Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Korean reuse copyright for Encyclopedia of Korean Culture

Moved to c:COM:VPC#Korean reuse copyright for Encyclopedia of Korean Culture

On The Beach - link to full text

Hi!

On the Beach (novel) has an external link in the info box to the full text of the novel. It's my understanding that the novel is in the public domain in Canada, but not yet in the US (where it seems to have been originally published by William Morrow and Company or the UK (where the author was a citizen. How do we think about this in terms of WP:EL and WP:LINKVIO? I would think we should remove since Wikipedia is governed by US law and the work is also governed by US copyright law but wanted to check to see if there's precedent. Thanks in advance! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, That's a good question. The link does not lead to something illegal, there is no violation of copyright, they being in Canada. They hold and make available the book legally. As their notice reads: "These books are public domain in Canada (because we follow the Canadian copyright laws), but if you are in another country, you should satisfy yourself that you are not breaking the copyright laws of your own country by downloading them." That sounds fair. Users who live in countries where the book is not free are thus properly informed and cautioned. The link leads to an information page about the book, not immediately to the text of the book. Should we also deprive the Wikipedia users who live in countries where the book is in the public domain from knowing the information that they can access the book there? I'm not answering the question, but I'm not disturbed by that link. But then, I'm also in Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping through that, your logic tracks for me from an ethical and intellectual standpoint. Where I'm still left wondering is how Wikipedia's being governed by US copyright law comes into play. While you're right that the link isn't directly to the text, it's to a page created for the sole purpose of hosting the text. So would Wikipedia be bound in this case by US copyright law to not link to something whose sole purpose is to host text that's still covered by US copyright law?

Again, super aligned with you from an intellectual freedom standpoint. Trying to puzzle through the legal side since Wikipedia is a US organization, legally speaking. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass:

My comment was trying to address the policy and legal aspects, not only an ethical aspect.

I guess that it depends on how we understand the purpose of the policy. I think that the basic idea is this sentence on the page WP:EL: "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." But the website in your question does not hold the work in violation of copyright. It holds it legally. As far as I can tell, it seems a honest and legitimate website that seems to hold its books legally. The fact that its initial information page for the book is not the text of the book, and the fact that it gives a warning notice to foreign users, are two facts that contribute to a conclusion that it does not violate copyright and does not encourage violation of copyright. Therefore, IMHO, it at least seems reasonable to hold the opinion that the external link in the wikipedia article does not violate the spirit nor the letter of the policy of Wikipedia.

It is unfortunate that the page WP:LINKVIO doesn't offer anything more substantial than a preliminary injuction from 1999 replaced by an amiable settlement without admission of wrongdoing. Even taking that injunction FWIW, its "contributory infringement" portion was based on the fact that the linked websites were hosting the works illegaly. But as a Canadian, I do not claim to have any particular knowledge of U.S. law.

If your understanding is that the link presents a risk of violating the policy or the law, you can be bold and remove the link.

-- Asclepias (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Animated diagram of Tetris video game mechanics?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Copyrights § Animated diagram of Tetris video game mechanics?

 – Lazman321 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi. A question arose about using the Commons image File:Tetris Loading Gif.gif in the English WP article "Tetris". The animation was drawn by a Commons user, and depicts geometrical shapes falling. It is not a screen-capture of the Tetris Video game. The animation does not include any additional graphics (such as game score, surrounding border, "Tetris" trademark, etc). I know that plain geometrical shapes cannot be copyrighted, and a moving shape cannot be copyrighted. Is this animated gif free-to-use in English WP? If not: what additional changes would need to be made to make it free-to-use? (such as, changing the geometrical shapes from color to grey-shade?). Noleander (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• I just learned there is another Tetris-related conversation at in Commons Village Pump Although that conversation is about a different media file (non-animated), so I don't think the two conversations should be merged. This discussion here in the Copyright Talk page is specifically about "What needs to be done (if anything) to File:Tetris Loading Gif.gif to make it free-to-use?".Noleander (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Political party logo(s)

File:Libertarian Party of Rhode Island logo.png and File:Libertarian Party of Hawaii logo.jpg hold the exact same relation to their respective articles as File:Libertarian Party of California logo.png holds to Libertarian Party of California. They have been removed by a bot without good cause. Idacticus (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The good cause was that you displayed the files in articles for which you did not provide non-free use rationales, while you did not display the files in articles for which you provided non-free use rationales, i.e. the article "HTML element" and the article "List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States)", articles where the files would likely not belong. You can fix the issue by providing non-free uses rationales for the articles about the parties. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. The articles I'm trying to use them for are Libertarian Party of Rhode Island and Libertarian Party of Hawaii. They are the logos of those organizations. Where do I put an explanation for using the logo of an organization on the page about that organization? Thank you for your assistance, as this is the first time I've ever dealt with non-free use. Idacticus (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The non-free use rationales are in the file description pages that you linked in your initial comment. On those file description pages, look at what you wrote in the "Use in article" line of the non-free rationale template. You wrote that the Rhode Island logo was to be used in the article "List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States)" and that the Hawaii logo was to be used in the article "HTML element" . That should be replaced respectively with the name of the article "Libertarian Party of Rhode Island" and the name of the article "Libertarian Party of Hawaii". -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Rhode Island must have been an auto-correct from the File Upload Wizard, as those pages used to be re-directs. I don't know what happened with Hawaii. Idacticus (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg

This image was recently reuploaded to Commons and deleted, and I do not intend on re-litigating the issue there. However I think the design may be TOO in the United States and thus permissible on enwiki without NFCC rationale. The design, excluding the tree, is very simple; the tree is the obvious reason why it would not meet TOO in the United States. However, it would appear that the actual vector image was made by a Wikipedian based on a different image; https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/c/cc-flag.jpg. The tree in the source image is very visually distinct from the vectorisation and I don't think issues with derivative works would apply here; perhaps using the same logic as Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems and COM:COA. Any advice on this? Obviously we would need a free licence on the tree; @Hlticgh: as I understand it from the file history you were the one who drew the tree, would you be willing to release it under a free licence? Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I should clarify that the tree in the SVG was vectorized based on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands flag illustration published by Vexilla Mundi, rather than being an entirely independent creation. Although the resulting vector illustration differs visually from the source, I cannot confidently claim that it is an independent work or that I have the necessary rights to release the underlying illustration under a free licence. Hlticgh (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Ah, in that case that should be noted on the NFCC rationale template. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg

Moved from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Canada

I'm coming here from DRN which I came to from Talk:Canada. There is a dispute between me and Moxy over the copyright status of third-party renditions of the coat of arms of Canada; specifically File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg. Moxy asserts, based on a string of text at a Canadian government website (Designs, logos or marks that are similar to, or that could be easily mistaken for, the official symbols are pursued by the Government of Canada as unauthorized use.), that all renditions of the coat of arms are impermissible on enwiki, as they are copyrighted by the Canadian government. This dispute has been ongoing since 2025 and is hindering the development of consensus on its inclusion in the infobox. My position on this issue is that:

1. The government article is describing prohibited marks, not copyright, as is verifiable by entering the trademark numbers provided on that article into the Canadian trademark office database. This is a non-copyright restriction, which does not bar media from inclusion on Wikimedia wikis.
2. Even if it did constitute copyright, this would not be applicable in its usage on enwiki as enwiki goes by US copyright law, where such a restriction would not apply.

The file is a Commons file, however Moxy's argument was rejected at Commons, and Moxy concedes that the file is permissible on Commons. The argument is not about whether it is permitted on Commons, but rather whether it meets copyright rules on enwiki. So, with this all said, I would be pleased if I could get an impartial recommendation by editors here of the copyright status of renditions of the Canadian coat of arms against relevant Wikipedia/Wikimedia policies and guidelines in hopes of resolving this dispute. It may be useful to editors to see my previous DRN listing (linked above), where there is a list of all our discussions on the issue if you would like to look back on them. @Moxy: Pinging you in case you would like to add something. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Coleisforeditor:

Part of the discussion is indeed within the scope of this media copyright discussion page. However, I really doubt that anything can be said here that has not already been better said elsewhere about that topic. Especially considering that the principles are not specific to Canada but are the same for coats of arms in general and States in general.

Of course, you already know those principles. Just for their broad lines usually applied on Wikimedia: recent creative artistic renditions are copyrighted, and users can create their own free-licensed renditions, using freely the blazon (text) but without copying any non-free rendition copyrighted by someone else.

There is some subjectivity in trying to determine if a user's rendition was licitly made from the blazon, and possibly only very vaguely inspired by other renditions, or if it illicitly copied too closely a non-free rendition. In the Commons DR, the Commons administrator decided that the file was ok to be kept. Each user may individually agree or disagree with that decision, but apparently that is how things currently stand.

In theory, Commons can only host files that are freely usable under U.S. copyright (that's not always true in practice, but that's another discussion). In other words, when a file is explicitly ruled as accepted on Commons, in principle that is supposed to mean that the file is deemed to comply with U.S. copyright, and then the default situation is that the file may be used on en.wikipedia. (A hypothetical alternative would be to create a strong consensus to forbid the use of a file on en.wikipedia, based on the claim that en.wikipedia knows better than Commons, but that would be exceptional.)

Most States have use restrictions. Wikimedia considers that non-copyright restrictions are not an obstacle, as you mention in your point 1. I don't understand your point 2.

An important point, though, is that just because a file may be used on en.wikipedia in terms of copyright and official policies, that does not mean that the file must be used or will be used, or that a minority of users can impose its use in an article if that goes against the opinion of the other editors. At that point, it is not a matter of copyright, it is a matter of editorial consensus and decision to be taken by the editors of the article, for any type of reasons that they may deem relevant. And that's where it leaves the scope of this media copyright page.

It's a tricky situation. The non-free rendition cannot be used under the non-free use policy because a free rendition can be made and even actually exists. But some editors are opposed to the use of a freely licensed rendition because, in order to comply with copyright, it cannot copy too closely the non-free official rendition. It's for the editors of the article to decide what they consider to be the best solution.

-- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

To clarify point #2, enwiki hosts files which are permissible under US copyright law and does not consider other countries' copyright laws. Thus, even if Canadian copyright law had a blanket coverage of all depictions of the coat of arms as Crown Copyright, this would not be relevant for inclusion on enwiki, as (unless America has become the 11th province) this blanket coverage would not be so in American copyright law. I generally agree with your take on the issue (it is worth noting I am not asking whether it should be included but instead whether it would be allowed to include it at all under enwiki policy), however to achieve an agreement on the issue Moxy would have to agree, and so far they have not interacted with this discussion. Also worth noting, the goal here is for me and Moxy to agree on this issue because all of the discussions on inclusion are very much hinging on whether it is legally permissible to include, and so the discussions become arguments between me and Moxy who are convinced of our respective opinions and so they end in stalemate and there is no consensus. If we settle on the issue, it makes way for a lasting consensus on the editorial decision. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

If you're (= Coleisforeditor) looking for a community consensus on something like this, it's better discussed at WP:FFD than here. As for the copyright status of this file or other similar files, generally only the emblazon (i.e., visual representation) is considered eligible for copyright protection when it comes to heraldry. In other words, anyone could, in principle, use the blazon (i.e., written definition) to create their own freely licensed emblazon. This is pretty much how Commons ad English Wikipedia treats this kind of thing. A slavish (i.e., mechanical) reproduction of a non-free emblazon created by someone else would most likely be considered a copyright violation per c:COM:2D copying, but a new original emblazon created by someone or a close copy of someone else's freely licensed emblazon seems like it should be OK, at least under US copyright law. It's important to remember that "freely licensed" in this context means free enough for Commons or English Wikipedia's purposes per c:COM:L and WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files but doesn't necessarily mean "free from all copyright restrictions". Of course, not all emblazon are equal in terms of quality, and one may be preferred over the other for encyclopedic reasons. Disagreements over that kind of thing (i.e., reasons other than copyright) either are going to need to be resolved on the file's talk page, on the concerned article's talk page, or at FFD. Since article talk page discussion seems to have been less than fruitful so far, perhaps FFD is a better place to continue this. Notifications could be added to relevant WikiProject talk pages or other pages in accordance with WP:APPNOTE and links to previous discussions could be added to the FFD thread for reference purposes. FWIW, one person, no matter how right they think they are or how vociferously they argue, can decide to go against a community consensus just because they don't agree with it. Doing so would be considered WP:DE and likely lead to sanction. So, the best that each side can do is present the arguments as best as they can and then see who the community agrees with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

FFD rejects files hosted on Commons (WP:FFD#NOT), so that is a non-starter. The consensus on COM:DR is that the file is obviously permissible but of course there is the issue that commons is a different wiki and we cannot take external consensus to automatically apply here. Moxy asserts that the consensus would not change if this dispute was solved but I don't know how anyone could seriously look at e.g. Talk:Canada/Archive 33 and think that there would not be a clearer consensus if it did not devolve into me and Moxy bickering over whether it is allowed at all. If me and Moxy can agree on the issue then perhaps the discussion on inclusion could progress to encyclopedic/editorial discussion as you mention. And I don't see a clear community consensus on which of our arguments is right, the majority of editors I can see abstain from taking a position on the copyright element of the discussion. Perhaps an RfC would be good but Moxy is not participating here and I am unsure whether they would participate in an RfC. You mention that this could be construed as disruptive editing and while I think the behaviour could be argued to meet WP:DISRUPTSIGNS I don't think Moxy is intentionally disruptive and in other affairs Moxy is a good and active editor; it would be a great loss for them to be blocked over such a trivial discussion. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

​ My mentioning of FFD was intended to apply to the local file uploaded to Wikipedia, not the file uploaded to Commons. I thought that was obvious, but I guess it wasn't. FFD (Files for Discussion) isn't just for discussing whether a file should be deleted; it's also for discussing how a file (regardless of copyright licensing) should be used. A FFD could determine whether a local file uploaded as non-free is "replaceable non-free use" or it could determine which articles a file (regardless of copyright licensing) should be used in. Of course, the Commons DR only determined that the file is OK to be hosted by Commons, not how the file should be used by the various Wikipedia projects, but again I assumed that was obvious; decisions on whether of how a Commons file should be used tend to be left to the local projects to decide.

It also, for reference, matters not whether one party in the disagreement decides to participate in community-wide discussion; a consensus obtained via FFD or RFC is a community consensus that all parties are going to be expected to abide by. If one side doesn't like it or disagrees with it, they can request a WP:DRV or start a new RFC. Further, one, regardless of how good and active an editor they are, ignores a community consensus at their own peril. A one time lapse in judgement perhaps will be shown some good faith, but repeatedly going against a community consensus most likely will lead to some kind of sanction. Of course, you don't have to start a FFD or RFC if you don't want to. You can even disengage yourself from this entire matter at any time if you feel keeping it going is getting nowhere; however, the fact that you first went to WP:30 and then moved that discussion here seems to indicate you're looking for a way to resolve this that goes beyond just you and the other party. A party in a dispute can't be forced to participate in attempts to resolve it, but their non-participation/silence doesn't mean the consensus building process can't proceed without them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@Coleisforeditor:

As far as I can tell, essentially, in the matter of evaluating if a Commons file complies with U.S. copyright law, the established practice of en.wikipedia is that when a Commons file has been ruled as accepted on Commons, then it can be used on en.wikipedia. The decision about the copyright conformity of a Commons file takes place on Commons. Wikipedia does not take a separate copyright-related decision to exclude the use of a Commons file that has been ruled as accepted by Commons. That helps keep things consistent and manageable, given that technically Wikipedia cannot delete a Commons file and the Commons files are available on Wikipedia. That does not really determine that the file is "legally permissible", because Commons and Wikipedia are not courts. It is an observation of the practice. If a user feels strongly that the Commons decision was a mistake, their recourse can be to open a new deletion request on Commons, explaining in convincing detail why the previous decision should be reviewed.

Again, without prejudice to the consensus of editors to use the file or not in Wikipedia articles. Including the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might base their individual editorial opinions on their individual disagreement with the decision of Commons and on their belief that the file might violate copyright. They cannot claim to unilaterally exclude the use of the file, but they can try to convice other editors to not use the file. So, the fact that en.wikipedia defers to the decision of Commons that the file complies with U.S. copyright does not entirely solve the problem of a possible disagreement between editors.

The practice is slightly different when the opposite situation happens. When a file has been deleted from Commons on copyright grounds and another copy of the same file is hosted directly on en.wikipedia, a separate decision to keep the copy can be taken on en.wikipedia, because that copy is a en.wikipedia file.

We haven't heard directly from Moxy, but if their view, as you intrerpret it, is that "all renditions of the coat of arms are impermissible", I find confusing their deletion review request for the file with the undoubtedly non-free official rendition. I also find puzzling that a file that seems to go against the non-free content policy is kept for reason of "no consensus".

-- Asclepias (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I am paraphrasing, when I say impermissible I mean that they cannot be used as a free image (as in freely licenced or public domain). Talk:Canada/Archive 33#c-Moxy-20251223050600-Absolutiva-20251223041800 is I think the best place where they have summarised their view on the matter; that the arms (and all images which are similar to, or that could be easily mistaken for the arms) are in perpetual Crown Copyright. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry just got informed about this second WP:FORUMSHOP by a few administrators (noting there is no notification at the article in question or at the parent Wiki project). Someone should have tried to ping me again assuming it was missed and for the fact this seems to be also about behavior that is presented without any evidence....sigh.

So we have had many talks/RFCs on this matter with no consensus for inclusion based upon multiple rationales for many many years. Since the 2013 decision to remove the official arms as non-free media, there has been a multitude of reasonings for non-inclusion of a user rendition that have not been resolved and some that have like it being hosted on Commons.

1. Is the user rendition misleading because Canada happens to have official versions with official colors etc... that makes it distinct?(Unresolved)
2. Is the coat of arms more of a government/royal symbol then a civilian national symbol that represents the country and its citizens? (Unresolved)
3. If a user rendition is so close to the official version.... wouldn't it be a blatant copyright violation and should be avoided? (A concern settled over a decade ago as demonstrated by the user rendition used in other pages... but nonetheless editors are free to argue their pov on the matter as the community cannot forced editors to not have an opinion)
4. if Commons/English Wikipedia doesn't see a problem with the user renditions of something that looks really close shouldn't we just use it and just explain that it's a user rendition? (This has been tried and again no consensus)
5. Do we want a non-official version being one of the first images a reader's sees for a featured article? (Unresolved)
6. isn't this just decoration if it's an inaccurate not official version?(Unresolved)
7. Do we need the arms represented in the article two times (in the lead and in the section on symbols)? (A compromise so the arms is still displayed)

I do find it concerned that someone is trying to circumvent discussing this on the page in question because they don't like one of the many arguments put forth by multiple WP:Content editors.... especially by making it sound like one editor that is a problem (me the main author of the article). No one will like an attempt to force those at the article level to use an image just because its hosted on Commons. This fact doesn't mean it gets used here automatically....for example on English Wikipedia we do not use an inaccurate map of New France despite it being hosted at Commons and used on other Wikipedia sites for what I'm hoping is apparent reasons to everyone. As has been told to Coleisforeditor after their first involvement with the RFC in 2025, subsequent discussion at the article talk page in 2026, last week at the dispute resolution noticeboard and now here .....they are free to try again!.... and I will say it again as I've been saying for over a decade I'm surprised that so many Canadians are concerned about a user rendition (for a multitude of reasons) that consensus has never been formed to put it in. Usually rfc's attract a wide array of editors that are more concerned about aesthetics than accuracy. I feel this whole thread has been presented out of context as if it's a dispute between two individuals when clearly it's among multiple editors running over many many years. I'm not a fan of this dishonesty but oh well. Last post for me here as there is no prospect in any Wikipedia world that a good copyright status results in forced inclusion. If an editor is unable to convince the community at large that their preferred version is best for our readers.... they should reorganize their arguments and try again if they feel they have any chance of succeeding and not wasting more editor time.Moxy🍁 02:37, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping, this is an absurd suggestion which I want to reject completely. I am trying to resolve a dispute between us on which there is no consensus (unless you are alleging that there is existing consensus that the file cannot be used on enwiki because of copyright, which I would ask you to give any evidence for). If you are referring to the DRN discussion when you say this is the second forumshop, it was recommended there that I come to this noticeboard, which you should know. Anyone can look at recent discussions on the issue and see that they stall on debate between us on the copyright status, I am not casting you as "a problem" and am instead trying to resolve this dispute on the copyright status so consensus building can progress based on the other points you so kindly list. I would very much appreciate if we could try and move forward on this issue, however this response makes me very doubtful that we are going to be able to resolve this dispute here. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just realizing you were told to go to a third place by a third party. I think what we would be looking to change is how there's always a different interpretation of c:Commons:Coats_of_arms. But this is a result of different views....for example...your interpretation (as with many others over the years) is copyright simply doesn't exist as outlined at Coat of arms and Coa blazon and I'm of the opinion (again as with many others) that there are restrictions in some cases for renditions / emblazonments like File:Flag of Edmonton.svg as outlined by {{Non-free symbol}}, {{Non-free Canadian Crown Copyright}}, {{Insignia}}. I'm not sure this is resolvable between just you and me when it's a judgment call that is determined on a case by case basis. In the case of the arms of Canada it's a mixed bag..... depending on placement and context that I think the majority agree is all messed up. There's also may be a philosophical different approach here that editors will have again depending on placement and context in different articles ... some will be of the opinion Wikipedia should be a curated, high-quality and factual encyclopedia.... well others believe information and or imagery should be liberally added to add visual appeal and standardization. So down to the debate of the user rendition.... Originally it was just so off that it didn't make sense File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg .... this lasted for about a decade....... and slowly we came to have a rendition that many believe is simply a copy with some tweaking (resulting in a few deletions here and there and other discussions that resulted in keeps)... at the same time others still believe that all user renditions are so off (be it due to color or placement of visual items) that it shouldn't be presented as an official symbol of the country in any article. These are two stretches that are going to be hard to bring together here cross multiple articles.... Thus I think you'll find that there's been a solution between different article developers.... Which one to use, and when it should be used. I for one find it very puzzling that the official arms of our sovereign can't be used in the article about the sovereign.... Just odd to me. Moxy🍁 05:36, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Gerald Dial at Ashland AL 2021 Transfer of Responsibility (cropped).jpg

Hi, as part of a recent article overhaul I am doing, I uploaded the above file. Due to the file being in the public domain, I assumed I could use it freely. I am confused by why it was subsequently removed. Thanks, User:Saint Ouen de la Croix (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Saint Ouen de la Croix that file hasn't been removed. The file with issues is File:Thomas Reed campaigning 1966.jpg. This latter file doesn't have a fair use rationale for use at Third-party and independent members of state legislatures of the United States. Simply adding one doesn't necessarily solve the issue. Wikipedia's policy on use of non-free content (Wikipedia:Non-free content) is deliberately restrictive and where an article about a subject already utilises a non-free image, a list article where the subject is listed is unlikely to be considered as a second reasonable fair-use of the same image. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I know why that one was removed, that was my mistake. But I re-added the Gerald Dial file after it was removed. User:Saint Ouen de la Croix (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

File:I Get a Kick Out of You (Recording Cover).jpeg

Any opinions on whether File:I Get a Kick Out of You (Recording Cover).jpeg needs to be treated as non-free? It seems fairly simple, perhaps even simple enough per c:COM:TOO US so that it might actually be {{PD-simple}}. There's no visible copyright notice that I can see on the label so even if it's not too simple to be PD, perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I agree.

A lot of vinyl records uploaded as non-free files could be made higher quality and moved to commons, since what you said applies. {{PD-textlogo}} also works. I wish most would be fixed up like the image on this article to make Wikipedia make look more encyclopedic. HazelAlbertSheriff (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly and @HazelAlbertSheriff, for the nudge. In March, I built a script to help me more easily upload song and album covers (User:Widgetkid/RecordingCover), but it treated them all the same. Tonight I added the option to send PD files to Commons. I ran it on a couple articles tonight and it'll hopefully ensure we have higher quality images where appropriate. Cheers! WidgetKid ^Converse 07:54, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

@Widgetkid: For reference, it's also possible the the RCA dog logo on some of the files you've recently uploaded has already entered into the public domain as mentioned at c:COM:VPC#RCA dog logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Victor and Valentino Sprite Icons

Hey uhh i was making sprite icons for both victor and valentino to be put up on List of Victor and Valentino characters but the bot kept removing them when i literally removed all of its violations on the images its getting ridiculous and wont stop undoing it. Danthecat22 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@Danthecat22 The bot is operating correctly. The images you've uploaded, you stated were for use in the article Victor and Valentino but you keep trying to add them to List of Victor and Valentino characters. The {{non-free use rationale}} needs to state the correct article or the bot will continue to remove images where the rationale and use differ. Nthep (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Then how am i supposed to fix the images when i got this stupid harassing bot ruining everything even the images i uploaded. Danthecat22 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOTs are generally tasked to do certain things on Wikipedia based on certain well-defined criteria. In this case, JJMC89bot is tasked with looking for non-free files whose use isn't in compliance with non-free content use criterion #10c.This criterion states that a separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each non-free use of a file; otherwise the file may be removed the article where its being used per WP:NFCCE. This is a common mistake when it comes to non-free use (which is why a bot has been tasked to look for it), but it's still a mistake. The bot will try to "fix" things when in can (e.g. a spelling error in the name of the article where a file is being used), but it won't replace the name of one article with the name of a completely different one. This is because there are ten criteria that each non-free use needs to meet, the bot is really only capable of checking on #10c for something like this.

FWIW, the bot did leave an edit summary linking to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation to explain why it removed the files the first time, but perhaps you didn't check that link, or maybe you did and misunderstood what was written there. That's OK, but, in general, a bot isn't going to stop doing what it's been tasked to do as long as it continues to see a "problem". It's also not going respond to or understand any edit summaries left when files are re-added. It will just keep coming back as long as the non-free file it removed continues to be used in away that's doesn't comply with relevant policy. I'm assuming you noticed the bot left the same edit summary each time it removed the files after you re-added them; this means that underlying issue remained and almost certainly indicated a user-error, not a bot-error. Reverting a bot again and again (like you did four times) pretty much never stops it from doing what it's been asked to do unless you also fix the underlying issue. Moreover, if you do too much reverting, someone (maybe even another bot) might mistake your attempts for edit warring, which isn't a good thing. So, for future reference, if you don't understand why a bot has made an edit, it's better to ask for assistance first before trying to make the same edit again.

Finally, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive. The use of non-free character images tends to be considered OK for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the character itself; however, non-free content tends to not be allowed in list articles to illustrate individual entries or individual sections per WP:NFLISTS. A single non-free image of all the characters used at the top of such an article tends to be considered OK, but the non-free use of individual character images throughout the article tends to be harder to justify in terms or relevant policy. Adding a non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE (actually just part of one) of the ten criteria that need to be met; it doesn't make a non-free use automatically policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Then how am i supposed to fix both the character's images. Danthecat22 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fixing" them. Non-free content use isn't automatic: each use needs to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and it's responsibility of the person wanting to use non-free content in a particular way to explain how it does. So, if you feel a file's non-free use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and feel you can justify the way you want to use the file in terms of said policy, then add a separate, specific non-free use rationale for the use to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article where you think it should be used. If someone disagrees with your assessment, then you will may need to establish a consensus in favor of the use at WP:FFD. Changing the |article= parameters in the current rationales on the files' pages to reflect how you want to use them will stop the bot from removing the files again for criterion #10c reasons, but that doesn't mean someone won't never ever challenge the files' non-free use; so, you should try to amend/clarify the rationales to better reflect the way you think the files are OK to use. When it comes to non-free content use, there's no 100% guarantee a particular use is or will always be seen as policy compliant; however, justifications for non-free use based on policy tend to be stronger than those which aren't. If you want other feedback on the use of individual non-free character images in list articles, you can always ask at WT:NFCC.

Finally, since you posted here for the first time asking for help, you've re-added the files two more times (that's six reverts of the bot in three days) and the bot has removed them yet again. Leaving edit summaries like this and this isn't going to stop the bot from doing what it's supposed to do because the underlying issue remains. Nthep explained in their post above why the bot removed the files and pointed out this is what the bot is supposed to do. I went into more detail about that. If some of what's been posted above is unclear, then ask for clarification. Continuing to re-add the files and complaining about the bot in edit summaries, once again, isn't going to stop it from doing what it has been tasked to do; it may, though, cause the the administrator who runs the bot to decide to step in and take action against your account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

by Fixing i meant to make it less look violative but this stupid bot wouldnt accept the changes and i am getting very tired of this repeated revertings this annoying bot is doing to my images, im autistic and this problem continues to make things worse for me and how the hell does Non-Free violation on my uploaded images impact this wikipedia i am desperately trying to get my images approved by one guy i dunno who but maybe to do with character images but this reverting has got to stop. Danthecat22 (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Change the rationale for both images to say the article they are going to be used in is List of Victor and Valentino characters and not as they currently say Victor and Valentino. Nthep (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

If that fixes both images i guess im gonna give it a try. Danthecat22 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I've left a message on your talk page with more details. Using these images in a list does not meet the non-free content criteria. I've tagged them for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

They cant be deleted they are just for the characters, (unless theres a replacement that might meet non-free content criteria.) Danthecat22 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

@Danthecat22: Since the files you uploaded have been tagged for speedy deletion by Whpq for not being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, the best place for you to continue addressing Whpq's concerns is going to be the files' talk pages. Whatever is posted on those file talk pages will eventually be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator when they review the reasons why the files were tagged for deletion. So, please don't remove the speedy deletion templates from the files again but instead use the files' talk pages to address Whpq's concerns.

Please also be advised, though, that Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does consider a "free equivalent" to non-free use to be using just text (i.e., using no non-free content at all). There are ten non-free content use criteria that each non-free use needs to meet, not just criterion #1; so, if a particular non-free use is deemed to fail even WP:JUSTONE of the ten criteria, the non-free use is going to be considered to not comply with reelvant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

@Danthecat22: It seems like you're a fairly new editor to Wikipedia (you're account is only about a year old, and you've only made a little more than a hundred edits so far) so I can understand how you're feeling frustrated. You need to try to understand though that what's happening here is entirely of you're own doing; it's not the fault of the bot. The bot isn't "stupid" or "smart"; it's only doing what it has been tasked to do by the person who runs it. It's not a real person so it's not going to respond to you arguing with it through edit summaries or asking it to stop. It will stop when you address the reason why it keeps removing the files you're trying to add. I'm sure you feel differently, but the only edit warring taking place here is that caused by you because of your continuous reverting of the bot each time it removes the files. You need to stop that asap before you unintentionally find yourself having more serious problems.

Nthep, who's a Wikipedia administrator, explained twice above how to fix the file's non-free use rationales in a way that should stop the bot. Masem, who's another Wikipedia administrator, pretty much gave the same advice at WT:NFCC#Request for Character images to be approved (i cant figure how tho). However, you need to understand that this "fix" doesn't mean the files have been approved for use or that the way they're being used is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. You seem to have issues with using non-free files in List of Victor and Valentino characters before back in January 2026. It was pointed out at that time on your user talk page by a Wikipedia administrator named Whpq that non-free character image use need to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria, and that using such images in list articles about characters tends to not be allowed per relevant policy. So, doing what Nthep and Masem suggested will address the reason why JJMC89bot keeps removing the files, but it won't guarantee another user won't challenge the files' non-free uses. -- Marchjuly (talk)

Dan Hicks Photo

As part of my continuing Wikipedia education, can you explain why the photo on Dan Hicks' bio page is okay for use there, but not elsewhere? Thanks in advance. PhillyHarold (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi PhillyHarold. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be quite restrictive; in fact, it's more restrictive than fair use in many ways largely because of the general way Wikipedia has decided to license its content (text and images) so that it can be freely re-used by anyone anywhere in the world under very few restrictions.

Each use of non-free content is required to satisfy ten criteria; it needs to satisfy all ten, not some. When it comes to non-free images of deceased persons, the use of a non-free images for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about said person is generally considered to be OK as long as all ten criteria are met. Usually, this means criterion #1 (WP:FREER) isn't an issue but the other criteria still need to be satisfied. Trying to use the same non-free content in other articles or in other ways, however, typically becomes much harder to justify in terms of Wikipedia policy. A single non-free use is already considered rather exceptional in terms of policy; so, additional uses are seen as being even more exceptional. Since Wikipedia's policy requires us to minimize non-free use as much as we can whenever we can, alternatives (e.g. WP:WIKILINKs to the main article about the subject) to re-using the same file multiple times are preferable in terms of relevant policy. Of course, each non-free use needs to be assessed on a per case basis and sometimes another use of file can be justified, but generally it's hard to do so.

Anyway, I've only described a general case where it isn't. If you're asking about a specific Dan Hicks file and a specific article, then providing more information about both would help others give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

@PhillyHarold Assuming you're talking about Dan Hicks (sportscaster). The WP-rule, in short and simplified, is that if there is no freely licensed pic of a dead person we can use, we're allowed one non-free pic as leadimage, in the article about that person. Anything beyond that is outside the en-WP non-free rules, which are very restrictive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the information. It is appreciated. PhillyHarold (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Authentic Artwork i own – can I upload an image

I own an authentic painting / creation from artist Spaj Atkinson. It has been within my family for at LEAST 70 years, probably more around 90 years. Am I allowed to take an image and upload it or is it protected by some copyright???? Thursby16 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

@Thursby16 as Spaj was British his works will still be in copyright in the UK until 2035. Whether the work you have is out of copyright in the US (works uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons need to be out of US copyright) is all going to depend on whether the work was ever published. Published has a very specific meaning in US and UK law - see commons:Commons:Publication#Legal definition and copyright. So the first thing to establish is was the work ever published and, if possible, when. Nthep (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm in the UK Thursby16 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

Highly likely then, that's it is still in copyright in the US. The good news is that if it hasn't been published the US copyright will expire at the same time as the UK copyright on 1 January 2035. Nthep (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Thursby16. Just going to add that "possessing" a physical copy of a painting (even if it's the only existing copy) doesn't make one the copyright holder of the painting any more than possessing a movie blu-ray disc makes one the copyright holder of a movie. The original copyright holder is the one who created the orginal work. If the creator dies, the copyright on their work will most likely be passed on to their heirs. The copyright laws for this type often vary (sometimes quite a bit) depending upon the country of first publication/creation. UK copyright law generally allows copyright protection to continue for 70 years post mortem auctoris (i.e., 70 years following the year of the author's death). Since Atkinson died in 1964, all his works are most likely protected by copyright until January 1, 1935 (1964 + 70 years + 1). On that day, they should enter into the public domain under UK copyright law, absent any changes in current UK copyright law. US copyright law is a bit trickier to sort out, but almost certainly any photo you take of the painting isn't going to be OK to upload to Wikimedia Commons without first obtaining the c:COM:CONSENT of the estate of Atkinson absent any type of formal copyright transfer agreement between your family and the estate.

It might be possible to upload a photo of the painting, however, locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content if the way you want to use it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you can be more specific as to how you want to use the file, then it might be easier for someone to give you more specific advise regarding doing that. There's also a particular way that such photos of things like copyrighted paintings should be taken if you want them to be OK in terms of relevant English Wikipedia policy; so, it's best to ask for advice before uploading trying to upload anything as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2026 (UTC)