Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Media copyright questions
Shortcuts

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
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
    • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
    • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
    • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; ((Cc-by-4.0))), not forgetting (( before and )) after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, ((untagged)))
  5. Hit Publish changes.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. 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.

Click here to start a new discussion

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Photograph of Robert Beverly Hale on si.edu

Hello, I wanted to upload an image of Robert Beverly Hale to the English Wikipedia article about him, but I have no idea how copyright works, so I thought perhaps posting a link to the image here would help me determine whether it was okay to post.

The photograph was taken by Peter A. Juley. It's available on the Smithsonian Institution Archive website— I hope that means I can upload it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prismboy7 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Usage Conditions Apply", which, if you follow that link, elaborates that to mean "may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use". From that and the rest of the page it sounds like the copyright is still held by Peter Juley's heirs or by the firm Peter A. Juley & Son. Without additional information regarding date of creation or publication, we can't consider it free which means we can't put it on Commons. Now, all that said, it probably is usable locally here on Wikipedia (in a much reduced size--scale it down before uploading) under fair use. The more elaborate guidelines regarding non-free images can be found at WP:NFCI. It's been a while since I've uploaded an image, but I'm pretty sure the File Upload Wizard sets up all necessary non-free templates as long as you answer the questions appropriately. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prismboy7 Agree with VernoWhitney, upload it to WP as non-free [1]. Size is fixed after awhile by a bot, so you don't need to bother with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much. I've uploaded and inserted the image into the article, and I hope I'm notified as soon as possible if there's anything wrong.
Prismboy7 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cushing Child

I haven't been able to find an image of Paul Cushing Child that is in the public domain. I was unsure if this photograph could be used under fair use (Child is deceased, #10 WP:NFCI) because the image's use restrictions state: Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute: This image may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the Schlesinger Library. Please contact slref@radcliffe.edu. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can images be uploaded as non-free fair use if the original source doesn't exist anymore and the authors can't be identified

There are some users who insist that Place (Reddit) needs an image of the final version of the 2017 experiment (at the moment, let's see what they think at the end of this year's, since technically it is the same image being edited). The issues are 1. Reddit took it down when it was completed, and 2. it was made by thousands of anonymous contributors.
There exists screenshots made of it and uploaded by people (e.g. here), but all of these could be considered copyvio, not the original source, and so something that even fair use should not be taken from - add to that all of the otherwise-copyright images recreated by the Reddit users, it does not seem like it is possible to fairly attribute the source or the authors or the copyright holders, and so not possible to sufficiently claim all NFCC points. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there simpler ways to re-uploaded ?

Images that have been on one wiki for a long time but not the others, need to be re-uploaded from the very beginning? Or are there simpler ways? اربابی دوم (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you mean by Images that have been on one wiki for a long time but not the others. Are you asking about images uploaded locally to one of the various Wikipedias or images uploaded to Commons? For example, images upload to Commons can be used by all of the various Wikipedias, but images uploaded to a English Wikipedia can only be used on English Wikipedia, images uploaded to French Wikipedia can only be used on French Wikipedia, images uploaded to German Wikipedia can only be used on German Wikipedia, images uploaded to Japanese Wikipedia can only be used on Japanese Wikipedia, etc. In order to use a file uploaded locally to one Wikipedia on some other Wikipedia, you will either need to re-upload the file to Commons or to the other Wikipedia; however, you will need to make sure the file satisfies the relevant policies or Commons or the other Wikipedia to avoid it being deleted. Some of the Wikipedia don't allow any files to be uploaded at all and only allow files uploaded to Commons to be used in their articles; so, you will have to make sure and check what the policy of file uploading is on the Wikipedia where you want to use the file before trying to upload anything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! اربابی دوم (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-using an image that already exists in another article.

I can't seem to find any instructions on how to re-use an image that already exists in another article. I wish to use the image of the magazine cover found on National Lampoon (magazine) on the article for Ed Bluestone, who originated the idea for that magazine cover. I assumed I could add to the existing Non-free use rationale template on that image's file page, but I get error messages stating that you can't add additional "Article" parameters, etc. Does one have to re-upload it as a separate image file in order to use it on a different page? Cheers! Marchije•speak/peek 13:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to re-upload the file, and it will probably end up deleted if you do. A non-free file may be used more than once but a separate, specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use. So, if you feel the non-free use of the cover in the Bluestone article is justified per relevant policy, you're going to need to add rationale for that use to the file's page. Please keep in mind WP:JUSTONE, WP:NFC#cite_note-3, WP:NFC#CS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI if you do try and do that and don't simply just repeat what's written in the rationale for the use in the National Lampoon article because the two uses aren't equivalent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, Marchjuly. I'm making sure to bookmark those. I'm going to try my chances at arguing fair use. Do I add another "Non-free use rationale" template to the image page? I tried adding fields to the existing template, but I could see in the preview that they weren't going to display. ...Or, do you know of an example of a non-free image that is currently being used on more than one article? If so, I can probably figure it out from there. Much appreciated. Marchije•speak/peek 21:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marchije: Normally such images as magazine or album covers and similar copyright images, will only be allowed in the article about that specific subject with a suitable rationale. Using it in the creator's article is much harder as you will have to provide some reliable sources of critical commentary about the image itself that cannot be expressed in prose alone and is not there purely for decoration. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchije: You shouldn’t try to make a “combo rationale” by combining multiple uses into the same template. Even if you’re somehow able to make it work, it’s likely going to be flagged as a violation of WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#Implementation, and the file may be removed from the article per WP:NFCCE. You can either add another non-free use rationale template or provided the required rationale without a template. You can find out how to do this here. The rationale should specifically reflect how the file is used and explain how the use satisfies all ten NFCCP. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww2censor: @Marchjuly: Thanks again to the both of you. I understand that the prospects are iffy. ;-) Marchije•speak/peek 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image licence

Hi Folks, this is regarding the image: File:Grove House School.jpg Does anybody happen to know what licence its asking for? Thanks. scope_creepTalk 01:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale seems to be ok, its just embedded. This can be closed. scope_creepTalk 01:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Why would you upload File:Grove House School.jpg as non-free content if it was first published in 1842? Are you claiming that Bruce Castle Museum & Archive is the copyright holder. Generally, images first published prior to 1 January 1927 with a known author and aknown date for first publication are considered to be public domain per c:COM:HIRTLE. Even you didn't know the author or the date of publication, anything published prior to 1902 would also be within the public domain. Sometimes organizations try to claim they own the copyright over such images, but in many cases this is not really true. Moreover, even if this file needs to be non-free, the justification for its use in Joseph Lister#School is quite questionable per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. A non-free image like this might be allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the school itself (assuming no free equivalent images could be created or found to serve that same encyclopedic purpose), but the reader doesn't need to see an image of the school that Lester attended to understand that he did attend the school. This type of non-fre use is pretty much WP:DECORATIVE and thus not really allowed per WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to also add that it's generally not a good idea to simultaneously ask the same question on multiple noticeboards because it can create confusion and lead to redundancy. Given you've also asked this at WP:HD#Image licence. It would probably better to continue further discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I was trying to get a quick answer as I thought the bot would delete the image due to a wrong licence. Can we continue the conversation on the help talk page at WP:HD#Image licence. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A still taken from some security camera footage - copyright issue?...

This is basically a duplicate of a post at Talk:Columbine High School massacre.

I was trying to figure out the copyright status of the still from the Columbine High School security video that is presently in Columbine High School massacre's infobox.

Purpose of use - The cafeteria footage of the shooting has become an iconic image associated with the event; it shows the two students with guns, in the mass chaos of the cafeteria in the minutes after their initial shootings and before they committed suicide. The image aids in identifying the students, the nature of the incident as it occurred within the school, and the scene is highly associated with the shooting incident.

This image has a legal copyright that belongs to Getty Images. Regardless of the concept that "the scene is highly associated with the shooting incident" its legal status is, at best, murky.

I am not sure that the various templates in use at the Wikipedia File page - "Non-free fair use", "Non-free historic image", and "Non-free video screenshot" - are applicable for this article or in its infobox. It is clear that the rights for any still images from the security cameras in the school library reside with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department via Getty Images...so then, can Wikipedia use any of these images in any articles associated with the Columbine massacre? Even if the security video could be said to have become an iconic image, does it help explain the subject, is having it in the article or in the infobox necessary for readers to understand the subject, does it convey needed information, does it really help - as the Purpose of use states - to aid in identifying the students, etc.? I don't really think so but I am not a Wikipedia image/copyright expert so am here seeking guidance on policy/guidelines etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is clear that the rights for any still images from the security cameras in the school library reside with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department" Is it? surely the copyright resides with the school/school body. The above sentence reads like the Sheriff's Office automatically claims (and overrides previous) copyright on any video tape obtained as evidence, which I find hard to believe. - X201 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might find it hard to believe but in 1999-2000 the Sheriff's office - not the school itself or the school system - was sued by families of some of the murdered students so the families could have access to the footage. In April of 2000 the Sheriff's office decided to sell copies of the security footage together with police helicopter footage to the public for $25 so yes, the Jefferson County Sheriff apparently did have the rights to the video. Plus for copyright we have to rely on the public notices posted by reliable sources like Getty Images, NBC News, CNN. (Columbinesite(dot)com (a non-profit organization), does claim copyright over its content which includes the video and stills from the video but that doesn't fly in terms of the other information available.) Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or the copyright could rest with whoever ran the security system (security contractor, Sheriff's Department, etc.). The school district may not have been the ones actually running it, nor probably cared about copyright so long as they had access to the footage. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, so long as the copyright is not actually held by Getty (in which case it would almost certainly fail WP:NFCC#2), a single iconic non-free image probably satisfies our criteria. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getty is selling stills from the video, wouldn't that indicate they hold the copyright? Shearonink (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. So far as I'm aware that used to be the case, but now they've evolved into a general image clearinghouse. When an image is being sold there, it's frequently still a problem because of WP:NFCC#2, but in this specific case the image's page specifically says "(Photo courtesy of Jefferson County Sheriff's Department via Getty Images)" so they got it from Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. They're selling it on behalf of "Kevin Moloney / Contributor" who is a professional photographer, but most (all?) of his other work is labeled (Photo by Kevin Moloney/Getty Images), so this one is clearly an exception.
As a demonstration of how Getty has become a muddled mess, you can also now find clearly public domain works being sold at Getty Images (see Getty and NYPL). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Walsh

an image was removed from My M Walsh Wikipedia page, so I uploaded a new one from my verified instagram account. I would like to mark the image as

to give permission & copyright to use it here, but am not sure how to do it, and am not experienced enough on Wiki to perfect what is needed to make it possible.

Categories