Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Would this fall under pd-text? —Opecuted (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} I suspect - that setup might be copyrightable from an UK perspective, but definitively not the US one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I would second that, and have applied the PD-ineligible-USonly licence tag. (Declaring it uncopyrightable in the UK, by contrast, would seem to be a fact-based inquiry into whether the arrangement and choice of colour and font were artistically original...which is a fairly subjective standard. My inclination is that it was probably not intended to convey a figurative meaning, but rather to look nice on a website, but I don't feel like it's especially important to be sure.) TheFeds 03:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The only copyright-eligible element in File:Wdae957logo.webp seems to be the starburst like bit in the light blue bar at the bottom of the logo. Any opinions are whether that alone is enough to push the logo above c:COM:TOO US? If it's not, then the file can be relicensed as {{PD-logo}} and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems conceptually similar to the PD File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg (subject of copyright ruling cited at Commons). The star or flash is probably not anything more than a generic representation without a specific creative expression. It is interesting to note that File:WDAE 95.3-620 logo.png also exists, as does commons:Category:Radio station logos of Florida. TheFeds 03:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Could we enlarge File:ZX81_Sinclair_Research_advert.jpg by restoring the previous revision? It has a fair use rationale "To accompany critical commentary on Sinclair Research's marketing campaign for the ZX81, with reference to the layout, design, typography, language and purpose of this display advertisement." The article comments on benefits and value for money, using this image as an example, but that information cannot be read at this size. The article also devotes a large paragraph (and then some) to describing the advertising style exemplified here, so I think we're on firm footing in terms of critical commentary and use of the relevant portion. TheFeds 02:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:St Mary'sChurchHorhsamSussexEnglandcirca1910.jpg was uploaded as non-free content back in 2009, but that seems mainly just as a precaution. If this was published in 1912 as it's description claims, it should be {{PD-US}} at this point, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Well into public domain. I've relicensed it, restored the larger redacted version and moved it to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Whpq. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A question arose at FAC regarding the license of this image and others that have this explanation: This file comes from the official website of of the Tatarstan and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Can someone please verify that this license is valid? Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Since that file was uploaded to Commons, the best place to ask about is probably going to be at c:COM:VPC. FWIW, I clicked on the source link for the file and used Google Translate to translate the page into English, but I didn't find any specific licensing for this or any of the other photos on the page that indicate its content being released as CC-by-4.0. It also looks like someone just created c:Template:Tatarstan.ru/en without any real discussion (things like that sometimes happen at Commons). So, there's no way to tell whether the license is even valid to begin with, and there also doesn't appear to be any information about the copyright laws of Tatarstan on Commons per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory which might aid in assessing that. That license is being used by lots of files; so, it probably should be discussed in general terms and not just as it relates to this particular file. It also might need to be a discussion involving someone who understands enough Tartar or Russian to sort out the country's copyright laws. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly: Thank you for your response! It looks like the uploader probably just snagged the photos and slapped on the license, my guess is assuming that photos on government website are free game. Since my concern with this is in regards to this specific FAC, I have simply swapped out the photos for ones with unimpeachable licensing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: I took another look at the url provided for the licensing template used for this file. If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, you'll find that all of the content on the site has been released under a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" license; so, all content sourced to that website should be OK. The source website isn't in English but you can use Google Translate or some other online translator to check for yourself if you want. What might be a problem is that this particular image is sourced to the Ministry of Sports of the Republic of Tatarstan's official website, which doesn't use the same url address. There's is also no similar mention of copyright licensing that I can find on the ministry's website. So, it's not clear whether that particular license applies to all Republic of Tatarstan official websites, some official websites, or just the main website. I've asked about this at c:COM:VPC#File:Anastasia Mishina, Aleksandr Galliamov - 2023 Russian GP Stage 4 - 03.jpg and perhaps someone there can help sort it out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: No doubt. Both tatarstan.ru and minsport.tatarstan.ru clearly carry this free license in their footers. Komarof (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes Bgsu98. This file is OK as licensed. There's licensing information at the bottom of the site that clearly states the content is OK for Commons, but it's hidden behind a cookie pop window. Thanks to Komarof for finding it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone know the copyright status of photographs taken by the Royal Thai Navy please? I'd like to use the photo of the burning ship in this BBC report, which originates from the Royal Thai Navy. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. There doesn't seem to be anything in c:COM:Thailand that indicates photos taken by members of Thailand's military are considered to be within the public domain; so, I think you assume that the photo is under copyright protection and work from there. You could try asking about it at c:COM:VPC, but my guess is that this photo would probably need to be treated as non-free content for use on English Wikipedia, i.e., its use would need to satisfy WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: - I did look at the Thai Navy website, but I don't speak Thai and it is not a language supported by Firefox for translation. I think NFCC won't be met, mainly because a compatible photo could be obtained. Mjroots (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If www.navy.mi.th is the website you checked, then there's a "Language" tab at the top that you can use to switch to English. It says at the very bottom of the site "© 2022 Royal Thai Navy. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.", but that could just be a type of generic license found on most websites. You could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand to see whether any of its members understand enough Thai to find something online about official Thai military photos and their copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Would this image fall under Public Domain due it just being simple text and geometry? Crafts97 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Crafts97 I would say yes since the tilde over the V isn't particularly original, so it would fall under c:COM:TOO US. HurricaneZeta^C 16:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say yeah too. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This file of a 2025 film poster was uploaded as Fair Use and used on the page Becoming Led Zeppelin. I included it on the page List of highest-grossing documentary films, and it was immediately removed by JJMC89 bot. The reason given was: "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation." It is unclear to me if the issue relates to the original licence designation, the rationale provided, or a broader copyright issue. Would the use of Template:Non-free poster resolve it? Could anyone advise on how to resolve this issue to reuse this image? Many thanks! Limelightangel (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Limelightangel: Non-free files are required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a separate, specific non-free content use rationale for each use. Pretty much in all cases, one copyright license is sufficient regardless of how many times a file is being used; however, since non-free use isn't automatic and each use is required to meet all ten non-free content use criteria, a rationale needs to be provided for each use of the file (regardless if the uses are in the same article or in different articles). The bot that removed the file has been tasked with finding non-free files lacking rationales for each of their uses, and it removes the file from those articles lacking corresponding rationales per WP:NFCCE and WP:NFCC#10c. This is why the bot inlcuded a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in the edit summary it left when it removed the file.

When it comes to non-free movie posters like File:Becoming Led Zeppelin poster.jpg, it's generally OK for the file to be used for primary identificatio purposes at the top or in the main infobox of the stand-laone article about the movie the poster identifies; so, the use in Becoming Led Zeppelin seems fine. It's much harder, though, to use the same poster in other articles because those types or non-free use are typically not considered policy compliant. Non-free use in list articles, in particular, is pretty much never allowed to illustrate an individual entry per WP:NFLISTS because such use is almost always considered WP:DECORATIVE. So, while adding a missing rationale for List of highest-grossing documentary films should stop the bot from removing the file from the article again, the use still wouldn't be allowed by relevant Wikipedia policy; so, the file will most likely just end up being removed again by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I obtained permission to use a portrait if William Chappell (on page William Chappell (dancer) but it has since been deleted. It fits the criteria for non-free content - this I added under the caption. Where did I go wrong? and how do I correct this ? Thanks and regards Coejonathan (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Later - reposted with complete rationale -- deleted again -- but why -- I need some help here to understand what has gone wrong -- given I have been supplied the picture by its owner for use on this wikipedia page.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coejonathan (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Coejonathan I converted the non-free rationale into a template, {{Non-free use rationale}}, which the bot checks for. It shouldn't be removed now. HurricaneZeta^C 18:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- very many thanks for speedy reply -- I'm not sure I undertsand the use of templates -- I find it confusing to find the right one -- but excellent help -- I am learning -- my regards Coejonathan (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Coejonathan: You aren't required to use templates for a non-free rationale, but doing so can make things a bit easier. The main problem with the rationale you intially provided was that it didn't contain a link to specific article where the file was intended to be used: you just wrote "Use is limited to this page". The bot had no way of figuring out what "this page" meant; so, it treated the use in William Chappell (dancer) as a violation of non-free content use criterion #10c. Technically speaking, that bot isn't checking to see whether a non-free use rationale template is being used, but rather whether there's a specific link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale that has been provided. Non-template rationales are perfectly OK per WP:FUR#Non-template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I had to revert JJMC89 bot as it deleted the image (at the page ChromeOS) I believe it should be fine to put it on there as the bot said "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Is the image good to stay up, or does the rational need to change? From my knowledge, the bot has never removed it before this time. It has, from what I see, been on the page for a whole year now. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@SuperJames888 I think it was because the article parameter on the file said Chrome OS instead of ChromeOS, I fixed that. HurricaneZeta^C 15:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah yeah that probably was the issue, since they did move the article to ChromeOS last month. Thanks! SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@SuperJames888: The reason why the bot removed the file had nothing to do with the change in the name of the article (the bot is capable of figuring things out like that) and everything to do with some random unregistered account blanking the file's page with this edit made yesterday morning. The bot just picked up on that before someone was came along and reverted that vandalism about 12 hours later. Most likely you only saw the reverted version of the file's page when you re-added the file early this morning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah that actually makes sense why that would happen. I actually never knew the bot could pick up on article blanking. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 14:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)