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.

Copyleft trolling - proceeding to watermark images

Example watermark

The same image, cropped with CSS image crop so the watermark is not visible.

Hi, one year ago we had a major case of Copyleft trolling discovered, with over a thousand images (partly featured) being hosted on our platform as bait to sue anyone for "damages" when re-using the material. Afterwards, we created a new page (the bolded one above) to take action against those who try to indiscriminately sue re-users of Commons-hosted pictures for money. In short: After confirming that a user is copyleft trolling, possible fixes are persuasion of the user not to do this; if continued we have to delete or forcibly watermark images. Those actions prevent both innocent re-users from overlooking the possibility of a lawsuit; and less innocent users on Commons to just follow the set example.

In the case from last year, the user in question has not stopped to extract money from unsuspecting re-users (1, 2, 3) and also a DR against the images has ended in (ca.) 12:19 (Kept). This means that forced watermarking is the last resort left for the community.
Since this is the first test of a new and not fully tested process (the last time we did this was in 2019), it is only prudent to ask again for a community consensus. A script is available that can quickly attach the attribution watermark. --Enyavar (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, this is interesting especially for the known copyright trolls from Germany. Happy to provide a list. For reference, we have a designated page in the German-language Wikipedia for this phenomenon: de:Wikipedia:Abmahnung. Gnom (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)f=

This is complicated. We've had many discussions about copyleft trolling as well as alleged cases of copyleft trolling, and many discussions about possible solutions. This much is clear: once we have determined someone is engaging in copyleft trolling, there are several possible approaches, including deletion and forced watermarking. There are parallel discussions about improvements we could make to the Wikipedia/MediaWiki interface to better explain the requirements of CC licenses, but that's something that should happen irrespective of actions on specific users. This particular case involves Diliff, and much text has been spilled debating what to do about these images: VP thread, another VP thread, and a DR. I have trouble determining the extent to which consensus emerged that Diliff has been "copyleft trolling" sufficient to consider an intervention, so figuring that out is probably what needs to happen first. Personally, I remain ambivalent. I don't like the idea of people using Commons to make money through a license enforcement business model, but I also don't think Diliff is as egregious as, say, Verch (who allegedly only uploaded material to Commons in order to profit). Diliff is a different case, apparently just going after commercial sites/businesses. But then again, that includes small businesses and, according to what he said in a past discussion, even when he determines there was no serious offense, he still wants money for the time he took to determine it was not a serious offense. Nearly lost me completely with that response. So yeah, ambivalent. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support. Consensus has already been established that we should watermark images that are being used for copyleft trolling unless the uploader agrees to migrate to a CC 4.0 license. Diliff rejected that suggestion as he believed that the 30-day grace period offered by the CC 4.0 license had "not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them".[1] He also refused to discontinue sending legal threats via Pixsy.[2] The fact that Diliff is demanding compensation for accidental attribution errors even when the reusers have offered to correct the attribution or remove the images entirely[3][4][5], means that Diliff has gone beyond seeking fair compensation for use of his images and is copyleft trolling, IMO. The only way we can protect unwitting re-users from accidentally getting ensnared in this trap is to add a watermark to the images (or delete them). Adding a watermark seems the least destructive path. Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I personally think the watermark isn't aggressive enough, it reads more like a threat by the uploader than the warning about the author it is supposed to be. JayCubby (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's not elegant, but I support it, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'd just delete them all so that he learns the lesson. On the down side, we'd be missing on some great photos. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support It gives us another tool besides deletion. Will we be able to detect people reverting or overwriting the change? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Add a category for those images, then have a process that detects whenever a user other than an admin (or bot) changes an image with that category? Ravensfire (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I doubt that Diliff would revert the change; he is largely inactive and has not uploaded new files for five years now.

  We should mark the edits clearly as an administrative action with referral to the Copyleft Trolling policy, to discourage other users from reverting. And yes, a hidden category to collect all watermarked files sounds prudent. Not sure how to patrol it by bot, but even if that isn't feasible, humans could also patrol the category for a while to find out if other parties crop the images. (And on that note, determined editors could probably also remove the category as well?) --Enyavar (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  There's a way to crop thumbnails without creating a new file if I recall correctly, so the watermark isn't a nuisance on mainspace articles. Perhaps make a note of that on the affected files, to discourage unwatermarking. JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • {{CSS image crop}}. It's a little tricky and tends to require some experimentation with the exact parameters used. See example I've added at top of this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This seems like a no brainer given the circumstances around copyleft trolling on here. Although it sucks for re-users and other projects but whatever. There doesn't seem to be a better way to deal with it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hmm. Nobody seems to be engaging with the whole "there hasn't actually been consensus that the person whose images we're about to watermark is engaging in copyleft trolling" thing. That seems like the sort of thing we need to do officially, like a topic ban or somesuch. The closest thing we have is a DR where multiple options were proposed and was closed as keep. We also have a discussion closure (fraught -- still waiting for the closing admin to clarify their intentions) that once someone is found to be copyleft trolling, follow steps xyz. Presumably the subtext is not "if you see someone doing what looks like copyleft trolling, go ahead and watermark their images". This thread may suffice to find consensus specific to Diliff, but if that's what's happening they should really be notified and the heading clarified. A little awkward to be the one who has to keep drawing attention to this, since I found Diliff's responses in the last thread totally inadequate, but oh well. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I just notified Diliff on his talk page. Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"there hasn't actually been consensus ...that Diliff is a copyleft troll enforcer"? Really? We have seen about ten examples of people coming to his talk pages asking him if the extortion letters were written on his behalf (I found three just since the DR was closed); and Diliff himself has not been willing or able to provide examples of him waiving the fees he imposed on these individuals. It doesn't matter that he claims to only charge commercial re-uses, because a) we can hardly control him on that and b) that will still affect mostly small companies and also nonprofits. c) It also goes counter to our Copyleft-trolling policy page (edit: which should be renamed, see my next post from April 5).

People have voted to keep his images while still acknowledging that he is a copyleft enforcer because we believed that there was another way to deal with this problem. And I say "we" because I also voted "keep and watermark". I do think that the voting could have been narrowly swung the other way if we had known that watermarking were not an option.

If we're letting this slide we can just agree to delete that Copyleft Policy altogether. --Enyavar (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I have been soulsearching a bit and decided that I will not continue calling Diliff a "troll". Please also see Commons talk:Copyleft trolling#Name of the policy page.

Regardless of the internal motives and thought processes of Diliff as a Copyleft Enforcer, we urgently need to protect re-users from the consequences of his practice. We absolutely should watermark these images, and also keep Diliff as an upstanding (former) member of the Commons community. --Enyavar (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Commons:Village_pump#Copyleft_enforcement_-_concern_about_stretching_of_a_guideline — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat what I said here but it is relevant to this discussion. Enyavar, would you drop this please. We don't need to urgently protect stupid people from being stupid. Thousands of people have used Diliff's images per the licence conditions. Your post lists three, two of which openly admit to not bothering to attribute at all (i.e. they are of the "everything on the internet is free to take" mindset) and the other appears to have had problems with Wordpress displaying the attribution. In none of those cases do we know how it ended up. Hundreds of people ask Diliff how they can use his images and he guides them. Many who want to do so without attribution, for non-profit/charity work, are granted that permission. This is not a copyleft troll, Jmabel, and we all need to drop that kind of Twitter-rant language and start behaving more professionally. The Pixby solution is suboptimal for sure, and nobody here likes it, but there also isn't a professional outfit doing this kind of thing who behave any better.

Commons is an image repository of freely licenced or PD images. It's primary purpose is to serve as a common host for the Wikipedias and other WMF projects. If you guys decide to vandalise images in this repository, Wikipedia is just gonna fork and you'll be irrelevant. The above image with attribution/warning caption is then displayed as an example of use on Wikipedia with the caption cropped off. Are you insane? That's only going to make it worse. Please pursue Wikipedia/WMF to help fix their terrible image use UI. Every other publisher on the internet displays CC images with attribution in text below the image. Wikipedia does not, and seems to think a subtle hyperlink is enough. But it (and your stupid cropped solution) both teach our reusers that attribution is not important. This is Wikipedia/WMF's fault. They should fix it. Let's not vandalise our repository. These images do not belong to us. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Colin: I will respond to only one part of this: you can either take back calling it "stupid" that I demonstrated that something is technically possible when JayCubby alluded to it but did not know how to do it, or I can start a complaint against you for that at COM:ANU. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Colin -- I think the inline attribution is an interesting prospect, actually. MediaViewer fills the role for the most part, but it could be justified with things like PotD, where there is enough space. JayCubby (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose for now. It is messy. And this going to be a long comment unfortunately. Please at least address the first point.
  • Point 1. The added watermark text is questionable, particularly in the atmosphere of a copyright holder enforcing the licence terms. Looking at the CC-BY-SA 3.0 legal code (and I am not a lawyer):
    • Is "Photo by DAVID ILIFF" indicating the copyright holder adequately? Use a "©" surely. It may be indicating a work-for-hire.
    • The code says "credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" - does this illegible-at-thumbnail-size watermark do that for all use-cases?
    • The code says "If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit" - so in this case by maintaining the watermark you are violating the licence terms.
    • The watermark says "Keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action". You should confer with WMF Legal before baking poor legal advice into files. I am not aware of any cases where Diliff has started legal action, but legal threats and payment requests for sure. Incidentally, the watermarking on File:LL Cool J 2013.jpg doesn't offer legal advice but does it meet the "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" part of the legal code when it is associating the copyright holder with litigation? I mentioned that because of the call to take the watermark further to warn people about the author - ie make a disparaging comment on the copyright holder's behaviour.
  • Point 2. We have editors saying we have consensus for taking action copyleft trolling but please link to me the consensus to designate Diliff as a copyleft troll I must have missed it. And then we have other editors wanting to change the name of the guideline (Copyleft trolling), but wouldn't that make any theoretical consensus designating Diliff a troll invalid. I can't keep up, and going by the comment above and parallel discussions in various forums I am not the only one.
  • Point 3. There is the problem of further damaging the reputation of Commons within the Wikimedia space. I don't think anyone is claiming that this watermarking procedure improves the value of Commons for Wikimedia projects. I understand that Commons wants its own identity, but it won't have any identity if merged into Wikipedia due do making free works inaccessible. I am not sure how the {{CSS image crop}} feature works when used outside of Commons, for example for a Wikipedia to use the file without the watermark they will have to wrap it in a template?
  • Point 4. About the use of "watermark": The term is not 100% clear, to me at least, as it is not used in the traditional postage stamp or digital sense it is more of a non-destructive additive copyright notice modification to the work, and you may have better luck implementing it if you make that clear - you are extending the image canvas with a notice.
  • Point 5. There have been multiple discussions surrounding this topic over the years covering various suggestions that were never implemented, like:
    • putting a {{Copyright holder aggressively enforces licence terms}} on file pages
    • a simple credit line at the top of the file pages
    • getting Wikipedias to lead by example with credit lines
    • the WMF providing a service to track down copyright infringement of Commons uploaders - using the same style of tracking software used by pixsy for example - to get them to comply before copyright holders even notice and legal threats are launched (this is my idea, but I am sure I have seen it somewhere before. It defends free-culture and can also list legitimate uses which uploaders typically desire anyway)

So instead, we let the copyright violations throughout the world accrue until we realised that the payment demands had started. And now we have this reactive watermarking process that does nothing to help those reusers already affected. Ideally those most passionate about protecting reusers (which includes those wanting watermarking) can get something done about educating reusers so they meet licence terms and this money demand situation can be prevented in the future. It is not ideal to have to oppose a proposal so that something gets done, but in this case that something is reducing future harm. I also wanted to note that the section of CC-BY-SA 4.0's legal code of saying you must "if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications" is a nightmare for non-WMF Project resuers so we are going to be having these discussions in perpetuity.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: Without addressing most of that, on Point 1 third bullet point, "upon notice from any Licensor… is an operative phrase. That is, the obligation to remove a credit would only arise upon notice that the licensor wanted the credit removed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the way I understand it is that the copyright holder informs the reuser that the credit must be removed. Then if not done, copyright infringement has occurred. An aggressive one will say "remove the credit or pay me $900" and if you can't (I have seen cases where the reuser can't pay for website/file server adjustments) they are liable for legal action - contrary to the proposed watermark. I was curious about what licence the file has if credit removal is requested, but that is not relevant here. Commander Keane (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Point 5, if you want to implement a different solution, by all means, have at it! So far though, watermarking is the only solution that has anything close to consensus. It's easy to shoot down ideas, but quite another thing to actually build consensus on a solution. Nosferattus (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I believe 1) the watermarking process has consensus, and 2) based on OP's description and the linked discussions, the copyright enforcement actions around Diliff's files makes them eligible for watermarking per that process. I agree that WMF legal guidance on the wording of the watermark would be appreciated, but that shouldn't stop us from making a good attempt today (the watermarks could always be amended based on WMF guidance). Consigned (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• If we're going to make them unusable for any project we may as well just delete them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff - closed as Kept. Nosferattus (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Further comment. It wasn't clear to me if the next step is revdeleting the original un-watermarked versions. In any case, Diliff's images have 23,372 mainspace uses across Wikimedia projects. I assume that m:Forum and at least the ~50 wikis with more than 100 uses will get notified with time to react. The exposure of watermarking on this scale may prompt other uploaders to retrospectively apply watermarks to their works, which is fine per Commons:Watermarks. Someone mentioned a grey list for copyright holders that have engaged in copyleft trolling. This would be useful as derivatives of Diliff's works won't be welcome without a watermark, and uploading free content found on the web from those on the list will also require a watermark. Any progress on improving the watermark text?--Commander Keane (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I would really like to see some improvement on {{CSS image crop}} (or a wrapper around it for this purpose) before we go ahead with that. I honestly had no idea these were that heavily used on other WMF wikis. (I wish Colin had focused on things like that rather than insulting my intelligence, which quite honestly left me unwilling to engage with the rest of what he said.)
  • Possible wrapper template would have a parameter for the height of the watermark at the bottom of the image in pixels of the underlying image, and a parameter either for the desired width or height of the resulting displayed image (ideally a choice of either) and would do the right calculation to call {{CSS image crop}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

    I didn't realise before, but some uses are transclusions - stub templates etc.

    Would it be possible for the wrapper to pass caption, alt-text, thumb/no thumb, etc too? By the way, {{CSS image crop}}'s description field isn't documented and I can't remember if templates like that get globally rolled out. I am not sure how a crop template would look versus a normal image with caption in an article, or if it would work at all in an infobox. If a standard watermark height (maybe percentage) is selected, could a further wrapper then have a default "Commons Watermark" value to make it easier for wikis?

    Despite all of these suggestions, I would still like to see a "copyright holder confirmed as engaging in copyleft trolling > added to grey list > {{Beware trolling}} template added to file pages > watermarking schedule announced to wikis > watermarking script run" process.

    I would also be interested in a commonsUS.wikimedia.org fork that will hold all top quality free files that can be used on with US servers (with a red banner saying trolling may occur). That discussion is for another day though. Commander Keane (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I have amended the example image so that David Iliff's original work is not altered. I created a derivative work (File:Skylark 1, Lake District, England - June 2009, CC credit-warning - en.jpg). The previous edits were neither in accordance with our Commons:Overwriting existing files guideline nor the licence terms and conditions. User:Nosferattus's caption is a work of copyright in itself (certainly in the UK) and the combined image is a derivative work. The licence terms of the original photo require that any derivative work documents the changes made and credits both authors. It is not permissible, per the licence conditions, to claim a derivative work is the sole creation of the author of a source image. -- Colin (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think several participants here have forgotten what Commons is about. Let's look at the first entry in the FAQ:

"Wikimedia Commons" (short form "Commons") is a media repository that is created and maintained by volunteers. It provides a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project, the most well-known of which is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The name "Wikimedia Commons" is derived from the umbrella project Wikimedia that manages all Wikimedia projects and the word "common" as it is a common project (commons) that stores media for use on all Wikimedia projects.

Note the words "repository" and that you are here to serve the Wikimedia projects by storing images for them to use. Commons is not a publisher (other than crudely to display the contents of its repository). Users on Commons have no power to dictate what images the Wikimedia projects display. Those images are selected by editors on those projects and changes to the content of those projects is a matter for editors on those projects alone.

As someone pointed out elsewhere, Diliff's images are very very widely used across Wikimedia projects. Of the 2,760 freely licenced professional-class images Diliff uploaded here, 1,699 are used on WMF projects. But that underestimates the scale of usage. Those images appear 23,415 times. That's over twenty three thousand times that someone on a WMF project has select a work of Diliff's and embedded it into their publication. Commons users do not have the power to change those editing choices. We host the images on behalf of those projects. We check they have a free licence or are PD. We describe and categorise them. And no more.

Careful readers of the filename of the derivative work I created above will spot "- en" on the end. Of those 23,415 images, less than 4,000 are on English language projects. The proposal here, to deface Diliff's work with an English-language caption that is the wrong language on over 19,000 (five sixths) uses strikes me as quite remarkable on a project that is supposedly international.

If editors here think that Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary, etc would best serve potential re-users taking work from those projects by serving up images with copyright captions and warnings literally embedded into the JPG, then here's what you need to do. Create derivative works of at least all the 1,699 images used, or all 2,760 if your life is especially meaningless. You can follow the example of the one I did above. Explain that this is a derivative work, where you added a caption to Diliff's original photograph, and that now joint attribution is legally required per the licence conditions. Then you need to go to an article that uses the images (e.g., Royal Albert Hall). And you could be BOLD and just replace the original with your captioned derivative. And no, the fancy CSS image crop thing doesn't work for "Infobox building". Maybe you can persuade the template designers of infobox building to incorporate that feature? Let's assume you do. Someone on Wikipedia reverts your bold edit, saying the original was better. What do you do then. Well you need to go to the talk page and get consensus for your change. On that one usage. Rince and repeat 23,415 times. Each Wiki project has its own templates, btw.

What Commons cannot do, is enforce all the other Wikimedia projects to publish your derivative work. Writing a bot to overwrite Diliff's works with a copyright caption and warning is very very much not permitted. It instantly would have published your vandalism 23,415 times. Multiply that by the number of viewers of the kind of very educational subject Diliff specialised in and you have an awful lot of eyeballs seeing your caption and warning. And an awful lot of French and German and Spanish eyeballs saying "WTF" in whatever that is in French and German and Spanish.

I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that doing that sort of thing on this scale would result in a Wikipedia revolt against Commons and in turn WMF action against Commons. WMF would forcibly remind Commons and the Admins that are supposed to be protecting this repository, of its servant role. Given past WMF responses to Commons disobedience, I wouldn't put it past them to create a new "WMF locked" flag and enforce it on all of Diliff's works.

Wrt the other idea: "just delete them all so that he learns the lesson". Well, aside from the pointlessness of teaching someone a lesson who has already left the project: we do not damage the project to make a point to individual users. These images have a free licence and were uploaded in good faith for freely sharing educational media and their use on Wikimedia projects. They are in scope and most of them are in use. Both Wikipedia and WMF would look very dimly on Commoners removing such works on a mass scale. 23,415 images across the WMF projects all making the Commons Delinker super busy would, em, get noticed. It would not end well. -- Colin (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The proposal here, to deface Diliff's work with an English-language caption that is the wrong language on over 19,000 (five sixths) uses strikes me as quite remarkable on a project that is supposedly international. I assume the watermark would be hidden in cases where the file is being used on other projects per the examples at the top. Ergo, the watermark being in the wrong language (as you put it) is a non-issue. Although it probably would be anyway since most, if not all, supposedly non-English projects use English to some degree regardless and most of the readers of those projects speak the language. You'd probably have an argument otherwise but like 80% of the population in Germany speaks English and, again, the watermark will be hidden anyway. So it's nonsense to act like the watermarks would have any effect at all on the German language Wikipedia or it's readers. That's even putting aside that your only talking about less then 0.006% of the articles on there that would have an image from Diliff to begin with anyway. But let's not watermark the images because of the 0.0000001% of articles that they are being used on. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Colin You might disagree with the guideline Commons:Copyleft trolling#Forced watermarking but you should not unilaterally revert actions which follow the guideline and which follow community consensus. If you disagree with the guideline feel free to start a discussion to amend it. Consigned (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Colin: your re-upload manoeuvre was exceedingly POINTY for a file not in use. However, I do agree that modification experiments should have been done on a new file with new description page outlining the changes.

@Consigned: you reference consensus in your support above and link to a section in a guideline in response to Colin. But directly below is a section entitled No standard practice.

Colin made some good points about indicating derivates and the language issue. I had assumed that as the English (extra licence condition?) watermark text was poor legal advice it would never get used, and suggested the copyright symbol instead of "Photo by".

@Adamant1 if you think German Wikipedia isn't proud about their language and doesn't mind a sprinkling of English here and there you should ask them (in German preferably).

There is also the general assumption that the css-crop is a magical implementation. As far as I'm aware, every image usage in an article need to be ammended, it won't work in templates like infoboxes and when captioned the image element won't resemble its previous state.

I understand that pixsy doesn't care who they get money out of and by any means necessary is fine for them, but copyleft trolling is associated with minor mistakes and the examples I am aware of are: the initial Diliff complainant on Commons that knew enough about copyright law to know they didn't have to bother with attribution for Public Domain works but didn't scroll down before downloading a Diliff photo; the reddit post where the IT guy told his boss that they got a royalty free file from WikiCommons years earlier and that the Commons licence info page must have been clandestinely changed since then to trick them; the most recent one on Diliffs en.wiki talk page where the not-for-profit's representative is highly sensitive about copyright and paying photographers but a clerical error led to zero attribution; and finally the case (I heard this second-hand) where the attribution got hidden behind a website element, an honest mistake and I feel sorry for them. How many "innocent" third party reusers are we protecting at the cost of annoying 20k+ Wikimedia primary reusers.

Commons is trying to be great at everything for everyone, but is ending up being average for all. I have participated here enough, please no pings but my talk page is always open. Commander Keane (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a non-issue since the watermark would be hidden anyway. Your just missing the forest for the trees and intentionally being obtuse. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

1970s Soviet performances of national anthems.

I basically want to check on this before I nominate a file that has been on Commons for nearly 20 years for deletion. File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga is from a 1977 performance of the 1977 version of the Soviet national anthem. The anthem composition would be free from copyright since it is a state symbol. The performance was done by the choir and orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre and conducted by Yuri Simonov (b. 1941). The source is this recording is the CD “National Anthems of the USSR and Union Republics” https://web.archive.org/web/20160325163946/http://www.hymn.ru/15-union-republics/index-en.html which had a copyright notice of "©1996 Melodiya."

What I basically want to know is if I'm missing some facet of this that would make the Bolshoi Theatre performance free from copyright? Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Alex Spade might know ... --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have planned to make additional PD-Russia-audio template in near future for many similar cases of audiorecords.

The Russian copyright legislation have two branches - the copyright itself (works of arts, literature, and science - chapter 70 of the Civil Code) and the neighbouring rights (rights for performance, audiorecordings, and some others things - chapter 71 of the Civil Code). The rights for performance (for audiorecording) and audiorecording in the US legislation are part of copyright legislation - so, chapter 71 could not be ignored for Commons (as Commons ignores other rights - museum rights, rights for broadcasting of sport events, etc.).

Audiorecording is in PD in Russia, if all next three conditions are fulfilled

1. The original work for performance and audiorecording is in PD, or it is not the subject of copyright, or it is not the result of human creative activity.
2. The performer(s) is/are died and it is passed 50(*) years from performance - in this sentence only human can be performer (* - 54 for performer, who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it).
3. It is passed 50 years from audiorecording - in this sentence any recorded sound is the subject of neighbouring rights - including both sounds of nature (birds, rain/thunder, etc.) and artificial sounds (music, song, speech, foley sounds, sounds from streets, building sites, sports events). Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

So, this record is not in PD in Russia. Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Does (2) include all performers? I assume it may be hard to determine the identities and possible death of them all (for film in Finland, only a few key figures are counted). (1) seems to be covered, and for the rest of (2) and (3), 2028 is not too far away.

Depending on age of Bolshoi Theatre performers at the time, we may have to wait several decennia before we can be sure all of them are dead – but using the threshold of {{PD-old-assumed}}, we would likewise arrive at 2028, which corresponds to performers of 25+ years being 75+ now. Of course, the performers being many makes the odds of somebody surviving higher.

–LPfi (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I've now started a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup. (2) include all performers (singers, musicians, and conductor for an anthem). Yes, it is hard (very very hard), but it is not impossible (there are the archives of the personnel department of the Bolshoi Theatre and the archives of en:Civil registration offices). PD-old-assumed requirements (120 years from creation = 50 + 70 p.m.) are too short for Russian copyright theory. Alex Spade (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

CCTV in the United States Ineligible for Copyright - A Complete Legal Fiction

The template PD-automated has been turned into something for which there is zero legal justification for in the United States. Any time a CCTV footage or picture in the country takes a shot of something notable, users upload it to Commons, thinking, erroneously, that the picture cannot be copyrighted. That is a complete legal fiction and the usage of this template for images originating in the US should be curtailed and all such images being justified under this template should be removed. Two of the best examples to counter this ridiculous claim are, first, the Andy Warhol movie Empire, which is an eight-hour film that is composed entire of a still shot of the Empire State Building. The second example is Wolfgang Staehles' time lapse work, "2001", that captured the 9/11 attacks. The former has been inducted into the National Film Registry and is under copyright.

There is no legal precedent in the US that CCTV footage is copyfree. Further, the template is now being used to try to claim that bodycam video in copyfree. There is no end to how this template will be abused because there is no clear directive or policy when applying the template. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted. I believe this template should be nixed for any all all use within the US and that those photos and videos currently uploaded under this template should be removed or blanked unless their verified authors upload them themselves. -- Veggies (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In COM:CRT/US, we have a sentence that reads "In the United States, copyright can only be assigned to "works independently created by a human author"[6]." This is corroborated with COM:TOO and COM:TOO US. Your hypothesis "There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted." about the copyright status seems flawed. Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication; by this intent, there's a foundation for copyrights. You cannot go by simple technical characteristics, but you have to consider the purpose and intent of something that may be a copyrightable work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication Sorry but that is a distinction without a difference. If the owner of a CCTV camera decides that their random footage is now (ahem) "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication" who are you to say it isn't and would that suddenly validate their copyright claim? -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. You don't get to take stuff that exists and claim a copyright on it. Warhol intended to create an artistic work from the start.

If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. But those are never the cases on here; the videos are obvious cuts to the video to the parts of interest. Taking a PD movie and making a shorter cut could be copyrightable; taking a PD movie and cutting it to a scene, especially when there's one or two obvious scenes to cut.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. A rock is a natural object. Rocks are not created by men. Rocks existed before humans. There is a natural process by which rocks come about. CCTV videos are not natural objects. CCTV videos are created by people. CCTV videos did not exist before humans. There is no natural process by which CCTV videos come about. You just made my point for me.

If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. That's exactly what is on Commons. Uploaders don't upload the entire CCTV feed, they upload the short clip or still image that they find relevant. Second, you're still presupposing that CCTV video is PD. It isn't. There's zero legal precedent for claiming that it is. -- Veggies (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Rocks are polished by humans, but that's not enough input for the work to be copyrighted. Kinetic sculptures are made by humans, but aren't copyrighted, because they aren't fixed.

It feels like you didn't bother reading what you're responding to in your haste to respond. Turnings hours and hours of film into one work is a creative action. As I said above, making two cuts in the film, one when the action starts and one when it ends, is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to nitpick but recent court decisions would seem to contradict your analysis of “fixed”. January decision by the 9th Circuit found that sculptures or 3d works with moving or manipulatable parts can be eligible for copyright; they compared movable sculptures (in this case children’s toys) to dynamic works like songs or dance and concluded that the movement does not violate the “fixed” clause. Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., et al, 9th Circuit, January 14 2025. 19h00s (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no legal precedent in the US that says that CCTV camera footage is not "created by a human author". A human set up the CCTV camera, choosing camera location, framing, zoom, and potentially other things such as exposure, contrast, frame rate or even lighting. How far are you willing to take this argument? Is a photograph taken with a digital camera created without a "human author" since it was the camera's processor that actually captured the image? What if it was a point-and-shoot camera with all settings handled automatically? What if a tripod was used so a human wasn't actively pointing the camera? What if a delay timer was used (perhaps to eliminate camera shake on a long exposure) so the human wasn't touching the camera when the image was captured? Where do we draw the line? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We can ask the same question of you, about where the line is drawn. If someone builds a trail up a mountain, is that copyrightable? What if someone traverses a trail enough times to make a trail? What if a person leaves a footprint on a trail? If that footprint causes the rainwater to erode the mountain in a slightly different way than it would have, does that make the whole mountain their copyright?

If we want to discuss this, let's talk about what's being discussed, instead of making strawmen. I would argue that it's clear that works made without intent, like those footprints, aren't copyrightable. The question is about automated CCTV footage, whether endless footage taken for those ten seconds a thief comes by is made with the appropriate creative intent to make a copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The Copyright Office has ruled time and time again that works without a human author (the notorious monkey case or AI, in more recent years) cannot be copyrighted. Who would be the human author of a CCTV camera? The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. The brand that made the camera? Also had no input on any creative work. It can't be the person who "set it up", because the monkey copyright suit had a person setting up the image that the monkey took, and yet it was ultimately ruled uncopyrightable due to lack of human authorship, because what made the decision about when to snap the camera and how was the monkey (a non human). Similarly, an AI, even if prompted with creative input, cannot produce a copyrightable work. There is simply no human author in which to vest the copyright here. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. They chose to film, they chose where to frame the camera for creative reasons. There was human input in both cases, in both the original production and in its representation (the time lapse and slow motion elements and such). If CCTV footage is significantly altered in a creative manner after the fact, or edited in a specific way, or there is some especially creative placement of the cameras for an artistic work that could be copyrighted, but that is almost none of these cases, which are almost uniformly security cameras. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. Of course they did. They or an authorized agent of theirs set it up, chose where to point it, and incurred the costs for buying, maintaining, and preserving that footage. We're not talking about "monkey" photos or AI here—stay on topic—we're discussing CCTV footage. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. The very same thing that someone with still-camera footage chooses when setting up, publishing, or releasing their images. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. As I said above to someone else's comment, that's a distinction without a difference. "An artistic reason" is not a pre-requisite for copyright. If I install a doorbell security camera and, inadvertently, end up capturing footage of something unexpected (natural phenomena or some human act), would you demand to know if I had "an artistic reason" for setting up the camera before granting me a copyright? That's risible. -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If your home painters spilled paint on the floor, and you posted a photo to Facebook, and they claimed you violated the copyright on their floor painting, would you think that not risible? Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? In a country with stronger moral rights, you might be enjoined from destroying their artwork they made on your floor. Artistic intent makes a big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? No, because spilling paint is very much copyrightable. My lawyer would simply state, first, that the painters failed to state a claim because they hadn't demonstrated how a photo uploaded to Facebook violated their copyright in any meaningful way. Second, he would argue that the painters were agents hired by myself to do specific work on my property, which did not include painting the floor, so I was entirely within my rights to have them clean the mess up or clean it up myself, effectively destroying their creation, as being outside the bounds of what they were contracted to do. So, no, your analogy falls flat on all counts. You didn't even attempt to answer my hypothetical doorbell scenario because there is no "artistic reason" prerequisite for having a copyrightable work. -- Veggies (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Veggies: I was just thinking about a scenario where someone is taking a photograph on their phone, drops it, and the camera goes off after rolling down a hill. Obiviously there's no human input or "creative process" involved in that case. But is anyone seriously going to argue the person doesn't own the copyright to the photograph? Otherwise, what exactly would be the standard there? How many times the phone rolled before taking the picture? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that De jure, there's no copyright for having an image snapped due to a technical mishap or fluke, your example is similar to the monkey grabbing a DSLR and pressing the shutter. But in practice, that would be often hard to prove. By the way, there's a photographic technique involving setting your camera to triggering the shutter with a short timer (1 to 3 seconds) and then to cast it in the air. After you caught it when coming down, you have sometimes pictures with funny novel perspectives. I would say that this is undeniably a creative process, even if you're using a lot of randomness. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a difference, legally, between the copyright of a picture taken by dropping your phone accidentally versus dropping your phone intentionally? I don't see one. It's still a human act. -- Veggies (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Copyright Office says "An original work of authorship is a work that is independently created by a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." Accidents aren't creative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The laws actually make more or less huge differences between accidents and intentions. See Act of god, manslaughter vs. murder vs. negligent homicide and battery for examples, admittedly not related to copyrights but mostly with human acts. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If you take a picture of a painting, then that photo is a derivative of that painting and distributing it without a fair use justification is copyright infringing. You can argue that you can destroy this copyrighted painting, but if you accept that it's a work of copyright, I'd wait until the court tells you it's A-OK in any country with strong moral rights. If you install a doorbell cam for someone, are you claiming copyright over any of the footage that results? If someone comes out from Lowe's to install the doorbell, does Lowe's have the copyright to all the cameras its workers installed?-Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"Spilling paint" is not copyrightable. Spilling paint is a technique which can be used in the creation of a copyrightable work. There is a difference. Within the context of the creation of a work, a person can spill paint in a way that reflects their originality and control over the creation of a process. But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work There is absolutely nothing in copyright law that necessitates (ahem) "the intentional application of intellectual creativity". If I accidently spill paint on my floor and I think it spilled in a neat pattern, I can cut the floor out and copyright the whole spillage, sell derivate works from it, and zealously protect it as my intellectual property from people who want to duplicate it without authorization. -- Veggies (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The law is very clear about protecting only creative acts. If you accidentally spill paint on your floor, and you're honest about that, then the US Copyright Office won't register your claim of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Because they did not have any input on its creation. Lots of security cameras are remote controlled. There's no way to know on our end which camera footage was or not either. With body cams specifically, obviously whomever is wearing the camera controls what is being recorded by moving or looking in a certain direction. The question would be if something like that is intentional enough to be considered creative. It certainly seems to be in instances like someone wearing a GoPro camera to record themselves doing an extreme sport. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of files of Red Bull videos on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You could clearly tell from the way the footage moves, and if you can't tell, you run into the same situation as the monkey copyright thing, where what little influence the human may have is not enough to make them the author - after all, he orchestrated the monkey shoot and set it up and moved into its position, still not enough. On the body camera question: yes, I agree, and so I didn't mention body cameras, because there is creative input in how one moves and operates the camera, whether it is attached to one's person or not. Those are not really "automated", their movement and capture is wholly dependent on a human. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the monkey footage is copyrightable. Probably CCTV footage that clearly looks automated isn't either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video. But if I do the same but leave the camera for two years the copyright vanishes? Is there then a point on which the recoding before is copyrighted and the recoding after. Will the copyright of the first hour be revoked because the camera was standing for two years. This does not make sense to me. There are similar questions on some FOP cases where we decided to delete them all per PCP. GPSLeo (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

All is about the intent. The objective of a security camera is not to produce any work. It is only to provide security. If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright. Yann (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not know about the US law but in EU law intent is definitely irrelevant for the copyright of a work. The only think that matters is if there was a creative process. If placing a camera is a creative process keeping there for a longer time does not remove the creativity from the process of placing the camera. GPSLeo (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ain't that simply two ways of saying the same thing? Yann: "If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright." GPSLeo: "The only think that matters is if there was a creative process." I understand it as such: Intent to create = Creative process, if you have the intent to create, then you've taken the first step of a creative process. I do not see how creation without intent could be possible. Grand-Duc (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say placing a camera at a certain place is always a creative process. GPSLeo (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Fixed cameras are usually installed by technicians, not by videographers. And for determining the intent, search for who pays for the camera. For security cameras, a private or public organization pays for it with the intention of providing security. Yann (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you had to be a professional videographer to hold copyright. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

"If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video." Not necessarily. If I place a digital thermometer outside and it records the temperatures though-out the day, I don't have any right to stop others from copying the same exact data and publishing it themselves.

Copyright is limited-time government granted monopoly it can choose to bestow or withhold as it sees fit. It chooses not to bestow that monopoly in cases where recovered information lacks human originality. Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is just an extension of Burrow-Giles v. Sarony. The question has nothing to do with the mechanical process, but whether or not the photograph (or video) represents the "original intellectual conceptions" of the author. In the case of a planned or manually shot video, there is consistent control over the output. If you are watching the camera, you have a choice at any moment whether to move it or not, to adjust it, etc. — putting aside, of course, any control you may exercise over the events that take place in front of it. If you leave a camera unattended, however, then the frames captured will have less and less to do with your intellectual conception, to the point where you may not exercise any significant authorship.

To ask you another question: let's say you start shooting a video, and, after an hour, you hand your camera off to me (without turning it off) and I shoot video for an hour. During those times, we both have control over the camera and the various aspects of the photographic process. Once you stop exercising authorship, however, whatever the camera captures is not your work (but, in this case, mine). Look at Burrow-Giles. The photograph is found to be copyrightable because is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same … entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." In a CCTV case, very few of these criteria, if any, are fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Despite what many on Wikipedia/Commons claim, the US copyright office never ruled on the monkey selfie. Yes, they issues a pamphlet that said that in a hypothetical situation in which a monkey took a photograph that it wouldn't be eligible for copyright, but there was no ruling on the situation in which a human set up a camera, adjusted all the settings, composed and framed the image, and did everything other than actually hit the shutter button as to whether the image could be considered to have been created by a human. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

From the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices: The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” - If the CCTV is a static CCTV feed, it's ineligible. If someone's controlling the camera, it likely is eligible. I don't think it makes sense to apply it to body cameras, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That interpretation has zero legal precedent or foundation behind it. It's, essentially, a highly disputable reading of the Copyright Office principles. In fact, none of the examples given after that passage even remotely come close to what you're suggesting. -- Veggies (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I largely agree, and have encouraged people not to use {{Pd-automated}} for US CCTV. It would be useful to get WMF Legal to weigh in on the copyrightability of prepositioned cameras via m:Wikilegal -- I was going to request it a while ago, but never got around to sending the email. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Who do you think the copyright would vest in? Hypothetically they were copyrightable, who would get it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

In the UK, the copyright is assigned to the property owner, if my memory serves me. Though in the UK, something as simple as a signature can be copyrighted.

Perhaps someone could email the Copyright Office and ask them to weigh in? JayCubby (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Anybody saying that these are easily in the public domain - well I hope they're right, but given the very low TOO in many countries, and the fact that this principle has been completely untested in the US, means we don't know until something goes to court. As a rule, I'd say CCTV is hopefully fine, while dashcams and bodycams are more dubious because there is far more likely to be human placement/decision in filming angle, what they're filming, when, ect. It's different from the monkey case, because the monkey produced a still and the choice of when to take the still is likely what bumps the copyright to the monkey rather than the human. But we don't know. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

US law is clear: Copyright applies to art, not data. When there's no artist, there's no art, and thus no government-granted monopoly to restrict copying. It's not a legal fiction, it's a well-established legal reality. Feoffer (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

How do you distinguish 'art' from 'data' in an image? -- Veggies (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Well... The law is actually really unclear on this point. "Art" is never explicitly defined in the relevant statutes in the same way you're defining it here. You can call anything "art", that doesn't make it copyrightable. You can also call anything "data", that doesn't make it copyright-ineligible. Indeed, the shades of grey are the most important aspects of this situation - it comes down to how courts and the CO have interpreted and analyzed similar "works" under the relevant statutes, it does not hinge on whether we personally think it's "art" or "data". As OP correctly pointed out, there are multiple examples of copyrighted films that comprise nothing more than a single, continuous, static shot - Warhol's Empire for sure could be a case of the Copyright Office granting registration prior to a court decision that would nullify the effect of the registration, but we just don't know if that's the case, it hasn't been tested in court. I'll stop there as I don't want to get knee-deep in this discussion, but the idea that "art" vs "data" is a simply explained binary within the language of US copyright law is just incorrect. 19h00s (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There are some reasonable arguments that some installations may be PD-ineligible, which is more a question if there is no identifiable human authorship. For a photograph, the usual aspects are framing and angle -- while those may be limited and more obvious for security cameras (merger doctrine arguments), it still may be enough for copyright. A camera could be positioned by an installation company, or tweaked by an employee, and maybe that is enough. It may also be very difficult for us to determine. I did find one registration, PA0002103805, which is I think for this video. Which means it's certainly possible for some fairly basic security cameras to get a copyright registration in the U.S. It's a pretty untested area of law, where we are guessing. If there is any remote control of the camera, I would assume it's copyrightable, for sure. The CCTV aspect is irrelevant in and of itself. I'm not sure the Copyright Office or any court has given us any decent guidance over what aspects to look for. It's arguable, but I can also certainly see arguments that it's gray enough that there is significant doubt on such works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I broadly agree. I think COM:PCP probably wins the day with me so far. Someone chose to put the camera there with the intention of capturing things in that area at that angle. It may be for utilitarian reasons and not "art", but AFAIK, there is no utilitarian exemption for video. GMG^talk 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am leery of {{PD-automated}}. I do not think there is caselaw that supports a blanket ruling that such footage is PD-ineligible. The copyright office has ruled that technical images such as x-rays are PD-ineligible. An x-ray technician does not have much freedom in making the image. I'm sympathetic to PD-ineligible in some circumstances. If somebody screws a Ring doorbell camera onto the wall, there is also little choice available from framing the shot. The same can be said of dash cams and Tesla cams. I'm less sympathetic to PD-ineligible when the installer has a lot of freedom about where to install the camera and where the camera points. A few months ago, I saw a discussion about a camera mounted on top of a building to monitor the parking lot below. Yes, a functional image, but the image was also pleasing as it had good composition. I can easily see a human exercising judgment to make a pleasing image. There are clear cases of copyright. If someone sets up a camera to catch the surf pounding the shore or some wild animals feeding, that someone should not be denied a copyright merely because they left the camera unattended for hours on end. The photographer intended to catch some interesting footage. That a security camera captures an unexpected event such as a plane crash makes the issue of copyright less clear. The photographer was not trying to frame the unexpected crash, so everything else might be incidental. If, however, the photographer wanted to capture images of ships passing underneath a bridge and happened to capture a ship striking the bridge and collapsing it, then the framing is not accidental, and I see no reason for PD-ineligible. In summary, the law is not settled, so Commons should be cautious about claiming {{PD-automated}}. Glrx (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean to say it has no basis in law, not that it is a "legal fiction." There is such a thing as a legal fiction, and this isn't an example of that. The question is whether or not the video has within it a modicum of originality which constitutes human authorship of the video/image.

Copyright exists only in works containing such originality, not in the mechanical process used to create them. If you run a camera for an hour with the lens cap on, you will produce an hour-long video, but it will not be copyrightable, because the output (a black screen) will not contain the modicum of originality necessary for something to be a copyrighted work. The best argument that CCTV is copyrightable in general is that the camera has been placed by a human and thus that there is human authorship in the framing of the image which is output. This may not always be the case — in some cases, the person who set up the camera may have little to no control over its positioning. There is no aspect of static CCTV which can possibly include human authorship, except for this initial framing of the image. And, even then, the contents of what is in front of the camera can be left uncontrolled to the point where the initial (minimally) creative image is no longer reflected in the output of the camera.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

is there "legal precedent" for cctv footage being copyrightable? ltbdl (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

In the United States, not. In the UK there is legal precedent for it being under copyright (Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland), in Russia there is legal precedent for it not being under copyright. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeking advice how to find usable images

Hi, I'm curious if anyone has any advice on how to tailor one's search for images/photographs to specifically find images which are eligible to be uploaded to Wikimedia.

Any help appreciated. Thank you very much. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You can use the filter option on Google image search. (It only shows up in the desktop version of the Google image search page.) There, you can select to only search for images that have a Creative Commons license. Other image search engines, and image hosting sites, too, likely have a similar filter option. Nakonana (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

When you use that filter on google it will show results with all CC licenses including NC, ND which are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah good to know. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely good to know. Nakonana (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Openverse Zanahary (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: What country, time period, and/or subject are you looking for images of? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm asking in general, but what specifically prompted this question was looking for photos showing the conditions of La Esperanza (prison).

But more commonly I'm interested in photos of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues with uploaded QNews logos

The files:

• File:QNEWS COMPANY LOGO.png
• File:QNEWS LOGO.jpg
• File:QNews Logo.jpg

are claimed to be under CC BY-SA 4.0 from User:Amamgee, but I find that unlikely. They could potentially still be eligible for Commons via {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}, but Australia's interestingly low TOO makes me unsure. Additionally, I have no idea where exactly the user got the images from, so I don't know what to fill in for source if I were to make these changes myself. BlankEclair (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

the rainbow one might be above too, but the others are just two letters. ltbdl (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

BlankEclair: Hmm, there's also File:Q News Logo.png which is sourced to the QNews Facebook page. — ClaudineChionh (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

1928 photo by Istituto Nazionale Luce

Hi, can someone please tell me if this image is copyrighted or if it can be freely uploaded on Commons? Thanks, Gitz6666 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be

{{PD-US-expired|PD-Italy}}

 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this is OK then. Gitz6666 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Faithful reproductions of Catholic (and possibly, other Christian) coats of arms

In light of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Diocese of Dumaguete.svg, this is something that Wikimedia Commons should notice. It appears we don't have a policy (at least under Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter) regarding recent or newer coats of arms of Catholic dioceses and prelates, as well as similar symbols from other Christian denominations.

Ping the two involved participants from the said deletion requests, @GiovanniYosh12 and Abzeronow: . I'll also ping two Pinoy users who were involved in copyright-related discussions in the past: @Pandakekok9 and Howdy.carabao: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why should there be a special copyright policy for images related to Christian denominations? -- Asclepias (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible COM:Derivative work issue, yet we host hundreds of images of such coats of arms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The (visual) representation of a coat of arms, in this case of a bishop or diocese, is based on the blazon (textual description), so technically derivatives of religious coats of arms like the ones myself and @SajoR: create are safe for upload as per COM:Coats of arms. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiovanniYosh12 the PD may be true for coats of arms from governments (state symbols).

Still, I think it's best to ping a veteran in copyright matters here. Ping @Clindberg: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Commons:Coats of arms, the copyright is usually in the particular drawing, not the design. In heraldry, there is usually a written blazon describing the design, and any drawing of it is a separate expression (i.e. separate copyright) of the same idea. If you are very closely following another drawing however, then you can be derivative of that other drawing. So, usually the age of the design is irrelevant, unless there is one particular drawing that all are derived from. But a drawing can't be derivative of a written description. I'm not entirely sure what the nature of this one is, but if it seems to be an independent drawing of the arms, I'd say it's fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Los escudos de armas que realizamos en commons no violan los derechos de autor, son obras que cumplen con la descripción heráldica, son totalmente validas y son estéticamente diferentes a la versión oficial. Cada artista es libre de crear su propia versión siempre que cumpla con la descripción heráldica, por ejemplo si la descripción dice que el escudo debe tener una embarcación de oro y debe tener una sola vela de plata y no indica mas características, cada artista puede interpretar eso de varias formas, aunque en entrelineas se puede deducir que se trata de una embarcación pequeña pues son las que tienen en general una sola vela, pero si el artista quiere poner un galeón o un velero con una sola vela esta en todo su derecho, pues esta cumpliendo con la descripción, ademas la vela puede ser cuadrada o triangular. Recuerdo el caso de un prelado italiano que fue nombrado obispo en Albania, cuando se publicó su emblema, realicé mi propia versión, días después una persona que decía ser cercano al obispo se quejó en la Wikipedia italiana alegando que mi versión era falsa, que tenia errores y que debíamos usar la versión oficial, al final solo hice unos leves cambios estéticos para apaciguar esa persona cuyos argumentos eran ridículos, uno era que la cinta que contiene el lema debe ser de color crema y no blanco. Curiosamente ese prelado fue recientemente elevado a arzobispo y adivinen que versión estética adopto, pues la versión de Wikipedia, la que supuestamente estaba mal. Ademas, algunos de nuestros escudos igualan o superan en calidad gráfica a la versión oficial, o simplemente son mas fáciles de leer, y algunas las diócesis terminan adoptando oficialmente la versión estética de Wikipedia. Hace unos meses hice el escudo de un obispo (no recuerdo la nacionalidad), días después alguien de la Wiki me dejó un mensaje, donde informaban que el obispo les escribió para indicar que el lema de mi versión estética esta mal escrito, que por favor lo corrigiera, lo cual hice, el obispo en ningún momento se quejó de violaciones a los derechos de autor, simplemente reporto un error y eso fue todo. Además, soy amigo de dos heraldistas profesionales italianos quienes por medio de facebook se contactaron con migo, no para indicar violaciones a los derechos de autor, lo que ellos querían era que indicara en la tabla de información del archivo que ellos son quienes idearon y dibujaron la versión oficial, eso era todo. También existen heraldistas profesionales (como este quien diseñó el escudo del papa Francisco) que buena parte de su trabajo se basa en el material de commons, y si no estoy mal, ¿eso indicaría que su obra también está bajo una licencia libre?. --Alejandro Rojas (SajoR) (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: The coats of arms we create at Commons do not violate copyright. They are works that comply with the heraldic description, are fully valid, and are aesthetically different from the official version. Each artist is free to create their own version as long as they comply with the heraldic description. For example, if the description says the coat of arms must have a golden vessel and a single silver sail, and does not indicate any other characteristics, each artist can interpret this in various ways. Although, between the lines, it can be deduced that it is a small vessel, since they generally have a single sail. However, if the artist wants to depict a galleon or a sailboat with a single sail, they are within their rights, as they are complying with the description. Furthermore, the sail can be square or triangular. I remember the case of an Italian prelate who was appointed bishop in Albania. When his emblem was published, I made my own version. Days later, a person claiming to be close to the bishop complained on the Italian Wikipedia, claiming that my version was false, that it contained errors, and that we should use the official version. In the end, I only made a few minor aesthetic changes to appease this person, whose arguments were ridiculous. One was that the ribbon containing the motto should be cream-colored, not white. Curiously, that prelate was recently elevated to archbishop, and guess which aesthetic version he adopted? Well, the Wikipedia version, the one that was supposedly wrong. Furthermore, some of our coats of arms equal or surpass the official version in graphic quality, or are simply easier to read, and some dioceses end up officially adopting Wikipedia's aesthetic version. A few months ago I made the coat of arms of a bishop (I don't remember his nationality). Days later, someone from Wikia left me a message informing me that the bishop had written to them to indicate that the motto of my aesthetic version was misspelled and that I should please correct it. I did so. The bishop never complained about copyright violations; he simply reported an error, and that was that. Furthermore, I'm friends with two professional Italian heraldists who contacted me via Facebook, not to point out copyright violations; they wanted me to indicate in the file's information table that they were the ones who conceived and designed the official version, that was all. There are also professional heraldists (like this one who designed Pope Francis' coat of arms) whose work is largely based on Commons material. If I'm not mistaken, would that indicate that their work is also under a free license?. --Alejandro Rojas (SajoR) (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree fully with the final statement. If a person uses material from Commons he does not have to pay for it. If he incorporates such material into a new product, then they own the copyright of the new product provided that they acknowledge Commons as the source of part of their product. To put this into perspective, if I wrte a book about the Mona Lisa, I have the copyright of the book even if I illustrate it with pictures of the Mona Lisa (which are out of copyright). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Part of the license says: share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original. --Alejandro Rojas (SajoR) (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That is a (very slight) misunderstanding of the meaning of a CC-BY-SA license; the difference is subtle. Let's call the issuer of the original license Party A and the reuser Party B.

Correct understanding: Party B may conform to the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. If they do so, their use is legal, and part of conforming to the license is that any changes Party B makes in their derivative work must be licensed under the same CC-BY-SA license.

Misunderstanding: If Party B creates a derivative work, but ignores the terms of the license (typically by failing to mention the license in their reuse), then that derivative work is automatically released under the same CC-BY-SA license.

Correct understanding of that latter situation: If Party B creates a derivative work, but does not properly invoke the license, then (1) Party A may pursue the usual remedies for a copyright violation by Party B and (2) the initial license offered by Party A has no effect at all on the changes introduced by Party B, if the latter are copyrightable.

If you think it through, that makes sense. CC licenses are not part of copyright law. The fact that a particular license is offered for a work (for which any number of licenses might be offered) does not in any way bring that license into play unless that license is invoked by the re-user. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can a license like "Anyone is free to do anything with this work. No credit is required. By using this work in any way in another work, you agree to release the entire work under the same license and you do not need to state the license." legally work  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@999real: in what country?

I suspect that there are countries (e.g. France) where it is literally impossible to alienate the droit d'auteur, but you'd also have a heck of a time gaining any cash damages from someone for having taken you at your word about being uninterested in enforcing your rights. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know anything about cash damages like that. I mean about trying to find a way to make all derivative works automatically free  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I really don't see how someone can't be recreating an early work that is copyrighted if the coat of arms is an accurate reproduction of the text. Either it's a completely accurate drawing based on the original description in the text, and therefore a recreation of a prior coat of arms that would be copyrighted, or it isn't and the image should be deleted as OOS. Otherwise you'd have to argue that no one ever made a drawing of the particular coat of arms before. Which is far fetched to the say the least. To give an example, if I were to compare this image with this one of the Coat of arms of the Diocese of Legazpi, the only original part for the image on Commons is the crown on the top. So the file hosted on Commons should be deleted. As it's is a recreation of someone else's drawing (that I assume is copyrighted). Or it should be deleted as OOS due to having extra elements that aren't in the original description. Really, why is Commons hosting fan made reproductions of coats of arms when exiting original drawings of them exist anyway? It just seems like a weird loophole to get around copyright issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 With all due respect, one must first be familiar with the rules and traditions of heraldry in order to understand the work we heraldry artists do in Commons. Heraldry, which far predates current established copyright laws, allows various artistic renditions of a single coat of arms as long as it is in line with the textual description that is written in a specialized language called a "blazon" (see COM:Coats of arms and the replies above given by Carl Lindberg and SajoR). In other words, the blazon serves as the blueprint for heraldic artists who will draw a particular coat of arms. The purpose of the SVG coats of arms we design and upload is to standardize, improve and freely make available the said coat of arms in Commons instead of uploading the "original drawings" officially used which are in various artstyles and might be under copyright by their artist. Our work is under COM:LAB and the WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology; the WikiProjects on the same topic in other languages go into greater detail and even encourage the creation of SVG coats of arms (Français, Español, Deutsch).

In the example images presented, the first image is the official rendition of the coat of arms of the Diocese of Legazpi which, although is assumed to be copyrighted under the name of the diocese, is actually an image taken directly from the Facebook page of the diocese converted to SVG and bears an incorrect license and author. The coat of arms file should not have been hosted on Commons due to it being "found on the internet" and is a direct copy of a possibly copyrighted image. The second image is one of the many SVG coats of arms that my fellow heraldic artists and I rendered and uploaded. In this instance, the coat of arms of the Diocese of Legazpi is based on the descriptions given by Mariano Madriaga who originally designed the said coat of arms [7]. Diocesan coats of arms in the Philippines (and in the United States) traditionally depict the miter (not a crown) as an external ornament above the shield to indicate that the coat of arms belongs to a Catholic diocese. However, some dioceses opt to have no external ornaments in their official rendering of their coats of arms, e.g., the Diocese of Legazpi. As heraldic artists trained on its rules and traditions, we know that it's acceptable to include the miter in our rendering of the coats of arms of Philippine dioceses for the sake of uniformity; it's not an "extra element" or a "fan made reproduction", and it's also not for the purpose to "get around copyright issues". GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiovanniYosh12: I actually already knew about all that. Thanks for the needless history lesson though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we at least agree on and have established two things here:

1. Heraldry rules are different from copyright and while heraldry rules might allow for various artistic renditions of a single coat of arms, copyright wouldn't in cases where the coat of arms are similar to each other. In other words, if I create a coat of arms that's exactly like your version that was made sooner, you could potentially sue for me copyright infringement regardless of if the "heraldry rules" allows for it.

2. Some "renditions" of the coat of arms don't follow the descriptions in the original text. I. E. You and other artists who upload their images of the coats of arms to Commons sometimes take liberates to include things that aren't in the original descriptions.

Would you say both of those points are accurate? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: The design represents an idea. The textual description and a drawing are different expressions of that idea -- they are not related, copyright-wise. The copyright in a literal work (textual description) is in the particular words chosen -- not the ideas it describes. You can describe the same idea in a different way and not be derivative at all. It is nearly impossible for a graphical work to be derivative of a literary one (and if the wording is so precise as to not allow variation, then it could well get into the merger doctrine, where if there are limited ways to express an idea then there is no copyright at all). See Idea–expression distinction. We can't copy someone else's drawings, but someone can create an original drawing of the described design. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Sure, but I don't think the versions of the coat of arms are actually that different. Like if two people create a coat of arms based on the same description but one of them adds smoke to the volcano then it's not really that different from the other person's version. Anymore then it would be if say I drew a smiley face on the cover of a Batman comic. Or are you saying that if I did then I could upload the cover to Commons without it being copyright infringement? I ask because the whole idea that these coat of arms are being drawing purely based on original descriptions is laughable at best. Most likely they are using previous images and adding superficial elements to them in Photoshop or whatever. Know one who uploads coats of arms to Commons is hand drawing them based purely on the original the text though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Yes, it is different. If both artists add smoke to a volcano they are still independent, unless one was tracing the particular lines used by the first artist. The expression (and thus the copyright) is in the precise details of the drawing, not the idea of what they are drawing. The design may say to use a ship, or even a sailing ship, but there are myriads of ways to actually draw a ship and those are all independent copyrights. You may more be thinking of trademark, where a generally similar design could infringe. That is different than copyright, however. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Actually I was thinking about the threshold of originality or whatever it's called when you make a durative of something. If you want a real world example to give your opinion on, this image and this one are apparently based on each other and are supposedly the "own work" of two Commons contributors. Although the original design seems to come from this coat of arms from the Archdiocese of Capiz. Although with minor differences.

There's a couple of other versions of essentially the same coat of arms online. All of them obviously didn't turn out essentially the same based on descriptions from a text. So the question would be, who created the original and are the other, newer versions different enough to not be copyrighted. I don't think adding slightly different hair to the kids or changing the color of the cross really makes that much of a difference when the coats of arms are clearly based on the same underlying image. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A derivative work is adding new, copyrightable expression to an existing work. Adding smoke to a volcano is probably one example -- that particular rendition of the smoke may well be copyrightable. Of the ones you mention, the two SVGs on Commons are obviously the same drawing. Rearranging the division on the shield is likely not a copyrightable change (below the threshold of originality), so the copyright belongs to whoever drew the original (even if it was slightly incorrect according to the blazon). Just *maybe* there is an additional copyright on the particular vectorization and choice of vector points on the second one. But, the original author should be credited. There is no copyright relation to the image you found on Facebook -- they are different drawings of the same idea, so they are both "originals". Each drawing has a copyright of its own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: What about this image and the one from the Diocese of Malaybalay? I assume the one on Commons should be deleted as COPYVIO since everything in the shield is exactly the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

...except that it appears the Commons file existed before the Facebook file, so the copying probably went the other way. In general though yes, coats of arms copied from external sites are usually a problem. SVG files are more often authored by Commons contributors, though it's possible to extract vectors from PDF files out there. If a bitmap file has precisely the same layout as a vector .svg from here, it's quite probable that the bitmap was generated from the .svg (or an ancestor vector source). Additionally, Commons SVG authors often copy components from other Commons .svg files (often ones they had done themselves), so it's possible there are still earlier versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to ask about this matter, if the coat of arms that you are mentioning has an original one, and the artist here uploaded an aesthetic version not faithful to the original coat of arms that was adopted later on by the same diocese? will there be any problem with that? CommanderPhoenix (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Clindberg could probably give a better answer to this but at least IMO there would have to be documentation from the diocese showing that's how it happened. Otherwise anyone who uploads a coat of arms could use it to claim the diocese adopted it after they uploaded their image to Commons. I don't personally have an issue with giving the coat of arms from my example a pass because there's evidence that the version on Commons existed first, but that evidence needs to exist and be publicly available. Although really, we don't know if the image from the diocese was just uploaded to Facebook at that point but was actually created before then. So I don't think we should be determining things based purely on when a coat of arms was uploaded to any particular social media account. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

let us say these one are the original one [8], [9], [10],

This is just for further clarifications, I am here to cooperate and share thoughts on how we can work on to help one another. CommanderPhoenix (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

NOAA work as CC BY or public domain?

The YouTube channel of the NOAA research has a video under the CC BY license. But isn't the work actually PD? (PD-USGov-NOAA) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's clear that the whole work meets the conditions of section 105 of the copyright law of the United States, then it is in the public domain in the United States. The NOAA template is missing that precision, which is present in other templates such as USGov, USGov-NASA, USGov-Military, USGov-NPS, etc. Still, on YouTube, the CC free license is better than the default non-free YouTube license. As specified in the the House report extract reproduced in the Wikisource page, about the scope of section 105, "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. [...] There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad." The CC license is useful for reusers in countries, other than the United States, where the work is copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It had always been assumed that the PD status applied abroad, for decades. But, the legislators for the 1976 Act wondered about that, and the Copyright Office thought (due to a particular interpretation of wording in the Universal Copyright Convention) that it actually may not -- thus, they added that wording you quote. Other countries saw that, and it started a couple rounds of inquiries, where there were a wide range of opinions on the matter (some agreed with the U.S., some did not and read that clause very differently, and many somewhere in between). I think it hinged on whether "US Government works" were a class of works unto themselves, or only overall "government works" were their own class of work. The Copyright Office concluded that government work protection abroad may end up being a country-by-country matter, subject to courts there. Since that time, the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, where you can never expect more protection than you get in your own country. Whether the terms of the UCC would still be binding, who knows. I don't think the U.S. has ever tested that in another country. They do have some limited protection over some works they gave in a couple specific situations, I think. So, the 1976 Act added some gray area around PD-USGov, though in practical terms it's still effectively PD, and it may be up to other countries to determine that. Still, an explicit CC license is always a good thing -- no problem putting both on the work if they can both apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: this question is an aside but if under Berne "you can never expect more protection than you get in your own country", how/why does the U.S. grant 95-year protection for works that are out copyright in their country of origin due to the author's death? Is it just that the U.S. is free to choose to grant that under Berne? But then wouldn't any country be free to choose to grant copyright to U.S. gov't works? - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct, you aren't obligated to protect any longer than does the country of origin, but you can. And yes, other countries could certainly choose to do so. Not all countries use the rule of the shorter term (and as you note the U.S. does not). Just was pointing out the situation has gotten even muddier than the muddy conclusion that followed the above declaration in the 1976 law, which was under the belief that the UCC obligated other countries to protect them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this is free?

file:Apocalypse Z The Beginning of the End poster.jpg Hosseinblue (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Screenshots from games are generally not free. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't screenshot from games, it's from imdb and that's a film. I confused how to add poster of a film for free. where can see it's free or not? Hosseinblue (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hosseinblue: IMDB certainly didn't create it.

I cannot imagine any reason it would be free. What grounds did you have in mind? - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hosseinblue: "free" is currently defined poorly at Wikimedia Commons. Here it generaly means "really old or the owner has given up a lot of their rights (licensing)". Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy may help explain that. So to check if it is free, you need to confirm that the copyright holder has released the poster under a suitable licence. That is unlikely in this case.

However, if this is about your fa.wikipedia draft you may be able to upload a copy locally at that project, not here at Commons. Read the fa.wikipedia policy page. It may suggest that only articles can use non-free images, so you will have to wait for your draft to become an article before uploading there. Commander Keane (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "free" is at poorly defined on Commons, even if it may be poorly defined in that particular place. "Free" on Commons means that in both the "home country" of the work (and, yes, there are some very few edge cases where "home country" is hard to determine) and in the U.S., the image is either in the public domain or has what Commons considers a sufficiently free license, basically a license that does not charge money, does not limit derivative works, and does not place restrictions on commercial use, as long as the reuser conforms to the license. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: perhaps it is like oral tradition? I would prefer something written down at Commons:Free so that next time I don't have to visit my archived thread on Talk:Main page to rediscover JeffG.'s useful links only to realise that one doesn't have a Farsi translation so I have to provide my own simple definition in English. You seem like a good candidate to achieve that, and it can be marked for translation. Commander Keane (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused, anywhere it's not free to share and it's be deleted soon Hosseinblue (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hosseinblue: sorry, the discussion got side tracked. Did you read my comment at time 23:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC) above (link)? In summary: yes it will get deleted on Commons, you can try a new upload at fa.wikipedia instead. Commander Keane (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, dear friend Hosseinblue (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Defining "free"

@Commander Keane: the problem with trying to write a concise definition of what we on Commons mean by an image being "free" is that a real understanding requires people to understand a lot about copyrights and a fair amount about licenses, plus a few subtleties about Commons' own policies with respect to the precautionary principle, non-copyright restrictions, etc. That is, I could probably write something in 200 words or less that will let someone who already has a reasonable understanding of copyright and free-licensing make the right decision for probably 98%+ of all possible content about whether it is "free" or not, but there are always going to be tricky edge cases (e.g. photo taken in country A by a person from country B and first published in country C, where all of these countries might have very different copyright laws; portrait where we have to decide whether a moderately out-of-focus painting on the wall behind the subject is de minimis; unusual license that is not among those where Commons already has decided it is "free enough"; the complexity of laws around Freedom of panorama; countries' different laws on transferablilty of copyright). There is good reason why there are sometimes entirely honest disagreements about whether an image is out of copyright, or whether a copyrighted image is freely enough licensed.

That said, my 98% answer is pretty much what I said in the section above; here I've worded a bit more carefully:

• Commons is generally concerned with a work being "free" only in terms of copyright and (if the image is copyrighted) licensing. Non-copyright restrictions such as trademarks, personality rights, or particular countries' bans on particular symbols, will generally be noted with a template, but don't change the eligibility of the image to be hosted on Commons.
• Commons is generally only concerned with a work being "free" in its "home country" and in the United States; it may or may not be free in other countries.
• There are basically two ways for the image to be "free" in Commons' terms:
  1. The image may be free of copyright (loosely speaking, in the public domain, though that particular term is a Common Law concept). Each country has its own pertinent laws.
  2. If the image is copyrighted, the copyright-holder must offer sufficiently free license, basically a license that does not charge money, does not limit derivative works, and does not place restrictions on commercial use, as long as the reuser conforms to the license. Licenses are normally world-wide.

That's the nutshell. The next level of fleshing out would probably be something like the early sections of Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

PD US no notice

Invocation (before 1948)

You may find this work by the artist en:Seymour Lipton (died 1986, PDD 2057) in Commons as PD US no notice, uploaded by Yann Forget. How does that work? Goesseln (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, this is a US publication, and a license was required to be under a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The U.S. does not base their copyright terms on the date of death for works published before 1978. It's possible there are some countries where a copyright would still exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Poster from Dublin, 1881

Is {{UK-PD-anon}} the correct template for File:Irish National Land League poster - 1881.webp, which was published in Dublin in 1881, or should it use an Ireland equivalent? Or is it PD-ineligible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I would think the Republic of Ireland would be the successor as the country of origin. So, {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, or {{PD-anon-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Utilitarian objects in South Korea

I've been recently reading upon the case "The Reds" case in South Korea, which ruled that reproducing copyrightable elements of clothing, even given its utilitarian nature, would disproportionately infringe the intellectualy property rights of the copyright owner. This has two broad implications to South Korean files:

1. The commonly accepted defence of "Ets Hokin v Skyy" as with US copyright law is untenable for South Korean works, i.e. even if the work is utilitarian the copyrighted label should be blurred if the work is from South Korea.
2. Thus, this means anything with a copyrighted label should be given deference to the de minimis principle. This means if someone is wearing clothing with art on it, they should be de minimis (and also means grouping bunch of Xs is also not allowed, which was the focus of "The Reds" case e.g. an image like this). I.e. this would mean a very cautious interpretation of cosplay pictures in South Korea.

I was wondering if this caveat should be added to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea. Would like some input on this matter. Takipoint123 (💬) 21:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Takipoint123, could you provide us with a résumé or translation in English somewhere? That would help getting more opinions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Basically, a brief summary of the case is that the defendant ran a photo library, which consisted of pictures of people cheering for the South Korean football team. The pictures consisted of "Be The Reds" logo, a popular South Korean brand identity often used during World Cup season (unrelated, but the logo is copyright even though it is fully text as it is a caligraphical work in South Korea).

1. The lower court agreed with the defendants as it said that the freedom of expression should be respected for such commonly used national identity; but this was overturned by the higher court (up to the Supereme Court) which claimed that the logo of the clothing were "centered so that it has significant qualitative and quanititative weight" (i.e. not incidentally included/ DM) and that the picture's overall "expressive nature" changes significantly with the addition of the copyrighted material. (Note: South Korean courts use the test of "expressive nature", as in if the expressive nature changes due to the addition of X, it has a "realistic resemblance to copyrighted materials).
2. All in all, they found that the picture was not used in principle with fair use, since the use was commercial; mass reproductions of images consisting of the clothing without the permission of the copyright holder would affect the commercial viability and licensing rights of the copyrigh owner. The court also ruled that sharing these images on public websites would constitute copyright infringement, which if it wer allowed would put "undue burden" on the website's users to verify copyright information (which would also affect uploads to Commons, since by nature it allows commercial reproductions). [11]

Takipoint123 (💬) 22:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Takipoint123 you may add the case in the CRT page of SoKor; salient points must be included in the "De minimis" section. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. Com:SOKor was written quite a while back and it lacks a lot of recent cases (although I wouldn't call 2014 recent...) Takipoint123 (💬) 23:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the images originally were, but if a photographer is intentionally trading off the expression of an included work, i.e. that expression is materially enhancing that of the photograph, it can be an issue. I think the "theory of the accessory" French case did mention that intentionally including a copyrighted work for effect would be a problem, even if it was technically an accessory. And in the US, a fashion photographer who had the model wear a pair of copyrighted fancy glasses was ruled derivative, even though the focus was on the clothing. That was a conscious choice by the photographer to use someone else's expression to enhance the photo. That *may* be what is happening in this case. The U.S. Copyright Office ignores symbolic value, and focuses on if the actual artistic expression was used, but courts don't always divorce themselves like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight! I don't have the actual pictures either, as they were most likely taken down after the judgement. I'm assuming it is a photo like this [12]. In this case, the photographer intentionally made models where these articles of clothing to "recreate the feeling of the World Cup atmosphere." So I think that is what is going on here too. @Clindberg: I wonder how this will affect files like File:Qatar World Cup Gwanghwamun Cheer 03.jpg for example, because it is slightly different in the fact that it was taken in public (i.e. the photographer didn't pay anyone to do this) but overall the centering of the scarf (or banner?) would definitely be a problem because it is so clearly visible. Or perhaps even this File:Sunyang soju 1.jpg, which is directly in line with Ets Hokins but not may not apply in South Korea (this one is fine as its copyright expired, but many other rececnt examples are found). Takipoint123 (💬) 23:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, if the photographer intentionally placed those in the photo, that is well into the danger area. If the logo was very simple, i.e. it wasn't the particular lines that made the logo attractive but instead its symbolic value, it is a harder call. The second photo you have, does seem to be focusing on the banner. The bottle though, if it's taking a photo of the bottle, then it's just taking a photo of the product regardless of what the logo is -- that is incidental. It wouldn't have mattered what particular expression was there. That is more what Ets-Hokin was about -- a logo designer should not get derivative rights over every photo which includes it; there needs to be something of a balance. You need to be able to take photos of utilitarian objects like that, even if someone else placed a logo on there. But, you can take a photo of a crowd without focusing on a particular copyrighted work, and you can definitely arrange people without including such works for effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I'm starting to kind of get a gist of what is going on. So I guess this decision doesn't necessarily go against Ets Hokins (unless a Korean court decies that you can't take photos of drink bottles), but is more on whether if inclusion of something is avoidable/intentional. I guess it makes sense, you don't intentionally put labels on a bottle but in a sense you can choose what to wear. @Clindberg: Sorry to bother you again, you've been great help :) So I'm thinking I should simply add the description of the court decision on CRT SOKOR DM, but this shouldn't necessarily apply to Ets-Hokin, right? Takipoint123 (💬) 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Night Owl: Nationbuilder's Manual

Of all the cover images hosted at Category:Night Owl (book)—are we sure they're Creative Commons-licensed? I know that a VRT ticket was processed for several of these images (User:Krd might know more), but the timeline on this book and its licensing seems inconsistent and confusing.

Evidence

Timeline of our files (as of 18 April 2025): File Upload date Uploader License Has VRT ticket link File:Night Owl Lamentillo.jpg 10 September 2022 Nightowlanime CC-BY-SA 4.0 Yes File:Night Owl - A Nationbuilder's Manual (English - 1st Edition).jpg 4 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC0 No File:Night Owl - A Nationbuilder's Manual (English - Second Edition).jpg 4 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC0 No File:Night Owl - A Nationbuilder's Manual (Edisyong Filipino - 2nd Edition).jpg 4 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC0 No File:Night Owl Bisaya Cover Lamentillo.jpg 20 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC-BY-SA 4.0 Yes File:Night Owl Ilokano Cover Lamentillo.jpg 20 December 2023 Manilajoyride CC-BY-SA 4.0 Yes Other sources on the book: URL Upload date Uploader/author License Notes Internet Archive identifier: night-owl-by-anna-mae-yu-lamentillo-english-edition 24 March 2024 Anna Mae Yu lamentillo Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International (given by IA metadata) / full copyright (said within the scan) Within the book itself (that this is a scan of), it claims full copyright and has no mention of a CC license at all. If IA's license is true now (since this appears to be the latest update on the book's license), this would make any material from the book now incompatible with Commons since Commons does not allow non-commercial licenses. https://www.nightowl.ph/ N/A Anna Mae Lamentillo No apparent mentioning of a free license This is the official website of the book where copies are sold. There appears to be nothing that mentions an unusual CC-BY etc. license across the site.

So, VRT may have confirmed some kind of free license as of 2023, but now the license may have changed again as of 2024 (and the license inconsistently teeter-tottered between CC0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 in one 16-day period in December 2023). For most modern works released of copyright, you can find some kind of documentation of that release online—but, in this case, I can't find any actual history to read as to why this work would be freely licensed, who released that license, or how I can confirm that license is real. Not even a sentence. For all intensive purposes, this book looks very much like a still-sold product with economic value and marketing, so it looks like the kind of thing an author would want to attach a copyright to.

I have no idea if Nightowlanime or Manilajoyride (who both have totally empty talk and user pages here at Commons and never apparently engaged in any public discussions) had any involvement with the creation or copyright-holding of these book covers. And it appears that both Nightowlanime and Manilajoyride are now globally locked accounts, locked for apparent sockpuppet spamming. And I don't know the history behind that, but it draws even more potential doubt into this situation.

This book might be a really interesting window into Filipino politics for us to host in some form, if it was freely-licensed, but the situation seems more complicated than we're presenting it. What are the community's thoughts on these inconsistencies and lack of sufficient information? SnowyCinema (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The copyright owner of a work can release it under as many different licenses as they want  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   00:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to the information page in the book itself, in the excerpt displayed on amazon.fr, the author of the cover is Jethro Razo and any permission for any reproduction of the book (presumably including the cover) must be obtained from the publisher, which is the Manila Bulletin, which seems to imply that the Manila Bulletin is the owner of the copyright (or at least the manager of the copyright).
• The fact that the two uploading accounts are locked, as part of multiple accounts, is cause for concern, but beyond the identity of the uploader(s), a more important point is the identity of who issued the VRT ticket. If the VRT ticket was issued by a verifiably authorized representative of the publisher Manila Bulletin, and if it relates to the three cover images to which it is attached, then the licenses in that ticket (currently two files are tagged as CC BY 4.0 and one file is tagged as CC BY-SA 4.0) would probably be valid for those three files, independently of who their uploader(s) might have been.
• If the VRT ticket additionally identifies the account Manilajoyride as an authorized representative of the Manila Bulletin, then the three other files, those with the CC0 tags, may also be valid. It is very strange that those three files were precisely the three files uploaded on the same date as the date of the VRT ticket but they are the three files which do not have the VRT ticket. The fact that the ticket is dated from the same day as those uploads can pose the question if the CC0 tag was a mistake and the sender of the ticket expected that the CC license(s) in the ticket sent the same day would replace the CC0 tag on those files.
• If the VRT ticket did not identify the account Manilajoyride as an authorized representative of the Manila Bulletin, then the CC0 dedications on the three files without a ticket are unverified and those files should probably be deleted.
• If the VRT ticket was issued by Jethro Razo and he states that he owns the copyright (has not ceded it to the publisher), then that can probably be acceptable.
• You should probably ask at Commons:VRT/Noticeboard and try to obtain as much information as possible about what the VRT ticket says and most importantly if it was verifiably issued by the Manila Bulletin or by Jethro Razo.
• You could also contact the Manila Bulletin to verify if they know anything about all that.
• A a sidenote, two other files uploaded by the account Manilajoyride are described as official portraits (possibly by photographers for the government of the Philippines), which places some doubt on the validity of the claims of "own work" and of copyright ownership and CC0 dedications for those files.
• The same VRT ticket used for the book covers is also applied to this other official portrait, uploaded by the account Banksyfuture. This use of the ticket on this file is bizarre. If the file is PD-PhilippinesGov, then the presence of that ticket on this file seems confusing. That account also uploaded a copy of the book cover from flickr, but it was deleted for copyvio.

-- Asclepias (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias for File:Official Portrait - Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary Commodore Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo.jpg, I have some doubt if this is eligible for the {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} tag. The reverse image search (Google Lens) brought me to a February 2023 Instagram post by Ms. Lamentillo herself (the post), in which she tagged the IG account of the Philippine Coast Guard. While we can infer that a Coast Guard person may have taken the image, it is also possible that she just mentioned the Coast Guard since she is a current "officer of the Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary (PCGA) with the rank of Auxiliary Commodore (one-star general)," as per the English Wikipedia article, and that the photographer may not be someone from the Coast Guard but her staff, which blurs public domain eligibility of the file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

PD-US-1978-89 and Copyright

File:Charles Moses.jpg was uploaded as PD-US-1978-89, presumably given that there was no copyright notice close to the image in this paper. There is, however, a copyright notice on the first page of the paper. Does this count as a copyright notice for the image later in the newspaper, and therefore is this copyright infringement? Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does. For a collective work, a copyright notice on the entire work covers all contained works (other than advertisements), even if it has the wrong copyright owner. See 17 USC 404. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg Perfect, thanks for the swift answer! Sam Walton (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarity of "Threshold of Originality" and "Freedom of Panorama" in architecture

Note I'm pasting this from the proposals page as I was informed that it not a proposal.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarity is needed around the interaction between the principle of Threshold of originality and Freedom of panorama in the area of architecture. The two principles can be in conflict. Editors need certainty. The architecture section of the ToO in particular needs attention. It consists of nothing but 10 images. The only guide offered is "Images which have been kept because of lack of originality or de minimis". One is left to guess which of the 10 images are covered by de minimis (half of them?) and which by "lack of originality". Why is de minimis even involved here? An architectural image can be (A) de minimis and "original", (B) de minimis and "lacking originality", (C) not de minimis and "original", (D) not de minimis and "lacking originality". Each of these four possibilities needs a rule: must be deleted / may be kept. Then there is FoP Situation in different countries. These rules make no reference to ToO at all. What is the interplay between the two? If, for example, the rule in Azerbaijan says that there is no FoP and that it is "Not OK, non-commercial only", then an editor should be able to rely on that clear, unambiguous guide. Instead, it would appear that the NoFoP/Az rule rule may be trumped by ToO if the building "lacks originality". Is that indeed the case? If so, why does FoP/Az not draw attention to that exemption to the general FoP rule and give examples of how it is to be implemented? Finally, who is the arbiter of "originality"? It all seems highly subjective and not at all helpful to editors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

For more examples (and to see the argumentation for keeping/deleting particular images) you can also check out Category:FOP-related deletion requests/kept, Category:FOP-related deletion requests/undeleted, Category:FOP-related deletion requests/deleted, as well as Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/kept, Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/withdrawn, Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/undeleted and Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests/deleted. It will still all be subjective, though, because we can't look into the judges' heads who decide on such cases irl. (And even the judges will make subjective judgments in some way; even if backed up with particular law-based argumentation, they still have to weigh which law would be more relevant for a particular case due its particular circumstances.) Nakonana (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The above lists do not offer guidance or rules. Who has the time to trawl through hundreds of decisions, many of which contradict themselves? What is needed is clarity and a workable set of rules. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

ToO remains subjective, even in real-life applications (outside Wikimedia). For example, COM:TOO UK changed recently due to a court decision that uses the European model as basis (but we don't know if UK's departure from low ToO principle or "sweat of the brow" principle will sustain notwithstanding their Brexit from the EU).

Then, we have some ToO from Japan, under COM:FOP Japan, citing an old case file from the Osaka District Court: a building "must have creativity in aesthetic expression in light of the definition of works stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the same Act." So, relatively high ToO for architecture, IMO. Singaporean law is the obverse of the Japanese one: seems to treat structures as works of art too (as architecture), see COM:TOO Singapore.

Two possible hints for the ToO in the Azerbaijani law are under Articles 5 and 6:

"Copyright shall be granted to both disclosed and undisclosed scientific, literary and artistic works those exist in objective form and are results of creative activity irrespective of purpose, value and content, also expression form and method."^{[Article 5(1, first paragraph)]}

"The objects of the copyright are the following:...works of architecture, city construction, garden and park art;"^{[Article 6(1, eighth bullet]}

We can only make speculations until a legal casefile or jurisprudence has been made in that country concerning originality of buildings and architecture. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting about AZ. Would you say that "irrespective of ...value" could be taken to mean that there is a low threshold for ToO in Az? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged I'm rather concerned about "city construction". The Azerbaijani-language version gives a different wording, however: "memarlıq, şəhərsalma və bağ-park sənəti əsərləri;", which Google translates as "architecture, urban planning and landscaping". (This reminds me of the same terms used in the reformed Russian architectural FoP since October 2014). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 17:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload these insignias/emblems?

So there are two things that I need a bit of advice on. Currently, all of these images exist as "external media" templates on wikipedia.

1. Defunct people's armed police/MPS Active Service Forces(PAP units under the command of the ministry of public security) agency emblems. This xinhua article has all of the badges of PAP branches/agencies that became defunct in 2018. Currently the China fire service's patch already exists on commons, however I am hesitant to upload the other emblems since I want to make sure I am allowed to upload them.
2. Chinese navy ship emblems. This article on the Anhui provincial national defense education office website has many chinese navy ship emblems, along with this article on the Guangxi regional veterans affairs department that has the Chinese LHD Guangxi's emblem. I have asked about this before on the wikiproject military history discussion page along with the help desk, where I was advised to just use external media templates instead. However, I would still like to hear advice on whether navy ship emblems fall under Article 5 of the PRC copyright law(which states "This law shall not apply to laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;") or whether Template:Insignia also applies to navy ship emblems, and therefore whether navy ship insignia can be uploaded onto wikimedia commons
3. I have started a topic on Wikiproject military history regarding which version of the PLAGF aviation badge should be uploaded; see full context there

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferrarotti, Silori.jpg

Given all of the watermarks on File:Ferrarotti, Silori.jpg, this photo seems to almost certainly be not the uploader's own work as claimed. Is there a way per COM:ITALY, though, for this to be PD. If it was taken in 1966 (as claimed in its description), it seems too recent to be PD just for its age given Italy's 70 year p.m.a, and URAA date of January 1, 1996. Could there be another reason for which this might be relicensed or does it need to be treated as a copyvio?

FWIW, some of the same uploader's other files seem to have questionable claims of own work as well and they too may need to be given a closer look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg

Given the EXIF data for File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg, I wondering whether this file's licensing should at least be VRT verified．The uploader's only edit on Commons seems to have been to upload this file back in 2017; so, I'm not sure whether they even respond if queried to provide verification. FWIW, the same image can be found here on Facebook, but I can't tell whether that use precedes the file being uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)