Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
   • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
   • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.

Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Removing of free-use rationale and then removing of the logo from a page

So user:Minorax removed the free-use rationale from the file information for using the logo of the 2025 Women's Bandy World Championship in the article 2025 Women's Bandy World Championship and then you removed the logo from the article. I don't get why this was done. Please explain. Is the problem that the same logo was used for the simultanously held men's world championship? Is there some rule that the same logo can only be used in one page?  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow: There are ten criteria that each use of non-free content must meet, and one of these (or at least one part of one of these) is criterion #10c which requires a separate and specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use of a non-free file. After looking at the page history of File:2025 Bandy World Championship logo.jpg, it looks like you tried to use a single rationale for two separate uses. Such "combo-rationales" aren't really in compliance with criterion #10c, which might be what Minorax saw. There's nothing that states non-free content can only be used in one article; only that it needs to be used in at least one article. However, since a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, additional uses of the same file in other ways or in other articles tend to be harder to justify. If you add a separate and specific non-free use rationale to the file's page for its use in 2025 Women's Bandy World Championship and then re-add the file to the article, it shouldn't be removed again by a bot for #10c reasons. However, providing a non-free use rationale for a use is only WP:JUSTONE of aforementioned ten criteria, and it's possible someone could challenge the file's non-free use for some other reason. So, when you add the non-free use rationale for the women's championship to the file's page, you should make it clear how the file's non-free use meets all ten criteria for that particular use. If someone subsequently disagrees with your assessment, then at least you'll have something that can be discussed. Given that the logo actually states "Men's & Women's Championship", the file's non-free use in both article seems (at least at first glance) to be OK; if, though, the women's championship has another logo specifically intended for its own branding, you might want to use that one instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually NFCC#3a about minimal use does mean we try to avoid repetition of non-free images across articles. We don't disallow reuse but each use needs to have a rational, and particularly for things like logos, rationales tend to only support use on a few pages related to the organization of that logo. Masem (t) 12:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

NFCC#3a is a valid point and might certainly be something worth discussing at FFD; however, I don't think NFCC#3a is typically the kind of thing in which automatic removal of a file from an article applies, at least not in the same way as NFCC#10c. Just for reference, this particular logo seems to have been intended to be used as the official branding for both the men's and women's championships (the logo clearly indicates as much), but whether that's enough to justify two uses of the file might need to be resolved through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned by Marchjuly, every 'use of a file must have a rationale for it. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, @Minorax:, so why did you remove the rationale? If it was not formulated properly, it should be corrected, not just removed. You should correct the error you have made.  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are free to add in the rationale yourself. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as you are free to remove it, which you did and could to again. @Minorax:, I think you should have reworded this in the right way in stead of just removing it. If someone re-adds it, will you remove it again?  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow: The responsibility for adding a non-free use rationale for a particular use to a file's page, in principle, falls upon the user wishing to use the file in such a way because their justification for non-free use is most likely something only they know; of course, someone else can add such a rationale if they feel the use in question is obviously valid (i.e., satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy), but they're not required to do so per se. Similarly, someone may be bold and remove a non-free use rationale (and subsequently remove the file where it was being used) if they feel the rationale isn't valid; if, however, someone disagrees with that assessment and re-adds the rationale (and also re-adds the file), then any further disagreements over the file's non-free use should probably be resolved through discussion (at WP:FFD perhaps) unless the non-free use is clearly in violation of relevant policy (e.g. WP:NFCC#9). Minorax does lots of work in the file namespace. If all that needed to be done was a simple/obvious correction to the rationale, they most likely would've done it. This particular case, as evidenced by what Masem posted above, is not really all that clear cut. If you feel the use in the women's championship article is justified by relevant policy, add a rationale for that use to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article; if someone disagrees with your assessment, then at least they'll be something to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:, the rationale was removed by Minorax. I do not agree that it couldn't just be simply corrected, but Minorax obviously thinks it shouldn't be there for reasons not explained. If someone would be putting it back, we need to know that Minorax don't just erase it again. Having to take this to WP:FFD ought to be unnecessary.  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Non-free use isn't automatic and providing a non-free use rationale doesn't make a non-free use valid as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Anyone who uploads a non-free file should understand that where and how the file is being used could be challenged by someone as at anytime; when that happens the burden falls upon the uploader or whoever wants to use the file per WP:NFCCE to establish that the use in question really satisfies relevant policy. So, if you feel the file's in the women's team article does do that, then add a separate, specific non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining how. If Minorax or anyone disagrees with your assessment then they can start a discussion about the matter at FFD. If that happens, it will be up to you or whoever else agrees with you to establish a consensus in favor of using the file in that particular way. Finally, perhaps you'll disagree with this, but Minorax didn't remove the rationale from the file's page because there was never really a rationale specific to that particular use. The rationale was malformed from the start because youthe file's uploader tried to use the same rationale for two different uses, which is not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC);[Post edited -- 21:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)]

As far as I can see, Minorax was the one who removed the rationale. Noone else did, as far as I can see. Miromax and the person who uploaded the file are the only two users who have done anything to this file. I haven't edited it. And if it was 'malformed', I think the logical solution would be to rewrite it so that it works, not just to remove it.  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The only claimed FUR is on the article 2025 Bandy World Championship and not on 2025 Women's Bandy World Championship even though it is mentioned in the description. See the |Article = parameter. And instead of coming back here to argue, you could've just added another FUR template for use on 2025 Women's Bandy World Championship. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 19:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You are the one argueing. I came here just to ask why it had been removed and if there was reason not to re-add it. I feel it cannot be re-added until there is consensus it can be re-added without being removed again. As you argue that it was correct to remove it, when you say 'you could've just added another FUR template', I get the feeling that if such a template will be added, you will just remove it again.  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never said that it was correct to remove it. I only said that there must be a rationale for use on every page the fair use file is used on. I've also explained that the rationale in a given FUR template is only for use in one article, if anyone is able to justify the file's use on another article, they are free to add in another FUR template. There should not be a hybrid use of a single template for multiple pages. There is nothing more for me to say, and again, you are free to add in another FUR template. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 18:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

concerns with wides-pread use of links to copyvio material in references

I'm concerned with links to WorldRadioHistory.com and AmericanRadioHistory.com being used in references. The website hosts full-fidelity scans of a couple of dozen magazines and yearbooks from the broadcasting industry, including Billboard Magazine. Because of the high fidelity of the images and breadth of the images, and because of no claims to the contrary, I think these files are copvio.

Wikipedia:Copyright violations says that Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to.

I first brought this issue up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard almost two years ago. After that, I removed lots of of links to the site. I got busy with other things, but made a dent in it.

A couple days ago, I came across an article with a few dozen such links. I dug into it a bit, and it seems like the problem is quite large. Looks like there's about there are about 60,0000 such links to worldradiohistory.com. (Seems there are more; maybe 60,000 is the limit of the scrolling on the Special Links results. If I remove more, more appear ending at 60,000 always.) There are more than 23,000 links to americanradiohistory.com

I brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Teahouse, since I wasn't sure how to address it or where to discuss it. Someone there suggested I request a bot to help clean up. A bot certainly could help clean up, but it wouldn't prevent new links from being added.

When I opened a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, it was suggested that we look into the site because GreenC believes it might be legitimate. I pretty strongly don't believe it is: the publishers involved have vehemently protected their IP in the past. There are some older magazines which are there, but not many that establish before the 1963 (er, 1968? when is it?) perpetual copyright date. I don't see anything on the site that establishes authority as a clearing house for republishing all this information from so many diverse sources, and certainly not in such high-fidelity representations.

So now I'm here, at their suggestion: how can these links to copyvio material be best addressed? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The site claims to be operating as an archive under the provisions of s108 of the (US) Copyright Act 1976. That it is still standing after many years and the big publishers haven't taken action to have copyrighted material removed to tend to lend some credence that it is covered by s108 and that the materials hosted their are not copyright violations. In this it's similar to the Internet Archive and it's hosting of material which is still copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

If we are using these as references (the scanned works) it would be far better to change the ref to be to the original publication and not include those PDF links. We would turn our back if an editor used those links to source material but used the original source as reference, there's very little we could do to say that's an issue. But when we link to those pages even under claims of fair use, that can be a problem. Masem (t) 21:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That's what I hvae been doing, and I don't see a reason to not resume doing so. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

We've previously removed scans of USA Today articles that were re-published by a couple websites (tvaholics.blogspot.com and anythingkiss.com). See the conversation over at the Television project.

There's also WP:OWNWORDS. While it says that as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use, I sill am not convinced that these cites have established fair use, and certainly have not shown that it has licensed the works outright. This policy is far more explicit in this wording: If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it., and I think we certainly have reason to think these sources are violating copyright by reproducing material which they don't license or otherwise have permission to re-publish.

Further, since both people who objected to removing these links in this conversation have decided to no longer engage, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't resume removing the links as at least two policies indicate the links aren't acceptable. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You came here to see if there was consensus to remove the links to WRH. Two people, me and Neutralhomer, have both said that we don't think removing the links is justified. One person has said, yes remove the links. That doesn't look like a consensus to me. As for no longer engaging, I'll engage when I think there is something to reply to, but this discussion is at the stage where I'm just how repeating the same position every time which is pointless. Consensus isn't who shouts longest or loudest wins. Nthep (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do we have any proof that the material on WorldRadioHistory.com is still under copyright? That the respective companies haven't given the site permission to use said works on their site? Do the rules of Wikipedia, in this case COPYVIO, carry over to other sites? I believe that Mikeblas is trying to make the rules of Wikipedia do something they can't....influence what other sites do. I also believe that there is a LOT of maybes in his various threads, but nothing that affects Wikipedia (the community) and Wikipedia articles (which use the linked sources). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no influence over the external sites. What I can do, though, is follow the WP:COPYVIO policy and remove the links from Wikipedia. My actions exert no pressure or present no obligation to any external site. Maybe you should clarify your claim.

These two sites post high-fidelity scans of complete references, many published after 1963 and have perpetual copyright. I can't find any explicit claim the site makes to have the right to republish and redistribute the work. (And that includes any specific 17 U.S. Code § 108 claim asserted above. Maybe they're there, and I've just not found it. Because of accessibility challenges, the site is all but unusable for me.)

I think it's completely reasonable to conclude that these websites don't have explicit permission from all the copyright holders of Billboard (and several of its satellite publications), Cashbox, Communicator, DownBeat, Journal of Broadcasting, Mediaweek, Media Decisions, Media Buying, Sponsor, TelevisionWeek, Broadcasting, Radio & Records, Television, US Radio, Radio, Radio Daily, Radio Ink, TelevisionWeek, Music Business, SAG/AFTRA, Electronic Musician, Pollstar, Broadcasting & Cable, The Broadcasting Yearbook, The Telecasting Yearbook, .... well, that the sites don't have explicit permission to republish high-fidelity digital copies of all these works.

Instead, I think the WP:BURDEN is on the people who place the citations that the material is acceptable. This is important becasue Wikipeida has legal exposure when linking to copyvio material, and care must be taken so that the Wiki projects aren't jeopardized. See WP:COPYOTHERS, which says Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia.

Further, see WP:COPYLINK which says However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Neutralhomer has repeatedly suggested that we vote on these policies.[1][2] I do not think we vote on policies.

Neutralhomer has also made comments elsewhere [3] that I have removed multiple sources from many pages and this simply isn't the case. I have removed the url= parameters from referencing templates, since they link to material that's apparently copyvio. I've also removed the url-related parameters (like access-date= or archive-url=) because they're superfluous when the url= parameter doesn't exist. The references themselves (for example, to a specific issue of some magazine, containing some article, and a date) remain. I've removed only the offending URLs and the related parameters.

I think my actions are within and contributory to the WP:COPYVIO, WP:COPYOTHERS, and WP:COPYLINK policies. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The BURDEN is on you to prove that these "high-fidelity digital copies" are, in fact, a violation of copyright. You seem to be pushing our rules (ie: the rules of Wikipedia) unto another website where we have zero influence, then claiming that what they post is COPYVIO, with no backing evidence. In short, you are unilateraly removing sources because you think they are COPYVIO, not the community. I recommend that you reverse course and bring the community at large into this and bring it to a !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have removed no sources or references.

You've repeatedly made this accusation[4][5][6] and I have repeatedly refuted it.[7][8][9]

Repeatedly mischaracterizing my actions is not WP:CIVIL and does not assume good faith. And certainty doesn't help your position.

Please stop. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not going to list every instance, but I will link to this one and your edit summary "remove links to copyvio used in references". You have given zero evidence that the content is in violation of COPYVIO, only discussions (which have died out) that you yourself have started. My "position" is and remains, if you want to remove these links per COPYVIO, you need community consensus. To get community consensus, you need to start a discussion and bring it to a !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the copyright laws in place for some decades now, there is a very strong presumption that most of the stuff on those pages is in fact shamelessly violative of perpetual copyright until it reaches public domain age under U.S. law. Just because the copyright holders have not yet bothered to crack down on them, does not justify our aiding and abetting massive ongoing copyright violations. As has been pointed out for many years, there is no "right" (or obligation) to have an internet link to every reference you make. Just refer to the original print publication, and let the reader look for a copy where they will. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

So we should be removing all links to the Internet Archive (IA) where the archived material is still in copyright e.g. websites? There's no difference, there are both archives. Just because worldradiohistory (WRH) deals with paper publications does not make it any different to IA or any other online archive that WP articles link to. WRH makes it clear that it hosts materials under fair use (see the disclaimer at [10]) for archival purposes. s108 states that such use is not a copyright infringement and therefore linking to the archive is not a breach of WP:COPYLINK. Nthep (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The disclaimer you've linked says "Any persons wishing to duplicate or otherwise make use of the images on this web site do so at their own risk". Downloading these files duplicates them and distributes them. Anyone following one of these links, from Wikipedia, ends up assuming the risk for the copyright violation that ensues.

This disclaimer alone demonstrates that the site is unacceptable for linking from Wikipedia, per WP:COPYLINK. The "at your own risk" disclaimer indicates the site has not sought permission or approval from any copyright holder. Had they done so, they would be explaining that instead of distancing themselves with a blanket disclaimer.

Are you able to describe the specific sections of 17 U.S. Code § 108 that limit the rights of all these copyright holders (even the Canadian ones) and enable the redistribution and publication of the material? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I've already linked to s108, I'll let you read it for yourself but my opinion is that WRH is acting within the limitations of that section and are not breaching the copyright of the publishers of the publications.

That WRH places a large disclaimer on its home page to me indicates exactly what is says; WRH is using content under the fair use doctrine of s108, if anyone else copies and redistributes content then it is down to that re-user to justify their re-use, they cannot claim sanctuary from a copyvio claim under WRH's archival fair use claim and must establish their own claim under ss107 or 108.

A link from WP to content on WRH is not redistribution, in exactly the same way that linking to non-free images hosted on WP is not redistribution. You reuse non-free content from WP at your own risk, as the uploaded of the non-free content to WP have, in most cases, not asked for the permission of the copyright holder. Nthep (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

17 U.S. Code § 108 doesn't appear to be relevant at all. I've asked you to explain why you claim it is.

The WP:COPYLINK policy is what we use here; we can't have people lawerying with Federal copyright law with the legal exposure to the Wiki project in the balance, so we must follow Wikipedia policy. That policy makes it very clear that if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder.

And that's unquestionably the case here.

Indeed, a link from WP to content on WRH isn't redistribution. Nobody said it was. But since WRH is redistributing content without the explicit and disclosed permission of the publishers, it's likely copyvio. WRH hasn't been granted the right to redistribute and re-publish the material; if they had, they'd say that instead of saying "file a take down". And WP can't link to copyvio per WP:COPYLINK. So these articles must not link to WRH despite the outright lies in the sites "disclaimer". It's really that simple!

Removing the links doesn't diminish the articles. While it's convenient to verify claims in the article, removing the URL does not remove the citation despite the repeated claims of Neutralhomer. The citation still exsists, and the content is still verifiable. That slight convenience isn't worth it compared to the risk. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Very simply, without evidence to the contrary, I do not believe or reasonably suspect that WRH is carrying works in violation of the copyright. Instead, I reasonably suspect that WRH operates within the terms of s108 which starts it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy and then lists a number of conditions which I consider WRH complies with, and is therefore not violating copyright. Hence WP:COPYLINK is not a reason for delinking as the test it requires to be passed i.e. is there a violation of copyright, is not being met in my opinion. I accept that you may apply the test differently but I'm not seeing, at the moment, evidence that WRH is violating copyright. Hosting material without the copyright holders permission, almost undoubtedly; infringing the holders copyright, no because the law says what they are doing is not an infringement.

What WRH is doing is exactly the same as we do here on EN:WP in using non-free content except our non-free policy is more based on s107 for comment and criticism rather than s108 archival use. We are hosting material without the copyright holder's permission but we are not infringing the holder's copyright because the law says what we are doing is permissible as long as it is done correctly. Our way of demonstrating that might be far more visible than WRH but that doesn't make WRH's approach any less lawful. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nthep: So, can I, without being considered engaging in an edit war, revert the changes Mikeblas made to the WINC (AM) reinstating the links to WRH? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That's up to you. As you can see Mikeblas and I have widely different views about WRH. Others may have equally divergent views about what constitutes an edit war. Nthep (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, there's no rush. It might be better to let this discussion play out. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, will do. :) Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC) 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The prima facie evidence is the site itself. It isn't owned by or controlled by any of the copyright holders of these works, so that redistribution is done without their direct consent. The site doesn't claim ownership or assert that it has explicit permission. To the contrary, the site admonishes users that they download this material "at their own risk".

The phrase from 17 U.S. Code § 108 you quote has a lot more meat to it, and I think that's relevant and part of the reason the site is copyvio: to reproduce no more than one copy. A number of users can download any number copies they'd like from the site, at any time, without restriction. The site imposes no copy count limit, so it exceeds this restriction.

This also demonstrates how these sites are very much different than EN:WP. Here, we use small, low-fidelity copies of limited scope. The site is hosting complete, cover-to-cover, high-fidelity copies of these works. EN:WP requires that material be attached to an article specifically about the subject to establish the academic critique or discussion usages. These sites don't host any discussions or offer any critiques.

The implication you're making is that any material could be posted to the web and called a "library" or "archive" and protected under this code. Certainly, there's a stronger barrier and more protection for IP owners.

I'm profoundly uncomfortable with links to this site being used in Wikipedia, as I see it as abject violation of the rights of a few dozen copyright holders, over several dozen works ... and that's why I've been removing them over the years. (TherAt the end of the day, though, I think the decision requires a legal opinion because it exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. This isn't something that should be decided by consensus of people who aren't lawyers.

How are these matters definitively settled? -- mikeblas (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

WRH is not reproducing more than one copy. It is reproducing one copy on it's own website. If other people reproduce that content that is not WRH's problem, it's the re-user's problem. To use your line of reasoning, if anyone reproduces a non-free image hosted on Wikipedia then you are saying Wikipedia is breaching copyright and is the one against whom the copyright holder could take action, which is not the case. Indeed our non-free policy makes it clear that re-users of non-free content from WP do so at their own risk, perhaps not as bluntly as WRH puts it but it's there. WRH are allowed to reproduce one copy for archival purposes. If other people reproduce that content that is not WRH's problem, it's the re-user's problem.

Neither is the quality of the reproduction an issue, neither ss107 or 108 make any mention of quality they just specify the circumstances under which anyone can claim fair use of copyrighted material. That the WMF said ok we're going to dictate that we're only going to host low quality images on our own website is not relevant to a discussion as to whether another website is or isn't infringing copyright. Nthep (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nthep: I did suggest to Mikeblas that he take this before the community for a !vote, but he did not seem receptive to the idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The website produces a copy every time someone requests one of those URLs from it.

WRH itself brings quality into play, with the objectively false claims in the "disclaimer" that you previously quoted: images are reproduced in low or medium resolution and consist principally of unclaimed or "orphan" images where the copyright owner is deceased. If you don't think it's relevant, I'm not sure why you introduced it to this conversation previously.

Wikipedia establishes quality limits for fair use claims, see WP:NFCCP for example. But maybe those policies don't apply here.

You're now mentioning 17 U.S. Code § 107, about fair use. It's pretty complicated, and another reason that I think this decision should be escalated to someone with actual legal skills. How do we do that?

But my understanding is that four factors are involved in judging fair use, including to the character of that use. The character of the use isn't clearly ebalished here because the site openly makes the material avialable, as you yourself point out, regardless of the user's intent. (Remember, we're deciding if *the site* is copyvio itself, per WP:COPYLINK, not wikipedia's specific usage of the site.)

The section says for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. The closest is "scholarship", which is kind of vague. The quality of the reproduced work goes to both the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, and the high-resolution copies are almost never necessary for the allowed applications. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

No, WRH does not produce a copy every time requests one of those URLs from it. It displays to the reader the one copy the site hosts. That the reader's device may make a local (cached) copy, or the reader deliberately downloads a copy is irrelevant, WRH is hosting a single copy.

The quality of the images is irrelevant as 17 U.S. Code § 107 and 108 are silent about quality. If WRH wants to say they are low or medium quality and you think otherwise, that's you perogative. It doesn't invalidate their reproduction by an archive under s108 just because they don't match a description on the website.

Correct, Wikipedia's non-free content policy is not relevant here. How WP chooses to manage quality of non-free content hosted on WP is not a bar on links to other sites reproducing non-free contentbut with different policies about quality.

I've only mentioned s107 in relation to WP and its policies regarding non-free content or for making comparison between fair use and archival reproduction. WRH is an archive covered by s108. The tests of reasonableness of fair use in s107 do not apply to reproduction by archives under s108.

Yes, we are trying to decide if WRH is violating copyright and so far, I'm not being presented with any evidence that it is. I acknowledge that you think it is and I disagree with your opinion. Neither of our opinions are evidence.

Do you have the same concerns about links to material on other archives like the Internet Archive?

If you think this is all beyond the limits of what Wikipedia editors should be deciding then the contact details for the WMF's legal team are here. Nthep (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that you have been presented with such evidence: the websites are hosting high-fidelity representations of a variety of copyrighted works. The site isn't affiliated with the publications or publishers in question and doesn't claim to have license to distribute the material. What more is needed to gain your consideration?

Your claim is that this publication is in-line with fair use, but since usage is not established by these sites, I don't see how that can possibly be true.

Let me ask you: what do you think would be a violation of WP:COPYLINKS? Couldn't a website reproduce any known protected IP and simply claim it was for academic application, and therefore fair use?

My understanding is that the Wikiemdia Foundation's legal team was involved in setting the policies I'm citing, and all that's left is for editors to adhere to them. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

They don't need the copyright holders permission, that's the whole purpose of the fair-use sections. I've already expressed my opinions on this specific example multiple times and I've nothing further to add. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's widespread. It's spread widely. Yer gonna give me a nervous twitch. GMG^talk 12:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry -- sounds like this is the first typo you've ever seen on the internet! It can be traumatic, but I know you can make it through. I thought of correcting it, but I've already linked to it in a few different places where the conversation was spread out. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Nthep: Could we bring this entire thing to AN or ANI (or whatever venue is perferred) for community consensus of WRH? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this is an admin issue so not AN or ANI. Nthep (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Nthep: I wasn't sure of the correct venue for said discussion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus was already developed in the policies I've cited, so I don't think a vote is appropriate. If you disagree with the policy, you should work on getting the policy changed or at least clarified. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I highly disagree. Nothing you have cited says anything about other websites. You're grasping at straws. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Simple graph

Like with Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Sanity check please, I'm wondering about TOO for an image.

Specifically, at https://www.spacinsider.com/data/stats, the SVG for "Average DeSPAC Share % Return by Industry". (2nd image. Click on hamburger, pick 'SVG download' to download.)

To me, this is just a compilation of facts (like the white pages, not copyrightable) graphed, so unlikely to meet the threshold of originality required by law for copyright protection, and/or trivially re-creatable de novo as a free image. Does the graphing bring it over the TOO?

The graph is created on the fly by Highcharts, which is free for non-commercial Educational projects undertaken by educational institutions, per https://www.highcharts.com/education/, so I presume wikimedia has or a wikimedia staffer could apply for a free license..

Would be good for Special-purpose acquisition company.

Advice? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, @Avatar317 RememberOrwell (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of graphing functions; if you took the numbers (by hand or if they have a txt download) and used a Wikipedia graphing function that would avoid the copyright issue. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link to the bar chart template: [11] ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Logo removed from the article

I uploaded File:Yoga of Immortals logo.jpg to the article Draft:Yoga of Immortals. It seems that the User:JJMC89 bot has removed it. But I dont understand the reason. As far as I can see, all instructions have been followed. Can someone please guide me. What do I need to do differently?

Thank you. Samaniaa (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Samaniaa two reasons. 1) the rationale is freehand, so the bot can't read it properly. While use of a template like {{non-free rationale}} isn't obligatory, it makes things easier. 2) even with a bot-readable rationale, non-free images aren't allowed on draft articles, only in article space. Nthep (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have marked the original file for deletion, and created this new one.

File:Yoga of immortals logo.jpg

It should be aligned with the policies now. Please let me know if you see any problems. Samaniaa (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Samaniaa: As Nthep posted above, non-free images aren't allowed on draft articles, only in article space; this is because of non-free content use criterion #9. There's more information about this WP:DRAFTS#Creating and editing drafts, but you'll have to wait until the draft you're working on has been approved as an article before re-adding the file. If you try to do so before that happens, the file will just be removed either by a WP:BOT tasked to look for criterion #9 violations or another user who reviews files. FWIW, whether you're draft is ultimately accepted as an article doesn't depend on how many images are being used in the article; your draft is going to be assessed in terms of Wikipedia:Notability, which has nothing to do with images at all. My suggestion to you, therefore, is to focus on getting your draft accepted and only then worry about adding images to it.

Finally, unless you can find a valid non-free use for the file is some article, it's going to end up being tagged for speedy deletion per criterion F5 as orphaned non-free use. This sounds worse than it really is because a deleted file isn't gone forever; it's still on Wikipedia's servers, just hidden from public view, and it can easily be restored by an administrator if the issue that led to its deletion is subsequently resolved. So, if the file ends up deleted, don't reupload it; you can request that it be WP:REFUNDed once you have found a valid non-free use for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Image from 1885 with unknown date of publication

There's an image at this NWS storymap with a farmhouse in Illinois I want to use in a draft, but only if it's a free image. It's dated to 1885 but doesn't give an exact date of when it was published. Likely this was taken from county records. Is this free by age enough to upload to commons? Departure– (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Departure–. You might want to ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. FWIW, a photo taken in the US circa 1885 could be PD for several reasons, including {{PD-old-assumed}} or {{PD-US-expired}}. Even if it's first publication was after 2003, it would only be eligible for copyright protection for 70 years after the author's death if the author is known or 120 years after creation if the author is unknown; so, it seems that there's a really good chance that this photo has already entered into the public domain per c:Commons:Hirtle chart. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Santi Romano

I'd like to add to Santi Romano (currently under GAN review) this image by Istituto Luce showing Santi Romano together with Benito Mussolini. I don't have any specific information about the photo, except that it was taken sometime between 1928 and 1943. Is this covered by copyright? Can it be used under our rules? Thank you for your help, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually this image would be even better. It was taken in Rome on the 20 December 1928. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: If the photo was taken in 1928 and was first published in Italy, then c:Commons:Italy is relevant to determining its copyright status. So, you might want to ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because Commons is ideally where you should upload the photo if it already has entered into the public domain. For reference, US copyright law probably only would matter if (1) the photo was subsequently published in the US within in 30 days of its first publication, or (2) the photo was still under copyright protection per Italian copyright law as of January 1, 1996 (Italy's URAA restoration date). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I have asked for information here, as you suggested. I've also emailed Istituto Luce to ask if they have a copy of the image without their logo on it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Could someone please answer this question? I've included the photo in Santi Romano, but the GAN reviewer had some COPYVIO concerns about the prominence of the logos. As you can see, the phrase "Istituto Luce" is superimposed all over the picture, and there's their logo in the bottom right-hand corner. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gitz6666:You've already received an answer to your question about this at c:COM:VPC, right? What other kind of answer were you hoping to get here?

For reference, Commons is only really concerned with copyright status and c:COM:SCOPE when it comes to hosting content; (English) Wikipedia is also concerned with the copyright status of the images used in its article, but it's also concerned with their encyclopedic relevance. So, an image being OK to upload to Commons (or Wikipedia) from a copyright standpoint doesn't automatically mean there's a consensus to use it. Like text content, disagreements over whether to use an image in an Wikipedia article often need to be resolved through article talk page discussion, particularly when those disagreements aren't really related to a community-wide policy like WP:COPY or WP:NFCC. So, if someone doesn't want to use the image for encyclopedic reasons in a particular article, whoever does want to use the image most likely will need to establish a consensus in favor of doing so.

The "logo" seen in the photo is really a watermark and watermarks can be cropped out (i.e. removed) of Commons files in certain cases as explained in c:Help:Removing watermarks. The reasons for addding a watermark can vary. In some cases, a company might being selling digitalized versions of old photos which are no longer under copyright protection, and it simply marks these versions to indicate its the source of the version. The company may require those wanting to use its version to enter into an user agreement in which they agree to not remove the watermark, but this is between the company and its users; i.e., it has nothing to with Commons and the photo's copyright status. In other cases, the company might think is now owns the copyright of the original photo or created a new copyright for its version, but this is referred to as copyfraud regardless of whether the company sees it that way. FWIW, US Courts have typically ruled since Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that creating a digital version of an old PD photo and adding a watermark to it, doesn't either restore its original copyright or establish a new copyright. UK courts seem to follow something similar (e.g. National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute), but whether Italy does might be another thing to ask about at c:COM:VPC. Yet another thing to ask about at Commons VPC could be the copyright status of the logo itself. If the photo was taken in 1928, and the logo seen on the photo was added at that time, then there's a good chance the logo itself could've also already entered into the public domain per c:COM:Italy by now. Even if it hasn't, you should be able to upload a cropped version of the photo minus the logo as long as the photo itself is public domain; you can then connect the files together using templates like c:Template:Image extracted and c:Template:Extracted from. Such a thing should be OK to do from a copyright standpoint, but (once again) being OK for Commons doesn't guarantee the photo will ultimately be used where and how you want to use it on Wikipedia.

Finally, there are actually a number of Instituto Luce photos uploaded to Commons found in c:Category:Istituto Luce. Some of them (e.g. File:Casa mutilato.JPG and File:Aula della Camera dei deputati.PNG) even have a similar watermark to the one found on the photo being discussed here. That doesn't mean they should've been uploaded since the uploaders could be wrongs, but my guess is that they are all PD under Italian copyright law regardless of the watermark. Maybe that information will address the concerns of those concerned about the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Marchjuly, for your very informative and interesting reply. No, there's no current controversy about whether we should use the image in Santi Romano, there's no need to reach a consensus because the image hasn't been challenged yet; I just wanted to be sure that we could, in principle, use the image here on en.wiki. The editors on Commons said it was fine with them, but there's a warning on the Commons page with the file that says This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy, and I wasn't sure about en.wiki's policy, so I asked here. Ideally, I'd like to include an image without any watermarks: no logo in the bottom right-hand corner, no superimposed text. As I don't know how to do this, I'm now going to ask on WP:GRAPHLAB if anyone is willing to help me, and in case anyone there has copyright concerns, I'll link to this discussion and your detailed explanation: I think it could be very helpful. Many thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What's the copyright situation for a White House edit of a NY Times article?

I'm gonna guess that this picture coming from the government doesn't place it into the public domain as a work of the United States government, but then could someone who knows more about copyright than me (which fortunately isn't hard) please tell me if it would be permissible to use the image as an apt but nonessential illustration of the article for the deportation and detention of the man concerned? And under what license? --Kizor 03:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be a derivative work of the NYTimes, making it a copyrighted image. Masem (t) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kizor Now this is interesting. Per Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia the pic is free for us to use, and perhaps it can be argued that the stuff around doesn't rise to the level of copyrightable. The NYT logo is public domain, because it's old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and @Jmabel, feel like having an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The prose by the NYTimes in the headline and caption are copyright the Times, so that is what makes it derivative. Masem (t) 12:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course it's derivative, but I'm not sure the text paraphernalia would make this unfit for Commons. It might. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Commons would accept this is the copyrighted elements we're de minimis. But in this case, the text element is fundamental to what has been done on the derivative image. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the headline text from the NY Times there rises to the level of being copyrightable; we might have to blur out the caption text below the photo, but I believe everything else there is OK on one basis or another. - Jmabel | Talk 18:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If the caption were blurred, then it is probably free, but now the question of whether the inclusion is necessary from a NPOV view. eg: I would think most editors on WP that lean left see that type as being very problematic from the administration, and there's a bit of human nature to feel that we should include that if it were freely licensed and all that. But at the same time, if no source discussed the problems with that tweet, pushing for its inclusion could be seen as a NPOV/RGW situation. Mind you, I see a few sources that discuss this, so inclusion is less a POV issue but that should still be discussed on the appropriate talk page. (I'm assuming we're talking about the Garcia deportion case, and certainly a section on misinformation surrounding the situation should be covered) Masem (t) 18:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Come to think of it, better than blur is to cover it with a box indicating that copyrighted content has been removed, as at File:Helix, v.1, no.6, Jun. 23, 1967 - DPLA - 961d05f5a48a886514e066f36ac49228 (page 5).jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

BTW, unless I am very mistaken, his surname is Abrego, and Garcia is just a segundo apellido (mother's maiden name). If I am correct, we can call him "Abrego Garcia" or "Abrego", but "Garcia" is wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the discussion on whether to use it in the article is waiting on the discussion about its copyright status. @Masem:, @Jmabel: dare I ask what kind of license would be appropriate for uploading an image where the top is in the public domain due to its age, the top middle may be copyrightable as a derivative work of the NY Times, the middle is a work of the US government, and the bottom is copyrighted content covered by a box? --Kizor 21:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The photo used in that tweet is a US Gov PD work (attributed to the staff of Van Hollen). If the caption text is blurred out, then I would still use US Gov PD as that covers the photo and the tweet itself. Masem (t) 00:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No license is involved: once we do the "box", it should all be public domain (insofar as the content of the "box" might be copyrightable, I would certainly hope that the person who adds it is willing to make it CC-zero).

If it were uploaded using commons:Template:Information (which I strongly recommend), the complicated situation (I would also indicate that the Times logo is trademarked) would be described in the "permission" section of that template. Then, since everything involved would either be in the public domain or could be treated as if it is, reusers would have no obligation to explain it at all. The only reason we have to is our policy (not any law) that we explain the rationale for considering content to be public-domain. - Jmabel | Talk 21:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Rotary International Logo.svg

File:Rotary International Logo.svg - when did the logo published? 1921? 2013? Or other years? Is it in public domain now? I am confused with its copyright licence template and its description on official website when checking. Saimmx (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like all potentially copyrightable elements are in Oscar Bjorge’s design for the Rotary emblem, as published in the January 1920 issue of The Rotarian (on the page you linked). At least under U.S. law, you can't get a new copyright for a change of color, or a slight change in the bevel of a gear. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I use a CC-BY-NC 4.0 image with permission from the copyright holder?

Hello, I'm interested in including an image in my draft article but it is currently licensed under CC-BY-NC 4.0. However, I've gotten permission from the copyright holder via email albeit "for the single use of the Wikipedia article." Would this be acceptable? If not, what further steps do I need to take? Inspired Insomniac (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That type of permission is too strict, BY-NC already is not free use, and limiting its use further is not a free license. It can be used without having to have permission as non-free following the steps at WP:NFC, but the only way to have it be used free if the creator is willing to release it under a free license per WP:CONSENT. Masem (t) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about the WP:NFC. It list "contextual significance" as one of its requirements. Would using the image of the theorist in an article explaining their theory be sufficient grounds for "contextual significance"? I believe this may be the case since the theorist has their own article without a picture, likely due to the unavailability of free-use images. Inspired Insomniac (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge photographs of living people under the pretext of them not having a free image available is not acceptable per NFC, and if you're looking just to add an image of "the theorist explaining their theory" then recognize that it almost certainly could be represented with only text, therefore, unless there's a free image of the person in question (which can be used), it should be avoided. Note also non-free images cannot be used in drafts (wait until after moving your article to mainspace before adding one). Departure– (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Contradictory notices on copyright pages of a book

The book Hocker, Fred, ed. (2023). Vasa II: Rigging and Sailing a Swedish warship of 1628. Lund: Vasamuseet ; Nordic Academic Press. ISBN 978-91-88909-11-4. is an important source for not only the article Vasa (ship), but also for a number of topics in the history of maritime technology. It has many illustrations that are therefore of interest to any editor working on such articles.

On the copyright page it says two things that appear to me to be contradictory:

• Immediately above the publisher's name it says:
  "Copying or other kinds of reproduction of this work requires specific permission by the publisher".
• Underneath the publisher's name it says:
  "Unless otherwise noted, all images are the product and property of the National Maritime and Transport Museums of Sweden, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported LIcense (CC BY)"
  Following that is a list of the book's illustrators, starting with the name of the "lead illustrator" and then a number of "Contributing illustrators" and photographers. Some of the names of these illustrators/photographers I recognise as employees of the museum, and it would be unsurprising if all of them were.

In short, first the publishers say you cannot copy anything without specific permission, then it says that illustrations not marked to the contrary are under CC BY. It seems to me that this second statement, that illustrations are under CC BY, is specific permission to copy the relevant illustrations within the book. If so, this is a massive resource for Wikipedia. So, have I misunderstood?

If I am correct, all illustrations with a credit with the initials of someone in the list of illustrators/photographers (mentioned above) are free to use in Wikipedia as long as the picture is attributed to the the National Maritime and Transport Museums of Sweden. There are some illustrations with initials that do not fit anyone in that list. I tentatively presume that these are the ones without a CC BY licence.

By way of background, the museums in Sweden appear to release a large number of images with this license. See [12] for a route into 22,911 images to do with Vasa. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Creative Commons licensed works can be incorporated into copyrighted works. The book overall is copyrighted and reproduction of the portions for which the publisher holds the copyright would be covered by the first statement. The second statement is specifically about the images from the National Maritime and Transport Museums of Sweden. If all you are using are the images, then you are able to use these as the license is compatible for use on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

And in fact, that second notice is the requirement to maintain the byline that CC-BY requires. The book is doing it right, and Whqp is right about using those museum images under a free license Masem (t) 21:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding a film poster

I created The Children of October 7 and would like to upload a film poster. Would appreciate help with copyright issues etc. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_children_of_october_7 Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Allthemilescombined1. Film posters are almost always OK to upload as non-free content when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the films they represnt; so, you should be able to do the same for the poster of this particular film. You will first need to download the file to your computer or device, and then reupload it to Wikipedia. You can use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard for the latter. For film posters, the copyright license Template:Non-free film poster and the non-free use rationale Template:Non-free use rationale poster tend to work well. If neither of these are options provided by the Upload Wizard, you use a more general non-free license and non-free use rationale to upload the file, and then change to the ones more specific to film posters by editing the file's page afterwards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Marchjuly. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

List of Alexandrov Ensemble soloists

There are &8 (by my count) non-free images being used in List of Alexandrov Ensemble soloists. All of them were recently uploaded and added to the article by LouieWillardino. All these have a non-free use rationale for the list article, but this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed per WP:NFLISTS. Only six of the subjects pictured in the photos have stand-alone articles, but there are already other images being used in those articles; the remaining 62, however, most likely don't have any potentially valid non-free use if stand-alone articles about their subjects can be written and, thus, most likely are going to need to be deleted. Most of the photos do, however, appear to be fairly old and might possibly have already entered into the public domain per c:COM:RUSSIA or some other reason. The following are the files in question.

I'm wondering whether someone whose fairly good at assessing the copyright statusog of old photos (particularly Russian and Soviet photos) could take a look at these and see whether any could possibly be converted from a non-free license to some kind of public domain license. If that could be done, their use wouldn't be subjected to WP:NFCC, and they could likely be kept (even possibly moved to Commons). -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)