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:Hughie Broadway Poster 1975.jpg

File:Hughie Broadway Poster 1975.jpg is a photo of the poster for the 1975 play Hughie. The poster itself doesn't appear to have a copyright notice (at least not one that I can see), which means it might actually have entered into the public domain on January 1, 1978, under US copyright law at the time and could possibly be {{PD-US-no notice}}. If the poster is PD and the only reason why the file needs to be treated as non-free is because it's a photo taken by someone other than the uploader, then that would mean the non-free use would fail WP:FREER. Would the photo itself be eligible for copyright protection separate from the poster in this case? If it were taken straight on, it would likely not be considered eligible per c:COM:2D copying; however, this photo is ever so slightly offset. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the photo gains its own copyright. I can't see a copyright notice on the poster either. So I think it could be retagged PD. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about public domain status of Postcard

I have a unposted postcard published circa 1940s and lacks either a copyright notice or mark. It also lacks production number. It was published in America by "GRIFFIN'S" as written by hand on the negative at the end of the caption. It is captioned "Mining Dredge, Cripple Creek Alaska" which is written by hand on the negative. It has a white border, its size is 3.5 by 5.25 inches, and was printed by "EKc" / "EKC" process.

According to what I can find, it is now in public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.

Would you agree?

Can I upload it to Wikipedia Media and use it to illustrate an article? Paul H. (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Paul H. If things are as you say, then yes there's a very good chance that this post card has already entered into the public domain on January 1, 1978, as {{PD-US-no notice}}. You might, though, want to double check at c:COM:VPC because Commons is the best place to upload the file if it's public domain. As for adding it to any Wikipedia articles, that's sort of a separate question unrelated to the post card's copyright status, but it should be OK. If someone feels that it's not, just treat it as if you would treat a disagreement over article text and work on resolving any issues through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mississippi government related image

I came across File:Mississippi_Dept_of_Education_Logo.png today. It looks like it should be migrated to Commons with the template PD-textlogo. If it doesn't qualify for that, do Mississippi government works fall under public domain? I can't find anything about it on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States/en#US_States or any other page here. -- Reconrabbit 22:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit:. I don't believe that logo qualifies for {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO US, and it probably should be relicensed as {{non-free logo}} instead; however, that would mean that a separate, specif non-free use rationale would need to be provided for each of its uses. There's no way to justify the file's use on the uploader's user page per WP:NFCC#9, and the use of the file in Mississippi Miracle seems questionable per WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, works by State of Mississippi employees don't seem to be within the public domain per this just because they are works created by a state government employee. So, absent any other reason for this to be within the public domain, I think the {{PD-because}} is incorrect; it was most likely a good-faith mistake, but it's still incorrect. Have you tried discussing this with the file's uploader Red Slash? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this is well below the US TOO -- logos made of text and simple cartoon images are nearly always denied copyright in the United States (recent examples fern leaf, smiley face, colorful heart all with the review board analysis that the individual elements were insufficiently creative, as were there arrangement/combination). More complex cartoons are often also denied copyright as insufficiently creative (recent examples fancy waving guy, multi-component globe, box network). This features a cartoon less complex than those latter examples, and relatively uncreative use of text/color. I feel confident this would be ineligible for US protection. Ajpolino (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The file should moved to Commons if others feel it's OK as {{PD-logo}}. If someone wants to boldly do that, that's fine. If they want to ask about it at c:COM:VPC first to seek more input, then that's fine too. If, however, the file is moved but ends up being deleted, there's really no way to justify its use as non-free content (at least not given the way it's currently being used) in my opinion and will end up being deleted anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done so now. Ajpolino (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks y'all, it should've been on commons to begin with Red Slash 19:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Once it's moved there do you mind if I remove the white pieces inside the letters -- Reconrabbit 19:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Adjusting a picture to fit guidelines

As I was working on the Katz Drug Store sit-in article I attempted to use a picture from the Clara Luper article (Clara Luper.jpg), which was taken down for "No valid non-free use rationale for this page" by a bot. How can I edit the caption or photo so it fits within this guideline and can be used in this article? Living-together365 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Living-together365 Wikipedia has a deliberately strict policy on the use of non-free content. This is to limit/reduce the amount of non-free content. Any non-free content must meet all 10 of the non-free content criteria to be allowable under the fair-use policy. The image you added File:Clara Luper.jpg has a valid fair-use rationale for use in the article on her. For that file to be used in any other article, it would need a second fair-use rationale adding that meets all the criteria. While that might seem trivial, you might have problems meeting criteria 8 regarding contextual significance because an image of Luper isn't necessarily going to be seen as adding to the understanding of the article on the Katz Drug Store sit-in. If anyone wants to know what Luper looks like they can click through to the article on her. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much! Living-together365 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Before I Kill You, Mr. (Redacted) - can we use the unredacted title?

@Robespierrette (who is a paid editor for the publisher of this game) moved Before I Kill You, Mr. Bond to Before I Kill You, Mr. (Redacted), with the edit summary "remove reference to copyright infringing original title of the card game". Our article states that "in 2000, following a cease and desist order from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer [presumably because of the name], the game was taken out of print". I'm pretty sure this is not how copyright works and we should retain the original title but I'd like to double check this. Rusalkii (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: I'm not sure this is the best place to ask about this since this seems to be more an issue related to trademark than copyright (media or text). In principle, any bold undiscussed move can be reverted by anyone as explained in WP:BOLDMOVE. Ideally, what would happen next in such as case should be a WP:RM discussion to let the community figure out what to do. You could ask about this at WP:AN and seek administrator input if you're wary about moving the page back yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a trademark issue. Short phrases are not protected by copyright, much less the names of characters. They can however be protected by trademark if you sell a product that gives the impression it's affiliated with...well...the mark of someone's trade. For our purposes, this is no different than the logo on every article for every company or product. We don't sell nothin' and so we don't care about trademark. GMG^talk 21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: The "Before I Kill You, Mr. Bond" page had a Wikipedia warning on it, stating that any infringing content would be deleted. That made me think that it was, indeed, creating a problem for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not have a problem with it then, perhaps, the warning could be removed? Robespierrette (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That is a standard message you will find when you edit any article. It isn't specific to this one. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all. I've reverted the move for now. @Robespierrette, if you still think it should be moved you can open a WP:RM discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida image

How come the image of him is on his article and not the one on Jewish culture? I used the same one! What the hell am I supposed to do? I used this image. Jacques_derrida_pardonner_limpardonnable_et_limprescriptible_22.jpg Christianhatley527 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Christianhatley527. File:Jacques derrida pardonner limpardonnable et limprescriptible 22.jpg is licensed as a non-free file and all uses of a non-free file needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive by design and is set up to keep non-free use a minimal as possible. In general, a non-free image of a deceased person is typically only considered OK for use when it's done for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the the top of stand-alone article about said person; other types of uses or uses in other ways tend to be much harder to justify in terms of relevant policy. Using non-free files in lists, tables or galleries, is particularly hard to justify as explained in WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES; in almost all such cases, a WP:WIKILINK to the individual's stand-alone Wikipedia article where the same non-free image can be seen is considered to be a more than acceptable alternative to an additional non-free use per WP:FREER.

Anyway, in this case, the specific reason the bot actually removed the file you added has to do with non-free content use criterion #10c. Each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale which explains how the use in question meets relevant policy. This particular bot has been tasked with looking for non-free uses which don't meet criterion #10c. The bot is capable of fixing minor mistakes like spelling errors, but it will not add a missing rationale to a file's page. This is why the bot included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in the edit summary it left when it removed the file. You could, if you want, add a rationale for that particular use to the file's page to stop the bot from removing the file again; however, as stated above, this kind of non-free use is typically not considered OK per relevant policy, and the use would almost certainly be challenged by others. The file would then end up being discussed at WP:FFD, where a consensus in favor of the use would need to be established, which will be very hard to do given the way you tried to use the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To remove or not

I uploaded File:MathisHowtoHandleaWoman.jpg but forgot that it needs to be at the top of the article, so I received notification that it was up for speedy deletion. I have moved it to the top of the article, but I'm seeing two messages that seem to contradict one another. They're both in the bottom half of the text inside the red box on the file page. One says, "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." The other says, "Note that if you disagree with the shortcomings of the non-free use rationale as described above, please discuss the matter on the talk page, but do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded." I feel like I successfully addressed the concern, but I don't know if I'm allowed to make any other changes. Danaphile (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Danaphile To me, it seems reasonable that you could remove this particular addressed concern yourself, but the text seems to say you shouldn't, and I don't know if there is a good reason for that, or if it's more of a "catch all" text that doesn't really fit here.

Anyway, I removed the warning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding a GIF with copyright issues

Hi, I've been further directed to this forum. I tried to copy a GIF from The Heart Part 5 and put it on the Deep Voodoo article. It got removed for some kind of copyright violation. Is there a right way to post that GIF on that article? It is directly related to both subjects. Could I Do This? (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Could I Do This? Short answer File:The Heart Part 5 excerpt.gif doesn't have a non-free use rationale for use in any article other than The Heart Part 5. To use it anywhere else you need to add another {{Non-free use rationale}} to the file.

Longer answer. The gif is licensed as a non-free file and all uses of a non-free file needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive by design and is set up to keep non-free use a minimal as possible. What might be compliance for one article isn't necessarily going to be complaint for use in another article, so to use the file at Deep Voodoo, you need to consider all 10 points of the non-free content criteria and add a rationale that deals with all of them. The most difficult to address is WP:NFCC#8 dealing with the contextual significance of the image to the article. Nthep (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I request another non-free use rationale to the file? I personally believe that the GIF is significant to the article because it's a direct example of a produced deepfake, otherwise the work is conceptual. Could I Do This? (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Could I Do This? you add one for yourself. Nthep (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand, do I create another rationale with the template based on the first one and paste it underneath that on one the file's page? Could I Do This? (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Could I Do This? yes, but you need to make sure it address the needs of adding it to Deep Voodoo, which aren't the same as the reasons for having it in The Heart Part 5. Nthep (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Could I Do This? (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Could I Do This?: Just going to add that providing a non-free use for a particular use is WP:JUSTONE (actually just part of one) of the ten non-free content use criteria that each non-free use needs to satisfy. Additional uses of a non-free file, in particular, tend to be hard to justify because of item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI because in most cases a link to the other article (or section of the other article) where the same file is being used tends to be considered more than sufficient as an alternative to non-free use per WP:FREER. Lots of people assume that putting as much detail in the non-free use rationale will make things OK, but the rationale should reflect how the file is being used (i.e., the detail should be in article content). You'll have a better chance of meeting the WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) for this additional use if you can find sourced critical commentary of the GIF specifically related to Deep Voodoo and not simply related to "The Heart Part 5" that just mention the company by name or just very briefly. So, what shouln't be done is to just basically repeat content/sources from the article about the song in the article about the company and then add a rationale to the file's page; it looks like that's exactly what was done in this case. IF that's the best that can be done, there's really no real need for the file to be used more than once, which is why I've undone the adding of the file to the "Deep Voodoo" article. There are three relatively short paragraphs currently in Deep Voodoo#Projects, with the second one being about the GIF. How does not seeing this file detract from the reader's understanding of the content about the GIF, which is only two senteces long and cites a single source? That's the kind of thing you should be looking to expand on to better justify the another non-free use of this file, at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Question about locating images

Hello. I don't know if this is the best place to ask this, so please redirect me to the right place if there is an issue. I am working on the article for Gilda Radner and want to add different photos of her, since the photos of her are either as one of her SNL characters or with someone else. I want to know where might be some good places to look for different photos that follow copyright laws, or whether this goal would be infeasible. I'd appreciate any help. Thank you. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi FountofInterestingInfo. Given that all of the photos currenlty be used in article seem to be licensed as public domain, any non-free images of Radner almost ceratinly aren't going to be allowed per non-free content use criteria #1 (WP:FREER). So, you're either going to need to find an image that's been released under a free enough copyright license for Wikipedia's purposes, or an image that has already entered into the public domain. You can try looking on sites like eBay for publicity photos of Radner which might have been sent out without a visible copyright notice on either the front (including the border) or back since such a photo could've entered into the public domain under US copyright law because of a lack of copyright formalities.

Signed photos of celebrities often have value and end up being sold on such sites regardless of their copyright status because it's the physical original copy that people want. I'd be careful of websites just posting photos of Radner without any information about the provenance of the photo; these websites might be able to use the photos under fair use provisions, but anything like that would need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes. I'd also avoid photos which look like they've been cropped or for which you can't see the back because those two places are often where copyright notices end up being placed.

Anyway, for an example of what I'm talking about, any photos like this one are likely going to need to be treated as non-free because there's clearly a copyirght notice visible in the front side's bottom border; the watermark was added after the fact by the site selling the photo and isn't realted to the photos copyright status. Either This photo or this photo, however, might be OK since there are no visible copyright notices on either the fronts or backs of the photos (at least none that I can see). You might want to ask about these at c:COM:VPC because that's where a file should really be uploaded if it's something in the public domain, -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)