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
On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
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.
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.
Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
Hit Publish changes.
If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
Please
sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
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.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
Is this photo valid for use in Wikipedia? Newpaper photo from 1938 or 1939 published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (no longer in print, currently on-line only.) No other information about the picture is available. Photo is copied from a newspaper clipping in a family scrapbook.
JHMoyer (
talk)
19:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The caption says the two people are "Dr. Donald H. Loughridge (right) and Burton Moyer".
Donald Holt Loughridge (Q102115511) was
Burton J. Moyer's PhD advisor, and the apparatus in this photo is likely related to that graduate work prior to his 1939 degree (note only Loughridge is titled 'Dr.' here). All of that is more consistent with a 1938/1939 photo than 1928/1929 (Moyer looks more like 27 years old than 17).
DMacks (
talk)
09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for mislabeling. The correct date for the photo is 1938 or 1939, just before Moyer was granted his PhD in 1939. Thank you for your help with this issue.
JHMoyer (
talk)
19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My mistake. Sorry. Picture is from about 1938-1939.
@
JHMoyer: For future reference, it's generally better to ask questions before uploading any files whose
provenance you're not sure of. Files need two things: a description and a copyright license. Uploading a file without either of the two (particularly without a copyright license) almost ensures that the file is going to be tagged (perhaps almost immediately) for speedy deletion. Moreover, the burden typically falls upon the person uploading the file to provide these two things (at least to their best of their knowledge) and not just hope that someone else will do so later. Given that you seem to be sure the file comes from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, it would be really helpful if you can clarify the date of the issue in which it was published. If you can do that, then perhaps someone else can work out which copyright license is needed.In addition, to expand on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång has already posted above, photos appearing in newspaper articles from that particular period of time weren't required to have individual copyright notices but instead were covered under the copyright of the publication itself (which almost always had some notice somewhere in the issue). The file is attributed to a "Post-Intelligencer Staff Photographer" which means it's a "
work-for-hire" and the paper would own any copyright over it. If the photo was taken prior to January 1, 1929, it would be within the
public domain and OK to license as {{PD-US}} under US copyright law; if it was taken between January 1, 1929, but before January 1, 1963, it could still be within the public domain as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but more information about the issue it appeared in would be needed. You mentioned that the newspaper is currently available online; so, if you can find a link which shows the photo published in the paper (perhaps in the paper's archives or newspapers.com), then perhaps someone can help figure out its copyright status. Whether the paper no longer exist isn't really relevant when it comes to intellectual property rights since such rights are assets that can be sold or otherwise transferred to other parties. Whether a copyright notice can be found or whether copyright was renewed though does matter a lot because US copyright law at that time was different back then, and it required formalities that are no longer required today. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Individual contributions that are renewed are almost never daily news stories by staff journalists with accompanying photographs, so I would consider it very unlikely that copyright in this image has been renewed. I have also skimmed 1966/7 periodicals renewals myself for anything that looks pertinent, and could not find anything. In my mind, this puts it beyond reasonable doubt, but perhaps others have higher standards.
Felix QW (
talk)
21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If you look carfully there are two dings near the top right corner. However I would say that this is too simple for copyright, and if it is the cover, it is not that useful for illustrating the book.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
09:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm suspicious that this is just one copy of the book, given a new plain cover by some academic library (perhaps after the original cover was damaged), and not representative of anything in particular about the book. An image search for the book title finds more-informative covers. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Graeme Bartlett and
David Eppstein: Thanks for taking a look at this. The file was uploaded in January 2023, and the uploader hasn't edited since that time as well; so, it's unlikely they will be able to clarify why they've decided to upload this. Regardless of the file's licensing, its encylopedic value seem to be zero to reader's, and it probably should be removed. Is there any other cover that would be better as a replacement? In addition to the one I found above, I also found
this and
this. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The first link in your latest post is the title page, not the cover. Your second link looks like the cover images I saw, except faded and a little battered. I think your earlier "this could be the same book" link is a better scan of the same image. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello everyone, a few weeks ago I created "
I Think I", a single by South Korean boy band
Super Junior. Usually there's a person that adds the cover of the singles to the infobox but apparently it hasn't been added yet, hence why I am thinking of trying to upload the image cover myself.
Hi
Ghazlan-airplanes. If that particular cover is specific to the single (which seems to be the case), you should be able to upload it per item 1 of
WP:NFCI, as long as it's only going to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the single.You will need to download the file to your computer or some other device first, and then upload it to Wikipedia. You can use the
WP:UPLOADWIZARD to do the latter. I don't know the exact wording the wizard uses, but you should upload this as non-free content. If given the option, you should use the template {{Non-free album cover}} for the file's
copyright license and template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for file's
non-free use rationale; there are instructions on how to use each template on its respective documentation page. If, however, you're not given the option to use these templates, use whatever standard non-free license and non-free use rationale the wizard allows and simply replace them with ones more specific to album cover art after the file has been uploaded. If you're not still sure how to do all of this after reading all of the relevant pages, you can try asking for help at
WP:FFU or
WT:SONGS. If you want to see some examples of how others have done this type of thing, take a look at the licenses and rationales provided for the infobox images of the articles in
Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles. In principle, things should be the same for those files, with perhaps only a few minor differences. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Have question about specific older image ? Should I upload to my file directory . . . ?
I'm hoping to upload a picture of a historic image of a sunken ship. I'd like to show the image for questioning. Should I upload the image to my file directory first in reference or should I link the page the image is on or direct link to image, etc. ?
Recently added a product pic for article but got error
Hello! I recently uploaded a product pic under non-free use rationale but I got error msg it will get deleted within few days. Can anyone please explain what I need to do to the file to not get deleted?
File:Orrb device by Lee McCormack.jpg Does this file doesnot fall under non-free use or I can upload this pic in commons please suggest and help urgently.
Hi
Techy.Sap. The reason the file was tagged for deletion is given in the {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} template that was added to file's page. The person who's disputing the file's non-free use rationale is
Mdann52. If you want further clarification you can start a discussion about the matter at
File talk:Orrb device by Lee McCormack.jpg (the link is
WP:RED because the talk page hasn't been created yet), but it appears that the main problem has to do with
WP:FREER and whether the photographed orrb is a 3D work of art or simply some kind of a
utility object. So, I wouldn't upload any photos of this "orrb" that you didn't take yourself to Commons without first getting the
c:COM:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo, and not until you sort out whether this is a 3D work of art. If it's a 3D work of art, then whether even a freely licensed photo of it can be uploaded to Commons is going to depend on whether the design of the orrb is eligible for copyright protection and the concept of
freedom of panorama. Photos of 3D works of art are typically considered
WP:Derivative works, and Commons only accepts them if both the photo and the photographed work are released under an acceptable free license or are in the
public domain for some reason. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
11:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes its not 3D artwork, its commercial product pic. So I need to email the person and get Consent from the real photo taken by the person and then I need to upload in Commons again?
Techy.Sap (
talk)
12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If you didn't take the photo yourself, you can't upload it to Commons without the
consent of the person who did or without being able to clearly show the person who did take the photo has
released it under a free license that Commons accepts. If you want to try an contact that person to ask for their consent, there are some examples as to how to do this in
WP:PERMISSION.The description you provided for the file doesn't provide any source for the image other than "Orrb". I assuming that means you got the image from www.orrb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/orrb-by-lee-mccormack-contact-us.webp. If that's the case, you would need to contact Orrb and ask them to either email their CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT or make this particular image or another image of their choosing available under a acceptable free license.If Orrb is unwilling to do either of those things, Commons most certainly can't host this photo and Wikipedia most likely can't too unless you can establish it satisfies
Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The latter seems unlikely unless you able to convince others that the Orrb's design is eligible for copyright protection. However, given that Orrb is based out of the UK and that there's
freedom of panorama for 3D works in the UK, it seems like it would be hard to argue that somebody in the UK couldn't take a photo of this and release it under an acceptable free license even if it's considered to be more of an artistic work than a ultility object, which means non-free use isn't going to be allowed and you're back to trying to find a freely licensed equivalent photo to use instead.--
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The copyright holder is generally considered to be the person who takes the photo, and the copyright holder is the only person who can release their photo under an acceptable
free license. So, unless you yourself took the photos you want to upload and use, you can't upload them to either Wikipedia or Commons without the copyright holder's
WP:CONSENT; otherwise, they will need to treated as non-free content, which is almost certainly not going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as already pointed out in this discussion. The same would apply to pretty much any photo of the orrb that you might find online that isn't already clearly released under an acceptable free license. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
07:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
ok I will check and go through the process on how to reach out to them for releasing the photo via email examples for free license use to realease under Commons . Thanks
Techy.Sap (
talk)
07:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Techy.Sap: the issue here is that, as the object is a physical product that presumably still exists and/or is sold, there's nothing stopping someone taking a new image of one (either that they own or that is being demonstrated etc), and releasing it under a free licence, so
WP:NFCC#1 isn't met. If this isn't the case, I'll happily reconsider. it's the same reason we use actual photos of cars, rather than promotional photos of them.
Mdann52 (
talk)
14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
yes Its a physical product and is sold commercially and being used in organizations. So I will export it to Commons. please confirm. Thanks
Techy.Sap (
talk)
12:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There still seems to be a misunderstanding. You cannot export a non-free photo to Commons. Someone should go find an Orrb and take a photo themselves. Because that is generally possible, we also cannot accept the non-free photo here locally. Does that make sense?
Felix QW (
talk)
13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Викидим, you might have to clarify with them whether they also grant permission to modify the works. That statement of license does not, but it's possible they would be fine with that and be willing to say so. If not, though, that's essentially a "no derivatives" license, which is not a free license.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Confirm if fair use is applicable and help tag appropriately
image on ruwiki. This image was uploaded in 2015 as copyright fair use. Is it still copyright in 2024, the 100 year anniversary of publication? Desired destination is Commons or enwiki, for use in
Plutonia (novel) as a free image not fair use. --
GreenC20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
GreenC Russian copyright is life +70 years (extended in some cases to 74 years). The source
[3] according to the ruwiki file description says "Cover illustration and interior illustrations by M. Dobrov", so you need to find when M. Dobrov died to work out if the cover is out of copyright yet. US copyright is going to depend on whether this image was used on an edition published in the US and when.
Nthep (
talk)
21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It might be book illustrator Matvei Alekseevich Dobrov, but I can't prove it, and he died in 1958, only 66 years ago. --
GreenC21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
US copyright only depends on the year of publication, no matter where in the world. (Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. is a ruling that says otherwise, but conflicts with other US courts and is generally considered wrong; I've never seen anywhere on the Wikimedia websites that worries about it and I believe certain WMF-connected individuals would love a chance to get that overturned at the Supreme Court level.)--
Prosfilaes (
talk)
20:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What that means for our purposes is that Commons would not be a good destination, given that Russian copyright is very possibly still enduring. However, with a 1924 publication date, it is free in the US, and therefore can be uploaded locally to enwiki.
Felix QW (
talk)
20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
thanks. I was unaware free in US but non-free elsewhere can be uploaded to enwiki, that would have solved some prior problems with files deleted from Commons. --
GreenC22:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A few months ago I lost this deletion request
[4]. It's a LibriVox cover based on a Swedish movie poster from 1921. LibriVox follows US Copyright so it's basically the same situation (Sweden has a 70+ year author rule). I can copy the image from LibriVox and use the same license tags. --
GreenC00:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Essentially, the images are free but must be attributed to them. Take a look at how this
news platform used them. You are going to be helpful in uploading it to commons.
Wår (
talk)
20:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cannot just take your word for it. Furthermore, the mere fact others have used the images does not necessarily mean they are free. For all you and I know, DW has a license to use images from that source overall, or they may have specifically licensed this one image. Because the website they appear on has a copyright notice at the bottom, and each image itself has a copyright notice on its hover, the presumption is that they are copyrighted and not freely licensed until proven otherwise. For images like this, the photographer may hold the copyright, but they also may have taken it as part of their job and copyright may rest with the organization that directed them to create it. Regardless, until and unless the copyright holder (whether photographer or Zuma Press themselves depending which holds copyright) either updates their website to reflect the images' availability under a free license, or they email confirmation that they're willing to release under a free license. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
User/
say hi!)
20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Got you. Just took time now and read allover and I understand better now. So, I must write them to their email or call them with contact details provided under the "Interested in licensing this photo?".
This is damn complicated and I give up. I am just a volunteer on Wikipedia and I don't have any fee to pay them to release any image. I'm not even Kenyan. I let it go forever until affected Kenyans may wish to upload it directly to the Wikimedia commons, then I use it on Wikipedia.
Wår (
talk)
21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Was looking up info about the movie and there was a few issues with the article, I fixed some, but I noticed that this is licensed as CC-BY-SA. This can't be correct unless the movie's copyright holder uploaded this them self. The file it's self was uploaded by
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. However they also created the article which it is used on which is
Antrum (film).
This leads to either two possible scenarios:
1. Article was written by the movie's author. (Undisclosed, although highly unlikely)
2. The person who uploaded it probably doesn't have the rights to upload it.
However given it is just text, it might not qualify for copyright. Would appreciate some clarification on this because right now the copyright might on the image is very likely incorrect. I've not dealt with this type of issue before, and I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time, so some help with this would be greatly appreciated! :) —
Félix Wolf (
talk |
contribs)
23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That file is on Commons, not here. I'm not sure that actual legal disclaimers are copyrightable, as they are essentially functional (though I'm also not sure that they're not), but since this is part of the film's actual storyline and not really a "real" legal notice, I would say it would qualify as part of the film as a creative work and is copyrightable. That said, it's on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. I'll look into it a little, but will probably nominate it for deletion over there. (The "own work" claim is, at best, highly implausible; that would need VRT confirmation and I don't see any.)
SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The website publishing this logo, does not appear to be the company that owns the trademark. So you would have to check if the copyright release is genuine or
copyfraud. But the logo would be too simple for copyright in the US. If it is a US logo then it could go onto commons, but if from another country, then it would have to be public domain in that country too, before it could go on commons.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
11:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Theodor Siebs
I found an image
here licensed under a PDM 1.0 Universal Deed license. The photographer is listed as unknown as is the date of the image, but Siebs himself died over 80 years ago. Is this enough information to upload the image to the Commons?
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
ThaesOfereode. You might want to ask about this at
c:COM:VPC. Commons only accepts files that are OK to uploaded under the copyright law of the United States and the copyright law of the
country of first publication because Commons files are global files that can be used by any of the Wikimedia Foundation projects in addition to non-WMF-reated third-parties. In addition, the death of the subject of a photo is usually not relevant to its copyright status; the
death of the author/photgrapher of the photo, however, can quite relevant be depending on the copyright laws covering the photo. In the case of anonymous works or works with an unknown author which have been published under
US copyright law, for example, the work can remain under copyright protection for up to 95 years after being first published or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter, depending on when it specific circumstances. The particular file you want to use seems to be
public domain, and it should be OK for Commons (
unless there's significant doubt about the accuracy of the license). You might, however, want to check on Commons first just to play it safe. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
12:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per
c:COM:CB#Jewelry. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's {{PD-US-1989}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail
WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below
c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Photo of a building in a state it no longer exists in fair use?
I understand existing building photos cannot be fair use due to the fact that it's possible to take a new photo. But would this:
https://www.times.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/heritage_art.jpg be able to be uploaded as fair use? Not as a photo of the building but as a photo of the arson. The building is now restored and thus it would be impossible to create a free use image of the arson of the building.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Traumnovelle. It appears you're asking about
Guy's Homestead, right? There are a couple things to be aware of when it comes to non-free image use and that article.
Freely licensed photos of buildings aren't automatically OK just because they're "free". Where the building is located and the concept of
freedom of panorama also need to be considered. Under US copyright law, there is freedom of panorama for buildings and other habitable structures per
c:COM:FOP US, but other countries do things differently. New Zealand also seems to allow freedom of panorama for buildings per
c:COM:FOP NZ; so, a current freely-licensed image of the structure would almost certainly be possible per
WP:FREER, which would make any non-free image of the current structure unaccpetable.
While you could possibly argue that the photo you want to use meets
non-free content use criterion #1 as not being replaceable non-free use (though text is considered and acceptable alternative to non-free image use), there are
ten non-free content use crtieria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy. Based on what I read in the article, I don't see how the file you want to use would satisfy
non-free content use criterion #8 per
WP:NFC#CS. This particular itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article; so, it's not clear why this photo and not some other photo of the burnt out bulding couldn't be used instead. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any content about the arson incident in the article that requires this or any other non-free photo be seen to be understood. Would adding this image to the article improve the general reader's understand of what's written about the arson to such a degree that not seeing the photo be detrimental to the understanding of said content? That is how this file is unlikely going to be assessed in terms of criterion #8.
This is just my own rough assessment in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy, and perhaps others will feel differently. However, you should be prepared to justify the file's use in terms of relevant policy if you do decide to upload it, and find its non-free use being subsequently challenged by someone else. Don't just assume that
an image of an historic event is automatically OK per relevant policy. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Master of all cinemalovers: Please take a look at what I posted on your user talk page at
User talk:Master of all cinemalovers#File uploads. All of the files you've uploaded so far have been flagged for one issue or another; some of these have been cleaned up by others, but some haven't. Uploading files without a copyright license and other required information is not a good thing at all, but repeatedly doing it over and over again might be an indication that you lack even the most basic knowledge relatred to files. So, you might want to stop uploading files until you gain a better understanding of what's expected of you as the uploader. If you keep uploading files without the required information, an administrator might decide enough is enough and take formal action against your account. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
12:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The
audio file needs modifications on the title, source as well as the Author. The title specifically needs Copy editing.
I wanted to nominate it for deletion but then I thought of asking for its modification here first. Kindly help in the alterations.
Wår (
talk)
06:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
War Term: Commons files need to taken care of on Commons. You should be able to make most of the changes you feel are needed yourself simply by editing the file's page, but you will need to follow
c:COM:RENAME and have an administrator or some other user with file naming rights change the name of the file. If you're not sure how to make the changes yourself, you can ask at
c:COM:HD.However, there might be issues with the licensing of
c:File:Nigeria_national_anthem_Nigeria,_We_hail_thee_midi.mid related to
c:COM:NETCOPYVIO that need to be resolved first to make sure the file is OK for Commons to host. The file's description states the "author of the file is unknown", but then the file was uploaded under a {{cc-by-2.5}}. Only the author (i.e. the copyright holder) can upload the works they create under such a CC license; my guess is that the uploader didn't realize this and mistakenly thought that the file simply being available on meant it was OK to upload to Commons. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems like it. The source has no indication of a free license as far as I can tell, and a footer labelled For Educational Use Only. All Rights Reserved.
Felix QW (
talk)
08:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be happy to tag it; However, since it may just be a MIDI file automatically synthesised from the sheet music score and I don't know if those are eligible for copyright, maybe one should file a
Commons deletion request instead? There does not seem to be any copyright exception for the national anthem in Nigerian law, and it is not even 70 years old itself, so presumably it would evebtually have to be deleted on those grounds alone.
Felix QW (
talk)
09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly believe that deleting the file is the best way to go. And then, re-upload it in the right way.
Wår (
talk)
18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
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.
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.
Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
Hit Publish changes.
If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
Please
sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
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.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
Is this photo valid for use in Wikipedia? Newpaper photo from 1938 or 1939 published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (no longer in print, currently on-line only.) No other information about the picture is available. Photo is copied from a newspaper clipping in a family scrapbook.
JHMoyer (
talk)
19:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The caption says the two people are "Dr. Donald H. Loughridge (right) and Burton Moyer".
Donald Holt Loughridge (Q102115511) was
Burton J. Moyer's PhD advisor, and the apparatus in this photo is likely related to that graduate work prior to his 1939 degree (note only Loughridge is titled 'Dr.' here). All of that is more consistent with a 1938/1939 photo than 1928/1929 (Moyer looks more like 27 years old than 17).
DMacks (
talk)
09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for mislabeling. The correct date for the photo is 1938 or 1939, just before Moyer was granted his PhD in 1939. Thank you for your help with this issue.
JHMoyer (
talk)
19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My mistake. Sorry. Picture is from about 1938-1939.
@
JHMoyer: For future reference, it's generally better to ask questions before uploading any files whose
provenance you're not sure of. Files need two things: a description and a copyright license. Uploading a file without either of the two (particularly without a copyright license) almost ensures that the file is going to be tagged (perhaps almost immediately) for speedy deletion. Moreover, the burden typically falls upon the person uploading the file to provide these two things (at least to their best of their knowledge) and not just hope that someone else will do so later. Given that you seem to be sure the file comes from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, it would be really helpful if you can clarify the date of the issue in which it was published. If you can do that, then perhaps someone else can work out which copyright license is needed.In addition, to expand on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång has already posted above, photos appearing in newspaper articles from that particular period of time weren't required to have individual copyright notices but instead were covered under the copyright of the publication itself (which almost always had some notice somewhere in the issue). The file is attributed to a "Post-Intelligencer Staff Photographer" which means it's a "
work-for-hire" and the paper would own any copyright over it. If the photo was taken prior to January 1, 1929, it would be within the
public domain and OK to license as {{PD-US}} under US copyright law; if it was taken between January 1, 1929, but before January 1, 1963, it could still be within the public domain as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but more information about the issue it appeared in would be needed. You mentioned that the newspaper is currently available online; so, if you can find a link which shows the photo published in the paper (perhaps in the paper's archives or newspapers.com), then perhaps someone can help figure out its copyright status. Whether the paper no longer exist isn't really relevant when it comes to intellectual property rights since such rights are assets that can be sold or otherwise transferred to other parties. Whether a copyright notice can be found or whether copyright was renewed though does matter a lot because US copyright law at that time was different back then, and it required formalities that are no longer required today. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Individual contributions that are renewed are almost never daily news stories by staff journalists with accompanying photographs, so I would consider it very unlikely that copyright in this image has been renewed. I have also skimmed 1966/7 periodicals renewals myself for anything that looks pertinent, and could not find anything. In my mind, this puts it beyond reasonable doubt, but perhaps others have higher standards.
Felix QW (
talk)
21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If you look carfully there are two dings near the top right corner. However I would say that this is too simple for copyright, and if it is the cover, it is not that useful for illustrating the book.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
09:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm suspicious that this is just one copy of the book, given a new plain cover by some academic library (perhaps after the original cover was damaged), and not representative of anything in particular about the book. An image search for the book title finds more-informative covers. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Graeme Bartlett and
David Eppstein: Thanks for taking a look at this. The file was uploaded in January 2023, and the uploader hasn't edited since that time as well; so, it's unlikely they will be able to clarify why they've decided to upload this. Regardless of the file's licensing, its encylopedic value seem to be zero to reader's, and it probably should be removed. Is there any other cover that would be better as a replacement? In addition to the one I found above, I also found
this and
this. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The first link in your latest post is the title page, not the cover. Your second link looks like the cover images I saw, except faded and a little battered. I think your earlier "this could be the same book" link is a better scan of the same image. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello everyone, a few weeks ago I created "
I Think I", a single by South Korean boy band
Super Junior. Usually there's a person that adds the cover of the singles to the infobox but apparently it hasn't been added yet, hence why I am thinking of trying to upload the image cover myself.
Hi
Ghazlan-airplanes. If that particular cover is specific to the single (which seems to be the case), you should be able to upload it per item 1 of
WP:NFCI, as long as it's only going to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the single.You will need to download the file to your computer or some other device first, and then upload it to Wikipedia. You can use the
WP:UPLOADWIZARD to do the latter. I don't know the exact wording the wizard uses, but you should upload this as non-free content. If given the option, you should use the template {{Non-free album cover}} for the file's
copyright license and template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for file's
non-free use rationale; there are instructions on how to use each template on its respective documentation page. If, however, you're not given the option to use these templates, use whatever standard non-free license and non-free use rationale the wizard allows and simply replace them with ones more specific to album cover art after the file has been uploaded. If you're not still sure how to do all of this after reading all of the relevant pages, you can try asking for help at
WP:FFU or
WT:SONGS. If you want to see some examples of how others have done this type of thing, take a look at the licenses and rationales provided for the infobox images of the articles in
Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles. In principle, things should be the same for those files, with perhaps only a few minor differences. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Have question about specific older image ? Should I upload to my file directory . . . ?
I'm hoping to upload a picture of a historic image of a sunken ship. I'd like to show the image for questioning. Should I upload the image to my file directory first in reference or should I link the page the image is on or direct link to image, etc. ?
Recently added a product pic for article but got error
Hello! I recently uploaded a product pic under non-free use rationale but I got error msg it will get deleted within few days. Can anyone please explain what I need to do to the file to not get deleted?
File:Orrb device by Lee McCormack.jpg Does this file doesnot fall under non-free use or I can upload this pic in commons please suggest and help urgently.
Hi
Techy.Sap. The reason the file was tagged for deletion is given in the {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} template that was added to file's page. The person who's disputing the file's non-free use rationale is
Mdann52. If you want further clarification you can start a discussion about the matter at
File talk:Orrb device by Lee McCormack.jpg (the link is
WP:RED because the talk page hasn't been created yet), but it appears that the main problem has to do with
WP:FREER and whether the photographed orrb is a 3D work of art or simply some kind of a
utility object. So, I wouldn't upload any photos of this "orrb" that you didn't take yourself to Commons without first getting the
c:COM:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo, and not until you sort out whether this is a 3D work of art. If it's a 3D work of art, then whether even a freely licensed photo of it can be uploaded to Commons is going to depend on whether the design of the orrb is eligible for copyright protection and the concept of
freedom of panorama. Photos of 3D works of art are typically considered
WP:Derivative works, and Commons only accepts them if both the photo and the photographed work are released under an acceptable free license or are in the
public domain for some reason. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
11:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes its not 3D artwork, its commercial product pic. So I need to email the person and get Consent from the real photo taken by the person and then I need to upload in Commons again?
Techy.Sap (
talk)
12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If you didn't take the photo yourself, you can't upload it to Commons without the
consent of the person who did or without being able to clearly show the person who did take the photo has
released it under a free license that Commons accepts. If you want to try an contact that person to ask for their consent, there are some examples as to how to do this in
WP:PERMISSION.The description you provided for the file doesn't provide any source for the image other than "Orrb". I assuming that means you got the image from www.orrb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/orrb-by-lee-mccormack-contact-us.webp. If that's the case, you would need to contact Orrb and ask them to either email their CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT or make this particular image or another image of their choosing available under a acceptable free license.If Orrb is unwilling to do either of those things, Commons most certainly can't host this photo and Wikipedia most likely can't too unless you can establish it satisfies
Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The latter seems unlikely unless you able to convince others that the Orrb's design is eligible for copyright protection. However, given that Orrb is based out of the UK and that there's
freedom of panorama for 3D works in the UK, it seems like it would be hard to argue that somebody in the UK couldn't take a photo of this and release it under an acceptable free license even if it's considered to be more of an artistic work than a ultility object, which means non-free use isn't going to be allowed and you're back to trying to find a freely licensed equivalent photo to use instead.--
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The copyright holder is generally considered to be the person who takes the photo, and the copyright holder is the only person who can release their photo under an acceptable
free license. So, unless you yourself took the photos you want to upload and use, you can't upload them to either Wikipedia or Commons without the copyright holder's
WP:CONSENT; otherwise, they will need to treated as non-free content, which is almost certainly not going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as already pointed out in this discussion. The same would apply to pretty much any photo of the orrb that you might find online that isn't already clearly released under an acceptable free license. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
07:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
ok I will check and go through the process on how to reach out to them for releasing the photo via email examples for free license use to realease under Commons . Thanks
Techy.Sap (
talk)
07:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Techy.Sap: the issue here is that, as the object is a physical product that presumably still exists and/or is sold, there's nothing stopping someone taking a new image of one (either that they own or that is being demonstrated etc), and releasing it under a free licence, so
WP:NFCC#1 isn't met. If this isn't the case, I'll happily reconsider. it's the same reason we use actual photos of cars, rather than promotional photos of them.
Mdann52 (
talk)
14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
yes Its a physical product and is sold commercially and being used in organizations. So I will export it to Commons. please confirm. Thanks
Techy.Sap (
talk)
12:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There still seems to be a misunderstanding. You cannot export a non-free photo to Commons. Someone should go find an Orrb and take a photo themselves. Because that is generally possible, we also cannot accept the non-free photo here locally. Does that make sense?
Felix QW (
talk)
13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Викидим, you might have to clarify with them whether they also grant permission to modify the works. That statement of license does not, but it's possible they would be fine with that and be willing to say so. If not, though, that's essentially a "no derivatives" license, which is not a free license.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Confirm if fair use is applicable and help tag appropriately
image on ruwiki. This image was uploaded in 2015 as copyright fair use. Is it still copyright in 2024, the 100 year anniversary of publication? Desired destination is Commons or enwiki, for use in
Plutonia (novel) as a free image not fair use. --
GreenC20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
GreenC Russian copyright is life +70 years (extended in some cases to 74 years). The source
[3] according to the ruwiki file description says "Cover illustration and interior illustrations by M. Dobrov", so you need to find when M. Dobrov died to work out if the cover is out of copyright yet. US copyright is going to depend on whether this image was used on an edition published in the US and when.
Nthep (
talk)
21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It might be book illustrator Matvei Alekseevich Dobrov, but I can't prove it, and he died in 1958, only 66 years ago. --
GreenC21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
US copyright only depends on the year of publication, no matter where in the world. (Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. is a ruling that says otherwise, but conflicts with other US courts and is generally considered wrong; I've never seen anywhere on the Wikimedia websites that worries about it and I believe certain WMF-connected individuals would love a chance to get that overturned at the Supreme Court level.)--
Prosfilaes (
talk)
20:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What that means for our purposes is that Commons would not be a good destination, given that Russian copyright is very possibly still enduring. However, with a 1924 publication date, it is free in the US, and therefore can be uploaded locally to enwiki.
Felix QW (
talk)
20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
thanks. I was unaware free in US but non-free elsewhere can be uploaded to enwiki, that would have solved some prior problems with files deleted from Commons. --
GreenC22:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A few months ago I lost this deletion request
[4]. It's a LibriVox cover based on a Swedish movie poster from 1921. LibriVox follows US Copyright so it's basically the same situation (Sweden has a 70+ year author rule). I can copy the image from LibriVox and use the same license tags. --
GreenC00:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Essentially, the images are free but must be attributed to them. Take a look at how this
news platform used them. You are going to be helpful in uploading it to commons.
Wår (
talk)
20:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cannot just take your word for it. Furthermore, the mere fact others have used the images does not necessarily mean they are free. For all you and I know, DW has a license to use images from that source overall, or they may have specifically licensed this one image. Because the website they appear on has a copyright notice at the bottom, and each image itself has a copyright notice on its hover, the presumption is that they are copyrighted and not freely licensed until proven otherwise. For images like this, the photographer may hold the copyright, but they also may have taken it as part of their job and copyright may rest with the organization that directed them to create it. Regardless, until and unless the copyright holder (whether photographer or Zuma Press themselves depending which holds copyright) either updates their website to reflect the images' availability under a free license, or they email confirmation that they're willing to release under a free license. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
User/
say hi!)
20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Got you. Just took time now and read allover and I understand better now. So, I must write them to their email or call them with contact details provided under the "Interested in licensing this photo?".
This is damn complicated and I give up. I am just a volunteer on Wikipedia and I don't have any fee to pay them to release any image. I'm not even Kenyan. I let it go forever until affected Kenyans may wish to upload it directly to the Wikimedia commons, then I use it on Wikipedia.
Wår (
talk)
21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Was looking up info about the movie and there was a few issues with the article, I fixed some, but I noticed that this is licensed as CC-BY-SA. This can't be correct unless the movie's copyright holder uploaded this them self. The file it's self was uploaded by
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. However they also created the article which it is used on which is
Antrum (film).
This leads to either two possible scenarios:
1. Article was written by the movie's author. (Undisclosed, although highly unlikely)
2. The person who uploaded it probably doesn't have the rights to upload it.
However given it is just text, it might not qualify for copyright. Would appreciate some clarification on this because right now the copyright might on the image is very likely incorrect. I've not dealt with this type of issue before, and I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time, so some help with this would be greatly appreciated! :) —
Félix Wolf (
talk |
contribs)
23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That file is on Commons, not here. I'm not sure that actual legal disclaimers are copyrightable, as they are essentially functional (though I'm also not sure that they're not), but since this is part of the film's actual storyline and not really a "real" legal notice, I would say it would qualify as part of the film as a creative work and is copyrightable. That said, it's on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. I'll look into it a little, but will probably nominate it for deletion over there. (The "own work" claim is, at best, highly implausible; that would need VRT confirmation and I don't see any.)
SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The website publishing this logo, does not appear to be the company that owns the trademark. So you would have to check if the copyright release is genuine or
copyfraud. But the logo would be too simple for copyright in the US. If it is a US logo then it could go onto commons, but if from another country, then it would have to be public domain in that country too, before it could go on commons.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
11:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Theodor Siebs
I found an image
here licensed under a PDM 1.0 Universal Deed license. The photographer is listed as unknown as is the date of the image, but Siebs himself died over 80 years ago. Is this enough information to upload the image to the Commons?
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
ThaesOfereode. You might want to ask about this at
c:COM:VPC. Commons only accepts files that are OK to uploaded under the copyright law of the United States and the copyright law of the
country of first publication because Commons files are global files that can be used by any of the Wikimedia Foundation projects in addition to non-WMF-reated third-parties. In addition, the death of the subject of a photo is usually not relevant to its copyright status; the
death of the author/photgrapher of the photo, however, can quite relevant be depending on the copyright laws covering the photo. In the case of anonymous works or works with an unknown author which have been published under
US copyright law, for example, the work can remain under copyright protection for up to 95 years after being first published or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter, depending on when it specific circumstances. The particular file you want to use seems to be
public domain, and it should be OK for Commons (
unless there's significant doubt about the accuracy of the license). You might, however, want to check on Commons first just to play it safe. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
12:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per
c:COM:CB#Jewelry. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's {{PD-US-1989}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail
WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below
c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Photo of a building in a state it no longer exists in fair use?
I understand existing building photos cannot be fair use due to the fact that it's possible to take a new photo. But would this:
https://www.times.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/heritage_art.jpg be able to be uploaded as fair use? Not as a photo of the building but as a photo of the arson. The building is now restored and thus it would be impossible to create a free use image of the arson of the building.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Traumnovelle. It appears you're asking about
Guy's Homestead, right? There are a couple things to be aware of when it comes to non-free image use and that article.
Freely licensed photos of buildings aren't automatically OK just because they're "free". Where the building is located and the concept of
freedom of panorama also need to be considered. Under US copyright law, there is freedom of panorama for buildings and other habitable structures per
c:COM:FOP US, but other countries do things differently. New Zealand also seems to allow freedom of panorama for buildings per
c:COM:FOP NZ; so, a current freely-licensed image of the structure would almost certainly be possible per
WP:FREER, which would make any non-free image of the current structure unaccpetable.
While you could possibly argue that the photo you want to use meets
non-free content use criterion #1 as not being replaceable non-free use (though text is considered and acceptable alternative to non-free image use), there are
ten non-free content use crtieria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy. Based on what I read in the article, I don't see how the file you want to use would satisfy
non-free content use criterion #8 per
WP:NFC#CS. This particular itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article; so, it's not clear why this photo and not some other photo of the burnt out bulding couldn't be used instead. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any content about the arson incident in the article that requires this or any other non-free photo be seen to be understood. Would adding this image to the article improve the general reader's understand of what's written about the arson to such a degree that not seeing the photo be detrimental to the understanding of said content? That is how this file is unlikely going to be assessed in terms of criterion #8.
This is just my own rough assessment in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy, and perhaps others will feel differently. However, you should be prepared to justify the file's use in terms of relevant policy if you do decide to upload it, and find its non-free use being subsequently challenged by someone else. Don't just assume that
an image of an historic event is automatically OK per relevant policy. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Master of all cinemalovers: Please take a look at what I posted on your user talk page at
User talk:Master of all cinemalovers#File uploads. All of the files you've uploaded so far have been flagged for one issue or another; some of these have been cleaned up by others, but some haven't. Uploading files without a copyright license and other required information is not a good thing at all, but repeatedly doing it over and over again might be an indication that you lack even the most basic knowledge relatred to files. So, you might want to stop uploading files until you gain a better understanding of what's expected of you as the uploader. If you keep uploading files without the required information, an administrator might decide enough is enough and take formal action against your account. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
12:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The
audio file needs modifications on the title, source as well as the Author. The title specifically needs Copy editing.
I wanted to nominate it for deletion but then I thought of asking for its modification here first. Kindly help in the alterations.
Wår (
talk)
06:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
War Term: Commons files need to taken care of on Commons. You should be able to make most of the changes you feel are needed yourself simply by editing the file's page, but you will need to follow
c:COM:RENAME and have an administrator or some other user with file naming rights change the name of the file. If you're not sure how to make the changes yourself, you can ask at
c:COM:HD.However, there might be issues with the licensing of
c:File:Nigeria_national_anthem_Nigeria,_We_hail_thee_midi.mid related to
c:COM:NETCOPYVIO that need to be resolved first to make sure the file is OK for Commons to host. The file's description states the "author of the file is unknown", but then the file was uploaded under a {{cc-by-2.5}}. Only the author (i.e. the copyright holder) can upload the works they create under such a CC license; my guess is that the uploader didn't realize this and mistakenly thought that the file simply being available on meant it was OK to upload to Commons. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems like it. The source has no indication of a free license as far as I can tell, and a footer labelled For Educational Use Only. All Rights Reserved.
Felix QW (
talk)
08:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be happy to tag it; However, since it may just be a MIDI file automatically synthesised from the sheet music score and I don't know if those are eligible for copyright, maybe one should file a
Commons deletion request instead? There does not seem to be any copyright exception for the national anthem in Nigerian law, and it is not even 70 years old itself, so presumably it would evebtually have to be deleted on those grounds alone.
Felix QW (
talk)
09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly believe that deleting the file is the best way to go. And then, re-upload it in the right way.
Wår (
talk)
18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply