Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Older archives Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, so I decided to remove the borders off of some of the images from Category:Images with borders. After uploading one of them and replacing the "remove border" tag with the "orphaned non-free revisions" tag, I got a notice saying that I needed to provide the information for the image (e.g., File:Bentley Beetham, 1964.jpg). However, all the information pertaining to the image's original location is the same; I just cropped out the image a bit. Is it okay if I continue to remove the borders this way, or not? — Alex26337 ^(talk) 11:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the high quality version since it is public domain now will someone move the file name since 1964 is clearly not right ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆ 17:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bannon interviews Jeffrey Epstein, 2019 (link removed per request, but various hosts are findable via a search). For use with {{external media}} so the video itself doesn't need to be libre, just hosted in a context that wouldn't violate WP:ELNO. — Arlo James Barnes 22:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arlo Barnes: You shouldn't really be adding links to the YT video to any Wikipedia pages per WP:COPYLINK if you're worried that its a copyright violation. As for an "official source", you might have to find it on an official site run by Steve Bannon since I'm assuning he most likely is the copyright holder of the interview as he's the one who conducted the interview. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed that MCQ would be an exception since there are various nonfree media discussed here which enwiki can only use with an NFUR; but I'll remove it. I doubt Bannon is hosting his own version given the situation of the video's release as part of the Epstein files; or if he is I haven't been able to find it. Arlo James Barnes 21:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would this fall under pd-text? —Opecuted (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} I suspect - that setup might be copyrightable from an UK perspective, but definitively not the US one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that, and have applied the PD-ineligible-USonly licence tag. (Declaring it uncopyrightable in the UK, by contrast, would seem to be a fact-based inquiry into whether the arrangement and choice of colour and font were artistically original...which is a fairly subjective standard. My inclination is that it was probably not intended to convey a figurative meaning, but rather to look nice on a website, but I don't feel like it's especially important to be sure.) TheFeds 03:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to upload [1] (or similar) to Wikipedia for use in a article I wish to draft, however I am unable to reasonably find any info about copyright which makes me hesitate to upload. Any help would be appreciated thanks. Lflin16 - :) (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lflin16. Unless you yourself are the copyright holder (i.e., the creator) of that image, you probably should assume that someone else is. This means you will either need to establish that the image is either no longer or never was eligible for copyright protection and thus has entered into the public domain, or the image has been released under a type of copyright license by its creator that is free enough for Wikipedia's purposes if you want to use it in a draft. Most images of manga or comic book characters, which this kind of looks like, tend to be treated as non-free content, but non-free content isn't allowed to be used in drafts per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. My suggestion to you for now would be to focus of improving Draft:Jamie Paige, which seems to be where you want to use the image, and making sure the subject matter meets Wikipedia:Notability. You can worry about adding images once the draft has been approved as an article. Wikipedia articles aren't required to have images, and they play no part in assessing a subject's Wikipedia notability; so, trying to add images whose copyright status is unclear at this stage will most likely just result in the images getting deleted and will do nothing to helping the draft getting improved as an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the clean response. I will keep working on it and try to find if the PFP was ever sourced or anything (ie the artist gave credit). Lflin16 - :) (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a fair use rationale for a men's football team badge being used on the team's main page, should the same rationale not be used for an affiliated women's team which uses the same badge? See Chatham Town F.C. vs Chatham Town F.C. Women where the edit is reverted, compared to, say, Manchester City F.C. and Manchester City W.F.C. where it is not. In Vitrio (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In Vitrio. What you tried to do here is create sort of a "combo" non-free use rationale to cover two separate and distinct uses of File:Chatham Town FC crest.svg with a single non-free use rationale. Such a thing isn't really in accordance with non-free content use criterion #10c; this is why the bot removed the file from Chatham Town F.C. Women per WP:NFCCE and why it also provided a link to WP:NFC#Implementation when doing so. A separate, specific non-free use rationale is what Wikipedia's non-free content use policy ("non-free" and "fair use" aren't exactly the same thing in this context) requires for each use of non-free content, and this is what that particular bot has been tasked to assess. Since you didn't really do this, the bot removed the file. If you take a look at the file page for file used in the other team's articles you mentioned, you'll find that it does have such a rationale for the use in corresponding women's team's article, which is why the bot didn't remove the file from that article.

There's is, however, no automatic use for non-free content just because someone has added a non-free use rationale for a use to the file's page: a non-free use needs to meet all ten non-free content use criteria. The use of primary team/corporate/organization/whatever logos in articles about parent entities is generally considered OK per relevant policy as long as all ten of the aforementioned criterion are met, but it's generally not considered OK to use the same logo in articles about child enities per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI; this is an attempt to keep non-free use as minimal as possible and use alternatives whenever possible. In such cases, a logo specific to the child entity is preferrable to simply reusing the same parent entity logo again; if no such logo exists, not using any logo at all can still be preferable to reusing the same logo again. There has been considerable disagreement over the years as to how UUI#17 should be applied to men's and women's sports team, and whether a women's team should be treated as a "child entity" to the men's team or as a "parent entity" in its own right for all women's teams (B teams, under-XX teams, youth teams, reserve teams, etc.) within its own distinct family tree of articles. A consensus to change the policy to specifically allow the latter, however, has yet to be reached; so, the policy has remained unchanged and generally continues to, for the most part, apply as it always has been applied regarding child entities. Often things need like this need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis at WP:FFD when there's a disagreement. If the Chatham Town women's team has it's own unique branding/logo, it would be better to use that instead of the men's branding/logo. Things get a bit more complicated if it doesn't, and you may have to clearly establish that the women's team does use the same branding by adding sourced content to its article regarding its choice of branding. Perhaps when the team was established there was some media coverage of the team and its choice of branding, or perhaps the team changed its branding in recent years to be more in line with the branding of the men's team. Any sourced critical commentary you can find and add to the article about the women's team's choice of branding will strengthen the case for non-free use and reduce the chances of said use being subsequently challenged. So, adding a separate, specific non-free use rationale to the file's page should stop the bot from removing the file again, but it's doesn't automatically make the non-free use valid and doesn't mean someone won't challenge that rationale at some point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded File:The Tigress of Forli book cover.jpg a little while ago as a non-free book cover. The background image is a ~15th century painting, which is obviously public domain by now. Am I correct that the extra design elements around the title on the bottom prevent this from being freely licensed for exceeding the TOO? Thanks, ScalarFactor (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScalarFactor. The text on the cover isn't eligible for copyright protection, but I believe the graphical element in lower right corner could be and would, at least in my opinion, be a pretty close call to make, even per c:COM:TOO US; so, it might be best to play it conservative here and continue to treat the file as non-free content. FWIW, the file's non-free use in the main infobox of The Tigress of Forlì seems fine and converting the file to a less restrictive public domain license won't affect how the file is being used there. You could, I guess, ask about this at c:COM:VPC if you want to get additional feedback since Commons would be where the file should be hosted if you strongly feel the cover is really too simple to need to be treated as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only copyright-eligible element in File:Wdae957logo.webp seems to be the starburst like bit in the light blue bar at the bottom of the logo. Any opinions are whether that alone is enough to push the logo above c:COM:TOO US? If it's not, then the file can be relicensed as {{PD-logo}} and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems conceptually similar to the PD File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg (subject of copyright ruling cited at Commons). The star or flash is probably not anything more than a generic representation without a specific creative expression. It is interesting to note that File:WDAE 95.3-620 logo.png also exists, as does commons:Category:Radio station logos of Florida. TheFeds 03:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on 28 March 1915 the cargo liner Falaba was sunk by a German submarine, the U 28. One of the passengers of the ship, Lieutenant Charles Lacon from the Warwickshire Regiment has made several pictures with his own camera. Many of these photos were published three days later, on 31 March 1915 in "The Daily Mirror", and many others did it later on. Some of the images are already in the Commons, some not. Here is a link for a bunch of the published photos:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Oceanlinerporn/comments/16w188p/one_of_the_first_photographed_sinkings_rms_falaba/

Some of these images are also on Alamy, where it is to read: "Editorial use only".

My question is, whether these images are free to upload into Commons? (I guess and hope they are, but would ask beforehand.) - Andreas (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas P 15, You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC (the Commons equivalent to this noticeboard). Any photo taken and first published in the US before January 1, 1931, has already entered into the public domain under US copyright law. So, assuming the photos were also published in a US newspaper in addition to be published overseas before that date, these should be within the public domain under US copyright law without needing to worry about the copyright laws of another country. It sounds like the country of first publication is likely going to be the UK, and the copyright term for photos taken by a known author prior to June 30, 1957, under UK copyright law at that time was 70 years p.m.a. So, depending on when Lacon died, the photo could've already entered into the public domain under UK copyright law even if it wasn't published in the US before 1931. FWIW, I don't think you should be too concerned about Reddit because most likely whoever uploaded the photos there wouldn't have any valid claim of copyright authorship and just wanted to upload some cool photos. Alamy is a little bit trickier, but companies like Alamy and Getty have a history of trying to claim copyright ownerships of photos which have already entered into the public domain by stating that a new copyright is established whenever they digitalize or otherwise cleanup public domain photos. Such claims, however, has pretty much never been supported by courts in either the US or UK (see copyfraud) and Commons (i.e., the WMF) pretty much ignores them and has no problem hosting such content as long as there are no other copyright related concerns. What you do need to be careful of though when uploading images from companies like Alamy is entering into any type of contract with them in order to obtain the image because you might be agreeing to something that doesn't really have anything to do with the copyright, and you could be held accountable in some way if you violate the terms of such an agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Than it is better to avoid reddit and co. Is it a better way to download photos from other sites, and upload than into Commons? I think for example there is this article Die Versenkung der FALABA am 28. März 1915 with a lot of photographs and drawings, even with an interesting map from the log book of the German submarine. Can I all of these upload without restriction? - Andreas (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because Commons is where such images should really be uploaded if they're now considered to be within the public domain? If it turns out the files are OK for Commons, you can use c:Commons:Upload Wizard to upload them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me. I have already asked my quesiton there. Wish you a good March till July, and beyond! - Andreas (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I uploaded a non-free song sample found here: File:Snippet of Jogi by Panjabi MC.ogg. On my talk page, ImageTaggingBot referred to the audio file I uploaded as an "image" and said I didn't provide sources. I followed WP:SAMPLE correctly (I belive), provided information about authorship and copyright ownership. The page of the file seems to be similar to other untagged non-free audio sample files' pages on the English-language Wikipedia, but mine was tagged. What went wrong? Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 22:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lekritz. You might want to ask Carnildo, who operates that particular bot, about this since they probably know the most about the bot and how its set up to look for files which have source releated issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is that none of the parameters you provided is on the bot's list of template parameters that can provide source information. I've added "label" to that list, so in the future, the bot should handle it correctly. --Carnildo (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do for now? Should I only remove the Template:nchd? Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 09:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Everything looks good to me. --Carnildo (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could we enlarge File:ZX81_Sinclair_Research_advert.jpg by restoring the previous revision? It has a fair use rationale "To accompany critical commentary on Sinclair Research's marketing campaign for the ZX81, with reference to the layout, design, typography, language and purpose of this display advertisement." The article comments on benefits and value for money, using this image as an example, but that information cannot be read at this size. The article also devotes a large paragraph (and then some) to describing the advertising style exemplified here, so I think we're on firm footing in terms of critical commentary and use of the relevant portion. TheFeds 02:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]