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.

Uploads by OneUnknownDude

User:OneUnknownDude has uploaded a bunch of files from https://gahs.edu.ge claiming they are licensed under CC0. However, I see no such notice on the website. Can someone experienced with checking copyright verify these claims? Thank you. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus "gahs.edu.ge + own involvement" makes no sense as a source. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@OneUnknownDude: can you explain what is going on here? For example, at File:All-GAHS ICYS team in 2025.jpg you say the photographer is unknown, but then you claim to be the copyright-holder offering a cc-zero license. To me that makes no sense at all. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Since they haven't got back to us, should we nominate the files for deletion? I'm not sure how this works on Commons very much. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: Yes, nominate for deletion, we have no evidence of the claimed license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

UN report covered by PD-UN-doc?

Is this UN report covered by PD-UN-doc? It does not, so far as I can tell, have a document symbol, which is the main category from ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, but I wanted to get others’ opinions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: would you know? - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf

File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf is currently listed as PD-USGov. While the redactions may be the work of a federal employee, the contact book obviously was not. However, I believe that this is still PD due to Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Can someone double check this interpretation, and if it is correct, does anyone know the template for this kind of situation? Based5290 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The arrangement seems to be alphabetical. So, such arrangement is not original. The element that might distinguish the contact book from the directory is the existence of a selection. The court observed that the directory simply listed the telephone subscribers, so there was no original selection (if any) and it could even plausibly be said that there was no selection at all because the publication was required by State law. For the contact book, there was certainly a particular selection of which names were selected. The crucial point is to tell if that selection would be considered original. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• I’m not sure what the utility of this file is. I’ve seen the full version, without redactions, on-line, so I don’t know why we have a redacted version. As it is now, it’s raw text in PDF form and therefore out of scope. I also think that there’s enough selection to be copyrightable, but I think that’s a closer call. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias @TE(æ)A,ea. I've nominated the file for deletion, since it's PD status seems suspect. Based5290 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

When can we assume anonymous author?

RAN has repeatedly used a rationale in DRs that I disagree with, most recently (that I've seen) at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clémence MOSSÉ.png. Basically, his argument (RAN, please indicate if I'm mischaracterizing) is that once we've done due diligence, if we cannot find original publication and cannot otherwise find an author attributed, we may assume an anonymous author and use a tag such as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. I say that we need at least some sort of evidence for the author being anonymous (typically, early anonymous publication), not merely the absence of evidence to the contrary, and that in a situation like the one described we need to wait until 120 years from creation, then use {{PD-old-assumed}}. In my view, RAN's argument amounts to saying that in any jurisdiction that allows anonymous works only 70 years protection starting from creation, we may apply that whenever we cannot determine authorship, and that the 120 years required for PD-old-assumed applies only to the case of a known author with an unknown death date.

There is no point to he and I repeating this disagreement on multiple DRs, and I would prefer some sort of determination about the argument in general. Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• A combination of Tineye and Google Image search looks at 14 billion images. It is impossible to prove a negative by the constraints of logic. The best you can do is perform due diligence. The argument is always if you just look under one more rock, you may find what you are looking for, but looking under 14 billion rocks represents the limits of trying to prove a negative. Most copyright jurisdictions allow a clawback from the public domain if a creator is discovered and the copyright term is still active at less than 70 years pma. We have always honored that rule, even when an archive claims that an image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• There's at least two interrelated issues here:

1. If we don't know where or how an work was first published, we cannot and should not make licensing statements which make specific assertions about its publication, e.g. that it was published anonymously or without a copyright notice. All we can say under these circumstances is that the origin of the image is unknown.
2. Independently of this, the fact that reverse image search services like Google Images or TinEye cannot find an image does not mean that the image is an original work, that it was previously unpublished, or that it was published anonymously. These services are notoriously unreliable; I've frequently had them fail to find images which are offered for sale on stock photo sites, or which have been posted on large public image galleries. Their failure to find a source for an image should not be treated as indicative of anything.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• If you don't know the original publication of a work, it is very hard to clearly say anything about the copyright status of the work is. How can we assume it's an EU work at all?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  A French midwife in the first half of the 20th century was most likely photographed in France, or in one of the other countries sharing a border with it. Googleing "Clémence Mossé" brings up a mention of her in https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/126221146.html#dbocontent : Im Juni 1936 auf dem von der Reichsfachschaft organisierten Internationalen Hebammenkongress in Berlin zur ersten Präsidentin der International Midwives Union (IMU) gewählt, nutzte Conti dieses Amt als Propagandaplattform für das „Dritte Reich“. Von 1942 bis 1945 amtierte sie in der Nachfolge des Weltverbandgründers Frans Daels (1882–1974) als Generalsekretärin der IMU und verlegte deren Geschäftsstelle gegen den Willen und hinter dem Rücken der Präsidentin Clémence Mosse (gest. 1949) von Gent nach Berlin. This places a probable place of work of C. Mossé in Belgium (Ghent). So the EU assumption seems valid.

  But I don't think that {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is something can can be easily and broadly used, if at all. The template claims, and that fits with the statutes as far as I know them:

  To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions:
  1. published over 70 years ago, and
  2. the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.

  That alone, and the policy Commons:Project scope/Evidence mandates that indeed a negative proof is needed before relying on the actual PD statute. COM:PRP comes on top. So, while I know that logic doesn't show for negative proof, the law, our policies and our layman's summary in the template in my opinion mandate exactly that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's a fairly specific licensing template, but there are some common cases where it can be applicable - news photos, maps, and incidental illustrations in books are three big ones. Omphalographer (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't even limit this template quite as far a Omphalographer, let alone Grand-Duc. I'd say that if we can find what appears to be the original publication of the photo (typically, publication very shortly after it was taken) and there is no photographer credit, then the burden would go to proving that the photographer later became known. But if the earliest publication we can find is years (in this case, decades) after the photo was taken, and it seems plausible (in this case, highly probable) that the photograph had prior publication, them we know exactly nothing about whether the original publication gave a photographer credit. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• The template has two requirements:
  1. Age: Published more than 70 years ago. So we would need to prove that it was published at least 70 years ago. If we can't find evidence of a publication which took place more than 70 years ago, then we can't use the template. For Commons purposes, there is also a requirement that the file must be in the public domain in the United States, which normally extends this from 70 to 95 years.
  2. Anonymity: This means that it is not possible to identify the author. On the Internet, you can often find photos which have been taken from an unspecified source without crediting the author, but this does not mean that the author is anonymous. If the author has once been known, he can't become anonymous, so you must check the original, unspecified, source.
• If you identify a print of the photograph which can reasonably be argued to be the original print, and the author isn't credited, then you can in my opinion assume that the author is presumably anonymous. However, if the original print is unidentified, we should not make assumptions about the author's anonymity.
• In some cases, we need further checks. For example, if the photo is credited to a news agency such as AFP, then the photo probably appeared in multiple newspapers at the same time, and then there is a risk that some newspapers credited the photographer and that some other newspapers did not. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, While we obviously can't assume that all images on the Internet published without naming an author are anonymous, in this case, it is quite safe to assume that the author is unknown and will ever be. I also run a search on Google and Tineye, and I could not find anything. It is also very reasonable to assume that it was published around the time of creation unless evidence shows otherwise. Anyway, there is no significant doubt, which is the standard for deleting copyright violations. Yann (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I need assistance with the "Release Rights" section of some images I wish to upload.

I recently took some screenshots to use as sources for this section of this article en:Sky Kid#Other appearances in media and the "I don't know if they are free to share" button said to ask for assistance. What do I do? SpyroFan123 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@SpyroFan123: could you be clear about what these screenshots show?

You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, but this may be a tricky enough case that that introduction may not go deep enough for this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The page I wish to add these screenshots to has these bullet points

"In Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies, the narrator frequently spends his time in a bar named "Sky Kid"."

And

"In Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, the character Chopper has a poster with Red Baron's aircraft on it in his room."

The screenshots I've taken are from the games' respective cutscenes showing the aforementioned bar and poster. SpyroFan123 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You are likely trying to upload non-free images for Wikipedia. If so, it cannot be done here on Commons. You can ask for comments at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Cover of And Their Refinement of the Decline

Would the cover art be okay for uploading to Commons because of TOO? Dentsinhere43 (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dentsinhere43: doesn't say what country, but if it's U.S., yes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Similar DRs with different result (COM:TOO UK and Stik graffiti)

One of the kept files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik

Last month I submitted a few DRs about Stik graffiti, two of them in the UK. Photos of graffiti in the UK are typically not allowed per COM:FOP UK, but this graffiti is basically stick figures (very simple). Files in one of the DRs were mostly kept as below COM:TOO UK while those from the other were deleted, though the complexity of the art across the two DRs is very similar, so we have an inconsistent result.

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik (7 of 8  kept as below TOO, 1 deleted)
2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik in London (84  deleted)

Could others please take a look and advise on how to resolve this inconsistency - should the deleted files be requested for undeletion, or should the kept files be DR'd again, or something else? (BTW I posted about this here last month before submitting the DRs but didn't get any responses. Pinging closers @Infrogmation and @Blackcat.) -Consigned (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The UK has a rather low TOO, however, the TOO was recently made higher, iirc. It might be worth checking what the exact recent changes to the UK's understanding of TOO were and whether they might have any implications on this graffiti. Going by the old TOO regulations, I'd say they'd need to be deleted, but I don't remember how high the TOO was made now. Nakonana (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright rules of which country?

Would you clarify when we look at copyright rules, which country's copyright rules shoud we refer to?

For example, if I took a photo in country A, with the subject of an artwork that was created in country B by the artist with a nationality of country C, which copyright rules apply? Country A/B/C's or all of them? Onthewings (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Onthewings: Hi, The only thing which matters is the country of first publication. For an artwork displayed in a public place, that's easy. For an artwork kept in a private place, it may be published in a different country than the one it was created: the place where it was first displayed to the public. For your picture, if you first upload it to Wikimedia Commons, the country which matters is USA, where Wikimedia servers are located. Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yann Thanks for the answer. Please allow me to ask another question to make sure I understand correctly.

In another scenario, for example there is a sculpture first published in a country. It was fully protected by the country's copyright law (no FOP etc). Then, the sculpture was transported and permanently placed in a public space in the UK, where sculptures are covered by FOP. Are we allowed to upload photographs of that sculpture in the UK to Wikimedia Commons? Onthewings (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that should be OK because the picture of the artwork is taken in UK, where FOP allows publication under a free license (assuming all conditions are met: permanent, public place, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. In that case what matters is where I took the photo (UK) instead of where I publish the photo (Wikimedia server in USA)? Onthewings (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Onthewings: For the FOP aspect, what matters is the law where the photo is taken and where the object is located. In your example, that’s the UK, which allows FOP for sculptures permanently in public places. So a freely licensed photo taken there is fine under UK law, even if the sculpture came from a country without FOP. On Commons, such images are accepted if they’re free in both the country of origin and the US. Since the US only has FOP for buildings, Commons uses {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to flag that reuse in the US may be restricted (but not really that widely used). (And just to correct a common misconception: it’s not about "servers in the USA". The WMF is US-based, so US law matters, but Wikimedia runs infrastructure worldwide.) For FOP, the relevant law is where the photo was taken. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the main servers are in USA. That may not be applicable for Wikimedia, but I was able to use the shorter duration of copyright when renting a server in Canada. Yann (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Veterinary X-rays in the United States

What would be the status of the X-ray images on this page? Do we need permission, or are they ineligible for copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging, it should be fine in the U.S. No explicit court case, but Copyright Office guidance explicitly states X-rays will not be granted a copyright registration, and it would take a court to overrule that (unlikely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Contradictory deletion nomination results on US passport photos

Recently the deletion request I initiated for the Tupac passport photos has been closed as "keep". I nominated those for deletion because an earlier deletion request for a passport photo of Ross Ulbricht was closed as "delete". These are contradictory deletion outcomes as both concerned passport photos of U.S. citizens. There are also the discussions for Janis Joplin's (delete) and Andrew Anglin's passport photo (keep). Thus we are forced to make a decision between:

1. U.S. passport photos are public domain
2. U.S. passport photos are not public domain

Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How are passport photos taken in the United States? In Sweden, you go to a police station, and then the photo is taken by a policeman (so the photo is always a government work). Is this also the case in the United States; that is, can {{PD-USGov}} be used for passport photos from the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had one taken by the post office once, but you can also supply your own. Unsure about old ones. There is very little variation/creativity on such photos, as the angle and the cropping are usually roughly all the same. There are gray areas of threshold of originality, and if something was considered published or not (important for U.S. copyright yet difficult to determine). Not surprised people come down on different sides of those, and it's just about impossible for there to be a copyright case on them, and there could be different situations for different ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In theory anyone can take them; requirements are rather specific.

• Color photo 2 x 2 inches in size, printed on thin, photo-quality paper.
  • Before circa 1980, they required black and white instead.
  • In recent years (don't know start date) they offer the alternative of color JPEG image between 600x600 and 1200x1200 pixels, with a square aspect ratio and a file size between 54 KB and 10 MB.
• Between 1 inch and 1 3/8 inches from the bottom of the chin to the top of the head.
  • Presumably the same ratio to file dimensions for a JPEG.
• Taken within the past 6 months at time you apply for passport, "showing current appearance."
• Full face, front view with a plain white or off-white background.
• Cannot have a smile that shows teeth.

Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you think these photos surpass the COM:PCP to be kept? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Passport photos need a free license. In the US, they are privately made; the government only gets the use of the photo rather than the copyright. For me, the debate is who owns the copyright: the photographer or the subject. I lean to the latter as the photograph would be a work for hire, but there is seldom a written contract where the photographer transfers the work. Skill is involved. I just got my driver's license renewed at the DMV, and the person running the camera was giving explicit posing instructions about tilting my head and where I should be looking. There may be requirements, but there is still some level of creativity involved. Glrx (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Conversely, for passport photos before 1978, the passing of the photo from the photographer to the subject, and thence to the State Department may well constitute publication, and certainly no copyright notice would be present, so quite possibly these would all have passed into the public domain for being published without notice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Bodycams and PD-automated

@Trade recently added a statement to {{PD-automated}} stating this template doesn’t cover bodycam footages. I know from past discussions that there wasn’t any clear consensus on whether bodycam footages are copyrightable, so I wanted to ask here again for other’s opinion on the added statement on the template. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It's long been an unwritten rule not to use PD-automated on bodycams and for us to delete such videos and screenshots. It's possible we have just never declared it an official policy

As for the DRs i was waiting for

Commons:Deletion requests/File:(Explicit Violent Content) Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing the Nova music festival area on 7th October.webm before taking any action against those Trade (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

For the DRs that voted kept it's worth keeping in mind they either had very fed participants. In other cases, most of the vote keeps were people engaging in personal attacks against the nominator --Trade (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• One problem with the template is that it doesn't properly address differences in national law. For example, under Swedish law, the only requirement is that the photograph has a producer, in which case it is automatically protected for 50 years from creation. Originality is only a concern if you still seek copyright protection after more than 50 years from creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  No one is stopped from making changes that adresses differences in national law Trade (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  So how do this work with CCTVs in Sweden? Trade (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  As long as the photograph has a producer, the copyright expires 50 years after the photo was created. I don't know who the producer is in the case of CCTV. Maybe it is the technician who last pressed the on/off switch. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just flagging that we previously went through a similar discussion on CCTV/automated camera videos a few months back, might be some useful insights in there. 19h00s (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Image with copyright but organization is OK

I've contacted a person from an organization sharing a file with this note:

"[organisation] Limited, 2020. All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as the copyright of [the organisation]"

a member from this organisation is OK until it is mentionned but not have time:right to send Wikimedia email.

What am I supposed to do ? Thibaut.leroy (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of what you wrote here is unclear (might you be able to be clearer in a different language?) but the quoted phrase isn't anywhere near sufficiently free for Commons.

You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Decorated sculpture trails

Regarding Category:Decorated sculpture trails, I believe most photos there were taken when the sculptures were temporarily exhibited in public prior to the auction, which decides who will get the sculptures and where to put them. Here is a Wikipedia article about one of such trails in the UK.

I wonder whether the photos are acceptable in Commons as I believe for example the UK FOP covers only works permanently placed in public spaces? Onthewings (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Country of publication and copyright for works created in the United Arab Republic

Hi. I was just looking through some files in Category:United Arab Republic and it seems like the licensing for them are all over the place. Since the United Arab Republic was a union attempt between Egypt and Syria, North Yemen, and Iraq depending on the years it was tried. My inclination is to say the proper licenses for works created during the republic would be "PD-Egypt", since they were the main country involved in the unification attempts, but I'm not really sure if I'm correct or not. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a copyright guideline for the United Arab Republic either. So does anyone know what license, or licenses, would be correct? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW I removed some pictures from Category:United Arab Republic which probably belong to Category:United Arab Emirates. Yann (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

1943 title page for Talking to India

en:File:Talking to India.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a non-free license, but it seems too simple to be eligible for copyright in the US per COM:TOO US. I'm curious though as to whether it might also be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the UK based on the UK's new TOO. Even if that's not the case, perhaps the book itself is now PD for some reason per COM:UK because of its age. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, The cover is probably OK, but the book is not in the public domain, as en:E. M. Forster died in 1970. Yann (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. Based on what you posted, I'm assuming a {{PD-text}} license is probably OK for both the US and UK, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• COM:UK#Typographical copyright indicates that there is a typographic copyright which expires 25 years after publication, but that has obviously already expired. Furthermore, I would think that the title page is normally not created by the author of the book and the person who created the title page is probably anonymous, so any copyright in the title page would have expired 25 or 70 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Stefan2. Based on what you posted, it appears the title page could be no longer eligible for copyright protection for two reasons: COM:UK#Typographical copyright and COM:UK#Unknown author. What licenses would you suggest using in the first case and in the second case? In the "unknown author" case, though, I'm wondering whether the page would've still been protected on the UK's URAA restoration date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of originality of logos

The shield in this logo appears to be something that is beyond "simple design" to qualify as public domain, but not so certain that I wanted to get some opinions before proposing deletion. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for VP/C rather than the now-open DR? - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , Easy on acronyms and abbreviations which took me a moment to decode. This discussion at Village Pump/Copyright was started 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC) by me as a broader discussion by me to really get a good idea of the boundary between simple and complex. Someone else filed a Deletion Request 3 1/2 hours later on the same file at 19:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC) which is beyond my control. So I'm not sure why you're asking the question? Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking why there was any reason to continue discussion here, given that there is now (or, more accurately, was at the time of my remark) an open DR. That DR has now been resolved. Again, is there anything that needs to be discussed here that was not covered in the DR? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

In broader picture, Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States shows nVidia logo is copyrightable but the Subway and Geek Squad ones aren't. At first sight, I'm not quite grasping what makes the nVidia one at the threshold. For those that haven't been through court/administrative dispute, how do we go about what's above below threshold for Wikimedia upload purposes? Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, partly informed by rationales given in court rulings. This is almost all case law, not statute law. Even actual copyright lawyers will sometimes disagree; because of the precautionary principle, we try to set Commons' threshold relatively near the low end of the gray zone. I am sure our decisions are not completely consistent over time, but I'm also sure that the consequences are not enormous (having a particular logo hosted on Commons or not is not of enormous importance). As far as I know, we've had few, if any, takedown notices for logos that had had any scrutiny. As in most things related to copyright, Commons tends to stay in a range that most copyright lawyers would find conservative. (Compare almost any other media site on the web that accepts user uploads.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads from HighHeist

HighHeist (talk · contribs) has uploaded several logos for various Indian television stations. They described them all as own work, with is clearly false. My question is if these logos are simple enough for COM:TOO India to apply? Ravensfire (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)