Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

Welcome to the Media copyright questions noticeboard, a place for help with image copyright tagging, non-free content, and media-related questions. For all other questions, use Wikipedia:Questions.

If you have a question about a specific image, link to it like this: [[:File:Example.png]] (Note the colons around the word File.) If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{Mcq-wrong}} and leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons, questions may be directed to Commons's copyright village pump.

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 inclusing the curly brackets (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}) 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. Click Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, ask a question below.

Click here to start a new discussion

File:CrashMacII.wav is just four simple square waves, so it may be potentially ineligible for copyright

I hope that melodies this simple can't actually be copyright-encumbered, especially given that it's very easy to recreate this melody in Audacity without the need for any plugins or complex effects. ~2026-36823-90 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Dunno whether that's the case. Hearing the sample, I could not figure out what instrument it played. Also, maybe an 8-bit music? Furthermore, Apple Inc. is now a corporation and might file a lawsuit or a DMCA if the audio clip were transferred to Commons. George Ho (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you George Ho to give me and other users your opinion about why the file should not be moved to Commons. However, I completely disagree with your opinion about why the audio is copyrighted, since I need more users on Wikipedia who are pioneered about copyright law of the US in order to find out the actual copyright status of this audio.

I am so much skeptical if this simple four-melody audio containing only A-C#-E-A as its sequence of melodies and uses only square wave or triangle wave can still be copyrighted in the United States, and if it is copyrighted, it is possibly copyfraud (a fraudulent copyright claim in a work that is either ineligible for copyright, was created by non-human entity (AI, animal, plant, etc.) or a group of non-human entities, has expired from copyright protection, or has been waived to the public domain) from Apple Inc. This is because other audio containing such sequence of melodies are possibly made and available before this audio was made. Other evidences include:

1. Almost of announcement sounds in which this audio was possibly based,
2. 'Merily merily merily merily' from 'Row Row Row Your Boat' nursery rhyme but sung in reverse as 'ylirem ylirem ylirem ylireM', and finally…
3. The first four melodies of this song created by Verified Picasso.

You have given the question asking for what is the instrument it played, which “maybe an 8-bit music?”, but WHAT IS THE CONNECTION OF THE TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS OR TOOLS USED DURING THE CREATION OF THE WORK WITH US COPYRIGHT LAW!? In fact, US copyright law allows a work to be protected with copyright provided that the created work is original, regardless of the instruments or tools used during creation! This is because the US copyright is based on threshold of originality that I will explain after this.

You also have said this: “Furthermore, Apple Inc. is now a corporation and might file a lawsuit or a DMCA if the audio clip were transferred to Commons.”, but WHAT IS THE CONNECTION OF ENTITY TYPES (CORPORATION, PERSON, ETC.) WITH THE US COPYRIGHT LAW!? and WILL APPLE INC. WILL REALLY FILE A LAWSUIT OR A DMCA TAKEDOWN NOTICE IF THE AUDIO FILE IS TRANSFERRED TO COMMONS!? However, copyright protection is available for the work created by a person or a group of persons including child, children, teenager, teenagers, father, fathers, mother, mothers, grandchild, grandchildren, grandfather, grandfathers, grandmother, grandmothers, or corporation.

If Apple Inc. sends DMCA copyright takedown notice to everyone in the world who created the audio that, according to Apple Inc., was based on this simple but also "copyrighted" (in the opinion of Apple Inc.) four-melody audio, what will happen to everyone who created the audio, especially for everyone who does not know the existence of such four-melody audio from Apple Inc. in the first place!? Must we and everyone create the contra-notice to be sent to Apple Inc., containing a few, tens, or hundreds of evidence of such commonly-known sounds, to prove that its takedown notice is fraudulent (copyfraud)? If it does not work, can we and everyone instead sue Apple Inc. regarding such simple four-melody audio?

The United States copyright law allows copyright protection of the work only if it meets at least two terms and/or conditions:

Threshold of originality

Which means its artistic and/or literary creativity level of the work, also called level of originality, meets or is above the threshold of originality which usually happens when the work was created independently by a person or a group of persons, regardless of what are instruments or tools used during the creation of such work, provided that it was created without purely copying from others.

The inverse of level of originality is called level of similarity which quantitatively equals to 1/level_of_originality and the inverse of threshold of originality is called threshold of similarity which quantitatively equals to 1/threshold_of_originality. In general, works with level of similarity that meets or is above the threshold of similarity CANNOT be copyrighted.

For example, my photograph of mountain can be copyrighted if my photograph is distinct with other photographs of mountain that are photographed at the same location when compared faithfully, but NOT a photograph of Mona Lisa painting since the painting was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and photographing it DOES NOT produce new copyright due to the lack of originality of the photograph by the photographer. Color matching and filtering of the photograph of painting CANNOT create new copyright anymore. Also, inverting its colors CANNOT create new copyright since inverting the color of the image can also be done by anyone, and therefore, the variant of the painting with inverted color is kept public domain due to the very-very high level of similarity, even if people in the world do not create such variant of painting but have known the processes or methods of making such variant even without ever doing it.

Faithful (exact match) reproductions of public domain works, such as public domain audio, audiovisual works, books, moving pictures, paintings, sculptures, and statue, are kept public domain if such works were faithfully reproduced in the US or other country where sweat of the brow doctrine is less or not recognized, or if the reproduced public domain works are waived to the public domain in the country with sweat of the brow doctrine.

Creation based on public domain work can only be copyrighted if the creator has not faithfully reproduced the work and the creator has added other copyrightable elements from the creator to that work, such as the creation of the variant of the Mona Lisa painting with the background replaced with, for example, forest as a background. However, such variant of Mona Lisa painting may not be possible for copyright protection if the forest background is also public domain.

Tangibility

Which means that the work can be accessed, communicated, perceived, reproduced, and used for more than a short period of time provided that the work is archived or stored safely, either automatically, manually, or at copyright office. In contrast, sentences spoken by a person or a group of persons CANNOT be copyrighted unless if their voice is also recorded so that it can be accessed, communicated, perceived, reproduced, and used in the future.

Under US copyright law, the work must also be in the tangible medium rather than just having sufficient level of originality in order to provide copyright protection for the work.

Examples of works in the tangible medium are:

1. Audio (such as music that we may hear everyday),
2. Audiovisual works (such as movies including those which are available at most cinemas and on Netflix, and videos including those which are available on YouTube),
3. Books (including e-books),
4. Paintings,
5. Sculptures, and
6. Statues.

Conclusion

The following table summarizes the Macintosh chimes that, according to me, are and are not protected by copyright:

Possible copyright status of the Macintosh Chimes

What computers	Chimes
	Startup/welcome		Crash/error
	Sequences of melodies	Possible copyright status	Sequences of melodies	Possible copyright status
128k, 512k, Classic, Plus, SE	D5#	Public domain because the piano-like square wave or triangle wave of the audio is too simple for copyright protection	unknown	unknown
II Series, SE/30, Portable, PB100	(F4, C5)	Public domain because it is still too simple for copyright protection.	C5, A4, C5#, E5, A5	Public domain because the audio consists only of commonly-known sequence of melodies which are still too simple for copyright protection.
Classic II, LC, LC II	(C5, F5)	Public domain because it is still too simple for copyright protection.	F4, A4, C5, F5, A4, A4#, A4, F4#	Possibly public domain because the last sequence of four melodies is still not enough for copyright protection.
Quadras, Centris, TV, 68k PowerBooks	A5, (G, C, E)	Public domain because this guitar-like sound is still not enough for copyright protection.	F4, A4, C5, F5, A4, A4#, A4, F4#	Possibly public domain because the last sequence of four melodies is still not enough for copyright protection.
Quadra AV Series, Centris AV Series	(G2, B3, D4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	melodies cannot be traced	Possibly copyrighted
Power Macs (6100, 7100, 8100)	(E2, A4, D5, F5#)	Public domain because a single guitar sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	melodies cannot be traced	Possibly copyrighted
Power Mac LCs (5200, 5300, 6200, 6300)	(D3, A3)	Possibly public domain because the guitar-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	A3, E4, D4# or F4, A4, C5, F5, A4, A4#, A4, F4#	Possibly copyrighted for chime containing 3 traceable melodies because it includes other sounds that may be distinct from others, and possibly public domain for chime containing 8 traceable melodies because such chime is made up of triangle waves or square waves and is possibly too simple for copyright protection.
PCI Power Macs (7300, 7500, 8500, 9500)	(G2, B3, D4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	melodies cannot be traced, but it is possibly a sound of shattered glass	Possibly copyrighted
PowerPC-powered PowerBooks (1400, 2300, 5300)	(G2, B3, D4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	F4, A4, C5, F5, A4, A4#, A4, F4#	Possibly public domain because the last sequence of four melodies is still not enough for copyright protection.
PowerBooks (2400, 3400, G3 Kanga)	(G2, B3, D4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	melodies cannot be traced, but it is possibly a sound of shattered glass	Possibly copyrighted
20th Anniversary Macintosh	(G4, C5, E5)	Possibly public domain because the flute-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	melodies cannot be traced, but it is possibly a sound of shattered glass	Possibly copyrighted
iMac G3 and PowerPC-powered Macs from 1999-2005	(F2#, A3#, C4#)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	A4#, A4#, A4#	Public domain because repeating the A4# melody three or several times does not increase the level of originality required for copyright protection.
MacBook Air and Intel-powered Macs from 2008-2013	(F2#, A3#, C4#)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	D4#, D4#, D4#, (bad RAM) or D4#, D4#, D4#, D4#, D4#, D4#, D4#, D4#, D4# (corrupted EFI)	Public domain for both sounds because repeating the D4# melody three or several times does not increase the level of originality required for copyright protection.
Pre-T2 Macs from mid 2013-2019	(F2, A3, C4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	C4, C4, C4 (bad RAM) or C4, C4, C4, C4, C4, C4, C4, C4, C4 (corrupted EFI)	Public domain for both sounds because repeating the D4# melody three or several times does not increase the level of originality required for copyright protection.
Macs with T2 chip, iMac Pro, and MacBooks manufactured since 2018	(F2, A3, C4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	unknown	unknown
M1-powered Mac Mini	(F2, A3, C4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	unknown	unknown
M1-powered MacBook Air	(F2, A3, C4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	unknown	unknown
M1-powered iMac	(F2, A3, C4)	Public domain because the ambient-like or synth-like sound is still too simple for copyright protection.	unknown	unknown

I have analyzed all of the Macintosh chimes included in this YouTube video for their possible copyright status.

If there are some Macintosh chimes that cannot be copyrighted due to the lack of originality, they SHOULD be transferred to Commons.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

I am not a legal professional or lawyer that specializes in the intellectual property law including copyright law. Nevertheless, this is the only information that I can currently give to everyone at this page.

If you have any questions, you can talk with me or with other users. Thank you for your attention and, have a nice day! M Raisfath (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you use LLM to generate your response? George Ho (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: No, absolutely no, I wrote it entirely for a few days. M Raisfath (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I wrote it manually and entirely for a few days. If you think it was written with LLM, it is only something like false positive. I am serious that I took my time to write that message in FULL. M Raisfath (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

NATO images

So, a Reddit discussion ended up with our article on the Swedish Navy's URF being linked to. No big deal there, but after a complaint on the image, it was changed to one from this article: When Silent Service goes silent: How Nato prepares for disaster beneath the waves. The source of the image say it is Nato, but I cannot confirm it with a reverse image search using Google Lens. I was able to find other website that say it is from NATO during DYNAMIC MONARCH 24 and was able to find a similar picture from a different angle on a NATO website.

I was hoping that someone more familiar with NATO is able to determine if the NATO image could be used on the article or if it would be an issue to do so. My main concern is "NATO reserves the right to request the removal of NATO copyrighted material from any externally created content" from NATO's page regarding using NATO content.

Image in question: File:URF-swedish-navy-near-water.png --Super Goku V (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The image in question has no licensing provided. If the uploader does not provide proper licensing, the image will be deleted. In the meantime, the image use has been reverted at URF (Swedish Navy). As for NATO's licensing, there is no indication that NATO licenses their images under a free license so I doubt that the uploader will be able to provide a proper license that would be usable on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha and thank you for looking into this, Whpq. I see that I misunderstood the use of NATO content page and an indication that the images might potentially be usable. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot

It appears JJMC89 bot is going berserk by removing images with a valid non-free use rationale from articles, like here. File:Mai Dantsig - And the Saved World Remembers.jpg contains a clear non-free use rationale, yet is being removed. Has something changed? Brandmeister ^talk 21:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That's the correct behavior from JJMC89 bot. A rationale would need to be added to File:Mai Dantsig - And the Saved World Remembers.jpg explaining its use in the And the Saved World Remembers article. The one there now says it's to be used in the Mai Dantsig article. hinnk (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: It looks like the non-free use rationale provided on the file's page originally was specified as being for the file's use in the article And the Saved World Remembers, but someone edited the file's page in May 2026 and replaced the name of the article in the |article= parameter of the rationale with name of the article about the artist. So, the file was showing up as not having a rationale for the use it the article about the painting. There's no way for the bot to assess such a thing; it only sees a file being used in an article without a corresponding rationale for said use on the file's page. Anyway, I've reverted the changes made in May and re-added the file to the article. FWIW, if you come across a situation like this where it seems the bot has gone "beserk", chances are that the bot is only responding to changes made to the file's page; in most cases, these are just good-faith mistakes made by someone unfamiliar with how non-free use rationales work, but occasionally it's due to vandalism. In this case, it looks like someone might've just wanted to add the file to Mai Dantsig and just didn't know how to do that correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarification. Brandmeister ^talk 10:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the public domain licence valid for the photos in this Facebook album?

[Reposted from the Teahouse, as suggested by another editor]
Hello, I just saw someone else (not me) upload a pic from this Facebook album under the PD-PhilippinesGov licence.
This is what the licence says:
This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of their regularly prescribed official duties; consequently, any work is ineligible for copyright under the terms of Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended, unless otherwise noted. However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws. (Emphasis mine)
I would love for the photos here to actually be under PD-PhilippinesGov, because that would mean a lot of these Filipino celebrities would finally get lead images or better ones. For example, the lead image for Angela Ken right now is extremely dark and blurry, you can't even see her actual face.
But yes, do you think the licence applies here? I think it does. The photos are from the Quezon City Government page. The "as a part of their regularly prescribed official duties" part is a bit murky, as LoveL4ban is a university Pride Month event, not a political one. However, I think the photos are a part of the local government promoting the city.
The post also mentions that several local political figures and organisations gave speeches at the festival such as Risa Hontiveros, so I guess that's why the government photographers were there as well.
Please let me know before I upload anything myself. If the licence is valid, it would be really great for these Filipino celebrities in need of good pictures. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

See parallel discussion at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Photos_by_the_Quezon_City_Government. TheFeds 01:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Photo of Ratubhai Adani

photograph of ratubhai mulsankar adani Sanjayvyas007 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

What would you like to ask about Ratubhai Adani or his photo? TheFeds 01:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair use for non-free social media images?

Hi all, I recently created an article for a deceased public figure (Michael "5000" Watts). To the best of my knowledge, no free-use photos of him were published during his lifetime. Would a photo of the subject, published to one of his official social media accounts without a photographer credit or stated license, be eligible for inclusion on his article as a fair-use non-free image? I'm not very acquainted with the intricacies of non-free image use policies, so I figured I should ask first before moving ahead with any uploads. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@ModernDayTrilobite In short, yes. If a "free" pic appears at some point, we'll throw the non-free out and use that instead. One intricate detail is don't "use of press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images)" (quote from WP:NFCI) but that doesn't seem to be your intent.

You can see a similar example (as in photographer etc unknown) at File:Martin Fido, writer.jpg. Go to WP:FUW, pick Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Abbey National

Hi, File:Abbey logo.svg is marked with non-free and public domain, is that correct? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: No, in principle, this isn't really correct. However, the threshold of originality (TOO) concept of assessing copyright eligibility can vary quite a bit among countries; some countries like the US require rather a lot of creative input for something (e.g., a logo) to be eligible for copyright protection (i.e., they've got a high TOO), whereas others provide copyright protection for a much lower degree of creativity as long as there was some effort involved (i.e., they've got a low TOO). In this case, someone felt that File:Abbey logo.svg was not creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection in the US (where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located), but sufficiently creative to be eiligible for copyright protection in the country of first publication (most likely the UK); so, they relicensed the file (orginally uploaded as non-free content) as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on English Wikipedia. When they did this, though, they forgot to replace the non-free use rationale template originally provided for the file with the more general {{Information}} template; so, this is why the file appears to be "licensed" as both, and there seems to be a conflict.

Assessing a logo's TOO is at best a guess based on examples of logos which have been awarded copyright protection in the past: so, it can be quite subjective in some cases. The UK used to have a very low TOO in which pretty much any logo was considered to be eligible for copyright protection, but its TOO has changed in recent years and moved closer to that of the US. It looks like someone actually tried to move this file to Commons at some point, but it was deleted for reasons related to the UK's old TOO. It's possible now that the file might actually be OK for Commons; so, asking about it at c:COM:VPC might help clarify that. If it turns out that it's now OK for Commons, the file could be relicensed again as {{PD-logo}} and moved/reuploaded to Commons. FWIW, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} license isn't really an official US copyright license per se, but rather an attempt by the English Wikipedia community to deal with differences in copyright law between the US and other countries when it comes to using content on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. Should the non-free use form be removed to leave it public domain and would it then be permitted for use on several articles? , regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The non-free use rationale and the public domain license are in a sort of conflict; so, yes replacing one or the other should resolve the conflict. Which you replace kind of depends on your assessment of the file. If you feel it's indeed simple enough to be within the public domain under US copyright law, then replace the non-free use rationale with {{Information}}; on the other hand, if you feel the file is too close to call or clearly creative enough to even be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, then replace the PD copyright license with a {{Non-free logo}} license. A PD licensed file is easier to use because it's not subject to the same restrictions as a non-free file, but you shouldn't just license a file as PD just because you want ot use it more or in a certain way. Even though we're not making legally enforceable copyright-related assessments here. we should still try to assess things as best as we can. This logo seems simple enough to me to not be eligible for copyright protection at least under US copyright law and OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but others might feel otherwise. So, if your assessment falls on the PD side of the fence, then replace the rationale with "information" template. If someone subsequently disagrees and reverts you, then further discussion to establish a consensus via WP:FFD might be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that it should be public domain but if someone challenges that I'll discuss it, regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)