Welcome to theMedia copyright questions noticeboard, a place for help with image copyright tagging, non-free content, and media-related questions. For all other questions, useWikipedia:Questions.
If you have a question about a specific image, link to it like this:[[:File:Example.png]] (Note the colons around the wordFile.) 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 toCommon's copyright village pump.
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
On the description page of the image (the one whose name startsFile:), 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 thevast majority of images from the internet arenot appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images fromflickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in thepublic domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or imagesused 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 acceptableCreative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please seeRequesting copyright permission for more information.
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.
Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example,{{untagged}})
ClickPublish changes.
If you still have questions, ask a question below below.
Sadly, it is not unusual to find things onFlikr that are labelled 'public domain' despite any evidence to support such a claim, and good grounds to suspect are actually subject to copyright.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I shouldn’t upload that one. What is the Wikipedia copyright policy of when there is a picture of a character when the character is copyrighted and someone uploads an image of there own with the character in the Creative Commons?WikiGrower1 (talk)16:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiWikiGrower Your question is a bit unclear, at least to me, so please clarify if my answer is about something completely different. If someone uploads their own image of a copyrighted character (e.g. takes a photo of an offical team mascot at a sporting event), then their photo could be considered aderivative work in which there are two copyrights to consider: one for the character and one for the photo. In such a case, the copyright status of each would need to be assessed to determine whether Wikipedia can host the photo because the photographer only "owns" the copyright on the photo they took. There's more information on this kind of thing in theWikimedia Commons pagec:Commons:Copyright by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay which you might find helpful. Whether Wikipedia can host such photos depends on various factors, but the copyright status of the character and the degree the character is the focus of the photo tend to be the two main reasons why such photos ended up being deleted. Another thing to remember is thatfair use andnon-free content aren't exactly the same thing: the latter is Wikipedia's way of allowing fair use content to be used under certain conditions. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to bemore restrictive than fair use; so, while it's OK to think that all non-free content meets the US copyright law's requirements for fair use, not all fair use content meets Wikipedia's requirements for non-free content use. --Marchjuly (talk)22:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask is I am not sure when you are allowed to upload a character. So does that mean if a user uploaded a picture of a copyrighted work in the public domain the picture creator consented to being used in any way but not the creator of the character.WikiGrower1 (talk)03:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this image of Ruth Bader Ginsburg shooting a layup able to be added under non-free rationale?
I just made an article on theUS Supreme Court's basketball court. I do not believe there are any public domain images of it. One of the only photos I have found of it is from Ruth Bader Ginsburg shooting a layup on the court. The photo was taken in 1995 by a photographer from the USA Basketball Women's National Team. It was not then-published. In 2020, the Team sent the photo to the twelve players who with Ginsburg, and Sheryl Swoopes then put it out on Instagram. (A NYT article discussing much of what I just said,the Instagram post with photo, which was linked to in the article). The basketball court is closed to the public, so I don't know if that qualifies as not being expected to make a replacement.1brianm7 (talk)20:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi1brianm7. Others might feel differently, but I don't really think there's justification for this type of non-free use perWP:NFCC#1 andWP:NFCC#8, unless perhaps the photo itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. None of individuals or other elements shown in the photo are things that can't be replaced by a free equivalent image or jsut text alone, at least not in my opinion. The use of a non-free photo of the entire court might perhaps (if distinct from other basketball courts in some way for being the US Supreme Court's court) could possibly be argued as OK to use for primary identification purposes, but I don't see how a photo showing one of the justices shooting a layoup, some other people watching her, and pretty much nothing of the court at all could be justified for that purpose. Another thing to consider here is that photos taken by US federal government employees or SCOTUS employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within thepublic domain, which means some government employee could take a photo of the court and post it on some official US government website. This means any non-free photo taken of the court would have a questionable claim of non-free use to begin with. --Marchjuly (talk)23:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Marchjuly:, thanks for the response. The court has very irregular proportions and has an incredibly short ceiling, with it also having no seating are often mentioned as unusual features. A bit unfortunately, one of the most unusual things about it is how usual it is, which probably works against it in this case. For the public domain thing, the LA Times noted in 2002 “[its] not listed in tourist information and closed to visitors.” None of the sources suggest that has changed, so I think the odds that they publicize it are pretty unlikely, or at least not enough to prevent it now (though I’m not the expert on how we do copyright law).1brianm7 (talk)05:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, "public domain" has nothing to do with "publicizing" the court or even whether it's open to public. Under US copyright law, any works created by employees of the US federal government are ineligible for copyright protection because they are treated as public domain bystatue. So, if an employee of the US federal government takes such a photo as part of their official duties and then publishes on some official government website, it would be reasonable to assume that the photo is within the public domain unless SCOTUS is treated differently with respect to such things for some reason. In addition, not having seats or being of irregular proportions (even with an incredibly short ceiling) isn't in my opinion the kind of thing that would be a sufficent justification for non-free use. I've seen plenty of courts over the years that probably could be described as such. Besides none of the features of the court are in any way relevant to the layup photo; so, tht photo pretty much has no encyclopedic value to readers if the justification for non-free use is the court's unusual features. The two photos shownhere would be more representative of those features perhaps, but that fact that someone was able to take them and even create aYouTube video showing the court likely means a free equivalent photo would be reasonable to expect. There are other images of the court online too likethis one, but other similar ones can even be found being sldhere. So, perhaps the court isn't as impossible to photograph it seems. --Marchjuly (talk)08:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a photo of golferElsie Corlett in the 9th October 1935 edition ofThe Sketch. Hoping to add this photo in her page (since she doesn't have one), I was trying to find out the photographer to check if the photo would still be in copyright or not. However, I could not see any credit on the page (and don't have access to the whole edition so cannot see if there is any credit listed in the inside page for example). I'm hoping someone could advise me of the copyright status of such a photo or how to find out for myself who the photographer might be. I have tried to find digital versions of the magazine, but can't find this specific one.PitterPatter533 (talk)16:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiPitterPatter533. If the photo first appeared in a magazine published in the UK in 1935, thenc:COM:UK (country of first publication) would matter in addition toc:COM:US (country Wikipedia/Commons servers are located), unless the same photo subsequently appeared in a US published magazine within 30 days of initial publication:US copyright law could be solely applied in that case. So, you might want to ask about this atc:COM:VPC to see what Commons thinks.It seems to me that this could fall underc:COM:UK#Unknown author and the photo would've entered into the public domain under UK copyright law on January 1, 2006 (70 years + 1 year after first publication); however, US copyright law changed in the 1990s and theUS restored the copyright of many works solely published abroad when the US Congress adopted theURAA. This meant that US copyright law provided addition protection for such works if they hadn't already entered into the public domain by the URAA date of their countries of first publication. The URAA date for the UK is January 1, 1996; so, anything that entered into the public domain under UK copyright law prior to that date is also considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law, and anything that was still under copyright protection under UK law on that date is also considered protected under US copyright law for 95 years after first publication (which would not until January 1, 2031 for a photo published in the UK in 1935). Unlike Commons, English Wikipedia is concerned only with US copyright law and in some cases it can host content which is not, in principle, protected under US copyright law but is still protected under the copyright law of its country of first publication: such content can be treated a "US-only" type of public domain. Anything considered to be protected under US copyright law (even if within the public domain abroad), though, most likely is going to need to be treated asnon-free if you want to use it on English Wikipedia. --Marchjuly (talk)06:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your very detailed reply. So it looks more likely than not that it's not possible to use it. I will ask over at Commons and see what they say.PitterPatter533 (talk)13:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hughie Broadway Poster 1975.jpg is a photo of the poster for the 1975 playHughie. The poster itself doesn't appear to have a copyright notice (at least not one that I can see), which means it might actually have entered into the public domain on January 1, 1978, under US copyright law at the time and could possibly be{{PD-US-no notice}}. If the poster is PD and the only reason why the file needs to be treated as non-free is because it's a photo taken by someone other than the uploader, then that would mean the non-free use would failWP:FREER. Would the photo itself be eligible for copyright protection separate from the poster in this case? If it were taken straight on, it would likely not be considered eligible perc:COM:2D copying; however, this photo is ever so slightly offset. --Marchjuly (talk)11:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the photo gains its own copyright. I can't see a copyright notice on the poster either. So I think it could be retagged PD.Stifle (talk)09:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a unposted postcard published circa 1940s and lacks either a copyright notice or mark. It also lacks production number. It was published in America by "GRIFFIN'S" as written by hand on the negative at the end of the caption. It is captioned "Mining Dredge, Cripple Creek Alaska" which is written by hand on the negative. It has a white border, its size is 3.5 by 5.25 inches, and was printed by "EKc" / "EKC" process.
According to what I can find, it is now in public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.
Hi Paul H. If things are as you say, then yes there's a very good chance that this post card has already entered into the public domain on January 1, 1978, as{{PD-US-no notice}}. You might, though, want to double check atc:COM:VPC because Commons is the best place to upload the file if it's public domain. As for adding it to any Wikipedia articles, that's sort of a separate question unrelated to the post card's copyright status, but it should be OK. If someone feels that it's not, just treat it as if you would treat a disagreement over article text and work on resolving any issues through article talk page discussion. --Marchjuly (talk)02:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit:. I don't believe that logo qualifies for{{PD-logo}} perc:COM:TOO US, and it probably should be relicensed as{{non-free logo}} instead; however, that would mean that a separate, specif non-free use rationale would need to be provided for each of its uses. There's no way to justify the file's use on the uploader's user page perWP:NFCC#9, and the use of the file inMississippi Miracle seems questionable perWP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, works by State of Mississippi employees don't seem to be within the public domain perthis just because they are works created by a state government employee. So, absent any other reason for this to be within the public domain, I think the{{PD-because}} is incorrect; it was most likely a good-faith mistake, but it's still incorrect. Have you tried discussing this with the file's uploaderRed Slash? --Marchjuly (talk)00:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is well below the US TOO -- logos made of text and simple cartoon images are nearly always denied copyright in the United States (recent examplesfern leaf,smiley face,colorful heart all with the review board analysis that the individual elements were insufficiently creative, as were there arrangement/combination). More complex cartoons are often also denied copyright as insufficiently creative (recent examplesfancy waving guy,multi-component globe,box network). This features a cartoon less complex than those latter examples, and relatively uncreative use of text/color. I feel confident this would be ineligible for US protection.Ajpolino (talk)00:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The file shouldmoved to Commons if others feel it's OK as{{PD-logo}}. If someone wants to boldly do that, that's fine. If they want to ask about it atc:COM:VPC first to seek more input, then that's fine too. If, however, the file is moved but ends up being deleted, there's really no way to justify its use as non-free content (at least not given the way it's currently being used) in my opinion and will end up being deleted anyway. --Marchjuly (talk)09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
