Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
2. Have you read the FAQ?
3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Photographs of Voltairine de Cleyre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't mean to imply it was a given, was just pointing out that they had been circulating beforehand. Despite having been doing this for years, the intricacies of American copyright law are still an enigma to me, so I was just trying to provide as much context as I could for people who might know better. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons app screenshots

Commons app 6-0-0 showing keyboard bug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this Videogame disc cover copyrightable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of which is very confusing.

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

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

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

(map illustration)

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

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

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

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

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

There are 83,000+ images that use ARCGIS in Wikimedia Commons. Deanrah (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Images from Flickr that are from eBay

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

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

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

1905 Isle of man photo

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

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

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

Kiyosumi-shirakawa Station flickr photos

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

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

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

• I’m not familiar with copyright laws in Japan, but the issue seems to be whether the specific arrangement of lights is copyrightable in Japan (above the threshold of originality in Japan).
• According to COM:TOO Japan, it appears that some “artistic” utilitarian works are not considered copyrightable. That section references a court ruling which Furby toys are not copyrightable in Japan due to it being a “industrially mass-produced utilitarian article” and “to which its artistic effects and techniques have been applied for utilitarian purposes” (quoting a translation at p.27 of [1]).
• Clearly, this arrangement of lights serves a utilitarian purpose, and there were artistic effects and techniques applied to the arrangement. However, I’m not sure whether the artistic effects and techniques applied (being placed irregularly) contributed to its utilitarian purposes (illuminating the passageways).
• So, in my opinion, I couldn’t say whether these images are fine to upload or not. Apologies for not fully answering your question, but maybe someone more knowledgeable in Japanese copyright laws can help determine whether this is below or above TOO in Japan. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a copyright violation?

The Roskilde museum states that photos taken in the museum must not be used commercially without permission. [2]. I believe, but do not know for certain, that File:Krummträ.JPG is a photo of a display in that museum. The lines drawn on the timber to show how a shipwright would use the raw materials to make parts of a ship are clearly a creative work by whoever prepared this exhibit.

Who should investigate this?

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

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

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

I couldn't disagree more about the status of the marks on the wood. This sort of thing is often illustrated in books on maritime archaeology and in every case, the precise detail of the markings are the whole object of the illustration. Put another way, the intellectual input of the person who drew the lines is absolutely key. Ignoring this would be like copying one of the illustrations out of the major textbook Steffy, J. Richard (1994). Wooden ship building and the interpretations of shipwrecks (5th printing ed.). College Station: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781603445207, a source of many illustrations very similar in nature. The fact that these lines are drawn on wood rather than on paper should not confuse us. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Epstein files release from House Oversight Committee

Are the files released a couple of days

1. Trustworthy that they are authentic files from DOJ? (since they're shared in Google Drive and Dropbox and not on a .gov website)
2. If so, I believe they fall under Template:PD-USGov-DOJ, wouldn't they? (If not, the broader PD-USGov should do it, which altho is overcrowded)

Link: https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-epstein-records-provided-by-the-department-of-justice/ -- DaxServer (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is safe to presume that the documents come immediately from DOJ, but that doesn't meant that they won't contain copyrighted materials. For example, if the infamous "birthday book" is in there, the government certainly has not copyright claim on that. Similarly for anything else copyrightable and not created by a government employee. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a +1 to Jmabel's reply. Each file needs to be examined individually; there's no way the entire cache of documents/images/media is PD, only the materials created by a federal employee. 19h00s (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmabel @19h00s. Yes, as you observed correctly, some docs are not created by USGov. It'll be painful, if not impossible, to review the whole lot when someone wants to upload. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking to upload logo: do you think it's PD-shape?

I think that w:en:File:Las_Vegas_Aviators_Cap.png could be a simple enough color/shape/text logo to upload here but wanted to run it by some other users to see if they agree. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:YouTube CC-BY

I'm noticed, that current page of "YouTube CC-BY" license led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (I don't know since when). But Template:YouTube CC-BY still led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

What should I do - update this template or create a new one and mark this one as obsolete? --Kaganer (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. As of July 30, it was still 3.0. The Wayback Machine normally archives that page frequently, but at least currently does not have any captures available between then and August 11 (today). Technically, I think any videos we copy off from the date of the change would have the 4.0 license, but any we copied earlier would still have the 3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m wondering if changing the link on YouTube’s help page from CC BY 3.0 to CC BY 4.0 really does automatically relicense older uploads (on YouTube). Currently older videos on YouTube which are marked as Creative Commons also link to the same help page where it specifies the version number. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Commons just "upgrade" all older CC-BY files to 4.0? How did Wikipedia go about it when they switched from 3.0 to 4.0? Is there some part of YouTube's TOS which allows them the right to sub-license under a newer version or something which allowed this? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#27dc3bf5d9 "By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable licence to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display and perform it) for the purpose of operating, promoting, and improving the Service." I don't know if that is enough  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   04:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly not enough... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: not enough for what? "Sublicensable" may well give YouTube the right to "update" a CC license at their discretion (and quite possibly to do far more than that). Commons, of course, does not have similar terms of use. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The TOS clause that was quoted gives YouTube a sublicensable license to use the content themselves for operating and promoting the service, but it does not automatically change the license granted by the uploader to the public. In other words, it lets YouTube reproduce, distribute, and modify the content internally or for the service, and even sublicense those rights to third parties, but it does not retroactively alter the Creative Commons license the uploader applied at the time of upload.

Just as if you had uploaded a video under "all rights reserved", YouTube could not decide to license it under a CC license without your permission.

CC licenses are irrevocable and granted by the copyright holder to the public. Only the copyright holder can choose to "upgrade" or change the license version of their own work. YouTube’s ability to sublicense the content for service purposes does not include the right to relicense public CC BY videos under a newer version, because that would require a separate permission from the original uploader.

(From what I’ve read about Wikipedia’s switch from 3.0 to 4.0, articles were effectively dual-licensed: past revisions remained under 3.0, but any new revision constitutes a new work, which can then be licensed under 4.0. WMF were not able to just decide all past 3.0 revisions were automatically 4.0) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's consider four groups of works.

Two groups of works are relatively easier to handle.

A. Files present on Commons of which the Youtube source has been deleted from Youtube, or had its CC license removed, before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube. Those works were never offered under version 4.0 on Youtube. Given that Commons cannot review every file ever copied from Youtube to check if it is still present on Youtube now, and still under a CC license there, those files must remain under version 3.0 on Commons. They must keep their version 3.0 template.

B. Works uploaded to Youtube for the first time after the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube and offered under the CC license. Those works were never offered under version 3.0 on Youtube. They must be under version 4.0 on Commons. They must get a version 4.0 template.

Two other groups of works could present more difficulty. It has to do in large part with the question: could Youtube change unilaterally the license offered by the copyright owners? It is dubious. The section of the Youtube terms of use quoted by 999real says the license granted to Youtube is "for the purpose of [...] the Service". In the FAQ section of the "License types" page [3], Youtube adds "YouTube can’t grant you rights to use someone else’s content [...]. YouTube cannot grant you the rights to use content that has already been uploaded to YouTube. If you want to use someone else’s YouTube content, you may want to reach out to them directly." My understanding is that there is nothing there that authorises Youtube to offer a work, for a use outside of Youtube, under a free license different from the CC license that was offered by the copyright owner. But can it be said that after a certain time, the copyright owners implicitly consent to the change?

C. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, and were also uploaded to Commons before that change. Given that they were under version 3.0 when they were uploaded to Commons, and that license is undoubtebly valid for the Commons copy and for any subsequent copies made from the Commons copy, the simple solution is to keep that version 3.0 license for those files. There's no reason to complicate matters on Commons. If an external reuser wants and feels comfortable to use the version 4.0, they can copy the work directly from Youtube.

D. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, but were uploaded to Commons for the first time after that change. They were (and may still be) offered under version 3.0 by their copyright owners. But now they are presented by Youtube (validly or not) as offered under version 4.0. The problem is worsened by the fact that there may not be (or is there?) a way to know the precise day when a work was uploaded to Youtube. There may not be a good solution for this group of works. I suppose that users will upload those files to Commons under version 4.0, because that will seem the easy thing, the chances of complaints by copyright owners may be low, and users may think that if complaints occur, it could be the responsibility of Youtube.

-- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

One can hover the mouse over the "2 weeks ago" on YouTube and be presented with the upload date. However, we don't know the date they selected the file to be freely licensed (they could e.g. have applied the CC license a year after upload).

Given the size of our project, and WMF in particular, dont't we have any contacts within Google/YouTube to help with these questions? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I re posted this discussion since there was no conclusion.

In this case YouTube is not just giving away rights to other people's content, those people granted the (main) rights when they selected the Creative Commons license on YouTube.

Generally 4.0 version of CC licenses are regarded as better than 3.0, is upgrading the version really unreasonable to be "improving the service"? We know that Google does not care a lot about the CC license but would they really do something like this without thinking about the risks?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I just checked and realized there are 2 different version of this statement in the terms of service

I think the one above (..."operating, promoting, and improving the Service") is actually from https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms

For https://www.youtube.com/t/terms / US version I see

"By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube’s (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service."  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Photo of Joanna Penson

https://gdansk.gedanopedia.pl/gdansk/?title=Plik:1_Joanna_Penson.jpg if i were to add this image to wikimedia would it be fair use Brewling (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There's not fair use allowed on Commons. And I do not think that this image could be used under the EN-WP fair use provisions, as it's seemingly not irreplaceable by free media. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)