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.

Icon for en:CD and DVD copy protection - public domain status

en:File:CD and DVD Copy Protection.webp (uploaded at English Wikipedia) was taken from a thumbnailed version of wikia:logopedia:File:DVD Copy Protection logo (2004).svg, which is an SVG file. I wonder if the SVG image itself is {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-textlogo}} ("is free on Commons" or "not US-only") because of "simple geometries", so that the SVG version could be uploaded to Commons freely, instead of using the webp version. —Exploraz (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate at Commons: File:Logo DVD Copy Protection depuis 2004.webp —Exploraz (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

... or, upload the SVG exclusively at enwiki instead (therefore superseding the webp), if it's indeed PD-ineligible-USonly?

Also, is that logo even appropriate to be placed there at en:CD and DVD copy protection? —Exploraz (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The logo seems fairly simple to my eyes, why shouldn't it be ineligible for copyright everywhere? Upload it here as PD-shape. Bedivere (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done -- File:Copy Protection Awareness Icon (2004).svg Exploraz (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

File:They Still Turn Out for the Music of Queen (4913991699).jpg

File:They Still Turn Out for the Music of Queen (4913991699).jpg is uploaded under a {{CC-by-2.0}} license and sourced to Flickr. The license for the photo checks out and seems fine, but the question is whether the statue/display itself also needs a separate license. There is freedom of panorama for 3D works displayed in the UK per COM:FOP UK; so, perhaps {{FoP-UK}} could work. A problem could be, though, whether the photographed work meets the definition of being permanently displayed for the UK's FoP to kick in. According to en:Queen (band)#Musical theatre, the photographed work was displayed outside the en:Dominion Theatre from 2002-2014 during the run of the musical en:We Will Rock You (musical). Twelve years might be a long time for something to be publicly displayed in one place perhaps, but it's not really a "permanent" display per se. A copyright license does seem to be needed for the photographed statue, but it's not clear whether that might need to be non-free. If that's the case, then Commons can't really keep this file per COM:DW, can it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Folx argue about these all the time, but the intent of that well known statue in a very busy part of New Oxford Street was to be a fixed permanent display and it does not have any other purpose, in fact it's doubtful that it would be reused and might already be scrapped. The sequined glittering display behind it is a custom graphic work, not strictly a 2D work as it would move around in the wind, and not a reproduction of another artwork and designed for that public display rather than any use elsewhere, so if removed has probably been disposed of. The intent here is important for permanence, this was not a question of a 3 month display as an installation, but has been there for over a decade becoming part of the building and a feature of the street. Keep in mind London has actual buildings that only last a decade and they are considered 'permanent' works while they exist. It's reasonable to presume that photos and videos of these large works on public display for over a decade as part of the theatre decor can legitimately be released for public use under the generous UK FOP. --Fæ (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

File:The Devil Wears Prada at Dominion Theatre.jpg

File:The Devil Wears Prada at Dominion Theatre.jpg seems like it might have issues per COM:FOP UK and COM:DW given the poster for en:The Devil Wears Prada (musical) prominently shown in the photo. There's no FOP for 2D graphic works of art in the UK; so, the poster/billboard likely fails that. The 3D shoe might be OK but it doesn't seem to be incidental or otherwise de minimis. I'm not sure Commons can keep this unless the artwork and show are blurred out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Robb Queen.jpg

File:Robb Queen.jpg shows en:Robby Williams performing in Poland in 2015. The question is whether the background imagery which seems to be one of if not the main point of the photo is a problem per COM:DW. There is freedom of panorama in Poland for exteriors per COM:FOP Poland, but again that's only works that are publicly and permanently displayed. This background, however, looks more like video display during a concert, which I don't think would meet the criteria for Poland's FoP. The image most likely comes from the video for "en:Bohemian Rapsody" (most likely Williams got Queen's OK to use the video), which I'm guessing has a good chance of still be under copyright protection per COM:UK. Is there are way to keep this as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly a cropping would do. To what extent is something that I leave others to decide. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Cropping would work if the point of the photo was to just show Robby William perfroming; however, he's barely visible in the photo, and the point of the photo seems to be to show the video image of Queen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Does Italian TOO abuse buildings in Italy?

There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. But I saw some deletion requests for buildings in Italy.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Milan with Allianz Tower.jpg: Allianz Tower, kept due to below TOO.
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Generali_Tower_(Hadid)_Milan_01.jpg: Generali Tower, kept due to below TOO.
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piazza Gae Aulenti with Palazzo Lombardia cropped.jpg: Palazzo Lombardia, kept due to below TOO.

But photos of UniCredit Tower were deleted due to no freedom of panorama in Italy. See Category:Italian FOP cases/deleted.

Do the three cases above constitute an abuse of Italy's failure to meet TOO?

For reference, there have been three discussions about this in VPC in the past.

First, Second, and Third. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: an abuse of Italy's failure to meet TOO makes no sense to me at all. Would you please spell out what you mean to say? - Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with the first DR result: Allianz Tower, at least from what we can see in this view, is so simple I cannot imagine that anything we see here could be copyrighted. For the other two, I would say that they have enough character that I would not have considered them below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Italian administrator, Ruthven, abused the "below TOO" rule to keep photos of buildings located in Italy, where there is no freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

In order for COM:FOP to apply, the work in question needs to be something considered eligible for copyright protection; otherwise, there's no copyright for the photographer to worry about infringing upon. So, it's quite possible that a building is either too simplistic in design (i.e., lacks any type of copyrightable elements) or too old (i.e., is no longer eligible for copyright protection) for FOP to kick in; in such a case, the building could be freely photographed without needing to worry about infringing on the copyright of whoever designed it. This is just my personnel opinion, but File:Downtown Milan with Allianz Tower.jpg does seem fairly utilitarian in design and doesn't appear have any unique copyrightable elements to it; so, this probably would be considered below COM:TOO Italy. File:Generali_Tower_(Hadid)_Milan_01.jpg might actually be creative enough for its design to be considered eligible for copyright protection, but this isn't the reason why the file was kept in the DR: the reason had to do with the building's designer apparently not completely the necessary copyright formalities required under Italian law to claim the design was copyrighted. File:Piazza Gae Aulenti with Palazzo Lombardia cropped.jpg also is fairly simplistic in design in my opinion and thus probably can be photographed without needing to worry infringing on the copyright of its designer. It stands out among the other buildings shown in the photograph not because its any more creative in design than them but simply because it's so much taller than the surrounding buildings are. Of course, if you disagree with the assessments reached in those three DRs, you're free to start a COM:DRV if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel@Marchjuly@Ox1997cow my suspicion is that the Italian architects do not enjoy broad rights in Italy as opposed to their fellow peers whether in no-FoP countries like France and UAE or in yes-FoP countries like UK and Switzerland. They struggle to have their moral rights recognized, due to bureaucratic rules of Italian collecting societies. Worse, as we can notice at the Deletion Requests' outcomes, it appears the Italian government dictates which building must be protected and which aren't.

Under current system, I suppose, the Italian government dictates the exclusive rights on many of the Italian buildings, especially public ones, not the architects. If a building was designed by a famous architect (Foster, Hadid, Smith, Pelli, etc.) but was commissioned by the city government of, let's say, Rome, the copyright does not belong to the architect but to the city government as per the 1940s copyright law of Italy. Under this system, the exclusive economic rights belong to the city government and not the architect who only holds moral rights, but due to the consequence of this rule, the architect loses their identity control. That identity control rests with any of the Italian government entities.

I suppose the Italian government also dictates which buildings must be protected based on their erratic threshold of originality principles. For instance, an architect authors a building in Milan. They might think the building remains protected subject to the 70-year-term in Italy. But later, the culture ministry designates it as a "building with important artistic character," making state heritage regulations applicable. This means any negotiation on image use should be through the relevant government entity. In terms of attribution, since the identity control now rests with the government (not the architect), the attribution goes to the relevant government entity (like Ministry of culture, the city government of Milan, etc.).

For this reason, the 2017 survey among Italian architects as conducted by Wikimedia Italia (survey document, the FoP survey at pages 24 and 25) revealed results that can surprise some Wikimedians. Majority of the Italian architects support a formal FoP exception, including those that stated there must be condition requiring users to give the name of the architect. It is because through this formal exception (especially if there is attribution condition), the architects would be finally given exposure and the identity control shifts away from the Italian government entities to them. You can see in comments of some of the Italian architects that they are tired with the bureaucracy there, whether from the Ministry of Culture or from the collecting societies there.

So going back to the question, is there any abuse of high bar of ToO for Italian buildings? Depends on who was the supposed abuser. Wikimedia admins, no. The current legal system and Italian governance, yes. Because under the current Italian regulations, ToO is arbitrarily decided by the Ministry of Culture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: , @Ruthven: , @JWilz12345: So, Why photos of UniCredit Tower were deleted? Is UniCredit Tower above TOO? Is UniCredit Tower in a state where rights can be claimed within Italy? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow perhaps because Unicredit was among the buildings designated by their cultural ministry as "building with important artistic character." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I would like to check the data regarding this. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow There are few aspects to be considered here (but we had this discussion many times, with no apparent success it seems).

First, the ToO in Italy is very high, and we can see that with logos. Thus, buildings that are not specially out of common (e.g. with apparent sculptures, unique designs, etc.) should be considered as below ToO.

Second, last time I checked, only "building with important artistic character" were fully protected in Italy (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, art. 11 co. 1.e). We are talking about those recent buildings for which the Ministry granted the protection explicitly. The Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo) makes such decisions through Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP) (Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane – http://www.aap.beniculturali.it). A commission evaluates the requests for protection and when the "important artistic character" is recognized, the building is fully protected; only the original copyright holder, i.e. the architect, can request this protection. The list of decrees is available at cultura.gov.it.

Since the only institution that can enforce copyright refuses to fully protect the buildings that are not registered and evaluated by the commission, we can consider without worrying too much that all the unregistered buildings are below the threshold of originality, and that there is nothing to prevent the publication of images of recent unregistered buildings. Most buildings in Italy are unregistered, of course, even if some well known architects have done so, like Calatrava or Cosenza. Keeping requesting deletion of Italian architectural photographs without checking if a building is officially of important artistic character is close to vandalism imho. Ruthven (msg) 07:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ruthven: is there some Commons guideline page with a good explanation of this unusual national situation? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, I don't think so. In the past, we discussed that situation many times, but there are always those users that push for deletion regardless common sense. For "building with important artistic character" there is also the fact that sometimes the heirs do not hold all the copyright of the architectural work (e.g. usually they must approve any architectural changes, but in the case of the "building with important artistic character" they cannot) - but it's more a VRT related subject. Ruthven (msg) 11:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ruthven: assuming what you have written here is accurate, the current discussion of this at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy is really inadequate. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel That's the research I've made, starting from the fact that there has been only a single copyright case in Italy relative to photographic rights that I am aware of. There must be a reason for that. I've found out that not all buildings are considered "creative enough" in order to be fully protected, and it is not a single person that decides the creative character of such a work, but a governmental commission (and probably you've to pay some fee in order to protect a building, implying that you do so only if there is a valid reason). So I agree with @JWilz12345 on this topic.

We can amend the Copyright rules for Italy, as there is a de facto freedom of panorama (as in Argentina), given the current governmental dispositions. I reckon that we already had this discussion 2 years ago, leading to a "we must evaluate case by case" (as usual). Ruthven (msg) 11:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Does this map qualify for PD-map?

Hello, I came across the following linguistic map: https://archive.org/details/referencegrammar0000gill/page/n14/

I was wondering if I can upload this map on Wikimedia Commons under the PD-map tag? It is a very basic map, with lines drawn over the Punjab region marking dialectal areas with names written over. I tried reading the page at Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps to try and determine it but was left feeling a bit confused. Some of the uploaded maps with this licence look very similar. Please let me know if this map meets PD-map or not, thank you. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be in the public domain. IMO even a simple map has sufficient originality or creativity to have a copyright. Yann (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Yann - I see, thank you! MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

One thing to note though is that the book it is contained in was published in the US in 1963, so its copyright would have lapsed if it had not been renewed. I would be rather surprised if it had been renewed, but if course one should check to be sure. Felix QW (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Felix QW - Thank you, is there a webpage where I may conveniently check if copyright was renewed? MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Felix QW - A cursory search here did not bring up renewal records but unsure how comprehensive this resource is: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/search?page_number=1&query=%22A%20reference%20grammar%20of%20Panjabi%22&field_type=%22keyword%22&records_per_page=10&sort_field=%22relevancy%22&sort_order=%22asc%22&model=%22%22 MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That should indeed be comprehensive for the years we are interested in - here is a more in-depth explanation of the process. I have also tried some other combinations, including series title and author(s), which has not returned anything. So, I'd be inclined to say that it can be uploaded as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Felix QW (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Felix QW - Thank you kindly for your help! MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

How about make template related Copyleft trolling?

I read COM:Copyleft trolling.

After I read, I suggest copyleft trolling warning template.

The content of template is like this.

Title: Copyleft warning: The author of this image abuse lawsuits for license infringement.

The title is derived from the title of NoFoP templates(for example, {{NoFoP-South Korea}}, {{NoFoP-France}}, {{NoFoP-UAE}}, etc), "Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright."

This will help prevent users from falling victim to copyleft trolling.

How about make this template?

And unlike other copyleft trolling authors, why are Marco Verch's photos not allowed and deleted? Ox1997cow (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Not a comprehensive answer but:

• The author of this image abuse lawsuits for license infringement is not proper grammar. At the very least, that would need to be "abuses" or "has abused".
• The accusation of abusing lawsuits is a very strong charge to make as a simple factual statement. If I were a litigious person (and anyone who has abused lawsuits is a litigious person) I would probably sue anyone who put that template on my content. If we want to say anything of the sort, it would seem to me that it should say something more like that they have "used lawsuits in a way that the Commons community finds objectionable," and that there would need to be a specific process for us to reach the conclusion that they have done so. Anything short of that and we would be on very shaky ground. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this would not be a template to be applied without a discussion resulting in consensus. A user wishing to make a strong conclusory accusation ought to do it in their own name on a relevant talk page first, before offering it as the accepted truth by placing it on the file itself. In many cases, the controversial assertion would stand unchallenged because too few policy-conscious users would be likely to see it.

Regarding Marco Verch, I assume the intent was to inquire about this Verch-related deletion request, which included a prototype licence tag. If there's anything unclear after reading the links at Category:Images_by_Marco_Verch, please specify exactly what you would like to know. TheFeds 23:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This template must not be abused on just any author's photos. It is agreed in the discussion that it should only be used when the author's actions constitute copyleft trolling. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that the wording needs to be corrected. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel and TheFeds: I made a draft. See this. How about it? --Ox1997cow (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: may I edit there instead of trying to discuss each little thing? You can revert me if you disagree with where I take it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the sample template. That gives us something concrete to think about while we discuss the additional, bigger-picture questions.

• Who should apply a template like this, and with what intentions?
• Let's say we tag a file with this; then what? If the copyright holder (or someone purporting to represent them) objects, is this the sort of thing that community members will back down on (cowed by legal liability), leading to a situation where some files are tagged and some are not, and confusion about why?
• Is this for specific files that have been used this way, or for any or all files from authors who have done this in the past?
• Do we need this? (Is the solution more complicated than the problem demands? Is it going to create low-value volunteer tasks or processes?)

In terms of small-picture questions about the template:

• Should it link to the discussion?
• Should this refer to copyleft and to Creative Commons specifically? Or is this equally appropriately used whenever someone uses any copyright mechanism in this way?
• We have a workflow where sometimes the original user is not the one to place subsequent licence tags—for example, maybe other users decide that a work is in the public domain. The "every single condition" could be confusing in that situation. Should we specify which licence was enforced strictly within this template?

TheFeds 19:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: This template is not intended for misuse. It is meant to be applied only to authors who meet the criteria for the discussion examples in Commons:Copyleft trolling/discussion index. The current method of applying watermarks via scripts degrades image quality and hinders usage on platforms like Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is more convenient for volunteers as they only need to attach the template tag. It is recommended to modify the template to include a discussion link as a parameter and to counter copyleft trolling using free licenses other than Creative Commons. If it is later discovered to be in the public domain, it would be advisable to remove the template. Of course, the template can be modified the wording for this situation. You can edit the draft I created. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's critical to be explicitly clear if this template should be used for bad faith copyleft trolling vs legitimate license enforcement (example of legitimate enforcement). It's not been proposed, but I want to mention that we should not tag every artist who engages in license enforcement or uses a service like Pixsy - re-users should know that if the terms of any license are not met, that constitutes infringement, and there could be consequences. -Consigned (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks. You can edit there. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks for creating the draft. I think it will be helpful for the community to have another tool in the toolbox to help in cases of copyleft trolling, one that's not as heavy-handed as deletion or forced watermarking. I think this template should also be added to cases where we have applied watermarks, as it gives more information and has links to policy. The template should also add a category. -Consigned (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Consigned: How about icons of attached template draft? And Is there anything to edit in the template draft? And what would be a good name for the template? Ox1997cow (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Commons has very poor formatting consistency in licence-related templates—but I think {{Restriction-Layout}} might be what we want to use. And in that case we should see if it makes sense to be consistent with similar templates' choices of icons. We're on the right track with a copyleft icon connoting distinction from simple copyright (as in, they are using a free licence to nevertheless conduct enforcement), but in that case I think that using a red colour suggests a definitive problem (see {{Incompatible license}} or the various red © templates). Is orange a better way to suggest a warning? I think the web and the warning triangle are perhaps redundant; since the intent is apparently to state that there is evidence that the licence situation may be intended as a trap, the web probably suffices. TheFeds 19:47, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Consigned, Jmabel, and TheFeds: I made the draft by reffering to NoFoP templates(like {{NoFoP-South Korea}}). Ox1997cow (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, there's very poor consistency. It's not that one is necessarily right or wrong, but there advantages and disadvantages to each format. Do we want a standard format that can be updated with an upstream template, or do we want each individual template to have its own independent copy of the formatting markup? Do we want consistency between icon meanings and appearances from template to template, or should independent templates choose icons independently? If you don't particularly want to recommend any choices, that's alright too. TheFeds 01:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Consigned, Jmabel, and TheFeds: I have created a proper template page, rather than just a draft in my user space. Which part should we edit? Also, I would like to include a parameter that allows for inserting a link to a discussion explaining the reason for applying the template. How do we add that? Ox1997cow (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:ICC logo (2026).svg

File:ICC logo (2026).svg was uploaded as {{PD-logo}} in February. It might be OK per c:COM:TOO US, but I'm to so sure about either c:COM:TOO UK or c:COM:UAE. The UK's TOO recently changed and moved closer to the that of the US's. Under the Uk's old TOO, this logo almost certainly not been OK. Maybe it's OK under the UK's new TOO, but the en:International Cricket Council relocated from London to Dubai in 2005; so, it's not even clear whether the UK's TOO even applies here. I can't find anything in the Commons article about the UAE on its TOO. Since the UAE was once a British protectorate, perhaps it follows the UK's old TOO. Without information on the UAE's TOO, I'm not sure how to assess whether this logo would be OK for Commons. Can Commons keep this file as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

There's a version of that logo predating 2005 at https://web.archive.org/web/20040712233319/http://www.icc-cricket.com/ so absent further information, I would say it is fair to presume that the source country of the work is the United Kingdom (where they had their headquarters). I think the intent of the logo is to stylize the letters ICC over the stitches of a cricket ball, and as such and combined with the simplicity of the shape, it's definitely below the United States threshold of originality. But in the UK, under that analysis, I think it is similar to the copyrightable Edge wordmark. Seems like it could be treated similarly, i.e. transwikied to English Wikipedia. (It's used on a lot of talk pages in a template representing cricket; maybe a substitute image ought to be inserted first?) TheFeds 00:16, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for digging up that extra information. The TOO of the UK recently changed, though, and is now much closer to that of the US than before. Does it matter whether the logo was registered for copyright protection (if registration is required under UK copyright law) under the UK's old TOO? Would the UK's new TOO retroactively apply to logos created when the old TOO was in effect? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

(IANAL, so maybe take with a grain of salt; I'm not going to qualify each sentence.) There is no governmental copyright registration in the UK. There are companies that maintain registries that let you prove that a particular work existed on a particular date, and that can be useful evidence in a copyright case, but as far as I know none of those companies pass judgement in any way on whether your work qualifies to be copyrighted.

The old TOO should now be completely irrelevant. This isn't a matter of changed legislation, where something might or might not be retroactive. This is a matter of a court saying, in effect, "earlier rulings set the threshold too low, you just can't copyright stuff this simple [even if you can trademark it]." - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of an unpublished 1942 Irish passport photograph

I have an original passport photograph of Irish trade unionist Christopher Joseph “Christy” Supple (1896–1967), from my family's collection. The photograph was taken in Ireland approximately 1942. The photographer/studio is unknown and there is no photographer's name or copyright marking on the back. It appears never to have been publicly published. The reverse has official-looking passport/identification stamps and handwriting which appears to include “Supple” and “25 Copies”.

Can this photograph be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as public domain, and if so, which Irish and US copyright templates should be used? Fushkabeatha (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fushkabeatha: I don't see how, at least under what you've said. If it is impossible for us to determine who took it, and it is unpublished, it gets 120 years protection in the U.S. from time of creation. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems like the rule for Irish anonymous works is that "[t]he copyright in [a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or an original database] which is anonymous or pseudonymous shall expire 70 years after the date on which the work is first lawfully made available to the public." The use in a passport alone seems unable to satisfy that test. The idea of 25 copies is puzzling, if it dates from the age when the only likely means of reproduction was by developing more photographs. (Why would this be marked on the back of one photo, if it was more likely the negative that would have been used for reproduction? Why would that same photo bear official marks—and how was there any official need for 25 copies, 1 being a passport?) I think that unfortunately, if the photographer remains unknown, and no information about the rights to the photo emerges, it's an orphan work, because there is no clear way to publish it lawfully. The United States copyright would last 120 years as well, at which point it would at least be uploadable to English Wikipedia (which does not require freedom in the source country, only the United States). TheFeds 00:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: when you say developing more photographs, I presume you mean "printing more photographs [from the already-developed negative]"? You can't develop the same piece of film twice. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: Since posting the original question, I contacted An Garda Síochána regarding the markings on the photograph. They advised me that the photograph does not appear to be a Garda photograph and that the stamp is more likely to be an immigration stamp of some kind.

I have therefore withdrawn my earlier assumption that the markings were Garda Síochána markings.

I have subsequently compared the stamp with examples from British immigration/registration documents. There are some similarities with Metropolitan Police/Aliens Registration Office markings, but I have not been able to identify the stamp conclusively.

Christopher Supple was an Irish citizen and is documented as living in England by 1947, although he may have been there earlier.

My main question is therefore now whether an official immigration/registration stamp on an otherwise unidentified photograph has any bearing on the copyright status of the underlying photograph, or whether Commons should treat it simply as a privately taken photograph by an unknown photographer unless its original source can be established. Fushkabeatha (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Reverse of a c. 1942 photograph of Christopher Joseph “Christy” Supple showing Garda Síochána markings

I have uploaded a scan of the reverse of the photograph for examination [thumbnail at right].

The apparent Garda Síochána stamp can be seen near the top of the reverse. Fushkabeatha (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes, you are correct and that's what I meant. TheFeds 22:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fushkabeatha: I notice you said "The handwritten “Supple – 25 Copies” notation relates to copies subsequently ordered for Supple's memorial cards following his death in 1967." That makes more sense to me. And from my amateurish perspective, the different writing (is that a ballpoint, i.e. probably later, inscription?) and the possible crossing of damaged areas of paper would be consistent with that. That could very weakly support a theory of anonymous but lawful availability in 1967, but even then, 70 years have not elapsed. TheFeds 22:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Please add the image to Familysearch! https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LV73-C91 You have to register to upload an image, but it will preserve it. --RAN (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Urheberrecht eines DDR-Auszeichnungsdiploms von der Leipziger Herbstmesse 1969+1964

Ich möchte für einen Wikipedia-Artikel über die Porzellanmanufaktur Reichenbach einen Scan eines originalen Auszeichnungsdiploms von der Leipziger Herbstmesse 1969 auf Wikimedia Commons hochladen.

Das Diplom wurde 1969 vom Deutschen Amt für Messwesen und Warenprüfung der DDR ausgestellt. Es zeichnet ein Kaffee- und Tafelservice der Form „Vesta“ des VEB Porzellankombinat Kahla, Werk Reichenbach mit einer Goldmedaille für hervorragende Qualität aus.

Das Original befindet sich heute im Archiv der Porzellanmanufaktur Reichenbach. Ein individueller Urheber ist auf dem Dokument nicht angegeben.

Meine Frage: Kann dieses historische amtliche DDR-Dokument auf Wikimedia Commons als gemeinfrei hochgeladen werden? Falls ja, welche Commons-Lizenz bzw. welcher Public-Domain-Baustein wäre dafür geeignet?

Ich habe außerdem ein vergleichbares Auszeichnungsdiplom der Leipziger Messe aus dem Jahr 1964. Gilt die gleiche Einschätzung auch dafür? PMRAnGei (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Assuming the images are already online somewhere it would probably be useful to see them; I would guess that one of the the most likely ways they could be in the public domain is if they are under the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. I uploaded one of the documents, and we have it as an original in our archives. Do you think I can publish it in the wiki article on "Porzellanmanufaktur Reichenbach", and what shall I choose when uploading thwe image in wikipedia commons? There are so many options I can choose, and I am quite new in that. PMRAnGei (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  @PMRAnGei: Certainly below TOO unless somehow the logo on the bottom right is an issue (I don't think it is). The one that resembles the seal and flag of the DDR is certainly public domain. Besides license/PD tags, you probably need {{Communist symbol}} and {{Insignia}}. Those should probably go in the "Permission" section of {{Information}}.

  For the PD grounds (in lieu of license) I'd use:

{{Copyright information
 |item1 = coats of arms
 |item1-license = {{PD-Coa-Germany}}
 |item2 = everything else
 |item2-license = {{PD-ineligible}}
}}

It wouldn't surprise me if someone could refine that further. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Circus Liquor sign, Los Angeles, California, USA.jpg

File:Circus Liquor sign, Los Angeles, California, USA.jpg is apparently an iconic sign in Los Angeles. The file is sourced to Flickr and the photo itself is released under a license that's free enough for Commons. However, the photographed sign is something that seems clearly creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:CB#Signs and noticeboards, which makes the photo at best a COM:DW. The sign also wouldn't be covered by COM:FOP US because that doesn't extend to stuff such as this. This article about the sign says it dates back to the 1960s, but that's all it says. The liquor store's website says it was founded in 1959 and mentions the sign but says nothing more about it. It's possible then, I guess, that the sign could be PD because of either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Would the sign itself need to have formalities and renewal separately from the store's clown mascot logo would it all be covered under the registration/renewal for the logo? Would the sign itself need a visible copyright notice? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

My take: the sign is almost certainly {tlx|PD-US-no notice}}. U.S. jurisprudence in this era would have considered the erection of the sign to constitute authorized publication, and it wouldn't matter that some other publication including that clown had appeared with an appropriate copyright notice. It wasn't only on first publication that you could lose copyright protection. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Would a copyright notice need to be visible on the actual sign itself or could it be someone at the base of the sign (e.g., on a plaque)? There's no such notice visible in the photo but it only shows one side and not much of the base. As unlikely as I think it would be for any type of sign like this to have such a notice, I wondering whether that's good enough for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The chance of a copyright notice on a sign like this in that era is close to nil. People just didn't think about these things. As for public-facing outdoor works like this, a few sculptors doing bronzes were careful with copyrights on this sort of thing, and a very few signpainters, but the neon people really didn't think of themselves as artists. (Tom Wolfe wrote a good essay on that in the late 1960s, I think it's in The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby. He wasn't focused on the copyright aspect, just the extent to which they viewed it as a craft rather than an art.) Further, they'd have had to renew the copyright. I'm not sure I ever heard of someone renewing a copyright on a neon sign. I'd be really interested if someone could show that someone ever did. If you are really trying to be rock solid, you could go through the relevant copyright registers to see, but I'll admit that if it were my upload, that is not diligence I would ever bother to do for a neon sign. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Clancy-search-warrant.pdf is copyvio

According to the uploaders claim " ~2026-44747-22 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC) This text document is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is created by a legislative or judicial officer of a U.S. state or local government in the course of their legislative or judicial duties. See § 313.6(C)(2) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Such works, known as "edicts of government", include: Legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Explanatory, procedural, or other non-binding materials created in the discharge of legislative or judicial duties, even when they do not carry the force of law."

However Section 313.6(C)(1) (U.S. Government Works) does not apply. 17 U.S.C. § 105 applies exclusively to works created by officers or employees of the federal government (and D.C. / territories). It does not bar state or local governments—such as Massachusetts State Police or municipal police departments—from holding copyrights.

Section 313.6(C)(2) (Government Edicts Doctrine) cannot apply either. Under Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020), this doctrine is limited to works created by judges and legislators acting in their lawmaking or judicial capacities (e.g., statutes, judicial opinions, official legislative records). A law enforcement officer completing an evidence inventory is an executive branch employee, not a lawmaker or judge.--~2026-44747-22 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

See the FAQ:

Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to see if the community agrees before escalating ~2026-44747-22 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Clancy-search-warrant.pdf. Please link pages when discussing them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Certainly it is not a U.S. government work; the question is whether it falls into a class of works (referred to in that quoted passage as "edicts", but then defined more broadly than how I'd use "edict") that are copyright-free even when created by state and local governments. For example, statutes are not copyrighted. I think a search warrant (or any court order) is considered an edict in this sense, but I'm really not certain. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

In my mind only people who have the authority to make or interpret the law (legislators and judges) can make verdicts. This was written by a Massachusetts state police trooper McKelligan which meaning this cannot be considered an edict.

However according to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37, Part 202 "Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information" cannot be subject to copyright which means that anything not written by the state trooper should be considered uncopyrightable ~2026-47919-06 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47919-06: I cannot imagine a police officer having any claim on a copyright here, even if the words were theirs; similarly for a law clerk who might draft a judicial opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I presume it would be his department. Same as how we usually handle police bodycam footage ~2026-48008-34 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Even if not, it is probably under the threshold of originality. No more copyrightable than your shopping list. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Concur. The descriptions of items on this warrant (e.g. "Ring camera", "Black laptop with charger", "Red pajamas") are all far below the threshold of originality, and the statements surrounding the list (e.g. "This inventory was made in the presence of...") are all rote procedural statements, not creative expressions. Omphalographer (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Copyrights of own work taken in museum with 'non-commercial use' rule

Hello. I took a photograph inside Osaka's Museum of Natural History and wondered about iits status regarding free use. The only rule I could find on the museum's website regarding the topic states that I could use non-commercially the photographs taken. I am fairly not familiar at all with copyrights and did not find anything that (I thought) related to my problem in the FAQs. Can anyone help me determine my photograph's copyrights? Thanks. Jaienviedunburger (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Your photos do have your OWN copyright, as you are the author. Now, you have to consider the rights that may reside in your motif. Contemporary art holds copyrights vested in e.g. the sculptor or painter, for instance. Historical artifacts are in the public domain, copyright-wise (pending specialised laws, Italy for instance use copyright as tool to monetarise and provide conservancy for its cultural heritage, even for antique Roman frescoes AFAIK).

You must pay attention and not mix up intellectual property rights (like copyrights) with general civil laws like EULAs - if a museum allows admission only when the visitor abides by a "no commercial photography" rule, then it would be within the prerogative of the museum to bar further admissions or to sue for damages for instance (because of contract violation) if a visitor violates that agreement. But that's independent of copyrights. Please have a look at COM:Non-copyright restrictions! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

recordando que todo tipo de autoría tiene sus beneficios al programar cambios temáticos en distintas pautas caracterizadas y en relasion con las discusiones arbitrarias,en cuestión complementaria ajustando con atribuciones emblemáticas componiendo todo tipo de argumentos para alcanzar absoluta disminuisid comprobativa en relación de actos ensiclopediarios,derechos de autortema en relación,sosteniendo un apartado selecto participativo con acuerdos establecido y derogados por los correspondientes cargos en diferentes sectores desisivos.[[licence ]>=luisdavidrsmirezcarrillo]] Luisdavidramirezcarrillo (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Let me take a slightly different angle; you don't say what you took a photo of so I'm at a slight disadvantage here. As well as I can address your question:

• If the subject of all or any non-trivial part of your photo is itself copyrighted, then in the case you've described you almost certainly have no way to clear the rights for that underlying copyright, so your copyright on a derivative work is not going to be enough for Commons.
• Otherwise, no copyright would be involved other than the copyright for your photo. You own the only relevant copyright, and as far as Commons is concerned, that is what matters. You are welcome to upload here, provided you offer an appropriate free license.
• Any conditions set by the museum are a non-copyright restriction; for discussion of that aspect, read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. It's not Commons' concern, but it could be yours, or a re-user's. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I should have dwelved further into the policies ! I figured that in my case it is black on white authorized, as my photographs are of species conserved inside the museum, and represent no re-use of art or copyright-subjected work. Thanks @Jmabel, Danke @Grand-Duc, Gracias @Luisdavidramirezcarrillo. Jaienviedunburger (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Instagram

Hi, what's the legal situation with photos taken from Instagram? --~2026-47712-01 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47712-01: Exactly the same as for photos taken from anywhere else online. I can't think of a single consideration specific to Instagram. If for some valid reason they are in the public domain, or if the copyright-holder has granted a free license, great. Otherwise, they don't belong on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

In the linked case, the caption states that "Tim Vollert ©️ 2024 by Tim Vollert is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0". This counts as a formal permission statement and would be permitted on Commons. However, for any Instagram post which does not contain such a statement, it is not permitted on Commons. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Howardcorn33 is presuming we trust that Tim Vollert owns a valid copyright for this picture. For that to be the case, either he would have to have done this as a selfie with a timer or remote control (possible), or given such specific direction to the photographer that they were effectively more like a human tripod (remotely possible), or had the copyright formally signed over to him by the photographer (unlikely). Most web hosts other than Commons would accept this claim of copyright without question; by the standards of COM:PCP it's a little thin. I wouldn't bother challenging it myself, but someone else might. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Drone art King Abdulaziz SND 2024.jpg

This is a photo of a nightly drone display during the 2024 Saudi National Day over the night sky of Riyadh. One can claim that drone displays constitute copyrightable light show artworks. While the portrait of King Abdulaziz might come from an older photo, it is debatable if the interpretation through drone display constitutes a new copyrightable work. COM:FOP Saudi Arabia clearly does not cover drone artworks and light shows, only building exteriors and "permanent" applied art in public places. However, due to debatable nature of drone displays as potentially copyrightable works, I chose to start this discussion here on copyright forum instead of a regular deletion request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

My sense is that the stationary figurative arrangement of lights is a copyrightable artwork, and the photo of the arrangement of lights is also a copyrightable artwork (held and licensed by @Hamza A. Durrani). And as noted, the arrangement might be a derivative of a separately copyrightable photo or statue (2-D or 3-D)—but to the extent that transformative use is acknowledged in local law, I think the point cloud representation against the sky ought to qualify.

If the same arrangement of lights was, even temporarily, erected on a structure, we'd probably consider it copyrightable; I don't think the fact that the relative position is maintained aerodynamically versus mechanically is hugely significant. Contrast this with an airshow, where the arrangement of aircraft is mainly utilitarian with a small figurative component: that's uncopyrightable to me. TheFeds 20:02, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Possible third-party copyrights in U.S. Forest Service Alaska Region Flickr uploads

I would appreciate some guidance concerning a potentially systematic copyright issue in files imported from the Flickr account of the U.S. Forest Service Alaska Region.

A number of these files were uploaded by User:OptimusPrimeBot via Commons:Spacemedia and are currently presented both as CC BY 2.0 Flickr files and as works of the U.S. federal government under {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}. However, the embedded metadata of several files explicitly identifies third-party professional photographers as the authors and copyright holders.

For example:

• File:Chugach NF General Pics (30165909295).jpg — the file description gives the author as “Forest Service Alaska Region, USDA” and the page currently carries both {{Cc-by-2.0}} and {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}. However, the embedded metadata credits “© Ron Niebrugge/wildnatureimages” and identifies “© Ron Niebrugge/wildnatureimages.com” as the copyright holder. The Flickr source is here.

• File:Turnagain Pass, Chugach National Forest, Alaska.jpg — the description actually says “Ron Niebrugge for USDA Forest Service Alaska Region”, while the metadata again gives “© Ron Niebrugge/wildnatureimages” as the author and “© Ron Niebrugge/wildnatureimages.com” as the copyright holder. Nevertheless, the file is also tagged as a U.S. federal government work.

• File:Chugach NF General Pics (32492355384).jpg seems even clearer. The file description gives “Forest Service Alaska Region, USDA” as the author and it has both CC BY 2.0 and {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}, but the embedded metadata says:
  • Author: Milo Burcham
  • Copyright holder: Milo Burcham
  • Copyright status: Copyrighted

and even includes the photographer's contact information.

There appear to be numerous other files from the same Flickr stream with similar third-party copyright metadata.

As I understand it, the {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} tag does not follow merely from the fact that an image was published by the Forest Service. Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, a “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Section 105 also explicitly distinguishes U.S. Government works from copyrights which the Government may receive or hold by assignment or otherwise. Therefore, if these photographs were created by outside photographers, contractors, or other third parties, {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} would appear to be inappropriate unless there is some additional reason why the particular photograph is in the public domain.

The separate CC BY 2.0 question seems less straightforward. The Forest Service Flickr account did publish these files under CC BY 2.0, and FlickreviewR confirmed the license displayed on Flickr. It is possible that the Forest Service had contractual permission from the photographers to distribute the images under that license. In Ron Niebrugge's case there was clearly a professional relationship: his own website lists the U.S. Forest Service among his clients: https://www.wildnatureimages.com/page/about/

However, being a client does not by itself show what copyright or sublicensing rights were granted to the Forest Service.

Commons:Flickr files notes that Flickr users may upload works for which they do not hold the necessary rights, and Commons:License laundering discusses the problem of a third party applying a free license without authorization from the actual copyright holder. A Flickr license review confirms the license that was displayed at the source, but does not by itself establish that the Flickr uploader was authorized by a separately identified copyright holder to grant that license.

So I would appreciate opinions on the following:

1. Should {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} be removed from files where the embedded metadata explicitly identifies a non-USFS photographer/copyright holder, unless there is evidence that the photographer was a federal employee acting within official duties?
2. Is the CC BY 2.0 publication by an official U.S. Forest Service Flickr account sufficient evidence of a valid free license in cases where the embedded metadata expressly identifies a third-party copyright holder, or should additional evidence of the Forest Service's licensing authority be required?
3. If the CC BY licensing cannot be established, would a grouped deletion request for the affected files be appropriate, or would it be preferable first to contact the Forest Service and/or the photographers for clarification?
4. If the CC BY license is considered valid, should the author fields and structured data nevertheless be systematically corrected to name the actual photographers rather than the Forest Service?

I have not started a mass deletion request because this may affect a substantial set of files and I think it would be better to establish the correct treatment first. FingerWiki (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

My gut reaction: if we have strong doubts that these were taken by a government employee (or, especially, dead certainty that they were not), probably remove {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}, but mainly because the CC-BY means we don't need it. I'd accept the CC-BY unless we got a complaint from a relevant party. Presumably these people know that the Forest Service is offering their work under this license, and if they had a problem with that they'd have asked the Forest Service to take it down or remove the license. If you are really concerned, you might contact (for example) Ron Niebrugge and see if he has a problem with what the Forest Service did here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The CC BY 2.0 seems reasonable. Commons users are, as usual, empowered to assess the credibility of the entity claiming a particular licence. If we had unusual evidence like an actual contract prohibiting this, or the statement of a party disputing permission, that would be another story—but absent that, reliance on the stated facts to presume that the Forest Service contract allows them to release it under a CC licence seems adequately justifiable.

The image itself may not be a work of the United States government, but the upload to Flickr or album containing it plausibly could be, albeit composed principally of one or more images obtained under licence. (Extrapolating, maybe ad absurdum, from the parallel situation where a government employee writes a report, which contains graphics used under licence.) Since we are not really reproducing the Flickr representation, I also think it is better not to reach this question, and just rely on the CC licence.

Commons-wide, we do have a very widespread problem of failing to distinguish works made by U.S. government employees from works released by the government with or without permission, and I therefore appreciate that you raised it. TheFeds 19:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:วิชัย พณนันท์.jpg

File:วิชัย พณนันท์.jpg is a photo of en:Vichai Limcharoen, who represented Thailand at the 1956 Summer Olympics. Uploaded on February 23, 2016, it seems to be the only time the uploader edited Commons, and the same account was then used made only three edits to Thai Wikipedia around later that same day. So, the uploader is most likely long gone but I've notified them of this dicsussion anyway. The file's EXIF data is similar to what's found when files are downloaded from Facebook and then reuploaded to Commons. It's questionable as to whether the uploader is the copyright holder of the photo. which means the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} licesning is also questionable. The photo could have been taken around 1956, but there's no way to know for sure. Is there any way per COM:Thailand which might be a way for this to be relicensed and kept? Tagging the file with {{npd}} per COM:F5 almost certainly will lead to its speedy deletion. The file is used three times: once each on English Wikipedia. Thai Wikipedia and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Jane Fonda beach.jpg is Fake photo

File:Jane Fonda beach.jpg = https://web.archive.org/web/20240112232848/https://www.ebay.com/itm/155808879230 "This image of Jane Fonda on an Italian beach became a classic pin-up poster"

is not https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/fonda-revealed-wild-as-the-sea-and-the-rocks-behind-her-jane-fonda-poses Credit Line: The LIFE Magazine Collection, 2005

photoshop ...

Xo4v (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what (if anything) the links here are meant to prove. A photo shoot does not usually consist of taking a single picture and destroying all other negatives. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Logos

File:Former Frederick Towne Mall Logo (sign).png

File:Former Frederick Towne Mall Logos.png

File:Former Frederick Towne Mall Logo (sign).png

File:Frederick Towne Mall Logo (1995-2013).png

File:Former Frederick Towne Mall Logo (on-paper use only).png

File:Old Frederick Towne Mall Logo (1972-19??).png

File:Frederick Towne Mall Logo (19XX-2013) (Possibly made after the 1995 remodel?).png

These logos were uploaded by the same user who has been caught uploading copyrighted content. Should they be deleted or do they fall under simple geometry? Wobs100 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that I think exceeds the U.S. threshold of originality. Some of these might be redundant, but that's not a copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

So it would fall under "simple geometry"? Wobs100 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, plus typography, still below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I changed their status from "own work" to "simple geometry" and put them in a new cat here. Wobs100 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Another question: would this fall under simple geometry too? Martinsburg Mall logo Wobs100 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wobs100: I would say so. See Commons:Threshold of originality#United States, it's a pretty high bar. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I just found one EXACTLY like it here lol Wobs100 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded it. Should it replace w:File:Foxcroft Towne Center at Martinsburg Logo.png this on the mall article? Wobs100 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_MuZ.svg

Logo MuZ

Ist diese Grafik wirklich unter Schöpfungshöhe, wie in der Löschentscheidung attestiert? Ich sehe das anders.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_MuZ.svg GerritR (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases that is near the line for Germany. Almost certainly OK for the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)