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.

Concern about CC-licensed uploads used for repeated legal claims

TL;DR: a commercial reuser who certainly violated the terms of a CC-BY-SA license (credited a photo to "Wikipedia" with no further attribution or indication of license) is upset that a user here is threatening a legal claim for a copyright violation and is requiring a payment in order to settle. There is no doubt that this was commercial use; there is no doubt as to whether the copyright violation occurred; there is no doubt that the reuser was familiar with CC licenses (they even mentioned having used them, conformantly, in the past); over the course of roughly a week the complainant appears to be the only person who weighed in here who thinks any sort of sanction is in order against the target of the complaint.

The person who is the target of the complaint was probably more aggressive in pursuing their rights than an average Commons user, but in my opinion falls far short of anything like copyright trolling.

I see no sign that either the complainant or the target of the complaint will willingly end the discussion here—each seems to want the last word—and little that has been added here recently has shed any additional light on the matter. I think it's time to close this, which I am doing. If either the complainant or the target would like their name added to this summary, they may feel free to do that, but otherwise, please, do not add other further remarks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The details

I would like to bring to community attention a concern about certain uploads on Commons being used in ways that may undermine the project’s mission. A Commons user has uploaded around 381 high-quality photographs under CC BY-SA 3.0 DE. Multiple reusers have since reported receiving repeated demands for retroactive license fees, often in the high hundreds of euros, whenever attribution was incomplete. The uploader’s own emails mention that each “violation” is documented by an external company for enforcement purposes. This practice is not new: reports of similar demands go back to 2016, and German courts (e.g. OLG Köln, 2014 & 2018) have ruled that the objective market value of CC works is zero, making such high damages claims questionable. Independent reports and legal commentary are included in the detailed thread. I have opened a full documentation of this issue — with sources and references — on the uploader’s talk page: → Full discussion here My concern is whether Commons should continue to host files if they are being systematically used not to encourage free culture, but as a basis for aggressive legal claims against reusers. I believe this deserves wider community discussion. Nilive1 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC) (I've got a COI) This has been discussed here multiple times before; one notorious Flickr and Commons user was even banned, and their files deleted, because they aggressively pursued every minor mistake in attribution rather than focusing on clear cases of misuse. I assume you are talking about a service such as pixsy.com? I use them myself (as noted on all my files as “warnings” and on my talk page), but only in cases where companies (not individuals) have completely failed to provide attribution (simply taking the image as if it were their own). An example is this court case filed through them for me. It is, of course, always the copyright holder's right to ensure that licenses are followed. Otherwise we are effectively saying the license does not matter at all; in that case one might as well release works under PD or CC0 instead. The key question for Commons is whether the enforcement practice crosses a line from reasonable license defense into behavior that undermines the project's spirit of supporting free culture. That said, I think we must also be realistic: if, for instance, Disney or another major studio were ever kind enough to license one of their films or other works under a CC license, Commons would undoubtedly welcome hosting it. But at the same time we can be absolutely certain they would enforce compliance with that license vigorously, and nobody here would argue that they should be barred from hosting on Commons because of it. The principle is the same, free licenses come with conditions, and it is neither unusual nor inherently abusive for the copyright holder to insist that those conditions are respected. Finally, it should be noted that Commons should not attempt to evaluate whether individual compensation claims are proportionate or excessive; that is a matter for courts to decide, while our task is only to ensure that files meet licensing requirements and that the licenses are clear and enforceable. --Josve05a (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)(Added sentence about court case --Josve05a (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)) The user in question has seemingly saught legal actions on multiple occasions to receive compensations for the alleged copyright infringement and was smacked down by courts multiple times to the point where they had to pay compensations to the accused party rather than the other way around. So, in this case the courts are clearly taking the side of the accused party but it looks like the user in question still continues with the practice. Nakonana (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Thank you for the thoughtful response, Jonatan. I fully agree that Creative Commons licenses must be respected, and attribution is not optional. The issue here is not about defending attribution in principle, but about the systematic use of Commons uploads as a revenue stream, with disproportionate demands for minor mistakes. As you note, Commons has already banned a Flickr/Commons user in the past for precisely this — aggressively pursuing every minor slip rather than focusing on clear misuse. What I am documenting here is a pattern going back to at least 2016, with repeated reports in legal blogs, news, and court defeats, showing that this is not a one-off case but a sustained business model. You are correct that proportionality of damages is for the courts. But Commons does have to decide whether hosting such files aligns with its mission. If reusers begin to see Commons as a legal trap, that undermines free culture just as much as ignoring attribution would. In my view, the community discussion should focus not on whether attribution is required (we probably all agree it is), but whether an uploader who systematically uses Commons contributions to generate legal claims is acting in the spirit of the project. Nilive1 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC) As a curious follow up, I cannot see that you have ever edited here on Commons before, and only 4 edits on Italian Wikipedia over 4 years ago. Are you yourself the victim of this license enforcement practice, or are you perhaps using an alternative account? --Josve05a (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Das ist aber nebensächlich, mich würde mehr interessieren was du zu seinen Argumenten sagst, oder willst du nur ablenken? -- Bwag (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC) No, I agree that legal traps are bad, but I also believe a copyright owner shall be entitled to enforce their rights. I think Commons:Copyleft trolling summarizes it quite well: enforcement of clear infringements and against corporations can be acceptable (even if unfortunate), while other forms of enforcement due to technicalities edge much closer to trolling and do not serve the spirit of free culture. I've no comment about this specific user above, since i have not looked at the articles in question, just wanted to chime in with my 2c in general. --Josve05a (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Schau, seine Rechte könnte der liebe Wolf auch mit der 4.0-Lizenz einfordern. Er nimmt aber lieber die veraltete 3.0-Lizenz, denn die ermöglicht noch im Falle eines Lizenzverstoßes gleich einen Erlagschein in drei-, vierstelliger Höhe mitzuschicken, so dass lukrative Einnahmen winken. -- Bwag (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Genau, Bwag. Wenn Herr Wolf wirklich nur um die korrekte Namensnennung gehen würde, könnte er seine Dateien schon lange unter CC 4.0 freigeben. Mit dieser Lizenz bleibt das Recht auf Attribution immer noch, aber das Geschäftsmodell, kleine Verstöße sofort als „unlizenzierte Nutzung“ auszulegen und hohe Rechnungen zu schicken, wäre nicht mehr möglich. Dass er konsequent bei 3.0 DE bleibt, scheint nicht zufällig. Nilive1 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Wie bereits weiter unten geschrieben, gehe ich nicht gegen kleine Verstöße vor. Außerdem hat man als Urheber bei Nutzung der 4.0 Lizenz dieselben Möglichkeiten, nachträglichen Schadensersatz zu verlangen wie bei der 3.0 Lizenz. Der Unterschied besteht darin, dass die 4.0 Lizenz eine Möglichkeit zur Wiedergutmachung für eine zukünftige Nutzung vorsieht. -- Wolf im Wald 08:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC) True, I’m not a very active editor on Commons, but I’m a regular Wikipedia reader and also an amateur photographer who shares photos under CC on Flickr. That’s exactly why this issue caught my attention: I know how CC is supposed to work from the contributor side, and this pattern of enforcement seems to go against that spirit. So yes, I personally came across the problem, and I thought it was important to raise it here for a wider discussion. Nilive1 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC) See also Commons:Copyleft trolling. Glrx (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC) The case in question The Company of User:Nilive1 used my picture Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019.jpg on this site without a copyright attribution. Neither my name nor the license was mentioned. That’s a clear violation and definitely not a minor mistake in attribution. A company that presents itself as a modern online company should be expected to comply with the license terms. Instead of spreading defamatory statements based on ignorance, subjective misjudgments and questionable internet propaganda from other copyright infringers, it would be more appropriate to show respect for authors and the CC license. The legal situation In most cases, courts award damages for copyright infringements involving CC licensed images by professional photographers such as myself. It is therefore not true that you cannot claim damages if you have been the victim of a copyright violation. For example, the Cologne District Court and the Cologne Regional Court already ruled that I am entitled to claim my regular license fee in the event of a copyright violation involving a CC picture. Of course, you won't find anything about these rulings on the internet, because the linked postings and articles are either from people who have violated the license or from their lawyers who want to attract as many future clients as possible. Neither of these are reliable sources. My license enforcement practice I would like to point out that I do not take action against minor infringements. I also do not demand money from single private individuals, unless my picture is being used without permission in a commercial way. Furthermore, I do not use automated software like “Pixsy” or external agencies to search for infringements or even issue warnings. It is important to me that I can decide for myself how to proceed in each individual case, as it is always a case-by-case decision and my actions must be appropriate. For example, if my name was mentioned near the image or far away in a list of image sources but the license was not mentioned, or if there was only a typo, this would not constitute a violation for which I would demand financial compensation. Of course, such minor violations also take up a certain amount of time, but in the case of minor careless mistakes, I don't think it's necessary to demand compensation. If someone runs a private online blog as a hobby without earning any money from it, that person usually would not have to pay anything, although I would of course still have the right to claim damages. But I don’t do so in the very most cases. In summary, I think that the way how I deal with copyright violations can definitely not be described as “copyleft trolling” or “aggressive”. CC BY-SA 4.0 versus the absolutely evil CC BY-SA 3.0 When using the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the author can still demand compensation for past unauthorized use of an image. The only difference is the possibility of future use. If the reuser of the image adds or corrects the missing or insufficient copyright credit within 30 days, he/she may continue to use the image under the CC license. The CC BY-SA 3.0 license does not include this opportunity. I prefer this license because I don't always automatically want a reuser to be able to use my image again after a violation. Sometimes reusers behave very disrespectfully after committing a violation, and then I want to be able to decide for myself whether or not to allow future use. If the person behaves fairly, I can still allow her/him future use after a violation. However, I do not consider this appropriate in the case of disrespectful behavior. A good example is User:Nilive1 and his company, which fortunately will not be able to earn money with my picture in the future. There have also been incidents with extremist groups of questionable political views. They have misused my work and, in the end, I was glad to be able to prohibit further use. So, it's a matter of your personal opinion and your past experiences whether you prefer CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0. Both are free licenses which are allowed and popular on Commons, so no uploader has to justify why to use license A or B. How I prevent violations Copyright violations are always very annoying and I much prefer it if the license is respected. In order to prevent violations, I create my image description pages as understandable as possible and make it as easy as possible for reusers without copyright knowledge to comply with the license terms. Therefore, there's always a clearly visible blue button to the ‘’Lizenzhinweisgenerator’’ under my images. The ‘’Lizenzhinweisgenerator’’ is a tool in German language which generates a correct copyright attribution within a few seconds. The tool distinguishes between online or print usage. This is good because different copyright and license notices are required depending on the type of use. In the ‘’Permission’’ section of the summary, I always include a clearly visible example copyright notice that can be copied easily. I also include the correct copyright attribution in the license info box in case a potential reuser only reads that license info box ({{self|cc-by-sa-3.0-de|attribution=Thomas Wolf, [http://www.foto-tw.de www.foto-tw.de]}}). Overall, I think my image description pages are easy to understand, and my efforts have surely prevented many violations. However, if there are any suggestions for improvement, I would be happy to hear them. No risk zone for unsuspecting users Because the license terms on my image pages are very clear and I do not take action against minor violations or private individuals (non-commercial), my images are in no way “a risk zone for unsuspecting users”. -- Wolf im Wald 05:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Danke für die ausführliche Antwort und alles so schlüssig erklärt. Trotzdem keimt in mir der Verdacht, dass Commons eher als Geschäftsplattform genutzt wird, wenn man bei Commonsbilder Abmahnungen von 5.000 Euro aufwärts versendet: [1]. -- Bwag (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Das ist natürlich völliger Unsinn. Kompa konnte diese absurde Behauptung bis heute aus gutem Grund nicht belegen. Meine Schadensersatzforderungen sind viel niedriger und bewegen sich ganz überwiegend im dreistelligen Bereich, so auch im vorliegenden Fall. -- Wolf im Wald 07:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC) OK, Kompa stellt nur eine "Behauptung" auf, aber wie ist es mit irights.info? Schreiben die auch einen "Unsinn", wenn sie berichten, dass du bei einem anderen Foto 4.300,- Euro verlangt hast: [2]? -- Bwag (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Vor allem wird dort von 2 Verstößen berichtet, vermutlich sehr umfangreiche kommerzielle Verstöße. Leider ist es für mich nicht nachvollziehbar, da aus dem Artikel nicht hervor geht, um welchen Fall es sich gehandelt haben soll. Daher kann ich mich dazu nicht detailliert äußern. Ich weiß hingegen, dass ich heutzutage niemals so viel Geld für einen Verstoß verlangen würde, egal wie umfangreich er ist. Um auf eine derart hohe Summe zu kommen, müsste man heute 5 oder 10 Verstöße auf einmal begehen. Der Artikel ist inzwischen 9 Jahre alt und damals habe ich bei Verstößen mehr verlangt, worauf ich nicht stolz bin. Damals war ich anwaltlich nicht gut beraten und die Rechtslage war noch unklar. Im Jahre 2017 habe ich jedoch meine Vorgehensweise reflektiert und grundlegend geändert. Seitdem verlange ich weniger und gehe wie gesagt grundsätzlich nicht mehr gegen private Einzelpersonen vor, die ohne kommerziellen Hintergrund handeln. Dies stellt meiner Meinung nach einen guten Kompromiss zwischen Durchsetzung/Schutz der Lizenz und Verständnis gegenüber unversierten Nachnutzern dar. Gegen Kleinstverstöße bin ich übrigens nie vorgegangen. -- Wolf im Wald 13:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Thank you for your detailed explanation. However, there are two points that raise concern. First, your statements here contradict your own correspondence, in which you mentioned that “each violation is documented by an external company.” Here you now write that you never use external services. This inconsistency makes it difficult to assess the credibility of your account. Second, there are multiple independent reports (Kompa, iRights.info, Tarnkappe, court commentary) that describe very different experiences, including cases where demands reached into the thousands of euros. In my own situation, the use was minimal — a small hotlinked thumbnail on a page with no traffic — yet it still led to repeated payment demands of almost four figures. This makes it difficult to reconcile your assurances that you do not act on “minor” infringements with the practice others and I have experienced. In any case, the core question for Commons is not whether German courts sometimes award damages, but whether Commons should be hosting works that are repeatedly used as the basis for disproportionate demands. That is a community issue, and it goes beyond any single case. Nilive1 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Above I didn't say that I don't have violations secured externally. I did say that I don't work with external agencies to search for violations or send warnings. Furthermore, I don't use automated software like “Pixsy” to find plenty of violations. Ever since I was scammed in court when someone faked screenshots to conceal his violation, I have been having violations documented by a friend who is IT specialist and who also does my web hosting. So, something like that can't happen again. This is a precaution because I don't want to be ripped off by scammers in court again. But that has nothing to do with what you're accusing me of. It's my right to collect evidence of a violation and to have it secured by a witness. The linked reports are, as I said above, mostly not independent. It’s more appropriate to call them propaganda of copyright infringers or advertising of lawyers who want to attract as many future clients as possible. What's striking, in any case, is that the reports aren't from the past few years or months, but rather very old. This is likely due to the fact that I haven't been taking stringent action against all violations since 2017, as I described above (in German language). Since then, I have not taken action against private (non-commercial acting) individuals and I have never taken action against minor violations, not even before 2017. In this respect, none of these reports refer to a minor violation. The violation in question of User:Nilive1 was neither committed by a private individual nor is it a minor violation. The image was used commercially and no copyright attribution or license notice was provided. Furthermore, the violation was committed by an online company whose owner identifies himself as a SEO and web marketing expert who worked as a graphic designer in some of the largest European agencies of design and advertising. Such a company can be expected to at least comply reasonably with the licensing terms. A typo in the copyright credit or an incorrect license link wouldn't have been a problem. The problem is that the license terms were completely ignored and that is not acceptable. Instead of showing understanding for the concerns of the injured author, User:Nilive1 engages in defamation and downplays the violation by arguing that it is not so bad to violate the license terms because the subpage allegedly had only a few page views. -- Wolf im Wald 18:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC) To clarify one last time: the use in question was a small hotlinked thumbnail (about 320 px wide) and intended as a temporary placeholder. Because of technical limitations, images were automatically credited as “Wikipedia”. I acknowledge the attribution was incomplete under CC terms, but the use was minimal in nature. Even for such a minimal and temporary use, I received repeated payment demands close to four figures. Together with many other documented cases, this points to a pattern that goes beyond any single dispute. I do not wish to continue a back-and-forth on this page, especially now that it has turned into a personal disparagement campaign from your side. The key issue is for Commons and its administrators to consider whether this kind of enforcement practice is compatible with the project’s mission. This is my last comment directed to you. I now leave the matter to the wider Commons community and administrators, whose perspectives I welcome. Nilive1 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether the image was supposedly used only intended as a placeholder, particularly this claim cannot be verified. What is relevant is that the license was completely ignored, and neither the author nor the license were mentioned. Furthermore, the image was used commercially. Commercial use with complete disregard for the license terms constitutes a serious copyright violation. Repeated downplaying of such a violation shows a lack of respect for the license and our community. From the very beginning, it was a personal disparagement campaign from your side because you tried to damage my reputation and misrepresented some facts. I, on the other hand, simply pointed out which of your statements were inaccurate. This is no reason to be huffy and leave the discussion. If you spread false information about a person, you have to expect that he/she will correct it, which, is the person’s right. -- Wolf im Wald 11:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC) credited as “Wikipedia” but Wikipedia never owned any rights to the photo, except for those granted in exchange for conforming to the free license. That is no more valid an attribution than "Google". - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC) I can't say I have much sympathy for a commercial entity using someone else's copyrighted material with no credit at all, and then complaining when they get sued because it was material that they could have licensed at no expense to themselves. I personally have never sought damages for someone failing to exactly properly conform to the terms of a CC license, but not mentioning my name would definitely put things in another category. In my view, a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license amounts to saying "I don't demand money for my work, all I'm asking for is clear attribution." If the latter isn't forthcoming, then it's the same as any other copyright violation. objective market value of CC works is zero - I have several dozen times been paid anywhere from US$50 to US$1500 for the use of a photo where I had offered a CC-BY-SA license because someone did not want to conform to the terms of that license. (This does not count the couple of times I've pursued matters legally, one for uncredited use in a print medium, and one for uncredited use in a film.) About half of those have been precisely because someone did not want to have to credit a photographer, and preferred to pay me money rather than give such a credit. @Nilive1: you are questioning Der Wolf im Wald's intentions, but what were your organization's intentions in using third-party material with no attribution? - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC) To add some perspective on what might be considered “reasonable” compensation globally when attribution is completely ignored by a commercial actor: in my own enforcement practice (in Sweden), I typically ask for around USD 200 if I pursue the case myself. If handled via an external partner such as Pixsy, the requested settlement usually ends up between roughly USD 300–900, depending on the case. This is because I don’t pay for their premium subscription but instead let them take 50% of any pre-trial settlement. I should also note that I have been involved in settlements ending up in the thousands, but only in cases where lawsuits had to be filed and where companies (never private individuals) had made absolutely no attempt at attribution whatsoever. From my perspective, the distinction is important: we should be angry about copyleft trolling, where minor technicalities are exploited as a business model, not about people enforcing common-sense attribution. Ensuring that attribution actually matters helps all of us, because otherwise the very basis of the free licenses we rely on would be undermined. --Josve05a (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Excuse the newbie comment, but I'm not sure what the OP is expecting Commons to do. It seems most of what's been posted above is covered by COM:REUSE and COM:ENFORCE. Don't disagreements of this nature need to be resolved out in the real world? Does banning content providers or deleting their uploads have any real impact out in the real world? Unless content providers aren't complying with COM:L, I'm not sure why the community should be expected to take action to prevent them from uploading their content and making it available to others. The fact that such content is available doesn't mean others are obligated to use it; if, however, someone does choose use it, they should make sure they've dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, particularly when failing to do so could have lead to (serious) problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Unless I'm very mistaken, we've occasionally let someone know they are unwelcome here over seriously aggressive copyright trolling: e.g. repeated instances where a non-commercial site credits them accurately for an image not even used prominently but fails to overtly mention the license in question, and they try to take them for everything they can. But this is nothing like that. A commercial business used the image with no attribution at all. Personally, given that they are not a media company as such, and if I'd never had an issue with them before, my first notice to them would be a request to credit me correctly, but Wolf is entirely within his rights to enforce his copyright more aggressively than I would. Honestly, it amazes me that a business that cut corners on legality and got caught thinks it is a defense to say, "well, I was planning to fix it later and get back within the law." It amazes me more that they think we should sanction the person who caught them making unauthorized use of his intellectual property. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Several copyright violations by the agency Simpliza OÜ (www.hellomondo.com) Instead of criticizing the author of the work after a violation, it might have been better to focus on correcting the own mistakes first. It would have been much more appropriate to fix the own website and clarify the image rights. Unfortunately, six days after I pointed out the violation and the general problem of the website hellomondo.com with copyright attribution, almost every image still has the improper copyright attribution “Image: Wikipedia”. I assume that there are dozens or hundreds of violations on the website hellomondo.com, because it is very unlikely that the site operator has permission from each author to use their images. Why else would Wikipedia be named as the source? If the site operator had the author's permission to use his/her work without attribution, it would not make sense to name Wikipedia as the image source instead. So it's fairly safe to assume that every image on the website hellomondo.com with “Wikipedia” as the image source constitutes a copyright infringement, unless it's in the public domain. In relation to my pictures, I found a total of six of such violations until now (including the case above). With regard to my own images, I am absolutely sure that the site operator never had permission to use them without attribution. You can search through the various destinations in the following site directory and you will probably find numerous copyright infringements there: https://www.hellomondo.com/destinations/ I have documented more than 20 of these (probable) violations and summarized them in the table below. I am currently in the process of contacting the affected Users to make them aware of the violations. The community is welcome to add further cases to the table and inform the authors. Thanks! -- Wolf im Wald 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC) destination subpage with probable copyright violation archived screenshot original picture author has been notified Germany - Munich https://www.hellomondo.com/germany/munich/ https://archive.is/E6NA3 taken File:Stadtbild München.jpg yes Germany - Schwangau https://www.hellomondo.com/germany/schwangau/neuschwanstein-castle/ https://archive.is/W8LRc taken File:Schloss Neuschwanstein 2013.jpg yes Germany - Würzburg https://www.hellomondo.com/germany/wurzburg/ https://archive.is/JKLeD taken File:Dom R1.jpg yes Germany - Dresden https://www.hellomondo.com/germany/dresden/ https://archive.is/aqKEG taken File:HFBK Dresden 2024 Luftbild Toni Klemm 2500px.jpg in progress USA - California https://www.hellomondo.com/california-usa/fresno/yosemite-national-park/ https://archive.is/vp7qs taken File:Half Dome with Eastern Yosemite Valley.jpg yes USA - Illinois https://www.hellomondo.com/illinois-usa/chicago/ https://archive.is/8oB1D taken File:Chicago River ferry b.jpg in progress USA - Nevada https://www.hellomondo.com/nevada-usa/las-vegas/welcome-to-fabulous-las-vegas-sign/ https://archive.is/p5KuB taken File:Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas.jpg yes USA - New York https://www.hellomondo.com/new-york-usa/manhattan-new-york-city/bryant-park/ https://archive.is/HNzs1 taken File:New-York - Bryant Park.jpg in progress USA - Texas https://www.hellomondo.com/texas-usa/fort-worth/ https://archive.is/O2FBG taken File:Fort Worth Stock Yards Entrance Wiki (1 of 1).jpg in progress Italy - Rome https://www.hellomondo.com/italy/rome/ponte-santangelo/ https://archive.is/iuolo taken File:Engelsburg und Engelsbrücke abends.jpg yes France - Orléans https://www.hellomondo.com/france/orleans/ https://archive.is/pkJSK taken File:Rue Jeanne dArc Tramway Orleans.jpg no Estonia - Tallinn https://www.hellomondo.com/estonia/tallinn/toompea-castle/ https://archive.is/2Povt taken File:Toompea Castle.jpg no Estonia - Tallinn https://www.hellomondo.com/estonia/tallinn/alexander-nevsky-cathedral/ https://archive.is/A1rFr taken File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-11, DD 46.JPG no Denmark - Copenhagen https://www.hellomondo.com/denmark/copenhagen/ https://archive.is/uTXoU taken File:Nyhavn, Copenhagen (Denmark) 01.jpg no Belgium - Brussels https://www.hellomondo.com/belgium/brussels/ https://archive.is/bUgZv taken File:00 Bruxelles - Mont des Arts.jpg no Belgium - Bruges https://www.hellomondo.com/belgium/bruges/ https://archive.is/DCVqf taken File:Brügge Blick vom Belfried 4.jpg no The Netherlands - Rotterdam https://www.hellomondo.com/netherlands/rotterdam/ https://archive.is/FIfrD taken File:GraphyArchy - Wikipedia 00842.jpg no Portugal - Funchal https://www.hellomondo.com/portugal/funchal/ https://archive.is/KVyu6 taken File:2010-03-02 13 07 35 Portugal-Funchal.jpg yes Poland - Gdynia https://www.hellomondo.com/poland/gdynia/ https://archive.is/GHnv8 taken File:00 sea towers (April 2018).jpg no UK - Scotland https://www.hellomondo.com/scotland-united-kingdom/kirkwall/ https://archive.is/Bbloj taken File:Kirkwall Harbour.jpg no Spain - Palma de Mallorca https://www.hellomondo.com/mallorca/palma-de-mallorca/ https://archive.is/MVVE3 taken File:18-11-30-Palma de Mallorca-RalfR2-100 0316.jpg yes Spain - Sevilla https://www.hellomondo.com/spain/seville/ https://archive.is/FlZq5 taken File:Sevilla Cathedral - Southeast.jpg yes Switzerland - Wengen https://www.hellomondo.com/switzerland/wengen/ https://archive.is/Ejkqo taken File:1 wengen 2012.jpg no ... Found one of my photographs (archive.org) being used without any attribution (CC-BY-SA 3.0 AU)! Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC) And yet another (archive.org), original! Bidgee (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC) Why “Wikipedia” is not a valid copyright attribution in relation to the CC license The image source “Wikiepdia” is problematic because many of the images are not used in Wikipedia. Even if images are used in Wikipedia, this does not apply to all language versions of Wikipedia and it remains unclear in which article the image can be found. A good example is my picture of Ponte Sant'Angelo in Rome, used here without permission. This image is not used in the articles of Ponte Sant'Angelo in the English, Italian, or German Wikipedia. Therefore, it is almost impossible to find the copyright information. Furthermore, only providing the image source “Wikipedia” violates the license terms because the license requires that the author (not the platform) and the license to be named. -- Wolf im Wald 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Schöne Werbung für Wikipedia! Und ehrlich gesagt bei diesen Minibildchen eine umfangreiche Lizenzangabe, inklusive Email-Adresse des Fotografen anzugeben, so wie du es forderst, finde ich überzogen. -- Bwag (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Die Lizenz gibt aber vor, dass der Name des Urhebers und die Lizenz zu nennen sind (keine E-Mail-Adresse und nicht "Wikipedia"). Erfolgt dies nicht, fehlt die Erlaubnis zur Nutzung. Wenn diese Bedingungen fakultativ wären, wäre faktisch jedes Werk, das unter einer CC-Lizenz steht, gemeinfrei. Wenn Benutzer hier Bilder unter CC-Lizenz hochladen, dann erwarten sie zurecht, dass diese Regeln eingehalten werden. Ansonsten würden sie ihre Bilder gemeinfrei bereitstellen. Daher ist dein Kommentar unangemessen, weil er die CC-Lizenz untergräbt. Wenn wir selbst so klare und gewerbliche Verstöße wie hier relativieren, verliert die CC-Lizenz an Glaubwürdigkeit und es könnte die Bereitschaft sinken, Werke auf Commons beizutragen. Bei kleinen Fehlern wie z.B. Tippfehlern oder fehlerhaften Kennzeichnungen der Lizenz ist das anders und es wäre in den meisten Fällen auch unangebracht, eine Entschädigung zu verlangen. Hier ist es allerdings so, dass das Unternehmen systematisch und massenhaft das Urheberrecht verletzt und die CC-Lizenz mit Füßen tritt. -- Wolf im Wald 18:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC) I have already acknowledged that the placeholder use was insufficient under CC terms and, to avoid any further issues, I deleted the three lines of code that were generating those hotlinks the same day this was raised. Normally I spend money every month on licensed images and I am very careful about copyright; this was a technical mistake, not a deliberate attempt to avoid attribution. My concern now is not the specific case itself, but the escalation into repeated demands, personal disparagement here, and attempts to damage my reputation outside Commons. This goes beyond normal license enforcement. I will step back at this point and welcome whatever conclusions the Commons community and administrators may reach. Nilive1 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC) It's not just a technical problem if you use images and decide not to include a correct copyright notice, instead using an automatically generated copyright notice from the software that is inaccurate. Even six days after I brought the issue to your attention, all violations (except one) were still on your website, and you only addressed the problem after I published the table above. If the lines of code have now been removed, this would only mean that no copyright notice can be found at all. So it was never a technical problem. You simply did not make an effort to provide copyright information and comply with the license terms. For example, it would have been a technical error if you had provided the correct copyright notice but, for technical reasons, it had not been displayed in some web browsers. Even if it had only been a technical problem, I would not have been able to detect it and it would still be a violation. In such a case, we could certainly have discussed whether to waive or reduce the claim for compensation, but that would have required you to to behave appropriately and treat me fairly. Furthermore, it was clearly not a technical problem; you simply failed to provide the required copyright information. This may have been because you do not care about copyright or licensing, or perhaps because you only planned to use the images as a temporary placeholder and thought a proper copyright attribution would be dispensable. I consider both of these to be critical and illegal either way. Any company that commits numerous commercial copyright infringements should not be surprised if the injured parties take action and demand compensation. This is quite common and does not go beyond normal license enforcement. @Nilive1: You started to air this matter in public. So you should not be surprised if your violations become known. I have mainly argued objectively and only corrected your misrepresentations of the facts. Before you started your slander here, I only wrote to you by email and offered to settle the matter amicably and in a fair way. I did not publish anything about you and I did not attack your reputation. However, you tried to damage my reputation, so you should not be surprised if I do not remain silent about your violations. In particular, I believe that every Commons User affected has the right to know about it. -- Wolf im Wald 01:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Mag ja alles stimmen - und doch! Wegen mangelnden bzw. nichtkorrekten Lizenzangaben bei diesen Minimalbildchen hunderte Euro zu verlangen finde ich unredlich. Weil dieses Zahlscheinversenden gewisse Usern äußerst zahlreich betreiben, keimt in mir schon der Verdacht, dass das ein Geschäftsmodell ist. -- Bwag (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Es ist für Berufsfotografen vor allem ein Geschäftsmodell, Bilder an vorwiegend gewerbliche Kunden kostenpflichtig zu lizenzieren, die keine Urheberangaben machen wollen und daher vor der Nutzung eines Bildes eine Lizenz erwerben. Die logische Konsequenz ist, insbesondere gegen gewerbliche Verstöße vorzugehen und dieses Lizenzmodell sowie die CC-Lizenz zu schützen. Wenn man nicht klare Grenzen aufzeigt, wird die Lizenz nicht ernst genommen. Allerdings halte ich es - wie bereits mehrfach gesagt - bei privaten Einzelpersonen, die ein Bild ohne kommerziellen Hintergrund nutzen, und bei Kleinstverstößen/Formfehlern nicht für gerechtfertigt, eine Entschädigung zu verlangen. In diesem Punkt stimme ich dir also zu. Aber das ist hier nicht der Fall, weil wir von einem Unternehmen sprechen, das die Lizenzbestimmungen klar verletzt hat. -- Wolf im Wald 12:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC) I want to emphasize that I normally purchase licensed images every month and I take copyright seriously. For example, on the Donauturm page of my site (https://www.hellomondo.com/austria/vienna/donauturm/) there are nine images, eight created by me. For the one that was not mine, I credited the company and even added linked the source and a clear note that the image had been edited ("cropped, color optimized, background edits", IPTC metadata). In another case, when embedding a video (https://www.hellomondo.com/estonia/), which is fully legitimate under the license terms, I not only credited the author in the caption but also added appreciative words about his work and contacted him directly to ask permission and to offer removal if he preferred. I also have thousands of licensed stock images in use, and when I occasionally receive notices from services like Copytrack, I simply reply with the certificates from the image seller to show the license. That is how I normally handle copyright — with full documentation and compliance. The hotlink thumbnails were different. These were low-resolution placeholders, automatically generated, and I mistakenly assumed that hotlinking would be acceptable since the files were not hosted on my server. I also thought a generic “Wikipedia” credit would be sufficient in that context. That assumption was wrong. As soon as the issue was pointed out, I deleted the code that generated those hotlinks, so this cannot happen again. If they are still visible anywhere, it can only be due to caching. Beyond the examples I have mentioned above, I also have other cases where I correctly used CC-licensed images with full attribution, and I can provide further examples directly to administrators if requested. I prefer not to share those publicly here, since they involve other companies not directly connected to me, and I am concerned about further retaliatory actions if I expose them openly. This was a misunderstanding on my part, not an attempt to bypass attribution. I accept that the attribution was incomplete, and I corrected the issue immediately once I became aware of it. As a further step, and to demonstrate my commitment to open licensing, today I updated all my photos on Flickr to CC BY-SA 4.0, which I believe is a clearer and fairer license for both creators and reusers. Nilive1 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC) This makes the violation all the more incomprehensible when you yourself publish images under a CC license. And then to claim that you didn't know that the CC license requires attribution of the author, which is the core of this license, is completely implausible for me. -- Wolf im Wald 18:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC) @Nilive1: When you initially included the photos on your website, were you under the impression using photos from Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons with a credit of "Wikipedia" is OK from a copyright perspective? If so, what gave you this impression? Consigned (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC) I was aware of CC requirements, Consigned. In fact, in other cases I’ve gone beyond the minimum, for example adding author credits and edit notes in IPTC metadata or even contacting authors directly (please, check my previous answer). Where I made a mistake was in assuming that the same level of attribution would not be necessary for automatically generated thumbnail hotlinks. I thought “Wikipedia” would be an adequate generic credit for those placeholders, since they were not hosted on my own server and only meant as temporary stand-ins. That was my error, and I deleted the code that produced them as soon as it was pointed out. Nilive1 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC) I informed you about the problem eight days ago. Since then, at the very latest, you've known that the license requires naming the author. You didn't fix the problem until six days later, when I made the additional cases public to demonstrate that you were systematically infringing copyright. So, you obviously didn't come up with the idea of fixing the problem on your own. Anyone who strives to comply with the license terms would come up with the idea of fixing the problem themselves after learning about it. Regardless of this, anyone who wants to comply with the license terms seriously would inform themselves about the license before using an image and clarify whether it is sufficient to name “Wikipedia” before using hundreds of images with this copyright notice. So something went wrong here that goes beyond a minor mistake. It would have taken 10 seconds to find out that the author must be named if you had visited the corresponding Commons image description page or googled "Creative Commons". Unfortunately, not even these 10 seconds were spent. -- Wolf im Wald 18:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC) This doesn't rise to the level of past cases where users on Commons were abusing the system to essentially set a trap for reusers. Nilive1 screwed up their website. We're not going to block Wolf because Nilive1 is at least occasionally bad at their job. The matter of copyright seems to be agreed to by all parties. So this thread can probably be closed. GMGtalk 15:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC) The attribution matter has been addressed and fixed, and I have demonstrated that I acted in good faith throughout. For my part, the case can be considered closed. I simply hope the community will also keep an eye on how license enforcement is carried out, because in some situations the line between protecting rights and harassment can become blurred. Nilive1 (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Image under two different licenses

I would like to ask about the use of an image. I would like to use an image of a page of the document "German War: Persia; Situation in Arabistan 1915" on one of my pages. (Specifically page 228). I found two pages that allow you to read this document. https://dlmenetwork.org/library/catalog/81055%2Fvdc_100000000419.0x000179_dlme and https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100055225595.0x00001d The Middle East Digital Library page lists the document under a non-commercial license. This is prohibited on Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing However, the Qatar National Library page lists the document under the Open Government License. This license is described here https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ as a free license and here the same is stated on Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:UK_Open_Government_Licence Therefore, I would like to ask you whether I can legally upload this image to Wikimedia Commons and use it on Wikipedia when it is attributed with two different licenses? Timixion (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a British document, therefore the British law applies. So, it is OGL. However it is worth exploring whether this document is in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but how do I find out? Both files can be viewed in their entirety in a browser. Timixion (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:CRT/UK. If published by the British government before 1975, PD-UKGov. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The Qatar website has a more detailed copyright statement on this page [3]. It excludes three pages of the document from the OGL, the rest being OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I just don't understand why the entire file is under a non-commercial license at the Library of the Middle East and at the Qatari library only two pages. Timixion (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

First space walk photo

en:File:FirstSpaceWalk.png was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content back in 2015. It's sourced to this BBC News article, but the BBC attributes the photo to "en:RIA Novosti/Science Photo Library" both in the caption for the photo and in the "Images" section at the very end of the article. I also found another article using the photo, but it attributes the photo as an "Alamy Stock Photo". It seems really doubtful it originated with Alamy or that the BBC wouldn't attribute Alamy as the source of the photo, unless perhaps Alamy only entered into the picture after the BBC used the photo in 2014. This other article also contains video footage of the spacewalk and there's a good chance this photo is actually a screenshot from that footage. The video footage is sourced to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's YouTube channel, but had to have originated with RIA Novosti. The en:Voskhod 2 had a crew of two, en:Pavel Belyayev and en:Alexei Leonov, and Leonov is the one who's shown in the photo. I guess that would either make RIA Novosti or Belyayev the copyright holder. Beyayev died in 1970, and COM:Soviet Union gives the general duration of copyright as 25 years p.m.a, but that probably switched to Russia's 70 years p.m.a. due to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Anyway, I'm wondering whether this photo might've entered the public domain for some reason per COM:RUSSIA. I'm also wondering whether it's possible this could be PD per COM:US (e.g. {{PD-US-no notice}}) given the photo was taken in March 1965 and was probably widely distributed globally shortly thereafter for PR purposes. It seems possible that some print publication/wire service (like this one) in the US covering the story used photos of the walk, and perhaps didn't have a copyright notice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it's probably not a public domain photo. And you are likely correct that either RIA Novosti or Belyayev are the copyright holder. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If it was published within 30 days of its creation/publication in Russia in the United States without a proper notice it may be public domain in the United States and so be locally free. But, you would have to verify that (many images you think would be widely distributed were not; it is entirely possible it was not contemporaneously published in the US at all). It cannot go on commons either way, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's kind of tangential, but there's a lot of photographs and artwork of Russia cosmonauts on here that at least IMO are wrongly licensed as "PD-RU-exempt" and there's no reason they would be PD in the United States either. I've thought about nominating a good partition of them for deletion in the past but I imagine it would just piss off a lot of Russia users and that's something to stay away from. Someone should go through and do it at some point though. At least if for no reason then the images being properly licensed if, or when, it turns out that they are PD. I don't think it's necessarily good to host files with clearly bad licenses on here even if they are PD for other reasons because it just puts re-users at risk. So someone needs to go through the images at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We have {{Simultaneous US publication}} for that. It looks like this particular photo wasn't distributed until May 11 at least in the US [4] and on March 11 AP just took a photo of a TV screen and sent it out [5]  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   09:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It cannot go on commons either way, though. @PARAKANYAA: I'm not sure I agree, though definitely a case of IANAL. If publication was (legally) simultaneous, don't we get to choose which country we consider the country of origin? - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so? Could be wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this document unter US-PD?

It's another day where US Republicans take measures against Wikimedia and I want to ask if this document under Public Domain? Otherwise I would upload it. Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a federal agency. So I assume the document would be PD under "PD-USGov" or a related license. Unfortunately there's like 30 licenses for works by the federal government. So I'm not sure which specific one to use but "PD-USGov" should work if nothing else does. Totally tangential, but it will be interesting to see how the WMF caves to the whole thing, if they do at all. Like their just going to give up eternal ArbCom documents and the like. What a freak show either way though lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, if necessary, the PD license can still be adjusted :). But I agree, it is hilarious to see that they demand things from a privately owned foundation. What a time to be alive --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Photographs of Voltairine de Cleyre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royalty Free-For-All — A Hand-Drawn Public Domain Smashup!

Do i have to take any steps to verify that this game is indeed public domain? Or is the Kickstarter page itself considered sufficient proof? Trade (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The characters may be PD, but their original depictions of them may not be. GMG^talk 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Redraw simple graphic

Hi, I just uploaded File:Osama bin Laden Family Tree.png - Wikimedia Commons, which I drew myself, but which is based on a graphic in the following book:

Bergen, Peter (2021) The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden, Simon & Schuster, pp. X–XI ISBN: 978-1-9821-7052-3.

In this case I would argue, the level of creativity in the graphic is not unique and it's based on public data but I am not sure if this qualifies as my own work. Any hints? Jo1971 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jo1971: There is basically nothing copyrightable in the graphic you uploaded so there is no copyright issue. It needs categories, though. And you should credit your source(s) of information in the description. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jo1971 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

NASA video with potentially non-free music

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logo de Gree China

Buenas ,el logo de Gree (File:Gree electric appliances logo.svg) esta por encima del Umbral de Originalidad (above too) o bajo del Umbral de Originalidad (below too) en China,China (ToO) es bajo ? AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons app screenshots

Commons app 6-0-0 showing keyboard bug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's okay to upload?

Hello, I see a new slogan for the Lula administration (2023-2027) in X/Twitter (maybe linking X can be avoided)..... See the source: 1. If don't understand my local language (Brazil), use Google Translator or DeepL.

And I want know if that's okay to share to Wikimedia Commons. --Vitor Hello? 23:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

See COM:TOO Brazil. I can't read Portuguese, but if Brazil's TOO is even higher than the US's, you should be clear to upload it under something like PD-textlogo. Based5290 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Based5290 Alright. Thanks. 🙏 Vitor Hello? 01:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine album art is PD, right?

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

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

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

Threshold of originality for Blackpool Transport

Given recent developments in the UK, is the current Blackpool Transport logo (see at left on [6]) sufficiently complex to be copyrightable? For background please see en:w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Blackpool tram icon and en:w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Blackpool Transport. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Is this Videogame disc cover copyrightable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of which is very confusing.

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

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

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

(map illustration)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images from Flickr that are from eBay

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

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

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

1905 Isle of man photo

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

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

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

Kiyosumi-shirakawa Station flickr photos

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

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

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

• I’m not familiar with copyright laws in Japan, but the issue seems to be whether the specific arrangement of lights is copyrightable in Japan (above the threshold of originality in Japan).
• According to COM:TOO Japan, it appears that some “artistic” utilitarian works are not considered copyrightable. That section references a court ruling which Furby toys are not copyrightable in Japan due to it being a “industrially mass-produced utilitarian article” and “to which its artistic effects and techniques have been applied for utilitarian purposes” (quoting a translation at p.27 of [7]).
• Clearly, this arrangement of lights serves a utilitarian purpose, and there were artistic effects and techniques applied to the arrangement. However, I’m not sure whether the artistic effects and techniques applied (being placed irregularly) contributed to its utilitarian purposes (illuminating the passageways).
• So, in my opinion, I couldn’t say whether these images are fine to upload or not. Apologies for not fully answering your question, but maybe someone more knowledgeable in Japanese copyright laws can help determine whether this is below or above TOO in Japan. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a copyright violation?

The Roskilde museum states that photos taken in the museum must not be used commercially without permission. [8]. I believe, but do not know for certain, that File:Krummträ.JPG is a photo of a display in that museum. The lines drawn on the timber to show how a shipwright would use the raw materials to make parts of a ship are clearly a creative work by whoever prepared this exhibit.

Who should investigate this?

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

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

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

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