Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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)

You can ask JJMC89 for more details since they operate that bot, but my understanding is that the bot is looking for non-free rationales (links to articles to be more precise) corresponding to each use of a non-free file. When the bot comes across a file that is lacking a rationale (i.e. link) for a particular use, it removes the file from the corresponding article. In this case, the bot had no idea why there was no rationale for the use of the file in the "ChromeOS" or even whether there had ever been one; all it caught was that there was no link to the article where the file was being used at that particular time. If perhaps someone had caught the vandalism earlier and reverted it, the bot probably wouldn't have even noticed the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The image only has Japanese text, and a simple speech bubble. Is this eligible for copyright? Crafts97 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Should be ineligible for copyright. It's possible it could attain trademark protections, but absent any information, no. It's too simple. Caveat: I don't read or speak Japanese. Buffs (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I hate to open up what could be a large can of worms, but I'm wondering if we need evidence of pre-1931 publication outside the US for this painting by Picasso, owned by the National Gallery in Washington. It reminds me somewhat of the very old discussions surrounding the publication status of Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.

Family of Saltimbanques was first sold directly from the artist to a private collection in Paris in 1908, before trading hands and appearing in several galleries in Europe - I really have no clue how we'd know if those galleries allowed the public to copy the works they were displaying, thus constituting publication of the painting. This info comes from the provenance listed under "artwork history" on the National Gallery's collection page for this work. The bibliography also lists a 1932 publication as the first recorded reproduction of the work in print. Artists Rights Society claims the work is copyrighted (with a copyright date of 2012 for some reason), which is why this caught my eye, but obviously they are not the most reliable narrators in situations like this.

Courtesy tagging @APK as the uploader (apologies if you already did the digging on publication status here). 19h00s (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Paintings...that's always a can of worms...

Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks's last paragraph is probably the most pertinent

"If only a publication of 1931 or later can be asserted, the work should not be assumed to be in the public domain without evidence. If it was published before 1978 and had no copyright notice or if it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed it should be in the public domain..."

With only a cursory look, we can say with some confidence a) it was published prior to 1978 as it appeared on the cover of a magazine in 1967: I would imagine it probably had additional publications within other books/magazines/brochures/etc, but this is sufficient for these purposes. As I can find no copyright notice listed in US copyrights, ergo, it would be in the public domain in the US unless a copyright is asserted elsewhere...and I've seen no evidence of that. Buffs (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this painting might have been considered copyrighted in France (its source country) at the time of URAA adoption in 1996, though. France has always had way fewer formalities for copyright protection, and Picasso had only been dead for 23 years when the US enacted URAA (not long enough for the work to have passed into the public domain in France based on their regime at the time). I too cannot find anyone claiming this specific work is copyrighted in France, nor does ADAGP (the primary visual arts rights group in France) represent Picasso's estate, although Musee Picasso in Paris claims that all of Picasso's works are under copyright in France. I'm just wondering why ARS would make such a bold claim on this work's copyright status in the U.S. if they had zero evidence on its status in France. 19h00s (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely correct for its copyright status in France, but we have clear evidence of it being published in the US without copyright protections and that copyright is definitely not active. US recognition of Musee Picasso's copyright claims are definitely questionable. Buffs (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

In general, who produces US weather radar maps? Are they generally from NOAA, or from media outlets, or does it vary? Wondering about uploading this 1999 map of Arkansas, which has no information about the source; it obviously didn't come from the website, which is from the University of Wisconsin. I'm guessing that we can't prove PD-USGov, but figured I'd ask just in case. Nyttend (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe that is satellite imagery (a difference that doesn't really matter for this question) from the retired GOES 8, operated by NASA and NOAA. I would hope that it could be licensed similar to the images in c:Category:GOES 8 pictures (which seem to be a mix of NASA and NOAA PD licenses)? Although looking a bit more, there are images sourced from this website (commons search) and some have NOAA/NASA licenses and some use c:Template:UWiscCIMSS. Looks very likely it can be on Commons and hopefully this can give you a good start. Skynxnex (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have some questions with regards to the movie poster for the movies entitled: Everyone knows every Juan (2025 film), and Dementia (2014 film) - one of the administrator JJMC89 bot keeps on deleting the photo on the movie articles, saying it's a Non-Free Content Criteria (NFCC) but those are movie posters which have been resized for movie identification and to adhere the Wikipedia standards.

• File:Everyone knows every Juan movie posterImage001.png
  • This movie poster is used for the movie, Everyone knows every Juan (2025 film)
• File:Dementia official movie poster 2014 filmImage001.png
  • This movie poster is used for the movie, Dementia (2014 film)

Both movie posters have been resized by Datbot have been scaled down to provide illustration which is under fair used. What am I doing wrong? How can we resolve this? Can I put the movie poster back without it being deleted since those two movie posters have been resized for current revision and will not be deleted.

Kindly advice and thank you --Fanblade81 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fanblade81 I looked at your Jade poster , and I think the problem is that your summary section is just unformatted text the bot can't read, compare File:Emilia, 2018 poster.jpg. If you didn't, I recommend you use the WP:FUW - Upload a non-free file in the future. Try to edit your poster into template shape or start over. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fanblade81: The non-free use rationales you provided for these two files when you uploaded them were fine except for one thing: neither of them included a link to the article where the file was intended to be used. The bot that removed the file is looking for links to where the non-free files are being used; so, even though you mentioned the each article by name, the bot was unable to pick that bit out of the rationales and assessed the files as being violation of WP:NFCC#10c. Back in the day when mostly human editors were assessing non-free files for NFCC#10c violations (one of the things this particular bot has been tasked to do), this wouldn't have been an issue. With bots, though, it seems to be (perhaps it shouldn't be the case) a "problem" because bots (as pointed out above) in general aren't reading rationales per se, but rather looking for techincial connections between files and where they're being used. FWIW, someone went and added a link to each file's rationale; so, the bot shouldn't remove the files again. Non-template rationales are still allowed, but their use isn't as common as it once was. If you want, you can convert the rationale into a template like {{Non-free use rationale poster}}, but things should be OK now (at least regarding NFCC#10c). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to link to an American History TV video segment on C-SPAN's website in an Template:External_media tag, but I'm not sure about the copyright status of the video. American History TV is a C-SPAN program, but it's not a US government proceeding/recording. This specific video doesn't seem to have copyright info anywhere on the page; it's just marked as "Category: Public Affairs Event" and "Format: Forum". Also, C-SPAN's copyright and licensing terms don't seem to answer my question. But also, maybe I'm not reading the terms correctly. Any thoughts or advice? Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 06:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden My understanding is that CSPAN is "free" only in very limited cases per , so I don't think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Only C-Span content of government proceedings on the floors of the US Congress is considered to be within the public domain. I believe this is because the cameras used for filming inside the chambers are set up and operated by employees of the US federal goverment as part of their official duties and C-Span just gets sent the feed. None of the other C-Span programing or other C-Span coverage of government proceedings in other buildings, even in other government buildings, is considered to be within the public domain as a work of the US federal government because that's directly controlled by C-Span or some other third-party. I do believe C-Span makes much of its other content available to the public under a non-commercial educational use only type of license; such a license, however, isn't free enough for Wikipedia's purposes and thus such content needs to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice @Gråbergs Gråa Sång & @Marchjuly

Do either of you know if it would still be okay to use an Template:External_media tag just to link to the American History TV C-SPAN video? It wouldn't be hosted on Wikipedia & the link would be labeled appropriately.

The reason I ask is because I just reread the Copyright section of the Template:External_media page:

"According to WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK, editors must never link to content that violates copyright or is otherwise illegal. If you are uncertain of the copyright status (for example, with links to YouTube), ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. If you're certain that the copyright status is acceptable, but others might wonder later, make it clear in the template or in the reference that you link to material from a rightful distributor (examples can be found at grindcore)." [emphasis mine]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the note is saying basically not to link to videos that may violate copyright, such as random YouTube videos with dubious distribution rights. So in my case here, if I just link (not host or screencap) to a C-SPAN video, that would be okay? Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 15:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden Sorry, I may have been focusing on the wrong thing here. "video segment on C-SPAN's website" should be safe enough for this use. If other editors agree this is a good addition is another issue, but that's always the case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång oh no worries, I totally misread the guidance at first, so my question was misleading. Thank you! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 16:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

May/should I add an {{External media}} link on the Second inauguration of Harry S. Truman article to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84m5QaAC6hE by the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum? The video description includes:

The copyright for this TV pool coverage is unclear. Users are encouraged to research the copyright status for themselves. Please credit: Harry S. Truman Library.

Any help would be appreciated, thanks. – Mullafacation『talk』 12:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Media has reported on the following Truth Social post by Trump. The image is a derivative work that features simple text and screenshots of newspaper headlines, corporate logos, and low-resolution grainy images of public figures. I previously solicited feedback on the commons, and was told it may qualify as fair use as non-free content on Wikipedia (cf. WP:NFCC). I would appreciate a second opinion on this matter. BootsED (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You haven't provided any information as to what article this image would be used in, and why it would need to be in the article. Without that, there is no way to provide any analysis or opinion on if it would qualify for use as non-free content. -- Whpq (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)