Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

---

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III .

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

That image should not be marked as non-free. As a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not [copyrightable]. These elements are mere variations of uncopyrightable letters or words, which in turn are the building blocks of expression. The Office typically refuses claims based on individual alphabetic or numbering characters, sets or fonts of related characters, fanciful lettering and calligraphy, or other forms of typeface. This is true regardless of how novel and creative the shape and form of the typeface characters may be. (Compendium § 906.4) Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 15:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

@DoNothingEveryday c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/European Union is the page you want. If it's still unclear then you can ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Nthep (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&oldid=1322067572 on Gülen movement the image File:Love Is a Verb poster.jpg is removed. This film's main topic is Gulen movement, so it's directly related to the article, per license usage of the image should be allowed, right?

unforgvn20 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Such use in Gülen movement may fail WP:NFCC#8. It's a movie poster, and critical commentary may be inadequate to support such use there. Should remain in Love Is a Verb movie article, unfortunately. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Same for the article about the founder of the movement. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Would appreciate a second look over the licencing at File:A Book of Mediterranean Food.webp, particularly with regards to the use of Common's dust jacket licensing rationale. Whonting (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am looking at two files currently listed as non-free:

• File:Brogue title.png
• File:Brogue (video game) screenshot.jpg

The game these images come from, Brogue, is licensed under APGLv3. Can these images be relicensed, and if so which license is most appropriate as {{AGPL }} does not exist unlike {{GPL }}. I wish to upload higher quality versions of both. Zurel (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done I've created an {{AGPL license }} template with {{AGPL }} redirecting to it; feel free to add the license tag if the audiovisual material (and not just the code) is covered by the AGPL. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I noticed a file in Wikipedia that does not link to somewhere:

• File:Hymenoptera collection and staff 12 Gavin.jpg

This is a picture of Gavin Broad. The original publisher said that this is CC-BY-SA-4.0 and that this is "Provided by in house Museum Photography Team". But, I couldn't see this photo somewhere in the museum website nor know if this is actually lisenced under the CC license by the NHM. Does anyone where this file is or what the license this is? DoNothingEveryday (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi DoNothingEveryday. Generally, it's better to ask about files uploaded to Commons over at Commons (e.g., c:COM:VPC or c:COM:HD) because (English) Wikipedia and Commons are technically separate sites with their own respective policies and guidelines. In this case, though, I've gone ahead a tagged the file as needing further verification of copyright licensing and c:COM:CONSENT for the reasons you've given above. My guess is that someone connected to the subject of the photo or the source of the photo probably did ask the copyright holder whether it was OK to upload and use the photo on Wikipedia and was told it was OK. That kind of verbal permission, though, isn't really sufficient per relevant Commons' policy and some type of more formal verification is needed in order for Commons to keep hosting the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Marchjuly, thanks for reccomending where I should go regarding these issues. Although I found in the metadata that this file has an "All Rights Reserved by NHM" so unless they have the permission by the NHM London to distribute this file, I think this violates copyright in my opinion DoNothingEveryday (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Only the copyright holder can release their work under such a license; so, unless the uploader is really the copyright holder and is simply referring to themselves as if they're not for some reason, then the license wouldn't be considered valid for Commons or Wikipedia use and further verification of the license (copyright holder consent) is needed for the file to avoid ending up being deleted. By tagging the file as needing such verification, the uploader is given about a week to try and obtain said consent or provide a way of formally verifying copyright holder consent. If they fail to do this within the alotted amount of time, the file will end up deleted. The file could, of course, be tagged as a copyvio which will make it eligible for deletion asap, but this seems a bit harsh (at least to me) because (as I posted above) the uploader seems to somehow be related to either the subject of the photo or NHM London; so, it's better to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them try to sort things out on their end. The uploader's account was created the same day they uploaded the file, and this was the only file they uploaded; so, there's a good chance this is just a new user who's not familiar with Commons and either isn't aware of or doesn't fully understand c:COM:L. If the uploader, on the other hand, was someone who had a track record of uploading files with questionable licensing or copyright claim was so clearly an attempt to deceive, then tagging the file as a copyvio would've been more than justified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh okay, I understand that they may be a newcomer. I'm sorry for the rude tone earlier. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]