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.

New Saudi Arabia copyright act - an update

See this article from Baker McKenzie website. Baker MacKenzie alleges a Freedom of Panorama rule has been introduced by virtue of this law, but we cannot confirm if it is indeed legit and is suitable for IT/new media era including the COM:Licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons. Gemini AI claims "Arabic Text: The original Arabic text was officially published on February 13, 2026, in the Saudi Official Gazette, Umm Al-Qura (Issue No. 5144). It is accessible through official Saudi legislative databases and specialized local platforms like DecreeSA." But, fingers crossed.

Other online source: from Decree Saudi, but this is not the copyright law's text (Arabic or English).

EastLaws.com has an alleged English text of the law but its content are behind registration wall. Title: "Royal Decree NO. 169 Published On 25 - 08 - 1447" and "Title: CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW."

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the issue of Ummul Qura Newspaper the text starts on page 13 and the FOP part is in article 29 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@999real the reading is:

المادة التاسعة والعشرون:
1- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، استخدام المصنف استخداماً عرضياً من خلال تضمين المصنفات
الموجودة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة في عمل فوتوغرافي، أو سمعي بصري، أو تسجيل صوتي مع جواز إعادة إنتاجه أو توزيعه أو تنفيذه أو عرضه أو نقله إلى الجمهور، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف
والغرض من المصنف.
٢- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، نسخ أعمال الفنون التطبيقية أو الشكل الخارجي للأعمال المعمارية الموضوعة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة عن طريق الرسم أو التصوير الفوتوغرافي وما شابه ذلك، وتوزيعها أو عرضها بأي وسيلة مماثلة، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف.

Google Translate verbatim:

Article Twenty-Nine:
1- Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including it in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording, provided that it may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, and provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.
2- Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be copied by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights.

It also seems de minimis became formal and legal under the law. But still, both the de minimis (incidental inclusion) and FoP provisions (Articles 29(1) and 29(2)) fall under this identical condition: "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights." Compliant with COM:Licensing or not?

Your thoughts? Also mention here @Clindberg@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow@Aristorkle@Yann@Ox1997cow (users whom I interacted with concerning FoP of all lands and jurisdictions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way thanks 999Real for the link. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think "incidental" and "de minimis" are quite the same thing -- the first is more unavoidable inclusion when focusing on something else (or a wider scene), and it may still be prominent (more than de minimis). But it doesn't extend to focusing on that work in particular. We tend to allow incidental inclusion anyways, but having it explicit is good. So, this seems like architectural-only FoP (and applied art, which is artistic aspects of otherwise utilitarian works). But not for public sculpture. I presume the last part of each section is the usual Berne limitation that FoP clauses can't infringe on other normal, direct usages of the underlying work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, according to Baker MacKenzie: "The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 13 February 2026 and will enter into force on 12 August 2026, replacing the 2003 Copyright Law that has governed the Kingdom for more than two decades." Also: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points. We will continue to monitor developments and will issue further updates as the regulation is published and as the new framework takes effect." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say that "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" means FOP does not always apply. If it is high resolution and not partially obscured, an image could be cropped from the work, blown up and published for commercial purposes. Do we have a volunteer to review the whole new law and update the CRT entry? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2 I just updated the CRT page of KSA. Thanks to Google Translate website's image translation feature, I was able to update almost the entirety of KSA's CRT page. I'm not sure if we will accept Saudi Arabia's first ever FoP clause. My hunch says "financial rights" is similar to "economic rights" since it is also the (translated) wording for the article on the copyright durations ("The financial rights....50 years..."). Kindly check the CRT page that I just revised. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I think "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" pretty much comes from the Berne Convention, which restricts *all* FoP clauses that way. I've always taken that to mean that you can't say make a photo that is basically a copy of an existing 2-D work, even if on public display, as that can compete directly with the original. Or a sculpture of a sculpture, that sort of thing. In other words, something that adversely affects the existing market for direct copies of the original work itself. I would think that is rare for public photos where the pictured item is just part of a scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging three users from threads at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia: @Ashashyou, Liuxinyu970226, and Aymatth2: . For their opinions and insights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@999real@Clindberg kindly check my updates to COM:SAUDI ARABIA, in particular the terms and the FoP section. It also appears photographs no longer enjoy the shorter copyright term. Instead, the 25-year term only applies to applied arts. The good news is, the new terms are not retroactive (but due to lo-onger US terms, this is pretty much useless). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition: Google Translate's feature to translate foreign language content within images really helped. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @DarwIn and @Bedivere, both of whom commented at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/03#Review of COM:FOP Malawi. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is also worthwhile mentioning all of the users who participated at the Arabic Wikipedia FoP-issue discussion (w:ar:نقاش القالب:حرية البانوراما فقط في الولايات المتحدة), for attention and comments concerning the newly-introduced FoP rule for Saudi Arabia under the new (2026) copyright law that will take effect this August 12, 2026. @جيمي, Ibrahim.ID, Abu aamir, and Dr-Taher: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Info I have mentioned this discussion at the main village pump for attention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, 999real, and Clindberg: the better translation of the article is:

Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including works permanently located in public places in a photographic, audiovisual or sound recording, with the possibility of reproducing, distributing, performing, displaying, or transmitting it to the public, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.

Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights.

— in: Article 29(1 and 2)

_JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

For added attention: pinging here the "interested participants" of meta:Wikimedians of arab User Group for their comments and insights on the new Freedom of Panorama rule for Saudi Arabia which will take effect this coming August 12: @TOUMOU, Ayoub Fajraoui, علاء, سامر, Hamed Gamaoun, سائغ, Ovva olfa, صفاء, Koussayou003, Ravan, رشاد, and أحمد ناجي: . If the new FoP rule complies with COM:Licensing (the new rule contains the condition "provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional pings, selected participants of meta:Arabic Wikimedians User Group who are apparently based in Asian part of the Middle East (per their Metawiki or Arabic Wikipedia user pages): @Mahmoudalrawi, Fjmustak, Salah Mhamdi, عباد ديرانية, Md Nahid Islam Sumon, Osps7, روتانا, Shaween, Almajidy, and روزان جاسم: . Kindly add your comments below Carl Lindberg's comment. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional pings: users whom I interacted concerning FoP-related matters: @A1Cafel and Jmabel: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• I do not read Arabic and would not by any means attempt comment on a subtle issue in Saudi law. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, that sounds to me like it is reinforcing the "incidental" rule we have in Commons:De minimis (though it's a separate thing than actual de minimis). The second is architecture- and applied art-only FoP. These type of exceptions are allowed in Berne Convention article 9(2) -- It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. So, most countries just take that phrasing and put it in the law. You definitely can't use the exceptions to essentially create a copy of the original -- i.e. using a FoP law to take a photo of a public painting, cropped to the original painting, would basically be a copy, and compete with the original. It just seems to be a safeguard on the "exceptions" having edge cases like that, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg the law also reinforces Berne three-step test rule under Article 37 (which I added at my revision of COM:FOP Saudi Arabia). Back to FoP, can Wikimedia Commons accept this new FoP rule this coming August 12? Your fellow WikiCommoner veteran Aymatth2 had a different perspective on the common condition for both the incidental clause (1) and the architectural/applied art FoP clause (2) of the article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, yes. The Berne limitations affect every FoP clause from all countries, just about. This seems basically the same as other laws. The "incidental" thing we observe more generally -- there is nothing special in there that would allow things we usually don't keep. The FoP clause is architecture-only (and applied art). Photos of a building are not part of an author's "financial rights", basically. Perhaps photographing a building in sufficient detail as to serve as architecture plans for another, then the other building is still infringing -- you can't do things like that, or maybe some other extreme edge cases. But photos of buildings are not really part of the copyright's scope, it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg however, not 100% of Saudi buildings would be hosted/restored here starting August 12 (if ever). The new FoP rule only covers exterior architecture. Basically, the interior designs and interior architecture of those same buildings are not covered. Perhaps the images of interior architecture are subject to noncommercial use if we apply Article 37(2): In cases other than those stipulated in Articles 26 to 36, the use of the work by a third party may be carried out without the author's permission and without compensation if the use is non-commercial, does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and does not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders. In "the use..by a third party.." or "the use...by others," third party or others refers to the re-users (that includes us and the re-users of Wikimedia Commons).

Perhaps: " OK exterior architecture and applied art permanently located in public places (subject to Article 29(2)).  Not OK interior architecture, noncommercial only (subject to Article 37(2)).  Not OK monuments, sculptures, murals and other fine arts, unless incidental in the images (subject to Article 29(1))." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's explicitly just the exterior architecture. That should be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this update. That's a good thing, at least included exterior architecture. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@999real has the "implementing regulation" of the law been released? Baker MacKenzie claims: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@999real (also pinging @جيمي) the "executive regulations" is allegedly at this website, but I cannot access it as it always gives "The connection has timed out. The server at istitlaa.ncc.gov.sa is taking too long to respond." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Template:FoP-Saudi Arabia wording

Pinging the participants who commented @999real, Clindberg, Aymatth2, and A1Cafel: , as well as @جيمي: who appeared to have translated COM:FOP in Arabic, as well as adding Arabic translations for Commons:Freedom of panorama/table. Here is my proposed FoP wording, assuming that Carl's interpretation holds.

The Copyright Law of Saudi Arabia, as promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/169 of 27 January 2026 (Arabic text of the law available on pages 13 to 17 of the 13 February 2026 issue of Umm Al-Qura official gazette), provides for freedom of panorama under Article 29. The only usable provision for Wikimedia Commons is Article 29(2):

Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights. (English translation)

A 2026 discussion on Wikimedia Commons has determined that photographs of buildings do not compete with the architects' financial rights. It is when the photographs are used to reproduce architectural plans that do indeed affect such financial rights. Therefore, Wikimedia Commons can host images of building exteriors and applied arts permanently located in public spaces in Saudi Arabia.
Note that this privilege does not extend to interior architecture and all other works permanently located in public spaces, like monuments, sculptures, and paintings. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia#Freedom of panorama for more information.

I'll add links to this discussion after the future archival this discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I have also added the OK/Not OK rules at the FoP section of CRT page for Saudi Arabia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, sorry I couldn't respond before. I have now reviewed the full text of Article 29 of the new Saudi Arabian Copyright Law, which provides a much clearer picture regarding the reproduction of works in public spaces. The law actually adopts a dual approach depending on the nature of the copyrighted work.

The first paragraph provides an "Incidental Use" (De minimis) exception for general works permanently located in public places. It states that such works may be included in visual or audio recordings without permission, provided the inclusion is strictly incidental (استخدام عرضي).

However, the second paragraph explicitly establishes a valid Freedom of Panorama exception specifically tailored for architecture and applied arts. It clearly states that it is permissible, without the author's permission or compensation, to copy works of applied art or the exterior shape of architectural works permanently located in public places through drawing, photography, or similar means. It further permits the distribution and display of these copies, provided this does not prejudice the financial rights of the author.

This legal distinction is crucial. While capturing general fine art (such as standard public sculptures) as a primary subject might still be restricted under the incidental use clause, the law explicitly grants Freedom of Panorama for architectural works and applied arts. Since this new copyright law officially comes into effect today, August 12, 2026, photographs focusing primarily on the exteriors of modern buildings or applied arts in Saudi Arabian public spaces are now legally permitted and can be safely hosted on Wikimedia Commons. — جيمي ^{(Talk 📧)} 13:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@جيمي Thanks for your response. Is my proposed text for {{FoP-Saudi Arabia}} now fine? Or does it need some minor changes or fixing? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, in terms of undeletions, the Wikimedia Commons images of eligible works should be restored first, so that any local duplicates on English and Arabic Wikipedias could be deleted in favor of restored Commons files, to prevent the loss of Commons file histories in the process. The images to be undeleted must only show exteriors of buildings and applied art works permanently located in public places.

Ping admins @Abzeronow and @Yann for attention (especially after the creation of the new FoP template). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@جيمي A catch: photos are no longer subject to the same 25-year-from-creation/publication term as those of applied art works. This means, photos whose photographers or copyright holders are known are subject to 50-year term after the death of their holders or photographers. For anonymous ones or those in which the copyright holder is a company or organization ("entity"), 50 years after publication. However, since the URAA restoration date for Saudi works was on March 11, 2004, the longer US terms (70 years after known author's death or 95 years after publication for unknown or entity/corporate works) apply on Wikimedia Commons in terms of hosting old Saudi photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 i agree, it's all great. thank you :) — جيمي ^{(Talk 📧)} 14:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

However, since only admins can view deleted files, it's not certain which among the deleted files under Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted are eligible for file undeletion. Perhaps I'll request the first one, in which its local enWiki copy is among the most used on that local Wikipedia project. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Abraj-al-Bait-Towers.JPG, first undeletion request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

JWilz12345, I think the third paragraph of your proposed template is unnecessary and will confuse some editors. There is a similar financial rights clause in almost every FOP law that we regularly use and we have not seen it necessary to comment on them. Architects' copyrights allows them to prevent others from making a copy of buildings. Photographs of even a very simple building do not make it possible to copy it, so such photographs do not infringe on the architect's financial rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward I have removed the concerned paragraph. Perhaps leaving the full details at the CRT page is the best option in this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grand Khaldia Hotel Riyadh, 2023.webp can be undeleted. It is in WebP format, and there are issues concerning such images lately (see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2026/07#Should_we_start_Banning_or_Blocking_.webp_images?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The executive regulations as possible trap(?) vs. Wikimedia

I have just found the full Arabic text of the executive regulations. Ironically, it was provided by Gemini AI after extensive chats on the AI chatbot. The link to the text is this. Pinging all the participants who made comments for analysis and if this does not affect the eligibility of Saudi architectural FoP (Article 29(2)) in relation to COM:Licensing. @A1Cafel, Clindberg, 999real, Aymatth2, Jameslwoodward, and جيمي: .

The relevant part of the regulations

الفصل السادس: الاستثناءات والاستعمالات المقررة نظامًا المادة الثالثـة والعشرون: مع مراعاة المادة (السابعة والثلاثون) من النظام وحالات الاستعمال النظامي المسموح بها بموجب أحكام النظام، يجوز استعمال الغير للمصنَّف دون إذن من المؤلف ودون تعويض، وفقًا للضوابط الآتية: 1- أن يكون الاستعمال لغرض غير تجاري، سواء بصورة مباشرة أو غير مباشرة، وألا يترتب عليه تحقيق منفعة مالية أو ربح مادي للشخص المستخدم. 2- ألا يؤدي الاستعمال إلى التأثير السلبي على قيمة المصنف، أو المصالح المشروعة لصاحب الحق. 3- أن ينسب المصنف إلى مؤلفه وذكر مصدره بوضوح -متى ما كان ذلك ممكنًا عمليًّا-. 4- أن يقتصر الاستعمال على القدر اللازم لتحقيق الغرض المشروع منه، وبما لا يتجاوز ما تقتضيه طبيعة ذلك الغرض، وألا يترتب عليه تعارض مع الاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو إلحاق ضرر غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة لصاحب الحق. المادة الرابعة والعشرون: لا يُعدّ مساسًا بحق المؤلف في الاعتراض على تعديل مصنَّفه، ما يقوم به مالك المبنى أو المنشأة -أو من يقوم مقامه- من تعديل أو إزالة لمصنَّف منحوت أو مدمج فيه، إذا كان من غير الممكن فصل المصنَّف عن المبنى دون إتلافه أو تشويهه، شريطة إشعار المؤلف -متى أمكن ذلك- أو بذل جهد معقول لإشعاره قبل التنفيذ. المادة الخامسة والعشرون: لا تنشأ للمؤلف حقوق أخرى -غير تلك المقررة له بموجب النظام وهذه اللائحة- بسبب ظهور عرضي لمصنف فني تشكيلي ضمن منتج طُرح للتداول العام، أو بسبب الإعلانات أو العروض الخاصة بذلك المنتج، متى كان استنساخ المصنف بوسيلة مشروعة، ولم ينطوِ هذا الاستخدام على تحريف أو تشويه للمصنف أو مساس بسمعة مؤلفه. المادة السادسة والعشرون: لا يُعد تشويهًا على مصنف فنون تطبيقية، التعديل الذي يطرأ عليه نتيجة التقادم أو طبيعة المواد المستخدمة فيه. المادة السابعة والعشرون: يستنفد الحق الاستئثاري في توزيع المصنف عند أول توزيع مشروع له من قبل صاحب الحق أو بموافقته، ويجوز لمالك النسخة المشروعة إعادة بيعها أو التصرف فيها وفق أحكام النظام، دون التعدي على الحقوق المقررة نظامًا؛ ويسري حكم الاستنفاد على الحقوق المجاورة في الحدود التي يقرر لها النظام واللائحة حق التوزيع، وذلك بالقدر الذي يتفق مع طبيعتها. المادة الثامنة والعشرون: للهيئة أن ترخص للهيئـة المعتمدة القيام بإعداد وتوزيع نسخ من المصنفات القابلة للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر، ويُشترط للموافقة على الترخيص ما يأتي: 1- أن يكون ضمن أنشطتها الأساسية أو التزاماتها المؤسسية تقديم خدمات -بنسق ميسّر- النفاذ إلى المعلومات للأشخاص المستفيدين من ذوي الإعاقة. 2- اتخاذ التدابير المعقولة لمنع أو ردع النسخ أو التوزيع أو الإتاحة غير المصرح به للنسخ القابلة للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر. 3- أن يقتصر توزيع النسخ في النسق الميسّر على الأشخاص المستفيدين ذوي الإعاقة أو الهيئات المعتمدة -لخدمة ذوي الإعاقة- داخل المملكة وخارجها، دون غيرهم. 4- الالتزام بعدم إدخال أي تغييرات على المصنف سوى ما يكون لازمًا لجعله قابلًا للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر. 5- ألا يكون نشاط إعداد النسخ القابلة للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر ذا طابع ربحي. 6- الالتزام بإنشاء سجل أو قاعدة بيانات بالنسخ الميسّرة، تتضمن -على الأقل- بيانات المصنف الأساسية ونطاق توزيع النسخ. ولكل شخص مستفيد من ذوي الإعـاقة أو من ينوب عنه إعداد نسخ من أي مصنف في نسق ميسّر لاستخدامه الشخصي، دون الحاجة إلى الحصول على ترخيص.

Verbatim English translation provided by Google Translate

Chapter Six: Legally Permitted Exceptions and Uses Article Twenty-Three: Subject to Article Thirty-Seven of this Law and the legally permissible uses allowed under its provisions, a third party may use a work without the author's permission and without compensation, subject to the following conditions: 1- The use must be for a non-commercial purpose, whether directly or indirectly, and must not result in any financial benefit or material profit for the user. 2- The use must not negatively affect the value of the work or the legitimate interests of the rights holder. 3- The work must be attributed to its author and its source clearly stated, whenever practically possible. 4- The use must be limited to what is necessary to achieve its legitimate purpose, and must not exceed what the nature of that purpose requires, and must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder. Article 24: The modification or removal of a sculpture or incorporation by the owner of a building or establishment—or their representative—is not considered an infringement of the author's right to object to the alteration of their work, provided that the work cannot be separated from the building without damaging or disfiguring it, and that the author is notified—whenever possible—or reasonable efforts are made to notify them before the modification or removal takes place. Article 25: The author does not acquire any rights other than those granted to them under this Law and these Regulations due to the incidental appearance of a work of fine art within a product offered for public circulation, or due to advertisements or special offers for that product, provided that the reproduction of the work is by lawful means and that such use does not involve distortion or disfigurement of the work or damage to the reputation of its author. Article 26: A modification of a work of applied art resulting from age or the nature of the materials used in it is not considered a disfigurement of the work. Article Twenty-Seven: The exclusive right to distribute a work is exhausted upon its first lawful distribution by the rights holder or with their consent. The owner of a lawful copy may resell or dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of this Law, without infringing upon any other legally established rights. This exhaustion also applies to neighboring rights within the limits granted by this Law and its regulations, to the extent that it is consistent with their nature. Article Twenty-Eight: The Authority may authorize an accredited body to prepare and distribute accessible copies of works in an accessible format. The following conditions must be met for such authorization: 1- Providing accessible information services to persons with disabilities must be among its core activities or institutional obligations. 2- It must take reasonable measures to prevent or deter unauthorized copying, distribution, or provision of accessible copies in an accessible format. 3. The distribution of accessible copies shall be limited to persons with disabilities or accredited organizations serving persons with disabilities, both within and outside the Kingdom, and to no others. 4. No changes shall be made to the work except those necessary to make it accessible in an accessible format. 5. The activity of preparing accessible copies in an accessible format shall not be for profit. 6. A register or database of accessible copies shall be established, including, at a minimum, the work's basic data and the scope of distribution. Any person with a disability, or their representative, may prepare copies of any work in an accessible format for their personal use without needing a license.

Perhaps FoP-Saudi Arabia might be incompatible due to Article 23(1) of the regulation? If so, even incidental images must be non-commercial too? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@جيمي as it seems, Saudi FoP isn't compatible with COM:Licensing, after all. This is due to the non-commercial condition given by the Article 23(1) of the Executive Regulations. However, this may also mean that incidental images must be noncommercial, too, considering that the regulation explicitly covers all exceptions or limitations to copyright. Cityscape images may need to be removed, too. Ping @Clindberg for opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps let's analyze both the law and the executive regulations and connect the dots and see if we could indeed accept Saudi architectural FoP:

FoP and incidental use clauses

Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including works permanently located in public places in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording. It may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights or the purpose of the work.

— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 29(1)

Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights.

— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 29(2)

Berne Three-step Test provisions

In the cases stipulated in Articles Twenty-Six through Thirty-Six, the use of the work by a third party must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and must not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holders.

— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 37(1)

In cases other than those stipulated in Articles Twenty-Six through Thirty-Six, a third party may use the work without the author's permission and without compensation if the use is non-commercial, does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and does not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holders. The regulations shall specify the controls governing such use.

— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 37(2)

From the Executive Regulations supplementing the law

Subject to Article Thirty-Seven of this Law and the legally permissible uses allowed under its provisions, a third party may use a work without the author's permission and without compensation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use must be for a non-commercial purpose, whether directly or indirectly, and must not result in any financial benefit or material profit for the user. 2. The use must not negatively affect the value of the work or the legitimate interests of the rights holder. 3.The work must be attributed to its author and its source clearly stated, whenever practically possible. 4.The use must be limited to what is necessary to achieve its legitimate purpose, and must not exceed what the nature of that purpose requires, and must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder.

— in: Executive Regulations of 2026 Copyright Law, Article 23

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Grand-Duc and de minimis problem

Regarding the deletion request of China Airlines aircraft images because of copyrighted arts on aircraft tail.

I think User:Grand-Duc is over restricting the de minimis to only the level of File:A_Porsche_997_GT2_in_front_of_Boutique_de_parfumerie_Guerlain,_356_rue_Saint-Honoré.jpg and anything above is copyright violation, but what I see the deletion requests of aircraft images by Grand-Duc, while most of them are deleted for copyrighted characters covered all of aircraft (such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8288 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA754A (aircraft) etc.), a few of these deletion requests are closed as keep because the de minimis apply (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PT-MUA (aircraft) in Stormtroopers livery) (having similar case of China Airlines aircraft tails) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Airbus A320 VN-A680 at Tan Son Nhat Oct 2014.jpg, having new evidence (Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA marinjambo jr. tak.jpg).

User:S5A-0043, User:Nick-D and even the official Commons:De minimis policy are saying clear. KMB1933 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I would say the Batman poster in File:A_Porsche_997_GT2_in_front_of_Boutique_de_parfumerie_Guerlain,_356_rue_Saint-Honoré.jpg is, indeed, just short of the cutoff level for de minimis. It is saved only by the fact that it is somewhat out of focus. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For me, a photo of the entire plane should be fine -- the livery is incidental. That is not the same as de minimis, which they may well not be, though we mention this on the Commons:De minimis page. Basically, the subject is a wider scope, and the copyrighted work is unavoidable. This is the same as the Ets-Hokins decision, where a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrighted label on the bottle (unless you are focusing on the label). So any crop or focusing on the artwork itself is a problem, but the entire plane should be OK. There are rulings to this effect in the U.S. and France, and several countries mention this explicitly in their laws. Other countries are more nebulous but I'm not sure I've seen a ruling against that theory anywhere, so I would prefer to assume it applies more generally until we get such a ruling. There needs to be some line where a logo artist does not get derivative rights over every photo their work appears in, and that one seems to be the most common one. The incidental line does not include photos focusing on the element, or photos where the element was intentionally included for effect. But, I do think we should apply that rule more generally. If you claim "de minimis" though, that is a different legal standard, and people may well delete when they (validly) reject that argument. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Must concur with thee; the grand duke is ignoring past Keep decisions by consensus from many years ago. Can't let this slide further without giving considerations on alternative options (move to Wikipedias or other site preserving the licenses they had on upload).

In light of the Marine Jumbo file; if he keeps adding more of these request templates to related, those of the three A380s of ANA would be condemned as well. Outside of Japan, probably the ones with pandas. Such discussions mustn't be ignored and undeletion requests of a handful (for the purpose of inclusion to WP articles if needed) soon as possible. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Do you have some case law descriptions or legal scholar opinions about what may constitute "focusing" on copyrighted material? The Pokémon in File:CHINA AIRLINES A321-271NX B-18101 HND RJTT 08-OCT-2022 (52412820078).jpg for instance are quite highlighted by virtue of the lighting and having the plane centred in the frame. From a photographer's standpoint, I'd say that there is an artistic focus on them (and, necessarily, an optical one). Do I understand you correctly that your sentence The incidental line does not include photos focusing on the element, or photos where the element was intentionally included for effect. is meant to not cover such imagery, because it is a valid assumption that the spotter shot is meant to include the livery "for effect"? That's creating an innate contradiction between it and "but the entire plane should be OK", though. On the other hand, I can easily understand it as proposal for consensus to have images like the China Airlines Pokéjet as "Not OK" and images like File:JR East E231-500 (Yamanote Line) with Pokémon advertisement 2009-08-03.jpg or File:E311-1001 at Utsunomiya Station 20080914.jpg as borderline OK for incidental inclusions. The train images do not optically and artistically put as much emphasis on the Pokémon artwork as the CAL plane still.

Furthermore, I just read through Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and noticed the section s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.#2. The Bottle Is Not Copyrightable which reads: Under the Copyright Act, the design of a useful article, such as a bottle, is not protected unless the design includes features that exist separately from utilitarian ones. And THAT sentence alone arguably makes "Ets-Hokin" inapplicable to vehicle liveries, especially artistic plane paintworks! Choosing a colourful painting in the shapes of Pokémon, flowers, mascots, etc., actually puts a premium onto artistic considerations and relegates technical, utilitarian considerations (temperature resistance, corrosion resistance, weather resistance, aerodynamics...) on the second rank. Colourful paintworks that are only applied to selected parts are especially bad in regard to controlling the heating under solar light and alleviating thermal stresses in the airframe - uniform colours are much much better in that regard. So, artistic artwork liveries are meant to mostly be just that, artistic, and are well-separated from utilitarian aspects of painting an aircraft, in fact, those artistic elements are actually technically reducing the utilitarian value (of the livery) for fulfilling pure artistic purposes, as they arguably show for a quicker wear of the utilitarian object, the vehicle, they are applied to. The Pokémon are already existing as independent works of art, in video games, on trading cards, in manga and anime and merchandise. Both criteria tested in the Ets-Hokin case, that liveries have elements that "[include] features that exist separately from utilitarian ones" and that "can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article" are fulfilled. About the other factors: the pre-existing works, the Pokémon (or mascots or similar), are unambiguously copyrightable, so livery shots are derivatives of them.

@Poketalker: Could you please stop in referring to me using terms related to nobility, like "grand duke" or "Großherzog"? The persistence in doing so lately gives me the feel that you're perhaps intending to frame me as hidebound / reactionary, something similar or as being aloof. The intended etymology of my nickname is penned on my userpage (in German and English) and bears no relationship whatsoever to aristocracy. Thank you. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: -- the airplane is utilitarian and not copyrightable, just like the bottle. The livery is akin to a label on a bottle. We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. That does say that photos "mainly" of the label itself would be derivative -- at that point you are focusing on the copyrightable work. But photos of the whole airplane, are a photo of a utilitarian work. It may incidentally and unavoidably contain labels or liveries or whatever, but I don't know of a case anywhere, in any country, which ruled a photo like that derivative. At some level, a logo or livery designed does not get derivative rights over every photo in which that work appears -- as that ruling says, that would be prejudicial to photographers and their copyright. That ruling states plainly (for the U.S.) that a photo of the entire bottle is not derivative of a copyrightable label on the bottle, no matter how prominent. Much of the world would not be possible to photograph without encumbrance, really, without some dividing line like that. If you are focusing on the livery itself (i.e. not really caring about the full airplane), then it becomes different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I get the feeling that you're conveniently glossing over some points I argued before... At the least, I'm missing an explanation as for why they aren't pertinent, like arguing for that a vehicle livery is a pre-existing work as required in the Copyright Act.

First, a plane itself is utilitarian, yes. But in a stark difference to a beverage bottle, usually made in numbers reaching the millions yearly (or even monthly), the numbers of planes constructed over the life of the building program barely reach the five digits in the most extreme cases (like the Boeing B737, Airbus A320 family, and from the military: MiG-21, P-51 Mustang, Spitfire, F-6 Hellcat, Messerschmitt Bf 109). So, planes are clearly less "everyday" than bottles.

Then, the artistic liveries (I'll stay with Pokémon for the example) are, as written above, less utilitarian than plain colour liveries, like those worn by en:Delta Air Lines or Southwest Airlines planes - and the latter example is already more "communicative" and "advertising" than "technical", incurring higher and faster wear due to thermal stresses. Pokémon images are worse than Southwest's paint job, when looking at the needs of the plane, inducing even more tension loads into the hull. The functional livery is meant to protect the airframe from weather, abrasive wear and tear due to dust, corrosion and dirt and get good aerodynamics. You do not need or want Pokémon for that, only mostly uniform lacquering. Pokémon are going against the target you want to reach by painting your "everyday" plane: the protection from the elements.

Third, the contents of Ets-Hokin, when trying to apply them to aircraft liveries, contradict somewhat the descriptions and court decisions stated in COM:TOYS. Notably: "a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function" and Numerous lawsuits have shown that Mickey Mouse or Asterix have to be treated as works of art, which means they are subject to copyright, while a common spoon or a table are not works of art. Artistic elements of these items could be copyrighted, but only if it's separable from the utilitarian elements. As demonstrated: Pokémon on planes have no utilitarian function tied to being a livery; they are separable from the utilitarian elements. Thus, naturally considering the concept of case law and en:precedents, Ets-Hokin and its bottles are IMHO not sufficiently comparable to vehicle liveries to apply the ruling verbatim, there are really plausible grounds to also apply those toy-related rulings granting copyrights.

Fourth, simply photographing artistic plane liveries and also showing them off on photo websites are indeed IMHO not a really far-reaching interference into third-party IP rights. But granting a license allowing commercial reproduction is!! I'd say that photosites like Flickr or planespotters.net are safe, but not a media repository like Commons or Pixabay, because the offering of commercial re-usability comparatively intrudes much much more into the rights owned by the IP holders.

Lastly, there's indeed a high court ruling about vehicle liveries, where the inclusion of art was deemed a derivative: the ruling about the Kussmund on Aida ships. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The number of copies doesn't matter whatsoever -- if its expression was limited by utilitarian concerns, it's utilitarian. (The U.S. does not protect applied art with copyright.) An airplane is utilitarian. Livery is not utilitarian -- some may be simple, too simple for copyright, but none of it is utilitarian. It's not constrained by any utilitarian concern; it is pure 2-D decoration and artwork. Some are more artistic than others, but anything above the threshold of originality is just as much protected as a painting. Paint itself is utilitarian; the designs you make with it are not. Just like a label on a bottle, it may be a fairly substantial part of the resulting photo -- but the photo is still not derivative, if the photo is of the entire bottle. It is not the same as de minimis, at all. You can use "incidental" photos to on articles the livery -- but only with an illustration of a wider subject that copyright owner put it on, as an example. So yes there may be a lot of livery in a photo -- or other copyrightable decorations -- but a photo of the entire plane is not derivative, in the U.S. Livery designers, no matter how copyrightable, do not get derivative rights over every photo taken of the plane or containing it, whether there was one airplane with it, or thousands. When you focus on the livery itself, then that aspect disappears -- the focus of the photo is then the livery, and if it's copyrightable, then the photo is a derivative work. A toy airplane does not need to actually fly or perform any function, so is not utilitarian. As such, a photo focusing on that toy is a derivative work. Nothing in Ets-Hokin is in conflict with that. A photo of a larger subject where the toy appears (say maybe a photo of store shelves) -- is usually not derivative. It does need to be unavoidable when photographing that larger subject though -- if you intentionally include or place a copyrightable object in a scene to enhance the photo, that's not the same thing. (There was a case where a fashion designer had the model wear some fancy glasses to enhance the photo -- that was ruled derivative of the glasses.) The license we have here is only on the photo as a whole -- it does not allow you to make derivative works of the underlying object directly, only use it indirectly. You can use such photos commercially (sell them), but only as those photos. It's not just fair use. Much like FoP, you don't get any rights over the underlying work. Like de minimis, cropping to the copyrighted portions changes the question, so those particular derivatives are not OK. But you can use the photo as a whole in a collage or something. You seem to be conflating the level of artistry with "utilitarian", but that's not really it. The Aida case, the photos were allowed by the court -- and their FoP may allow you to focus on the decoration more than the U.S. would, at least as long as the public context was still there. In the U.S. a photo of the entire ship is fine -- but a photo focusing on the Kussmund is not, as that is clearly copyrightable. You would be limited to fair use on that photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Tut mir leid^(!), @Grand-Duc; my honourable character can't be compromised in replying to these sort of discussions. Anyway, it seems from the fourth  Keep decision of JA8578 + four remaining PokéJet files that photos of similar specials were and still are treated no differently to the Arkia DHC-7 example in De minimis and ordinaries before you came with a more restrictive interpretation. Will let your machine-translations do the thing on my recent reply to @Y.haruo on the 2020 amendment while I try to make one that's less-mechanical as possible. Stopgap? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Which of these hardware licenses are permitted on Wikimedia Commons?

On NIH 3D, there are a few licenses that some models are released under that do not currently have templates on Commons. These licenses include the following:

• CERN-OHL-P-2.0
• CERN-OHL-S-2.0
• CERN-OHL-W-2.0
• Solderpad (unclear of whether files are licensed under SHL-0.5 or SHL-0.51; there are currently no files on NIH 3D with this license)
• TAPR

NIH links to the Open Source Hardware Association for each of these licenses. If these licenses are permitted on Commons, what is the process for the text to include in a license template? ForeverFlying (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose, is there any policy or essay on Commons that goes over the process of adding a new license? Does such a policy exist, or am I free to create new license templates for these licenses? ForeverFlying (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Issues with songs from NickRewind clips

NickRewind has, as many know, been releasing clips from old television shows like iCarly, Victorious, and others, under a Creative Commons Attribution license on YouTube. My issue is with songs and music that appear as part of this.

Take File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm for example. The copyrights are also possessed by Columbia Records in addition to Nickelodeon Records, which is owned by a separate entity from Paramount/SkyDance. So is this song here fully available under the CC BY terms if only NickRewind releases it under CC BY? We have several other files like this, so we need to sort this out. The visuals might be released under CC BY, but is the audio? Aplucas0703 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons requires permission from the copyright holder themselves, so third-party content requires a separate statement of permission, in this case from Columbia Records. If no permission can be obtained, then the audio should be censored (muted) in the Commons upload. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's what I think. It doesn't seem like Nickelodeon alone can license the song. Aplucas0703 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If the rights are jointly owned by two companies, then one of them can license the rights independently of the other under United States law. Many other countries require the consent of all joint copyright owners, but this work is from the U.S.

Separately, Paramount would have to own the rights to both the sound recording and the composition for the audio to be fully CC-licensed. Qzekrom (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, damn, that's interesting. So then Nickelodeon actually can license it without Columbia's permission. Nickelodeon almost certainly possesses the composition copyrights, since they virtually always have them written as works for hire (to my understanding). There might be contractual restriction here where they have a contract with each other forbidding this licensing, but then Nickelodeon would be liable to Columbia, the public can still use it for free. Aplucas0703 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but here might be a case to consider: The song "Shakespeare" that appears at the end of this video is probably only owned by Sony Music, since the album was never released by Nickelodeon. Aplucas0703 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Possibly de minimis? SportsLover1967 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@SportsLover1967 De minimis is not going to apply here, because the point of the clip is to demonstrate the song. De minimis deals with incidental copying of work that adds no value to a derivative, not the copying of an entire work. Aplucas0703 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The Righteous Mind Book Cover - Below TOO?

I changed the file permissions on English Wikipedia for the cover photograph of the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt because I found it to be clearly below the threshold of originality. That photograph was the first edition cover. However, now I'm considering whether the cover of the most recent edition is likewise below the threshold of originality. (̈https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback) This cover features only text as well as cutouts of two figures from The Damned by Luca Signorelli, which is a public domain work, in a rather simple arrangement. As such, it the book cover is composed solely of unprotectable elements.

Per Satawa v. Lowry (which has cited by the copyright office in turning down logo copyrights̠)ː "not … any combination of unprotectable elements automatically qualifies for copyright protection. Our case law suggests, and we hold today, that a combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship."

I believe this most recent cover to fall below the standard of sufficiently original selection and arrangement. From what I've searched, the copyright office also doesn't recognize symbolism as an element of a work's copyrightability. I wanted to double-check, though, so that I don't act hastily with this decision or future decisions. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cauliflowerblackhole If the two figures are in the public domain then the entire cover is so as well as the simple lettering are too simple to be copyrightable. Jonteemil (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry about copyright status of images from Backloggd.com

Hi everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

I would like to know if it is permissible to upload images from the website Backloggd.com to Wikimedia Commons. Specifically, I am interested in using some of the game-related imagery found on their platform.

Since I want to make sure I am fully complying with Commons copyright policies before downloading and uploading anything, could someone please help me verify if the content on this site (or the specific types of images they host, like game covers/screenshots) is considered free media?

Thank you so much for your time and help!

Arthur Juraski (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Arthur Juraski I unfortunately doubt that any file from that site is free. Some very simple covers with text-only might be considered below the threshold of originality but that's assessed on a case-by-case basis. Screenshots of video games are never considered free, unless the video game itself has released their rights to copyright which is very uncommon. Jonteemil (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Upload of sports club logo with CC0 license

Someone recently uploaded the logo of a German sports club here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AC-Logo-2022-helle-Hintergruende.png) and tagged it with the CC0 license. I seriously doubt the author is the owner of that logo and is allowed to do that. What's the usual procedure here, ask the person on the personal discussion page about the upload? Bthfan (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bthfan:

1. Decide whether the logo is below COM:TOO (or, possibly, PD on some other basis, like something really old). If it clearly is, just change the license tag to {{PD-logo}} or something else appropriate. If it is unclear (which is the case here: this is on the edge of TOO) start a DR to discuss whether we can keep this as {{PD-logo}}. If it were clearly not PD, you could go to {{Copyvio}} if it is blatantly from somewhere online, or otherwise a DR, in which you would probably want to point to COM:THIRD and/or COM:VRT for what is needed.
2. In the case of a user like this with almost no other uploads, decide whether you feel like taking time to educate them. If you do, you might want to go to their talk page and give more of an explanation than they will implicitly get in the prior step. The shortest form of that would probably be a sentence or two with a link to COM:THIRD.
   • Also, definitely look at their other uploads to see if they raise similar issues.
3. In the case of a more experienced user, it's probably still worth looking at their uploads and maybe their user talk page to see if this is just the tip of an iceberg.

@Bthfan: Please indicate here whether you'll be following up, or whether this was more of an implicit request for someone else to take over. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I will follow-up, thanks for the information on how to proceed. Will first contact the uploader. Bthfan (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Are all NASA astronaut photos government works?

A "work of the United States Government" is defined as a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. (17 U.S.C. § 101) Clearly, a NASA astronaut is an employee of NASA, so the first part of this definition applies. But the second criterion must also be met - that is, the astronaut must have created the work while acting within the scope of their employment, as determined by agency law principles. The criteria, according to Restatement (Second) of Agency (quoted in Harbeson (2025)), are:

228. General Statement

(1) Conduct of [an employee] is within the scope of employment if, but only if:

(a) it is of the kind [s/he] is employed to perform;

(b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits;

(c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the [employer]...

It's not clear to me that all photos or videos that happen to be taken by the astronaut during a space mission automatically meet these criteria. One such work (File:Only one chance in this lifetime.webm) seems more like a "personal video taken at work" - Reid Wiseman wasn't obviously on duty when he took the video, and he wrote that he couldn't resist a cell phone video of Earthset while his colleague Christina Koch was taking the actual Earthset photos, and it was posted to his personal Twitter account.

By analogy, I could take photos at the office while off duty and they wouldn't necessarily be considered works made for hire if I was motivated by personal reasons rather than business objectives and I'm hired as a software engineer, not a photographer, even if my employment contract requires me to assign the copyright to my employer because they were taken on company property. That said, photography and public relations are definitely the type of work that NASA astronauts are employed to perform, and the video could have been motivated "by a purpose to serve" the mission even if it looks personal. Qzekrom (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Assuming we mean while they are in space (or otherwise engaged in their work capacity), I would say the answer is yes, these are U.S. government works. Obviously, like anyone else, a NASA astronaut can take picture of their family, or of a building in their home town, without those being government works. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If a hypothetical astronaut took a photograph of their own body, which strongly suggests a personal purpose, and which they believe that if released would likely have a negative overall publicity effect (it could nevertheless be positive in some contexts), by what rationale would we suppose that it is a government work or work for hire? How do we distinguish this from an otherwise similar non-astronaut employee, or even that same astronaut, taking a similar photo in the terrestrial toilet facilities at work? If there's something special about the employment arrangements of astronauts, what is it, and how do we know that? TheFeds 00:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Usually if it's released through an official government channel, such as a website or verified social media account, that's considered acceptable for Commons as those are intended to be exclusively used for work. A selfie which was made at work and published through a government channel infers that the photo was made in their capacity of being employed by the federal government. This is not exclusive to astronauts, and applies also to eg. senators. It is not strictly relevant to whether the photo is good or bad for publicity as the federal government often posts or releases content which generate unintended negative publicity.

Now, in the initial case brought up by @Qzekrom, we can actually see the video was not a personal Twitter account as they claimed. The account actually bares a government checkmark, a NASA logo, and the bio has a direct link to nasa.gov. By any reasonable measure this is an official government channel. The claim that Wiseman was also not on duty is also incorrect as he was participating in the Artemis II mission at the time. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 07:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree that the publication by the photographer on a federal government channel they control in the course of their government employment would ratify it as a government work, without needing to further consider the motive or circumstances at creation. We don't need to determine if the work was federal ab initio or if it was federalized by its willing "prepar[ation]" by its copyright holder as part of their federal employment. (My statement about the negative effect was intended to state a hypothetical where the photo-taker and their agency would have both understood that the photo was not relevant to their job—it was just during or at work and they took no care to conform it to any assigned job duty. It was an argument against an automatic presumption by virtue of employment.) TheFeds 20:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

For some professions, people are at work when they are in the field, whatever they are doing. This is even more true for astronauts during a short mission like Artemis. They are certainly on duty from the moment they left Earth, and until they come back. And even when sleeping. Astronauts in a long-term mission in the ISS may be different. I think a good measure is: who pay in case of a medical issue? If the employer pays (or its insurance), then people are at work. Yann (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this property right should be assigned by reference to unrelated employment obligations. Imagine a message to an intimate partner: "look at my [use your imagination] in zero-g". Automatically in the public domain by operation of law because of the consequences of a flightsuit zipper malfunction? I say no, because although they are employed to produce some kinds of photos and messages, even of an informal nature, they are not employed to produce content indiscriminately. And their concept of what serves the employer's interest is at issue: it's not obvious that they would have this in mind for every possible work, particularly if not accompanied with intent to distribute. (Also, just to be complete, restatements of law are not law: they are persuasive rather than authoritative.) TheFeds 01:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploads of Fcstmani

• Special:ListFiles/Fcstmani

Pretty much all of their files are claimed as own work however I have a hard time believing that. They are indeffed on enwiki and on User talk:Fcstmani there are many copyvio and No permission since notices. I asked them about it a month ago without a response. While I can't find any matches on Tineye or Google eye, all files just seem taken from somewhere else, for example File:Park Tae-rang 01.jpg even has a Voyo watermark on it. Noteworthy also is that all files lack Exif information which makes it more suspicious. What do you think? Can I nominate all of their files for deletion, or at least many of them, requesting proper evidence that they are own works? Jonteemil (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Looks like you are right. Photos that appear to be from many places in the world in a narrow time frame, none with EXIF. The complete lack of overt mention of where in the world many of these were taken is also suspect. Lack of finding sources might mean they are scren grabs from videos. Also, old photos with dubious copyright claims (for File:Čierny Balog c.1944.jpg, how could anyone be confident that the unidentified author of a c. 1944 photo has been dead for 70 years, but that's the claim; also no accounting for how that would be PD in the U.S.).

So: I think you should feel free to pursue this as aggressively as you might want. Unless there is a lot less to this than meets the eye, this looks like continual copyfraud. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

BMW art cars?

Wondering how we should handle photographs of the w:BMW Art Car fleet. These are BMW racing cars with artist-designed paint jobs, the program has been ongoing since the 70s. I'm really only concerned with the designs from after 1989, specifically those which appear to rise above ToO in the US (several of the designs are definitely below ToO as simple geometry). These could either be a work-for-hire, so BMW owns the copyright, or the artists may have signed an agreement to retain copyright themselves.

Obviously the cars are not copyrightable as useful objects. But the paint wraps appear copyrightable as they are intellectually/visually separable from the cars themselves. And I do not believe freedom of panorama exemptions would apply here, as these cars are only ever exhibited in museums/galleries/public spaces temporarily, and when they're used in races they are also not permanently on view; a race day event is inherently temporary.

Here are three examples to give a sense of what I'm talking about:

• 2019 car by Julie Mehretu: File:BMW M Team WRT - BMW M Hybrid V8 -20 (53815726583-crop2).jpg
• 1995 car by David Hockney: File:BMW Art Car no. 14, 850CSi David Hockney (1995).jpg
• 1992 car by Sandro Chia: File:BMWArtCar-Chia2.jpg

Thoughts? 19h00s (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Whatever would be the copyright status of the decorations, these are covered by FoP. Yann (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

How? A car is not permanently on view. A car in a race is inherently only there for the race, it's not as if it's parked on the track forever. The Mehretu car is pictured in a temporary race, and the Hockney car is pictured at a temporary car show in London. Of the three examples I gave, only one is on view in such a way that could be interpreted as permanent (the car by Sandro Chia, which is pictured inside the BMW museum, which regularly shows the cars; but I don't even believe that's "permanent", these cars are also shown in temporary exhibitions around the world as a full group, so there's no way that one is permanently on view at that museum). --19h00s (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The section above about aircraft liveries might be of interest here[1]. Nakonana (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg, sorry to tag you in here, but would you apply the same airplane livery logic to the one-off designs on these cars? I would note that the designs are not re-used like a logo or other traditional livery, they're only applied to one individual car each. 19h00s (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, if it's a photo of the entire car, any copyrighted work on the car itself is "incidental". Yes, the car itself is utilitarian. The designs are separable and fully copyrightable. But to me, photographers have a right to photograph the car -- any designs on the car are "incidental" in that they are unavoidable if you are trying to photograph the entire car. Photos which focus on the designs, and not the car itself, are not OK (unless FoP can also apply, which it may in some countries). If a photos is trading off the specific expression on the cars in some way (more than just depicting it), then "incidental" may not apply. The cars are unique, but it's still unavoidable when photographing the larger subject. That is the Ets-Hokin decision in the U.S. (also more or less backed up by Latimer v. Roaring Toyz which was about a custom paint design on a motorcycle, when photographing the entire motorcycle, though the actual ruling ended up being based on contracts). Those are both U.S. law, but France does have a "theory of the accessory" court ruling, where a prominent, copyrighted building in a photograph of a street did not cause it to become derivative, and several countries have "incidental" use sections in their laws. I tend to think these fall under that theory -- not de minimis, though our policy on that is documented on the Commons:de minimis page. To me, the copyright is the same if it's on one car or thousands. The number of copies of a work don't change its copyright status, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg: You apparently amalgamate "But to me, photographers have a right to photograph the car" with the assumption that the photographers have always the right to release their photos under free licenses. That is maybe the case for the US (courtesy of the Ets-Hokin case), but certainyl not universally in all legal spheres of the world. I certainly won't deny that photographers actually have the right to take photos of artistic vehicle liveries. But often, bits and pieces of IP rights that I encounter, aiming at safeguarding financial/ monetary benefits, seemingly put a limit upon what said photographers can do. Taking photos: yes. Publishing their photos: often yes (on sites like Flickr or private homepages). Granting free licenses for their works: doubtful when third-party rights are involved, isn't it? I think that the licensing is only definitively legitimate when strong FOP or similar excuses, expressively allowing commercial endeavours, are provided by law. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There is certainly variance in copyright laws, so nothing is absolutely certain, but I am not aware of a court case -- anywhere -- which ruled something like that derivative. If this sort of thing was commonly derivative, you should be able to find court cases somewhere over the history of copyright law. And indeed, many countries have explicit "incidental" exception clauses in their laws, which is exactly this -- the subject was something other than the copyrighted work, and it was unavoidably there. There are limitations to that of course, but that concept seems fairly universal, to the point I would only delete if one particular country had an actual ruling to the contrary. This has long been part of policy. It is documented on the Commons:De minimis page; see the "Copyrighted work X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable" section. The picture of the the Louvre square, with the (copyrighted) pyramid in the center, is one example -- the pyramid is certainly not de minimis but it doesn't cause the photo to become derivative, either. There was a court case similar to that in France, where a copyrighted building, which was a substantial part of a photograph of a street, was ruled to not cause the photo to be derivative. France does not have FoP, nor an explicit exception for incidental works, but their judges have apparently consistently ruled along those lines.[2] Our policy page does list out many laws which do have clauses about "incidental" inclusion. Some photos in that situation (like elements in the background) may also be de minimis, but there are "incidental" photos which are not de minimis either. The limitations to "incidental" are more about deliberate inclusion -- maybe a photo of a speaker, and the photo is framed to specifically include a poster of that speaker in the background -- that is deliberate inclusion for effect, and the photo's expression is then partly trading off the expression in the poster, and that is derivative. And of course, like any of these exceptions (FoP included), you can't do something which prejudices the normal exploitation of the underlying work -- say if you manage to combine some of these exceptions to create a work which is essentially just a copy of the original, that would be one example which would do that. But that's a blanket clause in the Berne Convention which every country dutifully puts in their laws -- again, not sure I've seen a court case which got into that clause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of circa-1982/83 Interdynamic USA photograph

I was referred here from Wikipedia copyright questions. I am trying to determine whether this photograph might be in the United States public domain under {{PD-US-1978-89}}.

Image: https://content.osgnetworks.tv/firearmsnews/content/photos/Interdynamic-KG-9-Review-1.jpg The photograph apparently depicts George Kellgren, Carlos Garcia, Mercedes Garcia and other Interdynamic USA personnel with the first KG-99 firearm (first sold in 1982)

It appears to have been taken in Florida in 1982/83.

The image is reproduced on these webpages: Firearms News, published July 30, 2020: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/interdynamic-ab-kg-9-review/382628 This page credits it as “Photo courtesy George Kellgren.” The Kommando Blog, published September 30, 2022: https://kommandoblog.com/2022/09/30/tec-9-the-history-of-intratec/ This page calls it a photograph of Interdynamic USA circa 1983 and credits it as “Image courtesy of George Kellgren.” TinCanBandit, published in 2023: https://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/2023/10/firearm-factory-of-month-intratec.html Strzal.pl: https://strzal.pl/tec-9-ulubiony-czarny-lud-hoplofobow/

I understand that these recent reproductions do not establish a free licence or prove that the photograph was published during the 1980s. I have not found the photographer’s identity, an original publication, a copyright notice, or evidence concerning copyright registration.

Is there enough information to treat this as a United States work published before March 1, 1989 without notice, or would I need evidence of an actual 1980s publication—such as a catalogue, advertisement, press release or magazine appearance—before {{PD-US-1978-89}} could apply? Entropy1999 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Entropy1999: I think you'd need evidence. You are not only saying it was published before March 1, 1989, but you are saying it didn't have an appropriate copyright notice. If you haven't seen the publication, how do you know it lacked notice? - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You would need some evidence of distribution of copies without notice by the copyright owner before 1989. If this was a private photo just made public in 2020, then no. If there were several copies handed out to the participants, maybe, but it would depend on the circumstances, and likely very gray at best. This would not fall under the older limited vs general publication doctrines for pre-1978 publication, which may be a little easier to justify. It would have to be published by the 1978 rules, being the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. And you would have to know there were no copyright notices on those copies, front or back. Seems to me a very uphill battle to get enough evidence on something like this to believe it's public domain beyond a significant doubt (not aware of many rulings on semi-private photos like this becoming PD, and where the lines are). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Great and Unfortunate Things

Is this cover below ToO? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In the United States yes, definitely: simple text and shapes. In the United Kingdom, yes, mainly because the letterforms are unlikely to have been made artistically. They appear to be from a script font that includes glyphs which appear in several places (although some letters have alternates). Notice the inattention to the connecting stroke on "nf" and in a few other ambiguous places, suggesting that this was unlikely to have been calligraphed or even laid out with deliberate care. The text itself is merely the title of the work and the author/subject of the work, without apparent poetic intent. The colour and underline motif itself is not creative, although the emphasis on the word "Unfortunate" with the discordantly skewed line is a creative choice, albeit without significant skill or effort. TheFeds 23:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Please help me understand the issue

Hi guys! So I uploaded a file recently which appeared to be under cc0 license, but apparently it's not clear enough/maybe it isn't. The warning said that there isn't enough evidence at the claimed source, despite it saying that the image is free for commercial use and doesn't require attribution. Can you guys please explain why the information provided at the source of the file isn't enough evidence to say that it is licensed under cc0? Here is the link to the file File:Gaming chair.png. Thank you in advance! I'll be more careful in searching for images TheNoob1337 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The CC0 license offered by PurePNG is probably invalid - the image appears to have been copied from an Amazon product listing. Omphalographer (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Portuguese painting examination

I am considering uploading a few photographs identified as details of the restoration of the portrait of Afonso de Albuquerque in 1955. The photographs therefore appear to date from 1955, but since they are scans of an X-ray examination, I am unsure whether I can apply PD-Portugal-photo or PD-Art. They are hosted at the following links:

• https://www.nationalgeographic.pt/historia/tem-mesmo-a-certeza-que-sabe-quem-e-afonso-albuquerque_1111
• https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstream/10174/35176/1/REIS_Full_Paper.pdf

Fróis (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Possibly not PD image on a PD book

Hello! I'm inquiring on the availability of a photo in a National Cyclopedia on American Biography. There's this photograph of Percival Symonds in The National Cyclopedia on American Biography, released 1963, where it shows Symonds here:

• https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078229328?urlappend=%3Bseq=21%3Bownerid=13510798899730953-25

I'm assuming the book's in PD since it wasn't renewed, although I don't know the copyright status for the photo itself. I'm also not sure if the pictures in the Cyclopedia took these photos or had been given permission to use the photo by a different person. Can anyone help me? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Since the book does not give any specific credit for photographs, it is probably safe to assume that the photographs are covered by the same copyright as the book itself. Anything else would entail looking at the agreements between the photogrpaher and the book's publishers (which are private if they still exist). Martinvl (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Or, with more focus on legalities: the inclusion of the photos in the book was presumably authorized. When the book passed into the public domain, the photos would have been part of what became PD, exactly as with any of the text (which also had multiple authors). - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is that true in the general case? Imagine an artistic photograph that was registered and all formalities complied with. Its copyright holder offers a licence to include it in a book and the publisher accepts it by paying a fee and including the photo. The book later falls into the public domain through non-renewal. What specific facts need to be true to allow the publisher's neglect to count against the photographer's copyright? Is there a kind of credit or acknowledgement required, and does it have to be explicit and specific? Does the licence need to have a specific structure, e.g. no saving clause or reversion clause? In each case, according to what theory of law?

I think there is potentially a fair use argument (the photo was distributed widely with authorization, so the effect on the market for the photo would be in terms of its value outside of the book), and maybe a de minimis argument (if you reproduce the photo in conjunction with a substantial excerpt from the book, of which it forms a small part; or if you depict the book open to that page in a composition that does not rely on that particular photo being seen). But neither of those are the same as becoming public domain and allowing unrestricted reuse and derivation. What is the impact on other licensees—can they rely on this unrelated contract, to the licensor's detriment?

I get it that on Commons we have often accepted the contents of books as being PD based on a presumption that the only possible copyright is the one stated by the publisher. But do we have case law or a persuasive expert opinion to rely on, or is that just habit (maybe consensus)? TheFeds 18:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a nonexpert's view on a similar situation: "Copyright owners maintain the separate rights to control copies and derivative products. You’d need the copyright owner’s permission to redistribute their image" [emphasis omitted]. TheFeds 18:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The US case would be very different from other cases. In the US case, for the work published 1931-1963 to be independently under copyright now, it would have had to have been registered and renewed independently. [3] and [4] together are a list of all works of art, photography, or technical or scientific drawings renewed in 1962, for works of 1934 and 1935. (1934 works could have been renewed earlier, 1935 works could have been renewed later, but that's about a year's worth of renewals.) There's not that many renewals for how many photos and paintings there are, so finding a particular photo has been renewed is rare. Otherwise, renewal of the book would have often renewed all the works first printed in it, and failure to renew the book would have lost copyright. If this photo were separately first published in 1951-1963, I see no renewal for at the Copyright Office online database. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think this is copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Bachrach Studios

This is a followup to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:George_Wilcken_Romney.jpg, which I have now withdrawn. There appears to be some issues with the photos in category:Bachrach Studios (as well as its subcategories):

1. Bachrach Studios did indeed apply a valid copyright notice to at least some of its 1963-1977 portraits including [5], [6], [7], [8], (possibly also [9] depending on which exact year of the '60s). These would be protected by copyright (a year in the notice is unnecessary as they do not count as a "printed literary, musical, or dramatic work")
2. Bachrach Studios also registered some portraits for copyright incl. [10], [11], and [12].
3. Several scans of Bachrach portraits were taken from Getty Images and uploaded to Commons without providing explicit evidence of publication history, seen here.

Can pre-1989 portraits by Bachrach (including those on Getty Images) be assumed public domain or does it require explicit evidence of prior publication without copyright notice? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have reworded the copyright information at the category to be more nuanced. Generally we have been following case law which has an image being "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator. While it is possible that some of these images remained as negatives, and were never printed, we have no evidence to support it. Also the copyright formalities do not appear to be followed, the copyright notices lack a year. Copyrights have been lost because of flawed copyright notices. See: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] which are devoid of the year. --RAN (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  I will reiterate again that the copyright notices did not need a year as only that which is "a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work" requires a year on the notice to preserve copyright. Such photographs without a year on the notice are indeed protected by copyright. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyrightability of political party flag

Is en:File:Flag of PFLP.svg really complex enough to qualify for copyright? HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Now, we can assume the party flag's copyright will be the same as the PFLP logo itself due to minimal difference.

In the US, it is probably public domain. It appears below the complexity of design for some logos listed in COM:TOO US.

But to be hosted on Commons, the logo also needs to be public domain in its country of origin, which is presumed to be the State of Palestine. Palestine's copyright law is murky and unclear on threshold of originality, so the consensus on Commons so far has been to assume the strictest case possible.

Due to this assumption, the PFLP flag and logo have been repeatedly deleted from Commons:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PFLP flag svg.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:PFLP Infobox Flag.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:PFLP Logo.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) flags Ni'lin.jpg

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Am I able to use it on other Wikipedia pages? Also, is there a tag on Wikipedia indicating that the picture is (probably) PD in the US? HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

For other language versions of Wikipedia, it depends on if they allow users to locally upload non-free files.

Specifically for the English Wikipedia, there are two ways you can go about using it on other articles:

1. Place it on an article and provide a separate non-free use rationale for that article on the file description page.
2. Have the file locally reclassified as a public domain file in the US. You can either do this by boldly replacing the licensing info directly with {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Palestine}}; or you can request the copyright status be changed at WP:FFD if you are uncertain and/or believe the change will be opposed by other editors.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I was planning to put it on en:List of political parties in Palestine, I think I'll go for the second case. But to be clear, if this change is undisputed, then the file is able to be used freely on English Wikipedia, but just not uploaded on Commons? Thank you for your help so far. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

If the edit to the licensing is undisputed, then yes it can be used on the English Wikipedia. If others dispute or revert your edits, you will have to initiate a discussion at FFD. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Lietuvių draugijos nukentėjusiems dėl karo šelpti centro komitetas.jpeg

File:Lietuvių draugijos nukentėjusiems dėl karo šelpti centro komitetas.jpeg seems like it might be incorrectly licensed given that the photo's description states it was taken in 1923, most likely in COM:Lithuania. Can Commons keep the file as currently licensed or should it be relicensed (for example, as {{PD-Lithuania-anon}})? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The PD tag is based on the license displayed on Europeana. Some museum/archive has determined that this photo is in public domain. I see no reason to second guess it. Renata3 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses weren't around back in 1923; so, such a license would only make sense (at least in my opinion) if the source of the file (en:Europeana) was claiming to be the copyright holder of the photo and deciding to release it into the public domain. My query wasn't so much to get the file deleted but rather to see whether another license might be more appropriate. FWIW, museums and archives do sometimes incorrectly license the content they host, with some even going as far to claim copyright ownership/authorship over works already within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely PD per {{PD-1923}} and {{Anonymous-EU}} (Lithuania is a part of the EU). -- Pofka (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Direito autoral da criação e desenho do brasão da cidade de Cristalina - Goiás

Acrescentar o nome do Criador Adair Alves Ferreira (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Adair Alves Ferreira: Se for sobre algum arquivo específico, por favor, adicione um link. - Jmabel ! talk 03:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this a valid license?

File:Lagari Hasan Çelebi.jpg is listed as a photograph released into the public domain, but it is of a sculpture that is implied by the categories to be in the collection of the Turkish Aeronautical Association Museum, so I'm assuming that the original sculpture is probably still under copyright. The uploader last edited in 2013. Any thoughts, short of a deletion discussion? Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is indeed a deletion discussion material. Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Can this picture of a racehorse from the 80s be uploaded? (Published simultaneously in Japan/US in Nov 1988)

Hi all, unfamiliar with a lot of the ins and outs of copyright so I wanted to sanity check the copyright status of this photograph to see if it can be uploaded.

Currently I'm working on the page for Pay the Butler on the english wiki. A while back I uploaded a fair-use photo for his infobox. The horse was active in the late 80s so photos are very rare.

The source for this is Sankei Sports, which in the link has republishing an article of theirs from 28 November, 1988. No copyright/photo author is given for the photograph.

Recently, I have discovered the same photo was published in Daily Racing Form, a US sportspaper, on 30 November 1988 (Liebman, Dan (November 30, 1988). "Pay the Butler Runs to Pedigree in Japan Cup". Daily Racing Form. p. 5.). I'm afraid I don't have an online link for this since it was a scan, but can be verified if anyone reaches out to a archivist such as Keeneland Library. No copyright/photo author is given in this article either (it's only got a caption identifying the individuals in the photo), and I haven't found any evidence that it was registered for US copyright within 5 years.

I believe because there were only two days between publication in the US and Japan, this counts as simultaneous publication under US copyright rules. As such, would this photo be considered to fall under {{PD-US-1978-89}} due to US publication without notice, and thus be uploadable to wikicommons, or is there more to this one that would prevent it?

Thanks in advance. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: it is certainly simultaneous publication, but wouldn't the Daily Racing Form have had a copyright notice on its masthead? That would have covered all content except advertisements. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: There are indeed copyright registrations of the 1988-11-30 issue for several editions of Daily Racing Form (use control F with the codes):

• Northwest edition: TX0002446963
• Eastern edition: TX0002451373
• Chicago edition: TX0002444948
• Los Angeles: TX0002450735

The matter of whether the issue was printed with or without a copyright notice is thus irrelevant to its copyright status. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks @Howardcorn33. I'd zeroed in on searching for the photo rather than the newspaper as a whole - as I said, still much to learn on copyright! Yeah that definitely makes this all a moot point, so I'll stick with the current image.

Thanks both for the quick response! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violation on "Bucha. Faces of War" pic.

File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52703075678).jpg is described as "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic" but I reckon this is nonsense, a mistake; bullshit or whatever you call it. The photo was uploaded from Flickr and is shown as copyright checked by one of Wikimedia's volunteers, but it was subsequently removed from Flickr for copyright violation. It is described as property of Reuters and I believe this company make its money from not giving away their photographs for free. ~2026-44544-25 (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It was uploaded by @A1Cafel, who wrote that it was being used with permission ("these images have been shared with the permission of [...] Reuters and photojournalist Alex Kent"). Perhaps they can comment about what else they know of it? A separate automated process verified that the licence was placed on the file at Flickr (but not necessarily that the upload to Flickr was with the copyright holder's permission). Also, see COM:DEL for the deletion options, and the evidence that could be considered; did you have a process in mind? TheFeds 02:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The license review was an automatic check, only verifying that the Flickr source did indeed have that license. The Flickr stream is from the Irish government, which should be reasonably careful about licensing, but made a mistake here I would say. The photo was removed from Flickr, and the Irish government would have no right to license it, so this is an example of license laundering, though likely just an accident rather than intentional. It may have been shared by permission but can't imagine the right to license it with Creative Commons was part of that. Uploaded in good faith, but it should be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to find a valid licence?

I've uploaded the pictures in Category:Third series Euro banknotes proposals under CC BY-SA 4.0. I know, that the licence stated only partially complied with the ECB’s terms of use, and I have therefore reproduced these in full alongside the relevant images. The reason for this lies in the significance I attach to these works in illustrating the development of the euro, and the high level of public attention they attract. The euro is one of the world’s most important currencies in the world, which justifies these assumptions in the first place. These assumptions are supported by the use of the works on the german Wikipedia [18].
However, as I am aware that this licence is only partially correct, whilst at the same time the licence does not, logically, apply to the euro banknotes themselves, and as the documentary and news-related use of the works is certainly permitted, it would be helpful to know which licence these works fall under and to adjust them accordingly, rather than deleting them. Thank you Bookwood112 (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons does not make an exception to licensing on grounds of historical or educational importance. This is a core principle of Commons and non-negotiable (see FAQ at the top of this forum). Placing a CC BY-SA notice (or any other free license) where the ECB did not explicitly release such material is a misrepresentation of the stance of the copyright holder. Unless we receive evidence of permission from the ECB, such images are not allowed on Commons and must be deleted. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 10:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In other words, no, there is no valid license on Commons unless the ECB changes their terms of use. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 10:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

De Minimis in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello,

I was wondering how de minimis applies to pictures taken in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and if the de minimis template is to be applied to pictures taken there in the same way it is applied to pictures taken elsewhere.

Thank you for your time,

–Julian Lupyan (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons editors uploading crops to be credited as authors?

re: [19] ?

|Author={{Author|original|{{Anefo|Rob Bogaerts}}}} / {{Author|derivative|{{U|Danyele}}}}

Original: Rob Bogaerts for Anefo / Derivative work: Danyele

Crops are already credited through the edit / upload log. @Danyele: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Here, we deal with copyright issues every single day: so what's the problem with giving the most accurate attribution possible? — danyele 16:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between detail and accuracy. This is more detailed, but it's not necessarily accurate and it's certainly out of line with our typical practice on describing uploaded COM:CROPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

For basic crops, I don’t think it’s necessary. Majority of crops are minor in nature and don’t add anything to the work. The author line should be reserved for the creator/copyright holder, and to ensure they are appropriately credited. PascalHD (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree that author should be the creator/copyright holder, and being labeled the author of the "Derivative work" is misleading as crops typically aren't derivative works which adds new copyright. -Consigned (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Photos of physical products

Do these count as derivative works? Or does COM:DEMINIMIS apply?

• File:AFC-vi-lua-mi272523181901.jpg
• File:Th-true-milk-yogurt-natural-cocoa-cereal.jpg
• File:Vinamilk-adm.jpg
• File:SamsungGalaxyA02 2.jpg
• File:SamsungGalaxyA02.jpg

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Ugandan FoP relies on fair use

As I have revisited the Ugandan law (whether the 2006 one cited in the CRT page or the newer 2023 version), the Ugandan Freedom of Panorama appears to rely on the fair use conditions under Section 15(2), since the 2nd year of Wikimedia Commons or in 2006. The previous (1964) law did not have fair use rule. Can we still accept the Ugandan FoP since August 4, 2006? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Ping commenters at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Uganda#Freedom of panorama discussion for comments on this. @Aymatth2 and Liuxinyu970226: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)