Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    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 (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, 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. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    MIT Building photo question

    [edit]

    Hello! I am editing a page dedicated to the The Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) at MIT and am having trouble assessing the licensing of several photos. For example, I would like to include this image of the Fairchild Buildings: https://listart.mit.edu/art-artists/fairchild-buildings-1971

    The instructions presented by Wikipedia are likely comprehensive, but I have had difficulty interpreting them. GatheringMoss11 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @GatheringMoss11, images on that site will be covered by the notice at the bottom, "© MIT List Visual Arts Center, all rights reserved", and generally aren't suitable for use on Wikipedia. However in this case, that appears to be a copy of File:Fairchild Building (MIT) - DSC00278.JPG, whose author has made it available for use without any conditions. You can find a few other images of the building at commons:Category:Fairchild Building (MIT Building 38). hinnk (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! GatheringMoss11 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Kennedy bros.jpg

    [edit]

    I wanted to reach out regarding File:Kennedy bros.jpg (which was also uploaded to Wikimedia Commons c:File:Kennedy bros.jpg). It was uploaded as public domain claiming the author was "United states Sentate" based on its usage on then-Senator Kennedy's Senate website. Other websites seem to either credit AP or the JFK Presidential Library. After contacting the JFK library, I received this response:

    That image is PX 79-35 and we say that the photos is (c) unknown, with no known claims. There's no evidence here that this is a UPI/Getty Images image... There is the risk that someone could claim copyright, and you would assume that risk in using the image publicly.

    I can send the full email to someone for full context if necessary. To me, it seemed to imply that while they owned the physical photograph, they do not know who owns the copyright for that image. I don't believe it is copyrighted by a stock image company or news agency but more likely whomever took the original photograph.

    I believe the image and its usage should be replaced with c:File:President Kennedy and his brothers. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, President John... - NARA - 194238.jpg which has a much clearer line of provenance (as it was taken by a White House photographer) although it is in B/W and not color. I wanted to ask here whether my line of reasoning made sense and whether the aforementioned image should be deleted. John Kinslow (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi John, thanks for looking into this. I should note that files at Commons are automatically displayed here with the same file name, which is what you're seeing here. The version originally uploaded to Wikipedia was deleted in 2009, and now it's hosted at Commons, which has its own deletion process and copyright discussion page.
    Based on what you've found, I agree the {{PD-USGov-Congress}} tag definitely seems wrong, since the image was hosted on a Senate website but without any indication that it was the work of an employee. It's hard to say what its actual copyright status is without knowing how it came to be published and distributed. If the owner gave it directly to the Kennedys or their archive and they first published it with consent through the web site, then it's likely still under copyright. If it's an agency photo that the archive has a copy of, then it comes down to whether the image was published around the time of its creation, whether there was a valid copyright notice, and whether that copyright was renewed (see "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." in c:Commons:Hirtle chart).
    If you're looking to find more definitive information about its copyright status, hopefully that gives you some direction. If you're just looking for what the next step in the process is, I think the faulty {{PD-USGov-Congress}} tag alone is enough reason to start a deletion request at Commons and then update the English Wikipedia articles if Commons decides to delete. hinnk (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Extreme car driving simulator app icon.jpeg

    [edit]

    I found this image in https://www.extremecardrivingsimulator.com but i don't know what copyright law must i use ⟨⟨BeastBoy-X-Talk!⟩⟩ 02:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi BeastBoy-X, it looks like this is promotional artwork for a video game, for which the {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}} rationale and {{Non-free game cover}} licensing tag can be used. You can see an example at File:FNAF1logo.jpg. However, non-free images are only allowed in articles. Since this image is being used in a draft (you'll see User:BeastBoy-X/Draft:Extreme car driving simulator has the User: prefix), it's likely to be deleted in a few days.
    My advice would be to focus on the draft right now and don't worry about images just yet. Take your time writing your first article, make sure the topic is suitable for an article, and go through the Articles for creation process before worrying about media. That's usually the hard part. After you've got an article that's been moved out of userspace, you always can submit a request for File:Extreme car driving simulator app icon.jpeg at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, letting them know that the article it was uploaded for is now in mainspace. Hope it goes well! hinnk (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Hinnk ⟨⟨BeastBoy-X-Talk!⟩⟩ 00:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of a CC BY-NC 4.0 image in Wikipedia

    [edit]

    https://www.inaturalist.org has images of animals, insects, etc with CC BY-NC 4.0 copyright. Can I use such images in Wikipedia articles? Tagooty (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tagooty I'm afraid not. The NC (non commercial) element of the licence is not compatible with Wikipedia's image licensing policy. Nthep (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nthep: Thanks Tagooty (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagooty: Some of their images are actually freely licenced for us to use, such as this one. The licence is seen near the top of the individual image page. ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ww2censor: Useful to know, I'll look for images without restrictions. Thanks. Tagooty (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking Advice on How (and where) to Upload a Photo

    [edit]

    This is the first time I'm trying to upload a photo that will later be on a Wikipedia page. I'm working on the following 2 pages:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Sr. (deceased)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Jr. (living)

    There is a photo on the web for each of these people, on the following links:

    Sr (the photo below the header, on the right): https://www.hbs.edu/about/campus-and-culture/campus-built-on-philanthropy/loeb-house

    Jr (the photo on the left, with arms crossed): https://www.gwirf.org/ambassador-john-l-loeb-jr/

    - In these cases, do I download the photo from each of these URLs and then upload it? - Do I upload (or reference) the photo to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia? - How can I tell or verify what the copyright / licensing is for each of these photos? - What type of copyright / licensing is necessary to upload and use photos for these pages? - Note: I am consulting for the Loeb family and have a COI, so I know that I need to submit an Edit Request for updates to these pages. Do I need to do the same or similar to upload the photos? - Any other advice or details of the steps to eventually add a photo to each of the pages above would be much appreciated.

    Mybestwords (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mybestwords: Pretty much any photo you find online is going to be assumed to be protected by copyright under a license that's too restrictive for Wikipedia of Commons purposes unless its copyright holder clearly states otherwise. The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the person who took it, and only that person, in principle, can release their photos under a copyright license that is free-enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Everything else is going to be considered to be non-free content. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type as explained in c:COM:FAIR; so, anything you want to upload to Commons is going to clearly need to satisfy c:COM:L. Wikipedia does allow non-free content to be uploaded, but only if it satisfies WP:NFCC. The NFCC is quite restrictive and pretty much doesn't allow photos of a living person to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia; so, most likely any photo of John Langeloth Loeb Jr. is going to need to be either one that's already within the public domain (i.e., one that's no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason or never was eligible for copyright protection) for it to be OK to use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does allow non-free photos of deceased persons to be used as long as the photo's use satisfies the NFCC, which is why there already is a non-free photo of John Langeloth Loeb Sr. being used in that article. There's really no way to justify two non-free photos of Loeb Sr. in that article so bascially the best you could do is replace the current one used in the main infobox with the one found on the website you linked to above. Since this means the other image will end up being deleted, you may need to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to replace the image if someone disagrees with you replacing it. You can propose replacing the image on the article's talk page if you want.
    Many photos found online (particularly older pre-Internet Era ones) typically came from somewhere/someone else; so, the person operating the website is not very likely to be the original copyright holder of the photo. Finding who is can be difficult when the website doesn't provide any information on the provenance of the photo. You can try contacting whoever runs the website to see whether they can provide you with more information about the photo you're interested in. You can also try a reverse image search to see whether you can either find the origin source for the image yourself or another instance of it being used somewhere online or in print which provides more information about its provenance. Since you've stated you're working on behalf of the Loeb family, you might simply ask the family for a photo along the lines of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or maybe even Wikipedia:A picture of you. Wikipedia is always going to prefer freely-licensed or public domain images over non-free ones; moreover, such images are better off uploaded to Commons because it makes them much easier for all Wikimedia Foundation projects to use. For information on how to upload images, take a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images and c:Commons:Upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your detailed reply! I have been in touch with our client and it looks like they are trying to make some updates. Mybestwords (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't know exactly how you're affiliated with this person, but depending how that is, you could photograph him. Then you would be the copyright holder of that photograph and could certainly choose to release it under a free license. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mybestwords: If it looks like they are trying to make some updates means they're trying to upload images they are the copyright holder of, then great. They can upload the images to Commons themselves as long as they do so in accordance with c:COM:L. On the other hand, if it means they're trying to upload images that someone else is the copyright holder of, they should get the copyright holder's c:COM:CONSENT before uploading anything. Doing so will reduce the risk of the image being nominated for deletion, which sometimes happens can happen quite quickly if someone notices the image shortly after it has been uploaded. If, by chance, you mean they are intending to upload the image as non-free content, I wouldn't advise they do so because Wikipedia's non-free content policy is quite restrictive and a bit hard to understand even for experienced users. In that case, they might want to ask for someone else to do it for them at WP:FFU. Finally, if what they're trying to do is not limited to images but also involves updating the text of articles, I suggest they don't try to do that at all. If that's really the case, you probably should explain WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:BLPSELF and WP:OWN to them. You need to make sure they understand that even though there might be a Wikipedia article written about them (or someone related to them), they have pretty much zero editorial control over it. All content is going to be expected to be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not based on what they might want. There are means in place to help COI editors sort out any issues they might have with what's written about them on Wikipedia, and they should make use of them as much as possible because it will make things easier for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:National Basketball Association logo.svg

    [edit]

    I have a question regarding the copyrightablity of NBA "Jerry West" sihouette logo. Is there an evidence that the logo with "Jerry West" have registered by the U.S. Copyright Office? Because when i searched that logo at Copyright Office website, there's no evidence about NBA logo itself. Assuming that the logo was created in 1969, File:National Basketball Association logo.svg may fall under (PD-US-No Notice) if there are no evidence about copyright registration of the logo, because prior to US entry to Berne Convention in 1989, it requires a work to have a copyright notice (©) when they register a work to US Copyright Office. For works created between prior to 1978 (specifically works created until 1977), if there's no copyright notice, a work may fall into public domain. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional material scan

    [edit]

    Hello. I found an image on Facebook, apparently a scan of a one-page promotional sheet (probably from the late 1970s) that shows some of the early history of the Meadowlands Sports Complex. I thought that might be a good add to the page. Would it be appropriate to upload this image under the NFCI concept regarding other promotional material? Thanks for the review. MikeUMA (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @MikeUMA: I think it would probably hard to justify this under WP:NFCCP per WP:NFCC#8 unless your intent is to use the file for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the promotional sheet itself, or you're able to find sourced critical commentary about the sheet that can be added to the article about Medowlands. Just adding the image to the history section (with perhaps just a caption or a brief mention in the section) would probably be assessed as WP:DECORATIVE non-free use absent any sourced critical commentary about the sheet itself. The Facebook source could also be a problem per WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion since that's unlikely going to be the original source of publication for the sheet; however, my guess is that it was almost certainly published shortly after created (most likely in a print publication like a newspaper) so perhaps WP:NFCC#4 is not really a concern.
    You might try to find a better source for the sheet, though, because that could help sort out it's provenance and allow a better assessment of its copyright status. You also might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because there's a possibility that this could be something that already entered into the public domain under US copyright law. Print advertisements (which this could be) and prmotional material were required by the US copyright law at the time to have visible copyright notices and other copyright formalities taken care of for them to be considered "protected" by copyright. I can't see any copyright notice on that scan, but there could be something on the back or it could've been cropped out when uploaded to Facebook. If you can find a clean copy showing the same sheet as it looked when originally published, then that could help in assessing it's copyright status. If it meets the conditions for {{PD-US-no notice}}, it could be uploaded to Commons and treated as "free content" instead being uploaded locally to Wikipedia and treated as "non-free content". In that case, it wouldn't be supject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and could be used in pretty much any article or on any page with needing to meet the NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to explain. It's not that important to me to do the suggested background research, so I'll drop it. MikeUMA (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FOP and File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg and File:Original Dedication Plaque for the Receiver Statue.jpg

    [edit]

    There is some confusion over whether File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg and File:Original Dedication Plaque for the Receiver Statue.jpg should be on the Commons because of no FOP for statues in the USA. I nominated both for deletion, but the file's creator argues they should be kept at the Commons, because there was no copyright notice filed within 5 years since the statue's publication (1985). However File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg was apparently repainted and rededicated in 2013 after an NFL player. Additionally although the top of Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#General_rules says "[a]nything published in or after 1978 but before March 1, 1989 with no copyright notice is in the public domain unless the work's copyright was registered within 5 years of the work's initial publication", Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks_and_sculptures does not mention 1978 to 1989 and says only "For public artwork installed between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, use {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}." Any light, not heat? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The same rule would apply between 1978 and 1989, you just had an extra 5 year window to repair it so you have to check the copyright logs. I'm not sure how the repainting would affect it. I guess it depends on how different it looks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Woodstock 94 mud pit.jpg

    [edit]

    File:Woodstock 94 mud pit.jpg Can someone explain the reason for this file being nominated for deletion? The article, and that paragraph in particular discuss "Mudstock", and on the Woodstock '94 page there is no free alternative, nor is there any image depicting the festival itself. Thanks. Michael0986 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Michael0986, from looking at the nomination the point of contention is whether the image meets WP:NFCC#2. The gist is that the commercial role of a photograph from a press agency is that they can sell their material for use in other publications. Since we haven't paid for a license to use their images, using these agencies' work in a Wikipedia article may infringe on their ability to exploit it, unless our use is transformative. As an extreme example, the Raising the Flag at Ground Zero article is transformative because the use is not to illustrate the event, but to comment on that specific image.
    The current non-fair use rationale for File:Woodstock 94 mud pit.jpg looks like it may have WP:NFCC#2 and NP#NFCC#3 switched, and the statement about "identify[ing] the subject in the article" isn't quite right, since the image being used to identify the subject is File:Woodstock '94 poster.jpg up in the infobox. If you think the image is suitable for use in the article, the next steps would be to update the rationale and either add the type of sourced commentary mentioned in UUI #7 or discuss on the file's talk page. I hope this helps! hinnk (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]