Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

Welcome to the Media copyright questions noticeboard, a place for help with image copyright tagging, non-free content, and media-related questions. For all other questions, use Wikipedia:Questions.

If you have a question about a specific image, link to it like this: [[:File:Example.png]] (Note the colons around the word File.) 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 to Commons's copyright village pump.

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 inclusing the curly brackets (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}) 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. Click Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, ask a question below.

Click here to start a new discussion

Regarding some files

So I noticed these files are marked as "non-free" even though they don't look like they meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted:

• File:Work Group.png (literally only consists of simple text)
• File:The logo of Amino (app) since 2023.png
• File:Poly_(website)_logo.png (only consists of simple geometry)
• File:Remix_3D_logo.png (Ditto)
• File:Microsoft_Translator_Logo.svg
• File:Google_Slides_2026_Logo.svg (This is already on Commons under a Public Domain license but only as a PNG)

Any chance these files could be reviewed and moved to Commons? Thanks in advance AlternateMemory (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone through these files and marked some of them as suitable for Commons:

• File:Work Group.png: I see that it's Already done.
• File:Google_Slides_2026_Logo.svg: Already done - I marked it as {{Now Commons}} since it had a {{Di-orphaned non-free use-notice}} tag on it before.
• File:The logo of Amino (app) since 2023.png:  Done - marked as {{PD-textlogo}}.
• File:Poly_(website)_logo.png:  Done, see Compendium § 906.1 on common geometric shapes. I also did not add a {{Trademarked}} template because this logo has been out of use for a few years.
• File:Remix_3D_logo.png:  Done, see Compendium § 906.1 on common geometric shapes. Likewise, I did not mark the logo as {{Trademarked}}.
• File:Microsoft_Translator_Logo.svg:  Not done - the A/あ translation icon is a familiar symbol, and "the copyright law does not protect mere variations on a familiar symbol or design, either in two- or three-dimensional form" (Compendium § 906.2). However, the combination with the speech bubbles and shading might be above the threshold of originality; I'm not sure. I'll let other users weigh in before making the call.

Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 15:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Note to others reviewing File:Microsoft_Translator_Logo.svg: the image actually contains two speech bubbles; the one on the top-left is not clearly visible on a white background, so I suggest viewing it on a dark gray background. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 15:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of images from Palestine

How does 17 U.S.C. § 104 apply to images created by Palestinian nationals or first published in the State of Palestine, e.g. File:Gaza Baptist Church.jpg? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Commons has commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/State of Palestine if it helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. That page is about whether an image is copyrighted under Palestinian law (which I'm sure this one would be). I'm asking about its copyright status under U.S. law; I think the main relevant factors are:

1. Whether the work is "published" or "unpublished" (17 U.S.C. § 104(a)): public display on the internet alone is not publication, but if copies were distributed to a social media site for the purpose of further distribution or public display, the image may be considered published. If the image is unpublished, then it is copyrighted regardless of the author's nationality or domicile.
2. Whether one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the U.S. or a treaty party, or is a stateless person, on the date of first publication (17 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1)) (I'm not sure if those solely holding Palestinian citizenship are considered "stateless" under U.S. law).
3. Whether the image was first published in the U.S. or a treaty party, as well as Palestine (17 U.S.C. § 104(b)(2)).

This might be a question for meta:Wikilegal. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 19:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ryanair Logo removed from Ryanair UK

I was looking through the edit history for Ryanair UK and noticed that JJMC89 bot removed the Ryanair logo from that page's infobox about a month ago, citing WP:NFCC. I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia and I don't really understand what the copyright issue with having the Ryanair logo on that page is; having the logo on the page, even if copyrighted, seems quite standard practice for other airlines (see for instance British Airways, EasyJet, KLM etcetera).

The logo that was used, File:Ryanair.svg is technically the logo for Ryanair UK's parent company Ryanair Group PLC, but it is the logo which Ryanair UK use in all of their marketing and their aircraft livery. Was the removal an oversight? Or would it be better to use Ryanair UK's corporate logo, which is sometimes seen in their annual reports and company filing information?

Link to the edit in question St4r1ight (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi St4r1ight. The bot's removal wasn't a mistake; it did what is was tasked to do. The reason why the bot removed the file is essentially the same as explained above regarding a different non-free file. It looks like someone added the file to the article but then failed to add a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page. The bot caught this during one of its runs and removed the file per WP:NFCCE. As to whether the file should be OK to use in the "Ryanair UK" article, generally Wikipedia'a non-free content use policy has been interpreted as considering such use non-compliant per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictie by design, and it tends to only allow the use of a non-free company logos for primary identification purpose in the main infobox or at the top of the primary article about the company in question (i.e., the parent entitiy) but not is article about subsidiaries or other divisions of the parent company (i.e., child entities), even when the child entity officially uses the same branding. Instead, it's preferable to use a logo specifc to the child entity (if one exists) whenever possible, and even to not use any logo when one doesn't exist. This is pretty much done to keep non-free content use on Wikipedia as minimal as possible. In this case, there could also be WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) issues with the additional use of the file because the photo used in the main infobox of the "Ryanair UK" article shows the plane's livery/logo to a reasonable degree, making a the additional use of the non-free logo "replaceable non-free use".

As for the other articles you mentioned, non-free content use isn't formally assessed when someone adds a non-free file to an article: it's a self-assessment at best. Mistakes are sometimes made, but those mistakes only tend to be noticed after someone asks about them. So, the fact that a similar file might be being used in a similiar way doesn't mean the use is exactly the same or even correct. In this case, though, the logos used for the three articles you mentioned above aren't licensed as non-free content; so, their uses aren't subject to the same restrictions as a non-free logo used in the Ryanair article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Use of images posted in public Discord servers as per Wikipedia's non-free content policy

Was referred here from WP:Help desk, so just copying my question from there: In trying to find suitable images of a copyrighted work for inclusion as an article's lead image according to the requirements for non-free content, I was wondering if images of the copyrighted work posted by the copyright holder in a public Discord server fulfil criterion 4 for "Previous Publication". In short, are images posted by the copyright holder in public Discord servers considered to be "published"? Thanks for the help. ~2026-33064-13 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-33064-13. If you're certain that person who uploaded the image to Discord and the copyright holder are the same person, then the file being uploaded to Discord shouldn't matter since copyright on a creative work these days seems to kick in as soon as a work is released/published/transfixed in some kind of tangible medium, which includes online publication. So, in principle, images found on Discord should be just as OK as any other website as long as it's reasonably accessible to others, and there are no concerns about copyrighted content being "released" by someone other than its original copyright holder: content released by someone other than its copyright holder could be considered a copyright violation and not OK for Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK even if the content was nothng more than text. The problem with such sites, though, is that they tend to be user-generated with very little moderation; this can make it hard to verify the provenance of images found on them. In addition, when it comes to non-free content use on Wikipedia, there are other criteria that need to be met in addition to WP:NFCC#4; so, satisfying WP:JUSTONE of the criteria isn't enough. If you could possibly provide a link to the image you want to use and explain how you want to use it, then it might be easier for someone to give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Who is the author for the purposes of copyright?

The books Batten, M. I. (1930). English Windmills. Vol. 1. London: Architectural Press. and Smith, Donald (1932). English Windmills. Vol. 2. London: Architectural Press. are the subject of my query. As can be seen on the title page of Volume 1, it is clearly stated that the author is acting on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings {SPAB). Volume 2 is the same. Am I right in thinking that means SPAB are the author for copyright purposes, and that being the case, copyright would have expired 70 years after publication, i.e. in 2001 and 2003 respectively. As you can see, the Internet Archive has volume 1 online, so they obviously think the book is out of copyright. If we have to go with the named authors, then I think both books are not past the 70 year rule yet. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

These books would only be works for hire under modern U.S. copyright rules if the writer (M. I. Batten) was an employee of SPAB acting within the scope of their employment. If the writer was merely a member of the organization, then no. It's worth noting that the work for hire doctrine was less well defined under the Copyright Act of 1909, which was in effect when the books were published. Also, the 95-year copyright term applies in the United States to all works published before 1978 regardless of work-for-hire status.

All of that being said, these books were published in the UK, where the doctrine underpinning its work-for-hire rules differs significantly from the U.S. doctrine. In the UK (and most other Commonwealth countries), the creator of a work is always considered the "author", but if the author created the work in the course of employment, their employer is the first owner of the copyright. Additionally, the UK copyright term is still based on the life of the employee-author plus 70 years (unless the work is anonymous). Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 04:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Both were employees of SPAB. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In that case, you are right that they are indeed works for hire, but that doesn't seem to affect the copyright term in either the US or the UK (see c:Commons:Hirtle chart for the US rules). Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Volume 1 is PD-US-Expired and Volume 2 is PD-1966 then? Both will be PD-US-Expired next year. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding a wordmark from a copyrighted short film

This is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bully_film_logo.png, I have made a vector file of this that is only twotone (basically traced), would this be copyright free, due to it being under the threshold of originality? TheVectoriser 21:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Newcomer Question

Hello, I'm a newcomer in Wikipedia and I was wondering:

Is the European Parliament Multimedia Center's license under what's acceptable in Wikipedia and does not violate any copyright restrictions? If so, what template should I use when publishing EU files to WikiCommons? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)