Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Copyright inquiry

Hello,

I am wondering whether or not I can upload this image of the Idaho statesman Edward J. Curtis. The site has given an attribution to an external page that appears to be inaccessible, and I am unable to locate where the picture originally comes from.

Thanks,

Solo4701 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Since Curtis died in 1895, I think any photo taken of him almost certainly would no longer be eligible for copyright protection regardless of what the City of Boise or SVguide.com is saying and is probably OK to upload under a {{PD-US-expired}} or a {{PD-old-assumed}} license. I doubt either website is the "author" of the photo and most likely what they're trying to do is claim copyright over a digitalized version of the photo (see Copyfraud) for more. Generally, anything published in the US prior to January 1, 1929, is no longer eligible for copyright protection. If you can figure out more about the provenance of the photo (who took, when they took it, when they died, etc.), then that could help in sorting this out. The date of first publication is important to try and figure out, and this can be hard with photos found online since usually not a lot of information is given about them or their copyright status. FWIW, the photo can be seen used here in the July 2002 archived version of a Sun Valley Guide 2002 Summer article, but there's zero information on its provenance. Most likely the City of Boise just got the photo from the SVG site and attributed it the source of the photo (regardless of the file's copyright status) because whoever manages the city's website just wanted to avoid any possible problems with the SVG. I'm fairly certain the writer of the SVG article got the image from somewhere else and has no valid claim of copyright ownership over it. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC, or try a Google Images or TinEye reverse image search to see whether you can find out any more information about the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your input. I was mainly concerned about whether or not someone could claim copyright over a picture of an old picture, like you pointed out with them potentially making a claim over the digitalized version. Solo4701 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you happen to know about this one; whether or not I can upload it? They claim that the image is under copyright yet it also states that it is from "1920–1929." Solo4701 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Solo4701: I think this would be a good question to ask at c:COM:VPC. I don't think it should be eligible for copyright protection just because it has been digitalized or is found online; however, it could be eligible for copyright protection for other reasons depending upon where it was first published. Since the work is described as a pamphlet, it probably meets the definition of publication applied to such things under US copyright law at the time (assuming it was first published in the US). Copyright on works first published in the US is 95 years after the date of first publication (plus 1 year); so, anything first published prior to January 1, 1929, would be considered to be within the public domain, but anything first published within 1929 itself will not enter into the public domain until January 1, 2025. Even if it was first published in 1929, another possibility could be that the work is no longer eligible for copyright protection because it wasn't first published with a visible copyright notice, which was required by US copyright law at the time. There doesn't seem to be any such notice visible on the version of entire pamphlet you can read via that website; moreover, even if there was such a notice, it could still be no longer eligible for copyright protection because its copyright wasn't formally renewed prior to January 1, 1963, which was also required by US copyright law at the time. So, there could be several reasons why this particular pamphlet is possibly within the public domain per c:COM:HIRTLE, which is why I suggest asking about it at Commons. Another option would be to simply email the SAADA website and ask by what basis it's claiming copyright ownership over the image. Of course, it might not respond, but you might gain some insight into its thought process regarding image copyright if it does (i.e. whether its claim is based on US copyright law or other assumptions). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well-written response. Thanks; I'll give your suggestions a try. Solo4701 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Like No Other Night" cover art

I'm wondering whether there's enough creativity in File:38 Special - Like No Other Night.jpg to push it above c:COM:TOO US. It seems fairly simply to me, but I'd like some feedback from others just as a precaution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think PD-Simple will apply to this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Creative commons images with watermarks or copyright labels.

I understand that such images are undesirable on Wikipedia. But is it acceptable to use such images if the label or watermark is cropped out with the crop tool? Bloopityboop (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bloopityboop. Commons and Wikipedia are, in principle, separate projects, and this means sometimes their policies and guidelines can be different. WP:WATERMARK, c:COM:Watermarks and m:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images all cover this, and it seems cropping out visible watermarks is allowed as long as the original information is retained in some way; for example, adding information about the watermark to the file's description assuming that the file is otherwise released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license. Since a crop in and of itself typically isn't considered sufficient in terms of creative to establish a new copyright for the cropper, it wouldn't be your c:COM:Own work per se. You should be on the lookout for indications of license laundering when it comes to images you find online; it's probably OK, though, as long as the original copyright holder is releasing the image under a license accepted by Commons, and you follow its terms. Images which seem to be clearly within the public domain, on the other hand, might be easier to deal with since the watermark/copyright claim probably pertains to a digitalized version of the image and the WMF and many countries/courts don't seem to recognize such claims as being valid. If you really want to be 100% sure, though, you might want to seek outside input from someone who specializes in image copyright law (i.e. a lawyer) before uploading anything. Nobody on Wikipedia and Commons can't really give legal advice per WP:NOLEGAL; so, you might have to take anything posted at face value and seek more definitive answers somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A Random SVG I find on Logopedia

I am using the phoenix fire-themed logo of RTP2 (used in 2002-2004) for the page "RTP2". Obviously not mine, but which tag should I put here? -- Sellena8053 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sellena8053. Sites like Logopedia are generally not good sources for images because they seem to mostly host user-generated content that provide little information on the provenance of the image, might not be totally accurate and also might not licensed correctly. For this reason, it's much better to use official sources (i.e. sources maintained by the original copyright holder) or sources closely removed from the original copyright (e.g. a major media website) whenever possible. SVGs, in particular, can pose problems because it seems to be unclear whether the vectorization of an image is in and off itself a considered sufficiently creative to establish a claim of copyright for the vector version in addition to the claim of copyright for the original image; in other words, there could possibly be two copyrights belonging to two different copyright holders to assess.

Personally, I think all the logos being used in the article RTP2 are incorrectly licensed and in need of reassessment over on Commons; it's quite possible that some of them might be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO, but the Creative Commons licenses used for them seem wrong because only the copyright holders of the logos can release them as such.

In the case of File:RTP2 Phoenix Logo (2002-2004).svg, the Creative Commons license you chose is also incorrect in my opinion and Wikipedia isn't going to be able to keep this logo under such a license unless you can clearly show it has been released as such by its copyright holder, obtain the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder, or it's considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US. A plain number "2" logo would be more than simple enough to be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but the addition "flame" element might be just enough to push make eligible for such protection (like File:Hot Wheels logo-en.svg). Another possibility would be to re-license the image as non-free content and many logos you see in Wikipedia articles are licensed as such; however, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive, particularly when it comes to former logos, and it might be hard to justify the non-free use of such a logo in the way you'd like to use it.

My suggestion to you would be to first find a better source for the logo than Logopedia, and then perhaps re-license the file as {{Non-free logo}} and use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} for non-free use rationale if you really feel you can justify the file's use per relevant Wikipedia policy. Others might feel differently and offer other suggestion, but I think this logo may need to be treated as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair Use

1) I have noticed a picture of unknown origin published in the Hebrew Wikipedia with the claim of Fair Use. Google translate: https://he-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%22%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F?_x_tr_sl=iw&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=wapp#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5%3A%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%B4%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F.jpg

2) I have seen an image of the cover of a book, published on Amazon (42 kb). https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Versus-Jibril-Thirty-Year-Terrorist/dp/1557784337/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MXETBZK3ZWI5&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.fQRG6uD_64VgjvSUIIUtFQ.ja89ZiMWeY6K0SH0wWeCpn3_a77BU_9np2D4tL9H0cY&dib_tag=se&keywords=israel+versus+jibril&qid=1727973945&sprefix=israel+versus+jibril%2Caps%2C912&sr=8-1

I would like to use these images in English Wikipedia but find this concept of Fair Use far too complicated for me to judge. Is there anyone on Wikipedia who could help me with this? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jokkmokks-Goran. Each of the various language Wikipedias are, in principle, separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines, and their own respective communities; so, what's being done on Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't really matter when it comes to English Wikipedia. Many of the Wikipedias allow "fair use" content to be uploaded and used as long as doing so complies with their policies and guidelines. On English Wikipedia, such content is referred to as non-free content and its use is governed by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. English Wikipedia's policy has been intentionally set up to be more restrictive that the US practice of fair use, and there are ten criterion that each use of non-free content needs to meet for it to be considered acceptable. When it comes to copyrighted book covers, they can generally be uploaded and use per item 1 of WP:NFCI when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone Wikipedia articles about the books they represent; however, uses in other ways or in other types of articles can be much harder to justify. So, if you can provide more information on which article you want to use the book cover you linked to above, perhaps someone can give you a rough assessment as to whether it would be OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Album cover art

I'm not sure whether the album cover File:Dan Mangan - Being Elsewhere Mix.png needs to be licensed as non-free content. It's bascially a picture of a CD in its case, and each element seems pretty utilitarian; moreoverr, there's nothing really creative per se on the CD's face (it's just the artist's name and the album's title). The label that released this album is Arts & Crafts Productions based out of Canada. Given that c:COM:TOO Canada is said to be close to c:COM:TOO US, this seems like it should be OK as {{PD-simple}} or something like that and moved to Commons. Any opinions as to whether this needs to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly, your assessment seems quite correct to me. The content of the text itself is a simple factual statement of what the CD contains, and there's no artwork or anything like that, so I would not see that passing TOO. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Book covers

I followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images to get a non-free image of the cover of Leonardo da Vinci (Isaacson book) but this got removed. Could someone help me with this? I have never uploaded a non-free image before :) ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Panamitsu. All files uploaded to Wikipedia require two things: (1) information about the file's provenance and (2) a copyright license. For non-free files like the one you uploaded, (1) essentially becomes a non-free use rationale, and a non-free use rationale is required for each use of the file. Since you didn't add a non-free use rationale for the use in the article about the Isaacson book, a bot removed the file. If you want to stop that bot from removing the file again, you will need to add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page. I suggest you use the {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} template because it's fairly easy to use for such files. Go to the file page's "Summary" section, and click "edit". Add the template syntax for the missing rationale (right above the syntax for the copyright license) and fill in the parameters (there's information on how to do this on the template's documentation page), and then click "Show preview"; if everything looks OK, click "Publish changes". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the help Marchjuly. I think I've got it working now. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: The rationale you added is, in principle, fine, but it's much better to try and fill in as many parameters as possible. So, assuming that you just didn't conjure that book cover image out of thin air, it had to come from somewhere. Please add the |source= parameter to the syntax of the non-free use rationale you added, and then fill in that parameter with the link to whichever website you found the image on. If you know any of the parameters, you should also add them and fill them in accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh right. I've now filled in the source parameter and a view others. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ken (magazine)

Hi, Could someone please check if the copyright of this magazine was renewed? I couldn't find anything, but better check twice. If not, the image could be on Commons in high resolution. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, so File:Ken Magazine, April 7, 1938.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about File:Minnesota Golden Gophers hockey logo.svg

I recently added File:Minnesota Golden Gophers hockey logo.svg as the logo for all the Minnesota women's hockey seasons. User:JJMC89 bot reverted all of those edits today. I (now) understand why the bot did that -- The hockey logo is asserted as a non-free logo, and there's no non-free rationale for all of those pages.

However, since the University of Minnesota is a state institution, aren't all of its logos taxpayer-funded, and therefore in some form or fashion public domain? Honestly asking so I can learn something. --MikeVitale 05:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

MikeVitale, your assumption is incorrect. If you go to the University of Minnesota's website and scroll to the bottom, you will see © 2024 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Works of the US federal government are generally in the public domain, but each state establishes its own copyright policies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Okie dokie, then. Thanks for the info. --MikeVitale 05:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

File:The Fish Bucket.jpeg

This was tagged to be moved to Commons, but the author has not been dead for 70 years. That means it shouldn't be moved, correct? APK hi :-) (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If it was published in 1924, then I think it would've entered the public domain on January 1, 2020 (1924 + 95 years + 1 year) because US copyright law at that time was/is generally 95 years (+ 1 year for mid-year publication) after the date of first publication per c:COM:HIRTLE. If it was published on or after January 1, 1929, but before January 1, 1978, and without a copyright notice, it would've entered the public domain on January 1, 1978. If it was published on or after January 1, 1929, but before January 1, 1964 with a copyright notice, but its copyright wasn't renewed before the end of 1963, then it would've entered the public domain on January 1, 1964. I think the 70-year p.m.a. stuff only applies to works first published on or after January 1, 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect. That Act is when the US seems to have started measuring the length of copyright based on when the creator died as opposed to a fixed number of years (requiring subsequent renewal). If you really want to be sure, you could ask at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll head over to Commons to be sure. APK hi :-) (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's appears to be good to go. Beal lived in the US and the work was first published in the US so there's only US copyright law to consider. While most of the world uses years since death of the author (pma) and pma+70 is probably the most common (I guess this what you're thinking of), the US doesn't use pma and goes on time since publication. Prior to 1976 it also required compliance with need to register and display copyright notices but the effect is that now anything first published in the US and dating from more than 95 years ago is out of copyright in the US (commons:commons:Hirtle chart is a useful starting help here).

Looking at the picture, I don't see a copyright mark (the artists signature alone isn't enough) and if there isn't one on the front or back of the canvas, then the picture is out of copyright for lack of compliance. It may carry a mark, in which case checks of the copyright register and renewal registers could be necessary. But, to be honest I'd be pretty confident that this is now a public domain image. The only reason I'm not 100% is because merely displaying a painting at an exhibition doesn't equate to publication. Making copies available to the public is publication, so there is a remote chance that there is a later work e.g. prints or postcards which might throw the issue into doubt but I'd be very surprised if either a) this is the case or b) any prints complied with copyright formalities that are still valid. Nthep (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Companion (2025) poster.jpg

It seems like the film poster File:Companion (2025) poster.jpg is nothing but text on a pink background without any discernible elements that might be eligible for copyright protection; so, I'm wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free and can't be relicensed as {{PD-text}} and tagged for a move to Commons. Any opinions either way? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't really see whether there are any potentially copyrightable symbols on the footer of the poster; if not, then I would concur that it ought to be below the threshold of originality. Felix QW (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Photo ofhttps://www.artnet.com/artists/walt-kuhn/seated-dancer-Lnz23Ln-Ya6uyg_e4HL47w2 Painting by Walt Kuhn

I own a painting by Walt Kuhn (Seated Dancer 1941) and would like to include a photo of it on the Wikipedia page. Your guidance on the appropriate action needed would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Photos of this painting are currently included on internet sites Weschlers https://www.weschlers.com/auction-lot/walt-kuhn-american-1877-1949-seated-dancer-wa_CED477CA8C Mutualart https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Seated-Dancer/24F4CA145AE1A7ADA2D2AFA0E627F66D and artnet https://www.artnet.com/artists/walt-kuhn/seated-dancer-Lnz23Ln-Ya6uyg_e4HL47w2 Bobgrow (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bobgrow does it have a copyright notice on the front or back of the canvas? If not then it's possible the image is out of copyright, due to failure to comply with required formalities. I can see the date and signature on the front (File:Seated Dancer by Walt Kuhn.jpg) but that isn't enough to comply with the formalities. Nthep (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any copyright on the front or back. Thanks for your response. Bobgrow (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, it looks like Kuhn didn't bother with copyright and you'd be OK uploading the image to Commons with the licence {{PD-US-no notice}}. Nthep (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that many artists would put a copyright notice on the front of their paintings. Just for info, I wonder could you clarify what "formalities" are required on the back of a canvas? And what about conceptual artists who create artworks other than paintings on canvas. How do they fulfil the "formalities"? Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I readily admit that I am not a copyright expert, but I think that I have a basic understanding of US copyright law regarding paintings in the early 1940s timeframe. Please correct me if I am wrong. The simple but ambiguous act of "completing" a painting does not create a copyright. An image of the painting needs to be created and published, which back in those days was probably a catalog of a gallery or a museum, or a published magazine, newspaper or book. That publication of the image of the work is what created the copyright, which belongs to the artist or their heirs, until the copyright expires. I happen to own a painting that probably dates from the 1950s that is clearly signed by the artist, who is not well known but is mentioned on the internet. I bought it for a very small amount of money at a garage sale in the 1980s. I like it because it is my style, but my understanding is that if I posted an online image and discussion of this five dollar painting that I like, the copyright would be created in 2024, and the copyright holder would be the artist if still alive, or the estate of the artist, if the artist has died. In other words, even though I am the undisputed legal owner of the physical painting that is on display in my private home, I am not the copyright holder of the art work. The copyright if it is still valid belongs to the artist or their heirs. Cullen328 (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What constitutes "publication" for American artwork before the 1970s is a tortuous subject, of which Commons has a brief description at c:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#Before 1978. As described there, the school of thought which I believe currently prevails at Commons is that sale of a single tangible original was itself publication. However, I have only ever seen this used to argue that a pre-1929 sale is sufficient for the expiry of copyright, rather than discussing copyright formalities on originals, but perhaps one can find some examples of Commons discussions. Felix QW (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Upscaling

If someone has uploaded and released an image to Commons, are we allowed to upload a higher-resolution version of the same image and keep the licensing? Sdkb ^talk 10:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This has occasionally been a contentious issue on Commons, but the current consensus seems to be that as since both the high- and the low-resolution copy are the same work under copyright law, they follow the same licensing. This is Creative Commons' own stance on the issue. Felix QW (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there's also this which seems to imply that it's OK as long as it's the "same" work, and you don't try to claim it as your "own work" per se. Commons is, however, a separate WMF project and you might want to double check at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear if the answers above are applicable here. The heading is "upscaling", which is turning a low-resolution image into a high-resolution image, not the replacing of a downscaled image with the original (or, I suppose, less downscaled version). I don't know why upscaling would affect the licensing, but remember not to replace an original with an artificially upscaled version. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's my bad; what I'm referring to is replacing with a non-downscaled version. Sdkb ^talk 03:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing backgrounds

File:The Maker (Reed Richards -1610).png, a fair-use file, shows only the character in an empty background. The image was extracted from this comic book page.where the character is drawn within a setting. Is it appropiate to remove backgrounds this way when dealing with fair-use images, or should it be the portion of the comic that shows the character but with the background that was initially published? Cambalachero (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with removing backgrounds. If anything, it should be encouraged – excluding the background is slightly more minimal. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

1915 document from a nation that no longer exists

Hi. I have located a document issued in 1915 by an Austro-Hungarian envoy in the Netherlands. This document was found in a copyrighted book from 2006, which the author found in the University of Leiden's library archive. Can I take a screenshot of the image and place it into the Commons under the public domain? Are there particular copyright considerations for documents issued by no longer existing nations? Are there any steps I need to take because the book itself is copyrighted, even if the document isn't? Thank you in advance. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, On Commons, the present day country is used to determine the copyright, so either Austria or Hungary. Who is the author? Yann (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)