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.

How to license files on a public Google drive folder?

Hi everyone, I recently got in touch with the mom in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxsXUkoEekM In case you can't see the video, she has two sons who are 16 and 17 who are actively filming ICE agents in places like Chicago and Minneapolis. I think this footage would be very useful for many current events articles. She has them putting the footage into a public Google Drive folder and sharing the footage with the press. I got in touch with her about getting the footage onto Wikipedia articles, and she's all for it. So, there are a few things I'd like to figure out: 1.) She has a workflow with her sons, and I don't want to interrupt that, so my first thought was: is there a way to publicly mark all the footage in the folder as CC-by SA 4.0? What would be the best way to do that? 2.) Who is the copyright holder in this case? The people making the videos are minors, but they have a working arrangement with their mother. Thanks! Victorgrigas (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That would probably require a waiver with the VRTS,to note that all media from that Google Drive folder is okay.

See COM:CONSENT

You could also re-use the same workflow that the open-source community uses, place a file named LICENSE.txt in the folder that contains the license text, in this case CC-BY SA 4.0, resembling the wording used in Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0 Wolfy13399 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Barring a specific arrangement which transfers copyright, it is likely that the sons are still the copyright holders (this wording seems a bit too vague for work-for-hire things to apply). Ask the mother to check with her sons that they're okay with freely licensing their work. Based5290 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gq32neL3q3rX7E5tUqqGb8QI_fGJxMnx and https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1D7cwyFJeSjEWW6RUbq-9sep-6PtlEHOp Victorgrigas (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Germany Israel Olympics Attack.jpg

Is this really in the public domain? The infobox does not provide information on location of first publication. The photo was taken by a German photographer in Germany in 1972. The photographer died in 2014[1]. German press uses the photo with a copyright symbol[2][3][4]. Per German law copyright cannot be transferred and always remains with the photographer. The most that can be done is that the photographer gives extensive usage rights to someone. So, even if this was first published in the US without notice (which has yet to be demonstrated) it wouldn't really matter because AP wasn't the copyright holder to begin with, so they were not authorized/able to change the copyright status of the photo with their publication. Plus, photos on Commons have to be PD in the US and the source country to be hosted here. This[5] website(blog?) even says: I assumed that Kurt Strumpf's photo appeared on newspaper and magazine covers everywhere the next day. But that didn't really happen. Nakonana (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I was able to find a cropped version of this image in the San Francisco Examiner without notice. We can presume that the AP had their ducks in order and were allowed by the photographer to distribute the photo in the United States. For the purposes of determining whether something was published without notice, it only matters that the publication/distribution was permitted by the copyright holder. That being said, it is possible that the full uncropped version remains copyrighted. Based5290 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, in the cases of simultaneous publication in the United States and somewhere else, we generally take the source country to be the United States, see {{Simultaneous US publication}}. Based5290 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The San Francisco Examiner doesn't have a copyright notice anywhere on the issue? Anyways... I don't like using an example of a single newspaper for an image published in many of them. It does serve to show simultaneous publication, but not sure it shows publication without notice. If the Examiner truly had no notice on its title page or publisher credit area, it still may have been against AP's explicit instructions, or one of a "relative few" newspapers without notice -- in either case, copyright would not be lost, as it wasn't really the copyright holder's actions that caused it to be without notice in that case. Rather dangerous image. And even if it is OK, we can only host the portion actually published in the US -- we can only have the crop itself, not other versions only published elsewhere. Definitely still under copyright in Germany and the EU. Seems a bit dubious to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

User:999real tracked down a bunch of extra newspapers without notice that published the full image (linked on the file page), so I think it's reasonable to assume from those extra newspapers that neither the photographer nor the AP required a separate notice. Based5290 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

What about the template of the file specifically saying that this doesn't apply for Germany? (Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as [...] Germany (70 p.m.a.)

And allowed by the photographer to distribute the photo in the United States — in a way that would change the copyright status of a work of which they don't hold the copyright? Per German law one can't even waive the copyright one holds, iirc.

User:999real tracked down a bunch of extra newspapers without notice thanks for that. Unfortunately I can't open the provided links, so could someone check whether the photo used in the newspaper is really the one by Kurt Strumpf and not an extremely similar looking one by a different photographer named Russell McPhedran [6]? Nakonana (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the photo remains under copyright in Germany, but German copyright law is ultimately irrelevant to whether this photo can be hosted on Commons due to simultaneous publication in the United States. My note about the AP likely being authorized to distribute the photo was just meant to show that the legal definition of publication in the United States was satisfied.

I believe that the photos in the linked newspapers are Strumpf's because there is a black spot on the wall in the foreground in the Strumpf's photo that appears in the linked newspapers but is absent in McPhedran's photo. Additionally, I don't really see the AP stealing another photographer's work when they have a nearly identical version produced by their own photographer. Based5290 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This was presumably simultaneously published in a great many countries. It's not certain the U.S. is the country of origin either -- their term would nominally be 95 years from publication, which is shorter than Germany. But this may be a "simple photo" for Italy, or other countries which have shorter terms on those, so those may technically be the "country of origin" for Berne purposes. Germany would be the "source country" for URAA purposes, except the simultaneous publication thing means the URAA is not relevant. If say Italy is the country of origin though, it's fine there. The U.S. situation would then depend on forfeiting copyright without notice, which could be a bit difficult to determine for something from AP. Keep in mind that a copyright notice on the entire newspaper covered the photo -- it does not have to be directly on the photo itself. For example, the "Miami Herald" is one of the claimed publications without notice, but I see a 1980 cover here with a clear copyright notice. Was there truly no overall copyright notice in the entire newspaper? A copyright notice on the newspaper masthead would be enough, or other editor credit sections, or first or last pages. And it would have to be forgotten on more than a "relative few" copies -- somewhere between 1 and 2 percent based on some court decisions. If that was in thousands of newspapers, even finding 10 is not necessarily conclusive. And if the AP had instructions, it may not matter either. The EU copyright probably depends, country by country, on how they treat simple photos (would be copyrighted in most). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

For uploads

Hello, I want to upload 1 and 2 (own photograph), derivative from File:Albert Einstein sticks his tongue 1951.jpg, public domain.

We already have this picture since 2017, and only 3 photos of parkings in Oise. Please can anyone confirm {{De minimis}} and {{PD-ineligible}}? Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

While the original is public domain, the derivatives probably are not (they are Andy Warhol style and courts have ruled that Andy Warhol's art is "fair use" which means it qualifies both as sufficiently transformative to create a new use and to qualify as an artwork in its own right). The first photograph may be de minimis but the work is definitely not pd-ineligible, especially in France where even typographical arrangements enjoy full pma+70 protection. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If the basis for having the first one is that the art is de minimis and not the point of having the photo, then I'd suggest covering it with a Gaussian blur. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nard and Jmabel, for the help. To clarify:

Image #1: is 100% from my own camera (like #3 already uploaded), and the goal is to have the original photo (with a natural appearance), always better than a {{Retouched}} version (with weird sections). If you compare with the example given at COM:DM France, the (copyrighted) pyramid is much bigger in size and proportion than the painting here of the parking. Then I mean, even if Einstein was copyrighted, the picture could be uploaded on Commons (like the pyramid of the Louvre) in my opinion. According to French courts: "French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable". Similarly, the painting of Einstein is unavoidable here, and the subject is clearly a parking full of cars occupying 99,5% of the surface. That's why I feel entitled to release Image #1 under standard CC4 or CC0 license, and tag it {{De minimis}}. Before I upload, please let me know if you think differently.

Image #2: is related to my question about "PD-ineligible". I understand your concern, Nard, yes, Andy Warhol's style is similar. But in this case perhaps it's an additional trap for the street artist to defend their copyright (if ever...). I mean, not only the original photo is "© Arthur Sasse, 1951", but also the style could be claimed "© Andy Warhol"! What a long way from "originality" :-) Moreover, colorization of photos is as old as photography. Human tongue is commonly red, and skin color pink. Image 3 gives an example of my own derivative creation of Einstein by Arthur Sasse. What makes Image #2 different? The texture of the wall doesn't belong to the street artist. It's a public parking! Decay and white cracks are effects of the time and humidity. I wonder why #2 would be less {{PD-ineligible}} than #3. If someone has a convincing explanation, I will upload #3, otherwise #2, which I prefer. The goal is to show that this painting located in a public space is also Public Domain. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: This feels insincere to me. It's obvious why someone would want to photograph the Louvre, and why we would say, "Yeah, the pyramid is inevitably in frame if you do that, so we consider that de minimis. Would you really have photographed that particular bit of a parking structure if the Einstein image weren't there? - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. @Jmabel very sincere. COM:AGF. My goal is to show this parking. The painting is here, what can we do? Creating fakes? We can't avoid this painting, that's not a reason to hide this parking. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. Then I stand by my view that we should blur the painting, but others may disagree. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Dealing with invalid copyright labeling

User:Hellouser321 uploaded a bunch of images, with all of them labeled as "Own work", which is in some cases evidently false (ie. in File:Embarkation of the Pilgrims by Robert Walter Weir.jpg), and I suspect that the rest of the images are not their own work either. What is the correct way to deal with that? Can {{nsd}} be used on those images, or do I have to nominate them for deletion instead? Flexagoon (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Flexagoon: mislabeling an image is not a valid reason for deletion. From the filename is is clear that the author of File:Embarkation of the Pilgrims by Robert Walter Weir.jpg is Robert Walter Weird. All his works are in the public domain so there is no reason for deleting them. The solution is to correct the license/authorship and guide Hellouser321 to correctly label their uploads in the future. They have only 26 edits so I assume they have little experience with licensing. Günther Frager (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. What about cases such as File:Matt Par promoting YouTube Automation.jpg then? Flexagoon (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Günther Frager also, would it make sense to speedily delete it if it's a duplicate of File:Brooklyn Museum - Embarkation of the Pilgrims - Robert Walter Weir - overall.jpg? Flexagoon (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, when it is really a duplicate, not a different reproduction or retouched image. In this case, it does look like it is actually a duplicate of the same reproduction, with no added value. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Günther Frager also, what about File:Francis Makemie before Lord Cornbury.jpg? There's no author name anywhere, does this mean it's a violation or not?

Sorry for asking so many questions, the policies are just a bit unclear to me and I didn't find any place where they're thoroughly explained Flexagoon (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's a violation if it's still under copyright. We don't keep it by policy if we can't determine if it's PD or not (and it has no other valid license). The uploader is supposed to provide all the information relevant to determine that. If there seems a reasonable chance that it's PD, it could be nominated for regular deletion if you don't feel like searching for more information, as the given information is clearly incorrect, but don't mark it as a "violation" (i.e. speedy deletion). That may give the uploader an opportunity to provide more information, or allow others to search. In this case, it seems like it's a [https://digital.history.pcusa.org/islandora/45279 painting by Category:Henry Alexander Ogden (American, died 1936) dating from circa 1900, so it should be fine as {{PD-old-80-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion request

Moved from Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#Deletion request. Nemoralis (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a question for copyright issue. This image File:Resident Evil Requiem - 4ème Trailer.webm File:Resident Evil Requiem - 4ème Trailer.webm, and more was uploaded being licensed. But The problem is that the copyright assertion is based off Capcom France's upload, but Capcom USA's upload shows no such free-use license https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDPKQbtfVE. Why is still such a thing that exist?? Boneless Pizza! (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! In the description it gives this video, and at the bottom of the description it says Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). However, the question is if Capcom France is authorized to release it under that license - you can start a deletion request about that. I think it's fine, as it's the offical channel. HurricaneZeta^C 17:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The correct Capcom USA link is [7] which isn't under CC BY. HurricaneZeta^C 17:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the Iron Maiden logo above TOO?

Hello!

I saw that the Iron Maiden logo is uploaded here on Commons and I thought that it might be above British TOO due to its distinct font.

It's apparently a modified version of a font called Busk. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: Are you talking about File:Iron Maiden logo black.svg or something else? Please, when asking a question about a particular file or files, link! - Jmabel ! talk 07:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes, that and File:Iron Maiden logo.svg (different color variant of the same logo).

I was wondering because of the UK's low threshold of originality. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Didn't the UK hightened the ToO since THJ v Sheridan? COM:TOO UK mentions this, though I'm not sure about typographical copyright. HyperAnd [talk] 09:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of old The Pyongyang Times issues

The Internet Archive has issues of The Pyongyang Times of which some are older than 50 years. I would argue that these are works by an enterprise released more than 50 years ago, per Template:PD-North Korea. Thanks in advance! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Miss Hong Kong 2024 Swimsuit.jpg

File:Miss Hong Kong 2024 Swimsuit.jpg and File:Ellyn Ngai 20240915 Swimsuit.jpg: seems to be photo of the screen (e.g. of TV set), because low detail with high resolution. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The first does not look suspicious to me, but the second one looks heavily processed (by AI?). Assuming the image was taken in a darker hall, the image quality has expected noise. I didn't find Moiré effects, which would be typical for a screen. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Videos compressed by VP8 or VP9 on low bitrates has similar perceived quality. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

For reference: File:Tangia Zaman Methila in Bikini. The 74th Miss Universe Contestants.png is shot from video, similar blurring effect. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Does this event allow the public to take pictures? At least the first picture has EXIF showing it was taken with a smartphone. Yann (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe so File:Miss Hong Kong 2024 Top 3 and Thomas Hui To.jpg, but this photo is normal (no heavy processing or artifacts). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Image from Brazilian newspaper from 1962

Hello! I would like to upload this image of Eduardo Augusto Gonçalves, Portuguese inventor who lived in Brazil, to Wikimedia Commons, but I am unsure if it is possible to do so, or if I should upload it as restrict. According to Commons rules for Brazilian photos, all photographic works produced up to June 19, 1998 in Brazil are subject to the Brazilian copyright law of 1973, which considered works in the Public Domain to be those not considered "artistic creations. Thus, I'd appreciate help with confirmation.

Also, if it is allowed, is there anything I could do to improve image quality according to Commons rules? Thank you so much for any help in that regard. StoryCraftsman (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that you are accurately citing the appropriate law, then clearly it would be fine.

The most appropriate ways I can see of improving that image are:

• optionally, any of a few techniques of disguising halftoning. If you don't already have a preferred way of doing this, a very slight blur often works well. This would definitely count as retouching, but it's acceptable retouching.
• increase contrast
• desaturate

But please: first upload the version straight from the source, then overwrite it with your improved version. That way, someone else can easily start from the most legitimate information we have to do their own different optimization and upload it under a different filename.

Also: if you want to additionally do something more retouched under a different filename, that's acceptable, but it should be described as such ({{Retouched}}, etc.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Martin Puryear Sculpture ToO

Looking for some ToO feedback. This photo contains a sculpture previously installed at the Rosemont CTA station in Chicago (formerly River Road station), created by sculptor Martin Puryear. It's a super simple sculpture, an overlapping circle made of a wood rod with slightly ridged edges. I think it's probably below US ToO, but I'm not totally sure; the surface of the work is giving me pause. I'd love for us to be able to keep this photo, as this was an important installation by Puryear which has since rotted and been removed, but I figured I'd ask here before leaving it alone. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we know anything about date of creation? Because in the U.S. a piece like that, if exhibited before 1979, is very likely never to have been copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

1985, so unfortunately too late for permanent public placement-as-publication. 19h00s (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

A sculpture/statue installed in 1985 for which tangible copies were made available to the public would still (I believe) require copyright registration within five years of installation to not be considered within the public domain per {{PD-US-1978-89}}, wouldn't it? That would mean a formalities would've need to have been completed before January 1, 1991, or else the work would've entered into the public domain on that date. The meaning of "tangible copies" does (I think) include small mockups/replicas or photos of the work sold to the general public. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know Puryear never sold models or photographs of the sculpture - it was indeed installed without notice, but I don't think it was ever formally published in the copyright sense, as public installation alone wouldn't have counted as publication in 1985. 19h00s (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily referring to the artist with respect to the selling of models or photos but rather the CTA. Perhaps it sold something related to work or published something related to it. I think, in such a case, it could be assumed that the CTA received the artist's permission to do such a thing if it actually did do such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Did some more digging, still can't find any photos originating from Puryear or CTA back then. It was photographed for several newspapers after it was unveiled (mostly Chicago-area papers), but it was always in a newspaper with proper notice. --19h00s (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hearing no other takes, I'm going to assume this is public domain as a simple geometric work and not bother with a deletion nom. Feel free to to disagree or otherwise chime in! 19h00s (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"Entered as second class mail"

If a periodical states it was entered as a "second class" mailing matter in the US, does that mean it was simultaneously published in the US? I have seen this disclaimer on some publications and I have usually interpreted it as "second class" in the sense of (according to MW) "a class of U.S. or Canadian mail comprising periodicals sent to regular subscribers". Therefore I interpreted this statement as meaning it was sent out at the same time to subscribers in the US and therefore count as being published there. An example can be found here: David Pratt, David Attenborough, Dr. V. E. Fuchs on The Trans-Antarctic Expedition.jpg – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment at RfC/When does PDART apply to textile works

There is a request for comment about when photographs of textile works (like historical flags) must be considered copyrighted. Discussion began in 2023, but stalled. More input is needed. Thanks for your consideration! Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Add picture of war hero

hi! I'm new to this. Never something but Ann a Wikipedia sponsor for years I,dd like to add a picture of great uncle who is a war hero and more. His Spy gear is even in the museum, they made a play about him. And there are several websites and books about his life: including photos. There used to be an elaborate Wikipedia page about him, including photos and a link and mention of him on several pages. All are gone. Last year the play started and I find it hard there's no picture of him. We do have family photos but they have nothing to do with the army. I think his grandson had a them but we're not in touch.

How can I add a picture that's already online on war hero sites?

he actually accomplished the most successful missions and even went to see to Queen when she was in England.

who can help me?

Wil text

Example

https://nllegioen.eu/oorlogsheld-jacob-beekman-en-het-vreemdelingenlegioen-1942/

War sources & pictures

A.Q. Beekmsn (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Q. Beeksmn: please see COM:THIRD.

Also: when you say "There used to be an elaborate Wikipedia page about him", in which language Wikipedia? - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Likely copyvio

There are quite a few copyvio images of the singer Adéla uploaded recently by new accounts (see my contribs for other cases). I suspect File:Adéla IMG 5022.jpg is one of these, but couldn't easily find what its original source would be (though it appears similar to this article [8])

Is the template {{Copyvio}} still appropriate in cases like this, or is there a different route that should be pursued? Wracking (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wracking: no, {{Copyvio}} is a speedy-deletion template for blatant copyright violations. If you are unsure, please start a deletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

L.A. Gear

• 

Is this logo OK?-- Carnby (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Should be under TOO in the United States, assuming that is the thrust of your question. I added {{Trademarked}}, which was missing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Carnby (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Contact with publisher over copied image on Commons

I wanted to use File:Austronesian Sail Types.png for something outside Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It was not clear to me from the Commons page whether or not permission had been obtained for this close copy of figure 21 in Doran, Edwin B. (1981). Wangka: Austronesian canoe origins. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-086-8 and its caption. The only differences are that the Commons version has had the sails coloured green and the caption has slightly different punctuation. I therefore got in touch with the publisher to see if they had released the image to Commons. They have come back with an informal e-mail saying that they don't have any problem with this, though expressing surprise that the diagram had ended up on Commons. Is this informal e-mail OK for Commons, or do some more formal procedures need to be followed? Would the result of that be clearly shown on the Commons page, so that I could tell any person who needed to know that Commons had adequately policed this issue? If you give me an e-mail address I can forward the informal e-mail to you. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: We cannot give you legal advice. The uploader Obsidian Soul claimed that this is CC-zero, which is to say that you can treat it as if it is in the public domain. Although Commons performs more diligence of claims like that than (say) Facebook or Flickr, we make no claim to being thorough. At any given time, in my estimation, it is likely that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% or the content here is not appropriately licensed (as against maybe 10% on Flickr, or over 50% on Facebook).

Obsidian Soul has edited here in the last week, so you can reach them either on their user talk page or through the "Email this user" feature on their user page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way. This diagram and its associated caption seem to be a pretty clear case of copyright infringement. Fortunately the publisher seems unconcerned. With that in mind, do we need to regularise their agreement on the matter? If so, how?

I am familiar with the uploader, and I regret to say that I very much doubt that they would co-operate with anything I did, even if it were to resolve a problem with something that they had uploaded.

My objective is to get it recorded on Commons that the publisher has given their permission for the diagram and caption to remain in Commons. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a permission from the original author or publisher, so I started a deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Austronesian Sail Types.png. Yann (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Just delete it. I am tired of ThoughtIdRetired's bullshit. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Creating new public domain license for New Jersey

I requested the creation of a New Jersey Public Domain license, and I have listed my rationale for the request in my original post in Commons:Template requests. I was informed that such a license template used to exist but was deleted in 2013, and again in 2018. Has this consensus changed such that it could permit the creation of a new public domain license for New Jersey? ForeverFlying (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, convenience links:

• Template request: Commons:Template requests#New Jersey public domain license
• Template: {{PD-NJGov}}
• Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NJGov

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparent small error in Commons:Hirtle chart

Previously asked at Commons talk:Hirtle chart#Apparent small error, but it's been 2 weeks without a response there, - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
The combination of "31 December 2047" and "n/a (earliest 2049)" doesn't make sense, there is an entire year between those dates, so one of them is presumably wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

White House photos

There are a few White House photos in Category:Flickr images not found for example File:20260206PR-0610 President Donald Trump boards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House.jpg. On Commons:White House photostream there is a clear concensus to ignore the restrictions mentioned in the meta data and file page. But the problem is that we can't verify that the photos were from White House photo stream. The bot failed to review minutes after upload. If there are more recent discussions perhaps add them to the page mentioned. Thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I had removed the flickr not found tag on that image above based on the metadata but I did not pass this poor quality image also sourced to the White House flickr photostream: File:20260206PR-0109_President_Donald_Trump_boards_Marine_One_on_the_South_Lawn_of_the_White_House.jpg Please feel free to delete both images if you wish as they are not poor quality images and we have thousands of images of President Trump. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Do Newspaper Staff photos qualify for {{PD-US-1978-1989}}?

Would older Newspaper Staff photos be considered published without notice to qualify for {{PD-US-1978-1989}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}? I found a few fantastic photos of Michael Jackson, examples;
- File:Michael Jackson waving to fans at Hollywood Boulevard in Nov 1984.jpg
- File:Michael Jackson with the Jacksons at Victory Tour, July 1984.jpg
- File:The Jacksons Victory Tour by Michael Goulding Nov 30 1984.jpg
- File:Michael Jackson by Michael Goulding Dec 2 1984 2.jpg
I can't help but notice that it looks to be more of an internal staff photo, a presumed/potential work-for-hire by an employee/contractor of/for the 'Daily News' than a more widely distributed publicity or press/wire photograph. Were 'Daily News' photos sent to other newspapers? Certainly the newspaper would have had a notice in the header by this point which would have protected the photo? I'm not calling for deletion, just genuinely curious if it can be legally considered 'published' without notice. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Children's artwork

Well, we might've broken the world record for youngest author of a copyrighted work (File:Child scribble age 1y10m.jpg). 😅

Since minors can own copyrights to works they create, I think the files in Category:Drawings by children should be reviewed for their copyright status. It's unclear to me whether and how children as young as 1 year old can meaningfully give consent to their works being posted online (and this raises ethical issues like sharenting). However, it's probable that a child author's parents or guardians have the authority to grant licenses on their behalf (like Child Art Aged 4.5 Person 2.png, which was uploaded by the parent), as long as doing so is in the child's interest. Some child drawings may also be below COM:TOO.

At the very least, I think the child should, as an ethical matter, be credited as the author on the file description page if the uploader is not the author of the work - preferably anonymously if the uploader doesn't wish to reveal the child's identity. For example: "Author: Child of User:Example". Qzekrom (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Kash Patel with the US Hockey Team

Is this photo posted by US FBI Director Kash Patel in the public domain?https://x.com/Kash_Patel/status/2025663993205936176/photo/4 Victorgrigas (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)