Welcome to theMedia Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions.For all other questions please seeWikipedia:Questions.
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
On the description page of the image (the one whose name startsFile:), clickEdit 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 (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}})
HitPublish 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.
Pleasesign 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 toCommons: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 wordFile) Thanks!
I'm not sureFile:Camilla (Burney novel), spines.png satisfiesWP:FREER for its use inCamilla (Burney novel) because a free equivalent photo of the books' spines seems more than reasonably capable of being created to serve the same purpose as this or any other non-free photo. It's also possible that, given the book was first published in 1796, whatever copyright might've been associated with its cover art (including its spine) expired long ago so that essentially anyone could photograph the book's cover without worrying about infringing on anyone's copyright if the photograph was old enough. Anyone have any opinions on this? --Marchjuly (talk)06:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
McPhail, to be more specific, in the United States, photographing or scanning a public domain 2D image generally is not creative enough to pass thethreshold of originality and generate a copyright on the photograph or scan, so a photo or scan of a two-dimensional PD work is itself PD.Bridgeman v. Corel is an instructive case as that goes. However, sometimes other countries have a "sweat of the brow" doctrine which does allow copyright on such works, so if the scan or photograph was made outside the US, it may be usable on Wikipedia as PD but not eligible to be hosted on Commons (since Commons requires that the image be free in both the US and its source country). In this case, it looks like the scan was made in the UK, so it's very likely that is a consideration on it and you probably should mark it with{{Do not move to Commons}}.SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a screenshot of the front page of a website. I think it's a copyright violation but the editor who included it has challenged that assertion so I said I would check.Simonm223 (talk)18:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of those. I would be equally concerned in those cases. Which is why I am asking at the appropriate noticeboard. I would say forcing an edit in which is contested for any reason is not best practice. In the case of a suspected copyright violation I still think you should have left it out until we got confirmation. I don't understand the urgency to put a picture into an article about a far-right propaganda magazine.Simonm223 (talk)19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this iscover art perWikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. Per upload page, "This is the cover or dustjacket of a book, the cover of a CD or video, the official release poster of a movie, or a comparable item. It will be included as that work's primary means of visual identification, at the top of the article about the book, movie, etc. in question."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)20:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's a far-right site doesn't make it have different rules than any other website. And it's not like there's anything seriously offensive in the screenshot picked. Images on website articles are basically always useful.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To understand a website it is best to see it, for the same reason as a book cover or film poster. Something identifying that cannot be explained in text, valid NFCC as a kind of cover art/front page like we do with newspapers. The website being racist does not make it any different.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting the political content changed policy, simply that I didn't understand the rush to force it in while checking whether it was a copyvio.Simonm223 (talk)10:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simone223: Since the file was uploaded asnon-free content (which is allowed on English Wikipedia), it's not clear why you thought it might be a copyvio. The file seems to be properly sourced and attributed to its likely copyright holder, i.e. the uploader didn't upload the file under afree license and claim it as their "own work". Anyway, perhaps you weren't aware that English Wikipedia allows copyrighted content to be uploaded and used as explained inWP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. Now, whether the file's use satisfiesWikipedia's non-free content use policy is an entirely different question, and you can start a discussion about it atWP:FFD if you feel it doesn't. --Marchjuly (talk)09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkForest7:WP:NFLISTS is the relevant guideline. Fair-use is context-dependent, not blanket for the image itself. You'll probably need to adjust your expectation of "include a photo for each entry", or write a very clear and convincing explanation of why it is so important to have them ("Contextual significance").DMacks (talk)18:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealjacksonstephen: Non-free content (like the file you uploaded) is required to have two things for each of its uses as explained inWP:NFC#Implementation: anon-free copyright license and a separate, specificnon-free use rationale. Non-free content lacking either one of these things is eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion crtierionWP:F4 or speedy deletion criterionWP:F6. While you seem to figured out the copyright license part, you still need to add a non-free use rationale to the file's page. The file's use inAtari Microsoft BASIC currently failsWikipedia non-free content use criterion #10c. There is a bot that is tasked with looking for files failing this criterion and when it finds them it will remove them from the articles in question. The bot is somewhat capable of fixing simple errors in an existing non-free use rationale like a spelling error or a link syntax error, but it's not capable fo adding a completely new non-free use rationale to a file's page. This is the responsibility of the person uploading the file because it's assumed they understand best how the file's use satisfies allten non-free content use criteria. The longer you wait to add the missing non-free use rationale to the file's page, the greater the chance that the file will be first removed (either by a bot or a human reviewer) from the article and then subsequently tagged for speedy deletion. For some reason when you added the{{Non-free software screenshot}} to the file's page, you sent the parameter|image has rationale= to|image has rationale=yes even though you hadn't also provided a non-free rationale for the file's use. I'm assuming this was just an oversight on your part (perhaps a copy-and-paste error?), and I've undone it. There is now some information available in the copyright license you added about adding a non-free use rationale, It says pretty much the same thing I posted above, but feel free to ask for additional help if you've got any questions. --Marchjuly (talk)21:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason this wouldn't be{{PD-ineligible}} (provided that the software depicted there is freely licensed, and if not it'd be easy enough to write a simple demo program to license that way)? I don't see anything creative or artistic in the UI that would qualify it for copyright; it's just text on a colored background.SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be the case, but I'm not sure. The screenshot itself wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection, at least not under US copyright law, but I'm not sure about the screen content itself. Is it possible it could be treated as a type of prose or computer code? --Marchjuly (talk)10:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealjacksonstephen: As long as the file is licensed as non-free content, it needs a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each of its uses as explained above in an earlier post. The longer the file goes without said required rationale, the greater the chance it will be removed from the article it's being used in by aWP:BOT and then end up being tagged by another bot for speedy deletion perWP:F5. As the uploader of the file, you're, in principle, the one responsible for adding the rationale because you're expected to best know (1) the file'sprovenance and (2) the reason why its non-free use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can use the template{{Non-free use rationale software screenshot}} for the rationale if you want; just add the template's syntax to the file's page (go to the file's page and click "edit") and then fill in as many of the parameters as you can. If, for example, you found a screenshot someone else created somewhere online, you can add a link to the url address for that website as the|source= parameter. If you created the screenshot yourself, you can add the software version and any other relevant information related to the creation of the screenshot as the source parameter. Once again, the longer you wait to add the missing rationale, the greater the risk that a bot will find the file and tagged as being is violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The other stuff being discussed above about the file possibly being within the public domain because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law is not something the bots tasked to look for non-free files with issues are capable of assessing. That's the kind of thing that will be sorted out by regular (human) Wikipedians, not bots. It's also something that might take a bit of time to sort out, and bots aren't going to wait for things to be resolved. --Marchjuly (talk)07:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I've been working heavily on the article for Autechre's 2008 albumQuaristice and I have a couple of questions regarding its artwork:
- Would the cover of the album meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? While Autechre and Warp are based within the UK, some of their covers have been uploaded to Commons due to this threshold (particularlyNTS Sessions 1–4; seehere). The cover art forQuaristice (seehere) is a variety of scattered text on a blue background with a white square near the bottom. If it can be uploaded to Commons, it means I can replace the low quality JPEG version of the cover originally uploaded in 2007.
- Would the artwork for the album's tracks meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? Almost all of the track artwork used forQuaristice are made up of simple squares (seethis andthis for some examples; all of them follow this trend). If possible, I'd like to upload a couple to Commons and talk about the album's artwork in a dedicated section.
%2c_spines.png%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
%2c_spines.png){kind=link}
