Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Copyright on Luftwaffe images

Morning folks!! I have this image on page 22 of [1] which is an aerial image. It for the Ardeer nitroglycerine factory article. The annotated photograph was taken by a Luftwaffe reconnaissance flight in March 1941 which is 84 years ago and 6 months ago. It was later bombed. What would be the copyright status on this? Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 06:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi scope creep. FWIW, it looks like the photo you're asking about (plate 8) is attributed on page 61 as "RCAHMS, C 47643". You might want to take a look at c:COM:Germany and c:COM:UK, and then ask at c:COM:VPC. The publication of the work you linked to above appears to have been in 1996, which almost certainly means that Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland book you linked to above and its contents are still protected under UK copyright law. The photo itself, however, could've already entered into the public domain depending upon when it was first published. Figuring that out is what's tricky becuase when a photo was taken isn't necessarily considered to be the date of its first publication, and it's typically the latter that matters more when it comes to assessing a photo's status. I think, for reference, US copyright law treats wartime photos taken by the Axis powers confiscated by US armed forces after war as being within the public domain because the US considered the photos to be seized property (i.e. spoils of war) for which copyright protection was forfeited after the US took possession. I'm not sure if the UK did something similar with photos and other stuff its armed forces confiscated. Commons is probably the best place to ask about this because if it turns out the photos are within the public domain in both the UK and Germany, Commons is where the file shouid be uploaded. If it turns out for some reason that the photo is in the public domain one but not the other, then the photo might need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia to host it, which makes things harder because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is very restrictive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Morning @Marchjuly: It was the angle on the siezed property as spoils of war that was looking at specifically. I've been tying myself in knots trying to find out if that is the case in the UK. Its from January 1941, so well inside the boundary for what you expect to be copyrighted in any other instance. I'll ask at c:COM:VPC and at the commons. I think commons first as they are likely to know. Thanks Marchjuly. I'll see you there. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

To complete what I said on Commons, this is not a private image, and it was certainly published at the time of creation. Now the tricky issue is the USA copyright, i.e. whether URAA applies or not. We have had already discussions about such images, and the result was unclear. I would personally accept this on Commons, but others may disagree. Yann (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Image Upload

I want to put an image on an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Godwin), and I found a picture that I like, and I do not know how to upload an image correctly- what is considered to be allowed or not allowed. How should I upload this image, if I should at all? When downloading the image to my personal device, its default title is marked as copyright by Sam Churchill. (The Image: https://www.guardspoloclub.com/club-news/captain-elizabeth-helen-godwin-the-life-guards) 167.21.42.210 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Webcam screenshot

I'd like to use a screenshot from one of the Hello Street Cat webcam feeds (via https://meow.camera) on Draft:Street cats in China, taken by myself. I don't think this would have a copyright holder, as these are public webcam feeds that film stray cats, operated by individual volunteers in China and broadcast through Jiemao, which is owned by Hello. I'm struggling to find any information regarding these specific webcam feeds, especially given they are Chinese, and previous discussions on live feeds like this appear to be inconclusive.

I'm poking around Commons' VP/C as well, there's some relevant discussions here, here, here... Could fall under PD-automated? These cameras run 24/7 recording whatever happens to stumble upon the feeder. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Dictionary of Irish Biography

The website Dictionary of Irish Biography says that their terms of use fall under CCBY 4.0. Is is okay for Wikipedia? If so, does this mean that I can literally paste the entire biography into a WP article as long as it is attributed? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 CC BY 4.0 is an acceptable licence - see WP:COMPLIC. If you did copy an entire or even parts of a DIB article over then you use {{Creative Commons text attribution notice}} like this {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=BY4 |url=DIB url|author(s)=Names of authors of DIB entry content copied from |from this source=Dictionary of Irish Biography}} (note the |cc=BY4 to produce the correct licence in the output) on to the Wikipedia article to denote what was copied and where from.

I do see on individual DIB articles they still say that they are licenced under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International but clicking through takes you back to the terms of use page you linked to. So I'm guessing that they've (recently?) changed the licence but haven't updated all the pages yet. It might be worth an email to them to confirm which licence is now in use. Nthep (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that which is very helpful! I did wonder if there was an NC part to this, but I think their website is pretty clear on the licence, hence why I wanted to check first. thanks again and much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Even if the content is released under an acceptable CC license and you properly attibute it, there could still be WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV issues with copying it verbatim onto any Wikipedia pages that have nothing to do with the copyright at all. Content written for websites is often written in a way that's intended to promote whatever the website is about or in a way that's not really in accordance with MOS:MOS or WP:SS; so, it still would probably be better, except for some direct quotes, to summarize the website's content in your own words and make sure you just properly cite the website as a source for whatever needs to be cited. The Wikipedia article shouldn't be turned in a mirror site for that website and trying to do such a thing is probably going to be seen as contentious by other members of the Wikipedia community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Understand @Marchjuly, and that makes sense. I will do that. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Use more helpful CC image license tags

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Use more helpful CC image license tags. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Archangel (Kettama album)

Hi! I uploaded the cover art for Kettama's new album Archangel and it appears to have been removed as a WP:NFCC violation. I'm a tad confused as to why this is when it's the official artwork for the album. Not sure if I've tagged the copyright incorrectly or something, but some further clarity on this would be appreaciated. Fandomwikis (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fandomwikis: Non-free content is required to have basically two things per WP:NFC#Implementation: a non-free copyright license and a separate specific non-free use rationale for each time its used, regardless of whether the file is used more than once in the same article or in different articles. When you uploaded File:Kettama – Archangel cover art.jpg, you did add a non-free copyright license ({{Non-free album cover}} to the file's page but you forgot to add a non-free use rationale for how you intended to use the file. That's what the bot saw and is why it removed the file. Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale altogher are also eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F6, but the bot is not looking for that; it's just look for whether the file's use in article about meets non-free content use criterion #10c. You can resolve both the F6 and #10c issues with the same stone by simply adding a non-free use rationale for the file's use in the article about the album to the file's page. I suggest you use the template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for the non-free use rationale and fill in all the paramters as best as you can. There an explanation on how to use the template on its documentation page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

various grub stake images copyright

I reviewed The Grub-Stake for GA status at Talk:The Grub-Stake/GA1. long story short it's very close to passing but the only matter left is the copyright of some files. I was told some files were public domain due to publication pre 1930. However the file pages at the source assert copyright and the nominator says it's too tedious to find the images in the original trade publications. Given that they're supposedly promotional photos for the film I am inclined to believe they are PD. The files in question are: File:Nell Shipman Promotion.png, File:The Grub-Stake in Spokane.png, File:Nell Shipman cliffhanging.png, File:Nell Shipman's Company.png, and File:The Grub-Stake ad.png. Any help? Therapyisgood (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Camilla (Burney novel), spines.png

I'm not sure File:Camilla (Burney novel), spines.png satisfies WP:FREER for its use in Camilla (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)

Trapped in the Closet

I was doing a clean-up of the Trapped in the Closet series, merging a bunch of stub articles into the main, and it's left some orphaned images:

• File:Trapped_in_the_Closet.jpg
• File:Trapped_In_The_Closet_The_Saga_Continues.jpg
• File:Trapped In The Closet Chapters 13-22.jpg

The only one still in use is File:Trapped_In_The_Closet_Chapters_1-22.jpg which is used in the main article.

I have two questions:

1. I guess these non-free images should now be removed?
2. As part of the clean up I created List of Trapped in the Closet Chapters which originally used one of these images before it was removed by a bot. That's fine with me, but I don't know if it would be possible to update the previous fair usage rational to point to the new article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasime (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)