Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Copyrights/Can I use...)
Latest comment: 49 minutes ago by MCE89 in topic Coat of arms on William Grant Broughton
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    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 (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, 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. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    File:Manuel Gustavo Bordalo Pinheiro.jpg

    edit
    Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    File:Manuel Gustavo Bordalo Pinheiro.jpg was uploaded as non-free, but might not need to be licensed as such. Manuel Gustavo Bordalo Pinheiro died in 1920, and the source given for the photo attributes it as "Fotografia de Arnaldo da Fonseca, 1919". If that Arnaldo da Fonseca is the same as this Arnaldo da Fonseca (born in 1868), then perhaps the photo has already entered into the public ___domain per {{PD-US-expired}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Marchjuly: I agree, this appears to be public ___domain in the US. It also seems to be public ___domain in Portugal as well (information page on Commons) as photographs taken before 1 July 1970 appear to be in the public ___domain. This would mean it is eligible for upload to Commons. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Thoughts on if these files are pd-simple/textlogo?

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    I try to really make an effort to find free alternatives before I upload a non-free file, so I've been going over my old uploads to see if they are replacable/actually free. Also some other people have tagged them as maybe free, but I am unsure. I'm uncertain on the following, and would like outside suggestion (country of origin in parenthesis, though I am not sure how we are supposed to handle it with the big multinational publishers like OUP/Routledge which are simultaneously published in the UK/US). If they're free in the US they can be locally free at least. Note the British ToO has been raised to where it is closer to the American one as noted on commons (c:COM:TOO UK)):

    Academic journal issues
    Book covers

    PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hi, All academic journal covers above should be OK on Commons with c:Template:PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Agree with Yann. These book covers also look sufficiently simple to me that they'd be ineligible for copyright protection. Ajpolino (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Alright, thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Duplicated file of Cedar City flag, remove Wikipedia file or from Commons?

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

    So in the gallery page for the municipality and county flags of Utah, I came across the flag of Cedar City. Now, remembering the file uploaded to Wikipedia being fair use, I am uncertain whether or not that file should be removed in favor for the Commons file, or remove the Commons file because of a supposed violation. Check out both: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Cedar_City,_Iron_County,_Utah.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Cedar_City,_Utah.png Once a decision has been made, then it can proceed from the debate of what to keep. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 04:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Mod creator: You might want to ask about the Commons file at c:COM:VPC because a reasonable argument for keeping the file might be that the flag imagery is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US. Colors and general shapes are typically considered too simple for copyright protection under US copyright law; so, the only potentially copyrightable elements would be the three pennants and only because of their slight 3D fluttering aspect. That particular aspect, though, seems, at least in my opiniom, fairly mild and common as 3D aspects go and most likely would not be considered sufficiently creative in an of itself to warrant copyright protection for the flag.
    If the consensus on Commons is that the flag is indeed too complex to be considered public ___domain and, thus, the Commons file should be deleted, the local file upload to Wikipedia as non-free would need to remain as such; however, Wikipedia's non-free content policy is quite restrictive and one of the restrictions is WP:NFG, which means the file shouldn't be used in any type of image gallery. Similarly, if the consensus on Commons is that the file is OK to keep, there's no need for a local file (non-free or public ___domain) and the local file should be replaced by the Commons file wherever it's being used and eventually tagged for deletion per WP:F8.
    FWIW, when it comes to non-free content, the initial assessment is pretty much always a self-assessment of the uploader and many uploaders just assume, either because they don't know any better or just as a precaution, that everything found online just has to be treated as non-free. There's technically nothing wrong per se with that approach I guess, but it does make files harder to use since non-free files are subject to more restrictions than free ones and in many cases is simply just too cautious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • This is PD-laws (weird name), and since it's American, that means that it can stay on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don't think {{PD-laws}} applies here since this question was about a flag (the visual depiction) and not the law/edict (the written description) that might have led to a flag becoming official. Trying to argue as much is unlikely (in my opinion) to carry much weight on Commons in comparison to a c:COM:TOO-based argument. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It's mostly being argued on Commons anyway, but the flag is covered because the flag itself (the image) is included as a part of the resolution adopting it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC):Reply
      After looking at the link below, it seems it's mostly be argued by you and that several others are disagreeing with you. Of course, your argument might be right but that consensus hasn't yet been clearly established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    link to Commons discussion commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Status_of_an_American_city_flag. Nthep (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Excerpt from RMC Yearbook for Jennie Carignan

    edit
    Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    I wanted to provide material to backup an edit I made to Jennie Carignan article. I attended RMC at the same time as Jennie. The article previously said she attended RMC St Jean - which is incorrect. She attended RMC Kingston. I made the edit, gave as much information about the source in the reference and tried to upload her entry from the yearbook. I have no idea whether the entry would be considered "free" or not? The yearbook is my own copy - there is no copyright information in the yearbook. It is hardcover with 271 pages - I was only going to upload that small excerpt. ProfJimBugs (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @ProfJimBugs: References cited as sources for article content are only required to be reliable, published and accessible; so, you don't really need to upload any scans of a source if it's not available online; in fact, you probably shouldn't do so because it might create a new set of copyright-relatd problems that will need to be sorted out. Since offline sources tend to be much harder to verify, many users do feel their use should be limited as much as possible, but they can still be cited if they satisfy Wikipedia's definition for a reliable source and are cited in proper context. Just provide as much information as you can about the source in the citation as explained in WP:CITEHOW. In addition, whatever you may personally know about Carignan will likely be considered original research if try to add it to the article without supporting it with citation to a reliable source; pretty much all article content about living persons, in particular, is typically expected to be supported by citations to reliable sources per WP:BLPSOURCES and can be removed when it isn't. In principle, more contentious claims require stronger WP:SECONDARY sourcing, but a yearbook should be OK to cite as a source for someone's alma mater. If the claim is somehow considered contentious by another user (e.g. another reliable source says something else), you may have to resolve things through article talk page discussion or via a noticeboard like WP:RSN.
    Finally, being a former classmate of Carignan means you may personally know her better than others, but it won't grant you any special editing privileges when it comes to creating/editing content about her on Wikipedia. As long as your edits adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you'll probably be OK; if, though, your personal connection to Carignan starts to be seen by others as impacting your ability to edit in accordance with said policies and guidelines, others might start to assume you have a conflict of interest when it comes to Carignan and make their concerns known to you. So, please keep this in mind when editing, particularly if you're being asked by Carignan or someone representing her to make edits to Wikipedia content about her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    thx - I think I'm all good then ProfJimBugs (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    There is a discussion about use of images at Talk:The Beatles#Suggestion. I would appreciate if someone who understands copyright could take a look and express an opinion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Responded there. hinnk (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Image of One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Hi, the bot keeps removing the image of One Meridian Plaza on the List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. It's pretty shocking that there's only one image of this building in all of Wikimedia commons, but seeing as this is the only image available of it (no alternatives) and this is just an image for informative purposes, it should be allowed. LivinAWestLife (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    It appears that you have worked out that a Non-free use rationale was required for each use. The bot should leave the use of the image alone with that Non-free use rationale for the article. Human review would be required to determine if the use was excessive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi LivinAWestLife. Adding a non-free use rationale to the file page for File:Onemeridianplaza1972.jpg's use in List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia will stop the bot from removing the files as Graeme Bartlett mentioned above, but providing a separate, specific non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE (more specifically, just part of one) of the criteria that each use of non-free content needs to meet for it to be considered an acceptable use. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive by design, this policy encourages to keep non-free use a minimal as possible and use other free alternatives (including text and links) whenever possible. For this reason, non-free images are pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries in lists and table per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because such use it almost always considered WP:DECORATIVE and excessive. For non-free photos of demolished buildings, Wikipedia's policy generally allows us to use such a photo for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about such buildings (as long as all ten WP:NFCCP are met), but that's about it. Since the first use of such a photo is already considered to be quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files (i.e. Wikipedia's general licensing), each additional use tends to be increasingly harder to justify. With list articles such at this, a link to the main stand-alone article about the building in question is considered more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI than using the same image another time to illustrate an individual entry in the list/table. For this reason, I've boldly removed the file from the list article and the rationale for said use from the file's page. Of course, you can disagree with this assessment if you like, and the file's non-free use can be discussed at WP:FFD if you like; however, I think you're going to have a really hard time establishing a consensus in favor of such a use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Alright, understood. Guess the list will have to go imageless. Thanks. LivinAWestLife (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    File:Millionaires for Humanity logo.png

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    File:Millionaires for Humanity logo.png seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:TOO US, but there's nothing in Millionaires for Humanity stating where the organization is headquartered. If it's based out of the UK, this could need to be treated as non-free per c:COM:TOO UK; even then, though, it seems still OK to relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Can anyone figure out which country this organization is based out of? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    On the website, it states it is powered by Human Act, an organization based in Copenhagen, Denmark. I've added this to the article. Beejamjam (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Coat of arms on William Grant Broughton

    edit
    Latest comment: 49 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I am hoping for additional input on a discussion at Talk:William Grant Broughton#Coat of arms. I have nominated this article for GA and want to ensure that there are no image copyright issues that might become an issue during the GA review. @Bahnfrend has added File:Coat of arms of William Broughton (bishop).jpg back to the infobox and feels that the image, which is currently locally uploaded as non-free, both complies with the WP:NFCC and that its copyright has likely expired. I'm a bit doubtful that either the PD argument or the NFUR hold up.

    This image is taken from http://www.sydneyanglicanarchives.com.au/past_archbishops.html. My reading of c:COM:Coats of arms would suggest that the image is probably not PD, as there is no indication that this specific rendering of the coat of arms is old enough for its copyright to have expired, and it contains specific creative choices (e.g. the design of the crown) that probably place this particular rendering above the TOO. Assuming then that it's under copyright, my view is that it probably fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The current NFUR claims that the image is there “to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the person in question”, which is clearly not the case given that the article already contains a portrait of Broughton. The article also already contains a free image of the coat of arms, File:St James' Church, Sydney - the Broughton window.JPG, which makes me doubtful that a non-free image of the coat of arms is compliant with the NFCC.

    Would appreciate if someone who is more familiar with image copyrights could weigh in on whether my reasoning here is correct. Thank you! MCE89 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1308540892"