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.

This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was released under the Creative Commons license option on YouTube before August 2025. (YouTube changed the license version from CC BY 3.0 to 4.0 on August 1; this was not retroactive.)

The license is valid as it is a video shot and released under CC BY 3.0, and the change was not retroactive.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwinog2777 File:Enrique Marquez (born 1963).jpg hasn't been deleted nor has anyone nominated it for deletion. Nthep (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 12 January 2026 JJMC89 bot talk contribs  6,709 bytes −68  Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here. undothank

the jpg was taken off the page Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the change until it is resolved.Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A big problem is {{Non-free video screenshot}}, as that doesn't match with the CC license.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any way to make it right?Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Mwinog2777 The reason why the bot removed the file was because you added both a non-free license and a CC-by-4.0 license to the file's page, at least that's what it looks like to me. So, the bot noticed this license conflict and treated the file as non-free. It removed the file because you didn't provide a non-free use rationale for the file's use in Enrique Marquez. However, given that Marquez is still living, there's going to be pretty much no way to justify using any non-free image of him per WP:FREER. The YouTube video seems to have been released under an acceptable free license for Wikipedia (see c:COM:YOUTUBE for more details); so, as long as you're quite sure whoever controls that YouTube channel is also the original copyright holder of the video (see c:COM:LL for more details), you just need to remove the non-free license and replace is with the correct Creative Commons license. This file should've been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead, but you can just tag it with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  thanx Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For certain products, such as the iPhone, we have existing vector renders of the *front* side of the device, or similarly non-descript views. However, there is maybe a case to be made that product renders directly from the company website would not only show off more of the products in question, but also include elements which could not otherwise be made in a truly "free" vector render, such as the company's logo. For example, compare the current iPhone 17 vector image (here) to the promotional iPhone 17 image on Apple's website (here).

The question then is would these promotional product renders pass the non-free content criteria - specifically, based on the limitations of existing vector renders, do they have "no free equivalent"? DeklinCaban (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJMC89 bot removed an album image from Bearfoot (American band) page with the words "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation" I reverted and challenged the removal in the summary, stating "It stated did not comply with Non-free content criteria, but after reviewing the 10 points, I do not see which of the 10 points it fails to comply with. Please be more specific with which point it fails to meet, or take this to the talk page." Instead, being a bot, it just reverted it again. So I challenge it here. There are no other images on the page, so this is the only non-free use image on the page. It complies with all ten points of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I changed the image rationale from non-free use rationale 2 to non-free image data, since there was some question of using non-free content criteria, and [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation[[ suggests other boilerplate rationale templates can be used, such as albums. I am quite willing to revert this bot change every day until a real administrator steps up and explains why this bot is reverting a valid image. This appears to be a bad bot. Mburrell (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The bot said "No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation" (links omitted, emphasis mine). That WP: takes us to a page that explains "rationale that clearly identifies each article the media file is used in,". I think the problem is #7. The first revision of File:Bearfoot Bluegrass - Only Time Knows.jpg incorrectly states it's used at Back Home (Bearfoot Bluegrass album) and the second revision does not state any use-case at all. The rationale on the image page must specify (correctly) the article page that is using the file. DMacks (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more, the Source field is also incorrect. Looks like you copied the whole description block from a different file and did not update it completely. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's #10c, as Marchjuly notes, not #7 (it's a 7-day shot-clock for the file). My other concern is #10a. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Mburrell: The bot removed the file because of WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE. A separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file and there's no such rationale for File:Bearfoot Bluegrass - Only Time Knows.jpg's use in the "Bearfoot (American Band)" article on its file page. That is what the bot is looking for and that is what it meant when it included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation it the edit summary it left each time it removed the file from the article. The file has a media information template but that's not the same thing as a non-free use rationale. So, adding the missing rationale (e.g. a template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}) should stop the bot from removing the file.

Now having posted that, even though adding the missing rationale should stop the bot from removing the file again, that is WP:JUSTONE of the ten criteria than need to be met, and the way you're trying to use the file would still have issues per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Non-free album covers are generally OK when used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the albums they represent, but their use in other ways or in other article (e.g. articles about the band/artist) tends to be way much harder to justify. If you feel the Only Time Knows album meets WP:NALBUM and you want to create a stand-alone article about it, then the file should be fine to use their. It will, however, be very hard to justify its use in a subsection of the article about the band, and I think you'll have difficultly establishing a consensus if favor of doing so if the file were to be discussed at WP:FFD.

Finally, edit warring of any type regardless of how right you think you are is pretty much always going to be viewed unfavorably by Wikipedia administrators and almost always end badly for those involved. Bots, in particular, will keep doing what they've been tasked to do as long as they perceive there is a need to do so. It's much better to seek assistance than continuing to revert the bot because in most cases (not always but most) the bot is actually correct and the reverting party just is misunderstanding why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the rationale and try to understand what you are saying. I was not threatening an edit war, just a daily reversion to keep the image file active until I got an answer from a person instead of a bot that can't actually respond to issues. Now that you have responded, I will ponder your response and determine if I agree with the rationale. Mburrell (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to WP:NFC#cite_note-3, where it explicitly states that "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article."

That does answer my question and concern. I did wade through the entire 10-points of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Policy, and it is hard to understand, but I thought I met all the points listed. But the reference note is pretty explicit and I will comply. I just wish that when there is something that is clear and comprehensible, that it is not so buried that I needed a treasure map to find it. Please place that note clearly in the article.

DMacks was also correct that I did a very bad copy-edit, and did not clean up the file article properly. That was my fault. I have cleaned up the file article, but since the album is not notable enough to sustain an article (there was one, it was deleted as non-notable a month ago), and I can't place the album image in the band article, I will let the file image go into deletion. Thank you for taking the time to provide the map that made sense of this legalese-written criteria. I appreciate your patience and willingness to help. Mburrell (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Copyright/licensing are some of the stricter but also more complicated sets of policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information regarding the release of Only Time Knows from more sources. I added back the image on that Wikipedia page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great solution, you've got all the technical details in the image-page fixed accordingly. I see there's been some dispute about whether the album actually is notable enough for an article, but if it is, then that's the perfect (and only) place the album-cover goes. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody with the tools please do that? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done unhid both. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright likely to be for the photograph from the Daily Mail seen at [1]? The event depicted happened on 16 August 1944, 81 years ago, but there is no indication of who the photographer is or whether they worked for the paper. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf. Do you know whether the same story was covered by any US newspapers? If it can be established that the same photo was published in a US newspaper within 30 days of its original publication in the UK, it's possible that US copyright law (e.g., {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}) could apply; otherwise, the photo is most likely going to need to be assessed per UK copyright law.

My guess is that this would be subject to the UK's ordinary copyright provisions. For anonymous works, this means 70 years from the calendar year following the year of creation or 70 years from the calendar year following the year of first publication. Assuming that 1944 would be the start date in both cases, this means the photo would've entered into the public domain on January 1, 2015, under UK copyright law. However, because the photo would've been still under copyright protected under UK copyright law on the UK's URAA date (January 1, 1996), its copyright would've been restored under US copyright law. The copyright term for works solely published overseas during that time under US copyright law is 95 years from the calendar year following the year of first publication. So, even though the photo might now be within the public domain under UK copyright law, it would seem to be still protected under US copyright law until January 1, 2040. Commons requires that the content it hosts be both within the pubic domain in both the US and the country of first publication per c:COM:PUBLISH; so, the photo can't really be uploaded there if my assessment is accurate. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, primarily goes by US copyright law; so, the photo could possibly be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia but would need to be treated as non-free content.

Now, this is just my assessment. Perhaps someone else will respond here and say something different, or you could ask about the photo at c:COM:VPC to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know whether the same story was covered by any US newspapers? I've only done a cursory search but all the results I've found so far have been from the UK. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How and where are hoping to use the file? If, for example, you wanted to use it for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about either the photo itself or the incident it depicts, you probably couold make a reasonable argument in favor of non-free use. If you want to use the photo in some other article or some other way, it might be harder to justify non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upchurch#Train that jumped the gap is where I was thinking of using it. That section is currently shorter than I thought it would turn out to be. I did write a bit more (hence so many sources for the amount of prose) but it turned out to be a mix of close paraphrasing and not very encyclopaedic in tone. I may come back to it later but I discovered it by accident while working on a different project. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be hard (not impossible but kind of hard) to justify the non-free use of the file in that small of an in-body section about the town where the incident took place, but others might feel differently. You could also upload it and see what happens or seek informal input at WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that with the current amount of text a non-free file would be pushing it, but it would make a nice addition if it was free. With a bit more time and effort there is easily enough information for 2-3 paragraphs, which is about the sort of length I'd consider for a non-free file. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted above, you can ask about this at c:COM:VPC since that's where the file really should be uploaded if it's PD. My assessment could be off; if it is, someone over at Commons would certainly point out where and give you more accurate info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I recently nominated the article Ice Warrior for FAC, and there were questions discussed about the usage of images put on display at the Doctor Who Experience. The Experience was an exhibition of Doctor Who-related items, which included displays of costumes and props from the series. Per British Freedom of Panorama law, images from this kind of exhibition can only be used as free use if the exhibition was a permanent one. The exhibition, however, lived only for five years before being taken down.

Prior discussion on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 34 and [2]. Previous discussion has been centered around whether the Experience was intended to be a permanent exhibition, which might provide some leeway for usage. I provided some sources for these, but the reviewer indicated that consensus was not certain on whether or not these images did or did not certifiably pass FoP rationales. As a result, they suggested this be discussed here where this can be ascertained more thoroughly and a proper consensus can be obtained on the matter.

I'd appreciate a look to see whether or not these images from this exhibition would fall under FoP or not. They are widely used in Doctor Who articles, so it would be impactful for the WikiProject to finally have a concrete consensus on this. All help with this is appreciated! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Of Monsters and Men Empire.png is the cover art for the single "Empire (Of Monsters and Men song)" released by Republic Records in 2015. The file was uploaded as {{Non-free album cover}}, but I'm wondering whether it's simple enough to be {{PD-simple}}. If it is, then the file should be OK to move to Commons. Any opinions on this would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Only text and basic geometric shapes. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 07:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I'm not so sure. It could be, I have no doubt about that, but my knee-jerk reaction is that this one would be an edge case and would have to be more thoroughly discussed.

Also Comment:, Of Monsters and Men is an Icelandic band, so Icelandic TOO would have to be considered as well as US TOO. Cawfeecrow (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The band's record company that released the single is based out of the US. I guess it's possible the band retained at least a share of the copyright for the single's cover art, particularly if the one the band members or someone the band knows came up with the design; however, that wouldn't necessarily matter because the file could still be treated locally as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} without really needing to worry about c:COM:Iceland. Your comment about this being an edge case, though, is helpful because that's sort my feeling as well. There's nothing wrong with the file remaining licensed as non-free, even just as a precaution, given its current use if that's the general consensus; a PD file (even a local PD file) just is easier to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, should of looked deeper.

Re:remaining non-free, yeah, that works. It feels close enough above TOO that one would have to apply PCP and delete it if it ever went to Commons. single covers on their respective articles typically justify themselves for fair use, of course. Cawfeecrow (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Is the fox tail imagery used to represent the "x" in "Fox" in File:WFXO 98.3FOXFM logo.jpg 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 and it's going to need to be deleted unless that's addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 22 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.[3] 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]