Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Older archives Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Is the sunglasses imagery used to represent the "oo" in "Cool" in File:Wkch.png enough to push this above c:COM:TOO US? If not, then this file can be relicensed and kept; otherwise, its current non-free use fails WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and it's going to need to be deleted unless that's addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sunglasses seem too basic to be above TOO, in my opinion. If they were beside the logo, they wouldn't be anything special. It's more comparable to the Tostito's logo (which is ineligible for copyright) than the Family Guy logo (which had a DR that resulted in the original logo being deleted in favor of a version without the TV dotting the i. Cawfeecrow (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about uploading a video for Wikipedia, and possibly for use on the main page as a DYK. This question begins in Western Motel, an article about the 1957 painting by Edward Hopper. Around 2019 or so, the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts built a 3D replica of the painting as a real hotel room and rented it out overnight to guests as part of the Edward Hopper and the American Hotel art exhibition. You can find a comprehensive list of sources about this over at Talk:Western Motel#Possible sources. Anyway, User:APK recorded a HQ video of the hotel room and I'm curious if we can upload it as a free file for use in the article or as a DYK hook on the main page. FWIW, APK sent me the video, so I'm ready to upload if that's acceptable. Thank you in advance! Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is whether or not the objects in this hotel are of utilitarian function and thus not sculptures. The United States does not have Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, only buildings (see Wikimedia Commons' info on FoP).

Another issue is that (even if it is of utilitarian function) if the items have artistic elements that are reasonably separable from the function. Looking at Western Motel (the painting), none of the objects seem like they would pass the Threshold of Originality if created in physical form, which would give credit to the "upload" side of it.

However, I'm looking at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts motel room and is that a painting of the car, a sculpture of a car made to look like a painting, or an actual car made to look like a painting? the first two are very troublesome, and the last one is iffy at best. Perhaps the car (painting/sculpture/actual car) would be De Minimis to the video, but considering how large of an element it is to the experience/piece, I doubt it.

All in all, my response is "likely not". It would be great to have this video on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, but I have too many doubts. Cawfeecrow (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and I thank you for your response. Based on your answer, I have withheld uploading the video for the time being and instead uploaded a still capture of a photo from the same source of the same subject. Please take a look at the copyright tags and review them for accuracy.[1] I would also like to note that I will be expanding the section about this new photo later tonight and tomorrow. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Justification looks fine to me based on my reading of WP:NFCC, but I'm not really the non-free use/fair use person.

@Marchjuly, if you don't mind me tagging you, is this alright per NFCC? Cawfeecrow (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

​​ I apologize for not responding sooner, but I'm not sure how something like this should be treated. According to c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography, media like this can be uploaded to Commons if it's 100% free because Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright of the content it hosts and not so much with other types of restrictions. I don't know whether a museum recreating the imagery of a famous painting as part of a real-world exhibition, though, would be automatically considered a WP:Derivative work of original painting or even whether the recreation itself would automatically be eligible for its own separate copyright protection: you could possibly be dealing with three different copyrights with three different copyright holders. Whoever took the video would be the copyright holder of the video, but as point out above, the copyright of whatever is being videoed could also be an issue. Assuming the the exhibit was eligible for copyright protection, even a freely licensed video of it would need to be treated as non-free content (unless the museum takes the video and releases it under a free license), which means it couldn't be used on a WP:DYK page as a hook per WP:NFCC#9. Any such video could also be hard to justify in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#3 (depending on its length) and WP:NFCC#8 (depending on how and where it was intended to be used). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The video has been released by the owner to Wikipedia and sent to me for that purpose. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Non-free file being used here is a screencap of the video, not the video itself.

I forgot about the DYK part of the question. Thank you for mentioning that. Cawfeecrow (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a screencap, it's a photo. I was a bit loose with my wording. The photo and the video were made by the same person on the same iPhone. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying things a bit Viriditas. One more issue that needs clarifying is what you mean by The video has been released by the owner to Wikipedia and sent to me for that purpose..

When files are uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, there's no transfer of copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) taking place; the content is just be hosted on one of the sites operated by the WMF with the copyright holder retaining their intellectual property rights for the content. What does happen, though, is that the copyright holder makes their content available under a type of copyright license with very minimal restrictions (i.e., a license that's OK per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Images and other media files). In a sense, the copyright holder is using Wikipedia or Commons to make their work as easy as possible for others around the world to use at any time for any purpose (including derivative and commercial use) with as few restrictions as possible. For this reason, any license that tries to restrict reuse to "Wikipedia use only", "educational use only", "non-commercial use only", "Viriditas use only", or "non-derivative use only" is going to be too restrictive for Wikipedia's general copyright licensing.

If "Wikipedia use only" is what the person who took the video wants to do, then there's really no way for any screenshot taken from it to be treated as non-free content per WP:NFCC#1. The reason for this is because such a screenshot would either be a non-free screenshot from a copyrighted video about copyrighted museum exhibit, or a non-free screenshot from a copyrighted video about a non-copyrighted museum exhibit; in either of those two cases, it could be argued that someone could do what the copyrighted video creator's did but only release their video under a free license. A screenshot from a video, movie, TV program, video game, etc. is really only copyrighted if the original source material itself is copyrighted; in such a case, the screenshot's copyright holder would be the same as the copyright holder of the source material.

Now, if the creator of the video wants to upload it somewhere online (e.g., YouTube) under one of the free licenses listed here so that its copyright status can be verified or send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT, then the only thing left to resolve would be the copyright status of the museum exhibit. If the exhibit is eligible for copyright protection in its own right, the screenshot of the video would need to be treated a non-free content, and each use of it would need to meet WP:NFCC; you would need a non-free use rationale and a non-free copyright license for the exhibit, and a free license for the video screenshot. If the exhibit isn't eligible for copyright protection, you could upload the screenshot to Commons with a free license for the museum exhibit and a free license for the video. Such a screenshot wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and would be easier to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, for Wikipedia use in the context that I was using it means CC0 or equivalent. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the full video already posted somewhere online under said license? A way to verify APK's consent is most likely going to be needed for the video's licensing. Once that's done, then it's just figuring out the licensing of the museum exhibit shown in the video. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because if everything is freely licensed, then that's where the screenshot should be uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would it be? As I said, the video and photo were gifted to me to donate to Wikipedia using a free license. The user in question is noted in the upload and can be contacted for further details. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with my photo and video being used here. I still have them on my phone in addition to the copies Viriditas has. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content use criterion #4 requires that non-free content be previously published, and this is typically assumed to mean either in print or somewhere online; so, if the video was published online, that would take care of both NFCC#4 and license verification if it turns out the museum exhibit needs to be treated as non-free content. Of course, you don't have to do this, but email verification by WP:VRT may then be needed per WP:DONATEIMAGE if, by chance, APK's statement above is not considered sufficient by VRT. I'm not a VRT member so I don't know how it treats this type of thing. Way back in the day prior to VRT, it was fine to post a WP:CONSENT like statement somewhere on the file's page with respect to both Wikipedia and Commons and such files can still be found if you look hard enough. Since VRT (formerly called OTRS) was established, though, more formal verification has become the standard. It's also important to note that there's no way to limit the use of the screenshot to "here" (i.e., Wikipedia) per a {{CC0}} license. People could download it as use it as they please and nobody, except perhaps the museum as the copyright holder of the exhibit, could try to make them stop doing so.

Anyway, I think the non-free use rationale for File:Recreation of Hopper's Western Motel room VMFA.jpg is probably OK. I say probably because you never know for sure who's going to challenge a non-free use; it does, however, look OK to me. The only thing I would suggest would to be to add an {{Information}} template for the video taken by APK to the "Summary" section or use and then add a corresponding free copyright license for the video to the "Licensing" section. If you want to combine both things into one, you probably could use the |other information= parameter in {{Non-free use rationale 2}} for such information. You also only really need one rationale for that particular non-free use; I suggest you remove the non-template one. You might also want to rephrase the non-free use rationale a bit because the file technically isn't being used for "visual identification of the object of the article" per se but rather is used to support critical commentary about an exhibit about the object of the article. Lastly, APK could send a consent email to VRT, and a VRT member will then add {{Permission ticket}} to the file's page after verifying the email just to sort of seal the deal and remove any doubt about the source of the video. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg is an example of how I've seen something similar done by others; the big difference is the uploader of that particular file is also the copyright holder of the photo. That's an actual photo, not a screenshot, but the idea is kind of the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Yesterday, I spent a fair amout of time to add numerous pictures of people at List of members of the 20 July plot that already were used elsewere on en.wikipedia, only to find out that all but a few were removed again by a bot due to copyright issues. Without any exeption, they are pictures of people that were killed in 1944/45, so the pictures are more than 80 years old. How is this a copyright violation? Thanks for your help! ~2026-71545 (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2026-71545. That bot has been tasked with finding non-free files that aren't be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use polucy; more specifically, non-free files for which one or more of their uses doesn't satisfy non-free content use criterion #10c. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restricitve by design, and there are 10 criteria that each non-free use needs to meet for it to be considered a valid non-free use. One of these criteria (actually one part of one of these criteria) is #10c; this criterion specifies that a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of a non-free file. My guess is that when you added the files to that particular article, you failed to also add a corresponding non-free use rationale for this new use to each files page; so, the bot noticed this and removed the files per WP:NFCCE. This is what the bot meant by the edit summary it left and why it included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in that edit summary. It's OK if you didn't no any of this, but the bot was jsut doing what it was tasked to do. Now, having posted all of that, the way you were trying to use these files is typically not allowed regardless of whether a non-free use rationale is provided because of WP:NFLISTS: non-free images are pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries of stand-alone list artists or in lists or list-like formating in other type of articles. This is because Wikipedia's policy requires us to keep non-free use as minimal as possible, and one the ways the community has decided this is best done is by not allowing images to be used in list articles. It's unfortunate that you spent time trying to do this, but the way you wanted to use the files is really not allowed per relevant policy. If you feel this is a mistake in someway, you can seek general input at WT:NFCC or start a more formal discussion about it at WP:FFD. FWIW, the bot didn't remove the files for being a copyright violation per se; it did so because the uses weren't in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. As mentioned above, this policy is quite restrictive, even more so that US copyright law in some regards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71545. Copyright durations can vary. For example, looking at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany the life of the author +70 years may apply. So if a 30 year old photographer took a photo in 1945 and died at age 60, the copyright would extend to 2045. Some of the photos from your edit may be out of copyright and claimed as fair use unnecessarily, and someone could research the photos to establish the authors (potentially anonymous) and applicable copyright (you need to account for US copyright and well as the home country for use in Wikimedia Commons). Any photo available in Wikimedia Commons should be free and able to be used in any Wikipedia article. Commander Keane (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly and Commander Keane, thank you very much for the extensive respones. It seems that I've stepped into a minefield here :-) I had started from the principle that, if a creator is unknown, the copyright was expired after 70 years (rule of thumb within Dutch & EU copyright regulations, also used as a principle for Wikimedia Commons). I figured that in this case (works older dan > 80 years and creator unknown) this would be sufficient. It is now clear to me that EN.Wikipedia has a more extensive set of policies. That's a bit too complicated for me, so I'll leave it alone. Cheers, ~2026-71545 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I only tried to explain why the bot removed the files. The bot is not capable of assessing whether the non-free copyright licensing of a file is correct; it only sees the file is licensed as non-free and checks whether it has a non-free use rationale for each of its uses. It's quite possible the a file was under copyright protection when it was originally uploaded, entered into the public domain after that, but nobody reassessed the file and updated its licensing as needed. It's also quite possible that whoever uploaded the file just treated it as non-free because they didn't know any better or just to err on the side of caution. So, if there's an particular file that you feel should be reassessed, you might want to ask about it at c:COM:VPC over at Wikimedia Commons. If a file is now indeed PD under both US copyright law and the copyright law of the country of first publication, it really should be being hosted by Commons. In that case, the local file can either be relicensed and moved to Commons, or the same image could be newly uploaded to Commons and the local file deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The situation is clear to me, but it's too complex and too much work for me to fix. I'll leave it as is. ~2026-71545 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following on the article talk page where the image is used -Talk:2018 Toronto van attack - but not sure it will get many eyes about the image — File:Alek Minassian.jpg.

I am not sure that the photo of the perpetrator is needed here (a moral response from someone who saw the van from across the street), but more importantly I am not sure it is licensed properly. The non-free license is for a software icon not other parts of the screen. Plus, whomever took the original photo of the person presumably would have copyright claimed that would also need to be licensed. If others could comment, that would be great.   Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordan 1972. The {{Non-free computer icon}} license currently being used for File:Alek Minassian.jpg is most certainly incorrect; a {{Non-free biog pic}} license would've probably be a better choice. The "moral" question of using the file, however, isn't really related to image copyright per se. Given that the subject of the photo is still living, a non-free image of them would, at least at first glance, be a clear failure of WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; however, in some cases, non-free images of living people who are long-term incarcerated, officially declared missing (even perhaps presumed dead), reported as being known recluses (hermits) by reliable sources who pretty much never ever appear in public, and other similar types of situations have been allowed in the past. Usually, a WP:FFD discussion or some other formal discussion is needed, though, to figure that out. In other worlds, it's not a case where non-free images of the perpetrators of a crime or the victims of a crime are automatically considered to be policy compliant just because they're associated with a particular event; often the discussion tends to be more nuanced. I seen FFD discussions in the past in which a similar image was discussed, but the perpetrator was deceased (so FREER wasn't really an issue per se); the consensus was that the file should be deleted because the perpetrator's physical appearance was not really relevant to the reader's understanding of the crime they committed or what reliable sources were saying about the crime. There are probably other examples where a non-free image was kept. anyway, you could try asking for some general feedback about this particular image at WT:NFCC or you could seek a more formal discussion about it via FFD, but I this kind of thing tends to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I have an SVG version (created using one of those SVG converter websites) of File:AppleTalk logo from Control Panel.gif, and I'm wondering if this'll break Wikipedia's non-free use/fair use. I know that scaled down images are common in filespace, so I just want to be clear if this is one of those cases. If it is allowed, what is the best way to do overwrite this file? I know that I can't simply overwrite the file. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 00:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EatingCarBatteries. You should generally only overwrite any file for simple things like straightening, minor cropping, minor color correction, etc., but upload a new file for other things like changing the file's format or uploading a completely new version. For something like this, c:COM:OVERWRITE tends to be a good guide even for files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. For non-free files, in particular, overwriting can cause problems (sometimes even lead to edit warring) because older unused revisions of a non-free file are eligible for speedy deletion per speddy deletion criterion F5; so, overwriting a non-free file is essentially a de-facto tagging of the file for speedy deletion. Updating a non-free file with something that's very different will replace the existing version everywhere its being used with the newer version, and such a thing might not be desirable in each and every case. Uploading the file has a separate file, though, makes comparisons of multiple files easier, and could allow the older version to continue to be used if doing so is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

As for non-free files and svg formats, vector versions released by the copyright holder tend to be preferrable to user-created versions for the reasons given in WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions due to the unclear copyright status of vector versions under US copyright law. For example, a non-free vector version of a non-free logo could potentially be a "double non-free file" in which two copyrights need to be considered. This might not be such a concern if the uploader of the file is also the one who created the vector version since it can be argued they are making their version freely available by uploading it and can state as much in the file's descriptions; vector versions created by others, however, could be problematic. This is why official vector versions are preferred since it's going to be assumed that the copyright holder of the logo and copyright holder of the vector version are the same and, therefore, understands what they're doing by posting the vector version online. Such versions can also be more accurate renditions of the copyright holder's logo than anything you might find on a user-generated content type of website. Finally, I also believe there are technical restrictions that might prevent someone from updating, for example, an existing gif format logo with a svg format logo, in addition to everything I posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for much for this clear up. I'll place it on hold for now. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I uploaded File:Station Camp High School (Gallatin, Tennessee) logo.png with a free use rationale and added it to the infobox of Station Camp High School. (Since then, it looks like it might be public domain because it's a simple "SC" monogram.)

However, the JJMC89 bot removed the logo from the article and directed me to WP:NFC#Implementation. I re-read it but can't figure what issue applies here.

How do I correctly re-add the image while addressing whatever my mistake was? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RevelationDirect. JJMC89 bot removed the file from Station Camp High School for not having a valid non-free use rationale for that particular article because you mistakenly listed Portland High School (Tennessee) as where the file was being used in the non-free use rationale you added when uploading the file: I'm assuming this was just a copy-paste mistake on your part. The file was relicensed as {{PD-logo}} after the bot had already removed the file. Since the file is no longer subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, it doesn't need a non-free rationale anymore. All you need to do is add the file to the Station Camp article if that's where you want to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed answer, much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I have the permission from a photographer to publish his portrait photos taken of founder of an architect firm that I have written an wiki-page about. The architects have also give me their permission to publish. How to I prove this to Wikipedia Commons license?' Veronica Hejdelind (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Veronica Hejdelind Point the copyright holders to Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Alternatively, suggest that they make a page with these pictures at their website with the text "The pictures on this page are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license", then you or anyone can upload them on Commons, giving a link to that page as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]