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

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)

Local non-free upload needed — book cover stuck in Commons no-license purgatory

Hello. I'm not autoconfirmed, so I can't upload locally, and the Files-for-upload wizard refuses this request because the image already exists on a Wikimedia project. Requesting a manual local non-free upload:

• File: Original cover of the Chinese Qidian serialization of Reverend Insanity (Gu Zhen Ren), pre-2019 ban.
• Current (temporary) location: Commons, File:Original Reverend Insanity Cover.jpg — direct URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Original_Reverend_Insanity_Cover.jpg. It is tagged "no license" and will be deleted ~1 Oct 2026, which is expected: Commons cannot host non-free artwork, so that copy can never be fixed.
• Requested local filename: Reverend Insanity original Chinese cover.jpg
• Intended use: single infobox use in the article Reverend Insanity, for identification of the work.
• License tag: {{Non-free book cover}}
• NFCC rationale: no free equivalent exists (the English-variant cover in circulation is a different, fan-made work); low-resolution identification use only; does not hinder the rights holder's exploitation of the original; source publicly published during serialization.
• Rights holder: cover artist unknown; rights held by the serialization platform/author.

Would an uploader place this locally so the article infobox can use it after the Commons deletion? Thank you. ~~~~ Dumnebari Success (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dumnebari Success. You can ask for assistance with this at WP:Files for upload once the file has been deleted from Commons or you can just wait until you're autoconfirmed. In addition, although you posted that File:Original Reverend Insanity Cover.jpg uploaded to Commons can never be fixed, you went ahead and uploaded File:Reverend Insanity Cover.jpg, which is essentially the same book cover art, to Commons claiming it as your "own work" even though you know that can never be fixed. It's not clear why you did that, but it's also one of the fastest ways to end up getting blocked on Commons. You've created a c:COM:DW, at best, that's using the imagery from the original cover art and apparently just translating some of the text into English. You might want to take a look at c:Commons:Fan art for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Taxpayer-funded pro-Trump propaganda advertisement

The US government has just launched a taxpayer-funded propaganda advertisement on American television networks (Source). I would support uploading this video to be used on the 2026 United States elections page, and other relevant pages about propaganda. However, I am curious about the copyright status of the visuals. The audio seems to have illegally used the song "Love Me" by JMSN per news reporting and should be muted if uploaded. However, would the video portions be acceptable by themselves, seeing as this is now "official" federally released content? My understanding is the visuals use government-created and not private video. I would appreciate the opinions of experienced editors. BootsED (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If this is truly {{PD-USGov}} content, then it should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to make it much easier to use. Files uploaded to English Wikipedia are local files whose use is limited to only English Wikipedia, whereas files uploaded to Commons are global files, which makes them easier to use by all Wikimedia Foundation projects and non-Wikipedia-related third parties. Before you upload anything like this to Commons, though, you should see what others think about its copyright status at c:COM:VPC. Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type, which means that any copyrighted images or music used in the video could push it into c:COM:Derivative work territory and complicate things a bit. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow fair use content to be uploaded, but it treats such content and non-free and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy places lots of restrictions on how and where it can be used. For example, only small clips of copyrighted video and audio content tend to be allowed; so, uploading an entire video as non-free content would most likely not be allowed.

Lastly, copyright status is only one of the things that needs to be considered when want to add a file to a Wikipedia article; encyclopedic relevance and context also need to be considered. So, even if the content is OK to upload from a copyright standpoint, a consensus may still need to be established to use the file from an encyclopedic relevance standpoint. You might also want to discuss this on the talk page of the article when you want to add the content, just to see if doing so might be contentious. Articles about modern US national elections are, I believe, subject to WP:Contentious topic restrictions because they tend to attract lots of attention and, thus, lots of disagreements; so, it might be best to be WP:CAUTIOUS when dealing with something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 25 September 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)