Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    Welcome to the Media copyright questions noticeboard, a place for help with image copyright tagging, non-free content, and media-related questions. For all other questions, use Wikipedia:Questions.

    If you have a question about a specific image, link to it like this: [[:File:Example.png]] (Note the colons around the word File)

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons, questions may be directed to Common's copyright village pump.

    Click here to start a new discussion

    File:Camilla (Burney novel), spines.png

    [edit]

    I'm not sure File:Camilla (Burney novel), spines.png satisfies WP:FREER for its use in Camilla (Burney novel) because a free equivalent photo of the books' spines seems more than reasonably capable of being created to serve the same purpose as this or any other non-free photo. It's also possible that, given the book was first published in 1796, whatever copyright might've been associated with its cover art (including its spine) expired long ago so that essentially anyone could photograph the book's cover without worrying about infringing on anyone's copyright if the photograph was old enough. Anyone have any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would agree, and nominated it for deletion accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this image public domain?

    [edit]

    I would like to add this image to the article The Experiment (short story): https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-DD-00011-00045/221. It is a scan of a manuscript from the 1500s; the link has a lot more information on it. McPhail (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @McPhail I don't know of any reason why it wouldn't be pd (see for example this [1] discussion). If it was me, I'd go with it, it can always be deleted later if we're wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that is very helpful. McPhail (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    McPhail, to be more specific, in the United States, photographing or scanning a public domain 2D image generally is not creative enough to pass the threshold of originality and generate a copyright on the photograph or scan, so a photo or scan of a two-dimensional PD work is itself PD. Bridgeman v. Corel is an instructive case as that goes. However, sometimes other countries have a "sweat of the brow" doctrine which does allow copyright on such works, so if the scan or photograph was made outside the US, it may be usable on Wikipedia as PD but not eligible to be hosted on Commons (since Commons requires that the image be free in both the US and its source country). In this case, it looks like the scan was made in the UK, so it's very likely that is a consideration on it and you probably should mark it with {{Do not move to Commons}}. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or ask on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    [2]

    This is a screenshot of the front page of a website. I think it's a copyright violation but the editor who included it has challenged that assertion so I said I would check. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles like Slate (magazine), The Forward and Axios (website) have big screenshots of their front pages for years, I havent seen anyone try to remove them.
    Why do you think this specific screenshot violates WP:FAIRUSE? G13 vs G14 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of those. I would be equally concerned in those cases. Which is why I am asking at the appropriate noticeboard. I would say forcing an edit in which is contested for any reason is not best practice. In the case of a suspected copyright violation I still think you should have left it out until we got confirmation. I don't understand the urgency to put a picture into an article about a far-right propaganda magazine. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that this is cover art per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. Per upload page, "This is the cover or dustjacket of a book, the cover of a CD or video, the official release poster of a movie, or a comparable item. It will be included as that work's primary means of visual identification, at the top of the article about the book, movie, etc. in question." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, am I good to add this screenshot? G13 vs G14 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my understanding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it's a far-right site doesn't make it have different rules than any other website. And it's not like there's anything seriously offensive in the screenshot picked. Images on website articles are basically always useful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not urgent, and it seems to me that adding a leadimage like this is fairly commonly what we do in articles about websites. Sometimes we go with a logo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To understand a website it is best to see it, for the same reason as a book cover or film poster. Something identifying that cannot be explained in text, valid NFCC as a kind of cover art/front page like we do with newspapers. The website being racist does not make it any different. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting the political content changed policy, simply that I didn't understand the rush to force it in while checking whether it was a copyvio.Simonm223 (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simone223: Since the file was uploaded as non-free content (which is allowed on English Wikipedia), it's not clear why you thought it might be a copyvio. The file seems to be properly sourced and attributed to its likely copyright holder, i.e. the uploader didn't upload the file under a free license and claim it as their "own work". Anyway, perhaps you weren't aware that English Wikipedia allows copyrighted content to be uploaded and used as explained in WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. Now, whether the file's use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is an entirely different question, and you can start a discussion about it at WP:FFD if you feel it doesn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Photos on biography pages

    [edit]

    Hi, the bot is removing copyright problems but I am left confused as to why.

    I've edited the new page List of people from Glendale, California, which is meant to include a photo for each entry. An example is John Holmes (actor). The photo has a fair use rationale, and it sounds like it should be permitted for the list. Why is the bot removing it ? I appreciate being educated. DarkForest7 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @DarkForest7: WP:NFLISTS is the relevant guideline. Fair-use is context-dependent, not blanket for the image itself. You'll probably need to adjust your expectation of "include a photo for each entry", or write a very clear and convincing explanation of why it is so important to have them ("Contextual significance"). DMacks (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline is pretty clear, thank you. DarkForest7 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help adding copywright tags on my image!!!!

    [edit]

    File:AtariScreenshot.png - Wikipedia Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How about Template:Non-free software screenshot? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your help I used your reccomendation! Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Therealjacksonstephen: Non-free content (like the file you uploaded) is required to have two things for each of its uses as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation: a non-free copyright license and a separate, specific non-free use rationale. Non-free content lacking either one of these things is eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion crtierion WP:F4 or speedy deletion criterion WP:F6. While you seem to figured out the copyright license part, you still need to add a non-free use rationale to the file's page. The file's use in Atari Microsoft BASIC currently fails Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #10c. There is a bot that is tasked with looking for files failing this criterion and when it finds them it will remove them from the articles in question. The bot is somewhat capable of fixing simple errors in an existing non-free use rationale like a spelling error or a link syntax error, but it's not capable fo adding a completely new non-free use rationale to a file's page. This is the responsibility of the person uploading the file because it's assumed they understand best how the file's use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. The longer you wait to add the missing non-free use rationale to the file's page, the greater the chance that the file will be first removed (either by a bot or a human reviewer) from the article and then subsequently tagged for speedy deletion. For some reason when you added the {{Non-free software screenshot}} to the file's page, you sent the parameter |image has rationale= to |image has rationale=yes even though you hadn't also provided a non-free rationale for the file's use. I'm assuming this was just an oversight on your part (perhaps a copy-and-paste error?), and I've undone it. There is now some information available in the copyright license you added about adding a non-free use rationale, It says pretty much the same thing I posted above, but feel free to ask for additional help if you've got any questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason this wouldn't be {{PD-ineligible}} (provided that the software depicted there is freely licensed, and if not it'd be easy enough to write a simple demo program to license that way)? I don't see anything creative or artistic in the UI that would qualify it for copyright; it's just text on a colored background. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that could be the case, but I'm not sure. The screenshot itself wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection, at least not under US copyright law, but I'm not sure about the screen content itself. Is it possible it could be treated as a type of prose or computer code? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems similar to me as the UI—a "countdown" like that is such a simple and widely known program that I don't think it would pass TOO, either. It would be like someone trying to copyright Hello world. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider the possibility of this being PD as a text-only screenshot, but decided to play it safe and go with the non-free tag for now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for your help!!!!!! Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Therealjacksonstephen: As long as the file is licensed as non-free content, it needs a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each of its uses as explained above in an earlier post. The longer the file goes without said required rationale, the greater the chance it will be removed from the article it's being used in by a WP:BOT and then end up being tagged by another bot for speedy deletion per WP:F5.
    As the uploader of the file, you're, in principle, the one responsible for adding the rationale because you're expected to best know (1) the file's provenance and (2) the reason why its non-free use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.
    You can use the template {{Non-free use rationale software screenshot}} for the rationale if you want; just add the template's syntax to the file's page (go to the file's page and click "edit") and then fill in as many of the parameters as you can. If, for example, you found a screenshot someone else created somewhere online, you can add a link to the url address for that website as the |source= parameter. If you created the screenshot yourself, you can add the software version and any other relevant information related to the creation of the screenshot as the source parameter.
    Once again, the longer you wait to add the missing rationale, the greater the risk that a bot will find the file and tagged as being is violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The other stuff being discussed above about the file possibly being within the public domain because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law is not something the bots tasked to look for non-free files with issues are capable of assessing. That's the kind of thing that will be sorted out by regular (human) Wikipedians, not bots. It's also something that might take a bit of time to sort out, and bots aren't going to wait for things to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question(s) about Quaristice

    [edit]

    Hi there! I've been working heavily on the article for Autechre's 2008 album Quaristice and I have a couple of questions regarding its artwork:

    - Would the cover of the album meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? While Autechre and Warp are based within the UK, some of their covers have been uploaded to Commons due to this threshold (particularly NTS Sessions 1–4; see here). The cover art for Quaristice (see here) is a variety of scattered text on a blue background with a white square near the bottom. If it can be uploaded to Commons, it means I can replace the low quality JPEG version of the cover originally uploaded in 2007.

    - Would the artwork for the album's tracks meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? Almost all of the track artwork used for Quaristice are made up of simple squares (see this and this for some examples; all of them follow this trend). If possible, I'd like to upload a couple to Commons and talk about the album's artwork in a dedicated section.

    Thank you for any help you can provide! Rambley (talk / contribs) 11:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sometimes these discussions don't really produce any meaningful commentary. My advice, if you believe you can argue for {{PD-text-logo}} for this album cover is to go ahead and upload it. Then either nominate it for deletion yourself, explaining you uploaded it and want someone to decide whether to keep it, or wait for someone else to nominate it. Nard the Bard (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pl. confirm usage of File:My Choice (film).jpg

    [edit]

    Since I wish to nominate the new article My Choice (film) created by me to WP:DYK, I wish to get confirm film poster image added by another user under fair use rational is okay enough.

    The other user seems to be well versed with films related articles, but I am myself not as much well versed. To avoid any issues at during DYK process I prefer such usage being confirmed at this help/ discussion page. Bookku (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonnie and Clyde pictures

    [edit]

    Hi, Many pictures of Bonnie and Clyde have been nominated for deletion. All pictures from the Joplin film may be deleted. Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bonnie and Clyde fooling around Getty 514872400.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Serbia

    [edit]

    Why I can't add File:Srpska radikalna stranka flag.svg (flag of Serbian Radical Party) and File:Serbian Party Oathkeepers logo.svg (logo of Serbian Party Oathkeepers) in 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests article? Is there any way to add? Nguyenduong2601 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's because I uploaded both files as non-free files as they are not eligible to be on Commons. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nguyenduong2601. To expand on the answer Vacant0 gave above, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive by intent, and this policy encourages us to keep non-free content use as minimal as possible. Since those two particular flags are uploaded as non-free content, each of their uses needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria for it to be considered accpetable. The bot that removed the file did so because neither file had a non-free use rationale for its use in 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests as required by non-free content use criterion #10c; so, the bot removed files per WP:NFCCE and left a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in its edit summary to explain why. In prinicple, adding a separate, specific non-free use rationale to each file's page for the desired article should stop the bot from removing the file again. As I posted above, though, there are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of non-free content need to satisfy. So, while adding the missing rationales for files' uses in "2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests" will resolve the issues with criterion #10c, there are several of the other remaining nine criteria (non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #8) that would has issues.
    Wikipedia's policy tends to only allow the use of non-free flags and logos such as these in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the organization the flag or logo represents; this is why it seems OK to use the flags in the "Serbian Radical Party" and "Serbian Party Oathkeepers". Wikipedia policy, however, doesn't really permit the use of non-free flags or logos as MOS:FLAGICONS because such use is considered to be very WP:DECORATIVE and not meeting WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS (see also MOS:DECOR and MOS:LOGO) in nearly all cases. In other words, there's no real encyclopedic need to use non-free content in such a way that would comply with relevant policy. Of course, criterion #1 and criterion #8 are the kind of things the bot that removed the file isn't capable of assessing; so, it will stop if it you add the missing rationales to the files' pages. I can't, however, see any way to justify the way you wish to use the files in that article, though, and it's very unlikely you'll be able to establish a consensus in favor of doing so if the files were discussed at WP:FFD. In cases like this, some people are able to create representative images of flags and logos which look close enough to be used in infoboxes as "flag icons" instead of non-free files but simple enough to avoid being treated as non-free content themselves. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology to see whether someone from that WikiProject might want to try making one that could be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Diagram

    [edit]

    There's a diagram in an journal article I would like to include on Wikipedia in some fashion, but I understand that it might be copyrighted by the journal and that the WP:FUC may not apply here given that an alternative diagram "could be created" (WP:NFCCP#1). For reference, the figure is Figure 4 in this article. Thanks, Katzrockso (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    I am trying to upload an image onto a web page.

    A message from Wikipedia says that I have to declare its copyright status.

    It is a photo I have taken myself.

    Where do I declare that it is my own image? I can't see anywhere on the web pages to write this. Sartzbird (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sartzbird: There's some general information about this in Wikipedia:A picture of you and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. As long as you took the photo yourself, what you photgraphed doesn't contain any potentially copyright-protected elements created by someone else (i.e. it's not considered a derivative work), and you're willing to release it under an acceptable free license, you should be OK in uploading the photo to Wikimedia Commons instead of locally to Wikipedia as explained in c:COM:UPLOAD and WP:UPI. AS to where you can declare the image's copyright status, if the image has been previously published (e.g. posted on social media), you could try c:COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary and "license" the image at the point of previous publication. If you're not able to do that, you could upload the image and then send a WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT for uploads to Wikimedia Commons) email to Wikimedia VRT for verification purposes. If the image has not yet been published anywhere, you could upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and use the VRT release generator for verification purposes.
    Finally, one thing to try and remember is that uploading a photo with an appropriate free copyright license does tend to make it easier to use on Wikipedia, but it doesn't guarantee it will be used. Encylopedic concerns and copyright concerns can be different, and (like text content) different Wikipedians might not always agree on the encyclopedic value of using an image in a particular way. Disagreements of images sometimes need to be resolved through WP:CONSENSUS building when copyright isn't of much concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1319287568"