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)

Seeking Advice on How (and where) to Upload a Photo

This is the first time I'm trying to upload a photo that will later be on a Wikipedia page. I'm working on the following 2 pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Sr. (deceased)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Jr. (living)

There is a photo on the web for each of these people, on the following links:

Sr (the photo below the header, on the right): https://www.hbs.edu/about/campus-and-culture/campus-built-on-philanthropy/loeb-house

Jr (the photo on the left, with arms crossed): https://www.gwirf.org/ambassador-john-l-loeb-jr/

- In these cases, do I download the photo from each of these URLs and then upload it? - Do I upload (or reference) the photo to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia? - How can I tell or verify what the copyright / licensing is for each of these photos? - What type of copyright / licensing is necessary to upload and use photos for these pages? - Note: I am consulting for the Loeb family and have a COI, so I know that I need to submit an Edit Request for updates to these pages. Do I need to do the same or similar to upload the photos? - Any other advice or details of the steps to eventually add a photo to each of the pages above would be much appreciated.

Mybestwords (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mybestwords: Pretty much any photo you find online is going to be assumed to be protected by copyright under a license that's too restrictive for Wikipedia of Commons purposes unless its copyright holder clearly states otherwise. The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the person who took it, and only that person, in principle, can release their photos under a copyright license that is free-enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Everything else is going to be considered to be non-free content. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type as explained in c:COM:FAIR; so, anything you want to upload to Commons is going to clearly need to satisfy c:COM:L. Wikipedia does allow non-free content to be uploaded, but only if it satisfies WP:NFCC. The NFCC is quite restrictive and pretty much doesn't allow photos of a living person to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia; so, most likely any photo of John Langeloth Loeb Jr. is going to need to be either one that's already within the public domain (i.e., one that's no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason or never was eligible for copyright protection) for it to be OK to use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does allow non-free photos of deceased persons to be used as long as the photo's use satisfies the NFCC, which is why there already is a non-free photo of John Langeloth Loeb Sr. being used in that article. There's really no way to justify two non-free photos of Loeb Sr. in that article so bascially the best you could do is replace the current one used in the main infobox with the one found on the website you linked to above. Since this means the other image will end up being deleted, you may need to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to replace the image if someone disagrees with you replacing it. You can propose replacing the image on the article's talk page if you want.

Many photos found online (particularly older pre-Internet Era ones) typically came from somewhere/someone else; so, the person operating the website is not very likely to be the original copyright holder of the photo. Finding who is can be difficult when the website doesn't provide any information on the provenance of the photo. You can try contacting whoever runs the website to see whether they can provide you with more information about the photo you're interested in. You can also try a reverse image search to see whether you can either find the origin source for the image yourself or another instance of it being used somewhere online or in print which provides more information about its provenance. Since you've stated you're working on behalf of the Loeb family, you might simply ask the family for a photo along the lines of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or maybe even Wikipedia:A picture of you. Wikipedia is always going to prefer freely-licensed or public domain images over non-free ones; moreover, such images are better off uploaded to Commons because it makes them much easier for all Wikimedia Foundation projects to use. For information on how to upload images, take a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images and c:Commons:Upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your detailed reply! I have been in touch with our client and it looks like they are trying to make some updates. Mybestwords (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don't know exactly how you're affiliated with this person, but depending how that is, you could photograph him. Then you would be the copyright holder of that photograph and could certainly choose to release it under a free license. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mybestwords: If it looks like they are trying to make some updates means they're trying to upload images they are the copyright holder of, then great. They can upload the images to Commons themselves as long as they do so in accordance with c:COM:L. On the other hand, if it means they're trying to upload images that someone else is the copyright holder of, they should get the copyright holder's c:COM:CONSENT before uploading anything. Doing so will reduce the risk of the image being nominated for deletion, which sometimes happens can happen quite quickly if someone notices the image shortly after it has been uploaded. If, by chance, you mean they are intending to upload the image as non-free content, I wouldn't advise they do so because Wikipedia's non-free content policy is quite restrictive and a bit hard to understand even for experienced users. In that case, they might want to ask for someone else to do it for them at WP:FFU. Finally, if what they're trying to do is not limited to images but also involves updating the text of articles, I suggest they don't try to do that at all. If that's really the case, you probably should explain WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:BLPSELF and WP:OWN to them. You need to make sure they understand that even though there might be a Wikipedia article written about them (or someone related to them), they have pretty much zero editorial control over it. All content is going to be expected to be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not based on what they might want. There are means in place to help COI editors sort out any issues they might have with what's written about them on Wikipedia, and they should make use of them as much as possible because it will make things easier for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly - Thanks for your detailed reply. It looks like they (Jllassociates) have uploaded the photo (JLL 052 father.jpg) to Wikimedia Commons with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license and then they have added the photo to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Sr. I have informed one of my client's team members about the COI requirements and that with the COI that they would need to post Edit Requests to make text updates. Mybestwords (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mybestwords and Seraphimblade: I have a few questions about the copyright status of the uploaded image c:File:JLL_052_father.jpg as the subject died in 1996 and looks like it is just a copy of an old photo that was likely taken before the 1980s. It is much older than the date given which is dated 28 years after his death. It was certainly not taken on the date given and who actually took the photo? ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: - Good question about the photo. I was not in the loop on this latest update. Would it be possible to be in touch with @Jllassociates who seems to have made the update? (I don't actually know who that is.) Or, if there is an additional update to the photo that needs to be made, if you would describe it, I can send an email to my contact on my client's team. (who may know who @Jllassociates is.) Mybestwords (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mybestwords: Since all Wikipedia and Commons editors are Wikipedia:Volunteers, it's unlikely anyone is going to try to contact Jllassociates regarding anything happening on Wikipedia or Commons other than by posting on their account's user talk page. If you, however, want to try emailing them yourself, you may of course; just make sure they don't mistake you as being a representative of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyway, what Jllassociates needs to understand is it's the person who takes a photo who is typically considered to be the copyright holder of said photo, and it's only that person who can release their photo under the type of license that Jllassociates used when uploading the photo. In some cases when it's kind of obvious that someone has indeed uploaded their c:Commons:Own work, usually taking the word of the uploader that it is their own photo tends to be sufficient for Commons. However, in cases where it appears that someone has uploaded a photo taken by someone else (which seems to be the case here as ww2censor points out), then Commons tends to require a formal verification of the copyright license. In most cases, this can be done by email as explained in c:Commons:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? or c:Commons:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. If Commons is unable to verify the true provenance of the photo so that it's copyright status can be properly assessed, the photo is likely going to end up deleted per c:Commons:Precautionary principle. Morever, while others might try to help sort out a photo's copyright status, the burden of proof typically falls on the person uploading the photo as explained in c:Commons:Evidence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly - Thanks for your detailed reply. I don't know who Jllassociates is but I can contact someone on John L. Loeb Jr.'s staff who likely knows. I see the the photo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Sr. page has reverted to the photo of John L. Loeb Jr. (as it appeared before), so the update of the photo of John L. Loeb Sr. was not accepted. (As you prediected.) I really appreciate all the details you provided. Mybestwords (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

FOP and File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg and File:Original Dedication Plaque for the Receiver Statue.jpg

There is some confusion over whether File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg and File:Original Dedication Plaque for the Receiver Statue.jpg should be on the Commons because of no FOP for statues in the USA. I nominated both for deletion, but the file's creator argues they should be kept at the Commons, because there was no copyright notice filed within 5 years since the statue's publication (1985). However File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg was apparently repainted and rededicated in 2013 after an NFL player. Additionally although the top of Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#General_rules says "[a]nything published in or after 1978 but before March 1, 1989 with no copyright notice is in the public domain unless the work's copyright was registered within 5 years of the work's initial publication", Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks_and_sculptures does not mention 1978 to 1989 and says only "For public artwork installed between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, use {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}." Any light, not heat? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The same rule would apply between 1978 and 1989, you just had an extra 5 year window to repair it so you have to check the copyright logs. I'm not sure how the repainting would affect it. I guess it depends on how different it looks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Woodstock 94 mud pit.jpg

File:Woodstock 94 mud pit.jpg Can someone explain the reason for this file being nominated for deletion? The article, and that paragraph in particular discuss "Mudstock", and on the Woodstock '94 page there is no free alternative, nor is there any image depicting the festival itself. Thanks. Michael0986 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Michael0986, from looking at the nomination the point of contention is whether the image meets WP:NFCC#2. The gist is that the commercial role of a photograph from a press agency is that they can sell their material for use in other publications. Since we haven't paid for a license to use their images, using these agencies' work in a Wikipedia article may infringe on their ability to exploit it, unless our use is transformative. As an extreme example, the Raising the Flag at Ground Zero article is transformative because the use is not to illustrate the event, but to comment on that specific image.

The current non-fair use rationale for File:Woodstock 94 mud pit.jpg looks like it may have WP:NFCC#2 and NP#NFCC#3 switched, and the statement about "identify[ing] the subject in the article" isn't quite right, since the image being used to identify the subject is File:Woodstock '94 poster.jpg up in the infobox. If you think the image is suitable for use in the article, the next steps would be to update the rationale and either add the type of sourced commentary mentioned in UUI #7 or discuss on the file's talk page. I hope this helps! hinnk (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What would be the best way to update the rationale in this particular image, if you don't mind offering assistance? This isn't my area of expertise unfortunately. The image I think is pretty constructive to the page itself. Thanks. Michael0986 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

So, different editors may have different interpretations of whether the image will meet the requirements, but my own opinion is that the current usage doesn't actually meet the WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFCC#2 requirements. Updating the rationale alone wouldn't address the issue (again, just my take).

For a press agency photo like this, what I would be looking for in the Woodstock '94 article is the sort of standard described in {{Non-free historic image}}. Some kind of discussion in the article where that specific image is relevant, and not another photo of the same topic. If this is a uniquely recognizable image of the event, enough that discussion of it would be merited, then adding that to the article and noting that in the rationale would make sense to me. Otherwise, you can explain the image's role using the "Commercial" parameter and leave a brief comment on the talk page if you think you've addressed the issue, but if the reviewing admin decides it not to delete under the F7 criterion, the nominator may decide to go through the Files for discussion process to seek a consensus. hinnk (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight and advice, I appreciate it. Michael0986 (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

File:The Trial of Madame X film frame (1955).jpg

This image was removed by User:JJMC89 bot from the article Mary Taviner, with the explanation "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid WP:Non-free use rationale guideline for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation.

I cannot see where the problem lies. Can someone explain which non-free content criteria need attention to fix the problem? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masato.harada every separate use of a non-free image needs its own rationale (WP:NFCC#10c). File:The Trial of Madame X film frame (1955).jpg only has a rationale for use in the article The Trial of Madame X. If you want to use the image elsewhere, such as Mary Taviner then you need to add a new rationale for that use. As the article on Taviner already contains a free image of her (File:Mary Taviner in about 1939.jpg) then you are going to pretty much automatically fail WP:NFCC#1. Nthep (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masato.harada: What Nthep has posted above is true; it's going to be really hard to justify the use of any non-free image of Trainer given that you were able to find a freely licensed image of her and upload it ot Commons as File:Mary Taviner in about 1939.jpg. Now, I've asked about the Commons file at c:COM:VPC#File:Mary Taviner in about 1939.jpg because it's not clear why you're claiming the photo is both {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{cc-by-4.0}} since that seems to be contradictory. A photo which has entered into the public domain shouldn't, in principle, really be still eligible for copyright protection (i.e. licensed as "cc-by-4.0") if it's a slavish reproduction. Perhaps you could clarify why you added both licenses? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masato.harada#c-Marchjuly-20250705195300-Discussion_at_COM:VPC#File:Mary_Taviner_in_about_1939.jpg. Masato.harada (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Mego Acroyear Red Number 1.jpg

I'm wondering how others might assess File:Mego Acroyear Red Number 1.jpg in terms of c:COM:TOYS. It seems that even uploaded locally to Wikipedia, this photo could be considered a derivative work and could need a non-free license and non-free use rationale for the photographed action figure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is a photo of a toy an issue? I am the photographer. I grant Wikipedia free use of said image. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Giacomo1968: Under US copyright law, a toy can be eligible for copyright protection due to its design (physical appearance), and that copyright would be held by the toy's designer/manufacturer; so, while you are the copyright holder of the photo you took, you're not the copyright holder of the toy itself unless you're claiming to be its designer/manufacturer. If the toy is protected by copyright, your photo would be a WP:Derivative work (see also c:COM:DW) in which there are two copyrights to be considered: the one for the photo and the one for the photgraphed toy. Wikipedia's licensing requirements require that both copyrights meet WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files for the file to be treated as free content; otherwise, it would need to be treated as non-free content and, thus, be subject to Wikiepdia's non-free content use policy. Finally, regarding I grant Wikipedia free use of said image, this is true and not true at the same time. The license you've release your photo under doesn't just apply to Wikipedia; it basically is giving anyone anywhere in the world permission to download the photo from Wikipedia at anytime and then reuse the photo anyway they choose as long as the comply with the terms of the license. This one of if not the main reason why photographing someone else copyrighted work and then uploading the photo to Wikipedia often runs into problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I also now realize that I licensed this photo under CC 3.0 so I stand corrected. Thank you for taking the time to explain the potential issues. --22:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hamilton LRT logo and logo recreations

I have just uploaded File:Hamilton_LRT_Logo.jpg as a non-free logo under Canadian Crown Copyright. However, I then went back and noticed both logos on Metrolinx and GO Transit are PD-licensed recreations. I would like to understand under what circumstances a recreation is acceptable, and whether a recreation or the original under Template:PD-textlogo would be more appropriate. I intend to use the file as the infobox image on Hamilton LRT, as well as in the proposed routes table on HSR Next (page overhaul in the works). Thank you in advance! JaredTamana (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

File:The Ren & Stimpy Show - Happy Happy Joy Joy scene.webm

I uploaded File:The Ren & Stimpy Show - Happy Happy Joy Joy scene.webm almost five months ago under Non-free video sample to use on the articles "Stimpy's Invention" and The Ren & Stimpy Show. As I'm on my GA review for "Stimpy's Invention", reviewer Rollinginhisgrave wants me to report the file to ask you if it's an okay non-free media use, considering it to be "really long". It's a minute and 33 seconds and documents the whole Happy Happy Joy Joy scene, so should I keep it in its original intent, or cut it down? RTSthestardust (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It should 100% be removed from The Ren & Stimpy Show. In that article, it is not even mentioned in the article text. WP:NFCC#8 says we only use non-free content where "its omission would be detrimental" to understanding the topic. If Happy Happy, Joy Joy isn't even mentioned in the article at all, then I don't see any way that a video of it is essential for your understanding of the topic. I'm not a tremendous fan of including it in Stimpy's Invention either because, what encyclopedic purpose could not be served with an external link to a licensed Youtube page, say, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wog-z_Esnw4 - which would not require any fair use at all? But I realize I'm probably going to be in the minority on this view. --B (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

File:RM-RPWP-Documentary.jpg

Hi , i am editing the page RM: Right People, Wrong Place which is a documentary film and the Fair use image (File:RM-RPWP-Documentary.jpg) in question is poster for the same. I would like to understand why the bot would remove the image when it is the only possible poster available and it is not being used in any other irrelevant artice Jnc xavier (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jnc xavier Seems like you figured it out:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thank you. Jnc xavier (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Help with copyright tags for logos

I need help with properly tagging File:DVD-Download Logo.png & File:DVD-Download DL Logo.png. These are the first logos I've uploaded, and I'm having trouble wading through all the documentation on templates.

Similar existing logos File:DVD_logo.svg & File:DVD-Video Logo.svg are on Commons. —danhash (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Logos consisting of text and simple shapes are generally ineligible for US copyright protection (examples at Commons:TOO). So these are in the public domain, and can be marked with the generic {{PD}} as {{PD|Reason this is in the public domain}}. Or in this case you can use the more specific {{PD-textlogo}} which gives a helpful little explanatory message.

Since these are unambiguously public domain, I've tagged them and moved them to Commons where other projects can use them as well. If you have time to add short image descriptions to each page, that would help future users.

As to wading through all the documentation, apologies that our copyright documentation is hostile to the uninitiated. If you point me towards whatever documentation you saw, I'll make an effort to clarify it. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Sebele II 1918.png

Could someone double check if the non-free use at File:Sebele II 1918.png is the best way to describe its copyright status? It's from 1918, but I don't know the author or the publication date. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Where's Shelly?

So, here's an interesting case, I was thinking on uploading a picture of Shelly Miscavige under NFFC.

(Photo credited by Claudio and Renata Lugli, first published in Vanity Fair's March 2014 Issue: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/03/shelly-miscavige-scientology-queen-de-throned https://people.com/what-to-know-shelly-miscavige-wife-scientology-leader-david-7555506) This is one of the very rare photographs that we have of her, other Google searches have a low quality picture of her with Leah Remini and others seem to be of the same Lugli photoshoot.

By all intents and purposes the Wikipedia article considers her as a "dissapeared" person, (she also appears in the List of People who Dissapeared Mysteriously). I think this could be similar to Fair Use rationales that we cannot obtain photographs of confirmed missing persons, deceased people or people in custody. She's not confirmed dissapeared, not in custody nor dead but she's been out of the public eye since 2007. I think it fills out all the requirements since the subject has not been seen since 2007 (18 years ago), the last time a Non-Scientology source confirmed she was alive (by the LAPD) was in 2013, and Scientology has not published (and denied to publish) any recent photographs of her. I know the Fair Use rationale is not used for living people but I think this could be a different case. Let me know your opinions about this.

TLDR: Can we upload pictures of notable people who have been out of the public eye for a long time (And/or considered dissapeared) and photographs of them are very rare, under the Fair Use rationale? Hyperba21 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This falls into a bit of a grey area around the non-free content policy. As you alluded to, in almost all articles of living people non-free images shouldn't be used to identify the subject of the article. However, there has been consensus in a small number of cases to make some an exception, for example when the person is expected to be incarcerated for the rest of their life. I think there's a good chance that a similar consensus would exist here, given the circumstances described in the article.

If you decide to add the image, I'd suggest making sure the non-free use rationale includes a clear explanation of why it isn't replaceable. Since photographs of living people are usually not suitable, it'll be important that other editors see that there are additional considerations here. hinnk (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can, making your best non-free use rationale. If someone disagrees and nominate it for deletion, we'll see what happens. Per WP:BDP, lacking sources saying she's most probably dead, WP will consider her alive until YOB + 115. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Someone being out of the public eye for a long time by choice probably wouldn't be considered a sufficient justification for non-free unless there was significant coverage of that fact in reliable sources; even in that case, though, it could depend on whether the individual's physical appearance was relevant encyclopedically to the article. Being long-termed incarerated or long-term missing (maybe even presummed dead) does, however, tend to be given consideration when it comes to WP:FREER; this might seem a bit odd perhaps, but such things seem to be less of someone doing something by choice and more of something happening to them. The fact that other outlets might be using the same photo isn't really relevant to Wikipedia per se since Wikipedia doesn't need to do what they do. Simiarly, if a freely-licensed image of this person can be found (even if inferior in quality), it will tend to be preferred over this or any other non-free one per WP:FREER. You will also need to be aware of WP:GETTY and WP:F7 because if the photographer who took the Vanity Fair photo you linked to above is using Getty or another image agency to take advantage of any commericial opportunities their photo might provide, that adds another NFCC issue that might need to be resolved. Lastly, it's important to understand that fair use and non-free use aren't really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and this policy is, by design, more restricitive than fair use. There would be no problem using this strictly as fair use, which is why other websites do so; those websites, though, don't need to worry about Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC); post edited to change "do" in the last sentence to "don't" per below. -- 11:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Did you mean "those websites, though, do not need to worry about Wikipedia policy." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did, Thanks for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

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)