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

Drake & Josh logo being under level of originality

This logo is labeled as copyrighted even though it seems to be under the level of originality and should therefore be in the public domain. I just want to ask for verification of this. TheVectoriser 21:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheVectoriser. I agree with your assessment that logo is below c:COM:TOO US and can be relicensed as {{PD-logo}}. Unless someone else disagrees, I think you can go ahead and be WP:BOLD if you want. If you do relicense the file though, make sure to also replace the non-free use rationale with {{Information}}; otherwise a bot might flag the file for review due to the conflict between the non-free use rationale and the PD copyright license. You can also tag the file with {{Trademark}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, though you might have to request that the older no longer visible originally uploaded version be restored (assuming it's the same PD version) to make it easier for someone to move the file to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot is disrupting editing

The bot is removing an image. The article is part of a sports entity (football club) series and the entity that the article is about has the same logo as its parent club. JJMC89 bot is removing the image, due to rationale problem, but intentions are not related to copyright infringement. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The bot seems to be behaving correctly. File:FC Polissya Zhytomyr.png does not have a rationale for use on FC Polissya Zhytomyr (women), which is required by WP:NFCC #10. It seems like it'd be fairly trivial to create such a rationale in this case, but I don't see anything wrong with the bot's actions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aleksandr Grigoryev. The bot did exactly what it was tasked to do: find not in compliance with WP:NFCC#10c and remove them per WP:NFCCE. A non-free file is required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use; so, if a non-free file is used in more than one article or more than once in the same article, it needs to have a separete rationale specific to each of those uses. It looks like you forgot to provide such a rationale for "FC Polissya Zhytimyr (women)" when you added the file to the article. The bot came across this during one of its runs and removed the file. Adding the missing rationale to the file's page and then re-adding the file to the article will stop the bot from removing the file again. Please be advised, though, non-free use is not automatic and adding the missing rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten criteria that need to be met for a non-free to be considered OK. So, it's possible that someone could challenge the file's non-free use if they disagree with your assessment. For general refrence, when it comes to men's/women's sports teams, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tells us to use a logo specific to the team (if one exists) and not simply just keep re-using the same logo multiple teams (even if they use it). While many women's teams (particularly these days) still share the same branding as their men's team couterparts, but many women's also have their own specific branding. So, if the women's team has its own kit with its own branding, it would be better to use that instead.

As for the bot being disruptive, it only removed the file once from the article. Even if the removal was a mistake, one mistake isn't the same thing as disruption. Labeling the bot's edit as such is just as wrong as someone calling your addition of the file to the article without providing a corresponding non-free use rationale to file's page as disruptive. You simply just made a mistake, and one mistake doesn't equal being disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thank very much you for dedicating your time to clarify it for me. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ukrainian government social media content

I see from c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine that Official documents issued by government authorities of a political, legislative or administrative nature (laws, decrees, regulations, court decisions and state standards, etc.) and their official translations are not protected.
I am wondering if that applies to videos uploaded on the official channel of the Office of the President of Ukraine, like this one of Zelenskyy's 2020 New Year address? I don't suppose it applies to videos from Zelenskyy's official social media like the "we are here" video? What about still images from those videos?
I know that everything on the official presidential website is freely licensed per the notice at the bottom, and many but not all images from his Flickr are in public domain too. Looking for a sanity check. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 14:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Helpful Cat. There's not much MCQ can do about Commons if you're asking about uploading files to Commons. Commons is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines. So, issues with Commons are going to need to be resolved over on Commons; maybe try asking about this at c:COM:VPC. (English) Wikipedia follows US copyright law: so, there's no real way to license social media content first published in the Ukraine, other than perhaps as non-free content, for local use on Wikipedia if US copyright law doesn't also apply for some reason. Screenshots and YouTube videos are going to be respectively subject to c:COM:SCREENSHOT and c:COM:YOUTUBE, but again how those things apply to official Ukranian goverment social media accounts is probably something you should ask over at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try asking at Commons. Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 13:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

File:The Jamie Oliver Petrol Station.jpg

I'm looking for some opinions on File:The Jamie Oliver Petrol Station.jpg. The is basically the name of the song "The Jamie Oliver Petrol Station" overlaid over a photo of some clouds. Neither the words themselves nor the cloud/sky are eligible for copyright protection; so, it seems to depend on the font used for the lettering. Fonts are generally not eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:FONT but this one might per c:COM:TOO Ireland. I think it should be OK to relicense this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia, but I would like to hear from others first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Wisconsin Labor History Society (WLHS) logo.png

I'm not sure File:Wisconsin Labor History Society (WLHS) logo.png needs to be treated as non-free. The provenance of the logo is a bit unclear, but the only really element of it that looks like it might be eligible for copyright protection is the image of the workers in the factory. This image looks like a slavish reproduction of an old photo; so, if the photo is something that's already entered into the public domain under US copyright law, then perhaps the logo itself is also public domain. Another possibility is that the Wisconsin Labor History Society, the organization the logo represents, was established in 1981. If the WLHS never bothered with the copyright formalities required for the logo to be protected under US copyright law at that time, the logo could be {{PD-US-1989}} if its use dates back to before March 1, 1989. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I initially thought the logo had more of a simulated woodcut style but the nominator view that's it's using an old photo could also be correct. Ran a reverse image search (Tin Eye) hoping to get a hit on an underlying photo but only got other sites showing the logo. A historical society would have access to offline photos of course. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Lin Ruo's photo for Party Secretary of Guangdong

File:Lin_Ruo_pic.jpg was deleted from the page by a bot; the image is listed as fair use so I'm not sure if there's something that has to be added on the page or if the bot made an error? Minister of Rabbits (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@御赐大司兔 please see the section #JJMC89 bot is disrupting editing above, the reason for removal is the same. The image needs a separate fair use rationale for each use, as it doesn't have one for use in Party Secretary of Guangdong, the bot correctly removed it. Nthep (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Minister of Rabbits. The bot removed File:Lin_Ruo_pic.jpg from the "Party Secretary of Guangdong" per WP:NFCCE because the file was lacking the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by criterion #10c of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. However, a separate, specific non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the non-free content use criteria that eacn non-free use needs to meet. Even if you were to add the missing rationale use to the file's page, such a non-free use would still not be considered acceptable per criterion#1, criterion #3, criterion #8; non-free images can be find when used at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone Wikipedia articles, but they're pretty much never allowed to be used to lllustrate individual entries of a list article, a list like section with an article, or in tables listing different elements per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy isn't exaclty the same thing as fair use; Wikipedia's policy is much more restrictive by design, and one of these additional restrictions has to do with using non-free files in lists/tables. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

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)