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.

United Nations "No Excuses" campaign

I am a bit confused on the license of the files in Category:No Excuses. All the files whose name starts with "No Excuses " say they are licensed under the CC-BY-SA and reference an OTRS ticket, while the rest of the files say they are copyrighted free use, referencing a quote from the website saying "The spots may be downloaded and used free of charge". The only difference from what I can tell between the copyrighted free use files and the CC-BY-SA files is that the latter are high resolution. What's the actual license the videos there are under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosAmber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hundreds of problematic images in Category:Lego

COM:TOYS considers images of toys or products to be derivative works due to the material they feature, including Lego. However, there are hundreds of images of Lego on Wikimedia Commons, many of which can be seen at Category:Lego, in violation of this. Despite there being occasional deletions, most remain. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The overall precedence in the hundreds of Category:Lego related deletion requests seems to be that simple blocks, and models that members of the public make from them, aren't a copyright issue, but more complex individual designs are (such as Category:Lego minifigures, which has a COM:TOYS note at the top). Belbury (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. As a typical example, File:Apatozaur.jpg is not a derivative work of the LEGO bricks it's made of, as the bricks it's made of aren't substantially creative works. (The model is potentially a creative work in its own right, but is freely licensed by the uploader.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that every possible Lego minifigure is a DW. The base minifig design was published in the U.S. patent USD253711S, which was issued in 1979 - so even if it is above COM:TOO US, it looks like it was published without notice and therefore {{PD-US-patent-no notice}} applies.

On the other hand, specific minifig designs may be copyrighted unless they were published before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice (and "publication" includes selling copies of the toy to the public).

Also, general art styles are not copyrightable, so if someone drew a person in the style of a minifig (e.g. Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu in this brickfilm), it would not necessarily be a DW of the base design. Qzekrom (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that the original poster (@NewAccount7295: is confusing "copyright" and "patents". The purpose of the Lego patent to to protect the manufacturers of Lego from unfair competition by people who are using the Lego designs. The Copyright law of the United States explicitly protects "artistic works" rather than "useful items". In this contect, Lego Bricks are "useful items" and as such do not have copyright protection. AS such, models made of Lego are not derivative works of any Lego specifications. Martinvl (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. Also, to the extent that Lego is a "system" for building toys and artistic works, it should fall under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Qzekrom (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Re: the minifig design - PD-US if the copyright was not registered within 5 years after the date of publication (per {{PD-US-1978-89}}). I can't find any registrations for a Lego minifigure older than VA0000655104 (1994-01-21), but they did register a Duplo figure as early as 1983 (VA0000139797).

It's hard to say whether the Duplo figure is similar enough to be a derivative work of the Lego minifigure, but even if it is, I don't know if publishing an original work without notice and then registering a derivative work of it within 5 years saves the copyright on the original work from forfeiture. Qzekrom (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of photograph from the Russian Empire

I'm looking at photographs of the Polish linguist Mikołaj Kruszewski that I think are probably in the public domain, but I'm not too sure. The relevant information and photograph is in this paper in Ukrainian. I'm specifically looking at the group photograph, which according to the paper was taken in Troisk, Russian Empire, in modern-day Russia. This photograph was taken some time between 1875 and 1878. It was first published in a 2002 book, which was published in Ukraine, after the photograph was donated by a family relative. I'm not sure which country is relevant here: the photograph was not created in Ukraine, so I don't think its status in Ukraine is relevant here. The template for the Russian Empire only deals with works published in the Russian Empire, but the photograph was not published in the Russian Empire. The page for copyright in Russia doesn't have provisions for unpublished works with unknown authors. I think that if we generously assume that the photographer was 22 years old (quite young) when taking the photograph in 1878 (the latest possible year for the photograph), then the photographer would still have to be 100 years old by 1956, the current year required for PD in Russia. Kisseran (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This is in the public domain in the US. The place where it was first published is usually the important place under Berne, so Ukraine would be the important country. Unless Ukraine has laws about giving first publication a copyright over public domain, it seems clear that it's safe for PD-old-assumed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Its status in Ukraine is very relevant here as it was published first in that country. According to the Ukrainian law Persons who first publish an unpublished work after its copyright protection expires enjoy protection for 25 years from the time when the work was first published. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

taken in Troisk, Russian Empire, in modern-day Russia — was it not published in the time of the Russian Empire and isn't Russia the country of origin instead of Ukraine? If yes, that would suggest {{PD-RusEmpire}}. If it wasn't, then how did the authors of the paper get their hands on it?

And there's also the {{PD-old-assumed}} option for works older than 120 years, which is the case here. Nakonana (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see some questions were actually answered in the opening post. But even if Ukraine was the country of origin, if the first publication was in 2002, then it will be PD in 2027/2028. If PD-old-assumed does not apply for some reason, because even in the year of publication 2002 more than 120 years had already passed since the photos creation. The photo would have qualified for PD-old-assumed by 1998/1999 at the latest. Nakonana (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Where the photo was taken is irrelevant here. What matters for Commons is when and where it was published first. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, though, even though we could have allowed the logic of PD-old-assumed before the 2002 publication, I don't believe it applies under U.S. copyright law now. If 2002 was first publication, and if it counts as authorized publication (not clear, and I don't think there is much by way of judicial precedent on this), then I believe through a quirk of U.S. copyright law at the time it is copyrighted in the U.S. through 2047. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

All the copyright issue can be resumed by: What did happen to the pictures between 1875/1878 and 2002? How did the publisher get them? Unless the publisher got the pictures directly from the photographer's estate, they were most probably published in the meantime. Yann (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I spoke to Kisseran on Discord (and recommended they post here); apparently the publisher got them from the photographer's relative. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Using family photographs from the 20s-40s to add to my ancestor's Wikipedia page.

Hello all, I have a great collection of family photos I have found at my grandmother's, and I would like to use those to add an image to the Wikipedia article of my great-grandfather, (here) but I am unsure about how the licensing works. I am not asking for legal advice, I only want to abide by the rules of Wikimedia and make sure my image won't be taken down because of a copyright issue.

The photographs are from the 1920s up to the 1940s, and in every one of those photos the photographer is unknown. Could I use those? If this can help, I am from France.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jean LE TRIVIDIC (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I would support having French pictures before 1936 on Commons, unless a photographer is named, and this photographer died after 1955. Before 1931, they are OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. From 1931 until 1936, they are OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. After 1936, US copyright of these may be questioned. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Bonjour, Je pense que c'est bon pour les photos de 1936 ou avant, à moins qu'un photographe ne soit mentionné, et que ce photographe soit mort après 1955. Avant 1931, c'est bon avec {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. De 1931 à 1936, c'est bon avec {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. Après 1936, le copyright aux Etats-Unis est incertain. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann Why would it be PD-US-expired? The work seems unlikely to have been published, per our discussion above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

There are 2 possibilities: either these pictures were taken by a professional outside the family, and in this case, they were published when they left the photographer's custody; or they were taken by a family member, and in that case, *-heirs should be OK. I have a similar situation in my family (pictures of my grands-parents of the 1920s). And, although they were well off people of the bourgeoisie, I know that they never owned a camera, so the pictures were taken by a professional. So I think that PD-US-expired is more likely. Yann (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you know the photographer, and he/she is one of your ancestors, you could have the right to publish them. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Si vous connaissez le photographe, et qu'il/elle est l'un de vos ancêtres, vous pouvez avoir vous-même le droit de les publier. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Yann,

No photographer is named on the back of either pictures, but all of the family memebers at the time died between the 60s and 80s. Should I stick to photographs strictly taken before 1936? Jean LE TRIVIDIC (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. Yann (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

May I add this? If so with what licences?

May I add this portrait from https://malackepohlady.sk/?p=13671 or https://nekrolog.frantiskani.sk/n/p-vendelin-jozef-kucera/ , there is no author or date given, and the person died on 31. of december 1937. --Bakjb (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that any of these that are later than 31 December 1930 could be out of copyright in the U.S. They would have been copyrighted in Czechoslovakia (and later in the Czech Republic and Slovakia) for the lifetime of the photographer plus 70 years, so they would still have been copyrighted there in 1996, when URAA would have given them a U.S. copyright lasting 95 years from initial publication. (Yes, there are edge cases: photo not published before 2003; photo published initially or simultaneously in the U.S. either without notice or without renewal; probably other weird scenarios.)

Conversely, any that were published no later than 31 December 1930 and where the photographer died on or before 31 December 1955 should be good for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Belarus and freedom of panorama

According to Ch. 4 Article 32-7 of this belarusian law, photos of architectual objects in Belarus can be published only under NC license and only if they are not the main object of a photo. If so, photos like this for example are protected under copyright (this exact building will be protected until 2036 as the architect passed away in 1985). And this is a great issue, because there're a lot of photos of architectual objects of Belarus on Commons, just check the categories for metro stations. Aranzavy (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, for another example, this photo is a material for NC Commons, because one of the stadium architects died only in 1985 (on ruwiki), so it will get into PD only by 2036. Aranzavy (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe You should create DRs for these files with "No FoP in Belarus" as reason. Thanks. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Comic Sans MIT license

It seems like a specific version of Comic Sans is now under the MIT license. Is there something we can do about this w.r.t. Commons?

News article Github repo Relevant question about Comic Sans's license grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the font, it's the entire client that contains that font. I'll revert the non-free downscaling of the lead image and then transfer the file to Commons. You may also upload your own screenshots - it's free software now. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Right; Comic Sans has by far the larger societal impact so I was focused on that grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You could already use Comic Sans, as the letters themselves are PD per COM:TOO US. It's just the ttf file that has been open sourced, and that can't be uploaded to Commons anyway, as there is no such format support. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was wondering if the TTF file was supported by commons grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Haitian voudou veve: no copyright, derivative work OK, or no-go?

I am looking to upload a Haitian vodou veve, which I understand to not be copyrighted as a cultural symbol from at least the 18th century. However, the main reference I have is from a book wherein I understand the artist to likely still be alive. I just wanted to confirm, in such a greyscale line art based on folklore like the veve, would the veve from the book be copyright protected if I were to scan and upload it? If so, if I produced my own lineart, would that be considered a derivative work of that in the book? Thank you, Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If what you have is a modern drawing, then that is almost certainly subject to copyright.

If you did your own drawing or other similar work, it would depend on how slavishly you follow a single source. The issue is certainly clearer (in favor of not being derivative work) if you have multiple examples and try to work from what they appear to show in common, rather than having only one visual source. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Several images of Selena uploaded by a user under CC

I asked a user on Wikipedia about this and was pointed to this discussion area. A user has uploaded what appears to be images of the late Category:Selena to WikiCommons. I am unsure of the images are truly released under Creative Commons because the user has had User talk:Enciclopedia1993#File:Selena Quintanilla.png images deleted before. Just wondering if anyone can check the accuracy of these image licenses. Thanks! Magiciandude (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I assume this refers to File:Selena & Los Dinos (1988).jpg and File:Selena in 1988.jpg. I'm not sure what your question is. The rationale given on the file pages is plausible; I think the only question would be whether there is evidence that the photo was published, not merely taken, before the end of February 1989, and that the U.S. can be considered first country of publication (which would be the case as long as it was not published elsewhere more than 30 days earlier). If you want evidence about publication date, your choices are basically:

• Ask the uploader.
• Research it yourself or find someone to do the research for you.
• Force the issue by nominating for deletion on the basis of your doubts.

Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Military symbols of Republika Srpska

Are all the files here that are above TOO copyright violations or is there some PD license that fits them? Jonteemil (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Are those government (issued) symbols? If so, {{PD-SerbiaGov}} for state symbols might be applicable per COM:Serbia. Nakonana (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Republika Sprpska is an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina so rather {{PD-BH-exempt}} is a possible license but I don't know if it's applicable on these files. Jonteemil (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

COM:Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't say anything about state symbols being exempt from copyright. And the Yugoslavian copyright terms would only have made the symbols PD if they had been published some time before 1977 (or even 1971 if we take URAA into account), but those were military groups from the first half of the 1990s, so we'd either need to demonstrate that the symbols are older than the military groups that used them, or we'd argue on grounds of threshold of originality, but we don't have any information on COM:TOO Bosnia and Herzegovina. One could argue that the Serbian flag is in the public domain per Serbian copyright rules so that symbols that are dominated by the Serbian flag might be argued to be derivative works of a public domain work and thus might be in the public domain too. But for the more elaborate symbols things are not looking Commons-compatible. Nakonana (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Unpublished old photos of the PH

The concerned image: this one. Translation of the 2nd paragraph: A rare image of the former train station in Kawit, Cavite in the 1910s has been found in an old album. More than a century has passed, yet it remains an important part of Cavite's history and is a reminder of an era when the [said] town had rail lines. I assume that it denotes the old underlying image remained under private hands until it was recently discovered. It seems to have some identical case with at least two of the files I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "John Tewell".

Regardless if unpublished in the PH either during the regime of old copyright laws (see COM:Philippines#Governing laws) or of the present regime of the copyright law (1972 and 1998 laws), are all treated equally under US law? That is, either 95+1 years after (recent) first publication or 120+1 years after creation, whichever is shorter (for unknown authorships), per the table at COM:US?

Another intersecting concept: COM:URAA, but URAA seems to only apply published works outside the States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Or, to put it another way, for anything that had no publication before 2003, and was not published within 25 years of creation, publication date is completely irrelevant to when U.S. copyright will expire. - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Are mugshots from the U.S. state of Georgia really in the public domain?

(courtesy ping @Moosey98: )

Recently, Moosey98 created {{PD-GAGov}}. I am concerned that the interpretation of Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) as meaning mugshots are public domain may be invalid. I note that this article discusses how someone can force websites to remove Georgia mugshots about them...and not just Georgia state government websites. If an image is truly in the public domain, it wouldn't be encumbered with such restrictions. This is covered in the OCGA under § 10-1-393.5 (see code). It is clear that Georgia, with exceptions, views a number of documents (including photographs) as "public records". It's not clear that this should be interpreted to mean "public domain". I am not a lawyer, so looking for input on this and whether this {{PD-GAGov}} is a truly valid template. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Right off the bat, the template notes that copying is permitted...but that's not the only economic right granted to the copyright holder. Is there clear and minimally controversial law which also encompasses things like distribution and adaptation? (The parallel situation in California was apparently that an appellate court said the public records law operated as a copyright waiver in the absence of legislation otherwise. Is that demonstrably the case in Georgia?) TheFeds 00:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I am also doubtful about the validity of this template. The template quotes from a Georgia statute that states that all public records shall be open for personal inspection and copying, but a reasonable interpretation of this could just as easily be shall be open for personal inspection and [personal] copying (why specify personal inspections only if you're going to allow unrestricted copying?) As far as I can tell, there is no case like w:Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner or w:County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition for Georgia, nor is there a statement by a relevant legal authority explicitly stating that Georgia public records are not copyrightable like {{PD-MAGov}}. Based5290 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear, but they could have specified personal inspection as meaning not requiring the government to put things online or mail out copies, or not requiring people to go through electronic hoops if they're willing to come in person to inspect the file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 perhaps Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org might be of the relevance? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Another source of the same casefile: this from GeorgiaRecorder.com. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That case was dealing with the government edicts doctrine, which does not apply to works made in a non lawmaking capacity (the SCOTUS majority opinion says that states are free to assert copyright in the vast majority of expressive works they produce, such as those created by their universities, libraries, tourism offices, and so on). Mugshots are unlikely to be made public domain via the government edicts doctrine as they are made by a police officer, not a legislator/legislature or a judge/court. Based5290 (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Moosey98, could you explain your interpretation of whether "copying" refers to every possible downstream reuse by any entity, or instead a requirement that the state agencies allow access to their records for the purpose of copying, after which the person with the copy must use their own judgment to reuse it as they believe the law permits? @Minermatt122514, @Mikeyspeed7, @Knightoftheswords281, @ElhamHusey & @PublicDomainFan08 you applied this template to files recently; any opinion on the above? Failing any convincing argument, I think the next steps would be to assess the files so tagged for alternative reasons for PD, and if none, deletion/transwiki (several originally from en.wikipedia as fair use). Broadly, it looks like criminal justice content, politicians' photos, and a few state agency logos. TheFeds 22:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If research shows it's legally public domain, then it is such. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read the specific legal codes, but I just want to say that even in the case of you being able to request a removal of your mugshot, that doesn't mean that it's not in PD. For instance, US Federal mugshots are typically not displayed at all, and US military band music is in PD, despite the fact that they sell them with cost. — Knightoftheswords 22:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in the specific legal codes that says "public domain", only "public record". Those are not the same thing, from an image licensing perspective. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I have a defense.

O.C.G.A. § 50-18-102 says "All records created or received in the performance of duty and paid for by public funds are deemed to be public property and shall constitute a record of public acts."

"Shall constitute a record of public acts" clearly means public records.

But then the phrase "public property" is used separately. Hmm... Why would you include two phrases that mean the same thing?

So, public property clearly means something different. The most obvious answer that I can think of is that it means public domain.

I did some more research and I found some interesting things. First of all, courts actually used to refer things not protected by copyright law as "public property." Then in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court used the term "public domain" which came from French law. The term "public domain" ended up becoming more commonplace than "public property."

https://web.archive.org/web/20151001043157/https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=facpubs

There is another court case that uses the term "public property" that I would like to mention. The case is Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

You can read up on the full case if you are interested (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/601/1523/1734702/), but here is the part where the court says something that proves public domain and public property are the same thing.

"In this case, the fact that Mayer permitted her design to enter the public domain is fatal to any claim she can assert. Any theory of liability she could advance would necessarily assume she holds some property interest in the snowflake design. Yet it is elementary that once copyrightable material is published without the author's first securing federal copyright protection, the author loses his property interest in the material. The material becomes public property."

This is referring to how you had to put a copyright notice on your work back then if you wanted federal copyright protection (you no longer need to do this). Failing to do so back then resulted in the work becoming public domain. The court says here that if a work was published without securing federal copyright protection, it becomes "public property."

So "public property" is a legal synonym for "public domain."

Public property = Public domain

So we can conclude that all records "created or received in the performance of duty and paid for by public funds" are public domain.

Now that I have given my defense for Georgia, I want to bring up North Carolina now.

I remembered that the North Carolina public records law says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law."

"Property of the people?"

Property of the people = Public property = Public domain.

To further back this up, I took a look at the website for the State Archives of North Carolina. It says, "State and local government records in the custody of the State Archives of North Carolina may be cited and published without permission. We do ask that the Archives be credited as the custodian of these materials."

https://archives.ncdcr.gov/researchers/services/permissions-and-citations

This implies that you can publish/use the records held by the archives however you wish without needing permission as long as you credit. This is basically their equivalent of a free use license such as CC BY 4.0 where you can use the work however you wish as long as you credit them.

Please let me know you think about all this. Minermatt122514 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, California and Florida have similar laws that forces websites to remove a person's mugshot if they receive a request from them to do so. But wait, California and Florida mugshots are in the public domain! It is a legal paradox.

Long story short, the law doesn't apply to us because we are a non-profit. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I was kind of following along with everything you posted up until the your summary in the last paragraph. The fact the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization is irrelevant to the copyright status of the mugshots. It's not a question of whether the law applies to "us", but whether the content Commons is hosting can be downloaded and reused by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose (including derivative and commercial reuse). So, even if the law may not apply to "us", it might not be OK for Commons to host per COM:LJ and COM:L if the law places a "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use only" type of restriction on other potential reusers of the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia’s Personality Rights Warning, a file can be completely free of copyright or in the public domain while remaining restricted by the legal rights of the person in the photo.

This policy seems to apply to the mugshots where an individual (the person in the mugshot) can restrict its use. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mug_shot_of_Carolina_Amesty.jpg Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My previous post was regarding "NC-ND" types of copyright restrictions because you seemed to be implying the the WMF has no problems with them because it's a non-profit; my post had nothing to do with personality rights or any other type of non-copyright restrictions. Those type of restrictions, as you point out, are not considered a problem for Commons by the Wikimedia Foundation. The template {{Personality rights}} can be used for files where such a thing could be a problem for those wanting to re-use the content. Ultimately, it's up to the reusers of the content being hosted by Commons to make sure they're doing in accordance with the local laws of wherever they live. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Frank Stella US ToO

Can I get a US threshold of originality check here? Reproduction of a Frank Stella painting (Quathlamba, late 1960s) on a German stamp, licensed as PD for being simple geometric shapes. I'm not totally sure about that, but I think this would crack open the door for a lot of other Stella works if there's truly consensus it's below ToO. Other works I'm thinking might be allowable if we agree with this PD assessment could include this, this, and this. Thoughts? (totally separately, but I assume it wouldn't be that hard to find evidence that the painting on the stamp is PD for lack of formalities upon original publication, but that's a search I don't have time to do) 19h00s (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy tag to uploader: @Delorian 19h00s (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I hate to always bring ToO issues here (even simpler ones like this) but I'm always running into images of artworks that present problems like this. And it feels important to get feedback before letting it lie or adding additional similar images. 19h00s (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The thing is: TOO is always a judgement call, and things like this are near the threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it's under the U.S. threshold of originality. The Arrows logo is made of similar V-shaped lines. Shading/dithering is similar to Discover, if indeed that is a feature of the work and not the reproduction. The drop shadow suggests an intent to depict a specific light source's effect on a work of that shape, but the arrangement is quite trivial and obvious—and if the arguably similar-intentioned effect in Nikon wasn't copyrightable, I tend to think this isn't either. TheFeds 22:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Signatures in the UK

Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#United Kingdom claims that signatures are above TOO in the UK. I wonder if that is still the case with the recent raising of that threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

When was the threshold raised - was it a court case, an Act of Parliament, or something else? Qzekrom (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: ruling by the High Court: https://ial.uk.com/important-copyright-originality/ - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Mayor H.W. Farnsworth.jpg

File:Mayor H.W. Farnsworth.jpg was also uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:HW Farnsworth.jpg. The uploader appears to be claiming it's a "family owned photo". My guess is that this image is no longer eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law (i.e., OK to be relicensed as {{PD-US}} or at least {{PD-US-not renewed}}); so, the {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} license can be replaced with {{Licensed PD-art}} and an appropriate PD license, but there's really no information provided about the image's en:provenance per se. Do others think its safe to assume this has already entered into the public domain or is COM:PCP an issue? If this is OK for Commons, there's really no need for the local file an it can be deleted per en:WP:F8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

There are very few ways an 1860s photo could still be copyrighted in the U.S., few enough that it would be an edge case that would require evidence. For starters, at this time there was almost no such thing as an amateur photographer, and U.S. standards of what constituted publication were very low, so most photos would have been published almost immediately and would be long out of copyright. But here are the two edge cases:

• First published 1931-1977 and (if first published in the U.S.) conformed with U.S. copyright formalities (including renewal if published 1963 or earlier). Copyright extends 95 years from publication.
• First published 1978-2002 and (and if first published in the U.S. and published on or before 28 February 1989 conformed with U.S. copyright formalities). Our Commons:Hirtle chart contradicts itself on whether this will become PD in 2048 or 2049, but either way it is not PD now.

That's it. If it was published before 1931 (by far the most probable), or fell short on formalities, or was unpublished at the start of 2003, then in all those cases it is in the public domain. This is into the range where in order for Commons to delete it, we would need positive evidence that it is not in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If first published outside the United States, it would still have to comply with United States copyright formalities unless the photo was somehow magically still copyrighted in the country of first publication on the date of restoration (usually 1 January 1996).

I would think that a photo from 1860s is very unlikely to be protected by copyright in the United States, but it is often impossible to prove that a specific photo is in the public domain because publication information is unavailable. The problem will go away when, in over four decades, works first published in 1977 enter the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Stefan2: you're right, the path is even narrower, since most (though not all) other countries ignore publication dates for copyright, and and 1860s photo would typically have passed into the public domain by 1996. Still, there are weird cases: e.g. Mexico has p.m.a. + 100, and that could not be presumed in 1996 for an 1860s photo. In any case, the chance is pretty small that first publication would have been outside the U.S. and before 2003. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that it is a formal portrait photo of the mayor of a US town in the 19th century, I would normally have marked it {{PD-US-expired}} without much second thought if I had come across it while reviewing putative PD files. If it is indeed a family-owned photo though and the uploader is in possession of the original, it would be great to have a higher-quality scan. Felix QW (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Painting of Francis W. Capers

Hello! So for context: I want to make an article about Francis Withers Capers, a President of The Citadel, and I wasn't really satisfied with the image already uploaded in WikiCommons, seen here:

• File:Major Francis W. Capers.jpg

Because of that, I contacted The Citadel for a more higher quality photograph of the artwork since it can be founded on their website and the Daniel Library & The Citadel Museum part of the website states that "On the first floor are two galleries displaying portraits of Board of Visitor members and distinguished alumni.", meaning the portrait of Capers could be there.

The Citadel responded. Here's the email: "Good afternoon, Thank you for reaching out! I took a picture of the painting this morning, which I have attached here. You are welcome to share it online. The artist was Alicia Rhett, a well-known actress and portrait painter. The portrait was made in 1962. Best, Tessa", Tessa being MAJ Tessa Updike, MLIS, Daniel Library curator.

I have many questions about the painting, first one being: What is the copyright status of the painting? I think it's currently housed in Daniel Library in the Citadel. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If it was made in the U.S. in 1962:

Public display in a place where photos could be taken counts as publication.

If it was published and did not have a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain.

If it was published in 1962, that is actually the last year of publication for which copyright renewals were required; however, if it was not published/displayed until 1963 or later, that would not apply.

I'm going to guess that is all you need. Very few painters at this time bothered with the formalities they would have needed for copyright; their business model was simply to sell the painting, not to hold on to intellectual property rights. However, you might check to see whether Alicia Rhett registered her copyrights. While there is also the possibility that she placed a copyright notice on the painting without registering it, that would have happened in 1962, so that would have required renewal. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I marked it as {{Wrong licence}} and added the information from this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I've contacted Tessa Updike again for information regarding when did the painting got hanged in the institution and whether or not it got copyrighted by somebody. In the meantime, I have looked at more info about the painting, and there's a plaque regarding the painting, it reads:

"Francis W. Capers

August 8, 1819 - January 12, 1892

Superintendent 1852 - 1859

Presented to The Citadel, June 2, 1962, by descendants of Major Capers"

I don't know that could this possibly hold more information, but it's still a detail regardless. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Are these public domain?

I'm looking to potentially create a Wikipedia article on the Lower Dry Creek Fire in Oregon and if so I'd like to add media. I'm wondering if images by U.S. state employees are public domain, like images here, with a similar case for county employees like here. Please ping when responding. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Very few U.S. states have policies that place their employees' works in the public domain. I'm pretty certain Oregon is not one of them, so it's just like an image from any other source. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is a postcard a free image

I have 2 postcards of Elmdon in my possession. They were passed down from my grandmother. I think they were from the early 1900's. Can I share on Wikimedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie Challis (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Julie Challis: Commons requires that images be free in both their "source country" and the U.S. You don't mention what country this is, so I can't address that side of the equation, but anything published anywhere on or before 31 December 1930 is now in the public domain in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Avatar: Seven Havens logo

Is File:Avatar Seven Havens title card (cropped).webp below COM:TOO US? Someone uploaded another version of it to enwiki as a non-free logo (en:File:Avatar Seven Havens logo.png). Qzekrom (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say its probably below ToO. Copyright Office's decision on the Cyberpunk logo is instructive; even though there is a sorta 3D effect on the font for "Seven Havens", such minor effects are generally not enough to make typefaces copyrightable. Based5290 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Feed-icon.svg

Note: This is a bump of an old topic that I opened that received no replies. I chose to recreate it instead of changing the file's permission notice since Mozilla's wording is a bit unclear and the last thing I want to do is tag it as public domain when in fact it isn't

This item says that it is triple-licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL, however, I found this webpage under the Mozilla's Foundations website that seems to suggest that the icon is in public domain

Relevant excerpt:

The feed icon is freely available for general use in connection with web feeds using open web syndication formats, without the need to enter into a trademark license agreement or similar legal arrangement. Note that these guidelines are not legally binding.

Oakchris1955 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It may have a license that allows it to be freely used as if it were public domain (that, for example, is the intent of CC-0), or it might be in the public domain because of TOO, but nothing copyrightable that is created on or after 1 March 1989 can possibly be truly public domain in the U.S. Similarly for most other countries (and mostly starting at an earlier date), unless somewhere has a copyright term so short that a copyright could already have expired. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Short bangs fringe hairstyle.png

Hello! I uploaded an image to Commons that I took myself and licensed for open use under Creative Commons. It was accepted as a main image for the en:Bangs (hair) Wikipedia page, which previously featured a low-res image licensed under CC1.0 (not recommended). Because of this deletion, the page has reduced context and illustration of the topic.

I would like to request a review of this deletion and reinstatement or reupload if possible.

thank you! gillian GillianRWu (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• The correct venue for this is COM:UDR, I see you also posted there so am closing this thread. Link: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:short bangs fringe hairstyle.png. -Consigned (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Consigned (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Florida Today (2021-01-21).svg

File:Florida Today (2021-01-21).svg was uploaded as {{PD-logo}}. I'm wondering, though, whether the letter "O" in the logo might be just complex enough to push the entire logo above the COM:TOO US. It seems like it might be a close call. If the file is OK for Commons, then an older version of the logo uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Florida Today.svg should also be OK for Commons and can be relicensed accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

We may not be allowed to host California and Florida mugshots here

Apparently, California and Florida have laws that restrict commercial use of mugshots. I thought that California and Florida mugshots were public domain though. If commercial use is restricted, our policies don't allow them to be on the Commons.

We seem to have reached a paradox here.

Are they or aren't they public domain? Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit, this seems to apply to the Personality Rights policy. So all mugshots should have this attached. Minermatt122514 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)