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

Dust jacket check

Would appreciate a second look over the licencing at File:A Book of Mediterranean Food.webp, particularly with regards to the use of Common's dust jacket licensing rationale. Whonting (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I wonder if you would be able to help here. This is in part a continuation of Talk:Elizabeth David#Nonfree image removal where your commentary was impactful. Whonting (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've previously seen a practice of applying Commons tags to locally hosted images - is there a local equivalent of that tagging, or if no should there be? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't find a local equivalent tag. If we do need one, it may need to be integrated with Special:Upload, which uses a drop-down. Whonting (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You can use {{PD-because}} for cases where a specific PD template is not available locally. -- Whpq (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Just taken a closer look at the archive.org copy, and it's a British edition - is it known that the source one is American? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks as though the first American edition came in 1952, two years after the first British one, with the same cover image. I suppose that means this fails the simulaneous publication test, unless I can find some evidence of publication in the US prior to this. I am travelling for the next few days, should I put in for db-g7 in the meantime? Whonting (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If you think you may be able to find such evidence, I think it's reasonable to wait a few days; if you do not, tagging sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relicense non-free images to (A)GPL

I am looking at two files currently listed as non-free:

• File:Brogue title.png
• File:Brogue (video game) screenshot.jpg

The game these images come from, Brogue, is licensed under APGLv3. Can these images be relicensed, and if so which license is most appropriate as {{AGPL}} does not exist unlike {{GPL}}. I wish to upload higher quality versions of both. Zurel (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've created an {{AGPL license}} template with {{AGPL}} redirecting to it; feel free to add the license tag if the audiovisual material (and not just the code) is covered by the AGPL. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I upload an image?

Hello, I want to add an image to the articles 2012 Nuevo Laredo massacres and 2012, since I saw that this image File:NuevoLaredo-narcokillings.jpg was included in that article. Vaquita marina (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vaquita marina. File:NuevoLaredo-narcokillings.jpg is licensed as non-free content which means each use of the file needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is quite restrictive. The file has already been uploaded and is already being used in the article "2012 Nuevo Laredo massacres, which is probably OK; so, there's no need to re-upload it. I do think, though, it would be near impossible to try and justify another use of the file in the article "2012" per non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #8 because the "2012" article is primarily about the things that happened during the year 2012, and not specifically related to the massacre itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I want to add information about what happened in Nuevo Laredo, what I mean is to use another image of what happened. Vaquita marina (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vaquita marina: Any image you want to upload locally to (English) Wikipedia is going to need to satisfy Wikipedia:Image use policy, while any image you want to upload to Wikpedia's sister project Wikimedia Commons is going to need to satisfy c:Commons:Licensing; images uploaded to either site can be used in Wikipedia articles, but each project has its own policies and guidelines. Which site an image can be uploaded to (and in turn how it may be used) pretty much entirely depends on the image's copyright status. So, without knowing more about the provenance of the image you want to upload, it's kind of hard to give you a more specific answer. If you can provide a link (assuming it can be found somewhere online) to the image you want to upload and use, someone might be able to assess its copyright status. If the image isn't available online, then providing information about who took it, when they took it, and where they took it would also help. I will add some general information about images and Wikipedia to your user talk page for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it could be used in the article since it's very graphic. ESOS NARCOS NO JUEGAN! Nueve cadáveres fueron colgados este viernes en un puente de un cruce vial de la ciudad mexicana de Nuevo Laredo Vaquita marina (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Even though all of the photos on the website you've linked aren't attributed to anyone in particular, it would be safe to assume at the one of the hung bodies was taken by someone other than whoever operates the website; so, the person who took that particular photo would be the copyright holder of said photo. So, that photo most likely can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without some way of formally verifying the copyright holder's c:COM:CONSENT because Commons doesn't accept fair use (non-free) content of any type. It might be possible to upload the photo locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive by design; most likely some more information about the photo itself (e.g., who took it), and some sourced critical commentary about the photo itself would be needed to justify any non-free use of the photo in article about the 2012 massacres. The graphic nature of the photo could be covered by WP:NOTCENSORED if there is strong contextual context and significant encylopedic value to having Wikipedia readers see it, but simply just wanting to add the photo to the article just so readers can see it is probably not enough to justify its use and problematic per MOS:SHOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The Gold Diggers' Song (We're in the Money)

This source says:

"For compositions written prior to January 1, 1978, and which were still under copyright protection as of the time the Term Extension Act was passed, an additional 20 years of protection was added to the old law's terms. As the total number of years of protection for most pre-1978 songs under the 1976 law was 75 years (28 original years + 28 renewal years and a 19 year extension), the term of protection for these works has been extended to a total of 95 years from the original date of copyright."

Is this correct? So can we assume copyright will not expire until 1 January 2028? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 95 years is correct but this applies only to the composition itself (see commons:Commons:Hirtle chart). However, the copyright of any recording of the song is 100 years so if you're wanting to upload say Dick Powell's 1933 recording you're going to have to wait until 1 January 2034 to do so. Nthep (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for explaining. Only another 8 years then... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC) (with your kind permission, I'll copy your answer over to Talk:The Gold Diggers' Song (We're in the Money))

no problem. Nthep (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

U.S. labor union logos

Can anyone find out the copyright status of these logos?

• File:American Federation of Musicians seal.png (founded 1896)
• File:IATSE logo.png (founded 1893, available on Wikimedia Commons in Category:International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees)

These organizations were founded before 1930 but that doesn't mean their logos were necessarily created at the same time. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 June 11. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Which tag should I use for my image?

This file File:Officers arresting a student at New Paltz.jpg I uploaded was taken by a photographer in New Paltz. I got their permission personally to upload it to Wikipedia. ASLV (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@MikoMek Dylan Murphy, as the copyright holder, needs to visit Commons:Wikimedia VRTS release generator and follow the process there. Alternatively he can read Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and send an email to the same end. Nthep (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

A symbol for the Supreme Court of Finland

A file (Tiedosto:KKO logo.svg – Wikipedia) for the symbol of the Supreme Court of Finland is present in an article for the Supreme Court of Finland on it's page in the Finnish wikipedia. This file cannot be transfered to Wikimedia commons because it is not in the public domain. It's presence on the Finnish wikipedia is justified under relevant citation provisions of Finnish law and relevant provisions of US fair-use law. This project seems to establish a somewhat stricter logic. The question is whether the file could be used here for the article of the Supreme Court of Finland.

After aplying the 10 pronged test, as I lay out below, for non-free content I conclude it can be used, but due to my lack of any experience in the subject whatsoever I ask for comments by other editors.

"1.No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

There is no free content alternative which serves the encyclopedic purpose of informing readers of the official symbols used by the Supreme Court of Finland.

"2.Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material."

Usage of this symbol on Wikipedia will not replace the market role of an official goverment symbol. One of the "market uses" is yearbooks and other materials of the court that seek to spread information about the court in a manner not decisively different to what Wikipedia does.

3.Minimal usage;

"Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

This one file will satisfy all wikipedia purposes

"Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."

Debatable. The particular file is of rather high resolution and the full work. On the other hand it may not be used for deliberate copyright infringement as a particular illegal use, because even if stolen from Wikipedia it's usage would likely fall under free use. It has no commercial potential.

"4.Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor."

The work has been displayed on a website of the Supreme Court of Finland and identical copies of it remain in use by the court in a manenr accessible to the public.

"5.Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic."

The file is of good quality and has a genuine purposes to be in an encyclopedia. Across Wikipedia high quality articles for public institutions use symbols of said institutions. This aplies for the pages of many supreme courts. There is a genuine interest in an encyclopedia being able to relay this information to the public.

"6.Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy."

As is relevant to the file I see no obvious issues.

"7.One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."

I argue this does not come to play because the question is whether it could be added to the article, before that step is taken. The goal is to make sure the addition would be in line with the rules.

"8.Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

If a reader knows what symbols they may expect to find in any document produced by the court their understanding of the court is significantly increased. They will also learn of the general style of symbols used by authorities in Finland. If they do not have this information they will not learn of a significant tool to identify any fake decisions and statements circulating online.

"9.Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)"

This like condition 7 will only come to play once the file is actually put in the article.

"10.Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

1. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.
2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use"

This would obviously be made sure of and be subject to enforcement.

With that said I curiously await feedback on this NFC proposal, which if acceptable I feel would greatly improve the article and any future articles such as of individual court decisions (subject to case by case consideration). Finfixer (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Finfixer: A non-free logo that is the official current logo of the subject of a stand-alone Wikipedia like the Supreme Court of Finland should be OK to upload using the non-free copyright license {{Non-free logo}} (with also {{Insignia}}) and the non-free use rationale of {{Non-free use rationale logo}} as long as you're able to demonstrate all ten WP:NFCCP have been met (which you've seem to have done above). Of course, there's no 100% guarantee that nobody someday will challenge the logo's non-free use, but at first glance it looks (at least in my opinion) to be OK. Now, there could be encyclopedic reasons not related to the logo's non-free copyright status that some might not want the logo to be used in the main infobox; so, perhaps finding sourced critical commentary about the logo and adding said commentary might help along those lines. Now, the file you've linked to above looks is being used 17 times on Finnish Wikipedia, and that is something that will never happen here on English Wikipedia. One use in the main English Wikipedia article about the court probably would be OK, but those sixteen other uses most certainly wouldn't be allowed per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8. Most of them appear to be uses transposed into different biography articles via a navigation bar like template, which is something not allowed per WP:NFCC because those types of uses are pretty much always considered WP:DECORATIVE (showing the logo just for the sake of showing it). Trying to justify the use of the logo in stand-alone articles about individual court cases would also most likely be very hard per the NFCC (WP:JUSTONE) since the logo itself would really seem to have no encyclopedic relevance to actual case itself, and those articles would most certainly be seen as "child entities" of the main court article per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. English Wikipdedia's policy encourages us to try and keep non-free use to a minimum. This doesn't mean a non-free file can only be used in one article only, but it does that additional uses of the same non-free file is other articles or other ways tends to be very hard to justify beyond its first main use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

how do I edit my photo information after I've already uploaded it?

how do I edit my photo information after I've already uploaded it? Maccafan2001 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maccafan2001 you're referring to File:Loren-gold-2020-october-2.jpg? If you have uploaded a file to Commons then you don't need to upload it separately to Wikipedia which is what you have done here. The Wikipedia upload can be safely deleted under WP:F8. But to answer your original question, the answer is in exactly the same way you would any other item, you click on edit and make your changes. Nthep (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)