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)

Uploading Images of Artwork I Own

I own several works of art created by artist with Wikipedia bio articles. I live in the United States and own the artwork free and clear. The artists have been dead for 70+ years. Can I upload images of those works of art to Wiki Commons? Are there any restrictions I need to be aware of before I do that?-Orygun (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Orygun See Help:Public_domain#Published_in_the_United_States. That's assuming the works are American. If so, and the works are from before 1930, you're good to go. If not, maybe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Physical ownership of a work of art isn't really relevant to its copyright status since the copyright of the work would've been passed on to its artist's heirs after they died absent any kind of formal copyright transfer agreement between you and the artist. However, the work itself could be within the public domain either because it's no longer eligible for copyright protection because of its age or because the author died long enough ago for it to no longer be eligible for copyright protection. The US does follows 70 pma for most copyrightable works published on or after January 1, 1978, but it's 95 years after first publication for anything before that created by a known author; so, I don't see how 70 pma could apply in this case since I believe the work would still be eligible for copyright protection until December 31, 2049, even if the author died in 1978 and the work was first published that same year. The work could be in the public domain for some reason other than its age, but you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC since you're looking to upload the content to Commons. You might also want to take a look at c:COM:PD-Art and c:COM:2D copying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Using screenshots from a game's Steam store page

Are screenshots of a game from its store page on Steam generally safe to use, or should it be treated the same as if it were a screenshot taken in-game by a user? (Intuitively I feel like it's a different situation, since the image is already freely available to view, but I don't know if that actually carries any meaning.) Revolutionary girl euclid (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Revolutionary girl euclid: There's some information about this in c:COM:SCREENSHOT, but I'm pretty sure the source work would either need to be within in the public domain or released under an acceptable free license (c:COM:L) for a screenshot taken of the game to be OK to upload. Screenshots of games, movies, TV programs, videos are typically wikt:slavish reproductions that are considered to be not creative enough to generate a copyright for the screenshot creator as explained in c:COM:2D copying; the copyright of the source work, however, is what matters and that copyright generally determines the copyright status of the screenshot so to speak. Now, in some cases, it might be possible to upload a screenshot as non-free content locally to Wikipedia (Commons policy prohibits non-free content to be uploaded there), but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive. If you want more information about screenshots for computer/video games, you can try asking at WT:VIDEOGAME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Cooper-Kong.jpg

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § File:Cooper-Kong.jpg

 – Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that File:Cooper-Kong.jpg is safe to move to Commons. This file has the following notice on it:

Be careful if you want to move this file to Wikimedia Commons.
Although the lack of a copyright notice in the United States meant no copyright applied, the lack of a notice in other countries did not mean the copyright expired there. Also a number of countries did not apply the rule of the shorter term to US works. Additional information should be provided to enable potential re-users to determine when any remaining copyright expires for them.

However, the file appears to have been made in the United States. Commons' policy is that a file uploaded has to be freely available in both its home country and the United States, and in this case, the United States appears to be the home country as it was taken in the RKO Pathé lot which was located in Culver City, California. Therefore, while I'm not sure if I'm missing something, which, let me know if I am, I do believe that this file is safe to move over as the file was most likely made in the United States and is in the public domain there. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You'll probably have more luck getting an answer at the appropriate noticeboard, in this case I think that is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that the photo was taken in the United States and is PD in the United States, I don't foresee any issue with transferring it to Commons. I've seen a lot of photos on Commons taken in the US which became PD due to no notice, and never seen an issue raised over them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-free biographical image reverted despite rationale (need second opinion)

Hi,

I uploaded a low-res portrait of Kamal Youcef-Toumi (File:Kamal Youcef-Toumi.png) to be used in the article. I provided a detailed fair use rationale using {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, covering all WP:NFCC requirements, especially replaceability, minimal use, and lack of commercial harm.

The subject is a living academic. No free image is available, and creating one is not reasonably possible without access and permission. The image is used only in the infobox and nowhere else.

However, user @RachelTensions tagged it with {{Di-replaceable non-free use}} and reverted my edit. I'm seeking a neutral second opinion to confirm whether the current usage does meet fair use under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. If not, what should be done.

Thanks in advance! -- Cipher Nox (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cipher Nox The requirement of WP:NFCC#1 is that it's not possible for someone to create a free image, not that it's difficult or inconvenient. To use non-free images of living persons really needs to show it's exceptionally difficult to create a free image. If Professor Youcef-Toumi was a renown recluse then it would be slightly easier to establish fair use for criterion #1 but this seems a run of the mill situation where there's nothing to show that obtaining a free image isn't possible. Nthep (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Nthep. I still think the current standards for replaceability under NFCC#1 are pretty unrealistic in cases like this...but I get that the policy's strict and it is what it is.

I've removed the dispute and the file per your guidance. Appreciate you taking the time to respond. -- Cipher Nox (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cipher Nox You can attempt to contact the article subject and point him to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Some people like the idea. Also, if this video [1] is with the right person, it's uploaded as [2], and you can use a screenshot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's actually helpful, I appreciate the constructive reply.

I'll look into contacting him through MIT and see if he'd be open to releasing a freely licensed image. The video option might work too if the license checks out which I'll dig into that and see if it's viable.

Either way, thanks for pointing me in a better direction! -- Cipher Nox (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cipher Nox You can see it's a Commons-acceptable license a Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses. File:Christopher Mellon, 2021.jpg is an example. But since I've never heard of Kamal Youcef-Toumi before, I don't know if this is the droid you're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy in the video is really him. He is the director of the MIT Mechatronics Research Laboratory (MRL). -- Cipher Nox (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You know, I think I read that somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's here (link), where I got the picture from before deletion. -- Cipher Nox (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of the WP-article. ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Real Sociedad B

Hi!

Recently, JJMC89 bot removed the logo of Real Sociedad from the Real Sociedad B page.

The Real Sociedad B team uses the Real Sociedad shield (see: Squad with the shield Coach with the shield Player with the shield), so why can't the article use the shield under free use? Earth605 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Earth605. One of the tasks assigned to JJMC89 bot is to find non-free files that violate non-free content use criterion #9 and non-free content use criterion #10c. In this case, the bot seems to have removed the file you added to the B team's page because you did so without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale for that use to the file's page: this is why the bot left an edit summary linking to WP:NFC#Implementation. The bot will keep removing the file from that article as long as there's no corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use. So, if you add the missing non-free use rationale to the file's page and then re-add the file, the bot should leave it be. However, there are also non-free content use policy issues associated with this type of non-free use that go beyond criterion #10c. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive by design, way more restrictive than fair use (which is what I think you meant by free use). Wikipedia's non-free content use poicy really encourages to keep non-free use to a minimum as much as we can. When it comes to professional sport B teams, the default is generally not to allow the use of the main team's (i.e., the A team's) logo because a B team is considered to be a child entity per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the B team has its own unique branding/logo, then using that tends to be fine; simply reusing the A team's logo (even if the B team is using it), on the other head, tends to not be considered compliant with relevant Wikipedia's policy. So, even though adding the missing non-free use rationale should stop the bot, criterion #10c is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met and another user could still challenge the non-free use. If you'd like some more details about this, you can ask at WT:NFCC. You can also start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD and seek a consensus in favor of the file's use in the B team's article. For reference, the team's logo seems to have been added to the article several times over the years and subsequentky removed each time; sometimes, it was removed by the bot for citerion #10c reasons, but it was also removed by a Wikipedia administrator named Hammersoft here in September 2022 for NFC#UUI #17 reasons. You can ask Hammersoft about this on their user talk if you want, but I'm pretty sure they'll just give you pretty much the same answer as I gave above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not like I am hyperfixated in getting through the image; as per compliance policy guideline I guess I will not be going forward with this. Earth605 (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Peter Sallis arrives on the red carpet.jpeg

This image, uploaded by someone else, was taken from a stock photo image website, Getty Images. It's without the usual watermarks for the free versions, so it seems like the image uploader bought it and put it on this site. What is the policy for this sort of thing? It seems somewhat sketchy to do, even if the image is at a lower quality. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Harryhenry1 I've deleted it. Per WP:NFCCE, non-free images from commercial sources which are not the subject of sourced commentary (WP:NFCC#8) are deleted under WP:F7 for having an invalid rationale. Nthep (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

British sitcom

Recently, JJMC89 bot removed all (in one edit) all the images from British sitcom as essential illustrations where the subjects are described in significant depth and where the images are are also used in their parent articles under free use. I am aware of non-free content use criterion #9 and non-free content use criterion #10c but it is possible that the original uploader did not use the appropriate licencing template(s). Our copyright rules are complexx, even for an experienced user like myself, Could I have some help on this please before I continue to illustrate some of the more important sections of the article. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kudpung firstly they are failing WP:NFCC#10c which requires each use of a non-free image to have its own separate rationale. That's the direct reason the bot removed them from British sitcom.

The more complex issue is that even if the above minor technical issue is fixed is the subjective issue of do the images provide contextual significance as required by WP:NFCC#8 or is there use in British sitcom just decorative?

The argument against inclusion is that if a reader wants to know what Tony Hancock, for example, looked like, they can click through to read the article about him where the image does provide contextual significance about Hancock. An image of Hancock in an article about sitcoms does not add to the reader's understanding of sitcoms.

An argument for inclusion is that the images provide context about the breadth of UK sitcoms but this would need support from reliable sources (multiple non-free images in an article also start to raise issues about WP:NFCC#3a).

NFCC#8 discussions have raged for the best part of 20 years - see Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate and the links there from.

My suggestion would be to try and come up with one or two that can, or preferably have been, described in RS as truly representative of British sitcom and work out a rationale for those and abandon efforts for the rest. Nthep (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nthep Thank you so much for this reply, I certainly know now how to address these issues. Not every one of the many sitcoms in the article is expected to carry any illustrations but every entry is faithfully sourced and because the article is more recent the sources are very often better than those in the parent articles. The article is not an anthology of British sitcom but is intended to be a thread how the genre became so successful before it tailed off into the new concepts in British sitcom after about the first decade of this century. What other editors have since, I obviously can't answer for but if anything is reverted it's probably justified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kudpung: While I'm sure you meant well, just adding a non-free use rationale for "British sitcom" to the file's page for File:On the Buses cast.jpg doesn't make it policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. I kind of agree with what Nthep posted above in that there's not really much need for non-free images to be used in a broader type of article about British sitcoms (which is essentially a list article) per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS when the same non-free image can be found used in a stand-alone article about On the Buses#Cast and characters itself. Adding the rationale will stop the bot, but I think you'll have a hard time establishing a consensus for such use if it ends up being challenged. It basically looks like all you did was copy and paste the rationale for On the Buses and just replace the article parameter with "British sitcom". You're going to need, at least in my opinion, to provide a much stronger justification for that additional non-free use than try a repeat the same justification for the main stand-alone article about the show, particularly if the file ends up being discussed at WP:FFD. It looks you also tried to do something similar for File:Aybs1981.jpg, but you didn't really add a seperate specific rationale for the file's use in "British sitcom"; instead it looks like you tried to create combo rationale (one rationale for two uses) which not really in accordance with WP:NFCC#10c and will most likely continue to removed by JJMC89's bot as a 10#c violation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for that valuable response, it's an excellent. adjunct to Nthep answer.I was of course meaning well, but rather than wade through walls of text of copright PaGs, I was just just testing empirically what might stick and what wouldn't before adding any more images. Thanks for the heads up about list articles - I've made some list articles too on other topics - so I'll watch out for images that might be challenged, especially if I go for GA on any of them. Thanks again! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Norman Frederick Astbury - Copyright query on image of BCRA Penkhull Historical Headquarters with kind permission of Lucideon

Both the building in the image and the image itself are now owned by Lucideon. I therefore wrote to Lucideon and asked if I could use the image. This was my request and their reply:

‘FORMER BCRA PENKHULL HEAD QUARTERS

Please may I use and attribute the attached photo from the Lucideon website as one of the images in the eventual Wikipedia entry?

Yes, you are welcome to use the photo from the Lucideon website. Please include in the attribution that the photograph is used with permission from Lucideon.’

Please can you let me know what further action I need to take in order to be compliant with Wikipedia’s rules.

Many thanks

Kestrel2Zero (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Kestrel2Zero

Photo tagged as fair use for infobox identification fair game if the only alternative is an illustration?

Hi! Just checking on something. So I'm working on the article for Marie Vieux-Chauvet. The article currently uses a photo of Chauvet in the infobox for identification. From what I can tell, the fair use rationale is probably correct that there are no CC or PD photos of Chauvet. However, there is an illustrated portrait of her uploaded by a user on Commons. I believe this picture is used as the infobox image on some non-English wikis. Would the existence of this portrait null the fair use justification per WP:NFCCP? Or would only another photo be considered as a free alternative for infobox identification purposes? Spookyaki (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a non-free photograph of a deceased person isn't going to be considered replaceable with a contemporary freely licensed drawing. Artwork made during that person's lifetime might be suitable, but the community here hasn't really embraced the idea of creating our own replacement images in this way. Most of the projects where that portrait appears simply don't allow the use of non-free images. hinnk (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Indonesian copyright template nonexistent

I've uploaded a photo to Wikipedia (File:Oslan Husein Gadih Lambah.png) with its copyright expired in Indonesia (older than 50 years), but there's no suitable tag to mark it. In Wikimedia Commons, the template is Template:PD-IDOld-Art59, but it doesn't exist over in Wikipedia, nor an equivalent to it. Is there a reasoning behind this or has it not been made yet? Zayn Kauthar (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What's the status of the image in the U.S.? If the image was first published in Indonesia in the 1950s/1960s and was under copyright there for 50 years, then it's probably under copyright in the U.S., in which case you can use a non-free licensing tag with {{Non-free Old-50}}. hinnk (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

From what I could find, the album is definitely from around 1950s to 1960s as he stopped making music in early 1970s. Thanks for the help! Zayn Kauthar (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Zayn Kauthar I think my phrasing was ambiguous, but {{Non-free Old-50}} shouldn't be used on its own. Make sure to add one of the tags at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free along with a non-free use rationale, or one of the bots is likely to flag it again. hinnk (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, if that's the case, what should be used?

The image attached is taken from the back of an album and the singer has passed away in 1972, most of the pictures of him are of ambiguious copyright status or has been reused for commercial purposes, would {{Non-free biog-pic}} be suited for it? Zayn Kauthar (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that'd work, and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} can be used to create the rationale (see the first example in the Usage section). hinnk (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the help! Zayn Kauthar (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)