Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

Welcome to the Media copyright questions noticeboard, a place for help with image copyright tagging, non-free content, and media-related questions. For all other questions, use Wikipedia:Questions.

If you have a question about a specific image, link to it like this: [[:File:Example.png]] (Note the colons around the word File.) If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{Mcq-wrong}} and leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons, questions may be directed to Commons's copyright village pump.

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click "Edit this page".
2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
   • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
   • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
3. Type the name of the tag inclusing the curly brackets (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}) in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Click Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, ask a question below.

Click here to start a new discussion

File:The Hindu wordmark with illustrations.svg

I'm not sure about File:The Hindu wordmark with illustrations.svg being {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because of the illustrations the logo includes. These elements are things that seem to be more than complex/creative enough to push the logo above c:COM:TOO US, So, unless they're within the public domain for some reason per c:COM:India, I think this needs to be relicensed as {{non-free logo}}, with a non-free use rationale being provided for the standa-lone article about the paper: the use in the list article wouldn't meet Wp:NFLISTS and the file would need to be removed from that article. Anyone assessing this any differently? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: indeed this seems too complex to be ineligible. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Hindu logo.webp (asked by Ahecht).

But, when was this logo was created? On the DR, Ixfd64 said the logo was created in 2005, but it looks older and this page seems to indicate the logo was created in 1935 (making it PD-India and PD-US per URAA). If true, then it should be moved to Commons.

PS: this other file File:3500-जमाकर्ताओं-को-ठगने-वाला-कॉनमैन-गिरफ्तार.jpg is also in the same situation.

Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@VIGNERON The version of the logo in File:The Hindu wordmark with illustrations.svg is not the same as the 1935 version. There's significantly more detail in the face and hair on the left and the design on the elephant's blankets are completely different. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ahecht: oh interesting, could you share an image of the 1935 version (and if possible the proof it's from 1935), so other people could have a look too? Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 18:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@VIGNERON There's a picture of it in the link that you provided (). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ahecht: correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no date for this image. So it's doesn't help much. The only useful thing is this article is the text « In 1935, Kamadhenu, the divine cow, representing prosperity, and Airavatham, the divine elephant, representing strength, replaced the Raj’s animals » so we know that the idea of the current logo seems to be from 1935 ; but we can't tell much more about the visual representation... Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 17:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I assumed the logo was created in 2005 based on the this page at Logopedia. However, I do acknowledge wikis are not considered reliable sources. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: it doesn't help much but on the website we could see a similar logo (probably downscaled for technical reason) in 2001, Internet Archive and on this article in 1969. Still no certainty but there is strong possibility that this logo is in public domain, at least I would say it's worth looking for. Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 17:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@VIGNERON The logo on the 1969 article seems to match the logo at https://www.thehindu.com/specials/the-hindu-experience-from-our-archive/article67326275.ece, not the one in File:The Hindu wordmark with illustrations.svg. Same with the 2001 logo. This is most obvious when you compare the blanket on the elephant's back. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

File:KRON-TV building.jpg

I'm looking for some opinions on File:KRON-TV building.jpg. I think Marchjuly tagged the file two times for deletion, one on September 27, 2026, at 23:56 Pacific Time, and an another on September 28, 2026, at 18:53 Pacific Time. Soon, when the file fails to appear on the article KRON-TV under a non-free use rationale, I will be creating an article about the former KRON-TV Studios located at 1001 Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco, California. Thomasfan1916^{[built buses?]} 02:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I tagged the file with {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} twice because you removed the tag the first time even though it explicity states you should not do this when you're the uploader of the file. The re-addition of the tag was for essentially the same reason, with only minor changes made to reflect the changes you made to the file's copyright license and non-free use rationale when you removed the first tag. I've got no problem with others assessing the file's current non-free use. FWIW, if you believe an article about the former KRON-TV studios can be created per WP:NBUILDING and want to do so, then the non-free use of the photo in the main infobox or at the top of that article would most likely be fine; even if the file were to end up deleted because of its current use, you could ask that it be WP:REFUNDed for such a non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I changed the file's license from Template:Non-free destroyed architecture to Template:Non-free fair use in. Thomasfan1916^{[built buses?]} 02:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Greater Asiatic yellow bat image

The infobox image for Greater Asiatic yellow bat has a copyright symbol on it. I think the owner of the image is the photographer who uploaded it. I perused WP:IUP but still not sure how to handle this. AverageGuy (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The image is a Commons file so if you have concerns about licensing, you would need to raise them at C:COM:VPC. Having said that, I don't think there is any licensing issue. The file (c:File:Scotophilus heathii by Nameer.jpg) provides a source for the image which confirms that the material is freely licensed. Note that a freely licensed file is still under copyright. It just means that the copyright holder has decided to provide the image for use under the conditions of the license. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

File:At the End of the Day (Disagree album).jpeg

File:At the End of the Day (Disagree album).jpeg was uploaded as non-free but seems really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and maybe even per c:COM:TOO Malaysia. Even if the white smudges were intentional and not just a bad image, I'm not sure that in and of itself would push this above the US TOO. Anyone think this needs to remain non-free and not be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Help restoring originals of downsized images

Reposting here, per discussion at Commons.

A decade ago, I uploaded several scans of 1930s dust jackets to Wikipedia. Because my understanding at the time was that they were under copyright (which was the case for the underlying books), the sizes were promptly reduced; the higher-resolution originals were hidden; and the files were not exported to Commons.

Per this 2023 discussion, however, it is apparent that the dust jackets in question—which did not include separate copyright notices—are now in the public domain. They can thus be tagged with the PD-US-dust-jacket template, which was created due to the discussion.

Thus, I would like to (a) restore the high-resolution originals, and (b) export them to Commons. Can anyone help? If I'm looking at this correctly, an admin will be needed for the first part, but I can do the second myself.

The files are: BG Freshman; BG Sophomore; BG Junior; BG Senior; BG World's Fair (ALB); and BG World's Fair (BR).

Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Usernameunique, done. However, please include confirmation that these are the covers to the American editions rather than any international printings when transferring to Commons; although the dust jacket copyright notice was required in US law, other countries would have automatically provided protection. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, Crisco 1492; appreciate it. Will do. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: Just for future reference, you can usually request something like this at WP:REFUND since the deletion of "orphaned non-free revisions" per WP:F5 is considered to almost always be non-contentious. Just explain why (e.g., the file non longer needs to be or never needed to be treated as non-free content) you want to older revision restored. -- Marchjuly (talk)

  Wrong ping; I think you meant Usernameunique. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, both. Marchjuly, appreciate the heads up—good to know about that page. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

How to add a free use rationale to images for use on articles?

For reference, I updated the infobox for The Troubles, and 3 of the 6 images that were added were removed by @JJMC89 bot, saying that I needed to add a free use rationale. How would I do this? Pachiscool11 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

For reference, these are the 3 images.

Battle bogside 2.jpg

Edward Daly Bloody Sunday.jpg

UVFVolunteers.jpeg Pachiscool11 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pachiscool11. Each use of non-free content requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided on it's description page per non-free content use criterion #10c; those lacking the required rationale can be removed per WP:NFCCE. So, if you want to use an existing non-free file in more than one article, you need to add a rationale for the new use to the file's page. However, a separate, specific non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied for a non-free use to be considered policy compliant. It looks like the way you were trying to use non-free content in that infobox would fail several other of the criteria (particularly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8) since non-free content is pretty much never allowed to be used in a gallery-type of way per WP:NFG. The bot that removed the files is not capable of making such an assessment, but administrators and others active in reviewing non-free content use are. In my opinion, even if you were to provide rationales for the use of those files in that particular article in that particular way (which would stop the bot), the non-free uses would most likely be challenged by someone at some point, and it would be rather hard for you to establish a consensus in favor of using them that way. A single use of non-free content is already considered rather exceptional and is fairly hard to justify; additional non-free uses of the same content are, therefore, seen as being even more exceptional and even harder to justify because relevant policy requires us to minimize non-free use as much as possible whenever possible by using free equivalents (which include text or even no image at all) when we can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Right, thank you! Pachiscool11 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Logo of Chairperson of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Why is @JJMC89 bot removing the logo of CBIC from the page of Chairperson of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Zorawar385 (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zorawar385. JJMC89 bot has been tasked with finding non-free content that doesn't meet non-free content use criterion #10c; in other words, non-free content lacking a separate, specific non-free use rationale for all of its non-free uses. When the bot finds such content, it will remove it per WP:NFCCE, unless the reason for the missing rationale is something relatively minor; for example, the file does has a rationale but the use its for contains a spelling error, formatting error, disambiguation error, etc. (the bot can figure out a way to fix the already existing rationale). So, if the bot removed a non-free file you added to a particular article, then it almost certainly because the bot was unable to find a separate non-free use rationale for that particular use anywhere on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Korean reuse copyright for Encyclopedia of Korean Culture

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

Technical manuals

Hi team, I wonder if you could please clarify any copyright issues regarding technical manuals published in Germany during WW2? Specifically, I have a copy of Dienstvorschrift D. 672/3, dated 1.3.1939, reprinted and published in Berlin in 1940. I'm hoping to scan and upload a few diagrams/illustrations of the gearbox from my clean copy, plus - hopefully - some extensive translations into English for an article I'm drafting. Would your answers hold true for any other similar documents of the same period? Please note, the link I gave is merely an online example of the document, I'm certainly not intending to upload anything from this specific pdf. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi MinorProphet. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because German publications are almost certainly going to be subject to German copyright law (c:COM:Germany). English Wikipedia mainly goes by US copyright law, which would only really be the only thing that mattered if the same manuals were published in the US within 30 days of their original publication in Germany.

Under US copyright law at that time, works were required to have copyright formalities taken care of in order for them to be eligible for copyright protection. I believe the same, however, didn't really apply to works first published in most other countries, where copyright formalities weren't usually required; Germany, for example, allowed works of to remain protected for 70 years after the year of first publication or 70 years after the year of the copyright holder's death (regardless of whether formalities were taken care of). There also does seem to be a bilateral copyright treaty between the US and Germany (separate of any international copyright treaties the two countries might have signed) that could also affect how US copyright law applies to German works, but I'm not sure.

If the manuals deemed to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, they would likely need to be treated as non-free content for use on English Wikipedia and couldn't be uploaded to Commons even if not currently protected under German copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks for your swift reply. I'll try at c:COM:VPC. MinorProphet (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Bot removal of WP:NFCC violations

The JJMC89 bot removed a number of images here, and I don't understand the WP:NFCC pages linked. The images are used on several other pages, and I fail to see how this is a problem when grouping them together. Please help! OJH (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi OJH. If JJMC89 bot removed files you added to a particular Wikipedia page, then it most likely did so because those uses of the files didn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive by design and encourages to us to minimize are use of non-free content as much as possible. Policy requires that each non-free use satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria listed here. and JJMC89 bot has been tasked with find non-free files whose uses don't meet non-free content use criterion #9 and non-free content use criterion #10c. My guess is when you added non-free files to Province 3 of the Episcopal Church, you failed to also add a corresponding separate, specific non-free use rationale for those uses to each respective file page. The bot caught this during one of its runs, looked for the required rationale, and removed the files per WP:NFCCE when it didn't find them. Adding the required rationales to the files' pages should stop the bot from removing the files again.

However, as I mentioned above, there are ten criteria that each non-free use needs to meet and the bot is only assessing the non-free use of a file in terms of criteria 9 and 10c. Adding the required rationale will stop the bot, but it's only WP:JUSTONE of the criteria that needs to be satisfied and doesn't mean a non-free use is automatically OK. In this particular case, relevant policy really doesn't allow non-free content to be used to illustrate individual entries in a list or table per WP:NFLISTS or WP:NFTABLE because such use is almost always considered WP:DECORATIVE. So, while a non-free file like File:Episcopal Diocese of Delaware.png might be OK to use in Episcopal Diocese of Delaware, it's going to be pretty much impossible to justify the another use of the same file per WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS, and MOS:ICON#Non-free images as a 100px by 100px icon in a table in an article about Province 3. I simply don't think you'll be able to establish a consensus to do so even if decided to seek more formal discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly, this seems to be very much on topic, and an expansion of the info provided by the bot, but in a way that I could actually understand and use. I'll amend the table. Thank you again! OJH (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)