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.
As I was working on theKatz Drug Store sit-in article I attempted to use a picture from theClara Luper article (Clara Luper.jpg), which was taken down for "No valid non-free use rationale for this page" by a bot. How can I edit the caption or photo so it fits within this guideline and can be used in this article?Living-together365 (talk)20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Living-together365 Wikipedia has a deliberately strict policy on the use of non-free content. This is to limit/reduce the amount of non-free content. Any non-free content must meet all 10 of thenon-free content criteria to be allowable under the fair-use policy. The image you addedFile:Clara Luper.jpg has a validfair-use rationale for use in the article on her. For that file to be used in any other article, it would need a second fair-use rationale adding that meets all the criteria. While that might seem trivial, you might have problems meetingcriteria 8 regardingcontextual significance because an image of Luper isn't necessarily going to be seen as adding to the understanding of the article on theKatz Drug Store sit-in. If anyone wants to know what Luper looks like they can click through to the article on her.Nthep (talk)21:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robespierrette (who is a paid editor for the publisher of this game) movedBefore I Kill You, Mr. Bond toBefore I Kill You, Mr. (Redacted), with the edit summary "remove reference to copyright infringing original title of the card game". Our article states that "in 2000, following a cease and desist order from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer [presumably because of the name], the game was taken out of print". I'm pretty sure this is not how copyright works and we should retain the original title but I'd like to double check this.Rusalkii (talk)21:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: I'm not sure this is the best place to ask about this since this seems to be more an issue related totrademark thancopyright (media or text). In principle, any bold undiscussed move can be reverted by anyone as explained inWP:BOLDMOVE. Ideally, what would happen next in such as case should be aWP:RM discussion to let the community figure out what to do. You could ask about this atWP:AN and seek administrator input if you're wary about moving the page back yourself. --Marchjuly (talk)21:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trademark issue. Short phrases are not protected by copyright, much less the names of characters. They can however be protected by trademark if you sell a product that gives the impression it's affiliated with...well...the mark of someone's trade. For our purposes, this is no different than the logo on every article for every company or product. We don't sell nothin' and so we don't care about trademark.GMGtalk21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI: The "Before I Kill You, Mr. Bond" page had a Wikipedia warning on it, stating that any infringing content would be deleted. That made me think that it was, indeed, creating a problem for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not have a problem with it then, perhaps, the warning could be removed?Robespierrette (talk)21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How come the image of him is on his article and not the one on Jewish culture? I used the same one! What the hell am I supposed to do? I used this image. Jacques_derrida_pardonner_limpardonnable_et_limprescriptible_22.jpgChristianhatley527 (talk)01:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiChristianhatley527.File:Jacques derrida pardonner limpardonnable et limprescriptible 22.jpg is licensed as anon-free file and all uses of a non-free file needs to satisfyWikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive by design and is set up to keep non-free use a minimal as possible. In general, a non-free image of a deceased person is typically only considered OK for use when it's done for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the the top of stand-alone article about said person; other types of uses or uses in other ways tend to be much harder to justify in terms of relevant policy. Using non-free files in lists, tables or galleries, is particularly hard to justify as explained inWP:NFLISTS andWP:NFTABLES; in almost all such cases, aWP:WIKILINK to the individual's stand-alone Wikipedia article where the same non-free image can be seen is considered to be a more than acceptable alternative to an additional non-free use perWP:FREER.Anyway, in this case, the specific reason the bot actually removed the file you added has to do withnon-free content use criterion #10c. Each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate, specificnon-free use rationale which explains how the use in question meets relevant policy. This particular bot has been tasked with looking for non-free uses which don't meet criterion #10c. The bot is capable of fixing minor mistakes like spelling errors, but it will not add a missing rationale to a file's page. This is why the bot included a link toWP:NFC#Implementation in the edit summary it left when it removed the file. You could, if you want, add a rationale for that particular use to the file's page to stop the bot from removing the file again; however, as stated above, this kind of non-free use is typically not considered OK per relevant policy, and the use would almost certainly be challenged by others. The file would then end up being discussed atWP:FFD, where a consensus in favor of the use would need to be established, which will be very hard to do given the way you tried to use the file. --Marchjuly (talk)02:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I uploadedFile:MathisHowtoHandleaWoman.jpg but forgot that it needs to be at the top of the article, so I received notification that it was up for speedy deletion. I have moved it to the top of the article, but I'm seeing two messages that seem to contradict one another. They're both in the bottom half of the text inside the red box on the file page. One says, "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." The other says, "Note that if you disagree with the shortcomings of the non-free use rationale as described above, please discuss the matter on the talk page, but do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded." I feel like I successfully addressed the concern, but I don't know if I'm allowed to make any other changes.Danaphile (talk)03:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DanaphileTo me, it seems reasonable that you could remove this particular addressed concern yourself, but the text seems to say you shouldn't, and I don't know if there is a good reason for that, or if it's more of a "catch all" text that doesn't really fithere.
Hi, I've been further directed to this forum. I tried to copy a GIF fromThe Heart Part 5 and put it on theDeep Voodoo article. It got removed for some kind of copyright violation. Is there a right way to post that GIF on that article? It is directly related to both subjects.Could I Do This? (talk)16:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Longer answer. The gif is licensed as anon-free file and all uses of a non-free file needs to satisfyWikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive by design and is set up to keep non-free use a minimal as possible. What might be compliance for one article isn't necessarily going to be complaint for use in another article, so to use the file atDeep Voodoo, you need to consider all 10 points of thenon-free content criteria and add a rationale that deals with all of them. The most difficult to address isWP:NFCC#8 dealing with the contextual significance of the image to the article.Nthep (talk)20:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I request another non-free use rationale to the file? I personally believe that the GIF is significant to the article because it's a direct example of a produced deepfake, otherwise the work is conceptual.Could I Do This? (talk)18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Could I Do This?: Just going to add that providing a non-free use for a particular use isWP:JUSTONE (actually just part of one) of theten non-free content use criteria that each non-free use needs to satisfy. Additional uses of a non-free file, in particular, tend to be hard to justify because of item 6 ofWP:NFC#UUI because in most cases a link to the other article (or section of the other article) where the same file is being used tends to be considered more than sufficient as an alternative to non-free use perWP:FREER. Lots of people assume that putting as much detail in the non-free use rationale will make things OK, but the rationale should reflect how the file is being used (i.e., the detail should be in article content). You'll have a better chance of meeting theWP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) for this additional use if you can find sourced critical commentary of the GIF specifically related to Deep Voodoo and not simply related to "The Heart Part 5" that just mention the company by name or just very briefly. So, what shouln't be done is to just basically repeat content/sources from the article about the song in the article about the company and then add a rationale to the file's page; it looks like that's exactly what was done in this case. IF that's the best that can be done, there's really no real need for the file to be used more than once, which is why I've undone the adding of the file to the "Deep Voodoo" article. There are three relatively short paragraphs currently inDeep Voodoo#Projects, with the second one being about the GIF. How does not seeing this file detract from the reader's understanding of the content about the GIF, which is only two sentences long and cites a single source? That's the kind of thing you should be looking to expand on to better justify the another non-free use of this file, at least in my opinion. --Marchjuly (talk)23:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is more about increasing the reader's understanding of what a deepfake actually is through the use of prominent figures in American culture. Reading the words means very little to someone who lacks an understanding as to what a deepfake is/how it looks. This is an example directly related to both entities, where the GIF would help a reader understand what type of visual effects work that Deep Voodoo does in particular. I looked for a source that speaks to the work itself instead of just the partnership, and found this:[1]Could I Do This? (talk)15:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article titled "Deepfake", and that's where readers can go if they're looking for more detailed information or to increase their understanding on what a deepfake actually is. That not really something that needs to be done in a subsection of the "Deep Voodoo" article perWP:SS.As I posted above, the two-sentence paragraph on this particular GIF doesn't (at least in my opinion) require that the reader see the GIF itself to understand the little that's written about it that paragraph, particularly since they can see the GIF with a more detailed explanation about it inThe Heart Part 5#Music video. Adding a link to that section of the article about the song is a more than acceptable alternative to another use of the file (again at least in my opinion). Of course, my opinion is just that, and others might assess things differently. So, you can, if you want, start a discussion about the file's non-free use atWP:FFD to see whether others agree with your assessment, and a consensus can be established in favor of this additional non-free use.I just don't see why readers need to see this particular GIF for this particular Deep Voodoo project, but the same readers don't really need to see non-free GIFs for the other four Deep Voodoo projects mentioned in the same section. Do you think there should be non-free GIFs added for those projects too? If not, what differentiates them from the GIF created for the Kendrick Lamar video? These are most likely are the types of things that will end up needing to be clarified at FFD for a consensus to be established in favor of this particular non-free use. --Marchjuly (talk)05:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't know if this is the best place to ask this, so please redirect me to the right place if there is an issue. I am working on the article forGilda Radner and want to add different photos of her, since the photos of her are either as one of herSNL characters or with someone else. I want to know where might be some good places to look for different photos that follow copyright laws, or whether this goal would be infeasible. I'd appreciate any help. Thank you.FountofInterestingInfo (talk)01:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiFountofInterestingInfo. Given that all of the photos currenlty be used in article seem to be licensed aspublic domain, anynon-free images of Radner almost ceratinly aren't going to be allowed pernon-free content use criteria #1 (WP:FREER). So, you're either going to need to find an image that's been released under afree enough copyright license for Wikipedia's purposes, or an image that has already entered into the public domain. You can try looking on sites like eBay for publicity photos of Radner which might have been sent out without a visible copyright notice on either the front (including the border) or back since such a photo could've entered into the public domain under US copyright law because of a lack ofcopyright formalities. Signed photos of celebrities often have value and end up being sold on such sites regardless of their copyright status because it's the physical original copy that people want. I'd be careful of websites just posting photos of Radner without any information about theprovenance of the photo; these websites might be able to use the photos underfair use provisions, but anything like that would need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes. I'd also avoid photos which look like they've been cropped or for which you can't see the back because those two places are often where copyright notices end up being placed. Anyway, for an example of what I'm talking about, any photos likethis one are likely going to need to be treated as non-free because there's clearly a copyirght notice visible in the front side's bottom border; the watermark was added after the fact by the site selling the photo and isn't realted to the photos copyright status. EitherThis photo orthis photo, however, might be OK since there are no visible copyright notices on either the fronts or backs of the photos (at least none that I can see). You might want to ask about these atc:COM:VPC because that's where a file should really be uploaded if it's something in the public domain, --Marchjuly (talk)03:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York - Marek Szczeniowski, 16, of New York, who was left a $56,000 trust by the late Aly Khan, holds a self portrait of his mother, fashion designer Sybilla Szczeniowska Sorondo, who was left $14,000 by the prince. Aly Khan's will was made public yesterday in London. He died May 12 in an auto accident. Marek said the prince had been "like a godfather to me."
@Piñanana as far as I can tell, these are all the same AP image and it's almost certainly still in copyright so it's certainly not suitable for Commons. As it's an AP image it is going to fail the fair use criteria, seeWP:NFC#UUI#7. So, avoid using it.Nthep (talk)08:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded an image for my article on Naula. I got a message asking me about 'copyright license.' I am not sure how to get it or answer the message. Could someone here please help?Yogupad (talk)02:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yogupad Are you talking aboutDry naula.jpeg? You uploaded the file to Commons as a .jpg correctly, then you uploaded a local copy here on Wikipedia as a .jpeg but without including any details so the bot correctly tagged the file as lacking relevant information. As the file is on Commons, you don't need a copy here so I've deleted the local copy. If you want to use the image in an article on Wikipedia you can just link to the Commons file by using[[Dry Paula.jpg]] in the article.Nthep (talk)07:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard'sPolygondwanaland, while released under CC BY ND today, was originally released under a seemingly more free (albeit more vague) usage terms, shownhere.
What I'm curious about is the specific interpretation of these terms as a release into the public domain (as shown on thefile for the album cover). While there is no mention of an attribution requirement, I can't help but notice there istechnically no statement permissing derivatives/remixes, Only to 'share and enjoy' (the album isFree but seemingly only "Free to download and if you wish, free to make copies. Make tapes, make CD’s, make records.".)
I realize this is a very pedantic concern, but I just want to have our ducks in a row here. If we don't, FUR might be needed for the album cover here on enwiki and any Polygondwanaland files on Commons might have to be deleted as they could be nonfree. I would like other people's thoughts on the matter. Thank you.Cawfeecrow (talk)04:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
