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)

@جيمي attention, I reverted most of my revisions at COM:Saudi Arabia until we get a clear consensus that Saudi FoP for exterior architecture and permanent applied art is acceptable here and does not contradict COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:25, 19 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)

Continued discussion, made as a pseudo-subsection in an attempt to make "reply" feature work again

@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:

From copyright law itself

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)

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)

@999real@Aymatth2@Clindberg@A1Cafel@Jameslwoodward@جيمي (all who made comments). I suspect the reforms did not liberate photography of Saudi architectural art and public space. Instead, it restricts further. This is per my suspicion: initially, we thought that Saudi Arabia is going to finally allow everyone in the world to reproduce their buildings through photography even without permissions from the buildings' architects, by virtue of the new FoP rule under Article 29(2) of the law. The "must not infringe on the financial rights" condition is just a three-step test rule, which is reiterated under Article 37 which claims (through the second provision) that every use falling outside all exceptions/limitations (Articles 26–36) must be non-commercial in nature. However, Article 23 of the accompanying executive regulations gives rules that apply to all exceptions/limitations (that is, Articles 26–36, inclusive of both the architectural/applied art FoP and the incidental clause), one of which is that all use must be non-commercial. To quote: "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."
The implication, both the architectural FoP and the incidental inclusion clauses are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, as these clauses are among the provisions within the Articles 26 to 36 subject to the restrictive noncommercial condition found at the accompanying executive regulations. If so, I agree to have the template that I just created ({{FoP-Saudi Arabia}}) deleted as unusable. Literally, a "double whammy" versus Wikimedia and online media digital archivists that long sought images of Saudi architecture (and possibly, Saudi cityscapes) under free culture licenses like CCBYSA, CCBY, CCzero, PDuser, et cetera. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, apart from non-commercial, it seems implies a no-derivative restriction as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@A1Cafel the "no derivative works" is a minor issue. Many of acceptable FoP rules do not permit extensive derivatives to the point of destructive manipulation of buildings and monuments on the images. See, for examples:

COM:FOP Germany - "Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama. The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt") and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph."; and

COM:FOP Netherlands - "Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18."

The respect for the appearance and integrity of the buildings etc. is just an implementation of moral rights as enshrined under the Berne Convention, preventing harmful derivatives that can harm, ridicule, or mock the good names of the architects, sculptors, or their professions, families, estates, and associations. It is the possible non-commercial restriction (Article 23(1) of the executive regulations) that may make the Saudi FoP an NC ({{Noncommercial}}) FoP not OK for Commons, like those of France or of Kazakhstan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on the given translations, I don't see how the executive regulations article 23 affects the FoP clause. Rather, that seems to be sort of a general fair-use clause, which allows a lot of non-commercial use but (like all other exceptions) is subject to the general Berne limitation stated in article 37 of the law. So, that just seems to be an entirely different type of exception, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg will take note of this, though I'm going to wait for inputs of Arabic-speaking users like @جيمي and علاء: (also pinging here an admin who natively speaks Arabic). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

But, pending any additional opinions whether from Arabic-speaking users or from other users, is {{FoP-Saudi Arabia}} still a valid tag in your opinion, Carl? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think the tag is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Small note: ncedential inclusions are inherently non-commercial, because if user benefits from inclusion, such inclusion precludes COM:DEMINIMIS. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: If you mean "If the presence of a particular photo on Commons is permitted only because the inclusion of some copyrighted building is incidental, then that photo can only be used non-commercially," that seems wrong. But perhaps you meant something else, your wording was terse enough that I may have misunderstood. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

no, I mean if presence of something on photo makes photo commercially attractive, this presence isn't de minimis, or, in other words, incedental inclusion isn't commercial usage of included work regardless of commercial usage of photo itself. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't believe that is the case, at least everywhere. The commercial attraction or value should have no effect on copyright -- a derivative work that makes the photo less commercially attractive is still a derivative work. The question is if the photo is trading off the specific expression (lines, etc.) in the underlying work, or if it was deliberately included for effect. There are "incidental" situations where a copyrighted work is prominent, but does not cause the photo to become derivative -- such as a label on a bottle, when the entire bottle is the subject of the photo. That is "incidental" (the label was unavoidable, as it was on the bottle), but could still be prominent -- does not give the label designer derivative rights over the photo (just photos focusing on the label itself). But yes, something deliberately included (in the background or wherever) for effect, to improve the photo, would not be "incidental". If something is incidental however, commercial use of the work is fine, unless the law specifically limits that. (There are situations where such use may violate trademark, for "commercially valuable" items pictured, but that is a different question than copyright.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons editors uploading crops to be credited as authors?

re: [1] ?

|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)

The original creator/copyright holder are appropriately - and primarly - credited in the licence's attribution tag... — danyele 19:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with how the original author is credited, only with the cropper who is incorrectly credited. -Consigned (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The file history already states who made a crop. Creative Commons licenses only require attribution to the creator/copyright holder; (In this case with a CC0 license, it's mere courtesy.) Adding credit for a simple crop as a 'derivative work' can imply equal creative contribution, when that's not the case. This is less accurate and can confuse re-users. PascalHD (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

With a CC-zero license, I can't see any real point in crediting the crop (though also not a lot of harm, as long as it is made clear that it is only the cropping that is being credited). With the CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 licenses, I believe "you must indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications" means that crediting the crop in some manner is compulsory, and mentioning it in the author field probably increases the chance that any derivative will get that right, rather than losing it at the next step. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Luigi Mangione related graffiti

Somebody asked a question over at the English Wikipedia Help Desk about uploading a photo taken of some grafitti related to en:Luigi Mangione found in Italy. One of the replies pointed out that there are already images of graffiti related to Mangione uploaded to Commons: File:Luigi Mangione, hero of the people - Marseilles, France.jpg in France, File:Deny Defend Depose.jpg in the US, and File:Luigi Mangione inspired graffiti in Lucca.jpg in Italy. All of the photos appear to have been released under licenses free enough for Commons, but I'm curious about the copyright status of the grafitti itself per COM:GRAFFITI. Each case appears to be nothing but text and peharps this means the grafitti is OK per {{PD-text}}, but all three countries where the grafitti was photographed don't have COM:FOP for 2D graphic works. Should there be a license added to each file for the graffiti itself if the files are OK for Commons? Just for reference, someone is selling merchandise with the same slogan on it (1) with a copyright notice on it, Of course, such a thing doesn't make the slogan eligible for copyright protection and notice probably isn't valid (at least not in the US), but I'm wondering if the same can be said about France and Italy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If it's PD-text, there is nothing to copyright in the first place, so FoP is irrelevant. The phrase may be able to be trademarked, but that is not relevant here either. The website can copyright photos of people wearing the garments, but not the slogan itself. If the graffiti was legal street art, and has artistic elements, that's another story. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Clindberg. Of the three files I mentioned above, the photos taken in France and Italy are just simple text. The photo taken in New York is also text, but it's overlayed on some other grafitti and shows other most likely unrelated grafitti which could be considered a bit more than plain text. Should a PD license be added for Mangione-related graffiti shown in each photo? Do you think the photo taken in New York needs to be cropped/blured to remove/hide the other graffiti shown in the photo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: There are a few ways you can handle it. One is {{Copyright information|object={{PD-ineligible}}|photograph={{YOUR LICENSE GOES HERE}}}}. - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd say any creative graffiti in File:Deny_Defend_Depose.jpg is De Minimis. If somebody objects -and there are very strict editors in Commons that could boject- I would suggest cropping the image to leave out the graffito on the door, that is the only that is shown more or less complete. Pere prlpz (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of a Swiss press photograph from 1970 (Photopress)

Copyright status of a Swiss press photograph from 1970 (Photopress)

I would like to clarify whether a Swiss press photograph published in 1970 can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

The photograph shows the Swiss orienteering champions Ruth Schaffner and Walter Däpp. It was published in the Neue Zürcher Nachrichten on 13 October 1970. The caption reads:

“Ruth Schaffner und Walter Däpp errangen in Bulle die beiden Schweizermeistertitel im Einzel-OL. (Photopress)”

Original newspaper source in the Swiss e-newspaperarchives:

https://www.e-newspaperarchives.ch/?a=d&d=NZN19701013-01.2.15.1.6

The photographer is not named; the only credit given is Photopress.

My questions are:

Could this photograph qualify as a Swiss photograph without individual character, and therefore fall under the 50-year term applicable to such photographs? If so, would

This photograph of a three-dimensional object is in the public domain in Switzerland (Art. 29 par. 2bis of the CopA), because the photographic depiction was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character. The template should only be used if no other copyright tag is possible.   A photograph without an individual character uses the creative freedom neither in terms of photo technology nor in conceptual terms, but does not stand out from the generally accepted. This license cannot be used for photographs that express an expression of thought with an individual character. This is possible, for example, by selecting the image section and the time of shutter release, by setting the focus and exposure, and by processing the negative. The distinction between photographs with and without an individual character is not always clear.

be appropriate?

What is the copyright status of this 1970 Swiss photograph in the United States, particularly with regard to the URAA? Does the credit “Photopress” create an additional issue that needs to be resolved before upload? If the photograph is acceptable for Commons, which complete combination of copyright templates should be used?

I have not uploaded the photograph to Commons yet and would prefer to clarify its copyright status first.

Thank you for your help. Tkb (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The simple mention of Photopress isn't a copyright notice, it should be "© 1970 Photopress". But! 50-years term wasn't expired on URAA date (1996), so the copyright was restored. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Simple photographs wasn't protected in Switzerland in 1996, so maybe they are in PD in the United States (IDK about cases there copyright didn't existed on URAA date). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The template says that a 1970 simple photograph was protected in Switzerland until 2020. Therefore, it got its US copyright restored in 1996 and it's not free in the US.

The Swiss simple photographs rule allows us to upload simple photographs taken in Switzerland before 1946 (50 years before the URAA date). Pere prlpz (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

No exactly. The copyright for simple photographs was retroactively established in 2010s, so it didn't exist on URAA date. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Switzerland-photo. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

These photos weren't covered by copyrights or special rights, similar to {{PD-art}}, but for 3d objects. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Switzerland-photo is not terribly clear in some respects. It makes no mention of the status of such photos in Switzerland prior to 2010. What exactly was that? - 00:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploading new school logo

I am a student at this school and the Wikipedia logo for the school is outdated, I don't think the logo is expired, released under creative commons, and it is copyrighted under me school. Amw12255 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It would help if you told us which file is involved here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The new official logo for Half Hollow Hills Central School District, also I already uploaded the thing and it's not appearing when I search it up. Amw12255 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Half Hollow Hills Central School District logo.png

I suggest you get someone, such as the school secretary, to contact COM:VRT. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anw12255: I don't think your school district's logo would be seen as involving enough creativity to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, which is all that matters when it comes to Commons because en:Half Hollow Hills Central School District is located in the US. So, you should have no problem using the copyright license {{PD-logo}} for the file. Just go to File:Half Hollow Hills Central School District logo.png#Licensing, click on "edit", and replace the syntax for the "Remove this line ..." speedy deletion template with the syntax {{PD-logo}}. Once you've done that, click on "Show preview" to check your work and then click on "Publish changes" if everything looks OK. You should also leave an edit summary describing what you did; for example, "Added missing copyright license". I think this might be a better way to resolve the licensing issue than what was suggested above by Andy Dingley. Andy's suggestion regarding VRT wasn't wrong per se; I just don't think such a thing is necessary given how simple the logo is. In general, VRT verification is only really needed for works that are clearly eligible (or considered clearly eligible) for copyright protection.

Finally, the reason the new logo is not appearing in the Wikipedia article about the district is because you don't seem to have replaced the logo currently being used in the article with the one you uploaded. The change in logo doesn't automatically happen just because you uploaded a new updated version of it to Commons. English Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects, and you will actually have to go the Wikipedia article and replace the syntax for the old logo with the syntax for the new logo. You should only do this, though, after you've provided a copyright license for the file you uploaded; otherwise, the file will just end up being deleted for not having a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done @Amw12255: License fixed. Please add categories. Yann (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Journal of big history

Hi, Any idea these books are OK for Commons? Most books in the "Open Access Books" collection in the Library of Congress are under a NC/ND license, but a few are under a free license. For these ones, no license is mentioned. Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: on the official website of the journal, it is specified that the articles are licensed under CC BY 4.0, so yes they are allowed. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• https://www.loc.gov/item/2016201995/resource/gdceserialspublic.2016201995-003-01
• https://www.loc.gov/item/2016201995/resource/gdceserialspublic.2016201995-003-02
• https://www.loc.gov/item/2016201995/resource/gdceserialspublic.2016201995-003-03

Thanks. Files are in Category:Journal of Big History. Yann (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yann, a word of caution: the journal may at times contain copyrighted third-party content (such as images), eg. pages 43 and 45 of this issue contain images of covers of educational material by external publishers. As these images serve as purposeful illustrations, de minimis does not technically apply here. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Why does Upload Wizard default Flickr PDM to PD-US instead of PD-author?

Hey! I've recently had someone confused after an image from Flickr I uploaded through the Upload Wizard used Template:PD-US. They said "I thought it was a mistake since this photo was taken after 1931". So I checked the wording and I can understand why they felt this way. As of today, this is what PD-US states (emphasis mine):

This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1931, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal.

The wording seems to only give two options: it's either from before 1931, or has no copyright notice. And the file in question is a 2026 photo with Public Domain Mark on Flickr, so neither! Plus, it was taken and uploaded from the EU, not the US, which arguably makes PD-US even more unfit. So I found Template:PD-author, which seems to be a better fit for Flickr PDM:

This work has been released into the public domain by its author, (name here). This applies worldwide.

The only hang-up I could spot is the "this applies worldwide" – does Flickr PDM apply worldwide? Well, they add a little "(?)" button (sample PD Flickr photo) which states "Public Domain Mark: This work is no longer restricted by copyright and can be freely used. Learn more". That 'Learn more' links to CC's PDM page, and this CC glossary page states:

The PDM is recommended for works that:

• Are free of known copyright restrictions worldwide

[...]
The PDM should not be used for works that are in the public domain in some countries but still protected in others.
[...]
Because of these legal inconsistencies, the PDM should not be used when a work’s public domain status is uncertain or jurisdiction-specific.

While CC does cushion its rules in soft "should"s, I think it's fair to believe the Flickr team read and understood the terms before using CC PDM specifically, instead of just its own Public Domain definition.

So why does the Upload Wizard not pick PD-author by default for Flickr PDM? Keep in mind that the Upload Wizard does not let you pick the license when uploading Flickr images (as it fetches it automatically), so we shouldn't expect everyone to go back and change the license manually for each upload. Maybe I'm missing something; copyright can be tricky. Otherwise, I propose it be changed :)

Apologies if this isn't the correct place for this; I'm not super well-versed at these wiki rituals. Cheers! — Avelludo 03:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

 Info Correct template should be {{PDM-owner}}. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I would use {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} and add {{FlickrReview}} PascalHD (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe the rationale for {{PD-US}} is that, really, the only claim being made on Flickr is "for some (unstated) reason, this is PD." We're being a bit hopeful in even saying "US" because a non-U.S. user is presumably thinking of their own country and might not be thinking of the U.S. status at all.

{{PDM-owner}} is correct if the work is "own work" by the Flickr uploader. However, if it is own work, that is a poorly chosen tag on Flickr (they really should have used CC-0; not a deep problem, but a little odd to say that the Wizard should start by assuming someone did something less than well) and if it is not "own work" then that is a false claim. The intended use of the Public Domain Mark is thing like old postcards, old photos, etc. and other things that are in the public domain for whatever reason. It is not intended as a public-domain dedication, it is intended as a way to note that something already is in the public domain. And there is no one tag applying to that "for whatever reason" any better than {{PD-US}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I hadn't actually tried uploading anything to Flickr, I didn't realize there was a CC0 option separate from PDM! That makes a bit more sense.

I do feel like Template:PD-author-FlickrPDM, as @PascalHD mentioned above, would be a better fit, perhaps with some slight changes to the wording ("This work has been released into the public domain by the author" being changed to something like "The Flickr uploader has indicated this work is in the public domain"). Otherwise, if CC0 (presumably) becomes Template:Cc-zero and PDM becomes Template:PD-US, I don't really see a point to PD-author-FlickrPDM?

In any case, thanks for your explanation! — Avelludo 03:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Avelludo: using Template:PD-author-FlickrPDM doesn't work in this situation. That template means that we've established to a reasonable level of certainty that the file on Flickr was the Flickr uploader's own work, and therefore the PDM mark can be taken as a valid PD dedication. That would, in fact, be actively misleading for (for example) an old postcard. - Jmabel ! talk 03:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of the Peter Elfelt collection – response from the Royal Danish Library

This is a follow-up to the discussion in July 2026 concerning the copyright status of photographs in the Peter Elfelt collection.

As mentioned in the previous discussion, I contacted the Royal Danish Library to ask for clarification of the copyright information given in its Digital Collections. I have now received the following response from the Royal Danish Library. I have translated the response from Danish into English:

In the Royal Danish Library's Digital Collections, a distinction is made between photographs taken by Elfelt before 1931, photographs taken between 1931 and 1964, and photographs taken from 1965 onwards.

Photographs taken before 1931 are attributed to the photographer Peter Elfelt, and are therefore considered to be free of copyright (Public domain). For these photographs, the creator is stated as: "Elfelt, Peter (Lars Peter f. Petersen) (1.1.1866–18.2.1931), court photographer, film director", and the copyright status is stated as: "The material is free of copyright." The photographs are considered to have entered the Public domain on 1 January 2002, when 70 years plus the remainder of the calendar year had passed since Peter Elfelt's death. Photographs marked "The material is free of copyright" may be freely used for all purposes.

With regard to photographs taken from 1931 to 1964, these are attributed to the company "Elfelt & Co.", and the copyright status is stated as "CC BY." The rights to these photographs are jointly owned by the Museum of Copenhagen and the Royal Danish Library, and the two institutions have jointly decided to release the images. The photographs may therefore be used for all purposes, but they are not in the Public domain.

With regard to photographs taken after 1964, these are photographs taken by the company "Elfelt Royal". The rights to images taken by this company from 1965 onwards were not transferred to the Royal Danish Library/Museum of Copenhagen. The copyright status is therefore stated as "The material is protected by copyright", and use of the images requires permission from the rights holder or, alternatively, from VISDA (Visual Rights Denmark).

Kind regards,

Given this clarification, what should the next course of action be for the collection, particularly regarding the appropriate Danish and U.S. copyright tags for the pre-1931 photographs and the CC BY-licensed 1931–1964 material?

Pinging participants in the earlier discussion: @19h00s, Clindberg, Stefan2, and RAN: . Brodmann10 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The ones in the first category are {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1931}}, the ones in the second category are {{CC-BY-4.0}} (I'm assuming that version), and the third category is not OK to upload. As for the U.S. status, anything in the first category published at the time (which sounds like it was most of them) would be {{PD-US-expired}}. If unpublished, there are technicalities, but it sure sounds like the institutions own the copyright and would have no problem declaring them PD worldwide or licensing them CC-BY, though they don't explicitly say that. Maybe their statement would be enough for something like {{PD-author}} for any of those exceptions, so not sure I'd worry about that too much (sounds like that is the copyright owner declaring them public domain). The second category of course is just the CC license, regardless of publication. The two categories do need different license tags. You could make a single source tag and combine that with the license tags, or maybe two wrapper tags, one of which includes CC-BY-4.0 (and a credit line, if they have a stated preference), and the other which includes PD-old and their statement. A statement from them on the first category where copyright may still exist in foreign countries, particularly the US, may be helpful but don't think that should prevent upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Great work, Brodmann! I love that this ended up being all of the possible scenarios (some works with clearly expired copyright + some works with library-acquired copyright now published under a CC license + some works still firmly under copyright). Carl's advice above is spot on, this is going to be a bit of work to categorize and tag all the files correctly once you start uploading, but you're set up for success thanks to the answers from the library. 19h00s (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help and guidance. I have now created {{Peter Elfelt collection}} and its documentation based on the approach discussed here.

Please feel entirely free to edit, correct or improve the template or documentation if you see anything that could be done better @19h00s and Clindberg: . Brodmann10 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Also: {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1931}} + {{PD-US-expired}} ==> {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1931}} - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Unclear copyright status of a Peruvian march recording

The "Marcha de Banderas" composition is old enough to be under a Public Domain license, but the uploaded recording is a track of a music album recorded in 2008, as per this Discogs listing and YouTube video.

• https://www.discogs.com/release/24457268-Banda-de-M%C3%BAsicos-de-la-Marina-de-Guerra-Del-Per%C3%BA-Himnos-Y-Marchas-Navales
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6635&v=j4vn69cmNQk

Limes5Zippy (talk) Limes5Zippy (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Limes5Zippy: as recordings carry separate copyrights from compositions, you are correct in that it would still be copyrighted and thus not allowed on Commons. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Public domain in Cuba and US for photograph published in 1970?

Template:PD-Cuba says photographs "used more than 25 years ago" are public domain in Cuba. And they are also public domain in the US if "first published in Cuba without compliance with US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before February 20, 1972".

Does this include photographs published in a magazine? I'm looking at a photograph published in a 1970 edition of Cuban magazine called Revista Bohemia — can I use it? Thank you for your help Chao Garden 🥀 ~ hello 05:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually I think this is fine. The language says "first published"... and per Commons:Publication, "publication"/"publishing" includes magazines. This is so obvious in retrospect, but I was being extra careful with the question.

Anyway, if I'm wrong, please ping me. But it sure seems like this photograph (published in 1970 in Havana) is public domain. Chao Garden 🥀 ~ hello 06:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Uploading an reproduction of a chart in terms of data, that differs only in style?

Hi, i took the Amazon Primary Forest Loss chart from here, and fetched the data from the inspect/network function in the browser. I checked and the underlying data comes from University of Maryland's Global Land Analysis And Discovery (GLAD) (like it says on the site itself), and it's free under commons 4.0. However maaprogram states in terms of use that they do not make their works free to use unless permitted explicitly.

My question is, can i upload the chart since it comes entirely from creative commons data? My version is made in R's ggplot, with geom_line function, which makes it the same type of chart, but there are stylistic differences, like major ticks every two years, different colour scheme, slight framing difference. Jynh2137 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jynh2137: If you do your own query and produce your own chart, you should be fine. I'd suggest avoiding duplicating their color scheme. - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

License tags for mixed-period Ukrainian archival PDFs spanning 1917–1918

I am correcting source and copyright metadata for a large corpus of faithful scans of Ukrainian archival files. An old uploader applied the blanket combination {{PD-Ukraine}} {{PD-scan|PD-old-assumed-expired}} regardless of date. The unambiguous cohort has now been repaired and independently checked.

After the deterministic repairs, 1,359 combined PDFs remain whose catalog ranges cross 1917/1918. Representative examples include File:ЦДІАК 1158-1-90 Метрична книга єврейської громади м. Переяслав про смерть (січень – липень, 19 вересня – грудень 1917, 1918).pdf and File:ДАХмО 277-1-42 Книга записів шлюбів, розлучень та смертей євреїв в м. Кам'янці (1916, 1917, 1918).pdf. The files may contain official civil registers or other administrative records on pages from both sides of 7 November 1917.

I do not want to apply both {{PD-scan|PD-RusEmpire}} and {{PD-scan|PD-UA-exempt}} indiscriminately, because that could appear to assert that each rationale covers the complete PDF rather than separate components. What is the correct Commons treatment for such combined archival files? In particular:

1. May a component/page-range copyright statement identify the pre-7 November 1917 pages under PD-RusEmpire and later official administrative pages under PD-UA-exempt?
2. Should the files instead remain individually reviewed or be split where archival integrity permits?
3. What additional United States public-domain tag or evidence is required for these Ukrainian archival documents?

I have excluded this entire cohort from automated editing pending community guidance. If a narrower deterministic rule is acceptable, I would appreciate the exact recommended wikitext. Thank you. Smaxims (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd resist splitting cohesive works on the basis of Commons' copyright tagging procedures: there aren't good mechanisms for users to put them back together. For works from a period and place with a rapidly fluctuating government, the claim that at least one of multiple PD rationales is valid is probably better than trying to strictly identify each page at the file level. I would suggest including all of the PD tags you think are appropriate to a part of the cohesive work, and then stating as a textual note in that section which pages you believe are definitively one kind of PD.

As small complication, there was a 3rd faction opposing the Bolsheviks for a few years in post-Imperial Ukraine—roughly, the Ukrainian People's Republic, and it some assumptions might have to be made about its copyright law, or whether it was even truly a distinct state. We could adopt a simplified date as a matter of internal consensus, but I don't think it is necessarily literally or legally true that a single date is definitive.

Also, a number of territories now considered (whether disputably or not) part of Ukraine were then in different autonomous SSRs or part of Russia, and similarly part of ex-Ukrainian/Imperial Russian Galicia is now considered part of Poland—so for consistency, if one set always gets a Ukranian PD tag, would the other get a Polish PD tag? (I don't know if these records originate from such places.)

For United States copyright and public domain, do these even rise above the threshold of originality? They look kind of like formulaic records that are simply facts without creative input—but I don't read the language, so feel free to explain. (Or were you referring to a copyright, if any, in the photography?) TheFeds 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Something along the lines of

{{Copyright information

|item1 = For portions up to and including 7 November 1917

|item1-license ={{PD-scan|PD-RusEmpire}}

|item2 = For portions after 7 November 1917

|item2-license = {{PD-scan|PD-UA-exempt}}

}}

I'm not really sure the "PD-scan" part is needed. It would probably be fine to do

{{Copyright information

|item1 = For portions up to and including 7 November 1917

|item1-license ={{PD-RusEmpire}}

|item2 = For portions after 7 November 1917

|item2-license = {{PD-UA-exempt}}

}}

- Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds and Jmabel: Thank you. Before applying this structure to 1,359 files, could I confirm the exact bulk rule?

1. {{PD-RusEmpire}} says “before 7 November 1917”, while the suggested wording says “up to and including 7 November”. Should the component boundary therefore be before 7 November 1917 versus on or after 7 November 1917?
2. For faithful scans, should the nested tags be bare PD-RusEmpire/PD-UA-exempt, or wrapped in PD-scan?
3. For formulaic official metric/civil registers consisting of factual entries, is lack of originality a sufficient United States basis, and how should that be stated/tagged?
4. Should the deterministic cohort exclude records from Galicia or other territories that were not under the same historical jurisdiction?

If these points cannot be reduced to a reviewed rule, I will keep the cohort in manual review. An exact recommended wikitext would be especially helpful. Thank you. Smaxims (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Smaxims: (1) "before" is fine, I didn't read your post that closely, I was just trying to show you what templating would work. (2) Was there a (false) claim that the scans were copyrighted? PD-scan exists mainly as a reasonably polite way of saying that we don't accept such claims. (3) Probably. Were these published at the time (or before 1931)? If so, PD-US-expired is incontestible and might be better. If not, I'd stick with saying that by their nature we don't believe they were ever copyrightable. Ultimately, in this case, I don't think it matters for any real-world reason. I know the precautionary principle says "no one will care" is not a valid reason for us to host a file, but the reality is that no one is going to contest any reasonable claim of a basis for these documents to be in the public domain. (4) No opinion on areas that are not in Ukraine. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds and Jmabel: Thank you. To keep this practical rather than overcomplicate it, may I reduce the remaining decision to one proposed rule?

For a cohesive PDF where every page is a formulaic official metric/civil register and the records originate in the relevant territory of modern Ukraine, use {{Copyright information}} with:

• portions before 7 November 1917 — {{PD-RusEmpire}};
• portions on or after 7 November 1917 — {{PD-UA-exempt}};
• United States basis — {{PD-US-expired}} if published before 1931, otherwise {{PD-ineligible}} because the entries are formulaic facts without creative authorship.

Omit PD-scan unless a copyright claim was made for the scan itself. Exclude from this bulk rule all private correspondence, photographs, non-formulaic content, Galicia/other different historical jurisdictions, and anything whose issuing authority or territory is unclear. Does this also cover official records issued during the UNR/Soviet transition, or do those need a separate tag?

If this exact rule is acceptable, I will apply it only to the matching subset and leave everything else for individual review. If not, which clause should change? Thank you. Smaxims (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Did the UNR even get around to having a copyright law? If not, then I doubt there is any real clarity there. It seems to me they would either have inherited the laws of Imperial Russia or would be retroactively covered by the Ukrainian law that puts this all in the public domain. Again, we are getting into terrain where probably none of this matters for any practical purpose: no one is going to have a meaningful copyright claim on this material, and all of this stuff with PD rationales (as against just saying "Public domain") is basically a combination of internal Commons bookkeeping and non-binding advice to outside reusers, not anything with real legal meaning. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I broadly agree that precision and clarity are a difficult proposition. I'd prefer to use rationales that are less impeachable by current Commons policy and consensus, rather than ones where there is no practical risk but also no formal justification.

For the United States rationale, when possible, I tend to prefer stating that the type of work is {{PD-ineligible}}, rather than stating that the publication of the work was documented to have occurred in a certain way (because of complications with which definition of publication applies—which U.S. statute was in force, publication elsewhere within 30 days, etc.—and what facts can actually be supplied instead of merely inferred to support that publication). (Look at the parameters of {{PD-US-expired}} for examples of complications—does it support Imperial Russia as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code?) But if a reasonable case can be made that the specific way that these were disseminated was a form of publication under the law then in force, I wouldn't object to a date-dependent tag.

For the source country rationale, what do you think of {{PD-old-assumed}} if the fact of publication isn't clear-cut?

For the source country rationale for published works originating in Imperial Russia, I think that is effectively the proposition that pre-revolution, the copyright law of Imperial Russia was applicable, and that either the work was already public domain there as of the revolution (so succession doesn't matter), or irrespective of succession only Imperial law matters and under those terms it entered the PD on some past date, or that the law of the successor state did not change the rules for the work's eventual entry into the public domain on some past date. Are we pretty sure that for these works at least, all likely post-Imperial copyrights—whatever the state—did not tamper with the progression of a copyright that first subsisted in Imperial Russia, and on the basis of facts or strong inferences, has expired? Or is someone making the argument that there is no successor state, like the {{PD-RusEmpire}} template breezily proposes?

There's another possible angle (that the {{PD-RusEmpire}} template also suggests), that there is no country of origin per the Berne copyright convention. I don't love this for Commons purposes (COM:L: "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work"), because Commons has not (to my knowledge) adopted the view that the country of origin can be a nullity for a work that originated in a country—as distinct from Berne which implicitly allows that situation.

For cases where modern Ukraine is given as the state of origin and tagged as such, the tag suggests that official documents of an administrative nature are PD by definition. (Hypothetically, would a church's baptismal record that the state relies upon when offered for official purposes be an official document?) It is at least theoretically possible that modern Ukrainian law distinguishes between a copyright originating in the modern post-USSR country of Ukraine (the chief use of that template), a Ukrainian domestic copyright that originated in a historical territory now within Ukraine, and a foreign (from the Ukrainian perspective) modern Russian copyright originating from an Imperial Russian or USSR copyright that was assumed as a successor state—meaning that there could be 2 fairly valid ways to define copyright in the source country for some old (culturally or geographically) Ukrainian works. If there is no obvious answer to this, maybe consider a justification which doesn't require reaching the issue—like not applying modern Ukrainian, Polish or Russian tags. (Rewind to the 1990s, and how sure would we be that Ukrainians would have been concerned with whether an old Tsarist work needed to be declared to have an expired domestic Ukrainian copyright, independently of whatever it had already? In other words, this might just be a Commons issue, not a live legal issue.) TheFeds 19:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds and Jmabel: Thank you. These metric books are not private devotional records: they were state-mandated vital-registration books kept by clergy or rabbis and used as civil-status evidence; later volumes were kept by civil registry authorities. However, I cannot prove historical publication for each volume, so I agree that PD-US-expired should not be inferred in bulk.

Could the narrow content-based rule instead be simply {{PD-ineligible}} for formulaic factual register entries, with {{PD-UA-exempt}} additionally only where the volume is demonstrably an official administrative record? Would PD-ineligible by itself satisfy Commons' United States and source-country requirement for this type of work, making PD-RusEmpire, PD-old-assumed, and publication/succession assumptions unnecessary?

If not, please give the exact additional source-country tag required. I will leave photographs, correspondence, narrative material, uncertain authorities, and different historical jurisdictions outside any bulk rule. Smaxims (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

We could make a claim of PD-ineligible for all relevant countries. Again, this is mostly a matter of internal bookkeeping. No one is going to make a reasonable claim that we are violating their copyright with these. We try to make the strongest claim we can as to why a given work is currently in the public domain, so (when germane) the fact that any possible copyright would have expired is a stronger claim than the inherently unprovable judgement that something is below the threshold of originality, but the latter is still a reasonable claim. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

uploading videogame and forum screenshots?

short version:

i'd like to upload screenshots & promo images from Granado Espada's early years, forum archives (e.g.: a main page, not a specific post), and various websites (e.g.: official game sites, news articles, etc.) for the sake of briefly presenting 'what once was' (...)

Question: so what exactly can i use (...)?

Physical Media

(...) is it safe to assume that images of physical media must have either been photographed by me or been given a specific license(?) in order for me to upload them? (...)
now's a good time to bring up two Shamanic Princess DVD releases i have in my possession and the related article/poster scans i've been given. (...)

see en:User talk:QuestioningEspecialy#uploading videogame and forum screenshots? for the redacted details QuestioningEspecialy (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@QuestioningEspecialy: Hi, Screenshots and promo images of videogames are under a copyright. We can't have them without a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Unless the game is released under a free license. Please read COM:L and COM:DW. Yann (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

State of New Mexico Archives and NMDOT Archives question

Hey there, I'm working on the Rio Grande Gorge Bridge page. I typically upload National Park Service archives images that are works of the US Governemt copyright so it's easy. In this case I have:

1) an undated film of the bridge construction (most likely from the late 1960s without copyright claim) from the New Mexico State Archives and

2) photos of the build from the New Mexico Highway Department (now NMDOT).

The film is in the public domain per the good folks at the New Mexico State Archives. The photos are in the public domain per the kind archivist at NMDOT. I have uploaded the film to wikimedia here File:Bridging The Gorge.webm and the pictures to Wikimedia (search Rio Grande Gorge Bridge in Images. Here's an example [in the thumb-Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)]

Rio_Grande_Gorge_Bridge_Construction_1964_03

. The NMDOT pics are the seven black and white ones.) I'd really appreciate a villager looking over my shoulder to teach me how to do this correctly. Thank you so much! Cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@RRFWTommartin: You tagged your own upload at File:Bridging The Gorge.webm as not having sufficient information to establish its copyright status. That seems a bit odd, though I suppose the tag is accurate.

Your photo uploads provide no evidence of the claimed public-domain dedication.

At the very least you need to read COM:VRT and have someone from NMDOT validate the licensing here. I would suggest that before contacting NMDOT you also at least skim COM:THIRD, a broader discussion of issues around uploading third-party materials, so that you are less likely to go off half-cocked when contacting NMDOT to start the VRT process. - Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your note Jmabel. Your reply is just what I am looking for!

While I "think" I have the Bridging film appropriately cited, I am asking here for oversight to make sure given that I've never done this type of copyright status before. It looks like I am in the ball park.

I'll do the reading you suggest before going to NMDOT. I do have an email from the NM archivist stating that they looked in their records and these pictures are in the public domain.

Cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Report about contents in COM:DM Japan and concerning deletion requests about fancy vehicle liveries

Hello,

in the past few months, Japanese imagery about artistic or fancy vehicle liveries (example: en:Pokémon Jets) was challenged in DR¹, as Japan does not offer sufficient COM:FOP Japan to allow their reproduction. As a result, several people came forth in defence of such images. Unfortunately, there are no known court cases revolving around the Japanese Copyright Act article 30-2 which treats incidental inclusions of protected works that could be applied to vehicle spotter images; COM:DM Japan being a possible second saviour for such media. The case went beyond those DR and expanded upon a long exchange (I am involved there) on COM:ANU (Permalink to its state at the time of writing this).
I think that the ANU exchange can be summarised as forth:

1. the stance of several people, most prominently Y.haruo and also Poketalker, is that the current iteration of the copyright act allows the hosting and free licensing of fancy vehicle liveries like Pokéjets. Their opinion is based upon publications the law itself (https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4207 ) and something I'd deem a commentary of the law by the en:Agency for Cultural Affairs, most notably the PDF in Japanese at https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/chosakuken/hokaisei/r02_hokaisei/pdf/93688501_01.pdf . Note that this PDF is hosted on the site of the agency. Purportedly, that publication would allow the free licensing and mostly unhindered use of plane spotter imagery of Pokéjets et al., as the cultural affairs agency actually even described such as legitimate: “Selling stickers or similar goods made from photographs in which a manga character appears incidentally, in a manner that exploits the character’s customer‑attraction power, even though the character only appears as an incidental element to the main subject of the photograph.” That content is found between the pages 24 to 28. (ref A, Ref B "Y.haruo").
2. Other people (Prosfilaes, Jameslwoodward [aka Jim], Omphalographer and most likely also Jmabel) allegedly do not think that this interpretation is solid enough. (Ref "Prosfilaes", Ref "Jim", Ref "Omphalographer")
   

My own stance is not supportive of the permissive attitude, quite in line with e.g. Jim and that the Agency for Cultural Affairs is contradicting itself somewhat. Yes, there's that opinion published by them that Y.haruo uses as argumentative linchpin. But there are several other publications by the very same agency that aren't going as far. An example is their offer of a Q&A on their site (https://saiteiseido.bunka.go.jp/chosakuken_qa/) , only in Japanese, though. I accessed it with Chrome and the inbuilt Google Translate and read the following passage.

Japanese source, section 権利制限規定
カフェで友人の写真を撮ったところ、他人の描いた絵画が背景に小さく写ってしまいました。SNSなどで公開すると、著作権侵害でしょうか。 著作権侵害にはなりません。 　写真撮影等において、背景に著作物が写り込んでしまうことがありますが、著作権法では、いわゆる「写りこみ」についての例外規定が定められています（第３０条の２）。 　例えば、写真撮影の際にポスターやキャラクター等が写り込んだり、映像収録の際に意図せず音楽が録音される場合、また、スマートフォンの画面をスクリーンショットする行為など、日常生活等において一般的に行われる行為に伴う写り込みは認められています。 　なお、著作物等の利用が主たる目的の場合は、この規定は適用されないことは言うまでもありません。

Google translation

Q: I took a photo of a friend at a cafe, and a small piece of someone else's artwork appeared in the background. Would posting it on social media constitute copyright infringement? A: This does not constitute copyright infringement. While copyrighted works may sometimes appear in the background of photographs, the Copyright Act provides an exception for so-called "incidental inclusion" (Article 30-2). For example, incidental inclusion of posters or characters in photographs, unintentional recording of music during video recording, or taking screenshots of smartphone screens are all permitted as part of everyday activities. Needless to say, this provision does not apply if the primary purpose is the use of copyrighted works.

This is in line with the usual interpretation of incidental inclusion that is internationally widespread (maybe due to states basing their laws upon the Berne Convention), meaning that anything where a photographer claims "incidental inclusion" can't be part of the main motif, can't be included for effect, must be a background feature; in fact, that's more or less the guideline content of COM:DM.
The other contents of the "linchpin PDF" aren't as easily read as permissive, too. (Ref GD) This shall serve as more or less long (long-winded) introduction to the actual report I wanted to provide.
During those copyright deliberations, I found and used the inquiry service of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology from https://www.mext.go.jp/mail/index.html#005 / https://www.inquiry.mext.go.jp/inquiry48/ . Fortunately, the people there weren't bothered by me using English and answered today.² Their reply cautioned me, that it was only meant as general guidance and can't comment on any particular case (that's certainly not unexpected) and pointed me to the "page 68 of the "Copyright Text for Fiscal Year 2026" (Reiwa 8), specifically the section titled "Use of Incidental Copyrighted Works" (Article 30-2, Paragraphs 1 and 2)" (the original mail text read: 「令和８年度著作権テキスト」のP68に【付随対象著作物の利用】（第30条の2第1項、第2項）に記載されてます。ご確認下さい。https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/chosakuken/seidokaisetsu/index.html) On the PDF offered on that page, the stated section is this:

【付随対象著作物の利用】（第30条の2第1項、第2項） 写真撮影、録音・録画、放送等を行う際、本来意図した対象以外の著作物が「写り込む」場 合の例外です。例えば、写真撮影したところ、本来意図した撮影対象だけでなく、背景に小さ く絵画等（付随対象著作物）が写り込む場合が該当します。 【条件】 １ 写真撮影、録音・録画、放送等の方法によって著作物を利用するにあたっての複製又は複 製を伴わない伝達行為であること ２ メインの著作物に占める割合や再製の精度等に照らし、軽微な構成部分であること ３ 付随対象著作物の利用により利益を得る目的の有無や分離の困難性等の程度、付随対象著 作物が果たす役割等に照らし、正当な範囲内の利用であること 4 その付随対象著作物の種類や用途などから判断して、著作権者の利益を不当に害しないこ と ※絵画が背景に小さく写り込んだ写真や楽曲の一部が入り込んだ映像を、ブログに掲載した り、インターネット配信したりするなど、付随対象著作物が写りこんだものを様々な方法 で利用することも可能です。

Google translation

[Use of Incidentally Included Copyrighted Works] (Article 30-2, Paragraphs 1 and 2) This exception applies when a copyrighted work other than the intended subject matter is incidentally captured (e.g., appears in the background) during activities such as photography, audio/video recording, or broadcasting. An example would be a photograph where a painting or similar work (the incidentally included copyrighted work) appears small in the background, in addition to the intended subject of the shot. [Conditions] 1 The use must involve reproduction or a communication act that does not entail reproduction, carried out via methods such as photography, audio/video recording, or broadcasting. 2 The work must constitute a minor component, considering factors such as the proportion it occupies relative to the main copyrighted work and the precision of its reproduction. 3 The use must fall within a legitimate scope, considering factors such as whether there is an intent to profit from the use of the incidentally included work, the difficulty of separating it from the main work, and the role it plays. 4 The use must not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright holder, judged based on the type and intended use of the incidentally included work. It is permissible to use materials containing such incidentally included works in various ways—such as posting a photo with a painting visible in the background or a video containing a snippet of a song on a blog or distributing them via the Internet.

This should make it even more clear that the daring(?) interpretations put forth earlier are not sound enough and that the interpretation of the majority of Japanese people that are supposedly legally trained does not support the far-reaching permissive "sticker selling" stance.

Footnotes

1: Disclosure: I am the author of a lot of those Pokémon vehicle livery deletion requests, for planes alone, they number in the dozens. Most of those having aircraft registries in their titles in Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/deleted were penned by me, for instance.
2: I'm providing what I wrote to the inquiry service.

Inquiry text used to contact the Japanese ministery

Copyright act Art. 30-2, vehicle art, CC licenses Dear Sirs or Madam, first, I want to apologize for using English. I'm a German national and a contributor to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. On Commons, I volunteer in curating the media repository, often touching copyright matters. I can only understand Japanese with translation tools. A subject of discussion is about images showing artwork on vehicles like planes. Current discussions revolve around the impact of the article 30-2 of the Japanese Copyright act and explanations available as PDF of the Agency of Cultural Affairs about that subject, which may purport that such images are inherently legitimate. There are uncertainties whether photographers can license their photo of e.g. a China Airlines A321 with Pokemon (a "Pokejet") imaged at Tokyo-Haneda under a Creative Commons license that allow any commercial use (e.g. CC-By-SA 2.0); or would that be unlawfully infringing upon the rights of the owners of the Pokemon intellectual property? Kind regards, SIGNATURE

As Jmabel recently wrote in no uncertain manner that the exchange on ANU went beyond the scope of that page, I'm here for these copyright matters. Hopefully, this thread can serve as starting point to any needed further discussions, for possible reworks of COM:Japan or simply as reference for current and future deletion requests. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

As Grand-Duc noted above, I agree that a livery that covers most of the aircraft should disallow its use here. While "incidental inclusion" is a slightly looser rule than de minimis, it cannot be applied to instances where the livery covers most of the aircraft.

It is clear from the number of images we have that the livery is more than incidental. For example, at Category:Boeing 747-300 of Japan Airlines, among the 13 aircraft individually categorized there, all of the plain aircraft have fewer images that any of the livery aircraft. If the livery were truly incidental, I would expect to see about the same number of images of each plane. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Rufus Rockwell Wilson photo

The photo used in the infobox of the English Wikipedia article en:Rufus Rockwell Wilson was uploaded as the non-free en:File:Rufus Rockwell Wilson.jpg but is describe as being from a 1901 edition of Boston Home Journal (vol. 57, page 4), which I think is this. I believe an online archived version of volume 57 can be found here, but the journal looks to have been published weekly (so there are 52 issues) and not all of the pages for each issue are visible due to some type of error (at least that's what I'm seeing). Anyway, I believe I found the actual photo here, which should sufficient to establish publication prior to Janaury 1, 1931, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. That photo can be uploaded to Commons. Based5290 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Alan Paton photo

Here's a fun mystery: where does File:Alan_Paton.jpg come from? Note that the information given in the entry does not say who created it but rather who uploaded it. The portrait is covered with barely visible flipped text, probably meaning it was taken from a book or a newspaper with text from the other page bleeding through. I can barely make out the text, even with editing, but what I can make out from the first three lines says:

[...] don't know whether [...]
[...] I do know it [...]
[...] laws passed [...]

Can anyone figure out the source of this photo and/or if it is not allowed on Commons due to being taken from elsewhere (and not public domain)? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The text appears to be from the October 28, 1975 issue of The Christian Science Monitor, which was probably copyrighted. However, the portrait actually first appears on the cover of Instrument of Thy Peace by Alan Paton, first published in the United States. The dust jacket appears to lack a valid copyright notice [2][3]. But Crown Studios, the photographer, seems to not be a US studio (is it South African? or Australian?). Does URAA restoration apply? Based5290 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Photo of Julius Whittier

I originated the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Whittier. He was a law school classmate of mine. I found a great photo of him here: https://s.hdnux.com/photos/75/75/13/16241367/8/ratio4x3_960.webp

I have spent some time trying to obtain permission to use the photo in the article. No one will give permission; they all say, "Ask someone else." The Houston Chronicle (the source of the photo) says to ask the Associated Press. The Associated Press representative (Benjamin Shepard of Wright's Media) wanted to ask the Austin American-Statesman, but they also disclaimed copyright. I asked the photographer, Tim Sharp, and he says he was under contract to the AP at that time, so ask them. The upload wizard doesn't seem to like the option "Copyright abandoned" which is what I have here. Any one of these entities could claim copyright and give permission to use the photo, but none of them will. I can paste all the emails here if required.

I am left with "copyright abandoned". How do I deal with that? Wastrel Way (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

About How do I deal with that? - as unsatisfying as it is: there's no legitimate way to upload such media while respecting COM:Licensing and COM:PRP. You've got an orphaned work here, by the look of it. A slight hope may be to ask the actual photographer whether his AP contract made him transfer all of his copyrights and neighbouring rights exclusively to AP. If that's not the case, he may grant a license... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)