighted. If this was a photograph by a Marine photographer doing their job, then it doesn't matter whether it was approved for public release or not, we legally can keep it. There could be copyright issues in nonUS government works included in the photograph, there could be ethical issues, but the US government has no right to license its work or use copyright to prohibit its reproduction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

At the time it was created (2010), it appears it was not meant for release. At some point it was clearly made available to the public on the internet (~2012) by the United States Marine Corps via their website. Someone might have just forgotten the change the EXIF metadata, although there's a chance it could have been an error. Regardless, its not a copyright issue as a US Government work. PascalHD (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

South Korean state media may be free content now but login required

Hi everyone,

The South Korean government (via KTV) has launched the Nanuri Portal (nanuri.ktv.go.kr), where a large collection of state media videos are being released for public use, probably under {{KOGL}}.

• According to the official press release (in Korean), about 30,000 clips are being opened first (from ~750,000 total), with KOGL/public-use labels attached to each video.
• Downloads are supported in 1080p MP4.
• However, the site requires account registration with a (presumably) Korean phone number, which makes access difficult for many editors here.

Another issue is that the Nanuri portal distinguishes between ‘personal,’ ‘media,’ and ‘government’ members. It’s not clear which category Wikimedians would fall under. Uploading to Commons is arguably more than ‘personal use,’ but we are not traditional press or government either, so clarification may be needed.

I’d like to ask: How should we handle confirming/reviewing licensing for KOGL-labeled videos when access is login-restricted? Should we ask/wait for easier access, or is there a way Commons can verify the KOGL labeling (maybe similar to Commons:License review)?

I haven't created an account (yet).

This is (kind of) a continuation of an earlier discussion:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#File:President_Yoon_Suk_Yeol_Declares_Emergency_Martial_Law.webm_+_Potential_upcoming_South_Korean_state_media_free_content

Thanks! Reepy1 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that they made this an option but typical of the Korean government, they make it an absolute nightmare to deal with. Normally we would deal with this using something like Commons:License review, but most license reviewers won't get to see it if its blocked behind a phone number. I do have a Korean phone number, but its not very realistic either that me and the few Korean admins/ license reviewers would have the ability to go through the potential 750K files that might be uploaded to Commons. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. Takipoint123 (💬) 03:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

+ For those unfamiliar with how Korean services work: you can't use any phone number. It MUST be a +82, Korea-based phone number which is tied directly to your national identity number (I.e. you must have a phone number from a Korean telecommunications provider). So if you're not a Korean national or foreigner with a registration number, you are out of luck.--Takipoint123 (💬) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That certainly does make it difficult for a non-Korean national to review these files. Hopefully the Republic of Korea also clarifies what kind of usage conditions are under this portal. Abzeronow (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's KOGL, it is likely that the site will also have ND or NC version of KOGL files (Type 3 and 4), which is not allowed on Commons. Personally think the only solution to this issue would be to continue the existing workflow of getting VRT confirmed for files that don't specify KOGL licenses: ideally, we would get confirmation for an entire category of files (e.g. like Template:Korea.net). There is realistically no way to incorporate Nanuri into our LR workflow, considering the size of the Commons Korean community. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just used a Korean phone number (not sure if foreign numbers work, the text box imply Korean phone numbers only but not sure) and managed to get an account without having to verify any identity. So it's not that kind of registration we worried about. I just put a fake name and it worked.

More findings in other reply... Reepy1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Foreign numbers won't work. There isn't even an option to put a country code. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can inquire them about expanding to foreign phone numbers at some point, if we feel the need to do so someday. This will make Commons:license review easily possible. I'm actually not sure about the phone number having to be tied to national ID, not familiar with that. Reepy1 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just logged in and some contents (stuff in front page etc) are labelled with {{KOGL}} Type 1. The >3 hour news broadcast download that includes Yoon's martial law declaration (https://www.ktv.go.kr/news/latest/view?content_id=716002, this is outside of Nanuri, publicly accessible which still (wrongly) says copyrighted; uploaded then deleted to commons before here File:President Yoon Suk Yeol Declares Emergency Martial Law.webm) is under KOGL Type 2, which has a non-commercial requirement, presumably because it's part of the news.

I suspect the actual broadcast of the martial law declaration would be {{KOGL}} Type 1, but we may have to enquire with KTV, or even the Presidential Office, to be sure.

w:Korean News are not labelled with any KOGL yet from a quick look. Reepy1 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Idea: let me see if there are potentially any content that includes the martial law speech that's under {{KOGL}} Type 1... Reepy1 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't find it for now, there's a lot of content, I have a feeling it doesn't exist but anyone who manages to find Yoon's martial law speech under {{KOGL}} Type 1 will be greatly appreciated by me, please tell me if you do. Reepy1 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well besides martial law etc, again, there seems to be a lot of content such as State Council (i.e. cabinet) meetings (most contents with the current president I think?) that are under {{KOGL}} Type 1. Might be of note in the future, such as when events under the current gov't is documented in Wikimedia Projects. I think Commons has a lot of equivalent material from the U.S. White House.

Many old stuff are under KOGL Type 2-4 or even no KOGL license though. They are probably working on it, not sure if it will be under {{KOGL}} Type 1 though.

As for license review in the future, maybe we'll have to set up some internal VRT-style check for a case-by-case basis, going to be extra work for the admins though. Not sure if enough content will be relevant enough for upload in the future though. Reepy1 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Side note to express my frustration: US gov't works are under {{PD-USGov}}, but in South Korea, despite there being a similar law (Article 24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act), it seems like in practice, both the gov't interpretation and Wikimedia consensus is that a KOGL license is separately needed to enforce Art. 24-2. Also see: {{KoreaGov}} for 24-2 that is not explicitly under {{KOGL}}. Reepy1 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I pondered this a lot when trying to figure out if Yoon's martial law speech was free content here, the law states all works made entirely by the state (i.e. gov't) are free content under 24-2, but gov't practice and Wiki consensus may differ, which is why I made discussions and inquiries, leading up to this etc. Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO Wikimedia consensus is correct. While government owned workd are free, other factors involved include works that can be asserted by outside factors like contractors or legal exceptions which specifically make the copyright status non-free unlike the US government (e.g. state secrets or those pertaining to privacy). This is why Template:PD-KoreaGov is only used for works that are almost certainly held solely and their copyright exerted by the Korean government, such as official seals/insignias/logos or certain legal documents. KOGL is used to make our lives easier in that we KNOW the government and its contractors WANT us to use it. Without KOGL, everything would be a guesswork and most government files wouldn't be hosted here. Takipoint123 (💬) 18:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wondering how KOGL relates to Art. 24-2 though. Are KOGL Types 2-4 not completely free because the content isn't completely state-owned, or are they completely state-owned under 24-2 but have restrictions? If it's the latter then 24-2 by itself becomes (even more) useless to us...

From your post, it seems like it's the former. I think maybe there's some subsidiary regulation that defines 24-2/KOGL works, think it was this, but I think I'm done reading laws for now: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulLsInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000216859 (in Korean) Reepy1 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

KOGL claims it's legal basis is Article 24.2. As for why there's non-free license types is because 1. They do whatever they want 2. Some sort of legal exception applies against the commercial portion. Takipoint123 (💬) 04:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Website also has state visits Reepy1 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The main problem is that the Korean government has included not only KOGL Type 1 but also Types 2, 3, and 4 as part of its public works open policy. These are used interchangeably without clear distinction across diffrent platforms, which only adds to the confusion. The registration wall for the new website further complicates the situation. Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness.--Namoroka (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed to Namoroka. While the initiative is a good step forward, I don't expect that they are completely willing to release their entire collection of government images, videos and other content to free culture, commercial-friendly licensing. In fact, two of their public monuments/statues, despite being probably funded by taxpayers' money, is unfree for commercial use and distribution, and commercial use requires permission from the relevant cultural ministry. I don't expect the real sincerity of Seoul in promoting free culture in that country pretty much soon, from commercial Freedom of Panorama to the 100% release of all their archives and media either to public domain or to commercial-type CC licensing. (disclaimer, I'm not a Korean user). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, this (probably) happened because the President stated these KTV contents are (now) free content under §24-2 of the Korean Copyright Act back in early July. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202507091104001 (Korean article). So I think there might be some intent, implementation may differ (like this case) though. Reepy1 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Translating the article (using Brave browser's translation feature)... there's some inconsistencies. First to second paragraphs: In the future, videos produced by KTV (National Broadcasting Service) will be freely available to anyone without being subject to copyright. The President's Office issued a press release on the 9th “to fully open the video works of KTV, a state agency, for free use by the public and the media”. KTV is a public broadcaster operated by the state. But for the sixth paragraph: In the future, based on the principle of Article 28 of the Copyright Act ‘publicized works may be cited within a reasonable scope and according to fair practices for purposes such as reporting, criticism, education, and research’, the government will ensure that all media and new media can be cited and utilized fairly. The President's Office reported that it plans to open KTV video works for this purpose. "Reasonable scope and according to fair practices" seems to contradict "freely available to everyone", since if you're releasing your content freely (like under commercial-type KOGL CC licensing, which is Type 1), you should not expect that uses must be limited to fair uses like criticism, research, and education. Such licensing also allows derivatives from the videos (like screenshots) to be utilized in commercial products (e.g. T-shirt designs), advertising, and for-profit vlogs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I just saw a photo of that King Sejong statue (it's related to US news right now, can share if appropriate/curious), and got reminded of this again...

Just did a Google search, for the w:Statue of Yi Sun-sin, because it was being used for "parodies" and "caricatures", the author registered copyright, and later the author transferred copyright to Seoul gov't, and the royalties are "used to help the socially disadvantaged", according to this. Reepy1 (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 so it seems it's now illegal to use the statue in parodies? Well, SoKor seems to be placing too much restrictions over monuments that were funded by the people (not by the artists or architects), in my opinion. At the very least, Denmark handles the parody freedom prudently. Like both Japan and Russia, Denmark only grants liberal panorama exception to images of architecture, not including monuments. The heirs of the sculptor behind the Statue of the Little Mermaid once slapped Berlingske with lawsuit, but they were ultimately defeated by the Danish Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the newspaper. It has been considered by Berlingske as "a victory for the satirical freedom" in political cartoons and caricatures. In a nutshell, in Denmark the artists or their grandchildren have no rights to restrict satirical/parodical uses of the public monuments they designed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the Koreans might view those as exceptions to freedom of parody as they are the most revered persons in Korea.

Whether or not this is justified, I don't know. Reepy1 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, maybe there are different ways to deal with disrespect of these persons other than copyright, I don't know. Reepy1 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You'd use defamation against living persons but deceased persons generally can't be defamed (not sure in Korea) Reepy1 (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like there are laws for defamation against deceased persons in Korea but the government or any person cannot sue, only descendants. Reepy1 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

(when I say Korea I mean South Korea) Reepy1 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 just a question, are there any laws for defenation against living persons there? COM:CSCR#South Korea does seem to imply restrictive use of images of almost everyone. Is this perhaps one reason why some images are not Type 1 licensed because they depict "sensitive" figures or objects in SoKor? (Instead, Types 2-4 licensed?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard some people think defamation is used excessively in S. Korea, so yeah, your guess seems grounded. Reepy1 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reepy1 perhaps "sensitive objects" include the buildings and monuments themselves, making SoKor an outlier among all East Asian countries (having most restrictive law and rules, prohibiting all types of commercial uses of works permanently placed in public spaces). Mongolia just slightly liberated their rules in 2021, now permitting reasonable uses of buildings and 3D artworks, as long as these are not reproduced in exact 3D reproductions that are for direct or indirect commercial use (see COM:FOP Mongolia). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Curious; if the Seoul govt owns copyright to the Yi Sun-sin statue, if it releases images of the statue under permissive licenses, does that mean we can use such images on Commons despite lack of freedom of panorama? I'm looking on the copyright registry to try and confirm the owner but their search engine is so poorly designed I can't find the entry lol... grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon there is a similar case (see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-07#File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg). Requested by @Nonabelian: , but I had some reservations, considering the ministry of culture (which holds the sculptural copyright on the statue) not permitting any commercial exploitation of the publicly-funded monument without formal permission from them, even if the Flickr account of the representative agency released the image under a commercial-type CC license. In my opinion, the court would recognize the parent ministry's commercial use restrictions more than the CC licensing on the Flickr image given by the representative agency. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, interesting read. It's a bit too much for me to research at moment. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Argentina)

Hey! I found the current new logo of the Supreme Court of Argentina, from their official website https://www.csjn.gov.ar/. Am I allowed to upload this to use on the articles of said court?

Image: https://www.csjn.gov.ar/imagenes/logo_CSJN_top5.png Rubiserr (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't access either the root Supreme Court website nor that png link, can others?

Update: Just tried using a proxy and it worked... strange. Maybe it's some DNS or whitelist (region restricted?) problem. Reepy1 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if meta:Be bold applies to stuff like this? As in, is it accepted if someone uploads, presuming it's public domain etc, then someone disputes later? Reepy1 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons specifically and overtly does not have a "be bold" policy. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

PNG image above consists of File:Coat of arms of Argentina.svg which is out of copyright, and text, meaning the only copyright we have to deal with is literally just text (if we don't count putting those two things together as copyrightable work).

COM:TOO Argentina says there's no threshold of originality in Argentina, meaning even text logos could be a problem.

License on (old logo?) File:Corte suprema argentina logo.png claims it is out of copyright because it's old.

I might be completely wrong on this, I'm a random user. Reepy1 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Illustration of Josipina Eleonora Hudovernik by Saša Šantel copyright

Is this illustration (inncorectly stated to be illustration of Marija Hudovernik.) of composer Josipina Eleonora Hudovernik by artist Saša Šantel protected by copyright? Saša Šantel died in 1945, so his work become public domain in Slovenia in 1995 (Slovenia upholded the old Yugoslavian law of copiryghts lasting for 50 years after death of author until March 1996.) Ihana Aneta (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bud Hobbs

Link to the original discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#c-Marchjuly-20250910125300-Kingsacrificer-20250910090800

Basically, I want to add a photograph of Bud Hobbs on his Wikipedia Biography page. He is a musician who passed away in 1958. There are no CC licensed images available on the internet based on my search.

I figured, as he is dead for so long, that I can use one of his non-free images in Wikipedia on account of fair use. But @Marchjuly suggested in the discussion above that given his time of death, the currently available images online may be wrongly copyrighted, and hence I should reach out here for experts to assess the copyright of those images.

Would be eager to be guided on the subject matter.

Links to the available images:

1. Find a Grave page
2. Discogs Artist page
3. Audio CD on Amazon
4. Last.fm page
5. A Rock & Country Encyclopedia
6. an unofficial Youtube Video of one of his songs

Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads review of User:Mhmmdihsn

Hi. Could someone review the uploads: Special:ListFiles/Mhmmdihsn. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like copyvios to me, starting DR. Thanks for the tip! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

though some are too simple for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

considering their lack of response to talk page messages, would a IDHT block be in order? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

NC licensing?

Is the license on File:Neglinka007.jpg compatible with Commons? The uploader has several uploads seemingly with the same license. Nakonana (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It is only allowed because the photo was uploaded in 2008. For new uploads these license combination is not accepted anymore. GPSLeo (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Nakonana (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There must be a way to call a notice if the NC-GFDL combo is chosen, with the notice stating that this combo is only valid for files uploaded prior to the said date, with a link to the discussion concerning this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that would be helpful to avoid confusion. Nakonana (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• That's not right. This particular file has this licensing because of the GFDL migration, but it's not correct to say a new file couldn't explicitly have GFDL and another unfree license if the uploader wanted. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

James Walkinshaw congressional portrait

Relating to File:James Walkinshaw.jpg. The image was taken from here, which notes: "Image courtesy of the Member". Yet the metadata seems to imply that "Damien Salas/Office of the Clerk" created it yesterday, 2025-09-10. I assume if the image was really created by Damien Salas, then it would be PD. Is there a chance that it wasn't, and would that change the copyright status? I'd also like to point out this excerpt from the XML file that may be downloaded from the above link, particularly the usageRight tags:

<name>W000831_001</name>
<assetType>Image</assetType>
<contentUrl>
/bioguide-published/assets/68c1bd4ca929c5b98220e069.jpg
</contentUrl>
<creditLine>Image courtesy of the Member</creditLine>
<accessionNumber>PA2025.09.0001a</accessionNumber>
<usageRight>Import to Congress.gov</usageRight>
<usageRight>Restricted</usageRight>
<uploadDate>2025-09-10T14:04:20.870</uploadDate>
<uploadDateISO>
Wed Sep 10 2025 18:04:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
</uploadDateISO>

--WrenFalcon (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday was Walkinshaw's first day reporting to work in Congress, it makes sense that the photograph was made in the last 24-48 hours; it also had to have been made after he reported to Congress as he's wearing his Congressional pin, which they only get once they report for their first day. It almost certainly was made by Salas, whose team is responsible for making the official portraits of members of Congress on their first day or week. I would go with the metadata on this one. The "courtesy of the Member" language is likely just an oversight because Walkinshaw or his new staff sent the photograph to the Congressional admin team responsible for the Bioguide website, as opposed to Salas sending it directly. I can't imagine someone other than Salas or another Congressional staffer would be on-site to take the member's official government portrait on their first day. 19h00s (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Are Fandom images allowed?

I was searching through the Sidemen Fandom on a Zerkaa page. In the bottom it says all content is CC-BY-SA licensed.

I wanted to ask whether this means that all images uploaded on that page, and other similar pages, can be uploaded in Commons? Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the license statement only applies to text within the articles, not images. See COM:FANDOM. Only images that have another explicit license template can be reuploaded here (e.g. this photo and the screenshot of the file page on Fandom). S5A-0043🚎 09:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, Fandom is not well-monitored for copyvios. It is no more of a trusted source than "some guy on the Internet". - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Where can I see if a picture is a free use?

I'm trying to make an page for Le Sserafims Hot, Ep in Finnish Wikipedia. I don't know if I can upload the album civer Nokotiinus (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nokotiinus: assuming "civer" means "cover", you almost certainly cannot upload that to Commons. You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, especially the section Understanding copyright - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You can't upload to Commons, but you might be able to upload on Wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree-albumcover Reepy1 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

De minimis in videos

Is there a de minimis for the length of a copyrighted work that appeared in videos? For example, if a copyrighted work is the main focus of the video, but only for just a few seconds, does de minimis apply? What if the whole video was couple hours long, does that matter in this case? I was just asking because of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Killing of Charlie Kirk. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guideline for that. But, if I'm not mistaken, if you upload a video to Youtube with, let's say a current pop song as background music, then Youtube permits around 10-15 seconds of copyrighted audio without treating your video as a copyright violation. But I'm not if that's (still) true. Might be a starting point to figure out what length might count as de minimis, though. Nakonana (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

5 seconds, actually, per a tweet from their official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1162064808830627840?t=5QgqEGbJSiz4tNps6Fn_sw&s=19 as of 2019. Nakonana (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

But these are fair use policies and has nothing to do with de minimis. I would say a copyrighted work full frame in a video is never de minimis. An example for de minimis in a video could be an interview where there is some music from the background audible. GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with GPSLeo. Plus, if something copyrighted is intended as a focus of attention, then it cannot possibly be de minimis. Druation, size, etc. do not even enter the matter (though whether it is legible does). - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to say something like Jmabel already did. A reasonable baseline for De minimis reviews can IMHO be taken from an amalgamation of COM:DM France and COM:DM Germany. Both rundowns describe an inclusion of copyrighted works as being De minimis when they do not have any importance whatsoever for the photographic work taken as a whole; the included work shall not have any meaning related to the content of the photo or video, no influence on the message of the photo or video and not deliberately being used as part of the scene as it is framed (on the contrary, if it's seeable as a [slight] nuisance, then its inclusion may be DM). Of course, any inclusion of a protected work under the De minimis limitation statute must be small in size, so that this inclusion cannot serve as master for work copies. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that, except for two points: (1) "small" => "small or well out of focus". (2) Not sure it needs to have "[no] importance whatsoever". Consider Molotov Man. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer images from

http://digital.bib-bvb.de/view/bvb_mets/viewer.0.6.5.jsp?folder_id=0&dvs=1757833545426~875&pid=16068031&locale=en&usePid1=true&usePid2=true

to Wiki Commons? Sir Edward 2 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As this is a work created more than 120 years ago, it can be presumed to be public domain. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Mugshots from law enforcement agencies

Hello,

I encountered a mugshot from one of the 9/11 terrorists in the recent files (File:Majed Moqed 2.jpg). Allegedly, it was sourced from the FBI (the given source page was dead when I looked at it, an version from 2006 did not actually hold this image, but a different one; versions from 2016 and 2024 were dead, too). I'm harbouring doubts that this and the other mugshots in Hijackers in the September 11 attacks were actually taken by US government officials (and then, most likely not someone from the FBI, but more likely the TSA or CIA), the quality of them is much too disparate (sharpness, noise, coloured or not). It's much more likely that they were sourced from passport scans or the like, even though some of them carry a watermark of "government exhibit". All things considered, this seems to be a case of "Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. For example, government publications may include works copyrighted by a contractor or grantee; copyrighted material assigned to the U.S. Government; or copyrighted information from other sources."

While I also strongly doubt that anybody will sue or ask for image removal from abroad: should we delete those images as they infringe upon our licensing policy to only host free works? Or is this alleged appropriation of foreign IP rights by the US government sufficient for the licensing? This question, expandable upon other police mugshots is indeed only about how stringent we shall implement our own policies. Please share your opinions! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

were actually taken by US government officials (and then, most likely not someone from the FBI, but more likely the TSA or CIA) -- I suspect neither of them took the photo because the depicted guy died on 9/11, so how would investigators have taken such a good quality mugshot of a person who died in an airplane crash? Nakonana (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

An occasion could have been when the individuals entered the States (and a TSA agent made photos), or when some intelligence officer conducted interviews abroad. But these are surely only marginally realistic options, other sources are certainly more plausible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Motion Picture Copyright

Hello! I noticed a movie from 1914 was uploaded here in full. That movie of course is public domain given its age. The problem is is that the source is given as a home media release by a for profit company. Surely taking their restoration of the film is a copyright breach. Here is the file in question.File:The Lumberjack (1914).webm Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Restoration is not generally copyrightable in the US; it has to be creative work, not merely reproducing something someone else has done, i.e. the original film. And I'm not sure what restoration you're seeing there? Seems like a pretty direct scan of the film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The scan was done by a for profit company so I thought they may have rights to the specific copy of that film. Not the print but any clean up work or digital restoration they did to it for release. Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@You're apparently thinking about the effects of the en:Sweat of the brow doctrine. This doctrine is not really widespread in modern copyright laws, AFAIK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by OneUnknownDude

User:OneUnknownDude has uploaded a bunch of files from https://gahs.edu.ge claiming they are licensed under CC0. However, I see no such notice on the website. Can someone experienced with checking copyright verify these claims? Thank you. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus "gahs.edu.ge + own involvement" makes no sense as a source. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@OneUnknownDude: can you explain what is going on here? For example, at File:All-GAHS ICYS team in 2025.jpg you say the photographer is unknown, but then you claim to be the copyright-holder offering a cc-zero license. To me that makes no sense at all. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

アニメなどのロゴの著作権ってどうなってるの？

日本語で失礼します

まず謝りたいことがあります

無断で3点のロゴをアップロードしてしまいました、申し訳ありません

さて、本サイトにある、アニメなどのロゴは「図形やテキストのみであるコトによりパブリックドメインとなっています」がこの基準とは何か詳しく教えてください

またコレに関して著作権者の許可は必要か教えてください

返答お待ちしております H2-T2 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for a brief English reply, but these might help you:

COM:Threshold of originality/ja

COM:Copyright rules by territory/Japan/ja#独創性の水準 Reepy1 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Atoms for Peace speech

Are the audio and transcripts of the Atoms for Peace speech OK to upload? I performed a possibly flawed registration search, which turned up nothing. JayCubby (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status and eligibility of the old World Trade Center logo.

I recreated the old World Trade Center logo and uploaded it to Commons under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license, here. I originally researched the eligibility of logos to be copyrighted and came to the conclusion that they are not, so I chose the CC0 for people to not have to worry about crediting my recreation.

On September 11th, it got the speedy deletion notice for lack of permission from the copyright holder. After asking around and a lot of reading, I decided to send the probable copyright holder, the PANYNJ, an email asking them about the status of the logo. They responded in a very concise manner. Here's the main part of the response (everything else is email formalities and a link to the 9/11 Museum):

"Thank you for contacting the World Trade Center. Due to intellectual property rights, we are not authorized to grant any kind of design licenses for the Twin Towers at this time."

Being a bit confused by the vagueness of "we are not authorized to grant any kind of design licenses for the Twin Towers at this time", I sent a detailed email asking for guidance to commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org. What they told me is to just "prove that the logo is in the public domain", otherwise I "can't grant it a license", which didn't bring as much clarity into the issue as I had hoped, so I'm now asking here.

Does the logo and its recreation in question fall under the threshold of originality, making them uncopyrightable? What is there to grasp from the PANYNJ response? Does it bar any depiction of the Twin Towers from being used under a free license, forbidding them all from Commons? FenX2016 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@FenX2016 per enwiki, it was first used in 1993. If it was indeed first published in 1993, then it is automatically copyrighted from the moment of creation, but we all know that US courts and US Copyright Office typically reject copyright eligibility of many minimalist logos (see COM:TOO US) that are mere geometric shapes or typefaces, setting a very high bar of creativity required to gain copyright protection. Another question: are you also referring to the actual buildings themselves? The port authority has no rights whatsoever, more so the heirs of the deceased Japanese architect who authored the buildings, since all buildings can be exploited as per Sec. 120(a) of the US Copyright Code (the architectural Freedom of Panorama). More so, all buildings completed before 1990 are completely in public domain, because the 1990 AWCPA which granted copyright protection for architectural works did not retroactively restore the architects' copyrights on all existing buildings during that time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not any sort of legal expert, so I never meant to specify what part of the logo was copyrightable or not! I just relayed what the PANYNJ told me so that one of the much smarter people here could elaborate on what it would mean for this particular case.

Because of that, my only concern is whether or not any part of this logo potentially makes it all protected by copyright. Which now leads to the question of the logo's copyright eligibility under the threshold of originality. So... is it complex enough to be copyrighted or is it not? FenX2016 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/World_Trade_Center shows 3 WTC logos including a twin towers logo used 1989 to 2001. The newer 2014 logo is below TOO-US, but I would not claim the 1989 logo is below TOO; it is either above or too close to the line to be sure. Glrx (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That looks to me to be well above TOO in the United States.

Also: Pinging @JWilz12345, I doubt that Minoru Yamasaki, born in Seattle, Washington, graduate of Garfield High School and the University of Washington, and an active opponent of the internment of ethnic Japanese in the U.S. during World War II, would have appreciated being called a "Japanese architect". We would not call Frank Lloyd Wright a "Welsh architect". - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I stand corrected. (Perhaps because I am accustomed to the Philippine immigration laws, in which citizenship is only possible either by blood [at least one parent is a Filipino] or by naturalization [with hefty naturalization fees]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thanks. As you can imagine, in our current politics this is pretty fraught. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've speedied the 2001 logo. Bedivere (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

DigitaltMuseum, Category:Photographs by K.W. Gullers, and CC-BY-SA 4.0

License reviewing had me stumble upon File:NMAx.0016423.jpg and a bunch of other files in that category sourced to the Swedish DigitaltMuseum. The images on the DigitaltMuseum site have something that say they are CC-By-SA 4.0, but K.W. Gullers died in 1998 and there is no indication about this collection that the copyright was ever ceded to the various museum institutions to license those images. The other collections involving this artist have conflicting licenses, like CC-By-NC-ND. I am suspect to think that this is some kind of accidental license laundering on the museum's part, but wanted to get second opinions before I email them for more information or DR these files. Sennecaster (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

UN report covered by PD-UN-doc?

Is this UN report covered by PD-UN-doc? It does not, so far as I can tell, have a document symbol, which is the main category from ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, but I wanted to get others’ opinions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf is currently listed as PD-USGov. While the redactions may be the work of a federal employee, the contact book obviously was not. However, I believe that this is still PD due to Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Can someone double check this interpretation, and if it is correct, does anyone know the template for this kind of situation? Based5290 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)