Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

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.

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 inclusing the curly brackets (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}) 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. Click Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, ask a question below below.

Click here to start a new discussion

File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.mid copyright status?

This is claimed to be a "fair use" file based on a copyrighted musical composition ("Creep" by Radiohead), but it should have the same copyright status as the corresponding sheet music image (File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png), as they both represent a fragment of the composition that is ineligible for copyright. Relatedly, I think many of the files in Category:Non-free musical interface audio should be reviewed to see if they are really copyright-eligible portions of the compositions they come from.

There are two potentially relevant types of copyrights here: musical composition (e.g. the song "Creep") and sound recording (e.g. Radiohead's recording of it). Neither copyright is actually applicable to the MIDI file under U.S. law, however. Both the PNG sheet music image and the MIDI file are "copies" of the same chord progression, which the image file's description page claims to be de minimis authorship. In other words, the MIDI file does not embody any substantial portion of the copyrighted musical composition "Creep" despite similarities in tempo and instrumentation.

MIDI files are not considered "phonorecords" under U.S. copyright law and do not embody sound recordings, which are a separate type of work, because they "do not sufficiently fix a specific series of sounds" (Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices Chapter 800, p. 38). Even if the MIDI file did embody a sound recording, however, Radiohead's sound recording copyright would be inapplicable as well. This is because the copyright in a sound recording "is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality," and "do[es] not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording" (17 U.S.C. § 114). Even though the instrumentation and tempo of the MIDI file may "imitate or simulate" that of Radiohead's sound recording, the MIDI file cannot be a "derivative work" of the sound recording as it does not use the actual sounds.

Caveat: Radiohead is from the UK, where different copyright rules for sound recordings apply, so just because this MIDI file is public domain in the US doesn't mean it's Commons-eligible (as it must be PD in UK as well). Any thoughts? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I would tend to think if the sheet music is not copyrightable, a musical rendering of it is not either. But others should chip in. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Facebook

Facebook and intended 105.12.7.205 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why was my post removed

Yesterday I posted one sample of Thomas Yeates' artwork as a low rez image on his home page. The bot removed it. Is an artist having one low rez sample of his professional artwork on his home page not "fair use"? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Prince Valiant by Thomas Yeates.jpeg? You haven't done your bureaucratic work. Without a correctly formatted non-free use rationale, the bot will, as it said [1], remove such files. Compare File:Princevaliant022650.jpg Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Seal of a Hephthalite king with the Bactrian inscription The Lord (Yabgu) of the Hephthalites. End 5th century early 6th century CE.jpg

Do seals count as '2d works of art' for which a faithful photograph doesn't grant copyright? This seems like it would be in the public domain as the artist died approximately 1500 years ago, and as [2] seems to count as public domain, surely the seal would too. TPOD (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160113094551/http://pro.geo.univie.ac.at/projects/khm/sites/default/files/images/showcase/objects/C_Hc%20007_neu.png is the higher-res image the original was downsized from TPOD (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It depends on who took the photograph and when. LDW5432 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Asking about copyright for an image

I was updating the logo on the Franklin Central High School page and I wanted to use the school's current logo. (File:Franklin Central High School logo.png) I assumed the image fell into the public domain since its the logo of a public school, but I wasn't sure so I uploaded the image without any copyright info and added it to the page. Obviously that was a bad decision and I want to go back and add the proper information or delete it if it shouldn't have been uploaded. What exactly is the copyright on this photo and what should I do? TurnLeftThenRight (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It's likely to be copyrighted by the school district. You can tag it {{non-free logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo|Franklin Central High School|purpose=infobox}}. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Unsure if a picture is copyrighted and if i can still use it

I'm working on a page for Tri-Valley Unit Community School District and the only photos i could find of the school were on the Official Downs Website with no metadata attached. I was wondering if i could still use the images under non-free type or if i should email the village to allow me to use them (also applies to the school logo) KamJam007 (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@KamJam007: Under US copyright law, a copyright notice and other copyright formalities are no longer required for copyright protection; so, as soon as something is published in some type of tangible medium (e.g. an official website), it's considered protected. For this reason, the photos found on the district's official website should be assumed to be copyrighted unless it explicitly states otherwise. Now, whether the copyright holder is the district or someone else is unclear since the site could be hosting photos taken by third-parties, and you may need to content the district to find that out. If the copyrihgt holder wants to give their WP:CONSENT for the photos, then that would be great. You can try WP:PERMISSION for that if you want.

Some images found on the website might be OK to upload and use as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive. One of these restrictions is that non-free content can't be used in drafts; so, I do not suggest uploading any non-free content to use while the draft is still a draft because it will only end up being removed and eventually deleted. Another of the restrictions has to do with the availability of free equivalents capable of serving the same purpose as non-free content: freely licensed or public domain content is nearly always preferrable to non-free content. So, for example, any photos of existing buildings or other district facilities would almost certainly be considered unacceptable as non-free since US copyright law allows pretty much unrestricted freedom of panorama for buildings and other inhabitable structures located in the US. This means anyone can take a photo of a typical buidling in the US without having to worry about infringing upon the copyright of whoever designed the building. Therefore, any photos of school buildings or other facilites found on the district's website could be recreated by someone else, who could then release the photo under an accetpable free license. If there are other photos or images on the website that you're interested in using, then perhaps describing them in a bit more detail (or even providing a link to them) should enable someone to give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

TI-84 Plus CSE NFFC concerns

I'm not a regular Wikipedian, and the procedure for requesting deletion is restrictively complex. I ran across File:TI 84 Plus CSE.jpg, which is justified as NFFC. I believe it violates WP:NFCC1, as this is a consumer good with existing permissively-licensed photos on the internet, and communities willing to take high-quality photographs of the item for Wikipedia. Asdf2jkl (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asdf2jkl If you think it violates NFCC#1 then it's down to you to nominate it for deletion. You can try delayed deletion per Wikipedia:Files for discussion#What not to list here III. Sub-point 5 would seem to meet your concern and adding {{subst:dfu|reason}} to the image will nominate it for deletion. Nthep (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Harry Goodman

File:Benpollackcalif2.jpg is the only image we have of Harry Goodman. It eas removed by a bot. The file is already in use for Ben Pollack. Why not use twice? Littenberg (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The bot removed the image because non-free files must have a separate non-free use rationale for each article they're placed on. If you add the NFUR, the bot won't remove the image. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Just going to add what was posted above by saying the Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrictive than fair use, and this is by design. One way in which Wikipedia's policy is more restrictive is that it asks us to minimize our use of non-free content as much as possible, and use free equivalents (images, text, links, etc.) whenever possible. So, while there's nothing in Wikipedia's policy that states a non-free file may only be used once, additional uses of non-free content tend to be much harder to justify in terms of all ten non-free content use criteria; so, it shouldn't be assumed that it's automatically OK to use same file on multiple pages or in multiple ways just because one particular use on one particular page seems OK per relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair use

I was browsing on the Jedi Wikipedia page and noticed someone was using https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/JediKnights.jpgI as fair use. later I was looking on flicker for alternatives in order to not rely on fair use. On the lisensing from the Wikipedia commons it says This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots But I found the same exact image on flicker https://www.flickr.com/photos/199411322@N05/53299890479/in/photolist-5QQhAr-bJQpP-dWvmnN-8rCtf8-6hiWX-5SkCt-TdhWkq-C8MFsF-2hLHrcg-2hLHp1Y-dByHqp-6g39K8-7iaVki-72iK41-2hK6A-6jpuX-4nZd6G-7aACj-2pcVSuX-2pcWoVY-5zSqkQ-JuUhjJ-7JXRHC-6MNBSp-C74A2N-9uFVyD-bxowj8-wbhhvK-AFX4L2-21VFPv-wXEdv7-KWQThq-JeFUfy-rVH4wZ-89s3Ws-87swgt-cmFieC-82doUS-VtLygJ-8HQSVN-56qUh-8t3KYn-boHtt8-wjEmo-boHRtp-boHQMF-2km9S8V-vHLqB-2cyFCKH-nwBkhT that a user uploaded in the public domain. Should I upload this image and replace the fair use image with the one I found or do we stick with the fair use image? WikiGrower1 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not unusual to find things on Flikr that are labelled 'public domain' despite any evidence to support such a claim, and good grounds to suspect are actually subject to copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay so I shouldn’t upload that one. What is the Wikipedia copyright policy of when there is a picture of a character when the character is copyrighted and someone uploads an image of there own with the character in the Creative Commons? WikiGrower1 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi WikiGrower Your question is a bit unclear, at least to me, so please clarify if my answer is about something completely different. If someone uploads their own image of a copyrighted character (e.g. takes a photo of an offical team mascot at a sporting event), then their photo could be considered a derivative work in which there are two copyrights to consider: one for the character and one for the photo. In such a case, the copyright status of each would need to be assessed to determine whether Wikipedia can host the photo because the photographer only "owns" the copyright on the photo they took. There's more information on this kind of thing in the Wikimedia Commons page c:Commons:Copyright by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay which you might find helpful. Whether Wikipedia can host such photos depends on various factors, but the copyright status of the character and the degree the character is the focus of the photo tend to be the two main reasons why such photos ended up being deleted. Another thing to remember is that fair use and non-free content aren't exactly the same thing: the latter is Wikipedia's way of allowing fair use content to be used under certain conditions. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be more restrictive than fair use; so, while it's OK to think that all non-free content meets the US copyright law's requirements for fair use, not all fair use content meets Wikipedia's requirements for non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The reason I ask is I am not sure when you are allowed to upload a character. So does that mean if a user uploaded a picture of a copyrighted work in the public domain the picture creator consented to being used in any way but not the creator of the character. WikiGrower1 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Teamgeist II adidas.jpg

How this file cannot be used to illustrate cross section of a football. EncyclopedianWP (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, non-free content is only used sparingly, where it's absolutely necessary, and where free content can't do the job. It would be possible to create a free image to use for this purpose, so we can't use this one. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Belgium

Hello. I noticed that on many Football National Teams pages you removed the Federation Badge, yet Belgium has been an exempt. In what way does the Royal_Belgian_FA_logo_2019.svg satisfy the conditions for being shared on the National Team page? On every other National team page that i encountered, Federation Badges automatically get removed. Msb73505 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg is categorized as being below the US threshold of originality, which is in the public domain for the English Wikipedia's purposes. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this image of Ruth Bader Ginsburg shooting a layup able to be added under non-free rationale?

I just made an article on the US Supreme Court's basketball court. I do not believe there are any public domain images of it. One of the only photos I have found of it is from Ruth Bader Ginsburg shooting a layup on the court. The photo was taken in 1995 by a photographer from the USA Basketball Women's National Team. It was not then-published. In 2020, the Team sent the photo to the twelve players who with Ginsburg, and Sheryl Swoopes then put it out on Instagram. (A NYT article discussing much of what I just said, the Instagram post with photo, which was linked to in the article). The basketball court is closed to the public, so I don't know if that qualifies as not being expected to make a replacement. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi 1brianm7. Others might feel differently, but I don't really think there's justification for this type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, unless perhaps the photo itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. None of individuals or other elements shown in the photo are things that can't be replaced by a free equivalent image or jsut text alone, at least not in my opinion. The use of a non-free photo of the entire court might perhaps (if distinct from other basketball courts in some way for being the US Supreme Court's court) could possibly be argued as OK to use for primary identification purposes, but I don't see how a photo showing one of the justices shooting a layoup, some other people watching her, and pretty much nothing of the court at all could be justified for that purpose. Another thing to consider here is that photos taken by US federal government employees or SCOTUS employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain, which means some government employee could take a photo of the court and post it on some official US government website. This means any non-free photo taken of the court would have a questionable claim of non-free use to begin with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly:, thanks for the response. The court has very irregular proportions and has an incredibly short ceiling, with it also having no seating are often mentioned as unusual features. A bit unfortunately, one of the most unusual things about it is how usual it is, which probably works against it in this case. For the public domain thing, the LA Times noted in 2002 “[its] not listed in tourist information and closed to visitors.” None of the sources suggest that has changed, so I think the odds that they publicize it are pretty unlikely, or at least not enough to prevent it now (though I’m not the expert on how we do copyright law). 1brianm7 (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, "public domain" has nothing to do with "publicizing" the court or even whether it's open to public. Under US copyright law, any works created by employees of the US federal government are ineligible for copyright protection because they are treated as public domain by statue. So, if an employee of the US federal government takes such a photo as part of their official duties and then publishes on some official government website, it would be reasonable to assume that the photo is within the public domain unless SCOTUS is treated differently with respect to such things for some reason. In addition, not having seats or being of irregular proportions (even with an incredibly short ceiling) isn't in my opinion the kind of thing that would be a sufficent justification for non-free use. I've seen plenty of courts over the years that probably could be described as such. Besides none of the features of the court are in any way relevant to the layup photo; so, tht photo pretty much has no encyclopedic value to readers if the justification for non-free use is the court's unusual features. The two photos shown here would be more representative of those features perhaps, but that fact that someone was able to take them and even create a YouTube video showing the court likely means a free equivalent photo would be reasonable to expect. There are other images of the court online too like this one, but other similar ones can even be found being sld here. So, perhaps the court isn't as impossible to photograph it seems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)