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

Plain text and uncredited posters

I am interested in uploading two posters to Commons, but I have copyright questions about both:

• This protest poster is held by the Smithsonian. It is undated (likely after 1966) and credited to Bradford Lyttle, but Lyttle appears to be the collector who donated it to the Smithsonian, not the creator. The poster is plain text with a peace sign. Does this even qualify for copyright? The creator is unknown, to the best of my knowledge. It appears to have been used at an antiwar protest at Princeton after 1966. I suspect the creator is anonymous, although perhaps not. It looks like Lyttle is connected to Gene Keyes, whose mother popularized the slogan.

• A different poster is held by the Whitney Museum of American Art. This vintage poster is a reproduction of the unsigned and uncredited original, of which there are many different versions, a regular and a blacklight poster version. The reproductions all have modern poster company copyrights on the left hand side attributed to "Personality Posters of Canada, Ltd.",[1] while the originals say nothing at all.[2][3] One of the original posters in this series was exhibited in 2008 at the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. A newspaper review of the show described the poster as "uncredited". This is the designation given by the curators and usually appears on the musuem gallery wall label.

The former poster was used at antiwar protests during the late 1960s. The history of the latter poster is unclear, but I suspect it was sold at head shops in the late 1960s and 1970s, uncredited. I say this, because up until the 1990s, this kind of thing was still going on. Head shops often carried famous counterculture posters with no credits listed on the work. So to conclude, can I upload any of these images? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

While the "correct" place to get advice on Commons-related copyright matters is their copyright village pump, which is frequented by many highly knowledgeable editors, the first poster should be fine as having been first published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice per {{PD-US-no notice}}. Regarding the second poster, as it was shown in an exhibition dedicated to posters from 1965-1970, it is likely also to have been shown publicly in this period and thus is also likely to have fallen out of copyrightofrthe same reason. It would just be important to get hold of a copy that is sufficiently original not to have had any copyrightable content added since then. Felix QW (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The Stylistics

A fair use image is being used in the infobox of this article. However, I am unsure of whether or not this meets the non-free content policy -- there are free images being used in the body of the article, while the group the article is about itself is still active and I cannot find any information about whether or not anyone in the image has passed away. I know that the image is given proper credit as to where it came from, but is this a valid use of non-free content? It seems replaceable, given the aforementioned free images in the article and the group's continued activity, but what does everyone else think? JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The image in question could well be in the public domain; It was printed on the back of a Vinyl sleeve that carried the P-symbol asserting copyright for the sound recording, but I cannot find any copyright notice for the sleeve itself or for the photograph. Felix QW (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman: Many times non-free content is uploaded by someone not familiar with the WP:NFCC. Files, regardless of their copyright status, are typicaly not vetted prior to upload (unless perhaps there's a technical restriction in place); so, lots of incorrectly licensed files or files whose policy compliance seems questionable get uploaded, and nobody really notices them until someone like yourself asks about them. To try and figure out why an image was added, you often have to look at page history for edit summaries to see when it was added. In this case, the non-free file was added here, most likely because there was no image being used in the main infobox, and the uploader thought a non-free would be OK because of this. There actually was one used there, but it was deleted a few months earlier from Commons per this edit: the deleted Commons image actually replaced another Commons image, File:The Stylistics on Soul Train 1974.jpg, with this edit here, that still exists. So, the simple fix would be to just replace the non-free with the first Commons image used in the main infobox and then tag the non-free with {{Rnfu}} per WP:F7. Of course, the current non-free image could actually be PD, as pointed out above by Felix QW. You could, if you want to pursue that, replace the non-free with the first Commons image and then tag the non-free with {{Orfud}}, let the uploader of the non-free know about this discussion as a courtesy and then see if that can be sorted out. If it's really PD, it probably should be moved or reuploaded to Commons. Once the copyright status of the non-free has been sorted, there can then be a discussion on the article's talk page as to which of the two images to use in the main infobox. If it turns out the non-free's copyright status can't be resolved in seven days after being replaced, it will end up deleted as "orphaned non-free use" per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I have replaced the image and informed the user who uploaded the image. I appreciate the help here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have now moved the previous image to Commons with the rationale I sketched out above, so feel free to decide in the course of normal editing which of the images is most suitable for the infobox. Felix QW (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Use of ProQuest images

Hi, I'd appreciate some advice, please. I have been de-stubbing articles on old films (1930s, 40s etc, many now lost), and sourcing infobox images like contemporary posters, trade ads, etc, from old film magazines hosted by ProQuest. However at the foot of every ProQuest page is text like: (A) "Copyright © 2021 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved." (example: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2594599815) or (B) "Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission." (example: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2826329978) My question is: if claiming fair-use on these images as the sole illustrative image for an article, does fair-use override the A and B statements? Or do those statements prohibit any use on Wikipedia? If the latter, I will of course delete my uploaded images. Thank you! Tobyhoward (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tobyhoward. The links you've provided are requesting that all kinds of cookies be added to view the page, which is something I personally am not interested in doing, but in general the type of license you've described ProQuest as using sounds like a browsewrap or clickwrap license that should, in principle, only apply to creative content 100% originally created by ProQuest. In other words, any content or images the site is hosting created by others should, again in principle, be not covered by it even though ProQuest might claim to the contrary. What would matter then would be the copyright of the hosted work itself.

So, if Proquest just basically created slavish reproductions of old film magazines (e.g., just created digitalized versions of them), then (at least under US copyright law) the creation of those versions wouldn't be considered to involve enough creative input to establish a new copyright for them. Moreover, any attempt by ProQuest to claim of a new copyright over content that has already entered into the public domain (for whatever reason) would most likely considered to be a form of copyright fraud, regardless of intent, and wouldn't be recognized by Commons or the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, if someone enters into some contractual agreement with ProQuest regarding such content and then does something that violates that agreement, ProQuest could try to go after that person for violating that agreement, but that would be a contract law related matter and not a copyright related matter.

You could try asking about this a c:COM:VPC to see whether the files you're interested in have already entered into the public domain. If they have, then they could be uploaded to Commons; if they haven't, they possibly could be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content if their use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is more restrictive than fair use by design. Once again though, their copyright status would be a separate matter from any agreement you personally may enter with ProQuest regarding the use of the files: the WMF treats such agreements as a type of non-copyright restriction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful reply Marchjuly. As you suggest I will ask about the public domain status at c:COM:VPC. Thanks, Toby Tobyhoward (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hundreds of problematic images containing Lego elements on Wikipedia and Commons

I am crossposting this from Commons with added commentary:

c:COM:TOYS considers images of toys or products to be derivative works due to the material they feature, including Lego. However, there are hundreds of images of Lego on Wikimedia Commons, many of which can be seen at c:Category:Lego, in violation of this. Despite there being occasional deletions, most remain. I will notify @HurricaneZeta of this discussion as they recently nominated many of them.

While this is technically Commons' issue, many of these images are transcluded onto Wikipedia articles (such as Lego Technic or Lego Modular Buildings). When the images are deleted from Commons, they will also be removed from here.

Lego has a lenient fair use policy, which states (speaking about official images of Lego products): "...at the present time the LEGO Group does not object to scanning of limited extracts of these materials in unaltered form for non-commercial purposes of exchange of information or good faith commentary. However, scanned /images/info should not be given such prominence as to indicate sponsorship of the Web site by the LEGO Group. We would ask that the photographs be scanned without distortion or overemphasis of the LEGO logo. A disclaimer and notice must appear indicating that the copyrights are owned by the LEGO Group (e.g. LEGO Group. This is an independent site not authorized or sponsored by the LEGO Group)." Their Fair Play policy may be read here [4]. This means that some of them may be reuploaded on Wikipedia under a fair use license. Plenty of fansites (including those within the Lego Ambassador Network) do this. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295: Any type of copyright licensing that place restrictions on commercial (or derivative) reuse is going to be too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. In other words, such content would need to be treated as non-free content if uploaded and used on Wikipedia, which means each use of it would need to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Regarding this policy, it's important to understand that even though it's based on the concept of fair use, as practised under US copyright law, Wikipedia's policy is actually more restrictive than fair use by design; so, while one could say that all non-free content uploaded to Wikipedia meets the criteria of fair use, the same couldn't be said for all fair use content meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policy. In other words, there's no way to say that all of the images currently being discussed on Commons would absolutely satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria, and each image would most likely need to be individual assessed instead. Furthermore, there could actually be two copyrights that need to be assessed when it comes to non-free use: the one for the photo and the one for the photographed blocks. A non-free photo of some non-free lego blocks could run into problems per WP:NFCC#1 because of the copyright status of the photo. Finally, what fansites do has no bearing to whether something satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it's only the latter that matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If the photographer also created the item being photographed, then they own the copyright on the 3D object too, and can release a suitable license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Individual Lego bricks are unlikely to be copyrightable, and people who build things with Legos can claim copyright in their creations (example: File:Lego Penguin on the sea, Free Electrons.jpg). But I'm curious to hear others' thoughts. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the base minifigure design is PD-US because it was published without a copyright notice in patent USD253711S - see my comment on the COM:VPC thread. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Picasso's Guernica

What is the copyright status of Guernica in the US? Was it published in 1937, and if so, was the US copyright renewed? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: It was exhibited in the Paris International Exhibition of Art in 1937. That particular exhibition is a in a closed environment, and would not constitute publication in the US per COM:PUB and COM:PACUSA. I'm not sure about France's definition of publication, but if it's based of the Berne convention's definition, then it would also center around the making of copies and thus also not count as publication. Picasso died in 1973, so it would still be US copyrighted as an unpublished work.

The enwiki article mentions a tapestry created in 1955 displayed in the Headquarters of the UN in NYC, but I'm not sure that this would be the first copy of the work made. I would have to do further research, and I'm not exactly an art historian. There's also a mural reproduction in Guernica, Spain itself, but the date of the mural itself is not documented, only the date of the photograph. Additional factor is whether or not these copies were allowed by Picasso/the Picasso estate.

Quick disclaimer that I may be missing something, as I haven't really gotten into the weeds of the definition of the word 'publication' that much. Cawfeecrow (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

File:So You Want to See the President!.jpg

This is a series of four sketches/paintings and together they're quite long. Did I upload the correct size, or can a larger one be uploaded? At the current size I can't really make out much of the artwork. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked at WP:IMAGERES and still not sure what would be the appropriate size. APK hi :-) (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Avatar Seven Havens logo.png

I noticed that Zingo156 uploaded this to enwiki as a non-free logo, while I uploaded another version to Commons (File:Avatar Seven Havens title card (cropped).webp) on the belief that it is below COM:TOO US. Is it? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Qzekrom. You might want to ask at c:COM:VPC about this since it's the Commons file which is being claimed as being below c:COM:TOO US. If that file turns out to be OK for Commons, then the local file should be OK to relicense and move to Commons since the only difference between the two seems to be the black background. If the Commons file, on the other hand, ends up being deleted, then the local file should stay non-free. The Commons file could then be reuploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free, but that should only be done if there's a valid non-free use for the file. It's quite possible that the uploader of the non-free one simply didn't know about the Commons one you upoaded. The non-free was uploaded several hours after the Commons one, but the Commons file doesn't ever seem to have been used on English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia article where the non-free is being used was only moved to the mainspace yesterday, and it had no logo (free or non-free) in the main infobox at that time. The uploader could've just assumed that no logo file existed, and that all logos need to be treated as non-free content. FWIW, the Commons file is being used on several other language Wikipedias and the non-free won't affect the file's use on those projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done, see c:COM:VPC#Avatar: Seven Havens logo Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 22:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Morcom

Hi I'm aiming to bring the Christopher Morcom article to featured article status but I've been confused about whether this image is in the public domain or not. It was created in 1927 in England. I would really appreciate it if someone here could check whether it's in the public domain or not! Panamitsu (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

image use

can i use this image on Al Jazeera Media Network Astropulse (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Astropulse. I noticed your question about this file's removal on User talk:JJMC89#Is this removal correct? The The pic says you can use it on the English wiki. before I saw you asked essentially the same thing here at MCQ. Please see my response I added to JJMC89's user talk page for more details, but the bot was correct in removing the file. It would also be really quite hard to justify another use of the file the "Al Jazeera Media Network" article, particularly given the file's non-free use in the "Al Jazeera English" article itself is also quite questionable (at least in my opinion). -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)