Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps

Related WikiProjects

The parent of this WikiProject is the Geography WikiProject. WikiProject Maps also is a management type WikiProject for pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia. The following illustrates the position of WikiProject Maps within the Wikipedia WikiProject lineage:

Generating cleaner OSM infobox maps

[edit]

I made a script for automatically generating better location maps to replace OpenStreetMap screenshots: github.com/jkunimune/auto-location-map. You pass the name of an existing location map as an argument, and it automatically makes a vector map with the same bounds but less clutter and better contrast.

My goal is to use it to replace as many OSM screenshots as I can, but before I upload dozens of images I wanted to get feedback here and see if anyone has concerns about large-scale map replacement like this or feedback about the color scheme. Some examples for US cities are shown below. Pinging User:Jacobolus, User:OceanLoop, and User:Dissident93 since they've been in discussions about this recently.

Location Current (OSM screenshot) Proposed (my script)
New York (downtown)
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles

Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone through and replaced about 30 OSM screenshots with this style of map, and I think I'll leave it at that for now. If anyone else encounters a map they want to replace, or wants to create a new location map, feel free to use my script; I've tried to make it easy to use. Justin Kunimune (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These look a lot better and better for Wikipedia:Accessibility PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry for not giving feedback before. These are great Justin! –jacobolus (t) 18:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The colours are definitely more appealing. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 16:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MTM, UTM and similar articles

[edit]

Hello project members!

I've significantly expanded (diff [1]) what was a stub at Modified transverse Mercator, and important alternative to UTM coordinates used in Canada. Both articles are listed as High-importance to this project. I welcome any feedback here or on the talk page there.

In the process, I found myself writing stuff which really has applicability to both MTM and UTM, and touches on projected coordinate systems and datums more generally. So in particular I welcome feedback, or even better assistance, on how to structure what is in what article more effectively. Martinp (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupted roads?

[edit]

I've been going through articles related to roads in The Bronx that had missing or broken mapframes and fixing them, which often means building the road relation in OSM. I'm not sure how to deal with discontinuous roads. For example, on White Plains Road, just north of Pelham Parkway, White Plains Road crosses Boston Road at a shallow angle and they run together for about 500 feet (150 m). As far as I can tell, the part where they run together is called Boston Road, leaving White Plains Road in two discontiguous pieces. A similar thing happens near the southern terminus where White Plains Road crosses Soundview Avenue. What's the best way to handle this? I've been just leaving the gaps in the relation, but maybe it makes sense to just fill these in?

A more interesting situation happens in Mount Vernon, where the two pieces of White Plains Road have a gap of about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) on a modern map, but according to the (unsourced) description in the existing wikipedia article, used to connect. Does it make sense to fill in that entire gap and annotate it as the historical route? RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I would say just leave the gap since that seems the most technically correct. But either way is probably fine, and I'd be curious if others feel differently. Justin Kunimune (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Location map behavior on click

[edit]
Lelepaua Station is located in Southern Oʻahu
Lelepaua Station
Lelepaua Station
class=notpageimage|
Location of Lelepaua Station in southern Oʻahu (click for interactive map)

I've been working on an edit to Module:Location map that makes it so that when you click on a location map, it opens an interactive Kartographer map rather than redirecting you to the base map's file page. Since it's such a widely used module, I wanted to solicit feedback before requesting the change, and here seemed like the best place to do that. Does anyone have any thoughts or concerns about adding this behavior to all location maps? Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at Module talk:Location map#Making all location maps embed maplinks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion to gather more feedback for this change has been started at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make it so clicking on a location map opens an interactive Kartographer map. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources noticeboard

[edit]

Hi, I would like to inform you of a mapping related discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, regarding self made maps.

Discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self made Map Mitchsavl (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In it, WikiProject Maps could really take ownership and develop some standards on this issue. Unfortunately, I don't believe most people making maps for Wikipedia are interested in standards, ethics, norms, or conventions when it comes to making maps. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have almost no knowledge of this WikiProject, and I am not aware of if a similar thing to these ideas already exists.
Perhaps specific standards for verifying map content uploaded by users, so even if the uploader is unaware of these guidelines, those maps can be verified by other editors, perhaps through a map specific noticeboard, or a map verification task force? Mitchsavl (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain?

[edit]

This edit makes the extraordinary claim that most maps on the Web are in the public domain. My opinion is that this is grossly false. The purpose of noting such a thing, even if true, is obscure to me: It doesn’t matter how many or what fraction of maps are in the public domain. What matters is if the map in question is. Encouraging people to think it “probably” is seems fraught. Strebe (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite clearly wrong. I reverted it. –jacobolus (t) 18:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter If you revert again without discussing, you can be banned for edit warring. –jacobolus (t) 00:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Strebe: @Jacobolus: Thanks for pinging me. I did not know of this thread, or I would not have reverted you. Sorry.
You are both mistaken about maps not being in the public domain. Exceptions are for fictitious maps since they are original works. Also maps that contain copyrightable elements. Such as photos that are not in the public domain.
I used to believe as you do concerning maps, charts, and graphs. Nearly all Many are in the public domain unless they contain copyrightable elements. See:
Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps
Commons:Threshold of originality#Charts
Image license templates to use: c:Template:PD-map and c:Template:PD-chart. The templates link to the above 2 links. The templates put the images in these categories:
Commons:Category:PD map.
Commons:Category:PD chart.
--Timeshifter (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The court case in question was someone who took a map published by the US census bureau, colored the whole thing blue, and added a shading effect:
The creator then tried to copyright this map, but his application was rejected by the copyright office on the grounds that the changes did not make significant creative contributions, and the rejection was later upheld by a judge, and then by the appeals court. That's not at all the same as saying that "most maps" contain no copyrightable creative content.
It's not even a guarantee that a different judge or a different appeals court wouldn't decide that the stylistic choices were sufficiently creative; as an example, I drew the graphics for a Tetris-like game as a favor to my friends who made the game, and did so in Photoshop by hand, entirely independently of any reference, choosing colors by quite a rigorous mathematical process, but that didn't stop a judge in Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. from deciding that any similar game using brightly colored blocks would be infringing on Tetris's IP because the use of bright colors (whether or not they were the same) would, per se, cause confusion. –jacobolus (t) 01:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "font and color selection; visual effects such as relief, shadowing, and shading; labeling; call-outs". Read the rest of the links and discussion (especially the Casebook) at Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, most maps are NOT public domain. I looked up using Google Earth Pro at one point to make maps, and all the images are not free use. Maps that are figures in publications are not public domain, maps that are made for sale are not public domain. The maps we see on the web posted on social media are often just ripped copyrighted images. The maps that ARE made with public domain data/boundaries still require clear citations about where it came from, which is often lacking on the Web. This includes maps made using TIGER files or other U.S. government data. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of other claims, nearly all Many non-fictitious maps are in the public domain, unless they contain something copyrightable like a photo, etc.. I urge you to read the map section of the Casebook:
Open.Michigan Wiki. Casebook archive on "whether or not the content object is protected by US Copyright law.". Opening in the maps section. There is much case law linked from there. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
nearly all non-fictitious maps are in the public domain – This claim doesn't pass the smell test. If you want to make a concrete claim, you should directly quote a law review article or similar reliable source, rather than making up your own personal interpretation based on paraphrasing court cases you skimmed. –jacobolus (t) 02:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a bit more:
  • Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. decided that telephone directory entries couldn't be copyrighted as creative works (meaning a different telephone directory could copy the entries without infringing copyright).
  • Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble decided that a 1-sentence explanation of matching people with social security numbers as part of the rules of a sweepstakes contest couldn't be copyrighted (i.e. someone else could make their own sweepstakes using the same rule expressed using the same sentence).
  • Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decided that a plausible but speculative plot element related to a historical disaster couldn't be copyrighted (i.e. someone else could publish their own fictional/speculative account based on the same plot element).
  • Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, et al. decided that, when Meshworks was contracted to make a digital model of Toyota cars as part of an ad campaign (by measuring the cars shape and then manually tweaking the resulting 3d models), the digital model was not an independently copyrightable creative work, so Toyota could keep re-using the model to make later ads without paying ongoing licensing fees.
  • American Institute of Architects v. Fenichel decided that while some contract form templates could be copyrighted, merely using those templates to make up a standard contract (vs. republishing them) counts as fair use.
None of these is directly relevant to maps. Trying to imagine how a judge might apply these precedents to maps and requires our own speculation. Instead, Wikipedia and Commons should err on the side on not republishing maps for which we can't guarantee the copyright status. –jacobolus (t) 02:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This casebook doesn't strike me as a reliable source for legal matters (particularly because it says "None of the information presented below should be considered legal advice in any way"). I appreciate that you reached out to the author, Bobby Glushko, to confirm that he stands by it, but private communication from a single lawyer, no matter how well regarded or experienced that lawyer is, is not legal truth. He even qualifies in his communication that in these matters, "there aren’t always hard and fast answers".
In any case, I don't think it or the rest of the discussion supports what you seem to be saying, that all maps of the real world are public domain. A map that is data-driven or that is a restyling of an existing map is ineligible for copyright protection according to Bobby Glushko, but that doesn't make it public domain – it makes it a derivative work. Furthermore, Bobby Glushko isn't saying that all real-world maps are data-driven or restyling of existing maps.
I'm also pretty sure his claim that an image that is a "faithful representation of its subject matter" is ineligible for copyright protection is false, or perhaps being misinterpreted. By that logic, all photographs would be public domain. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinkunimune:
It's not just a single lawyer who came up with this info.
His LinkedIn page here: shows extensive collaborative copyright work. He worked on a multi-state multi-institution Copyright Review Management System:

Program Manager/Copyright Librarian.
University of Michigan.
2011 - Apr 2013 · 2 yrs 4 mos

- Project Manager for a three year multimillion dollar Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded National Leadership Grant for the development of the Copyright Review Management System – World grant. I co-wrote the funding proposal, researched the legal issues, designed and implemented the review process, and trained and managed over twenty reviewers from fourteen partner institutions. In addition to this, I was responsible for managing the progress of the grant, making long term strategic plans for the grant, and reporting progress to the IMLS.
- Working with the lead copyright officer, I was responsible for outreach, education, and faculty and staff service with regards to copyright policy at the University of Michigan Library system. I helped craft library policy.
- As part of an engagement in the national copyright dialogue, I have drafted comments for the US Copyright Office, for DMCA Rulemakings, and other commenting processes. Additionally, I have coordinated work with various amicus curiae in relevant legal cases, and have worked with top library staff to prepare comments and blog posts on timely legal issues, such as the ongoing litigation between the Publisher’s Guild and Google, as well as the litigation between the Author’s Guild and the HathiTrust.
- Working with the HathiTrust, I was the primary rights adjudicator for patron initiated questions. I handled takedown requests, individual access requests, and broader collection access policy questions. As part of this role I have initiated a multi-state review of state application of copyright law to their government documents. I mentored an Association of Research Libraries Career Enhancement Program Fellow in this arena, and we produced a preliminary research agenda that has been used to open thousands of state government ...

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would be shocked if you could get this person to state that, in their legal opinion, "nearly all non-fictitious maps are in the public domain". Please go ahead and ask though. –jacobolus (t) 04:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should have written "Nearly all non-fictitious standard maps are in the public domain. See this Casebook to see what qualifies as standard." --Timeshifter (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this doesn't contradict what I said. It's great that this person has so much collaborative copyright work. He's clearly well regarded and experienced. And it would be one thing if he drafted an official statement by the US Copyright Office for DMCA Rulemakings and Other Commenting Processes that said "most maps are public domain". But you're citing a private email from him. We don't know which if any of his coworkers or affiliate institutions agree with him on this. And even if they all do, all Bobby is saying is "I stand by this casebook on the defunct U.M. wiki". As he himself says, that's not legal truth; there's no guarantee a judge in a hypothetical court case would also agree with that wiki page. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Going to use one example to demonstrate why this is a problem. A lot of maps are made using ArcGIS Pro, which includes many very useful base map options that can be used when following the terms of use. These terms of use explicitly state the maps/images can be used "In academic publications (for example, research journals, textbooks, and so on)" with the caveat that they include the following attribute "Map image is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved." Maps made with these base maps are EVERYWHERE online, and they are explicitly not public domain. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's of course no guarantee a judge would accept or reject ESRI's terms as legally enforceable. It would probably depend on the other details of the case and the map. –jacobolus (t) 02:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Clusters of the estimated percent of people in poverty by county in the contiguous United States in 2020
I don't think we should be the ones to challenge Esri's copy right claim. Phantom settlements and Trap streets exist for a reason, and outside the U.S., the laws are not all the same around copyright. The main issue in the U.S. is around the data within a map, not the map itself. If you look at a map and duplicate the location of stuff, like tracing it with paper, you're probably okay. You can make a map from a map someone else made by duplicating the spatial relationships of features on the map. Maps are more then just a collection of facts though, the layout, the color selection, and several other choices make a figure both a scientific figure and a work of art. They are graphic design. You can't just take a map someone made, copy it on a photocopy machine, and sell it/use it any more then you could take a scan of a picture of Mickey Mouse and sell it. Many maps contain much more data then just lines and colors, underlying datasets and the way they are interpreted are not the same as general reference maps, and we use a lot of thematic maps. If a map appears in a book as a figure, that figure isn't treated any differently then a picture or chart containing unique data. There are transformations you can do to data that are more complex then just visualizing it raw, for example, I have attached a map I made and uploaded for Poverty in the United States that uses Cluster and Outlier Analysis (Anselin Local Moran's I). The underlying datasets are all public, however this is a transformation of the data that is generally part of an anlysis. Changing minor settings results in different patterns of clusters (I documented the main settings so they are repeatable). This is a relatively simple change, but there are a lot more complex things that can be done with spatial data that exist online. Outside the legal issues, the most basic cartographic conventions dictate we have proper citations/attributions. This is before the issue of commercial satellite images that are used in many base maps, a satellite image is a picture, and I don't believe anyone would argue that a picture is not protected by copyright. I'm a Ph.D. in geography, and while I'm not the kind of doctor who generally makes diagnosis, I will diagnose any judge, or lawyer who thinks maps are not creative works as a dumbass (literally flies in the face of actual cartography literature). One common definition of cartography is "the art science and technology of making maps." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Darden v. Peters.

Darden v. Peters: the addition of "font and color selection; visual effects such as relief, shadowing, and shading; labeling; call-outs" and anti-aliasing to a preexisting map is below the threshold of originality. "The homepage of appraisers.com features a stylized map of the United States that serves as a link to a separate page displaying a detailed map of any state selected by the user. The state maps, in turn, are divided into counties; the consumer can retrieve a list of local appraisers by selecting the appropriate county." The courts and appeal courts rejected all claims of copyright for any of the maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter Here's another relevant case:
Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., from 1992, where the appeals court decided that the selection of what to include in a map could be copyrighted, even if all of the underlying information was factual. –jacobolus (t) 02:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be something copyrightable. Link please. Standard map stuff does not qualify, because it is not original. It is the same for charts and graphs. See the deletion discussions linked from here:
c:Template:PD-chart.
Commons:Threshold of originality#Charts
They are charts of all kinds. But they are not considered original by copyright law. The same is true for maps. It's just non-original formats used in maps. And the charts and maps are just containers for more non-original info and data. You can't copyright facts such as the existence of cities, states, rivers, mountains, continents, etc.. Or their locations relative to each other. Those are all facts, and you can't copyright facts. Their location relative to each other is another fact that can't be copyrighted. And maps are just containers to show those location facts. And you can't copyright facts such as the data in data maps.
All of this has been accepted for years on the Commons. Since at least 2019. The Commons:Threshold of originality page has been around a long time, and is translated in multiple languages. Once you understand the concept of originality (as defined by Copyright offices) it all makes sense. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely based on the speculation of a few pseudonymous Wikimedians. You should consult a copyright lawyer. In fact, someone should probably ask the Wikimedia Foundation's own lawyers, as this kind of bad advice targeted at the community could quite plausibly get the foundation successfully sued if someone follows it. –jacobolus (t) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted a link to the decision in Mason v. Montgomery Data? Here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/91/91-2305.0.wpd.pdf – the judges quote from Feist: "The level of creativity required to make a work of authorship original 'is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.' [...] the process by which Mason, using his own skill and judgment, pictorially portrayed his understanding of the reality in Montgomery County by drawing lines and symbols in particular relation to one another easily exceeds that level." –jacobolus (t) 04:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another relevant case is United States of America v. Edward Sylvester Hamilton (9th Circuit 1978), where Hamilton was fined $700 for making an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted map. The appeals court upheld his criminal conviction: "Similar attention to rewarding the cartographer's art requires us to recognize that the elements of authorship embodied in a map consist not only of the depiction of a previously undiscovered landmark or the correction or improvement of scale or placement, but also in selection, design, and synthesis." –jacobolus (t) 04:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those cases confirm what the Casebook cases say. That standard maps are not copyrightable. Those 2 cases you link to discuss added creativity beyond standard mapping that goes beyond the idea/expression merger. The Darden case from 2008 further confirms that. Darden v. Peters.

See c:Commons talk:Threshold of originality/Archive 2#Bobby Glushko communications. Concerning the Casebook he said: "Those are as accurate as it’s possible for the answers to be. The challenge with copyright is that as a court applied doctrine, there aren’t always hard and fast answers. That said, I stand by my original analysis, which is to the best of my knowledge consistent with the case law."

See the table of his history higher up in this thread. He has extensive collaborative copyright work. He has copyright knowledge far beyond what Wikimedia Foundation lawyers will have --Timeshifter (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What the Darden case shows is that this specific map showing the states of the US (or the counties within a state), using exactly the same outlines and arrangement as a public domain version published by the census bureau but with everything then re-colored blue and also with a one-click graphical effect applied to the picture, did not require enough creative effort to qualify as an original copyrightable work. But that's nowhere close to the same as saying that "nearly all non-fictitious maps" involve no creative effort. Indeed, courts found that even a "slight amount" of creativity was sufficient to make a new map copyrightable, and what counts an at-least-slight amount of creativity is up to the discretion of a judge, taken on a case by case basis.
We should not be trying to get non-lawyer Wikipedians to speculate and roll the dice hoping an arbitrary judge would agree that various (otherwise presumed copyrighted) maps have not even a "slight" amount of of creative effort behind them; instead, we should urge community members to only upload works which have clearly stated and unquestionably acceptable copyright, or otherwise to make their own works based on sources with acceptable copyright. To do otherwise is both unethical and invites potentially disastrous lawsuits. –jacobolus (t) 05:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be more concrete: these precedents probably (fingers crossed) protect us in the event that a Wikipedian e.g. makes a new map where they take the outlines of lower 48 US states projected using the Albers projection and color each one according to per-capita GDP using census data, using a standard color scheme. Even if some other cartographer previously made a very similar map using a very similar process, a court is likely to hold that these various choices (showing all of the states using the most common projection for a choropleth map, coloring according to a standard color scheme, applying labels in a common font, etc.) are not sufficiently special that the first map creator could sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement. I would expect these precedents to not protect us (but again, fingers crossed) if we go to someone's map website with a bunch of choropleth maps and directly copy them pixel-for-pixel onto Mediawiki commons. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. –jacobolus (t) 05:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you copy a US map from the Census or elsewhere you will still have the same state lines. The Darden case said that these additions were not copyrightable: “font and color selection; visual effects such as relief, shadowing, and shading; labeling; call-outs.”
c:Template:PD-map has been around since 2020, as has the category for it. No one has sued Wikimedia.
The Casebook is a sufficient guide for showing the standard maps and charts that are in the public domain. It refers to case law. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, even if the information contained within a map (the underlying data, such as borders) is within the public domain, content created with it does not automatically become public domain too. If you want, you may be able to ask about this atWikipedia:Media copyright questions. Mitchsavl (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you can see the difference between «took an existing map and changed the font, made it all blue, and added a shading effect, without otherwise making any changes to the content» vs. «made a new map, choosing what to show and how». –jacobolus (t) 06:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Casebook section on maps is authoritative enough to decide if a map qualifies for c:Template:PD-map.

And it is not just simple maps. It is simple charts, simple graphs, simple chemistry structures, simple traffic signs, simple geometry shapes, simple Parliament diagrams, and more. See

Scroll down c:Template:PD-map to see that list of license tags. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that casebook is authoritative at all. It's an article on a defunct wiki written by individual lawyers. It's true that it lists several cases where maps have been deemed below the threshold of originality in a court of law. But as other editors have noted, there are plenty of cases where courts have ruled the other way. It depends on the map and the judge. The only entity that could make sweeping authoritative statements about what does and doesn't qualify as "simple" is a high court or a legislative body, though even that wouldn't apply internationally. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other cases did not rule the other way. They ruled that those particular maps contained creative enough things that made them eligible for copyright. They were no longer simple maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to comment again, that ESRI has a disclaimer stating "Map image is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved." This is stating the company and its licensors have an existing copyright, not one that failed in court during application. Furthermore, Google Maps, Google Earth, and Street View have specific language around using their maps, including an example "Map data ©2019 Google." They have a list of appropriate and inappropriate ways that their products can be used. Online, a large amount of the basic maps are from either ESRI or Google. Microsoft and Bing Maps have similar language around their products. The copyrights exist. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the cases listed in this wiki are about maps per se. They are various non-cartographic cases (one about a telephone directory, one about the wording of a sweepstakes rule, one about a wireframe made from a 3d scan of a car, one about a plot point in a story, and one about the fair use of some template forms); reasoning similar to that expressed in those decision might plausibly be adopted by someone judging a map case, but courts have found that maps are considered to be pictorial, with explicitly different standards compared to pure factual information, and the precise "threshhold of originality" is a gray area because there have been few cases directly about map copyrights. –jacobolus (t) 16:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So people go to the right section:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120801211652/https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Maps
The map-related court cases you referred to previously also discussed what Bobby Glushko was citing in the law. Such as Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble: "when there is only one or a few ways of expressing an idea then courts will find that the idea merges with the expression and the work is not subject to copyright protection. This is a natural outflow of the Court's reasoning in Baker v. Seldon."
One of your map court cases allowed copyright because there were multiple ways to express the ideas in that map, and so there was no idea/expression merger. Ideas can't be copyrighted.
--Timeshifter (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While one can make a non-copyrighted map, a lot of road atlases and older maps are usually copyrighted, usually by National Geographic or the like. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 16:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble is about the phrasing of a rule in a sweepstakes contest, not about maps. Baker v. Selden is about the idea of an accounting system, in which the court decided that "[W]hilst no one has a right to print or publish his book, or any material part thereof, as a book intended to convey instruction in the art, any person may practice and use the art itself which he has described and illustrated therein." – That is, copyright protected the exact written content of the book, but not its ideas, and someone else could write a different book explaining the same idea without infringing.
As applied to maps, this reasoning might (subject to a judge's personal taste) allow e.g. copying a sentence or two of routine text describing the map projection, copying the elements and their arrangement from a map legend, re-using a color scheme of drawing roads in red and railroads in black, using little spiky symbols to represent battles, putting three maps of the same place in a vertical stack. But seems unlikely to allow wholesale copying of someone else's work under Timeshifter's (frankly absurd) personal theory that "nearly all non-fictitious maps are in the public domain". –jacobolus (t) 18:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s disheartening to read Timeshifter repeating the same arguments without engaging with the salient points that have been made: (1) US copyright law does not apply outside the US; meanwhile the Web is replete with maps made and owned elsewhere, and therefore the claim that practically all maps are public domain is false; (2) We must not encourage individual contributors to make judgement calls that can fail in court; (3) Being unable to copyright a derivative work due to insufficient originality does not thereby mean the resulting artifact is “public domain”. Strebe (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said higher up I should have been less categorical. It is more accurate to say: Many non-fictitious simple standard maps are in the public domain. See the map section of this Casebook to see what qualifies as simple and standard.
Darden v. Peters is about some maps. And it is pretty clear:
The Examining Division of the Copyright Office rejected both applications. With respect to Darden’s claim in the Maps themselves, the examiner concluded that the work “lack[ed] the authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” J.A. 119. The examiner explained that “[i]n order to be copyrightable, a work of the visual arts must contain a minimum amount of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship” and that “[c]opyright does not protect familiar shapes, symbols, and designs … [or] mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, fonts, or coloring.” J.A. 119. The labeling, relief, shadowing and shading that Darden contributed to the preexisting maps, the examiner concluded, are standard elements that do not contain copyrightable authorship.
The appeals court was even more clear:
We first consider the refusal of the Copyright Office to register Darden’s Maps work. In each of the three letters denying registration, the Copyright Office explained that the changes and additions Darden made to the standard census maps in his Maps work claim were uncopyrightable elements that were insufficiently original or creative to be copyrightable. See Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 n. 5 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that “expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium are not protectable under copyright law”). Additions to the preexisting maps such as color, shading, and labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity; indeed, Darden’s contributions to the preexisting maps resemble the list of examples of uncopyrightable works set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a).

Darden points out that courts have recognized that maps have “have an inherent pictorial or photographic nature that merits copyright protection.” Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135, 142 (5th Cir.1992); see Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739 (2d Cir.1998). The general proposition that maps are categorically eligible for copyright registration, however, does not establish that the maps at issue here are copyrightable.[4]

I rest my case. The court is adjourned. ;)
--Timeshifter (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you currently proposing to add to the project page? I agree that "many non-fictitious simple standard maps are in the public domain" is a much safer statement than "most maps on the web are in the public domain". However, it's also too vague to be useful on its own. I think there could be value to having a section on the project page that discusses the copyright status of common basemaps and the threshold of originality as it applies to maps. However, it would have to be based on reliable sources (not an article from a defunct UM wiki), remind editors to err on the side of caution where copyright is concerned, and account for the fact that copyright law varies from country to country. Justin Kunimune (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinkunimune:
See: Commons:Licensing:
Wikimedia Commons only accepts media
Many references on Wikipedia are archived. It's not easy to maintain a wiki. I know, because I am the main admin on 2 wikis. Something like this might work:
"See Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps. Use c:Template:PD-map on maps. See c:Category:PD map. Many non-fictitious simple standard maps are in the public domain, unless they contain something copyrightable like a photo, etc.. See this Casebook to see what qualifies as simple and standard. Same is true for many simple charts and graphs. See c:Template:PD-chart. Also: simple chemistry structures, simple traffic signs, simple geometry shapes, simple Parliament diagrams, and more. For a list of simple image types and their license tags see c:Template:PD-ineligible license tags."
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“[c]opyright does not protect familiar shapes, symbols, and designs … [or] mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, fonts, or coloring.” – As I interpret it, "mere variations" could refer simply for it being changed for no particular purpose. Adding a variety of different colors to a map corresponding to specific pieces of information isn't equivalent to changing the colouring for purely cosmetic reasons.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I have significant knowledge in regards to law, this is merely my interpretation of it. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchsavl: From the Darden case I quoted above:
expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium are not protectable under copyright law”). Additions to the preexisting maps such as color, shading, and labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity; indeed, Darden’s contributions to the preexisting maps resemble the list of examples of uncopyrightable works set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a).
Choropleth maps are about as basic as you can get for a data-based map. I created nearly all the US choropleth maps with numbers in this category:
c:Category:English-language SVG choropleth maps of the United States with visible numbers. Made with templates
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh maps! Going to put on my cartographic critique hat for a moment:
  • First, I'm glad you are using rates on the maps instead of totals, that is good (Passed the first test on choropleths, my first professor failed us for mapping totals, and I make my students redo them or receive a zero).
  • Second, In terms of map elements, you should include the projection information, data source, indication of North (north arrow, compass rose, or graticule), scale bar(s), and author name (On Wikipedia I just use my user name) on the map. This is not an ownership thing, it is an accountability thing, when the map leaks into a place that is not Wikipedia, they should be able to find and message you with questions.
  • Third, for symbolization, generally a bi-variate color schemes are very dangerous to use for univariate maps as they can very easily open the door to accusations of presenting data in a leading way. They are good for multi-variate maps, an example could be %Democrat and %Republican, with a middle value that would represent a perfect 50/50 split. If you're using it for a single variable, it is generally used for things with a "middle" value between two extremes, such as hot and cold (My first cartography professor would fail our maps for a bi-variate color scheme on a single variable). Using it for a single variable like Homicide rates per 100,000 by state is misleading as the dataset is not diverging from a central point, and it makes it harder for reader to actually use the map to compare areas at a glance.
  • Fourth, I have a few rules in my GIS classes, and one is that no maps about gun ownership in the U.S.. The reason is that all the data is pre-digested estimates. I did some research on gun violence as it relates to public health, and ultimately we found that gun ownership studies have pretty big error margins. Firearms are inherited between family members, gifted, lost, traded, and sold under the table with no record. Many people also actively keep gun ownership in their homes private and do not tell anyone that might be an authority figure. Many firearms owners own multiple, which makes purchasing data unreliable as one household with 30 guns may skew the results. This is before the fact these studies are generally 3rd party, and fingers get pointed about bias and agenda.
  • Finally, if you are going to label the values for each enumeration unit, you don't need to use color to symbolize it. It is generally going to just be more map clutter.
I recommend reading the book How to Lie with Maps if you haven't already. Approachable and timeless when it comes to cartography. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage: I used a template, but I am not the template creator. cmglee created the US choropleth template. I wrote most of the instructions. You guys should talk elsewhere so this already long thread stays on topic. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why, when QGIS is freely available, are we making maps like this? It's like seeing someone try to do photoshop with Microsoft paint. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 09:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage: I will respond on your talk page since this is off-topic. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The court is adjourned – I think we're done here then. The project page does not need to be changed, and this discussion can be closed. Feel free to take up anti-copyright advocacy on your own personal website or on your user page. –jacobolus (t) 23:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. WP:ICANTHEARYOU. –jacobolus (t) 03:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the leap of logic that has not been addressed: “Not eligible for copyright” is not synonymous with public domain. “Public domain” is a legal, explicitly granted status, not something an artifact falls into just because it’s not eligible for copyright protection. Strebe (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From public domain: "Some works are not covered by a country's copyright laws, and are therefore in the public domain;" --Timeshifter (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you should be using Wikipedia as a source of truth, but you seem to have ignored the opening sentence: consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. There are other intellectual property rights besides copyright. In fact, a map projection cannot be protected by copyright, but it can be protected by patent and by trademark. It does not matter how simple the map is, if it’s on a protected map projection, it is not in the public domain. All kinds of things can be protected in these ways. It’s even not permissible to use trade secrets that are, themselves, not subject to copyright: you can be sued for misappropriation even if you are not the leaker. Strebe (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Strebe: This is interesting:
Follow-up: Can I use a blank outline map (borders only) made using a copyrighted map in a product that I plan to SELL?
It's a thread with answers from Intellectual Property Law Attorneys. Scroll through the answers. For example: "Yes. Same answer. You can sell your blank map. Since this outline of the states isn't protectible, your version won't be either, unless you add some creativity to it, and even then, only your creative added parts would be copyrightable, not the blank outline map itself." --Timeshifter (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A blank outline map of official state borders under a standard map projection is very unlikely to be eligible for copyright, so you are almost certainly fine in that example. The analogous situation with a story might be something like "Can I start my fairy tale with 'Once upon a time' and end it with 'happily ever after'?" But your safest choice in that situation is still to copy the outlines from an official US government source, rather than copying them from a commercial vendor. –jacobolus (t) 04:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, not addressing any points being made. Strebe (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked those intellectual property law attorneys one of the questions some of us here may be interested in:

Got this answer: J Scott Scarbrough
Intellectual Property Law Attorney in Loveland, CO
5.0 stars 14 reviews

Australian law recognizes the "sweat of the brow" principle for copyright, so a phone book can be protected by copyright. The US does not recognize "sweat of the brow" instead needing a "creative spark". Maps that simply show what other maps show, even if someone spent a lot of time and effort adding information to the map, unless there was some creativity (new, different, artistic), there would be no protection.

So choropleth maps and more could be given the PD-map license, and uploaded to the Commons. See: Commons:Licensing:

Wikimedia Commons only accepts media

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what makes you come to the conclusion that a choropleth map is not new, different, or artistic. Cartography is literally the art science and technology of making maps. The origin of the word Geography is the Greek Geographia, Earth writing. Maps are how we write about spatial data, in the same way that words can be used to explain information. In academic writing, if you took a map from someone else's publication and put it into yours without asking, it would be no different from copying a page of their text. The response also shows outside the U.S., there is even less ambiguity. We also have multiple organizations that state their maps are protected by copyright, presumably these copyrights have cleared scrutiny. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you agree that at least in the US the data for US choropleth maps can not be copyrighted since the data is factual. And facts can't be copyrighted.
Then there are the border outlines. They can't be copyrighted either because they are the factual borders of US states. Nothing original there. If US border outlines were under a non-free copyright, then how will new maps be created?
Then there is shading. What is original about that?
Oh, but you say the colors represent ranges of the rates. What's special or original about that? It's been around for a long time.
if you took a map from someone else's publication and put it into yours without asking, ...
Actually, you can, if the map can't be copyrighted on its own. See:
Commons:Threshold of originality#Partial copying or cropping of copyrighted works.
And see this from the first paragraph of that article:
As a rule, copyright applies to a work as a whole. If a work contains a portion that is complex enough to receive copyright protection, then the whole work is considered to be copyrighted.
--Timeshifter (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a copyright suit in such an example would prevail is up to the individual discretion of a judge and the details of the case. Judges, being humans, are likely to consider context, intentions, and side effects of any ruling (or for that matter personal whims based on their own biases), rather than mechanistically applying a predetermined logical algorithm. If person B starts wholesale republishing a collection of person A's maps, exactly reproducing them as digital files, under the dubious speculative theory that "choropleth maps can not be copyrighted", they are likely to end up with a hefty fine when sued. (And in my opinion person B is an unethical thief, and if they try this garbage on Wikimedia projects they should be forcefully chastised and demanded to reform or leave, with any offending files removed.) On the other hand, if person B independently and unknowingly makes a routine choropleth map extremely similar to the one made by person A, and then person A sues under the claim that they have copyright over any sufficiently similar map, the judge might plausibly decide that the first mapmaker doesn't deserve exclusive right to make such a map, considering that many of the choices involved have fairly limited possibilities, or even if the judge decides that person A deserves copyright, the penalty is likely to be minimal.
Anyway, @Timeshifter, if you don't have anything new to say, you should stop this now. You are repeating yourself, you aren't convincing anyone, and it's a tedious waste of everyone's time, which is becoming moderately disruptive. –jacobolus (t) 07:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be the only one complaining now. Especially since I found more legal experts. There is no need to copy maps wholesale from websites. Just the ones that are useful to Wikipedia and are in the public domain. And I don't think you understand this:
Commons:Threshold of originality#Partial copying or cropping of copyrighted works.
And the Darden case shows you are wrong about suits over copying maps that have nothing original (according to copyright law) in them. Judges aren't going to ignore past precedent. It makes them look bad. And lawyers aren't going to bring suits that aren't going to win, unless they like wasting time and money.
--Timeshifter (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your repetitive postings do not address any argument inconvenient to your irresponsible advocacy. Just because nobody else bothers to waste the time does not by any means signal endorsement. Strebe (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you, in fact, copied someone else's maps onto Wikimedia Commons without their permission? If so, please list them so we can insist they are deleted. If not, please don't start.
(Also, I notice that you tagged some of your own maps that you uploaded as ineligible for copyright. Please don't do that, as the copyright status is then not clear. Instead please use the commons template "PD-self" or pick a different license which makes the status unambiguous, such as CC BY or CC0.) –jacobolus (t) 18:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any maps offhand that I have uploaded using c:Template:PD-map. There are many PD-maps here:

I have uploaded some charts I copied from other websites, and used c:Template:PD-chart. They survived deletion discussions. Note the complexity of the multi-line colored graph in the first one linked below. Complex, but nothing original. A choropleth map is also complex and multi-colored, but it is not an original format. It is just a standard form to present data.

This is just a bar chart:

The Intellectual property lawyer I copied previously, also wrote: If you search the internet for "Australia sweat of the brow versus US creative spark in copyright law" you will find many public threads and court cases expounding on this and the US's requirement for a creative spark. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why bring up this sweat-of-brow point? Isn't that an acknowledgement that the US copyright laws you're trying to apply to large categories of maps don't apply to maps made in other countries?
In any case, I agree with the others that this discussion has run its course. Like Jacobulus, I think that the project page is fine as is. Most of Timeshifter's posts are repetition of the same arguments, links, and quotes, and do not address the multiple concerns that have been raised with encouraging editors to liberally tag maps as PD. I think Strebe's post from 18:58 on the 17th still sums it up pretty well. Justin Kunimune (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What concern did I not address?
I addressed all of Strebe's points from that particular post, though not directly after his post.
I brought up sweat-of-brow point because it is a common point of confusion. I already acknowledged this: Commons:Licensing: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
In contrast to sweat-of-brow in some countries, US copyright office has this from 308.2 "Creativity":
An author’s expression does not need to “be presented in an innovative or surprising way,” but it “cannot be so mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever.” A work that it is “entirely typical,” “garden-variety,” or “devoid of even the slightest traces of creativity” does not satisfy the originality requirement. Feist, 499 U.S. at 362. “[T]here is nothing remotely creative” about a work that merely reflects “an age-old practice, firmly rooted in tradition and so commonplace that it has come to be expected as a matter of course.” Id. at 363. Likewise, a work “does not possess the minimal creative spark required by the Copyright Act” if the author’s expression is “obvious” or “practically inevitable.” Id. at 363.
--Timeshifter (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status of the first chart is not really an issue, though the image description page was incredibly poorly done, and doesn't give proper credit or explain what the image is about. Because the data and chart is created directly by the Federal Reserve Board, even though accessed through the St. Louis Fed website, it is very likely considered a work of the US Government per se, and as such ineligible for copyright. The appropriate copyright tag on commons for works of the US government is "PD-USGov".
The copyright status of the second chart is wrongly described on the description page. (Aside: The content is also poorly described there, which gives readers a potentially quite misleading sense of what is being depicted.) I would recommend removing it from Wikimedia commons. While the data is interesting the chart also isn't all that effective as a communication tool in my opinion, or necessarily neutral/encyclopedic, so I'd also recommend removing it from Wikipedia pages. –jacobolus (t) 06:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First chart (multi-line graph) is from Federal Reserve Economic Data which is maintained by Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. As the deletion discussion pointed out the Federal Reserve Bank is not a government agency, and so its images are not in the public domain unless they choose to do so. See
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/legal - You can do a lot of things with FRED data, graphs, maps, software, and mobile apps for your own personal, non-commercial use such as.... Farther down is this: Series with a copyright notice are owned by third parties and have special restrictions.
The closer of the deletion discussion gave it this license: c:Template:PD-chart.
I agree that the file description is poorly written. I had mistakenly written that I had uploaded it. I was tired.
Second chart (bar chart): The closer of the deletion discussion agreed with me that there was no copyright. As for the chart's utility, it is on 2 Wikipedia articles. Go to their talk pages if you think it should be removed. That's not a discussion for here. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Citation:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Market Yield on U.S. Treasury Securities at 3-Year Constant Maturity, Quoted on an Investment Basis [DGS3], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS3, February 20, 2026.

Notice that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a federal government agency.
The second deletion discussion was incredibly weak, had almost no participants, and didn't involve anyone with special knowledge of copyright law. You should try submitting this to Wikimedia's own lawyers and asking for their opinion. –jacobolus (t) 17:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS3 - Directly below the chart it says: "Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US) via FRED®". So we are back to FRED. But since the chart qualifies for c:Template:PD-chart it is a moot point whether or not we can nail down whether it is a Board chart or a FRED chart.

The second deletion discussion was closed by c:User:Jameslwoodward who is an admin, bureaucrat, and checkuser on the Commons. His profile page says: Most of my graphic arts knowledge comes from being one of the four founders of Iris Graphics in 1985. As part of that I have done a lot of copyright work, licensing in and out from and to the USA, Europe, and Japan. He also has lots of other graphics company experience, and was a free-lance professional photographer. And there is the fact that Commons admins deal with this stuff all the time. Also, it was not a hard call since it is a bar chart which is about as simple a chart as one can find. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The safest would certainly be to delete both images, or explicitly email the authors asking for permission. Here's what the FRED terms say:

All content on and available through the FRED® Services, including visual interfaces, designs, text, graphics, pictures, videos, information, data, charts, maps, compilations, applications, software, computer code (including source code or object code), music, sound and other files, and their selection and arrangement, and the trademarks, service marks and logos contained therein (the "FRED® Content”) are the proprietary intellectual property of the Bank, its users or its licensors, with all rights reserved. The Terms of Use grant you no right, title, or interest in any FRED® Content.

Data series available through the FRED® Services, including but not limited to the FRED® and ALFRED® data series, may be owned by third parties and may be protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, international treaties, and/or other proprietary rights and laws of the U.S. and other countries. You agree to abide by all applicable proprietary rights laws and other laws, as well as any additional copyright notices or restrictions contained in the data series or the Terms of Use. Neither the Bank’s provision of the FRED® Services to you nor your use of the FRED Services override the data series owners' copyrights, requirements and restrictions. BEFORE USING DATA SERIES OWNED BY THIRD PARTIES FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE, YOU MUST CONTACT THE DATA OWNER TO OBTAIN PERMISSION. The Bank cannot give you such permission and making the data series available does not constitute such permission. You are solely responsible for complying with any requirements or restrictions imposed on usage of the data series by their respective owners.

Except as expressly provided in these Terms of Use, FRED® Content may not be modified, duplicated, copied, distributed, framed, reproduced, rebranded, republished, uploaded, downloaded, scraped, displayed, posted, transmitted on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site, nor may the FRED® Content be incorporated in any other database or compilation or sold in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without the Bank’s prior written permission, except that the foregoing does not apply to your own content and comments that you post on the FRED® Services legally and in compliance with the Terms of Use.

FRED® Services General License
You are granted a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, nonassignable, non-transferable, nonsublicenseable license to access and use the FRED® Services and the FRED® Content through a generally available web browser, mobile device or application, and to download or print a copy of any portion of the FRED® Content to which you have properly gained access solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided that you keep all copyright or other proprietary notices intact. Any other use of the FRED® Content is strictly prohibited. Such license is subject to these Terms of Use, and does not permit use of any data mining, robots, scraping or similar data gathering or extraction methods. Any use of the FRED Services or the FRED® Content other than as expressly authorized in the Terms of Use, without the prior written permission of the Bank, is strictly prohibited and will terminate the license granted herein. Such unauthorized use may also violate applicable laws including copyright and trademark laws and applicable communications regulations and statutes.

This particular chart though comes from a US government agency (the Fed Board), so it's likely it can be claimed as a work of the US government. –jacobolus (t) 18:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Via Fred" (see my last post). So it could be a FRED chart.
I don't know why you are quoting the whole FRED legal page. I already posted the relevant part:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/legal - You can do a lot of things with FRED data, graphs, maps, software, and mobile apps for your own personal, non-commercial use such as.... Farther down is this: Series with a copyright notice are owned by third parties and have special restrictions.
The site for the bar chart does not have the word "copyright" anywhere on their site. I did a site search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=copyright%20site:prisonpolicy.org
Even if they have copyrighted their site, but haven't indicated that on the site, the chart could still be used. You have yet to acknowledge this:
Commons:Threshold of originality#Partial copying or cropping of copyrighted works
Same is true for the FRED site.
--Timeshifter (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your legal understanding is fundamentally incorrect; this kind of basic ignorance is the reason I would advise anyone against following your legal speculations.
Under modern law, works are inherently copyrighted at the moment of creation; there is no need to explicitly put the word "copyright" in your works or on your website. Here's a plain language FAQ from the copyright office. –jacobolus (t) 19:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the work is copyrightable is it copyrighted:

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Visa requirements map

[edit]

Hello, I'm inviting everyone who might be interested to participate in a discussion regarding the changes to the Visa requirements for Russians map here: File Talk:Changes to the map

Vinokurov Demis (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]