Commons:Village pump/Copyright
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.
- 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.
- Have you read the FAQ?
- 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).
- 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.
- Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
Egyptian FoP
editI have some doubts about our acceptance of Egyptian Freedom of Panorama (COM:FOP Egypt), which claims FoP is permitted implicitly by expressly denying the author the right to control reproduction if the work is located in public places. I revisited the unofficial English translation of the 2002 law as held by WIPO (linked at the bottom of CRT page), and based on my comprehension, the clause is not independent from other clauses under the same article (Article 171). It is connected to the second clause. Here is the full version of the relevant parts:
Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author under this Law, the author may not, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts:
- (2) Make a single copy of the work for one's exclusive personal use, provided that such a copy shall not hamper the normal exploitation of the work nor cause undue prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or copyright holders;
- However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization:
- Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture;...
— Article 171(2 and the first bullet)
The second clause is clear that it is permitted to reproduce a single copy of the work for one's own personal use. The FoP clause that accompanies it is directly connected to this clause, not an independent (third) clause. The third clause is an unrelated clause concerning computer programs.
Based on my understanding, Egyptian FoP is invalid for Commons, since it is only for personal use of applied, fine, plastic arts, and architecture found in public places. If it were a separate clause not subordinate to the second clause, then there would have been no "personal use" only restriction. I would still need third opinions on this. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Translating the relevant section of the Arabic text of the 2020 revision of the law gives me the same clause. For the original, from the 2020 version of the 2002 law:
مادة (۱۷۱) مع عدم الإخلال بحقوق المؤلف الأدبية طبقاً لأحكام هذا القانون، ليس للمؤلف بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بأى عمل من الأعمال الآتية:
...
ثانياً عمل نسخة وحيدة من المصنف لاستعمال الناسخ الشخصي المحض وبشرط ألا يخل هذا النسخ بالاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو يلحق ضرراً غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة للمؤلف أو لأصحاب حق المؤلف. ومع ذلك يكون للمؤلف أو خلفه بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بدون إذنه بأي من الأعمال الآتية:
- نسخ أو تصوير مصنفات الفنون الجميلة أو التطبيقية أو التشكيلية ما لم تكن في مكان عام أو المصنفات المعمارية.
نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لنوتة مصنف موسيقى.
نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لقاعدة بيانات أو برامج حاسب آلي.
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ping some interested users here: @Summering2018, دنيا, and Mohamed Ouda: , organizers of some previous editions of WLM in Egypt as per the participating countries lists (2024, 2023, 2022). For their comments on the possible unacceptable Egyptian Freedom of Panorama. If it's a sub-provision of Article 171(2), then the Egyptian FoP is for private use by individuals only (not OK for Wikimedia Commons which mandates free or commercial-type licenses). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ping also @Pharos: (who added the Egyptian FoP section in 2008) and @Nard the Bard: (who later expanded it) for their comments concerning my interpretation of Egyptian FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer and when I was active here I worked on *a lot* of things, so I am not even a well-versed amateur on this. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any relevant Egyptian caselaw and inquiries through Google and LLMs just circularly lead back to our policy. The FoP carveout is unfortunately unclearly phrased, with a double negative, and grouped together with a right to make a single copy for personal use. If you wish to proceed, I would caution that Village Pump is not for major policy changes, it merely exists to discuss issues. If you believe you can make a good case for changing the policy, I would suggest you proceed to a DR for Egyptian FoP photos and tag the talk page of everyone you can think of who is interested. The way you pinged me will not work on most people the same way a talk page notification will. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the structural placement of the "unless in a public place" carve-out inside Article 171(2) makes a strong case that this is not an independent FOP provision at all, but a sub-limitation to the personal use exception. Both the 2002 text (WIPO unofficial translation) and the 2020 Arabic revision keep the same nesting: the "
ومع ذلك
" clause sits within point (2), which is expressly limited to"a single copy [...] for one's exclusive personal use"
. If we read it that way, reproductions of public art or architecture would be lawful only as personal copies (not for publication, redistribution, or commercial use). - This interpretation is consistent with the Berne three-step test, where exceptions must be narrow and not prejudice the work's normal exploitation. I have not found any Egyptian case law or independent commentary supporting the broader FOP reading; our current acceptance on Commons appears to rest entirely on internal precedent rather than external legal analysis. If no contradictory legal authority emerges, we may need to treat Egyptian FOP as non-existent for Commons purposes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to JWilz12345's and Josve05a's comments. I'll spare everyone the long winded diatribe for why since I think they already said it fine, but it seems like there isn't an independent provision for FOP in Egyptian law outside of personal use. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have now revised the FOP section. It seems even at the beginning of Egypt's modern history there is no acceptable FOP. The repealed 1954 law only permitted an exception of "quoting" 3D art and flat art in certain printed media (textbooks and books on history, literature, science, and arts) as long as the purpose is to clarify the associated text. So, overall, Egypt has no new media-friendly FOP since the beginning of their modern history. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Want to check over Category:Egyptian FOP cases/kept, all files tagged with (and DRs linked to) {{FoP-Egypt}} and perhaps rewrite that as a {{NoFoP-Egypt}}? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have started some. Minimum of three for now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- 295 files transludces the template. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have started some. Minimum of three for now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Want to check over Category:Egyptian FOP cases/kept, all files tagged with (and DRs linked to) {{FoP-Egypt}} and perhaps rewrite that as a {{NoFoP-Egypt}}? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have now revised the FOP section. It seems even at the beginning of Egypt's modern history there is no acceptable FOP. The repealed 1954 law only permitted an exception of "quoting" 3D art and flat art in certain printed media (textbooks and books on history, literature, science, and arts) as long as the purpose is to clarify the associated text. So, overall, Egypt has no new media-friendly FOP since the beginning of their modern history. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- By taking a photograph of a statue displayed in a public place or works of architecture you're not copying them. There are similar provisions in other laws, for example in the Croatian Copyright law: "It is permitted, without the permission of the right holder and without payment of compensation, to reproduce, except in three-dimensional form, works of authorship that are permanently located in streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to the public, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproduced copies." The new interpretation of the Egyptian law is wrong. Deletion requests should stop. Ponor (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ponor: the problem with your interpretation is that Egyptian law expressly treats photography (
"تصوير"
) of works of fine, applied, plastic arts and architecture as a form of reproduction ("نسخ"
) under Article 171, as seen in the Arabic phrasing"نسخ أو تصوير"
. It only allows such reproductions when they are (1) a single copy, (2) for one’s own exclusive personal use, and (3) not prejudicial to the normal exploitation of the work. While the double negative ("prevent... unless"
) implies some allowance, the "unless in a public place" carve-out sits structurally inside 171(2), which governs personal-use copies, not as an independent, stand-alone FOP provision. - If photographing a public sculpture or building were not "copying" in the legal sense, there would be no need for the legislature to create that public-place carve-out at all. Croatia’s law, which you cite, is structurally different: it has an explicit, independent FOP exception (Article 204) that allows reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public (including commercial reuse). Egypt’s clause is embedded under a personal-use limitation and does not permit publication, redistribution, or commercial licensing, all of which Commons requires. Without Egyptian case law clarifying otherwise — and none exists on this issue — we must rely on the law’s plain text.
- Egyptian law likely allows you to take a personal snapshot of a public monument for private enjoyment, but not to upload it here under a free licence that enables worldwide reuse. I’d welcome any sources showing a broader interpretation. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I still disagree. Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you. You can photocopy or copy/reproduce a 2D painting. You cannot photocopy a whole sculpture or a building. The Egyptian law says it's OK ("the author cannot prevent") to make a personal photocopy of a book, photocopy or reproduction of a painting, or a copy of a sculpture, as long as it doesn't compete with the original. Then it continues that it's not OK ("the author can prevent") "carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization". It's not "carrying out the aforementioned act", it's the "following acts". The following acts are "reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts" – "unless they were displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Under Egyptian law, photographing (
"تصوير"
) is explicitly treated as a form of reproduction or copying ("نسخ"
). This is not just a casual comparison. Article 171 uses the exact phrase "نسخ أو تصوير", meaning "reproduction or photographing" together, legally equating photography with copying. - The whole purpose of freedom of panorama (FOP) exceptions in copyright law is to permit limited reproduction of works (like photocopying or photographing) under defined conditions without constituting infringement. Saying that photographing a sculpture or building is not "copying" contradicts the very wording and structure of the law.
- The public-place carve-out in Egyptian law is embedded within a personal-use limitation. It does not create a standalone exception allowing free reproduction, distribution, or commercial use. This differs from laws like Croatia’s, where the FOP exception explicitly allows reproduction and public communication beyond personal use.
- So the question is not whether photography is copying (it clearly is) but whether Egyptian law permits that copying beyond a single, private-use copy. The answer based on the text and structure is no. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even if you disregard what copying a 3D object means, there's a clear separation of the author cannot prevent and ("However...") the author can prevent in the text. See how they even repeat "after the publication of the work" for the two separate cases. We should not infer anything from the indentation and numbering. Case 1: "The author cannot prevent 1 personal copy" Case 2:"However... the author may object to the following (...), but only if his work was not displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your persistence, but let's break this down further based on the law's text and structure. The "separation" you describe between
"the author cannot prevent"
and"However... the author can prevent"
isn't as clear-cut as two independent cases. The"However"
clause is directly attached to point (2) in both the Arabic original ("ومع ذلك"
follows immediately after the personal use description) and the English translation, where it's indented under (2). This nesting indicates it's a limitation or exception within the personal use context, not a standalone provision. If it were truly separate, it would likely be formatted as a new point (e.g., as (3)), without the connective phrasing tying it back. The repetition of"after the publication of the work"
doesn't create independence; it's reinforcing that the author's control post-publication is the overarching theme, but the clause remains subordinate. Legal interpretation often relies on such structural cues, especially absent case law (and previously noted, no Egyptian precedents clarify this). - On disregarding
"copying a 3D object"
: The law explicitly includes"تصوير"
(photographing) alongside"نسخ
(reproduction/copying), so photographing is legally treated as a form of copying here. Dismissing that overlooks the precise wording chosen by the legislature. If photos weren't considered reproductions, the public-place carve-out wouldn't be needed in this section at all. Ultimately, without external authority (e.g., case law, scholarly analysis) backing the broader reading, the plain text points to a personal-use-only exception. This aligns with Berne Convention constraints on narrow exceptions. If you have sources interpreting it your way, please share, I'd genuinely like to find some. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)- Points (1) and (3) are, I assume, so separate from the cases in (2) that they continued with "what's not OK when it comes to this kind of art" under (2). I think you're reading too much from their numbering instead of reading the sentences as they flow. You're completely disregarding that they're not saying "the aforementioned 1-personal-copy case", but are saying "the following cases". They could have said "1-personal-copy is allowed for works displayed in public, full stop". They haven't, because they write it as two separate cases. The "absent case law" may be quite telling: no Egyptian author ever objected to souvenir copies of their art displayed in public? Ponor (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- The "However" clause isn't introducing entirely separate "following cases" detached from the personal-use context, it's a direct qualifier nested under point (2), as evidenced by its indentation and immediate follow-on phrasing in both the English translation and Arabic original. This structure means the public-place allowance modifies the broader reproduction restriction: authors generally cannot prevent making a single copy for personal use regardless of display location, but they can prevent reproduction beyond personal use unless the works are permanently displayed in a public place, where that blocking power is lost. It doesn't create a free-standing right to reproduce, publish, or commercially exploit those works beyond personal boundaries. Your assumption that points (1) and (3) being distinct somehow justifies reading (2)'s sub-clause as independent overlooks how the law formats exceptions — major allowances get their own numbers, while qualifiers stay subordinate. If lawmakers intended a broad FOP, they'd have drafted it as a standalone point, like the explicit ones for criticism (4), legal proceedings (5), or teaching (6-7). Absent case law isn't "telling" of permissiveness; it more likely reflects limited challenges, perhaps because reproductions stay private or unchallenged under the narrow reading, aligning with Berne's narrow-exception mandate. Croatia's law, by contrast, has a dedicated Article 204 granting reproduction, distribution, and public communication rights, while Egypt lacks any equivalent language extending beyond personal. Without scholarly or judicial sources backing a broader view, the text's plain hierarchy prevails. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they are going to respond, but just as an attempt I have sent inquiries to relevant authorities regarding this issue, including the Egyptian Patent Office,
the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and the Faculty of Law at Cairo University. I have asked if they are able to provide any commentary on the matter described above. See ticket:2025081110008053,ticket:2025081110008115, and ticket:2025081110008197. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC) - @Ponor: re:
Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you
etc. Copyright laws also protect you in terms of derivative works. A photograph of a building or sculpture clearly derives from that building or sculpture, and clearly that 2D representation of a 3D work derives at least part of its value from the underlying work. A postcard of a statue derives part of it's value from the copyrighted aspects of the statue. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they are going to respond, but just as an attempt I have sent inquiries to relevant authorities regarding this issue, including the Egyptian Patent Office,
- The "However" clause isn't introducing entirely separate "following cases" detached from the personal-use context, it's a direct qualifier nested under point (2), as evidenced by its indentation and immediate follow-on phrasing in both the English translation and Arabic original. This structure means the public-place allowance modifies the broader reproduction restriction: authors generally cannot prevent making a single copy for personal use regardless of display location, but they can prevent reproduction beyond personal use unless the works are permanently displayed in a public place, where that blocking power is lost. It doesn't create a free-standing right to reproduce, publish, or commercially exploit those works beyond personal boundaries. Your assumption that points (1) and (3) being distinct somehow justifies reading (2)'s sub-clause as independent overlooks how the law formats exceptions — major allowances get their own numbers, while qualifiers stay subordinate. If lawmakers intended a broad FOP, they'd have drafted it as a standalone point, like the explicit ones for criticism (4), legal proceedings (5), or teaching (6-7). Absent case law isn't "telling" of permissiveness; it more likely reflects limited challenges, perhaps because reproductions stay private or unchallenged under the narrow reading, aligning with Berne's narrow-exception mandate. Croatia's law, by contrast, has a dedicated Article 204 granting reproduction, distribution, and public communication rights, while Egypt lacks any equivalent language extending beyond personal. Without scholarly or judicial sources backing a broader view, the text's plain hierarchy prevails. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Points (1) and (3) are, I assume, so separate from the cases in (2) that they continued with "what's not OK when it comes to this kind of art" under (2). I think you're reading too much from their numbering instead of reading the sentences as they flow. You're completely disregarding that they're not saying "the aforementioned 1-personal-copy case", but are saying "the following cases". They could have said "1-personal-copy is allowed for works displayed in public, full stop". They haven't, because they write it as two separate cases. The "absent case law" may be quite telling: no Egyptian author ever objected to souvenir copies of their art displayed in public? Ponor (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your persistence, but let's break this down further based on the law's text and structure. The "separation" you describe between
- Even if you disregard what copying a 3D object means, there's a clear separation of the author cannot prevent and ("However...") the author can prevent in the text. See how they even repeat "after the publication of the work" for the two separate cases. We should not infer anything from the indentation and numbering. Case 1: "The author cannot prevent 1 personal copy" Case 2:"However... the author may object to the following (...), but only if his work was not displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Under Egyptian law, photographing (
- I still disagree. Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you. You can photocopy or copy/reproduce a 2D painting. You cannot photocopy a whole sculpture or a building. The Egyptian law says it's OK ("the author cannot prevent") to make a personal photocopy of a book, photocopy or reproduction of a painting, or a copy of a sculpture, as long as it doesn't compete with the original. Then it continues that it's not OK ("the author can prevent") "carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization". It's not "carrying out the aforementioned act", it's the "following acts". The following acts are "reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts" – "unless they were displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ponor: the problem with your interpretation is that Egyptian law expressly treats photography (
- @Josve05a ping for update: are there any replies from the two Egyptian contacts you mentioned concerning this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly not. Most email addresses bounced, despite being listed as official addresses. The rest I have received no reply from as of yet. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello everyone, I'm Egyptian Citizen, I'm Executive Director of Egypt Wikimedians User Group, Volunteer since 2009, Admin at Ar.Wiki, license reviewer since 2014, Network Member at Creative commons Organization in Egypt since 2017, I have worked on several projects of the Egyptian Ministry of Culture for several years. I know the copyright laws well and I have two books on this subject. I see a lot of misinformation in this discussion, and with all due respect, I see some people trying to rely on translation, which is not accurate. Also, the Egyptian intellectual property laws is not one law, but rather several laws and regulations, and the process is a bit complicated and need someone Speak Arabic and has a knowledge with Egyptian laws.
I have personally attended several discussions (2010 - 2013) with several people from the region, most notably: Tarawneh (a former admin at Commons). After investigation and discussion, we found that the freedom to panorama is allowed in Egypt. I also confirm that there is no law in Egypt that prohibits photographing buildings, statues, etc, some narrw, There are very few and very rare legal cases that may prevent this, but in general they do not concern us as users of Commons.
Please do not rely on some assumptions made by some. I see that some here have quickly reached the conclusion that it "FOP is forbidden in Egypt" and this would be a big mistake. I am ready to work on this topic and prove it with sources, but it may take some time and discussions with some specialists in Egypt. Please give us some time. I came across this discussion by chance, and I hope I came at the right time. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate you joining the discussion and sharing your background and experience. However, the question here is not about whether tourists or citizens may take photos of public works in Egypt, but whether such photos can be published and freely licensed on Commons under Egyptian copyright law.
- Based on my reading of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) translations of the Egyptian copyright law, Article 171 treats photographing works of fine, applied, or plastic art (including sculptures and monuments) as a form of reproduction. The exception in 171(2) allows such reproductions only for personal use, and the phrase unless displayed in a public place is embedded within that personal-use clause. This means the law distinguishes between making a copy for oneself and publishing or distributing it, and only the private use is permitted.
- So when it is said that there is no law that prohibits photographing buildings, statues, etc., that is addressing a different matter. Of course photography for personal use is not prohibited. The difficulty for Commons is that material here must be free for distribution and derivative use worldwide. For that, we need clear statutory support for a freedom of panorama exception, and the wording of the law as translated by WIPO does not provide such a broad permission.
- Earlier community-level discussions from 2010–2013 may have reflected understandings at the time, but they were not grounded in a full reading of the law itself. Commons' legal interpretations can and do shift when statutes are examined in more detail. Unless there are citations to reliable legal sources — such as court rulings, government guidance, or recognized commentaries — that affirm FOP for public art in Egypt beyond personal use, we must rely on a stricter reading of the law.
- If you can share such sources (or help gather legal opinion briefs by IP experts in the area), they would be very helpful. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I see some people trying to rely on translation, which is not accurate.
Not to speak for Josve05a or anyone else, but I assume they are basing their translations on the English language document from the WIPO site here. I know that's what I was using when I made my original comment. There's really no point in doing this if we can't trust WIPO to translate things accurately. I'd certainly trust their translation of the law more then one made by a random user. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)- Whichever translation is right, the problem here is that people are reading too much from its layout, which is: "random users" interpreting stuff the way they think is right. So, according to some, the law says "The author cannot prevent me from making 1 personal copy of anything (say, the notes of a musical work). However, the autor can prevent me from making 1 personal copy of said notes of a musical work." Makes no sense, right? Why would they say yes, but no? The law clearly says 1 copy is always fine; no more copies are fine, unless it's architecture and publicly displayed art. Ponor (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ponor:
"Makes no sense, right?"
This is the way I look at it. The clause says "Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author under this Law, the author may not, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts...However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization..Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture.
- @Ponor:
- Whichever translation is right, the problem here is that people are reading too much from its layout, which is: "random users" interpreting stuff the way they think is right. So, according to some, the law says "The author cannot prevent me from making 1 personal copy of anything (say, the notes of a musical work). However, the autor can prevent me from making 1 personal copy of said notes of a musical work." Makes no sense, right? Why would they say yes, but no? The law clearly says 1 copy is always fine; no more copies are fine, unless it's architecture and publicly displayed art. Ponor (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Notice the two words I highlighted there, "publication" and "reproduction." Reproducing something clearly has nothing to do publishing it to the public and they clearly know the difference. Since they went out of their way to layout exactly when someone can "reproduce" something. But there's nothing in the clause about third parties publishing anything to the public. I. E. "individuals can reproduce works for private use that were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ibrahim.ID thanks for your insights, but simply allowing photography of copyrighted monuments and buildings is not enough. Even in countries with inadequate or vague FoP, anyone can take pictures of works of art and architecture still under their designers' copyrights. What is being questioned here is, despite the FoP being placed under a clause dedicated to personal uses of copyrighted works, is it allowed under Egyptian law to freely use the resulting photographs for any purposes? The purposes include (not exclude) commercial uses like in postcards, travel blogs, advertising, and TikTok vlogs which are not authorized by the architects, painters or sculptors. Freedom of Panorama, in essence, is the freedom to commercially and freely use pieces of architecture and monuments, without restraint from the designers of the said works or even from the legislation itself. Non-commercial use is forbidden, because Wikimedia Commons is supposed to host images of works that can be freely used by anyone, as per COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses.
- And don't treat my concern as a misinformation or disinformation. Even in the Arabic text, there is no indication that the implicit FoP is a standalone provision separate from the clause that only grants personal uses of works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- My biggest concern is that this discussion (which may not have been attended by more specialists — Egyptians or those with knowledge of Egyptian law — speak Arabic "the language in which laws are written in our country") will either not take long enough or be widely discussed. Then we find the discussion may concluding that "there is no FOP in Egypt." Let's delete the images of the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Karnak! I'm not exaggerating, but in my more than 15 years of experience on Commons, I've encountered similar cases. I certainly respect everyone who participates in the discussion here, but I've also encountered some people who seem very strict about the issue of images and a desire to delete images simply because of differences in legal interpretations.
- Secondly, it's crucial to understand that not all countries follow the same legal methods and concepts. 99% of legislators and legal experts in the Middle East are unaware of the term "Freedom of Panorama," and therefore may not explicitly permit it. However, if you ask them, they'll tell you there's no problem with photographing buildings and statues! This is what happened during my visit to the UAE. I found officials willing to photograph buildings and statues and even they encourage it, but we at Commons consider the UAE to be (No FOP) because there is no law permitting it. This issue is clearly misunderstood.
- In Egypt, we have several laws on intellectual property rights, not just one. We also have a law on photography and other related topics. We shouldn't base our discussion on a single law, as the issue is complex and requires time. The issue is very important, and I hope the conclusion end quickly. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, freedom of panorama provisions are exceptions to the general rule of copyright protection -- if there is no clear and explicit statutory exception, then copyright applies in full, and we must err on the side of caution. The fact that many people may be unfamiliar with these legal technicalities does not alter the underlying legal reality. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ibrahim.ID for one country you mentioned, no. UAE does have a very limited version of Freedom of Panorama, which is only good for broadcasters. The broadcasters can freely present the visual appearances of Burj Khalifa and other modern icons of Dubai without needing licenses from the architects. However, the UAE law is framed as such that images can only be freely used in broadcasts, not photography. See their 2021 copyright law, under Article (22) "Limitations and Exceptions", "7. Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places." (Note: not photographs but broadcasting programs). This must be shown to the government officials of the UAE; their claim that "there is no problem with photographing buildings and statues" is directly contrary to the law that they wrote and formulated. UAE officials need explanation for the discrepancies between their claim and the law that they supposedly wrote. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Clarification regarding the translation point: what I mean is that there are big differences between Arabic and English, and there are also cultural differences regarding the meanings of words, so the translation may translate the meaning but it may not translate the intended meaning accurately, like when we say to someone (أنت على راسي من فوق = You are on the top of my head) a different meaning, or like (أحنا دافنينه سوا = we buried him together!) A phrase that might suggest a crime, but the intent is something entirely different. Therefore, I am only afraid that the inaccuracy of the translation will lead to misinterpretations because there are many things in Egyptian laws that are written in a slightly complex linguistic form that only Arabic speakers may understand, and this is all I am talking about.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ibrahim.ID, Images of the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Karnak will not deleted. they are old enough. I do agree that understanding of Arabic in important her. Thats why I dropped a note in ar.wiki. In Israel the in Hebrew is the official law and translation is only a translation. It is not official version. I do believe that it is the case also in Egypt. But in your comment you did not mentioned any different understanding of the law in the discussion above. And also you have mentioned other laws. I think examples be appropriate her. There is a point of disagreement in the discussion above. I would appreciate it if you could address this point after reading the Arabic text. -- Geagea (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- to make it easier. links to the law in Arabic:
- -- Geagea (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ibrahim.ID, Images of the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Karnak will not deleted. they are old enough. I do agree that understanding of Arabic in important her. Thats why I dropped a note in ar.wiki. In Israel the in Hebrew is the official law and translation is only a translation. It is not official version. I do believe that it is the case also in Egypt. But in your comment you did not mentioned any different understanding of the law in the discussion above. And also you have mentioned other laws. I think examples be appropriate her. There is a point of disagreement in the discussion above. I would appreciate it if you could address this point after reading the Arabic text. -- Geagea (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Copyright of old German currency
editHi, What is the copyright status of these, and the proper licensing? Also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Currency does not mention who holds the copyright of German currency. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- File:Reichsmark1avers.jpg
- File:Reichsmark1revers.jpg
- File:Reichsmark2avers.jpg (also wrong link to File:Reichsmark5revers.jpg)
- @Rosenzweig: any information on who created these 1930s bills? Abzeronow (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- The designer may be known, but no designer is directly mentioned and credited on the bills. So this is one of the few exceptions in German copyright where a corporate entity would be the copyright holder ({{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} for pre-1966 works), in this case, the Deutsche Rentenbank or its successor. Since the bills are older than 70 years, their German copyright has expired. They're still copyrighted in the US though. For bills after 1965, the copyright holder is the designer (mentioned or not), though the bank would have exclusive usage rights. --Rosenzweig τ 10:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I added a mention about the designer for post-1965 notes.
- I doubt anyone will claim a copyright for the Third Reich banknotes in USA, if there is a copyright there, which is also questionable. {{PD-US-alien property}}? Yann (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that the Alien Property Custodian vested the copyright for 1937 German bank notes? --Rosenzweig τ 08:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have corrected the file names btw. Reichsmark and Rentenmark are not the same thing. --Rosenzweig τ 08:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- How do we know which works does the Alien Property Custodian exception cover? Does it not cover all works which copyright belonged to the Third Reich? If not, what are the criteria? Is there a list somewhere? Yann (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a list (there still might be one, perhaps not online though). From what I gathered, they did not indiscriminately vest (that's the technical term) any copyrights from Germany or even the German state. Due to the nature of US copyright, the bank notes probably were not even copyrighted in the US at the time (until the URAA went into effect), so there was no copyright to vest. There was a copyright treaty in effect between Germany and the US, but any German author / rights holder would have needed to register a copyright just like their US counterparts. Per [1] (section Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents), “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. I've written a bit more about vesting in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Oskar Garvens (and some other deletion requests), but the subject is still rather murky. --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- How do we know which works does the Alien Property Custodian exception cover? Does it not cover all works which copyright belonged to the Third Reich? If not, what are the criteria? Is there a list somewhere? Yann (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Model railway expositions
editGood morning community. I am turning to you with a concern regarding a copyright issue. Specifically, I'm concerned with the legal question of how we should handle model railway expositions on Commons. My view so far has been that miniature exhibitions with replicas of landscapes and buildings are works of art and, as a general rule, reach the threshold of originality. Accordingly, I also assume that these models enjoy copyright protection. In the past, I have therefore submitted deletion requests, for example for the Loxx in Berlin or the Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg. I would like to mention in this context that these deletion requests have always been successful. There are certainly more of these successful deletion requests. There is therefore a considerable number of images on Commons that have been deleted and are no longer available to the project. @Gnom recently decided in two of my deletion requests for a model railway in Dresden (1 and 2) to keep the pictures. He justified his decision by stating that there was a consensus on Commons that model railways are not protected by copyright. Since this contradicts both my personal legal opinion and the successful deletion requests in the past, I would like to debate this in a larger group. At the very least, I would like to have a conclusive explanation from an expert in copyright protection as to why even images like this should not be protected by copyright. Ping @Grand-Duc, as he is involved in the discussion. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- My main point to introduce here is that I see an area of tension between these two "keeping" DR decisions and COM:TOYS. Model railways are often seen as toys, as far as I know (despite them being rather collectibles for grown-ups), and our synopsis at TOYS contain a reference to a US court case dealing with plane models. I cannot see a difference between planes and trains here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Toys which are "mere copies" of useful articles like cars or trains can be ineligible for copyright. However, the elaborate installations involved in these DRs are not mere copies; they involve extensive creative work in the design of landscapes and buildings for these trains to run through. As such, I see no reason why the installations in these photos would be ineligible for copyright. A close-up photo of a model train which is in all respects intended as a replica of a real train might be an exception, but the installation as a whole is not.
- With regard to Gnom's assertion that "there currently is a consensus on Commons that railway models (even elaborate sets) are not copyrightable", consensus is arrived at through discussion. The existence of a category for a subject is certainly not a "consensus" that images of that subject are always acceptable on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Let's call it 'longstanding practice' then. Gnom (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I also see no reason why building an artificial landscape should not create a copyright. GPSLeo (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- We have deleted hundreds of files taken at Miniaturwunderland. Search for Commons:Deletion requests Wunderland. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- An aside, but relevant: since almost no one ever put a copyright notice on anything like this, pretty much anything from the U.S. built in February 1989 or earlier should be fine, even if photographed later. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Logos: how much copyrighted background is OK?
editHi, For Logos, how much copyrighted background is OK? Yann (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I sent three images from the lot into the DR process: File:UnderSkin.png, File:DuneDrifter.png and File:UltiMarte.png, for which I'm more sure than not that they can't be hosted here. The last one may have been made with some PD Mars image though (maybe from some Mars NASA rover from 2013 or before), but then, this source has to be found. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- The question is that, are these background stuffs part of such logos? If not, they are de minimis even the background is replaced by Charging Bull (still governed by US copyright), but if yes, then each part of logos should be judged by the aforementioned TOO rules. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Logos on objects that are over 100 years old?
editI am editing the history section of the Diary entry. I have an image of two 19th century pocket diaries from my collection to use as a reference for my corrections, but both diaries have the publishing company logos on them. Both companies are out of business, and to the best of my knowledge have been for over 50 years. The diaries in the picture are dated 1880 and 1907. Can I use my image? DMWBBA (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- 1880 should be reliably OK ({{PD-old-assumed-expired}}, if nothing else). 1907 would be OK for the U.S. (by its nature, it was immediately "published", so {{PD-US-expired}}. In or out of business is irrelevant. You don't say what country, and that is just shy of the 120 years for {{PD-old-assumed}}, though if you know the logo was older (pre-1905) or is too simple ever to have had copyright, then you are again OK. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Both were published in the USA. The 1907 volume is from the Standard Diary Company which was founded in 1850.
- Side question: (years of publication aside) if the blank book was published by Standard Diary with their logo on the front cover and decorative graphics and/or prompts on the interior pages, but the manuscript contained in the book was written by a New Hampshire farmer, does the farmer's copyright take precedence over the publisher? Or to put it another way, do blank book publishers have any copyrights after the book has been filled up with the diarist's manuscript? DMWBBA (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US. Blank book publishers have no copyrights on the work, but books that have copyrightable material printed on or in them don't lose copyright just because somebody wrote in them. Copyright can be and frequently is a heavily layered mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Anything published before 1930 is in the public domain in the US.
- What do we know about the death date of that New Hampshire farmer and the publication date of the diary contents? - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- (Just to clarify, "this will be the first publication" would be a perfectly good answer.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- These diaries are unpublished. I'm not sure of the death date of the two farmers. My photo for the wiki entry is just the covers, as examples of the popularity of these pocket diaries during the 19th century. I'm not posting any of the personal writing inside them. I am a bookbinder getting them ready for donation to the American Diary Project. ADP will publish them. DMWBBA (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DMWBBA: If they are from the U.S., before 1930, and you are not publishing anything copyrightable by the diarists, then it's {{PD-US-expired}}. If you are publishing previously unpublished diary content and the death year is known, then if the author died at least 70 years ago that content is {{PD-old-70}}; if author death date is unknown, that limit is 120 years from creation, and the tag is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. (On these latter two, you'd still need the expired tag for the parts that were published and copyrighted.)
- If you want to see this all in excruciating detail, see Commons:Hirtle chart, which is a first-rate characterization of the basics of U.S. copyright durations. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- These diaries are unpublished. I'm not sure of the death date of the two farmers. My photo for the wiki entry is just the covers, as examples of the popularity of these pocket diaries during the 19th century. I'm not posting any of the personal writing inside them. I am a bookbinder getting them ready for donation to the American Diary Project. ADP will publish them. DMWBBA (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US. Blank book publishers have no copyrights on the work, but books that have copyrightable material printed on or in them don't lose copyright just because somebody wrote in them. Copyright can be and frequently is a heavily layered mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Stik graffiti in UK - TOO?
edit-
File:Stik sculpture.jpg - 3D work, probably OK per COM:FOP UK (since moved to Category:Holding Hands, Hoxton Square) -
File:STIK.jpg - painting, not OK if it exceeds TOO -
- Category:Stik (12 files)
- Category:Stik in London (112 files)
Hi, en:Stik is a graffiti artist in the UK who has many graffiti works/murals posted here, including most of the above two categories. Typically due to COM:FOP UK, COM:Graffiti, and COM:Mural, UK graffiti is not allowed to be uploaded here.
These are fairly simple drawings, do they exceed COM:TOO UK where the test is "author’s own intellectual creation"? In my opinion yes, these are unique intellectual creations of the artist. What do others think? Consigned (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and submitted some DRs:
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik in London (84 photos, all of 2D works)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik (8 photos also in the UK, all 2D)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stik in New York City (4 photos, needs consideration of COM:TOO USA)
- -Consigned (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Status of an American city flag
editI have noticed that there are 2 digital files that pertain to the flag of Cedar City in Utah. Over at Wikipedia, the file was uploaded as fair use. However, the file uploaded here was "too simple" to be considered above the threshold of originality, and is in the public domain. Now, I have informed the copyright media desk, and the only thing about the flag is the "3D effect of the 3 pennants", aside from the colors. So, should the file here be deleted? Please discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#c-Marchjuly-20250819072600-Mod_creator-20250819043000, and here is the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Cedar_City,_Iron_County,_Utah.png
Consider notifying the uploader about a potential deletion because of said circumstance. ₘₒd cᵣₑₐₜₒᵣ 
01:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mod creator (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Mod creator: This is actually a fairly simple case: it’s
PD-US-GovEdict, as the flag is included as part of the resolution adopting it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)- @TE(æ)A,ea.: a question & a remark. (1) Are you saying the actual illustration of the flag is in the resolution? If so, an you link, since I presume if you know that you found it online. (2) If this comes from the city government itself, then the claim of "own work" is clearly false. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The city's website says that the city council adopted this design [2]. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we can safely say that this is a government edict without evidence of a work-for-hire agreement between the legislative body (the city council) and the work's creator (Kenten Pope), as was the case with the Annotated Code of Georgia. The rationale behind the government edicts doctrine is that a body elected by the people cannot be considered an author, so a work needs to be legally authored by such a body in order to qualify.
- If the flag is incorporated into law, then you can use {{PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law}}, but the grounds for that template are more tenuous in my opinion. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The rules of the contest in which the flag prevailed say that "
[i]f flag design is chosen, artist understands the copyright will belong to the city
" and "[i]f chosen, the copyright will belong to Cedar City
", so Pope agreed to a transfer agreement instead of a work for hire agreement. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- prospectprospekt: The flag is in the resolution, and the resolution is an “edict of government,” so the flag’s in the public domain. Just as in the old SBCC case, once something is law, it’s law—purported copyright contracts to the contrary notwithstanding. Also, work-for-hire status wasn’t at issue in the PRO case at all, and a two-dimensional digital image is not one of the classes of work eligible for non-employee work-for-hire. (Also, because I’m curious, what’s your objection to the incorporation-by-reference template?) Jmabel: Actually, I couldn’t find it on-line, but I got a copy from the city recorder. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I take back what I said regarding that template, which was based on the thought that Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l is not followed everywhere. But Commons does take sides in circuit splits, and the case for following Veeck is actually very reasonable (I'm reading this at the moment). prospectprospekt (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- What @Prospectprospekt: says is sufficient to say that the copyright was transferred from Kenten Pope to Cedar City. I still doubt, though, that the inclusion of a copyrighted image in a piece of legislation inherently places the image in the public domain, and would be a lot more comfortable with a VRT email from the city government. (Certainly if the copyright had been owned by anyone other than the city, it could not place the image in the public domain; I'm not sure that the city owning the copyright automatically makes this different.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The rules of the contest in which the flag prevailed say that "
- Totally agree with Jmabel. I was just browsing through some local government flags on here and most (if not all) of them were IMO questionably attributed as the uploaders own work and licensed under the COO or PD as a government work. Just because something is included in a government document doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as PD just because the document might be and there should really be stronger standards about it on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Jmabel: This is not true if it is part of an “edict of government,” which was the reasoning of the Veeck decision; none of the places which used the model codes had the copyright to them, but by adopting the model codes as law, they entered the public domain (despite the complaints of the companies which wrote the model codes). Adamant1: The uniform practice has been to differentiate public-domain status (on the basis of the edict-of-government doctrine) on whether the flag, anthem, &c., was actually included in the law (as the flag was in the case) or merely referenced (as in the case of some national anthems). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be saying, effectively, that any government, anywhere in the world could include (for example) any work by the recently deceased Frank Stella, some of which would make fine flags, put it in an edict, and thereby strip its copyright. If you are not saying that, then what is the difference?
- (Aside: I have no strong opinion either way on whether this flag meets COM:TOO in the U.S., but there is a principle being argued here, and I do not want to see a dubious precedent set.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Jmabel: This is not true if it is part of an “edict of government,” which was the reasoning of the Veeck decision; none of the places which used the model codes had the copyright to them, but by adopting the model codes as law, they entered the public domain (despite the complaints of the companies which wrote the model codes). Adamant1: The uniform practice has been to differentiate public-domain status (on the basis of the edict-of-government doctrine) on whether the flag, anthem, &c., was actually included in the law (as the flag was in the case) or merely referenced (as in the case of some national anthems). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Totally agree with Jmabel. I was just browsing through some local government flags on here and most (if not all) of them were IMO questionably attributed as the uploaders own work and licensed under the COO or PD as a government work. Just because something is included in a government document doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as PD just because the document might be and there should really be stronger standards about it on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just a minor comment related to formatting and then one about the flag itself. @TE(æ)A,ea and @Prospectprospekt. There's really no need to mark comments you make here with a bullet point, particularly since nobody else is doing so. Mixing bullet points in with regular indentation (indentation using colons) not only could be seen as an attempt to give your comments more emphasis than comments being made by some others, but it also could create accessibility issues for users who might be using screen readers or other means to "read" Commons. This isn't a DR per se where bullet points actually can help distinguish different !votes from one another; it's more of an informal discussion hoping to discuss things without actually nominating the file for deletion.To me this flag seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO US given that it's basically nothing but a combination of simple shapes and colors. None of the elements of the flag are things that would, at least in my opinion, be individually eligible for copyright protection, and the way they're combined is also not really creative enough (again in my opinion) to warrant copyright protection as a whole. The three penants are the only thing that might be considered eligible, but that would be only for the "fluttering" effect creating a 3D effect, but this seems so minor that it's doubtlful (again my opinion) that it would be considered enough to push the entire flag above the US's TOO. This 2022 ruling by the US Copyright Review Board denying copyright protection to File:American Owned American Made Logo.jpg seems to disallow the applicant's "flying in the breeze" argument and treats it as a "creative spark" that is "so trivial as to be non-existent". So, what's being discussed above seems to me to be more of a theoretical discussion about which PD license to apply. Personally, I think the current licensing is fine, and there's no need to change it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Marchjuly: On English Wikisource, which is where I (and, I believe also, Prospectprospekt) contribute, bullet-points are standard in use, which is also the proper technical format. As to your implication, I personally resent the idea that I would puff up my position to seem more important—on Commons, of all places. As to your comment on licensing, I prefer the edict-of-government approach because the only dispute there is the application of law, rather than the application of facts (which would be the case in a threshold-of-originality argument). Since I deal mostly in whole works (books, laws, &c.) I don’t have much experience in that regard, although I have transcribed some U.S.C.O. Review Board decisions in the past; I have no objection to keeping the flag image under that rationale. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Parents of Earth (Star Wars)
edithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZIimXRelfA Trade (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (also known as HEW) was a cabinet-level department of the United States government from 1953 until 1979. It was administered by the United States Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 1979, a separate Department of Education (ED) was created from this department, and HEW was renamed as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- This should be covered by {{PD-USGov-HHS}}, correct?--Trade (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Médecins sans frontières logos
editYou are invited to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Médecins sans frontières.
I know there are many deletion requests of logo images, but I wanted to draw attention here because of the prominent organization and the wide usage. The previous deletion request linked from there (not mine) didn't get any attention either. whym (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Center for Investigative Reporting images
editHello there. Some images, such as Sevlid Hurtić CIN.jpg and Lidija Bradara CIN.jpg from the Bosnian Center for Investigative Reporting, have been uploaded locally on to Wikipedia with the Center for Investigative Reporting license. Also, when you go to the very bottom of the website, it says, translated from Bosnian: "Acquisition of content from the Center for Investigative Journalism is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source www.cin.ba". I am now wondering whether these images can be exported to Commons. Also, it says in the aforementioned images that "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license", but I have been made aware that I can just ignore this redirection as it is used mistakenly on en.wikipedia. Still, I am wondering if the license used on these images is okay for me to go ahead and export them to Commons without the images getting deleted. Bakir123 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Unfortunately, you did not receive answers when you asked this question here in May (Commons:Help desk/Archive/2025/05#Center for Investigative Reporting images and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Center for Investigative Reporting images). Hopefully, you will receive more answers this time. IMHO, the current text is vague. It's not clear if the content can be reused for any purpose by anyone and modified. The English version of the website footer says "Downloading of the content of the CIN is permitted with the mandatory reference to the source at www.cin.ba." Maybe more importantly, their "About" page specifies "CIN work is available for free to all partner organizations that credit CIN as their source.", which is certainly too restrictive. The best thing to do would be to contact CIN and ask them to clarify their permission, by either issuing a clear free license or by confirming that it is not a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Public Domain Paintings from CLE Museum of Art marked as Copyright Status, FlickR Imports
editHello all, Sorry I am a bit new to this process. I stumbled upon File:Babur meeting with Sultan Ali Mirza at the Kohik River - 1590- Cleveland Museum of Art (30250148295).jpg, which was marked on FlickR as CC 2.0 by the uploader/photographer (unsure if they are the same individual). But it is a 400-year-old 2D artistic medium, and it does not appear to have been substantially altered. I believe that the image is in the public domain; in fact, I am sure of it, as the CMA denotes it themselves (https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1971.85 ; page freezes when I try and add an external link). I am, however, unsure if the accompanying description is public domain content, and it may have been written by the Cleveland Museum of Art or through additional research by the FlickR photographer.
It appears that the uploader to Wikimedia was banned as a "sockpuppet account," and I am unsure if they were the same individual as the person who snapped this photo and uploaded it to their FlickR account. Going through the photographer's FlickR Photo Album from their Museum trip, it appears that they've tagged everything as CC ShareAlike 2.0 - including centuries-old, faithful reproductions of 2D artwork (here is a second example File:Alam Shah cleaving the chain of the wheel - 1565 - Cleveland Museum of Art (30164502511).jpg).
Ordinarily I would change it and move along, but it seems like a bigger task than just for me right now - I typically only correct things in passing while at work. I figured I ought to place it here in the Village Pump, as the Flickr album is some 500 photos and a large portion are 2D artwork mixed with copyrighted photos of 3D artifacts. DBlasioN (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DBlasioN: You are doubtless correct about this photo.
- Uploads from that Flickr account can be seen at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=insource%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fpeople%2F23165290%40N00+Tim+Evanson%22 (that shows the first 100; there are at least several hundred). I looked at a couple of hundred and didn't see a lot of older 2D works but there may be more there than I am readily finding. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Jmabel I appreciate you showing me how to do a special search like this. I went through a few pages organized at 500 per page using the Find function on "Museum of Art." I only looked through 3 pages (up to 1500 results), but I did notice some other incidences of paintings or 2D mediums tagged as CC by SA 2.0. Its probably something I can go through and correct a couple photos of PD artwork as PD over the next few work weeks.
- I have some further questions if anyone can spare the time on what is preferred and what's best practice.
- What license tag should I give photos of paintings in the public domain, and is this answer dependent on the death of the author or creation before 1790? Should I make an effort to remove the Flickr boxes by FlickrReviewR on those public domain works? I appreciate the assistance. DBlasioN (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd certainly leave license tags for anything where (for example) a picture frame or even a bit of wall is visible; in some jurisdictions they might be necessary. If literally all that is visible is a 2D work of art, then I guess it's your call. They are harmless, but probably useless. Here is how I handled one like this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- {{PD-old-auto-expired}} with a specific death year is probably ideal; {{PD-old-100-expired}} is next best. In cases from (say) the late 1800s, it may be that the best you can do is {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Concern about CC-licensed uploads used for repeated legal claims
editI 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:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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: [3]. -- 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: [4]? -- 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)
- 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: [4]? -- Bwag (talk) 08:09, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
editInstead 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)
Why “Wikipedia” is not a valid copyright attribution in relation to the CC license
editThe 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)
License review for Fandom files
editIf a specific image on a Fandom wiki is specifically claimed to be freely licensed (which should appear under "more info" when viewing that image), users importing that content to Commons should take appropriate steps to ensure that license is accurate, as Fandom does not have any license verification process. Some Fandom wiki have many images that freely licensed such as Category:Images_from_Encyclopedia_of_Bus_Transport_in_Hong_Kong and Category:Images_from_The_Encyclopedia_of_Rail_Transport_in_Hong_Kong etc, but if a image are deleted from Fandom wiki, there are no way to verify license, so someone need to review license for images on Fandom wiki to avoid deleted for missing permission. KMB1933 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Schöpfungshöhe für Werbeanzeige 1930er Jahre?
editHallo,
besteht für eine Werbeanzeige in einer deutschen Zeitung der 1930er Jahre eine Schöpfungshöhe? Bzw. was müsste/könnte man hier als Copyrightangabe verwenden? Konkret geht es um so etwas hier: Arisierungsanzeige. Bei der vergleichbaren Datei File:Arisierung_Kaufhaus_Geschwister_Knopf_1938.jpg wird ja eine Schöpfungshöhe verneint. Ich möchte mich deshalb nur nochmal vergewissern. Viele Grüße Martin Bahmann (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ich würde das mit {{PD-text}} hochladen. --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Danke, werde ich dann machen. Viele Grüße Martin Bahmann (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
UAE
editPing @Adamant1@Josve05a speaking of UAE (which got mentioned in the Egyptian FoP discussion), I noticed a different clause under the UAE copyright limitations and exceptions that seem to mirror that of Egypt's. Aside from the infamous "for broadcasting program-only" FoP clause found at the 7th item, the 1st item of Article 22 states:
1. Make a single copy of the Work for personal and non-commercial or professional use of the copier, excluding the following:
a. Works of fine and applied arts, unless they are placed at a public place, with the consent of the right holder or his successor;
b. Works of architecture if permanently standing at public places; and
c. Software, software applications and databases, except as indicated in Clause (2) below.
For reference, here is the link to the English translation of the latest (2021) version of the copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- It sounds like the UAE's law is a little clear. Although it's pretty similar to Egypts. I wonder the later fashioned their law off of the former and just left some words out of their version or something lol. But it's hard for me to see there being FOP in Egypt if that's essentially what the law there is getting at. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 we have some problem though. The "professional" term may imply even activities by professional photographers (who make profit from their outputs) are somehow tolerated, but note that architecture seen in public spaces is excluded (again, contradicting what UAE officials claim). The only thing included for professional purposes are fine and applied arts placed in public spaces. So perhaps, a reverse of US FoP, if we were to accept the "professional" wording as suitable for COM:Licensing rules. So, any public art
OK, and architecture 
Not OK? Might be weird but possible. I'll wait for other insights though. Ping also @Clindberg and Rosenzweig: for their inputs (since they frequently comment on FoP-related matters). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC) - Oh, I forgot a crucial phrase "with the consent of the right holder or his successor" for the public art item. So of no use. (Hosting images on Commons must not require permission from the artists of the public artworks.) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
So perhaps, a reverse of US FoP
That's kind of my reading of it. Although it seems like a weird way to do things lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- I don't see how that is a FoP clause at all. "Make a single copy" is not something that applies here, where we need to allow as many copies as people want. That is more a private-use clause (where they of course have to exclude works of architecture from that permission). The 7th item looks like the only FoP clause to me, and is restricted to "broadcasting programs" unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Clindberg by the way, can you chime in the Egyptian Fop discussion above? It's due to my discovery that the "implicit FoP" we long accepted is only embedded in the provision only permitting single copies, similar to this UAE Article 22(1) wording. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is a FoP clause at all. "Make a single copy" is not something that applies here, where we need to allow as many copies as people want. That is more a private-use clause (where they of course have to exclude works of architecture from that permission). The 7th item looks like the only FoP clause to me, and is restricted to "broadcasting programs" unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 we have some problem though. The "professional" term may imply even activities by professional photographers (who make profit from their outputs) are somehow tolerated, but note that architecture seen in public spaces is excluded (again, contradicting what UAE officials claim). The only thing included for professional purposes are fine and applied arts placed in public spaces. So perhaps, a reverse of US FoP, if we were to accept the "professional" wording as suitable for COM:Licensing rules. So, any public art
Sculpture "publication" question
editHey all, looking for some assistance on confirming publication of a sculpture in the U.S.
Melvin Edwards created the small sculpture Afrophoenix No. 1 in 1963, without a copyright notice, and shortly thereafter sold it to a collector in Chicago. The work was eventually purchased by the Art Institute of Chicago, where it currently resides. I would think the sale to the collector would count as publication at the time, but I didn't want to just assume. The sale detail comes from Edwards himself, in an oral history he participated in several years ago (p. 54); it's unclear if this sculpture was exhibited in Chicago at Richard Gray Gallery, which he references in his retelling of the sale, or if he just sold it to the collector without showing it in a gallery.
Am I correct to assume this work was published by virtue of its sale and thus is in the public domain due to lack of notice? A picture of the work is currently in use as non-free fair use on EN Wiki. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- U.S. copyright law in that era was a mess with reference to what constituted "publication" of a sculpture, and later laws were not retroactive in this respect. There was basically no statute law, it's all case law. Based on what I know about that case law (and someone can correct me if they think I'm wrong about this), selling the sole copy of the physical object was not considered publication, but putting it on display in a place where the public could take photos was. Assuming the Art Institute put it on display shortly after acquiring it, that is what probably would have constituted publication. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jmabel! A related question: Edwards exhibited several sculptures at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in 1965, none of them have copyright notices. I don't know the exact history of LACMA's photography policy, but they have allowed copying in some form for a long time. It sounds like this exhibition would have counted as publication of these sculptures and without notice they're thus PD, correct? Sculptures are pictured here (figure 9). Thanks again. 19h00s (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- That would be my understanding. Again: this is a massive gray area. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jmabel! A related question: Edwards exhibited several sculptures at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in 1965, none of them have copyright notices. I don't know the exact history of LACMA's photography policy, but they have allowed copying in some form for a long time. It sounds like this exhibition would have counted as publication of these sculptures and without notice they're thus PD, correct? Sculptures are pictured here (figure 9). Thanks again. 19h00s (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US also has some rundown of some of the case law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Files of Jijity
editI tagged all of Special:ListFiles/Jijity for {{No permission since}} but if they are in the public domain for some reason some may please update the licenses. Jonteemil (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil should the No Permission template just be removed if a file is PD (+license added)? Because nothing happens when I click on the "challenge speed deletion" link. Nakonana (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana Yeah, if you feel confident of a PD license you can just remove my tag. Jonteemil (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
NARA films copyright?
editThe films about Operation Reunion posted here mention that the access is unrestricted but their use is "possibly restricted" due to copyright. However these films were shot by a combat camera unit, as written on the various film slates shown in the videos (an example can be seen at the start of reel 4, video 9 in the list) which means these would fall under the PD-USGov-Military template because they are taken by US Military employees. The website also lists the "War Department. Army Air Forces." as the creator.
So I just wanted to make sure if these files are ok to use here on Commons. Alin2808 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can't imagine there is a problem. Maybe if they videoed a copyrighted element, or added copyrighted music to the soundtrack, or something like that. NARA likely applied that warning text to the entire set of records, and maybe there are a few in there which are problematic. But can't think of a reason something like you describe would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Now that you mention it, I remember seeing a film on NARA which had sound and music at the end. That might be copyrighted. Considering only a few of the reels have sound and it's only recorded on site, and no copyrighted elements can be seen, I think these are ok to upload then. Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Leslie Adkins
editCommons host multiple files taken by Leslie Adkins. Category:Leslie Adkin Adkins died in 1964 which would make his work PD in the US in 2034 if going off life+70 or if going off the fact it was not published in the US: it was renewed by the URAA because it did not enter PD in New Zealand until 2014. Am I correct in this understanding here? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- If his work was published anywhere before 1978, it's going to be publication plus 95 years in the US. If it was published 1978-2002, it'll be until 2048; only if it's published after 2002 will it be life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- So anything created after 1931 would be definitely copyright, and anything prior to 1930 would require proof/evidence of publication at 1930 or earlier? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: You are correct that proof of publication before 1930 is sufficient to make a work PD in the U.S. The rest of what you say would definitely apply if first publication is outside the U.S., in a country that recognizes the Berne Convention, and the work was not published in the U.S. within 30 days (which is considered simultaneous for copyright purposes). If the work had simultaneous publication in the U.S. then there are at least two other ways it could have lost copyright: for works published up to 28 February 1989, lack of copyright notice (but that's a little trickier starting in 1978, because there was a way to remedy it within five years); for works published up to 1963, lack of copyright renewal. The crazy details are spelled out at COM:Hirtle chart. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will nominate the files for deletion/discussion based on this. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: You are correct that proof of publication before 1930 is sufficient to make a work PD in the U.S. The rest of what you say would definitely apply if first publication is outside the U.S., in a country that recognizes the Berne Convention, and the work was not published in the U.S. within 30 days (which is considered simultaneous for copyright purposes). If the work had simultaneous publication in the U.S. then there are at least two other ways it could have lost copyright: for works published up to 28 February 1989, lack of copyright notice (but that's a little trickier starting in 1978, because there was a way to remedy it within five years); for works published up to 1963, lack of copyright renewal. The crazy details are spelled out at COM:Hirtle chart. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- So anything created after 1931 would be definitely copyright, and anything prior to 1930 would require proof/evidence of publication at 1930 or earlier? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Conflicting licensing information
editI was looking to use this slush video as an audio source for David Baszucki's article. The video is very plainly licensed on YouTube as CC-BY. However, I was poking around the Slush website, and it states "Publications, articles, and all non-commercial Slush-related usage of our photos and videos are allowed when crediting the photographer or videographer and mentioning that the photo or video is from Slush." (emphasis added). Is the license on YouTube still valid? Based5290 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Based5290 Technically, the license on YouTube is valid (a work can have multiple licenses). They might not realize it is valid, nor realize the potential impact of that decision they have made, but that is not our responsibility. However if you want to be nice, you can directly inquire with them of course and verify. That would avoid any potential animosity. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Hinton family image (public domain)
editI was checking these two images:
Apparently they come from a collection from the University of Bristol; there is also a higher resolution pic on Alamy for sale even if it is clearly PD. How we can get the higher resolution photograph?-- Carnby (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the versions on Alamy are actually any higher quality. Some accounts scrapes public domain images from Commons and put a fake bigger resolution REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- They do that with postcards and other artwork on eBay a lot. I bought a reprint of a postcard from there once that was clearly from here and it was the same quality even though it should have been better. Really, if anything it was worse because of however they reprinted it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder whether it would be possible to ask the University of Bristol for a better scan of the photo.-- Carnby (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- They do that with postcards and other artwork on eBay a lot. I bought a reprint of a postcard from there once that was clearly from here and it was the same quality even though it should have been better. Really, if anything it was worse because of however they reprinted it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
