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

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. 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)

File:Fatah logo.png

• File:Fatah logo.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wonder if this image is actually nonfree. A black-and-white version appears on File:Fatah 59 June 1970.jpg, which is tagged as PD, but I am not entirely sure if the PD claim is correct. The coloring of File:Fatah_logo.png seems to be too trivial to attain copyright protection. Janhrach (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 21 § File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 21 § File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Change in Image License

The image File:Geopelia striata by Foo Chuan Wei.jpg was originally posted under CC-BY and was uploaded under that license, but has now been changed to CC-BY-NC at it's source (seen here). Would the image now need to be changed to CC-BY-NC on commons, or does it retain CC-BY because it was uploaded when the photo was still under the CC-BY license? Sorry if this is a simple question, I'm still fairly new to copyright license details. -‪Fneskljvnl🪱 (Contributions, Talk) (stay silly forever) 16:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fneskljvnl. Since the file in question has been uploaded to Commons, it's probably best to ask about it on Commons (try c:COM:VPC) since that's where any decision about the file (e.g. whether it can be kept) needs to be made. In principle, though, "CC-by" types of licenses are considered to be non-revocable; so, if the license change occured after the file was uploaded to Commons and the original licensing wasn't clearly a case of c:COM:LL, Commons might decide to keep the file. In some cases, though, when the change happens relatively quickly after a file's been uploaded, Commons does make allowances for image copyright holders changing their minds or even admitting they've made a mistake; this grace period, however, is only for less than seven days after upload per c:COM:G7, and a c:COM:DR is required beyond that. It's not clear whether the copyright holder or the file and the uploader of the file are the same person; if they are, then that person could start a COM:DR about the file and request that it be deleted. If they're not, then they might need to file a DMCA takedown request with the Wikimedia Foundation to get the file removed from Commons servers.

FWIW, I believe the relicensing of the file only affects reuses of the file from the time of the relicensing, and they anyone who downloaded the file prior to its relicensing can continue to reuse the file as long as they do so under the terms of the original licensing. This doesn't mean that the copyright holder can't try to get them to stop, but it could mean a weaker claim of copyright infringement, especially if quite a bit of time passed between the time the file was published under its original licensing and the time the copyright holder relicensed it. In addition, some sites (e.g. Flickr) have ways to see the "license history" of content they host, and sometimes there might be archived screenshot versions of the site which show the content as released prior to the change; so, if any of those things are applicable to this image, you probably should add information about it (e.g. links) to the file's descritpion and make note of them when asking about the file at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Bot deletion

Why did JJMC89 bot delete file:LelandDoan.png from Leland Doan? The file had a public domain explanation. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mgreason probably because File:LelandDoan.png is somewhat unclear in it's description. It started with various non-free templates on it and has migrated to the obviously incorrect {{US-PD}} - this image does not pre-date 1930. the source is probably correct in saying there is no known copyright but it does need a proper description adding e.g. using {{information}} and a more apt licence. I did wonder if it's PD as a work of the US government but again with no certainty. There are images from the same signing by JFK available on Alamy, these say they were contributed by Gibson Moss and are PD but isn't explicit why. So it needs a bit more investigation. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mgreason: First of all, the bot didn't delete File:LelandDoan.png per se, it removed it from an article where it wasn't being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You originally uploaded the file as non-free content, and only later converted it to a public domain license. Non-free content is required to have two things per WP:NFC#Implementation: a non-free copyright license and a spearate, specific non-free use rationale (for each use). You did add a non-free copyright license to file's page but failed to also add a non-free use rationale for the use in the Doan article, which is a violation of non-free content use criterion #10c. The bot that removed the file has been tasked to look for such things; so, when it saw the file had a non-free license but no corresponding non-free use rationale, it removed the file from the article per WP:NFCCE.The bot removed the file on May 11, which was both before you removed the non-free copyright license on May 15 and before you added the public domain license on May 19; so, as far as the bot was concerned, the file was non-policy compliant non-free content when it was removed from the article.

You can resolve this in a couple of ways: (1) relicense the file once again as non-free but only this time add the required non-free use rationale (I suggest using the template {{Non-free use rationale biog}}) before re-adding the file to the article (the bot shouldn't remove it again per NFCC#10c if you do that), or (2) provide more information about the file's provenance (as mentioned by Nthep above using the {{Information}} template) that allows a better assessment of its copyright status (i.e., whether it's really within the public domain or needs to be treated as non-free). As Nthep mentioned above, there's no way for you or anyone else to claim that this file is within the public domain because of {{PD-US}} given the date of its first publication, but there could be other reasons such as {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-USGov}} for which it might be within the public domain. Since sorting that out could take some time, you might want do (1) (i.e., relicense the file as non-free and add the missing non-free use rationale) just for now since the file should be OK as such, and then ask about the file at c:COM:VPC to see whether anyone there can help you sort out the file's copyright status. Commons won't host non-free files, but it has no problem hosting public domain files (as long it the file is public domain in both the US and the country of first publication): Commons is actually more suitable for hosting public domain images and is where the file should really be hosted if it's truly public domain.

Finally, if the photo is within the public domain, it would be perfectly file (even preferable) to upload the whole photo to Commons and then create a crop for just Doan (if you want); someone somewhere might be able to find an encyclopedic use for the whole photo, whereas the crop is only really suitable for content about Doan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:High School Musical China College Dreams.jpg

For High School Musical China College Dreams I got the copyrighted image from a wiki called AsianWiki VegetaBlack7 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@VegetaBlack7: File:High School Musical China College Dreams.jpg is almost certainly under copyright protection, which means it wil need to be treated as non-free content and comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy, however, is quite restrictive and one of these restrictions is that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9: this means the file can't be used in Draft:High School Musical China: College Dreams even if you were to add a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale to the file's page for the draft. My suggestion to you, therfore, would be to follow the advice given in WP:DRAFTS#Creating and editing drafts and focus on getting the draft approved as an article first; if you're able to accomplish that, the file should be OK to license as non-free content and use in the article. The file is going to end up being deleted in a few days (there's really no policy-compliant way to prevent that), but you can request it be restored if the draft is eventually approved as an article. Finally, you really will need provide a much better source for the file than "AsianWiki" for it to be OK for Wikipedia to host, even as non-free content. Since the draft appears to be about a movie, look for images of the poster on official websites of the movie's production company or reputable media outlets discussing/reviewing the movie; try to avoid blogs, personal websites, social media accounts or other Wikipedia like sites, unless they're clearly under the control of the movie's production company or someone officially associated with the making of the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I find a better source for the movie? VegetaBlack7 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You would want to find the image from a better source like an official press release or perhaps a review in a reliable source. You may wish to use a reverse image search to help find such a source. The problem with using a wiki is that the images uploaded there usually do not have any information about the origins. You might not think that matters, but there is no guarantee that the uploaded poster on the wiki is a real official poster image versus a fan-made posterIMD. I know in the past we've had many Ru Paul Drag Race season posters uploaded from wikis that turned out to be fan-made. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Does IMDb work or it’s not reliable VegetaBlack7 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

IMDb isn't really a reliable source for citing content about a film or stuff related to a film as explained in WP:RS/P#IMDb, but it sometimes can be OK to use a source for a film poster, when the accuracy of the poster can be verified. If there's an IMDbPro page about the film, then that would be better because it allow some sort of editorial control to be implemented by the account holder. An official source tends to be preferred to other sources because it aids in the verification of copyright status and accuracy. For what it's worth, just Googling the name of your draft shows several movie posters being used on various websites, and which of these is the official one is not clear.

Films often do have multiple posters for different regions or different releases, but any Wikipedia article about a film should try to use the "official" one used when the film was first released in theaters if possible. Even if there's no longer an official website for the film (in English or Chinese) accessible, perhaps there's an archived version of the website that shows the poster that was used. The closer you can find a poster to the film's original release date the better. If finding proper source for a poster turns out to be too hard, perhaps there is cover art from an official Bluray or DVD version could be used instead, You could ask about these things at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China to see if any members of those two WikiProjects can help you out.

Anyway, as I posted above, there's no way for a non-free film poster to be used in a draft (even one from an official source); so, there's no way for Wikipedia to keep this file unless a valid non-free use can be found for it. Even if you find a good source, relicense the file as non-free and provide a non-free use rationale, the non-free use won't be considered valid and the file will be removed (perhaps quickly) by a bot from the draft as a violation of WP:NFCC#9. The approval of the draft your working on, for reference, depends entirely on whether the film meets Wikipedia:Notability (films); whether there are images being used in the draft doesn't matter. So, my suggestion to you, once again, is to focus on getting the draft approved as an article, and then worry about adding images to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I put the HSM China there because that is the only spin off not shown in Wikipedia. I need a link to help me fix something VegetaBlack7 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@VegetaBlack7, @Marchjuly It is a copyvio. I have flagged it for CSD G12

Things found online are almost always subject to copyright. VegetaBlack7, please do not upload copyright materials. Film posters are always subject to copyright. Once any draft where such a file might be appropriate becomes an article you may be able to upload it here under the Doctrine of Fair Use, but not until then 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

How can I upload copyright stuff without getting in trouble VegetaBlack7 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@VegetaBlack7 You have answered your question by asking it. You cannot. Continual upload of copyright material will result in your being blocked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine VegetaBlack7 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I also decided to vanish my account because I want to start something new VegetaBlack7 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just going to add that all non-free content (including non-free film posters) needs to be used in accordance with Wikipdedia's non-free content use policy, which has been set up to be intentionally more restrictive that the Doctrine of Fair Use. -- 01:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Image of Natalie Matosin

I have a query of this image. Natalie_Matosin#/media/File:Dr_Natalie_Matosin.jpg. It appears to be lifted from an online newspaper and possible breach of copyright? https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4417586/wollongong-neuroscientist-named-in-the-prestigious-forbes-30-under-30-list/ LibStar (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There are always a couple of things I check in cases like that. First, of course, is whether the remote site indicates the image is licensed under CC-BY-SA or a compatible license (in this case, it is not). Second, and one that sometimes gets missed too, is checking whether the remote material came after the Commons upload; there are sites that reuse Commons images and don't properly credit them. In this case, though, the newspaper article was written four years before the Commons upload. Given that, I'd agree with you and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I agree with your assessment, in prinicple, but there could be something more to this. The attribution for the photo in website article states the photo was "supplied", and the file's EXIF data states "Barnbear" is the copyright holder (it also gives a contact email address); so, it could be a case where the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person. If that's the case, the photo could be the uploader's "own work" and just in need of c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. Given those things, perhaps a c:COM:DR might be a better choice in this case. The file is the only record of the account on Commons, and the only record of activity for the account on English Wikipedia is for edits to Natalie Matosin. So, it's not totally unreasonable to think that there could be a connection between the account and Matosin, which could mean that a VRT member contacting the email address in the EXIF data might lead to c:COM:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I did see that, and had the uploader gone by the "Barnbear" name, that would give me more pause, but I'm rather skeptical of that. Regardless, if that really is the case, they can always provide what's needed to VRT and get it undeleted. This, though, looks like a standard case where someone found something on the Web, slapped a false "Own work" template on it, and uploaded it that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Image of KallMeKris - review or delete?

I just uploaded an image under the name: File:Kallmekris Can't Sleep Podcast 2025.png that was intended for the KallMeKris article. The article is in need of a newer photo, and I thought I found one that would work. I uploaded it thinking for sure that it was available under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. After uploading, I am now concerned that it is not under this license. I have been reading Wikipedia's copyright polices over and over again prior to uploading and after. I am afraid that this file will either need to be deleted or reviewed. Any suggestions on what to do to get this right, or to delete? I am lost on what needs to be done, and the last thing I want is to add photos without proper licensing to Wikipedia. I want to get this right or removed. I am now seeing a tone of oversights on my part. If I would have known about this page I would have asked on here before even considering uploading the the file. Any suggestions on what to do or if this image can even be used? Bowling is life (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You uploaded the image as non-free. The source youtube video has no indication that it is under a free license. The image is not usable as a non-free image as it is clearly replaceable with a free image since the article already uses a free image in the infobox as well as the subject being a living person means a free image could be taken even if there were no free image. You can request its deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the file page. -- Whpq (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I'll do that right away. I should have asked first before I submitted the image. After uploading the image, I noticed that there was no license in the description of the video. As soon as I found out that the image was a non-free image, I panicked and wasn't sure what to do. Thank you for your help. Bowling is life (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the image per your request. -- Whpq (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I'll make sure not to make that mistake again. Bowling is life (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mercer University seal.png now used at Mercer University - why not allowed on its law school's Infobox, Mercer University School of Law

Hi. Copyright is completely beyond my bailiwick. I added Mercer University's seal (File:Mercer University seal.png) to Mercer University School of Law's Infobox and it was subsequently removed by JJMC89 bot who wrote, "Removed WP:NFCCviolation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation." It also wrote, "Questions? Ask here." - so I'm asking. It seems the seal is probably fair use of a non-free seal where there is almost certainly no free representation and, in this case, there is no alternate to use for the law school – the law school does not have a separate seal to use, this is the only one for the law school. Since the law school is part and parcel of the university, not separate, its use for the law school is minimal, it increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental, same as for the university, and it is only used in the Infobox. Could you tell me (a) why it can't be used, and (2) if a separate copyright license template is required, how to add it? Thank you for your valuable time and expertise, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem I'll answer #2 first as it's the simpler one to answer. Yes, a separate non-free rationale is needed for each use of an image. The bot saw that there is only a rationale for the Mercer University article and therefore removed it from any other article.

Answering #1 is slightly harder and is about WP:NFC#UUI, specifically #17 and the use of logos of parent organisations in articles on child organisations' articles where the child organisation does not have its own logo. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is deliberately much more restrictive than the fair-use provisions of US copyright law. You've obviously read the non-free content criteria as you've mentioned the "aids the understanding" bit (WP:NFCC#8). The argument for not having the logo in the law school article is that it doesn't aid understanding of the School of Law but it does aid understanding about the university itself, so use in the university article is justified. I don't know what other faculties Mercer has but if they don't have their own logos, the same situation would apply to any articles about those.

Discussions about NFCC#8 are always subjective, so if you think you can make the case in the rationale then please go ahead and do so but you're going to have to make it a very strong case to be an exception to the general case of UUI#17. Nthep (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep. Great explanation 😊. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)