Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Derivative work of item in an Indian museum

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. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Do seals count as '2d works of art' for which a faithful photograph doesn't grant copyright? This seems like it would be in the public domain as the artist died approximately 1500 years ago, and as [1] seems to count as public domain, surely the seal would too. TPOD (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20160113094551/http://pro.geo.univie.ac.at/projects/khm/sites/default/files/images/showcase/objects/C_Hc%20007_neu.png is the higher-res image the original was downsized from TPOD (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who took the photograph and when. LDW5432 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a page for Tri-Valley Unit Community School District and the only photos i could find of the school were on the Official Downs Website with no metadata attached. I was wondering if i could still use the images under non-free type or if i should email the village to allow me to use them (also applies to the school logo) KamJam007 (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KamJam007: Under US copyright law, a copyright notice and other copyright formalities are no longer required for copyright protection; so, as soon as something is published in some type of tangible medium (e.g. an official website), it's considered protected. For this reason, the photos found on the district's official website should be assumed to be copyrighted unless it explicitly states otherwise. Now, whether the copyright holder is the district or someone else is unclear since the site could be hosting photos taken by third-parties, and you may need to content the district to find that out. If the copyrihgt holder wants to give their WP:CONSENT for the photos, then that would be great. You can try WP:PERMISSION for that if you want.

Some images found on the website might be OK to upload and use as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive. One of these restrictions is that non-free content can't be used in drafts; so, I do not suggest uploading any non-free content to use while the draft is still a draft because it will only end up being removed and eventually deleted. Another of the restrictions has to do with the availability of free equivalents capable of serving the same purpose as non-free content: freely licensed or public domain content is nearly always preferrable to non-free content. So, for example, any photos of existing buildings or other district facilities would almost certainly be considered unacceptable as non-free since US copyright law allows pretty much unrestricted freedom of panorama for buildings and other inhabitable structures located in the US. This means anyone can take a photo of a typical buidling in the US without having to worry about infringing upon the copyright of whoever designed the building. Therefore, any photos of school buildings or other facilites found on the district's website could be recreated by someone else, who could then release the photo under an accetpable free license. If there are other photos or images on the website that you're interested in using, then perhaps describing them in a bit more detail (or even providing a link to them) should enable someone to give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a regular Wikipedian, and the procedure for requesting deletion is restrictively complex. I ran across File:TI 84 Plus CSE.jpg, which is justified as NFFC. I believe it violates WP:NFCC1, as this is a consumer good with existing permissively-licensed photos on the internet, and communities willing to take high-quality photographs of the item for Wikipedia. Asdf2jkl (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asdf2jkl If you think it violates NFCC#1 then it's down to you to nominate it for deletion. You can try delayed deletion per Wikipedia:Files for discussion#What not to list here III. Sub-point 5 would seem to meet your concern and adding {{subst:dfu|reason}} to the image will nominate it for deletion. Nthep (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benpollackcalif2.jpg is the only image we have of Harry Goodman. It eas removed by a bot. The file is already in use for Ben Pollack. Why not use twice? Littenberg (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot removed the image because non-free files must have a separate non-free use rationale for each article they're placed on. If you add the NFUR, the bot won't remove the image. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to add what was posted above by saying the Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrictive than fair use, and this is by design. One way in which Wikipedia's policy is more restrictive is that it asks us to minimize our use of non-free content as much as possible, and use free equivalents (images, text, links, etc.) whenever possible. So, while there's nothing in Wikipedia's policy that states a non-free file may only be used once, additional uses of non-free content tend to be much harder to justify in terms of all ten non-free content use criteria; so, it shouldn't be assumed that it's automatically OK to use same file on multiple pages or in multiple ways just because one particular use on one particular page seems OK per relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing on the Jedi Wikipedia page and noticed someone was using https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/JediKnights.jpgI as fair use. later I was looking on flicker for alternatives in order to not rely on fair use. On the lisensing from the Wikipedia commons it says This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots But I found the same exact image on flicker https://www.flickr.com/photos/199411322@N05/53299890479/in/photolist-5QQhAr-bJQpP-dWvmnN-8rCtf8-6hiWX-5SkCt-TdhWkq-C8MFsF-2hLHrcg-2hLHp1Y-dByHqp-6g39K8-7iaVki-72iK41-2hK6A-6jpuX-4nZd6G-7aACj-2pcVSuX-2pcWoVY-5zSqkQ-JuUhjJ-7JXRHC-6MNBSp-C74A2N-9uFVyD-bxowj8-wbhhvK-AFX4L2-21VFPv-wXEdv7-KWQThq-JeFUfy-rVH4wZ-89s3Ws-87swgt-cmFieC-82doUS-VtLygJ-8HQSVN-56qUh-8t3KYn-boHtt8-wjEmo-boHRtp-boHQMF-2km9S8V-vHLqB-2cyFCKH-nwBkhT that a user uploaded in the public domain. Should I upload this image and replace the fair use image with the one I found or do we stick with the fair use image? WikiGrower1 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it is not unusual to find things on Flikr that are labelled 'public domain' despite any evidence to support such a claim, and good grounds to suspect are actually subject to copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I shouldn’t upload that one. What is the Wikipedia copyright policy of when there is a picture of a character when the character is copyrighted and someone uploads an image of there own with the character in the Creative Commons? WikiGrower1 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiGrower Your question is a bit unclear, at least to me, so please clarify if my answer is about something completely different. If someone uploads their own image of a copyrighted character (e.g. takes a photo of an offical team mascot at a sporting event), then their photo could be considered a derivative work in which there are two copyrights to consider: one for the character and one for the photo. In such a case, the copyright status of each would need to be assessed to determine whether Wikipedia can host the photo because the photographer only "owns" the copyright on the photo they took. There's more information on this kind of thing in the Wikimedia Commons page c:Commons:Copyright by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay which you might find helpful. Whether Wikipedia can host such photos depends on various factors, but the copyright status of the character and the degree the character is the focus of the photo tend to be the two main reasons why such photos ended up being deleted. Another thing to remember is that fair use and non-free content aren't exactly the same thing: the latter is Wikipedia's way of allowing fair use content to be used under certain conditions. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be more restrictive than fair use; so, while it's OK to think that all non-free content meets the US copyright law's requirements for fair use, not all fair use content meets Wikipedia's requirements for non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is I am not sure when you are allowed to upload a character. So does that mean if a user uploaded a picture of a copyrighted work in the public domain the picture creator consented to being used in any way but not the creator of the character. WikiGrower1 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How this file cannot be used to illustrate cross section of a football. EncyclopedianWP (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, non-free content is only used sparingly, where it's absolutely necessary, and where free content can't do the job. It would be possible to create a free image to use for this purpose, so we can't use this one. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that on many Football National Teams pages you removed the Federation Badge, yet Belgium has been an exempt. In what way does the Royal_Belgian_FA_logo_2019.svg satisfy the conditions for being shared on the National Team page? On every other National team page that i encountered, Federation Badges automatically get removed. Msb73505 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg is categorized as being below the US threshold of originality, which is in the public domain for the English Wikipedia's purposes. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an article on the US Supreme Court's basketball court. I do not believe there are any public domain images of it. One of the only photos I have found of it is from Ruth Bader Ginsburg shooting a layup on the court. The photo was taken in 1995 by a photographer from the USA Basketball Women's National Team. It was not then-published. In 2020, the Team sent the photo to the twelve players who with Ginsburg, and Sheryl Swoopes then put it out on Instagram. (A NYT article discussing much of what I just said, the Instagram post with photo, which was linked to in the article). The basketball court is closed to the public, so I don't know if that qualifies as not being expected to make a replacement. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1brianm7. Others might feel differently, but I don't really think there's justification for this type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, unless perhaps the photo itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. None of individuals or other elements shown in the photo are things that can't be replaced by a free equivalent image or jsut text alone, at least not in my opinion. The use of a non-free photo of the entire court might perhaps (if distinct from other basketball courts in some way for being the US Supreme Court's court) could possibly be argued as OK to use for primary identification purposes, but I don't see how a photo showing one of the justices shooting a layoup, some other people watching her, and pretty much nothing of the court at all could be justified for that purpose. Another thing to consider here is that photos taken by US federal government employees or SCOTUS employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain, which means some government employee could take a photo of the court and post it on some official US government website. This means any non-free photo taken of the court would have a questionable claim of non-free use to begin with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marchjuly:, thanks for the response. The court has very irregular proportions and has an incredibly short ceiling, with it also having no seating are often mentioned as unusual features. A bit unfortunately, one of the most unusual things about it is how usual it is, which probably works against it in this case. For the public domain thing, the LA Times noted in 2002 “[its] not listed in tourist information and closed to visitors.” None of the sources suggest that has changed, so I think the odds that they publicize it are pretty unlikely, or at least not enough to prevent it now (though I’m not the expert on how we do copyright law). 1brianm7 (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "public domain" has nothing to do with "publicizing" the court or even whether it's open to public. Under US copyright law, any works created by employees of the US federal government are ineligible for copyright protection because they are treated as public domain by statue. So, if an employee of the US federal government takes such a photo as part of their official duties and then publishes on some official government website, it would be reasonable to assume that the photo is within the public domain unless SCOTUS is treated differently with respect to such things for some reason. In addition, not having seats or being of irregular proportions (even with an incredibly short ceiling) isn't in my opinion the kind of thing that would be a sufficent justification for non-free use. I've seen plenty of courts over the years that probably could be described as such. Besides none of the features of the court are in any way relevant to the layup photo; so, tht photo pretty much has no encyclopedic value to readers if the justification for non-free use is the court's unusual features. The two photos shown here would be more representative of those features perhaps, but that fact that someone was able to take them and even create a YouTube video showing the court likely means a free equivalent photo would be reasonable to expect. There are other images of the court online too like this one, but other similar ones can even be found being sld here. So, perhaps the court isn't as impossible to photograph it seems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a photo of golfer Elsie Corlett in the 9th October 1935 edition of The Sketch. Hoping to add this photo in her page (since she doesn't have one), I was trying to find out the photographer to check if the photo would still be in copyright or not. However, I could not see any credit on the page (and don't have access to the whole edition so cannot see if there is any credit listed in the inside page for example). I'm hoping someone could advise me of the copyright status of such a photo or how to find out for myself who the photographer might be. I have tried to find digital versions of the magazine, but can't find this specific one. PitterPatter533 (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PitterPatter533. If the photo first appeared in a magazine published in the UK in 1935, then c:COM:UK (country of first publication) would matter in addition to c:COM:US (country Wikipedia/Commons servers are located), unless the same photo subsequently appeared in a US published magazine within 30 days of initial publication: US copyright law could be solely applied in that case. So, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to see what Commons thinks.

It seems to me that this could fall under c:COM:UK#Unknown author and the photo would've entered into the public domain under UK copyright law on January 1, 2006 (70 years + 1 year after first publication); however, US copyright law changed in the 1990s and the US restored the copyright of many works solely published abroad when the US Congress adopted the URAA. This meant that US copyright law provided addition protection for such works if they hadn't already entered into the public domain by the URAA date of their countries of first publication. The URAA date for the UK is January 1, 1996; so, anything that entered into the public domain under UK copyright law prior to that date is also considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law, and anything that was still under copyright protection under UK law on that date is also considered protected under US copyright law for 95 years after first publication (which would not until January 1, 2031 for a photo published in the UK in 1935).

Unlike Commons, English Wikipedia is concerned only with US copyright law and in some cases it can host content which is not, in principle, protected under US copyright law but is still protected under the copyright law of its country of first publication: such content can be treated a "US-only" type of public domain. Anything considered to be protected under US copyright law (even if within the public domain abroad), though, most likely is going to need to be treated as non-free if you want to use it on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your very detailed reply. So it looks more likely than not that it's not possible to use it. I will ask over at Commons and see what they say. PitterPatter533 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ ~2025-35157-20 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]