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. |
New Saudi Arabia copyright act - an update
[edit]See this article from Baker McKenzie website. Baker MacKenzie alleges a Freedom of Panorama rule has been introduced by virtue of this law, but we cannot confirm if it is indeed legit and is suitable for IT/new media era including the COM:Licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons. Gemini AI claims "Arabic Text: The original Arabic text was officially published on February 13, 2026, in the Saudi Official Gazette, Umm Al-Qura (Issue No. 5144). It is accessible through official Saudi legislative databases and specialized local platforms like DecreeSA." But, fingers crossed.
Other online source: from Decree Saudi, but this is not the copyright law's text (Arabic or English).
EastLaws.com has an alleged English text of the law but its content are behind registration wall. Title: "Royal Decree NO. 169 Published On 25 - 08 - 1447" and "Title: CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW."
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Here is the issue of Ummul Qura Newspaper the text starts on page 13 and the FOP part is in article 29 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- @999real the reading is:
- المادة التاسعة والعشرون:
1- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، استخدام المصنف استخداماً عرضياً من خلال تضمين المصنفات
الموجودة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة في عمل فوتوغرافي، أو سمعي بصري، أو تسجيل صوتي مع جواز إعادة إنتاجه أو توزيعه أو تنفيذه أو عرضه أو نقله إلى الجمهور، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف
والغرض من المصنف.
٢- يجوز دون إذن المؤلف ودون تعويض، نسخ أعمال الفنون التطبيقية أو الشكل الخارجي للأعمال المعمارية الموضوعة بشكل دائم في الأماكن العامة عن طريق الرسم أو التصوير الفوتوغرافي وما شابه ذلك، وتوزيعها أو عرضها بأي وسيلة مماثلة، مع مراعاة ألا يؤثر ذلك في الحقوق المالية للمؤلف. - Google Translate verbatim:
- Article Twenty-Nine:
1- Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including it in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording, provided that it may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, and provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.
2- Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be copied by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights.
- Article Twenty-Nine:
- It also seems de minimis became formal and legal under the law. But still, both the de minimis (incidental inclusion) and FoP provisions (Articles 29(1) and 29(2)) fall under this identical condition: "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights." Compliant with COM:Licensing or not?
- Your thoughts? Also mention here @Clindberg@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow@Aristorkle@Yann@Ox1997cow (users whom I interacted with concerning FoP of all lands and jurisdictions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- By the way thanks 999Real for the link. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- As an aside, I don't think "incidental" and "de minimis" are quite the same thing -- the first is more unavoidable inclusion when focusing on something else (or a wider scene), and it may still be prominent (more than de minimis). But it doesn't extend to focusing on that work in particular. We tend to allow incidental inclusion anyways, but having it explicit is good. So, this seems like architectural-only FoP (and applied art, which is artistic aspects of otherwise utilitarian works). But not for public sculpture. I presume the last part of each section is the usual Berne limitation that FoP clauses can't infringe on other normal, direct usages of the underlying work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- By the way, according to Baker MacKenzie: "The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 13 February 2026 and will enter into force on 12 August 2026, replacing the 2003 Copyright Law that has governed the Kingdom for more than two decades." Also: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points. We will continue to monitor developments and will issue further updates as the regulation is published and as the new framework takes effect." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would say that "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" means FOP does not always apply. If it is high resolution and not partially obscured, an image could be cropped from the work, blown up and published for commercial purposes. Do we have a volunteer to review the whole new law and update the CRT entry? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Aymatth2 I just updated the CRT page of KSA. Thanks to Google Translate website's image translation feature, I was able to update almost the entirety of KSA's CRT page. I'm not sure if we will accept Saudi Arabia's first ever FoP clause. My hunch says "financial rights" is similar to "economic rights" since it is also the (translated) wording for the article on the copyright durations ("The financial rights....50 years..."). Kindly check the CRT page that I just revised. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Aymatth2: I think "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" pretty much comes from the Berne Convention, which restricts *all* FoP clauses that way. I've always taken that to mean that you can't say make a photo that is basically a copy of an existing 2-D work, even if on public display, as that can compete directly with the original. Or a sculpture of a sculpture, that sort of thing. In other words, something that adversely affects the existing market for direct copies of the original work itself. I would think that is rare for public photos where the pictured item is just part of a scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would say that "provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights" means FOP does not always apply. If it is high resolution and not partially obscured, an image could be cropped from the work, blown up and published for commercial purposes. Do we have a volunteer to review the whole new law and update the CRT entry? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also pinging three users from threads at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia: @Ashashyou, Liuxinyu970226, and Aymatth2: . For their opinions and insights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- @999real@Clindberg kindly check my updates to COM:SAUDI ARABIA, in particular the terms and the FoP section. It also appears photographs no longer enjoy the shorter copyright term. Instead, the 25-year term only applies to applied arts. The good news is, the new terms are not retroactive (but due to lo-onger US terms, this is pretty much useless). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Addition: Google Translate's feature to translate foreign language content within images really helped. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also pinging @DarwIn and @Bedivere, both of whom commented at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/03#Review of COM:FOP Malawi. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- By the way, according to Baker MacKenzie: "The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 13 February 2026 and will enter into force on 12 August 2026, replacing the 2003 Copyright Law that has governed the Kingdom for more than two decades." Also: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points. We will continue to monitor developments and will issue further updates as the regulation is published and as the new framework takes effect." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- As an aside, I don't think "incidental" and "de minimis" are quite the same thing -- the first is more unavoidable inclusion when focusing on something else (or a wider scene), and it may still be prominent (more than de minimis). But it doesn't extend to focusing on that work in particular. We tend to allow incidental inclusion anyways, but having it explicit is good. So, this seems like architectural-only FoP (and applied art, which is artistic aspects of otherwise utilitarian works). But not for public sculpture. I presume the last part of each section is the usual Berne limitation that FoP clauses can't infringe on other normal, direct usages of the underlying work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
It is also worthwhile mentioning all of the users who participated at the Arabic Wikipedia FoP-issue discussion (w:ar:نقاش القالب:حرية البانوراما فقط في الولايات المتحدة), for attention and comments concerning the newly-introduced FoP rule for Saudi Arabia under the new (2026) copyright law that will take effect this August 12, 2026. @جيمي, Ibrahim.ID, Abu aamir, and Dr-Taher: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Info I have mentioned this discussion at the main village pump for attention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
@Aymatth2, 999real, and Clindberg: the better translation of the article is:
Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including works permanently located in public places in a photographic, audiovisual or sound recording, with the possibility of reproducing, distributing, performing, displaying, or transmitting it to the public, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights and the purpose of the work.
Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights.— in: Article 29(1 and 2)
_JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
For added attention: pinging here the "interested participants" of meta:Wikimedians of arab User Group for their comments and insights on the new Freedom of Panorama rule for Saudi Arabia which will take effect this coming August 12: @TOUMOU, Ayoub Fajraoui, علاء, سامر, Hamed Gamaoun, سائغ, Ovva olfa, صفاء, Koussayou003, Ravan, رشاد, and أحمد ناجي: . If the new FoP rule complies with COM:Licensing (the new rule contains the condition "provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Additional pings, selected participants of meta:Arabic Wikimedians User Group who are apparently based in Asian part of the Middle East (per their Metawiki or Arabic Wikipedia user pages): @Mahmoudalrawi, Fjmustak, Salah Mhamdi, عباد ديرانية, Md Nahid Islam Sumon, Osps7, روتانا, Shaween, Almajidy, and روزان جاسم: . Kindly add your comments below Carl Lindberg's comment. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Additional pings: users whom I interacted concerning FoP-related matters: @A1Cafel and Jmabel: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I do not read Arabic and would not by any means attempt comment on a subtle issue in Saudi law. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, that sounds to me like it is reinforcing the "incidental" rule we have in Commons:De minimis (though it's a separate thing than actual de minimis). The second is architecture- and applied art-only FoP. These type of exceptions are allowed in Berne Convention article 9(2) -- It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. So, most countries just take that phrasing and put it in the law. You definitely can't use the exceptions to essentially create a copy of the original -- i.e. using a FoP law to take a photo of a public painting, cropped to the original painting, would basically be a copy, and compete with the original. It just seems to be a safeguard on the "exceptions" having edge cases like that, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Clindberg the law also reinforces Berne three-step test rule under Article 37 (which I added at my revision of COM:FOP Saudi Arabia). Back to FoP, can Wikimedia Commons accept this new FoP rule this coming August 12? Your fellow WikiCommoner veteran Aymatth2 had a different perspective on the common condition for both the incidental clause (1) and the architectural/applied art FoP clause (2) of the article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- To me, yes. The Berne limitations affect every FoP clause from all countries, just about. This seems basically the same as other laws. The "incidental" thing we observe more generally -- there is nothing special in there that would allow things we usually don't keep. The FoP clause is architecture-only (and applied art). Photos of a building are not part of an author's "financial rights", basically. Perhaps photographing a building in sufficient detail as to serve as architecture plans for another, then the other building is still infringing -- you can't do things like that, or maybe some other extreme edge cases. But photos of buildings are not really part of the copyright's scope, it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Clindberg however, not 100% of Saudi buildings would be hosted/restored here starting August 12 (if ever). The new FoP rule only covers exterior architecture. Basically, the interior designs and interior architecture of those same buildings are not covered. Perhaps the images of interior architecture are subject to noncommercial use if we apply Article 37(2): In cases other than those stipulated in Articles 26 to 36, the use of the work by a third party may be carried out without the author's permission and without compensation if the use is non-commercial, does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and does not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders. In "the use..by a third party.." or "the use...by others," third party or others refers to the re-users (that includes us and the re-users of Wikimedia Commons).
- Perhaps: "
OK exterior architecture and applied art permanently located in public places (subject to Article 29(2)). 
Not OK interior architecture, noncommercial only (subject to Article 37(2)). Not OK monuments, sculptures, murals and other fine arts, unless incidental in the images (subject to Article 29(1))." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it's explicitly just the exterior architecture. That should be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with this update. That's a good thing, at least included exterior architecture. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it's explicitly just the exterior architecture. That should be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- To me, yes. The Berne limitations affect every FoP clause from all countries, just about. This seems basically the same as other laws. The "incidental" thing we observe more generally -- there is nothing special in there that would allow things we usually don't keep. The FoP clause is architecture-only (and applied art). Photos of a building are not part of an author's "financial rights", basically. Perhaps photographing a building in sufficient detail as to serve as architecture plans for another, then the other building is still infringing -- you can't do things like that, or maybe some other extreme edge cases. But photos of buildings are not really part of the copyright's scope, it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Clindberg the law also reinforces Berne three-step test rule under Article 37 (which I added at my revision of COM:FOP Saudi Arabia). Back to FoP, can Wikimedia Commons accept this new FoP rule this coming August 12? Your fellow WikiCommoner veteran Aymatth2 had a different perspective on the common condition for both the incidental clause (1) and the architectural/applied art FoP clause (2) of the article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @999real has the "implementing regulation" of the law been released? Baker MacKenzie claims: "The Implementing Regulation, expected before 12 August 2026, will be decisive on several open points." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @999real (also pinging @جيمي) the "executive regulations" is allegedly at this website, but I cannot access it as it always gives "The connection has timed out. The server at istitlaa.ncc.gov.sa is taking too long to respond." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Proposed Template:FoP-Saudi Arabia wording
Pinging the participants who commented @999real, Clindberg, Aymatth2, and A1Cafel: , as well as @جيمي: who appeared to have translated COM:FOP in Arabic, as well as adding Arabic translations for Commons:Freedom of panorama/table. Here is my proposed FoP wording, assuming that Carl's interpretation holds.
The Copyright Law of Saudi Arabia, as promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/169 of 27 January 2026 (Arabic text of the law available on pages 13 to 17 of the 13 February 2026 issue of Umm Al-Qura official gazette), provides for freedom of panorama under Article 29. The only usable provision for Wikimedia Commons is Article 29(2):
Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not affect the author's financial rights. (English translation)
A 2026 discussion on Wikimedia Commons has determined that photographs of buildings do not compete with the architects' financial rights. It is when the photographs are used to reproduce architectural plans that do indeed affect such financial rights. Therefore, Wikimedia Commons can host images of building exteriors and applied arts permanently located in public spaces in Saudi Arabia.
Note that this privilege does not extend to interior architecture and all other works permanently located in public spaces, like monuments, sculptures, and paintings. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia#Freedom of panorama for more information.
I'll add links to this discussion after the future archival this discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
I have also added the OK/Not OK rules at the FoP section of CRT page for Saudi Arabia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hello everyone, sorry I couldn't respond before. I have now reviewed the full text of Article 29 of the new Saudi Arabian Copyright Law, which provides a much clearer picture regarding the reproduction of works in public spaces. The law actually adopts a dual approach depending on the nature of the copyrighted work.The first paragraph provides an "Incidental Use" (De minimis) exception for general works permanently located in public places. It states that such works may be included in visual or audio recordings without permission, provided the inclusion is strictly incidental (استخدام عرضي). However, the second paragraph explicitly establishes a valid Freedom of Panorama exception specifically tailored for architecture and applied arts. It clearly states that it is permissible, without the author's permission or compensation, to copy works of applied art or the exterior shape of architectural works permanently located in public places through drawing, photography, or similar means. It further permits the distribution and display of these copies, provided this does not prejudice the financial rights of the author.This legal distinction is crucial. While capturing general fine art (such as standard public sculptures) as a primary subject might still be restricted under the incidental use clause, the law explicitly grants Freedom of Panorama for architectural works and applied arts. Since this new copyright law officially comes into effect today, August 12, 2026, photographs focusing primarily on the exteriors of modern buildings or applied arts in Saudi Arabian public spaces are now legally permitted and can be safely hosted on Wikimedia Commons. — جيمي (Talk 📧) 13:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @جيمي Thanks for your response. Is my proposed text for {{FoP-Saudi Arabia}} now fine? Or does it need some minor changes or fixing? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- By the way, in terms of undeletions, the Wikimedia Commons images of eligible works should be restored first, so that any local duplicates on English and Arabic Wikipedias could be deleted in favor of restored Commons files, to prevent the loss of Commons file histories in the process. The images to be undeleted must only show exteriors of buildings and applied art works permanently located in public places.
- Ping admins @Abzeronow and @Yann for attention (especially after the creation of the new FoP template). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @جيمي A catch: photos are no longer subject to the same 25-year-from-creation/publication term as those of applied art works. This means, photos whose photographers or copyright holders are known are subject to 50-year term after the death of their holders or photographers. For anonymous ones or those in which the copyright holder is a company or organization ("entity"), 50 years after publication. However, since the URAA restoration date for Saudi works was on March 11, 2004, the longer US terms (70 years after known author's death or 95 years after publication for unknown or entity/corporate works) apply on Wikimedia Commons in terms of hosting old Saudi photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 i agree, it's all great. thank you :) — جيمي (Talk 📧) 14:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- However, since only admins can view deleted files, it's not certain which among the deleted files under Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted are eligible for file undeletion. Perhaps I'll request the first one, in which its local enWiki copy is among the most used on that local Wikipedia project. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Abraj-al-Bait-Towers.JPG, first undeletion request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
JWilz12345, I think the third paragraph of your proposed template is unnecessary and will confuse some editors. There is a similar financial rights clause in almost every FOP law that we regularly use and we have not seen it necessary to comment on them. Architects' copyrights allows them to prevent others from making a copy of buildings. Photographs of even a very simple building do not make it possible to copy it, so such photographs do not infringe on the architect's financial rights. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward I have removed the concerned paragraph. Perhaps leaving the full details at the CRT page is the best option in this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure if the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grand Khaldia Hotel Riyadh, 2023.webp can be undeleted. It is in WebP format, and there are issues concerning such images lately (see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2026/07#Should_we_start_Banning_or_Blocking_.webp_images?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @جيمي attention, I reverted most of my revisions at COM:Saudi Arabia until we get a clear consensus that Saudi FoP for exterior architecture and permanent applied art is acceptable here and does not contradict COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure if the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grand Khaldia Hotel Riyadh, 2023.webp can be undeleted. It is in WebP format, and there are issues concerning such images lately (see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2026/07#Should_we_start_Banning_or_Blocking_.webp_images?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
The executive regulations as possible trap(?) vs. Wikimedia
[edit]I have just found the full Arabic text of the executive regulations. Ironically, it was provided by Gemini AI after extensive chats on the AI chatbot. The link to the text is this. Pinging all the participants who made comments for analysis and if this does not affect the eligibility of Saudi architectural FoP (Article 29(2)) in relation to COM:Licensing. @A1Cafel, Clindberg, 999real, Aymatth2, Jameslwoodward, and جيمي: .
The relevant part of the regulations
|
|---|
|
الفصل السادس: الاستثناءات والاستعمالات المقررة نظامًا المادة الثالثـة والعشرون: مع مراعاة المادة (السابعة والثلاثون) من النظام وحالات الاستعمال النظامي المسموح بها بموجب أحكام النظام، يجوز استعمال الغير للمصنَّف دون إذن من المؤلف ودون تعويض، وفقًا للضوابط الآتية: 1- أن يكون الاستعمال لغرض غير تجاري، سواء بصورة مباشرة أو غير مباشرة، وألا يترتب عليه تحقيق منفعة مالية أو ربح مادي للشخص المستخدم. 2- ألا يؤدي الاستعمال إلى التأثير السلبي على قيمة المصنف، أو المصالح المشروعة لصاحب الحق. 3- أن ينسب المصنف إلى مؤلفه وذكر مصدره بوضوح -متى ما كان ذلك ممكنًا عمليًّا-. 4- أن يقتصر الاستعمال على القدر اللازم لتحقيق الغرض المشروع منه، وبما لا يتجاوز ما تقتضيه طبيعة ذلك الغرض، وألا يترتب عليه تعارض مع الاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو إلحاق ضرر غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة لصاحب الحق. المادة الرابعة والعشرون: لا يُعدّ مساسًا بحق المؤلف في الاعتراض على تعديل مصنَّفه، ما يقوم به مالك المبنى أو المنشأة -أو من يقوم مقامه- من تعديل أو إزالة لمصنَّف منحوت أو مدمج فيه، إذا كان من غير الممكن فصل المصنَّف عن المبنى دون إتلافه أو تشويهه، شريطة إشعار المؤلف -متى أمكن ذلك- أو بذل جهد معقول لإشعاره قبل التنفيذ. المادة الخامسة والعشرون: لا تنشأ للمؤلف حقوق أخرى -غير تلك المقررة له بموجب النظام وهذه اللائحة- بسبب ظهور عرضي لمصنف فني تشكيلي ضمن منتج طُرح للتداول العام، أو بسبب الإعلانات أو العروض الخاصة بذلك المنتج، متى كان استنساخ المصنف بوسيلة مشروعة، ولم ينطوِ هذا الاستخدام على تحريف أو تشويه للمصنف أو مساس بسمعة مؤلفه. المادة السادسة والعشرون: لا يُعد تشويهًا على مصنف فنون تطبيقية، التعديل الذي يطرأ عليه نتيجة التقادم أو طبيعة المواد المستخدمة فيه. المادة السابعة والعشرون: يستنفد الحق الاستئثاري في توزيع المصنف عند أول توزيع مشروع له من قبل صاحب الحق أو بموافقته، ويجوز لمالك النسخة المشروعة إعادة بيعها أو التصرف فيها وفق أحكام النظام، دون التعدي على الحقوق المقررة نظامًا؛ ويسري حكم الاستنفاد على الحقوق المجاورة في الحدود التي يقرر لها النظام واللائحة حق التوزيع، وذلك بالقدر الذي يتفق مع طبيعتها. المادة الثامنة والعشرون: للهيئة أن ترخص للهيئـة المعتمدة القيام بإعداد وتوزيع نسخ من المصنفات القابلة للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر، ويُشترط للموافقة على الترخيص ما يأتي: 1- أن يكون ضمن أنشطتها الأساسية أو التزاماتها المؤسسية تقديم خدمات -بنسق ميسّر- النفاذ إلى المعلومات للأشخاص المستفيدين من ذوي الإعاقة. 2- اتخاذ التدابير المعقولة لمنع أو ردع النسخ أو التوزيع أو الإتاحة غير المصرح به للنسخ القابلة للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر. 3- أن يقتصر توزيع النسخ في النسق الميسّر على الأشخاص المستفيدين ذوي الإعاقة أو الهيئات المعتمدة -لخدمة ذوي الإعاقة- داخل المملكة وخارجها، دون غيرهم. 4- الالتزام بعدم إدخال أي تغييرات على المصنف سوى ما يكون لازمًا لجعله قابلًا للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر. 5- ألا يكون نشاط إعداد النسخ القابلة للنفاذ في نسق ميسّر ذا طابع ربحي. 6- الالتزام بإنشاء سجل أو قاعدة بيانات بالنسخ الميسّرة، تتضمن -على الأقل- بيانات المصنف الأساسية ونطاق توزيع النسخ. ولكل شخص مستفيد من ذوي الإعـاقة أو من ينوب عنه إعداد نسخ من أي مصنف في نسق ميسّر لاستخدامه الشخصي، دون الحاجة إلى الحصول على ترخيص. |
Verbatim English translation provided by Google Translate
|
|---|
|
Chapter Six: Legally Permitted Exceptions and Uses Article Twenty-Three: Subject to Article Thirty-Seven of this Law and the legally permissible uses allowed under its provisions, a third party may use a work without the author's permission and without compensation, subject to the following conditions: 1- The use must be for a non-commercial purpose, whether directly or indirectly, and must not result in any financial benefit or material profit for the user. 2- The use must not negatively affect the value of the work or the legitimate interests of the rights holder. 3- The work must be attributed to its author and its source clearly stated, whenever practically possible. 4- The use must be limited to what is necessary to achieve its legitimate purpose, and must not exceed what the nature of that purpose requires, and must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder. Article 24: The modification or removal of a sculpture or incorporation by the owner of a building or establishment—or their representative—is not considered an infringement of the author's right to object to the alteration of their work, provided that the work cannot be separated from the building without damaging or disfiguring it, and that the author is notified—whenever possible—or reasonable efforts are made to notify them before the modification or removal takes place. Article 25: The author does not acquire any rights other than those granted to them under this Law and these Regulations due to the incidental appearance of a work of fine art within a product offered for public circulation, or due to advertisements or special offers for that product, provided that the reproduction of the work is by lawful means and that such use does not involve distortion or disfigurement of the work or damage to the reputation of its author. Article 26: A modification of a work of applied art resulting from age or the nature of the materials used in it is not considered a disfigurement of the work. Article Twenty-Seven: The exclusive right to distribute a work is exhausted upon its first lawful distribution by the rights holder or with their consent. The owner of a lawful copy may resell or dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of this Law, without infringing upon any other legally established rights. This exhaustion also applies to neighboring rights within the limits granted by this Law and its regulations, to the extent that it is consistent with their nature. Article Twenty-Eight: The Authority may authorize an accredited body to prepare and distribute accessible copies of works in an accessible format. The following conditions must be met for such authorization: 1- Providing accessible information services to persons with disabilities must be among its core activities or institutional obligations. 2- It must take reasonable measures to prevent or deter unauthorized copying, distribution, or provision of accessible copies in an accessible format. 3. The distribution of accessible copies shall be limited to persons with disabilities or accredited organizations serving persons with disabilities, both within and outside the Kingdom, and to no others. 4. No changes shall be made to the work except those necessary to make it accessible in an accessible format. 5. The activity of preparing accessible copies in an accessible format shall not be for profit. 6. A register or database of accessible copies shall be established, including, at a minimum, the work's basic data and the scope of distribution. Any person with a disability, or their representative, may prepare copies of any work in an accessible format for their personal use without needing a license. |
Perhaps FoP-Saudi Arabia might be incompatible due to Article 23(1) of the regulation? If so, even incidental images must be non-commercial too? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Continued discussion, made as a pseudo-subsection in an attempt to make "reply" feature work again
@جيمي as it seems, Saudi FoP isn't compatible with COM:Licensing, after all. This is due to the non-commercial condition given by the Article 23(1) of the Executive Regulations. However, this may also mean that incidental images must be noncommercial, too, considering that the regulation explicitly covers all exceptions or limitations to copyright. Cityscape images may need to be removed, too. Ping @Clindberg for opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC) Perhaps let's analyze both the law and the executive regulations and connect the dots and see if we could indeed accept Saudi architectural FoP:
From copyright law itself
Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including works permanently located in public places in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording. It may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights or the purpose of the work.
— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 29(1)
Without the author's permission and without compensation, works of applied art or the exterior of architectural works permanently located in public places may be reproduced by drawing, photography, or similar means, and distributed or displayed by any similar means, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights.
— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 29(2)
In the cases stipulated in Articles Twenty-Six through Thirty-Six, the use of the work by a third party must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and must not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holders.
— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 37(1)
In cases other than those stipulated in Articles Twenty-Six through Thirty-Six, a third party may use the work without the author's permission and without compensation if the use is non-commercial, does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and does not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holders. The regulations shall specify the controls governing such use.
— in: 2026 Copyright Law, Article 37(2)
From the Executive Regulations supplementing the law
Subject to Article Thirty-Seven of this Law and the legally permissible uses allowed under its provisions, a third party may use a work without the author's permission and without compensation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use must be for a non-commercial purpose, whether directly or indirectly, and must not result in any financial benefit or material profit for the user. 2. The use must not negatively affect the value of the work or the legitimate interests of the rights holder. 3.The work must be attributed to its author and its source clearly stated, whenever practically possible. 4.The use must be limited to what is necessary to achieve its legitimate purpose, and must not exceed what the nature of that purpose requires, and must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
— in: Executive Regulations of 2026 Copyright Law, Article 23
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- @999real@Aymatth2@Clindberg@A1Cafel@Jameslwoodward@جيمي (all who made comments). I suspect the reforms did not liberate photography of Saudi architectural art and public space. Instead, it restricts further. This is per my suspicion: initially, we thought that Saudi Arabia is going to finally allow everyone in the world to reproduce their buildings through photography even without permissions from the buildings' architects, by virtue of the new FoP rule under Article 29(2) of the law. The "must not infringe on the financial rights" condition is just a three-step test rule, which is reiterated under Article 37 which claims (through the second provision) that every use falling outside all exceptions/limitations (Articles 26–36) must be non-commercial in nature. However, Article 23 of the accompanying executive regulations gives rules that apply to all exceptions/limitations (that is, Articles 26–36, inclusive of both the architectural/applied art FoP and the incidental clause), one of which is that all use must be non-commercial. To quote: "Subject to Article Thirty-Seven of this Law and the legally permissible uses allowed under its provisions, a third party may use a work without the author's permission and without compensation, subject to the following conditions:...1. The use must be for a non-commercial purpose, whether directly or indirectly, and must not result in any financial benefit or material profit for the user."
The implication, both the architectural FoP and the incidental inclusion clauses are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, as these clauses are among the provisions within the Articles 26 to 36 subject to the restrictive noncommercial condition found at the accompanying executive regulations. If so, I agree to have the template that I just created ({{FoP-Saudi Arabia}}) deleted as unusable. Literally, a "double whammy" versus Wikimedia and online media digital archivists that long sought images of Saudi architecture (and possibly, Saudi cityscapes) under free culture licenses like CCBYSA, CCBY, CCzero, PDuser, et cetera. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)- Yeah, apart from non-commercial, it seems implies a no-derivative restriction as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel the "no derivative works" is a minor issue. Many of acceptable FoP rules do not permit extensive derivatives to the point of destructive manipulation of buildings and monuments on the images. See, for examples:
- COM:FOP Germany - "Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama. The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt") and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph."; and
- COM:FOP Netherlands - "Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18."
- The respect for the appearance and integrity of the buildings etc. is just an implementation of moral rights as enshrined under the Berne Convention, preventing harmful derivatives that can harm, ridicule, or mock the good names of the architects, sculptors, or their professions, families, estates, and associations. It is the possible non-commercial restriction (Article 23(1) of the executive regulations) that may make the Saudi FoP an NC ({{Noncommercial}}) FoP not OK for Commons, like those of France or of Kazakhstan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel the "no derivative works" is a minor issue. Many of acceptable FoP rules do not permit extensive derivatives to the point of destructive manipulation of buildings and monuments on the images. See, for examples:
- Yeah, apart from non-commercial, it seems implies a no-derivative restriction as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Based on the given translations, I don't see how the executive regulations article 23 affects the FoP clause. Rather, that seems to be sort of a general fair-use clause, which allows a lot of non-commercial use but (like all other exceptions) is subject to the general Berne limitation stated in article 37 of the law. So, that just seems to be an entirely different type of exception, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Clindberg will take note of this, though I'm going to wait for inputs of Arabic-speaking users like @جيمي and علاء: (also pinging here an admin who natively speaks Arabic). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- But, pending any additional opinions whether from Arabic-speaking users or from other users, is {{FoP-Saudi Arabia}} still a valid tag in your opinion, Carl? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the tag is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Small note: ncedential inclusions are inherently non-commercial, because if user benefits from inclusion, such inclusion precludes COM:DEMINIMIS. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Evelino Ucelo: If you mean "If the presence of a particular photo on Commons is permitted only because the inclusion of some copyrighted building is incidental, then that photo can only be used non-commercially," that seems wrong. But perhaps you meant something else, your wording was terse enough that I may have misunderstood. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- no, I mean if presence of something on photo makes photo commercially attractive, this presence isn't de minimis, or, in other words, incedental inclusion isn't commercial usage of included work regardless of commercial usage of photo itself. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Don't believe that is the case, at least everywhere. The commercial attraction or value should have no effect on copyright -- a derivative work that makes the photo less commercially attractive is still a derivative work. The question is if the photo is trading off the specific expression (lines, etc.) in the underlying work, or if it was deliberately included for effect. There are "incidental" situations where a copyrighted work is prominent, but does not cause the photo to become derivative -- such as a label on a bottle, when the entire bottle is the subject of the photo. That is "incidental" (the label was unavoidable, as it was on the bottle), but could still be prominent -- does not give the label designer derivative rights over the photo (just photos focusing on the label itself). But yes, something deliberately included (in the background or wherever) for effect, to improve the photo, would not be "incidental". If something is incidental however, commercial use of the work is fine, unless the law specifically limits that. (There are situations where such use may violate trademark, for "commercially valuable" items pictured, but that is a different question than copyright.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- no, I mean if presence of something on photo makes photo commercially attractive, this presence isn't de minimis, or, in other words, incedental inclusion isn't commercial usage of included work regardless of commercial usage of photo itself. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Evelino Ucelo: If you mean "If the presence of a particular photo on Commons is permitted only because the inclusion of some copyrighted building is incidental, then that photo can only be used non-commercially," that seems wrong. But perhaps you meant something else, your wording was terse enough that I may have misunderstood. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Based on the given translations, I don't see how the executive regulations article 23 affects the FoP clause. Rather, that seems to be sort of a general fair-use clause, which allows a lot of non-commercial use but (like all other exceptions) is subject to the general Berne limitation stated in article 37 of the law. So, that just seems to be an entirely different type of exception, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 and Clindberg: What is the current status? --Ox1997cow (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Re-ping @Clindberg: . I didn't receive the ping, likely because of your belated signature, ping @Ox1997cow: . As for the status, I can't decide because of uncertainty and the lack of response of Wikimedians from Middle East area since mid-August. Re-mention @جيمي: . جيمي , kindly mention other MENA-area Wikimedians who might be interested on this important topic. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
To conclude regarding Saudi Arabia FoP
[edit]Pinging everyone who participated here regardless of depth of their comments. @999real, A1Cafel, Aymatth2, Clindberg, Evelio Ucelo, Jameslwoodward, Ox1997cow, and جيمي: .
It has been a month since I opened this discussion, which I felt progressed slowly. A few days from now, it's September. Assuming that no Arab/Middle Eastern Wikipedian/Wikimedian (specifically, everyone from the MENA region of Wikimedia movement) filed their petition to Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) seeking to request for clarification and extensive interpretation of the actual definitions of the Articles 29 and 37 of the copyright law and Article 23 of the Executive Regulations. Considering that the copyright law clearly stating that any use by third party/reusers outside the provisions of the exceptions/limitations must be non-commercial, but the executive regulation asserting that all uses by third party/reusers in accordance with the exceptions/limitations must be non-commercial (contradictory).
Should we accept the Saudi FoP for exterior architecture and permanent applied art in public spaces as "OK" for Wikimedia Commons notwithstanding the executive regulations rules? Possible wordings at COM:FOP Saudi Arabia:
If OK, reinstating what I edited at COM:FOP Saudi Arabia before my recent self-reversion
|
|---|
|
According to a 2026 Wikimedia Commons discussion, photographs of building exteriors generally do not compete with the financial rights of the architects. It is when the photographs are used to reproduce architectural plans that do indeed prejudice such financial rights. Therefore: |
If Not OK
|
|---|
|
However, the accompanying Executive Regulations provided a non-commercial restriction with respect to a third party or someone reusing the work without author's permission, subject to Article 37, perhaps putting all of the provisions on exceptions or limitations to copyright (Articles 26 to 36) under non-commercial restriction:
Since the Executive Regulations restricted the privileges of all the exceptions or limitations to copyright (Articles 26 to 36) to non-commercial uses, including Article 29(2) for photos of exterior architecture and applied art permanently located in public spaces, the Saudi Arabian freedom of panorama is |
New comments or poll, below this message/comment of mine. This attempt to conclude or end the discussion is without prejudice to the possible new updates from Wikimedians in the MENA region of Wikimedia movement, especially if those updates provide more clarity, whether good or bad for Wikimedia. Good: if the non-commercial restriction is only for uses outside the permitted uses under Articles 26 to 36 of the copyright law itself. Bad, if the NC restriction applies to uses even within the said articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think your "OK" section looks good. When it says "subject to article 37", it means that the clause is itself limited by article 37 -- it is not applying those terms to other clauses. That clause is itself another exception to copyright, so it is limited by the Berne rule as well, like all other exceptions. Better information / translations can always become available, but just on reading the text of those translations, it seems fairly straightforward to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I am undeleting all files in COM:UDR#Files in Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted, Buildings only. All these files need to be evaluated with the new law. Yann (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Doing… the review. Ongoing as well as requesting undeletions of what I feel are the last eligible media files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- I am undeleting all files in COM:UDR#Files in Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted, Buildings only. All these files need to be evaluated with the new law. Yann (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
For the de minimis section
[edit]Which of the following clauses are best suited for the inclusion in COM:DM Saudi Arabia?
- Clause 1
- Dissemination to the public of any work in a broadcast format that can be seen or heard in connection with the coverage of current events, whether through still or moving images, provided that such dissemination is within the scope of the intended news purpose.[M/169/2026 Article 28(2)]
- Clause 2
- Without the author's permission and without compensation, a work may be used incidentally by including works permanently located in public places in a photographic, audiovisual, or sound recording. It may be reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed, or transmitted to the public, provided that this does not infringe upon the author's financial rights or the purpose of the work.[M/169/2026 Article 29(1)]
- Clause 3
- A work may be copied incidentally without the author's permission and without compensation, provided that the copying is an integral part of a technical process for broadcasting or transmitting a work through a medium or network between other parties, or within a process that makes a legitimate copy of the work temporarily stored digitally and accessible, subject to the following conditions:
1. The copying must be carried out by a person authorized by the rights holder or in accordance with the regulations governing broadcasting or transmission.
2. The copying must be part of incidental and unavoidable technical steps for the performance of a legitimate task, ensuring that the copy is automatically deleted and cannot be recovered or used for other purposes.
3. Such copying must not provide any independent economic benefit to the copyist.[M/169/2026 Article 36]
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Is this just as a matter of record? Because I don't immediately see where any of these other than Clause 2 could possibly apply to content we would have on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel just to confirm which is suited for inclusion, since several CRT pages have explicit DM sections. Although I have already included clause 2 as part of COM:FOP Saudi Arabia content. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I decided to forgo adding DM section, since it may become redundant to the existing content at COM:FOP Saudi Arabia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Alan Paton photo
[edit]Here's a fun mystery: where does File:Alan_Paton.jpg come from? Note that the information given in the entry does not say who created it but rather who uploaded it. The portrait is covered with barely visible flipped text, probably meaning it was taken from a book or a newspaper with text from the other page bleeding through. I can barely make out the text, even with editing, but what I can make out from the first three lines says:
[...] don't know whether [...]
[...] I do know it [...]
[...] laws passed [...]
Can anyone figure out the source of this photo and/or if it is not allowed on Commons due to being taken from elsewhere (and not public domain)? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- The text appears to be from the October 28, 1975 issue of The Christian Science Monitor, which was probably copyrighted. However, the portrait actually first appears on the cover of Instrument of Thy Peace by Alan Paton, first published in the United States. The dust jacket appears to lack a valid copyright notice [1][2]. But Crown Studios, the photographer, seems to not be a US studio (is it South African? or Australian?). Does URAA restoration apply? Based5290 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- The latter link appears to simply be incorrect in placing Durban in Australia; Durban is actually a major city in South Africa and Google Maps does not give any settlement named "Durban" in Australia. We can therefore safely consider Crown Studios to be based in South Africa.
- As for copyright, it's probable this portrait was specifically taken for the dust jacket as an author photo. Could it have been first or simultaneously published in the US? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 20:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- If the portrait was first published in the United States, it is domestic work and and URAA don't apply. Location of creation, strictly speaking, not matters. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- More text
- I made out some more text, here it is
- ... don't know what you ...
- ... I do know it ...
- ... have caused ...
- ... trying to do ...
- ... ...
- ... not live ...
- ... in the ...
- ... things ...
- ... can get much ...
- ... can be done ...
- ... of the ...
- ... ...
- ... that ...
- ... having ... Glükbash (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- We can't have it both ways though. We always argue that by American law, formal studio portraits can be considered published essentially immediately upon creation, for instance when handing them over to a client. Thus, if this is a formal studio portrait from South Africa, one would have to show that it was published in the US within 30 days of being handed over by the photography studios in South Africa to their client, presumably the subject himself. Felix QW (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is a grey area for me. I have no clue what the time was between the photo being taken in South Africa and when it was published in the US as part of the dust jacket. Could the concept of limited publication apply in the case of the initial transaction in South Africa, meaning only the US dust jacket publication is recognized for the purpose of US copyright? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hold on, does Commons even recognize a legal distinction between "limited" and "general" publication? Commons:Publication makes no mention of it. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:41, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- COM:Publication doesn't mention limited publication, but it also doesn't even mention that there's a distinction between pre- and post-1978 definitions of publication at all. It would be strange for Commons to not accept such a distinction between limited and general publication, given that the doctrine of limited publication is frequently invoked to say that a given work has not lost copyright protection.
- Limited publication requires that a work is distributed to a limited class for a limited purpose, without right to further reproduction or sale. In the case of general studio photography, the first requirement is usually met (there's one person getting the photo), but the second is usually not met, and definitely not met here. Paton clearly has the right to reproduce the photo further, and it got stamped on hundreds or thousands of dust jackets that were then sold to the general public. I agree with @Felix QW that it would be a double standard to assume that general publication did not take place when Crown Studios first took the photo of Paton and gave him a copy. Based5290 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Should we just move on to nominating the photos for deletion then? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 08:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ah wait, hold on, the Alan Paton photo was uploaded to Commons in 2010. That means technically {{PD-South-Africa}} in combination with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} applies? I have no clue if the latter template permits it to be kept on Commons. It appears to imply that such files will only be deleted with the intervention of the copyright owner on Commons. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, I think you're correct. {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should allow this file to be kept for now. Based5290 (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ah wait, hold on, the Alan Paton photo was uploaded to Commons in 2010. That means technically {{PD-South-Africa}} in combination with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} applies? I have no clue if the latter template permits it to be kept on Commons. It appears to imply that such files will only be deleted with the intervention of the copyright owner on Commons. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Should we just move on to nominating the photos for deletion then? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 08:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is a grey area for me. I have no clue what the time was between the photo being taken in South Africa and when it was published in the US as part of the dust jacket. Could the concept of limited publication apply in the case of the initial transaction in South Africa, meaning only the US dust jacket publication is recognized for the purpose of US copyright? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Which license is this?
[edit]If a site has this in their FAQ, can I upload the images?
Q: Can I use your messaging or graphics? A: Please do! SYA messaging belongs to everyone and it’s meant to be widely proliferated.
I don't know which of the many different licenses to choose, in the upload process. Mevsherd (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: I'd rather have a link & see the context, but that sounds like {{Copyrighted free use}}. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- That seems a little too vague to meet Commons:Licensing. In particular, while it may authorize the distribution (i.e. "proliferation") of the file, it doesn't specifically authorize modifications to the file. Omphalographer (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
It's here, under "Can I use your messaging or graphics?":
https://shoutyourabortion.com/about/
Example of materials: https://shoutyourabortion.com/materials/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: I agree with User:Omphalographer that it is a little vague. This is one of those cases where there is probably no legal risk, but Commons' policies are stricter than the law.
- It might be a good idea to contact SYA with this question, and see if they would be willing to say that materials on that site my be used under a {{CC-BY 4.0}} license as well (or even the less precise {{Copyrighted free use}} if they are more comfortable with that). They could indicate that either by adding it to FAQ on the site or by going through the COM:VRT process. If you contact them, you may want to reference this discussion, which is best done by using the URL form of a permanent link. - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, "belongs to everyone" seems very non-vague to me, but admittedly the presentation is not very formal. What happens if they change the statement on their Web site, after I upload the images here? Mevsherd (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: looks like you didn't fully follow the above; we probably should have used stronger language. User:Omphalographer raised a doubt as to whether what was there is clear enough for Commons, and I conceded that probably it isn't. So don't upload here unless you can get something clearer from them in one of the two ways I mentioned. Otherwise, this will most likely be deleted, because of COM:PCP. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't upload anything. Mevsherd (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: I understand. But you said "What happens if they change the statement on their Web site, after I upload the images here?" which implies that you intend to upload before they change the statement. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- That's not what what I was asking. What happens if a site gives permission to upload, people upload, and then the site changes its permissions? Mevsherd (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: that is one of the main reasons we prefer the overt CC licenses, which are irrevocable. It is not as clear that a statement like the one currently on their site is binding or irrevocable. When we go on something like that, we are in some degree of gray zone. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- That's not what what I was asking. What happens if a site gives permission to upload, people upload, and then the site changes its permissions? Mevsherd (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: I understand. But you said "What happens if they change the statement on their Web site, after I upload the images here?" which implies that you intend to upload before they change the statement. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't upload anything. Mevsherd (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Mevsherd: looks like you didn't fully follow the above; we probably should have used stronger language. User:Omphalographer raised a doubt as to whether what was there is clear enough for Commons, and I conceded that probably it isn't. So don't upload here unless you can get something clearer from them in one of the two ways I mentioned. Otherwise, this will most likely be deleted, because of COM:PCP. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, "belongs to everyone" seems very non-vague to me, but admittedly the presentation is not very formal. What happens if they change the statement on their Web site, after I upload the images here? Mevsherd (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Suggest an edit on Template:PD-PRC-GB mandatory standard
[edit]I suggest to edit the template based on Template:National Standard of the People's Republic of China (from zh.wikisource). The zh.wikisource template contains detailed copyright status from different period with regard of related standard regulations; besides, the template explains why some recommended national standards are not copyrighted, usually the case in which they are cited by laws, administrative regulations, departmental rules, administrative normative documents. If the edition can be approved here, the template should also be renamed into "PD-PRC-GB national standard," because some GB national standards with mandatory effect are numbered as "GB/T" that traditionally are the recommended ones. --- HCCB3947 (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I roughly translate the Template:National Standard of the People's Republic of China (from zh.wikisource) into English using AI without polish as below:
This work originates from a national standard of the People's Republic of China, and is legally binding by satisfying one of the provisions below. Pursuant to the Reply of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court in the Copyright Infringement Dispute between China Standards Press and China Labour Press ([1998] Zhi Ta Zi No. 6), "Mandatory standards formulated under the authority of national standard‑setting administrative organs are technical norms with the nature of legal regulations". Accordingly, under Article 5 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, copyright protection does not apply, and the work is therefore in the public domain[note 1]:
- Under Article 18 of the Measures for the Administration of Technical Standards for Industrial‑Agricultural Products and Engineering Construction, which entered into force on 4 December 1962 and ceased to apply on 31 July 1979, national standards among technical standards were mandatory during this period.
- Under Articles 11 and 18 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Standardization Administration, effective 31 July 1979, national standards, once approved and issued, constituted technical regulations with mandatory force from that date until 1 April 1989.
- Under the Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China of 1988 and 2017, effective 1 April 1989:
- National standards are divided into mandatory standards and recommended standards. Specifically, per Article 4 of the Measures for the Administration of National Standards (1990) and Article 35 of the Measures for the Administration of Mandatory National Standards (2020), standards designated with the prefix phonetic alphabet "GB" followed by sequence number and year of issuance are mandatory national standards.
- Where laws, administrative regulations or decisions of the State Council contain separate provisions governing the formulation of mandatory standards, such provisions shall prevail. Hence, direct evidence may also serve to corroborate that a given national standard is mandatory.
- If none of the above conditions are satisfied, the national standard is a recommended standard. The Reply from the Copyright Administration Department of the National Copyright Administration to the Supreme People's Court on Disputes over Copyright in Standards states that "recommended standards are not technical norms of a regulatory nature and fall within the scope of copyright‑law protection". Nevertheless:
- Article 14 of the Explanations on the Provisions of the Standardization Law (Decree No. 12 of the former State Bureau of Technical Supervision), promulgated 23 July 1990 and repealed 6 March 2018, provides: "…Once a recommended standard is incorporated into a mandatory administrative document, it acquires corresponding administrative binding force." Accordingly, recommended standards incorporated into mandatory administrative documents between 23 July 1990 and 1 January 2018 possess mandatory binding force and qualify as public‑domain documents.
- The Explanations of the Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China notes: "Under certain circumstances, however, the effect of a recommended standard may transform and become enforceable: (1) Where a recommended standard is cited by relevant laws, administrative regulations or departmental rules, the recommended standard shall acquire corresponding mandatory binding force and shall be implemented in accordance with those laws, administrative regulations or departmental rules. …" Therefore, recommended standards issued on or after 1 January 2018 that are cited by relevant laws, administrative regulations or departmental rules also acquire mandatory binding force corresponding to those enactments and qualify as public‑domain documents.
- ----
- Notes:
HCCB3947 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Hi, This needs to be fixed: en:Perpetual copyright#Cuba. Yann (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Hello. Can anyone check the copyright status of this image file? I have some doubts that this was the uploader's own work (or even own work of the originating uploader at enWiki). Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Rabbit hole. A Wikipedia article as source does not make a lot of sense. There was never a file of this name on en-wiki. This was uploaded to Commons 11:12, 25 July 2022, so let's look at the relevant article as it stood on that date. Nope, this photo wasn't there, either.
- File was uploaded to Commons by User:Brandcode, who is in good standing and last edited a bit over a month ago. It is attributed to User:Abdulsalam alamri, who made exactly 2 edits ever to en-wiki, both related to that article but neither even possibly related to this file.
- I'd say DR it, and I'd say User:Brandcode has some explaining to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Icon for en:CD and DVD copy protection - public domain status
[edit]en:File:CD and DVD Copy Protection.webp (uploaded at English Wikipedia) was taken from a thumbnailed version of wikia:logopedia:File:DVD Copy Protection logo (2004).svg, which is an SVG file. I wonder if the SVG image itself is {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-textlogo}} ("is free on Commons" or "not US-only") because of "simple geometries", so that the SVG version could be uploaded to Commons freely, instead of using the webp version. —Exploraz (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Duplicate at Commons: File:Logo DVD Copy Protection depuis 2004.webp —Exploraz (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- ... or, upload the SVG exclusively at enwiki instead (therefore superseding the webp), if it's indeed PD-ineligible-USonly?
- Also, is that logo even appropriate to be placed there at en:CD and DVD copy protection? —Exploraz (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- The logo seems fairly simple to my eyes, why shouldn't it be ineligible for copyright everywhere? Upload it here as PD-shape. Bedivere (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Update to Stars and Stripes
[edit]Followup to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/06#Stars_and_Stripes
With the recent news about the firing of staff from the Star and Stripes newspaper, I believe some clarity has come about regarding its copyright status. According to an article by Military.com about the incident:
Stars and Stripes has operated independently of the Pentagon under a 1994 framework, even as approximately 65% of its budget comes from the DOD and its staff are counted as department employees.
So if the staff of the Stars and Stripes are counted as DOD employees, that should entail original photographs by Stars and Stripes are indeed works of the US Federal govt and thus allowed on Commons? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- If you reword that to "by Stars and Stripes staff" (not contractors, for example), it would appear so. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
File:Joseph E. Reid.png
[edit]File:Joseph E. Reid.png was originally uploaded to English Wikipedia as the non-free en:File:Joseph Edmondson Reid.png, but the uploader reuploaded the file to Commons after I pointed out that there was a good chance the photo might've already entered into the public domain on their English Wikipedia user talk page. The uploader, however, licensed the file as {{cc-zero}}, but this seems incorrect given the file either was never eligible for copyright protection or it's copyright wasn't renewed. The photo is sourced to the 1951 yearbook (it's found on page 17) for en:Louisiana State University; so, there's a really good chance of it being either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I looked through the the source and couldn't find a copyright notice, which isn't surprising since many yearbook publisher or schools bothered to complete the copyright formalities needed for copyright protection during that time. I could've missed the notice though. Even if there was a notice, it seem very unlikely the copyright holder bothered to renew the copyright, but I have looked through the renewal records to make sure. Which license should be used here (assuming my assessment that the photo is indeed PD is correct)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that CC-zero is nonsense here.
- If you've actually looked in all likely places in the yearbook (basically, front few pages, back few pages, and anything like a masthead page) and there is no copyright notice, then {{PD-US-no notice}} is pretty safe. Of course, {{PD-US-not renewed}} is perfectly valid even if there was never a notice; it's just a little less informative about the history in the latter case. I've literally never heard of a high school or college yearbook from the relevant era having its copyright renewed; as you correctly point out, few of them were copyrighted in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
File:They Still Turn Out for the Music of Queen (4913991699).jpg
[edit]File:They Still Turn Out for the Music of Queen (4913991699).jpg is uploaded under a {{CC-by-2.0}} license and sourced to Flickr. The license for the photo checks out and seems fine, but the question is whether the statue/display itself also needs a separate license. There is freedom of panorama for 3D works displayed in the UK per COM:FOP UK; so, perhaps {{FoP-UK}} could work. A problem could be, though, whether the photographed work meets the definition of being permanently displayed for the UK's FoP to kick in. According to en:Queen (band)#Musical theatre, the photographed work was displayed outside the en:Dominion Theatre from 2002-2014 during the run of the musical en:We Will Rock You (musical). Twelve years might be a long time for something to be publicly displayed in one place perhaps, but it's not really a "permanent" display per se. A copyright license does seem to be needed for the photographed statue, but it's not clear whether that might need to be non-free. If that's the case, then Commons can't really keep this file per COM:DW, can it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Folx argue about these all the time, but the intent of that well known statue in a very busy part of New Oxford Street was to be a fixed permanent display and it does not have any other purpose, in fact it's doubtful that it would be reused and might already be scrapped. The sequined glittering display behind it is a custom graphic work, not strictly a 2D work as it would move around in the wind, and not a reproduction of another artwork and designed for that public display rather than any use elsewhere, so if removed has probably been disposed of. The intent here is important for permanence, this was not a question of a 3 month display as an installation, but has been there for over a decade becoming part of the building and a feature of the street. Keep in mind London has actual buildings that only last a decade and they are considered 'permanent' works while they exist. It's reasonable to presume that photos and videos of these large works on public display for over a decade as part of the theatre decor can legitimately be released for public use under the generous UK FOP. --Fæ (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
File:The Devil Wears Prada at Dominion Theatre.jpg
[edit]File:The Devil Wears Prada at Dominion Theatre.jpg seems like it might have issues per COM:FOP UK and COM:DW given the poster for en:The Devil Wears Prada (musical) prominently shown in the photo. There's no FOP for 2D graphic works of art in the UK; so, the poster/billboard likely fails that. The 3D shoe might be OK but it doesn't seem to be incidental or otherwise de minimis. I'm not sure Commons can keep this unless the artwork and show are blurred out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
File:Robb Queen.jpg
[edit]File:Robb Queen.jpg shows en:Robby Williams performing in Poland in 2015. The question is whether the background imagery which seems to be one of if not the main point of the photo is a problem per COM:DW. There is freedom of panorama in Poland for exteriors per COM:FOP Poland, but again that's only works that are publicly and permanently displayed. This background, however, looks more like video display during a concert, which I don't think would meet the criteria for Poland's FoP. The image most likely comes from the video for "en:Bohemian Rapsody" (most likely Williams got Queen's OK to use the video), which I'm guessing has a good chance of still be under copyright protection per COM:UK. Is there are way to keep this as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly a cropping would do. To what extent is something that I leave others to decide. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Does Italian TOO abuse buildings in Italy?
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. But I saw some deletion requests for buildings in Italy.
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Milan with Allianz Tower.jpg: Allianz Tower, kept due to below TOO.
- Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Generali_Tower_(Hadid)_Milan_01.jpg: Generali Tower, kept due to below TOO.
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piazza Gae Aulenti with Palazzo Lombardia cropped.jpg: Palazzo Lombardia, kept due to below TOO.
But photos of UniCredit Tower were deleted due to no freedom of panorama in Italy. See Category:Italian FOP cases/deleted.
Do the three cases above constitute an abuse of Italy's failure to meet TOO?
For reference, there have been three discussions about this in VPC in the past.
First, Second, and Third. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow:
an abuse of Italy's failure to meet TOO
makes no sense to me at all. Would you please spell out what you mean to say? - Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC) - I would agree with the first DR result: Allianz Tower, at least from what we can see in this view, is so simple I cannot imagine that anything we see here could be copyrighted. For the other two, I would say that they have enough character that I would not have considered them below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the Italian administrator, Ruthven, abused the "below TOO" rule to keep photos of buildings located in Italy, where there is no freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- In order for COM:FOP to apply, the work in question needs to be something considered eligible for copyright protection; otherwise, there's no copyright for the photographer to worry about infringing upon. So, it's quite possible that a building is either too simplistic in design (i.e., lacks any type of copyrightable elements) or too old (i.e., is no longer eligible for copyright protection) for FOP to kick in; in such a case, the building could be freely photographed without needing to worry about infringing on the copyright of whoever designed it. This is just my personnel opinion, but File:Downtown Milan with Allianz Tower.jpg does seem fairly utilitarian in design and doesn't appear have any unique copyrightable elements to it; so, this probably would be considered below COM:TOO Italy. File:Generali_Tower_(Hadid)_Milan_01.jpg might actually be creative enough for its design to be considered eligible for copyright protection, but this isn't the reason why the file was kept in the DR: the reason had to do with the building's designer apparently not completely the necessary copyright formalities required under Italian law to claim the design was copyrighted. File:Piazza Gae Aulenti with Palazzo Lombardia cropped.jpg also is fairly simplistic in design in my opinion and thus probably can be photographed without needing to worry infringing on the copyright of its designer. It stands out among the other buildings shown in the photograph not because its any more creative in design than them but simply because it's so much taller than the surrounding buildings are. Of course, if you disagree with the assessments reached in those three DRs, you're free to start a COM:DRV if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel@Marchjuly@Ox1997cow my suspicion is that the Italian architects do not enjoy broad rights in Italy as opposed to their fellow peers whether in no-FoP countries like France and UAE or in yes-FoP countries like UK and Switzerland. They struggle to have their moral rights recognized, due to bureaucratic rules of Italian collecting societies. Worse, as we can notice at the Deletion Requests' outcomes, it appears the Italian government dictates which building must be protected and which aren't.
- Under current system, I suppose, the Italian government dictates the exclusive rights on many of the Italian buildings, especially public ones, not the architects. If a building was designed by a famous architect (Foster, Hadid, Smith, Pelli, etc.) but was commissioned by the city government of, let's say, Rome, the copyright does not belong to the architect but to the city government as per the 1940s copyright law of Italy. Under this system, the exclusive economic rights belong to the city government and not the architect who only holds moral rights, but due to the consequence of this rule, the architect loses their identity control. That identity control rests with any of the Italian government entities.
- I suppose the Italian government also dictates which buildings must be protected based on their erratic threshold of originality principles. For instance, an architect authors a building in Milan. They might think the building remains protected subject to the 70-year-term in Italy. But later, the culture ministry designates it as a "building with important artistic character," making state heritage regulations applicable. This means any negotiation on image use should be through the relevant government entity. In terms of attribution, since the identity control now rests with the government (not the architect), the attribution goes to the relevant government entity (like Ministry of culture, the city government of Milan, etc.).
- For this reason, the 2017 survey among Italian architects as conducted by Wikimedia Italia (survey document, the FoP survey at pages 24 and 25) revealed results that can surprise some Wikimedians. Majority of the Italian architects support a formal FoP exception, including those that stated there must be condition requiring users to give the name of the architect. It is because through this formal exception (especially if there is attribution condition), the architects would be finally given exposure and the identity control shifts away from the Italian government entities to them. You can see in comments of some of the Italian architects that they are tired with the bureaucracy there, whether from the Ministry of Culture or from the collecting societies there.
- So going back to the question, is there any abuse of high bar of ToO for Italian buildings? Depends on who was the supposed abuser. Wikimedia admins, no. The current legal system and Italian governance, yes. Because under the current Italian regulations, ToO is arbitrarily decided by the Ministry of Culture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: , @Ruthven: , @JWilz12345: So, Why photos of UniCredit Tower were deleted? Is UniCredit Tower above TOO? Is UniCredit Tower in a state where rights can be claimed within Italy? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow perhaps because Unicredit was among the buildings designated by their cultural ministry as "building with important artistic character." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to check the data regarding this. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow There are few aspects to be considered here (but we had this discussion many times, with no apparent success it seems).
- First, the ToO in Italy is very high, and we can see that with logos. Thus, buildings that are not specially out of common (e.g. with apparent sculptures, unique designs, etc.) should be considered as below ToO.
- Second, last time I checked, only "building with important artistic character" were fully protected in Italy (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, art. 11 co. 1.e). We are talking about those recent buildings for which the Ministry granted the protection explicitly. The Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo) makes such decisions through Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP) (Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane – http://www.aap.beniculturali.it). A commission evaluates the requests for protection and when the "important artistic character" is recognized, the building is fully protected; only the original copyright holder, i.e. the architect, can request this protection. The list of decrees is available at DGAAP.
- Since the only institution that can enforce copyright refuses to fully protect the buildings that are not registered and evaluated by the commission, we can consider without worrying too much that all the unregistered buildings are below the threshold of originality, and that there is nothing to prevent the publication of images of recent unregistered buildings. Most buildings in Italy are unregistered, of course, even if some well known architects have done so, like Calatrava or Cosenza. Keeping requesting deletion of Italian architectural photographs without checking if a building is officially of important artistic character is close to vandalism imho. Ruthven (msg) 07:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to check the data regarding this. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow perhaps because Unicredit was among the buildings designated by their cultural ministry as "building with important artistic character." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: , @Ruthven: , @JWilz12345: So, Why photos of UniCredit Tower were deleted? Is UniCredit Tower above TOO? Is UniCredit Tower in a state where rights can be claimed within Italy? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- In order for COM:FOP to apply, the work in question needs to be something considered eligible for copyright protection; otherwise, there's no copyright for the photographer to worry about infringing upon. So, it's quite possible that a building is either too simplistic in design (i.e., lacks any type of copyrightable elements) or too old (i.e., is no longer eligible for copyright protection) for FOP to kick in; in such a case, the building could be freely photographed without needing to worry about infringing on the copyright of whoever designed it. This is just my personnel opinion, but File:Downtown Milan with Allianz Tower.jpg does seem fairly utilitarian in design and doesn't appear have any unique copyrightable elements to it; so, this probably would be considered below COM:TOO Italy. File:Generali_Tower_(Hadid)_Milan_01.jpg might actually be creative enough for its design to be considered eligible for copyright protection, but this isn't the reason why the file was kept in the DR: the reason had to do with the building's designer apparently not completely the necessary copyright formalities required under Italian law to claim the design was copyrighted. File:Piazza Gae Aulenti with Palazzo Lombardia cropped.jpg also is fairly simplistic in design in my opinion and thus probably can be photographed without needing to worry infringing on the copyright of its designer. It stands out among the other buildings shown in the photograph not because its any more creative in design than them but simply because it's so much taller than the surrounding buildings are. Of course, if you disagree with the assessments reached in those three DRs, you're free to start a COM:DRV if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the Italian administrator, Ruthven, abused the "below TOO" rule to keep photos of buildings located in Italy, where there is no freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Does this map qualify for PD-map?
[edit]Hello, I came across the following linguistic map: https://archive.org/details/referencegrammar0000gill/page/n14/
I was wondering if I can upload this map on Wikimedia Commons under the PD-map tag? It is a very basic map, with lines drawn over the Punjab region marking dialectal areas with names written over. I tried reading the page at Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps to try and determine it but was left feeling a bit confused. Some of the uploaded maps with this licence look very similar. Please let me know if this map meets PD-map or not, thank you. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be in the public domain. IMO even a simple map has sufficient originality or creativity to have a copyright. Yann (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann - I see, thank you! MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
How about make template related Copyleft trolling?
[edit]I read COM:Copyleft trolling.
After I read, I suggest copyleft trolling warning template.
The content of template is like this.
Title: Copyleft warning: The author of this image abuse lawsuits for license infringement.
The title is derived from the title of NoFoP templates(for example, {{NoFoP-South Korea}}, {{NoFoP-France}}, {{NoFoP-UAE}}, etc), "Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright."
This will help prevent users from falling victim to copyleft trolling.
How about make this template?
And unlike other copyleft trolling authors, why are Marco Verch's photos not allowed and deleted? Ox1997cow (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Not a comprehensive answer but:
The author of this image abuse lawsuits for license infringement
is not proper grammar. At the very least, that would need to be "abuses" or "has abused".- The accusation of abusing lawsuits is a very strong charge to make as a simple factual statement. If I were a litigious person (and anyone who has abused lawsuits is a litigious person) I would probably sue anyone who put that template on my content. If we want to say anything of the sort, it would seem to me that it should say something more like that they have "used lawsuits in a way that the Commons community finds objectionable," and that there would need to be a specific process for us to reach the conclusion that they have done so. Anything short of that and we would be on very shaky ground. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that this would not be a template to be applied without a discussion resulting in consensus. A user wishing to make a strong conclusory accusation ought to do it in their own name on a relevant talk page first, before offering it as the accepted truth by placing it on the file itself. In many cases, the controversial assertion would stand unchallenged because too few policy-conscious users would be likely to see it.
Regarding Marco Verch, I assume the intent was to inquire about this Verch-related deletion request, which included a prototype licence tag. If there's anything unclear after reading the links at Category:Images_by_Marco_Verch, please specify exactly what you would like to know. TheFeds 23:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- This template must not be abused on just any author's photos. It is agreed in the discussion that it should only be used when the author's actions constitute copyleft trolling. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with your opinion that the wording needs to be corrected. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
File:ICC logo (2026).svg
[edit]File:ICC logo (2026).svg was uploaded as {{PD-logo}} in February. It might be OK per c:COM:TOO US, but I'm to so sure about either c:COM:TOO UK or c:COM:UAE. The UK's TOO recently changed and moved closer to the that of the US's. Under the Uk's old TOO, this logo almost certainly not been OK. Maybe it's OK under the UK's new TOO, but the en:International Cricket Council relocated from London to Dubai in 2005; so, it's not even clear whether the UK's TOO even applies here. I can't find anything in the Commons article about the UAE on its TOO. Since the UAE was once a British protectorate, perhaps it follows the UK's old TOO. Without information on the UAE's TOO, I'm not sure how to assess whether this logo would be OK for Commons. Can Commons keep this file as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's a version of that logo predating 2005 at https://web.archive.org/web/20040712233319/http://www.icc-cricket.com/ so absent further information, I would say it is fair to presume that the source country of the work is the United Kingdom (where they had their headquarters). I think the intent of the logo is to stylize the letters ICC over the stitches of a cricket ball, and as such and combined with the simplicity of the shape, it's definitely below the United States threshold of originality. But in the UK, under that analysis, I think it is similar to the copyrightable Edge wordmark. Seems like it could be treated similarly, i.e. transwikied to English Wikipedia. (It's used on a lot of talk pages in a template representing cricket; maybe a substitute image ought to be inserted first?) TheFeds 00:16, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Copyright status of an unpublished 1942 Irish passport photograph
[edit]I have an original passport photograph of Irish trade unionist Christopher Joseph “Christy” Supple (1896–1967), from my family's collection. The photograph was taken in Ireland approximately 1942. The photographer/studio is unknown and there is no photographer's name or copyright marking on the back. It appears never to have been publicly published. The reverse has official-looking passport/identification stamps and handwriting which appears to include “Supple” and “25 Copies”.
Can this photograph be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as public domain, and if so, which Irish and US copyright templates should be used? Fushkabeatha (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Fushkabeatha: I don't see how, at least under what you've said. If it is impossible for us to determine who took it, and it is unpublished, it gets 120 years protection in the U.S. from time of creation. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- It seems like the rule for Irish anonymous works is that "[t]he copyright in [a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or an original database] which is anonymous or pseudonymous shall expire 70 years after the date on which the work is first lawfully made available to the public." The use in a passport alone seems unable to satisfy that test. The idea of 25 copies is puzzling, if it dates from the age when the only likely means of reproduction was by developing more photographs. (Why would this be marked on the back of one photo, if it was more likely the negative that would have been used for reproduction? Why would that same photo bear official marks—and how was there any official need for 25 copies, 1 being a passport?) I think that unfortunately, if the photographer remains unknown, and no information about the rights to the photo emerges, it's an orphan work, because there is no clear way to publish it lawfully. The United States copyright would last 120 years as well, at which point it would at least be uploadable to English Wikipedia (which does not require freedom in the source country, only the United States). TheFeds 00:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @TheFeds: when you say
developing more photographs
, I presume you mean "printing more photographs [from the already-developed negative]"? You can't develop the same piece of film twice. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC) - I have uploaded a scan of the reverse of the photograph for examination: Fushkabeatha (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a scan of the reverse of the photograph for examination:
Reverse of a c. 1942 photograph of Christopher Joseph “Christy” Supple showing Garda Síochána markings - The apparent Garda Síochána stamp can be seen near the top of the reverse. Fushkabeatha (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @TheFeds: when you say
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Milan_01.jpg){kind=link}
_Milan_01.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Urheberrecht eines DDR-Auszeichnungsdiploms von der Leipziger Herbstmesse 1969+1964
[edit]Ich möchte für einen Wikipedia-Artikel über die Porzellanmanufaktur Reichenbach einen Scan eines originalen Auszeichnungsdiploms von der Leipziger Herbstmesse 1969 auf Wikimedia Commons hochladen.
Das Diplom wurde 1969 vom Deutschen Amt für Messwesen und Warenprüfung der DDR ausgestellt. Es zeichnet ein Kaffee- und Tafelservice der Form „Vesta“ des VEB Porzellankombinat Kahla, Werk Reichenbach mit einer Goldmedaille für hervorragende Qualität aus.
Das Original befindet sich heute im Archiv der Porzellanmanufaktur Reichenbach. Ein individueller Urheber ist auf dem Dokument nicht angegeben.
Meine Frage: Kann dieses historische amtliche DDR-Dokument auf Wikimedia Commons als gemeinfrei hochgeladen werden? Falls ja, welche Commons-Lizenz bzw. welcher Public-Domain-Baustein wäre dafür geeignet?
Ich habe außerdem ein vergleichbares Auszeichnungsdiplom der Leipziger Messe aus dem Jahr 1964. Gilt die gleiche Einschätzung auch dafür? PMRAnGei (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
File:Circus Liquor sign, Los Angeles, California, USA.jpg
[edit]
File:Circus Liquor sign, Los Angeles, California, USA.jpg is apparently an iconic sign in Los Angeles. The file is sourced to Flickr and the photo itself is released under a license that's free enough for Commons. However, the photographed sign is something that seems clearly creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:CB#Signs and noticeboards, which makes the photo at best a COM:DW. The sign also wouldn't be covered by COM:FOP US because that doesn't extend to stuff such as this. This article about the sign says it dates back to the 1960s, but that's all it says. The liquor store's website says it was founded in 1959 and mentions the sign but says nothing more about it. It's possible then, I guess, that the sign could be PD because of either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Would the sign itself need to have formalities and renewal separately from the store's clown mascot logo would it all be covered under the registration/renewal for the logo? Would the sign itself need a visible copyright notice? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
File:Clancy-search-warrant.pdf is copyvio
[edit]According to the uploaders claim " ~2026-44747-22 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC) This text document is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is created by a legislative or judicial officer of a U.S. state or local government in the course of their legislative or judicial duties. See § 313.6(C)(2) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Such works, known as "edicts of government", include: Legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Explanatory, procedural, or other non-binding materials created in the discharge of legislative or judicial duties, even when they do not carry the force of law."
However Section 313.6(C)(1) (U.S. Government Works) does not apply. 17 U.S.C. § 105 applies exclusively to works created by officers or employees of the federal government (and D.C. / territories). It does not bar state or local governments—such as Massachusetts State Police or municipal police departments—from holding copyrights.
Section 313.6(C)(2) (Government Edicts Doctrine) cannot apply either. Under Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020), this doctrine is limited to works created by judges and legislators acting in their lawmaking or judicial capacities (e.g., statutes, judicial opinions, official legislative records). A law enforcement officer completing an evidence inventory is an executive branch employee, not a lawmaker or judge.--~2026-44747-22 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- See the FAQ:
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.