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 Commons'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.

Click here to start a new discussion

Korean reuse copyright for Encyclopedia of Korean Culture

Moved to c:COM:VPC#Korean reuse copyright for Encyclopedia of Korean Culture

Copyright tags for Kaiserreich flags

Hello, I'm uploading flags from the HoI4 mod Kaiserreich, but I don't know what can be the suitable tag for copyright. They aren't my original work, and were made by the official mod developers. The reason that I'm asking is that the flags might be deleted within a week, and the reason that I re-uploaded the flags was I just saw that the flags' original files were deleted a month ago, so I tried to reverse them. I hope it's not against the policy of Wikipedia. Below are the three flags I'd uploaded on October 21. Because I don't know what the specific tag should be, since the Wiki of the mod itself didn't specify, I already requested speedy deletion early on just to protect my own account.

File:Commune_of_France_flag_kaiserreich.webp
File:UOBflag_kaiserreich.webp
File:Flanders-Wallonia_kaiserreich.webp

Edit: As of now, I did not know that they were deleted because of F10. However, I did contribute to pages outside of my sandbox. ThatThaiPerson (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikimedia has strict rules on file copyright. These flags are likely "all rights reserved", so all 10 WP:NFCC criteria must be met for them to be used. If the mod authors want their work to be shared in this way, they should publish it under an applicable Creative Commons license. They could then be added to the mod's article if it seems their inclusion would improve a reader's understanding of the article. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

i already called for speedy deletion for them, but thank you! ThatThaiPerson (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Public school district logo was removed

Hello, I updated the logo for San Francisco Unified School District to the file used on the San Francisco Board of Education page, because it was a cleaner version in some ways. However the JJMC89 bot removed it, now there is no logo, not even the old one, and said "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation". These are public institutions, and I could find no evidence that the logo is under copy write protection.

old logo file: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco_Unified_School_District&oldid=1381981639#/media/File:San_Francisco_Unified_School_District_logo.jpg

newer logo file: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco_Unified_School_District&oldid=1381984482#/media/File:San_Francisco_Board_of_Education_logo.png Lunar.mists (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lunar.mists. Under US current copyright law, pretty much every logo is going to be assumed to be eligible for copyright protection absent a clear-cut reason (e.g. it's within the public domain for some reason) that it isn't, and this protection will become effective as soon as the logo is fixed in some kind of tangible medium (e.g. published online). Even if there's no explicit mention of the logo being copyrighted (e.g., a copyright notice), it should be assumed to be protected since copyright formalities are no longer required under US copyright law. Just for reference, neither "public institution" nor "publicly available" automatically mean "free from copyright protection" under US copyright law, unless some statute or law states as much.

Wikipedia does allow copyrighted logos to be uploaded and used as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free use policy is quite restrictive. This policy requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided on a non-free file's page for each of its uses. The bot that removed the file has been tasked with looking files lacking the required non-free use rationale and removing them when it finds them. My guess is that when you replaced the district's logo, you failed the provide a corresponding non-free use rationale for its use; so, the bot removed the file.

In this case, it looks like you tried to add File:San Francisco Board of Education logo.png to the main infobox of San Francisco Unified School District but didn't add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page. Adding the missing non-free use rationale will stop the bot from removing the file again. However, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and adding a non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the restrictions. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy also requires us to keep non-free use as minimal as we can and use free alternatives (which includes using no image at all) whenever possible. When it comes to copyrighted logos, this means non-free use tends to be limited to primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about whatever the logo represents (i.e. the parent entity), and using the same logo in other articles or other ways is typically not considered to be OK. In this case, the SFUSD would be considered to be "child entity" of the SF BoE because it falls under the board's management. A logo specific to the SFUSD would most likely be OK to upload and use, but reusing the SF BoE logo in the SFUSD article would hard to justify per Wikipedia policy.

Finally, there's really no difference between File:San Francisco Unified School District logo.jpg and File:San Francisco Board of Education logo.png, at least not in terms of copyright eligible elements, under US copyright law. So, they're essentially the same logo in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and two non-free files of the essentially the same logo aren't really needed. It's also unclear whether the BoE logo should even be being used in the BoE article because the logo clearly states "SFUSD", not "BoE". The BoE's official website seems to be part of the SFUSD official website; so, maybe the logo should actually be only being used in the SFUSD article and not the SF BoE article despite the name of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Any use of non-free must include a rational for each page it is used on. The logo lacked the rationale for the school district, which is why the bot removed it. Masem (t) 03:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Authorization of Photography in view

Awaiting response on my letter of Authorization. Ticket #: 2026102710005154 Saheed Aderemi Yussuf Olubodun (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Saheed Aderemi Yussuf Olubodun. If by letter of Authorization you mean Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team verification, then this noticeboard isn't really the best place to ask about that. You should try asking at either WP:VRTN or c:COM:VRTN instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Response Noted Saheed Aderemi Yussuf Olubodun (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi again Saheed Aderemi Yussuf Olubodun. I've asked about this at WP:VRTN#Ticket #: 2026102710005154 for you. Maybe a VRT member can help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: VRT Ticket 2026102710005154 is junk mail sent to VRT. The email is an advert for Axios Twin Cities received early in the morning on 27 October 2026 and consigned to the rubbish heap. It does not mention Saheed Aderemi Yussuf Olubodun or any image authorization request. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Channel Orange and threshold of originality

See the image here.

The image simply consists of text against a plain-colored background, which would seem to me to fall well below the originality threshold, thus putting the image in the public domain. With this in mind, would this album cover meet the criteria of a public domain image? JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is too simple for copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi JeffSpaceman. I agree with Whpq's assessment. There's no danger of the file being deleted per se if it remains non-free, but there should also be no issue with you boldly relicensing the file as {{PD-simple}} under US copyright law. If you do decide to do so, though, you should replace the {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} template with the {{Information}} template: just make sure to fill in the appropriate parameters for the new template (there're not all the same). You can then also add the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template because the country of first publication is also the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, tried a bunch of that the best I could. This is my first time doing all this, so it may have been a little rusty, but I trust any mistakes I could have made can be corrected if extant. Once again, thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

On The Beach - link to full text

Hi!

On the Beach (novel) has an external link in the info box to the full text of the novel. It's my understanding that the novel is in the public domain in Canada, but not yet in the US (where it seems to have been originally published by William Morrow and Company or the UK (where the author was a citizen. How do we think about this in terms of WP:EL and WP:LINKVIO? I would think we should remove since Wikipedia is governed by US law and the work is also governed by US copyright law but wanted to check to see if there's precedent. Thanks in advance! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, That's a good question. The link does not lead to something illegal, there is no violation of copyright, they being in Canada. They hold and make available the book legally. As their notice reads: "These books are public domain in Canada (because we follow the Canadian copyright laws), but if you are in another country, you should satisfy yourself that you are not breaking the copyright laws of your own country by downloading them." That sounds fair. Users who live in countries where the book is not free are thus properly informed and cautioned. The link leads to an information page about the book, not immediately to the text of the book. Should we also deprive the Wikipedia users who live in countries where the book is in the public domain from knowing the information that they can access the book there? I'm not answering the question, but I'm not disturbed by that link. But then, I'm also in Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Copyright questions

1. How can I tell what media in Wikimedia Commons is under copyright and what's not?

2. How can I get a free license permission to post a specific media on Commons?

3. Is every media on Commons under copyright law, even tornado damage photos by the National Weather Service? Is every media posted with a specific permission?

Someone please answer these questions because I cannot afford to have this copyright thing on Commons unstudied. RagnarStickman (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@RagnarStickman

1. Check the licence on Commons. That will tell you whether an image is in or our of copyright, and if it is in copyright, why it is on Commons and therefore reusable.
2. If it's not your own work i.e. you created the image, then you would need to get the written permission of the copyright holder for works to be uploaded to Commons - see commons:COM:CONSENT
3. No, as #1. Recent images will be under copyright but can be on Commons either because the copyright holder has agreed to licence the work or, as in the case of the National Weather Service, the copyright law of the country in question - here the USA - says the images from this agency are automatically public domain - see commons:Commons:Licensing

What you can't do, is take images from elsewhere and upload them to Commons (or here on Wikipedia) without knowing who the copyright holder is and adding an incorrect licence to the upload. Just because someone else didn't respect copyright by posting the image somewhere else on the internet is not a justification for doing the same on Commons or here. Nthep (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Animated diagram of Tetris video game mechanics?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Copyrights § Animated diagram of Tetris video game mechanics?

 – Lazman321 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi. A question arose about using the Commons image File:Tetris Loading Gif.gif in the English WP article "Tetris". The animation was drawn by a Commons user, and depicts geometrical shapes falling. It is not a screen-capture of the Tetris Video game. The animation does not include any additional graphics (such as game score, surrounding border, "Tetris" trademark, etc). I know that plain geometrical shapes cannot be copyrighted, and a moving shape cannot be copyrighted. Is this animated gif free-to-use in English WP? If not: what additional changes would need to be made to make it free-to-use? (such as, changing the geometrical shapes from color to grey-shade?). Noleander (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• I just learned there is another Tetris-related conversation at in Commons Village Pump Although that conversation is about a different media file (non-animated), so I don't think the two conversations should be merged. This discussion here in the Copyright Talk page is specifically about "What needs to be done (if anything) to File:Tetris Loading Gif.gif to make it free-to-use?".Noleander (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Political party logo(s)

File:Libertarian Party of Rhode Island logo.png and File:Libertarian Party of Hawaii logo.jpg hold the exact same relation to their respective articles as File:Libertarian Party of California logo.png holds to Libertarian Party of California. They have been removed by a bot without good cause. Idacticus (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The good cause was that you displayed the files in articles for which you did not provide non-free use rationales, while you did not display the files in articles for which you provided non-free use rationales, i.e. the article "HTML element" and the article "List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States)", articles where the files would likely not belong. You can fix the issue by providing non-free uses rationales for the articles about the parties. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. The articles I'm trying to use them for are Libertarian Party of Rhode Island and Libertarian Party of Hawaii. They are the logos of those organizations. Where do I put an explanation for using the logo of an organization on the page about that organization? Thank you for your assistance, as this is the first time I've ever dealt with non-free use. Idacticus (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The non-free use rationales are in the file description pages that you linked in your initial comment. On those file description pages, look at what you wrote in the "Use in article" line of the non-free rationale template. You wrote that the Rhode Island logo was to be used in the article "List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States)" and that the Hawaii logo was to be used in the article "HTML element" . That should be replaced respectively with the name of the article "Libertarian Party of Rhode Island" and the name of the article "Libertarian Party of Hawaii". -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Rhode Island must have been an auto-correct from the File Upload Wizard, as those pages used to be re-directs. I don't know what happened with Hawaii. Idacticus (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)