Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
2. Have you read the FAQ?
3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Photographs of Voltairine de Cleyre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASA video with potentially non-free music

I consider using the frame at 1:18:48 and the frame at 1:56:36 of "Watch NASA’s Perseverance Rover Land on Mars!" YouTube video to illustrate the last sentence of the third paragraph of en:Gunshow (webcomic)#"This is fine" and its translation. Since the frames are derivatives of the video, I consider uploading the video first. However, the video contains some music which is probably not available under a free license and was probably not created by a NASA employee. I failed to find the video on NASA's website. Should I upload the video without sound or should I skip uploading the video? Роман Рябенко (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If you intended to upload those two screenshots in order to depict the “This is fine” plushie, there might issues with that since the plushie is copyrighted per COM:TOYS. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

No, such an idea didn't occur to me. I do not intend to depict the plushie. I intend to illustrate the fact that the plushie was taken to the control room, which is mentioned at the end of the third paragraph of the linked section of the Wikipedia article, and which is backed by media coverage of this particular fact. This part of the article's section discusses the indicators of and the contributing factors to the meme's use and spreading. Having an illustration would give a better idea how it was used in this particular case.

The plushie itself takes only a part of each frame and is not the major subject. The subject is clearly the EDL Operation Lead who is sitting at or standing by the table respectively. That is the person who has the plushie on the table. For the article's purposes, the subject of the images is the fact that the EDL Operation Lead took the plushie to the control room. Would it still be considered as a depiction of the plushie? Роман Рябенко (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

In both cases the plushie is highly prominent; further, for the purpose of the article, the shot would be irrelevant without the plushie. It's not just a matter of how much of the screen it takes up.

You might be able to use this on a non-free basis in the English-language Wikipedia. For this to be on Commons, we would need a free license from the copyright-holder of the plushie. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. I understand now why it is a concern. Роман Рябенко (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons app screenshots

Commons app 6-0-0 showing keyboard bug

I have uploaded the above, temporarily, as my own work, but it is a screenshot of the Commons app, in Android. How should it be licensed—do we have a dedicated template for that?

There are a lot of other images in Category:Commons Android App screenshots licensed as "own work", which should probably be changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Does Commons:Screenshots provide the requested answers? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, you may have to use {{Free screenshot}} (if the GUI is entitled for copyright - the Commons app doesn't look like it in your example) along with any license(s) associated with the depicted Commons work(s), the latter is important per COM:DW. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The thumbnails are of my own works. They are not yet on Commons because of the bug depicted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia-screenshot}} sounds like what you're looking for. Nakonana (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It isn't (the app is not a Wikimedia Foundation project). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Almost certainly the only copyrightable elements there are the two small photographs. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

OK; what about the other images in the category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Apache-2: https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons?tab=Apache-2.0-1-ov-file JayCubby (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine album art is PD, right?

w:File:RageAgainsttheMachineRageAgainsttheMachine.jpg is based on File:Thích Quảng Đức self-immolation.jpg, which we've already determined to be public domain. The edits done to the image in the album art do not give a new copyright, right? Based5290 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Based5290: I agree. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

True, it's PD. Bedivere (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for Blackpool Transport

Given recent developments in the UK, is the current Blackpool Transport logo (see at left on [1]) sufficiently complex to be copyrightable? For background please see en:w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Blackpool tram icon and en:w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Blackpool Transport. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The tower with flag is not a simple geometric shape, so I'd say the logo is above COM:TOO-US or close enough to the line to invoke COM:PCP. Glrx (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this Videogame disc cover copyrightable?

Hello, so I have this picture alternate pic of the Blu-ray of EA Sports FC (FIFA) 25, and I noticed that the design is incredibly simple to be copyrighted. Blank white background with very thin lines, both the ESRB, PS5, UltraHD Blu-Ray AND EA FC logos are already in Commons and the legal text doesn't have any originality. Does this make the blu-ray disc elegible for commons under "PD-Scan|PD-textlogo"? Hyperba21 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hyperba21: the design of the disc itself is probably OK if you crop out everything else in either photo. {{PD-ineligible}} {{Trademarked}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Derivative work using ArcGIS as a tool, OpenStreetMaps as the base layer, and USGS as the data source

I have several maps that I created before I understood how to use GIS well and they are rightly being taken down. I think that by using the guidelines of ARCGIS and OpenStreetMaps that it is permissible to post the map printouts. I have performed all the analysis of the various user agreements and can provide that if necessary. While I don't care about personal attribution since I only use a username, I think it is appropriate that I enter the "own work" checkbox with explanations in the section provided. Thank you. Deanrah (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Content from OpenStreetMaps should be tagged as {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}. I don't know a lot about ArcGIS, but I presume that it is involved only as a tool, and no attribution to that is legally required, though it would be appropriate to add {{Created with ArcGIS Pro}} to the description. And, yes, if there is enough work of your own involved to be copyrightable, you should probably give an appropriate CC license.

I assume that when you refer to "the 'own work' checkbox" you are talking about UploadWizard. Yes, that is probably the easiest way through the Wizard if it is your chosen method of uploading; just go back at the end to fix anything you couldn't do with the wizard. - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel -- I referred @Deanrah here regarding this file. The issues I brought up with Deanrah (which were not addressed here, and so far have only been addressed through an AI-generated wall of text that they have since removed from their user talk page) are that (1) the file is tagged as "own work" without crediting the actual sources or including the proper license tags, and (2) the file itself claims copyright from "Esri contributors", Esri, and Microsoft, which may not be freely licensed. I asked Deanrah for clarification regarding the Esri and Microsoft copyrighted items, but have not gotten an answer. Jay8g (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All of which is very confusing.

@Deanrah: do you care to explain? - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Jay8g said that I was rude to show my entire analysis, so I took it down. Would you like to see the full analysis or a summary? Deanrah (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is the file that I have made as a beta that I asked help with evaluating since I did not understand the copyright problems with the base layer when I originally took screen shots of a couple of dozen maps of this data set. They should be taken down.

(map illustration)

It was made with ArcGIS as are many other files in Wiki Commons (search "ARCGIS"). It uses a background map that comes from Open Streetmaps. It uses a USGS data set. ArcGIS generated the attributions on the printout. I think it would be instructive to set standards for using ARCIG maps given the ease of using that tool. However, I have plans to move to QGIS which is a clunky open source version. Deanrah (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So, as I said above, the map from OpenStreetMap must be indicated as using {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}.

It looks like ArcGIS is not involved only as a tool if its output is attributing Esri and Microsoft for content. Do you know what comes from those sources? - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The ArcGIS FAQ says "When an ArcGIS Online basemap is used in printed materials such as books, articles, brochures, and research papers, attributions must be provided on or near the map or image that includes the ArcGIS Online basemap." Ersi owns ArcGIS. OpenStreetMaps uses Bing (owned by Microsoft) as basemaps in its open source work. Do a search on ARCGIS to see how many of the maps in Commons must come down if this is not allowed. Deanrah (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So it sounds like this from ArcGIS effectively an attribution-only license. Does this image use an ArcGIS Online basemap (you haven't shown the OpenStreetMaps map, so I have no idea if any other basemap is involved)? That would presumably entail something like {{Attribution only license|text=This incorporates an ArcGIS basemap.}} in addition to any other necessary licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There are 83,000+ images that use ARCGIS in Wikimedia Commons. Deanrah (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The same page gives an example attribution of "Maps throughout this book were created using ArcGIS software by Esri. ArcGIS and ArcMap are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri software, please visit www.esri.com." That doesn't sound like a free license to me, but I could be wrong. It seems like that page is talking about academic attribution, not copyright status. Jay8g (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Images from Flickr that are from eBay

Hi. I recently uploaded some files from Flickr that happen to be edited with eBay ImageMagick. One example being File:1908 one penny token, Haggi Chapter No. 14, Royal Arch Masons, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (19089221742).jpg (where I assume the photograph would be copyrighted even if the coin isn't since it's a photograph of a 3D object). Not that I think it means anything either way but the Flickr user is from Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is the same place the coin is from. So my question is how do we know who actually owns the copyright to the photograph in such an instance? I could see the Flickr user owning it. Since, at least in the example, the coin from the same town where the guy lives. Who knows though. But then I don't think it's worth second guessing random Flickr users for know reason either and, assuming the licenses is bad, wouldn't that be on them for Flickr (eBay?) washing or whatever anyway? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that the Wystan account seems to offer "licenses" on work not even plausibly theirs (https://flickr.com/photos/70251312@N00/19842089002, https://flickr.com/photos/70251312@N00/19251428158) I don't see how we can trust any license from that account. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll have to nominate the images from them that aren't clearly PD for deletion and have the account added to the black list. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1905 Isle of man photo

File:Kitto Family.jpg is a 1905 photograph, uploaded by User:Harvey Milligan in 2017—with a CC licence—as "own work". This is clearly unfeasible.

I have tagged it, for now, as {{UK-PD-anon}}, based on Commons:ISLE OF MAN ("The Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown dependency... The relevant copyright law is The Copyright Act 1991, as amended up to the Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2013. This act replaced the United Kingdom's Copyright Act 1956"), but what should be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your assumptions are here about prior publication. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Kiyosumi-shirakawa Station flickr photos

Hi there, I don't usually talk here but I needed a question answered regarding COM:FOP Japan for an article I am currently writing on Wikipedia. I had previously asked this question on the Wikimedia Discord but didn't really get an answer. So I am currently working on the w:The Exit 8 article and I wanted to use a better image of w:Kiyosumi-shirakawa Station to better represent the talking points in the article. I didn't feel the Commons had what I needed so I checked on Flickr and found these two images labelled 清澄白河駅_蛍光灯 and 清澄白河駅. They are pictures of passageways in the station which featured irregularly fixed lights similar to an event that appears in The Exit 8. They have the correct CC licenses to be uploaded to the Commons, but what I was more concerned about was the lights as according to the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation (at least, that's what I have seen here and here, the lights were part of a public art installation at the station. Now according to FOP Japan it states:

for artistic works: Not OK {{NoFoP-Japan}} except in cases governed by Article 46. for buildings only: OK {{FoP-Japan}}

But I just wanted to know if these images could still be uploaded as the pictures are of the whole hallway and those are the only lights keeping that hallway lit or is it's access blocked because of the lights. Thank you in advance to anyone who has commented, Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• I’m not familiar with copyright laws in Japan, but the issue seems to be whether the specific arrangement of lights is copyrightable in Japan (above the threshold of originality in Japan).
• According to COM:TOO Japan, it appears that some “artistic” utilitarian works are not considered copyrightable. That section references a court ruling which Furby toys are not copyrightable in Japan due to it being a “industrially mass-produced utilitarian article” and “to which its artistic effects and techniques have been applied for utilitarian purposes” (quoting a translation at p.27 of [2]).
• Clearly, this arrangement of lights serves a utilitarian purpose, and there were artistic effects and techniques applied to the arrangement. However, I’m not sure whether the artistic effects and techniques applied (being placed irregularly) contributed to its utilitarian purposes (illuminating the passageways).
• So, in my opinion, I couldn’t say whether these images are fine to upload or not. Apologies for not fully answering your question, but maybe someone more knowledgeable in Japanese copyright laws can help determine whether this is below or above TOO in Japan. Thanks.

Tvpuppy (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Permission for "free license" use of games by Team Cherry

Hi, I recently noticed that the FAQ page for Australian video game developer en:Team Cherry says that they grant "free license" (including monetization) for use of their games in creation and publishing of content. Is this sufficient for screenshots of their games to be considered free use, like the permission granted from File:Overcooked 2 loading screen.jpg? Thanks, ScalarFactor (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScalarFactor: my read is that if you take that page as a whole, it's not quite free enough. What they offer is generous, but I think not free enough for Commons.

Still, given the spirit of it, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get them to offer some images under a CC-BY 4.0 license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on this. The FAQ page states it only grants the “free license” to game owners and press, which it appears doesn’t includes usage at Commons. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this a copyright violation?

The Roskilde museum states that photos taken in the museum must not be used commercially without permission. [3]. I believe, but do not know for certain, that File:Krummträ.JPG is a photo of a display in that museum. The lines drawn on the timber to show how a shipwright would use the raw materials to make parts of a ship are clearly a creative work by whoever prepared this exhibit.

Who should investigate this?

Could someone ask the museum to waive copyright for this picture? How would we find someone in the Wikipedia and Commons community who has a useful relationship with the museum to make the approach? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It is actually a copyright violation, I think, but not because of these museum rules. These are a COM:Non-copyright restriction, but the drawings and explanatory texts are copyrightable. There's no suitable COM:FOP Denmark that would allow the hosting of this image. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The interpretative signs could easily be cropped out of the photo. The wood itself and the markings on it seem unlikely to be copyrightable; the markings are purely utilitarian in nature, not a creative work. Omphalographer (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more about the status of the marks on the wood. This sort of thing is often illustrated in books on maritime archaeology and in every case, the precise detail of the markings are the whole object of the illustration. Put another way, the intellectual input of the person who drew the lines is absolutely key. Ignoring this would be like copying one of the illustrations out of the major textbook Steffy, J. Richard (1994). Wooden ship building and the interpretations of shipwrecks (5th printing ed.). College Station: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781603445207, a source of many illustrations very similar in nature. The fact that these lines are drawn on wood rather than on paper should not confuse us. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Krummträ.JPG. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Epstein files release from House Oversight Committee

Are the files released a couple of days

1. Trustworthy that they are authentic files from DOJ? (since they're shared in Google Drive and Dropbox and not on a .gov website)
2. If so, I believe they fall under Template:PD-USGov-DOJ, wouldn't they? (If not, the broader PD-USGov should do it, which altho is overcrowded)

Link: https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-epstein-records-provided-by-the-department-of-justice/ -- DaxServer (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is safe to presume that the documents come immediately from DOJ, but that doesn't meant that they won't contain copyrighted materials. For example, if the infamous "birthday book" is in there, the government certainly has not copyright claim on that. Similarly for anything else copyrightable and not created by a government employee. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a +1 to Jmabel's reply. Each file needs to be examined individually; there's no way the entire cache of documents/images/media is PD, only the materials created by a federal employee. 19h00s (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmabel @19h00s. Yes, as you observed correctly, some docs are not created by USGov. It'll be painful, if not impossible, to review the whole lot when someone wants to upload. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking to upload logo: do you think it's PD-shape?

I think that w:en:File:Las_Vegas_Aviators_Cap.png could be a simple enough color/shape/text logo to upload here but wanted to run it by some other users to see if they agree. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)