Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plug cryostat (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 25 August 2023 (→‎Road to Rhode Island.jpg no explanation tag removal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    File:Mohun Bagan Super Giant.svg

    @JJMC89 and then @JJMC89 bot removed this file from the Mohun Bagan AC page. This is the landing page for the multi-sports club, as well as the page dedicated to its football division. Currently, the football division is known as Mohun Bagan Super Giant, where Super Giant is the brand name used by the new investor. Accordingly, the football division uses a slightly modified logo. Therefore, this logo was also included in a separate infobox. What is the issue? Mohunbagani (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @JJMC89 I am once again requesting you to respond to my question instead of deleting the logo again and again. Mohunbagani (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this edit is valid enforcement of WP:NFCCP#10.c, and that neither the bot nor JJMC89 is to blame.
    That being said, there is a still a problem. It seems that the Article field of the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template only accomodates a single article. What is the OP supposed to do when there are two articles where the image should be used, with a valid justification for either? Copy-paste the template twice? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There has to be an appropriate rationale for each use. So, yes, copying the template and adjusting accordingly is fine.
    In this case I'm not seeing the justification for both logos. One justification for a logo is to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.
    Note primary. Either the article is about the parent group, in which case the group logo is applicable; or the article is about the football team, in which case the football logo is applicable. Using both is not primary, one will be secondary and thus fails the rationale. Nthep (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to be certain I understand how this works. If the copyright holder posts an image on Wikimedia Commons and waives all rights, that waiver does not apply to other instances of that image that appear elsewhere on the Internet. The waiver applies only to the image as it appears on Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia pages where it is used. Do I have that right? Thanks. EdisonSmith (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If a copyright holder posts a photograph under such a waiver that is limited to Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites only , then it would violate Commons' licensing policy and should be deleted from Commons. Commons requires that files uploaded be licensed under terms that allow re-use and the creation of derivative works by anyone, anytime, and for any purpose; restricting the use such that it could only be used on Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites does not meet this requirement.
    If you are asking about what happens when an uploader uploads a file under a valid Creative Commons license: yes, that license is worldwide, non-exclusive, and is not limited to Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites. Images on Commons that have valid free licenses can be re-used in books, on coffee mugs, etc. so long as the licensing terms of the relevant license are followed.
    Is there a specific image you have a question about? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for being confusing and thanks for your response. I'm asking about a case where an image (book cover in this situation) already appears at various resolutions on non-Wikipedia sites around the web and is copyright-protected in those appearances. The copyright owner is fine with posting one particular instance of the image at a lesser resolution on Wikimedia Commons, and for that instance of the image to be altered and/or reused anywhere on the Internet and in the literal world. However, in granting that waiver, he does not want to waive copyright protections on the printed cover of his book, or versions of the image already appearing elsewhere on the Internet at higher resolutions. The Wikimedia Commons image would be copyright free--no restrictions on reuse anywhere in anyway or form. Thanks for any help. EdisonSmith (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdisonSmith: To clarify your question: Are you asking that if a low-res copy of the image is released under a CC license, does that license apply to a high res version of that same photo that might be posted somewhere else? I think the answer is that it does not apply to the high res version. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate your answer. I believe you are correct, I'm just hoping for confirmation. EdisonSmith (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    European League logo and other handball logos

    Why can't I use the EHF European League logo and other handball club competition logos on articles for specific seasons? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi ILoveSport2006.The EHF logo is (File:EHF European League 2020.png) is licensed as non-free content which means each use of it on any Wikipedia page needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and generally it allows logos to only be used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of the main stand-alone articles about the organization, event, company, team, etc. that the logo represents. For logos of sports leagues, this generally mean the logo's use is limited to the main stand-alone article about the league itself. For other articles related to the league (e.g. articles about individual seasons), it's generally not considered OK to simply keep reusing the main logo over and over again per non-free content use criterion #3 and item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI; in such cases, either using a season-specific logo (if one exists) or using no logo at all is considered to be more in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Does File:Mouk TV series logo.png pass the threshold of originality?

    I uploaded it as non-free because I thought the "furriness" of the text passed the threshold. User:The Quirky Kitty didn't, changing the licensing to public domain. Can this be settled? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @PrincessPandaWiki: You can start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD to whether a WP:CONSENSUS could be established either way. You could also ask about the file at c:COM:VPC to see whether the file would be something considered acceptable for Commons. In either case, whatever consenus is established will be imperfect in the sense that all English Wikipedia and Commons users are volunteers just giving you their opinion or their assessment on whether they think the file is eligible for copyright protection. There are no professional Wikimedia Foundation staff who officially assess the copyright status of such logos and which legally represent that foundtion in such matters. The only way to settle this for sure would be to determine whether an application for copyright protection was filed by the company which created the logo which was then approved, or to find a court case involving the logo in which it was clearly determined to be eligible for copyright protection. Absent any such "evidence", the best anyone can do is make a reasonable assessment based upon their interpretation of c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO France. Personally, I don't think this logo would be complex enough to be considered copyrightable under US copyright law, but I'm not so sure about France. Since Commons requires logos to be too simple for copyright protection in both the US where the Commons servers are located and in the country of first publication (which I'm assuming is France), it's possible that Commons wouldn't be able to host this file. It should, however, be OK to host locally on English Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, which is often used for logos which are likely PD in the US but not in their country of first publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Lester Dent.jpg

    Is the PD tag on this photo acceptable? We're trying to decide which photo to use in this Thursday's TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dank: Since the file was uploaded to Commons, you probably want to ask about it at c:COM:VPC to make sure. My personal opinion is that the license is questionable at best. It could be PD, but there's no way to really assess that without knowing more about the provenance of the file. It's very unlikely that Find a Grave vetts any of the images it hosts, and that site is almost certainly not the original source of the photo. So, just assuming that the photo is {{PD-US-no notice}} because the photo Find a Grave is hosting doesn't have one is a mistake in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Albi Mall Superliga logo.svg

    File:Albi Mall Superliga logo.svg, which was used in the 2022–23 Football Superleague of Kosovo, is also being used in the 2023–24 Football Superleague of Kosovo.[1] Can you arrange for the logo to be used on both items? ManiacOfSport (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, its shouldn't be used in the 2022-23 season article. I've nominated it for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "AlbiMall Superliga" [AlbiMall Superleague] (in Albanian). Football Federation of Kosovo. Retrieved 18 August 2023.

    Hello, please I need assistance.

    Each time I upload a photograph of of a living person picked from reliable news portals, admins keeps flagging it for deletion.

    I usually state that I am not the author or creator of those images and I so include the link of the news websites where I picked the images from. Yet they still always delete them for copyright issues. All the people are write about on contribute on a successful public figures whose images are freely used in the public domain

    Please what can I do? Semilore90 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have also asked this question on the help desk. Please only ask in one location. However, you have a misunderstanding of copyright. For something to be in the public domain, it needs to be actually released into such. Most images (and text for that matter) is owned by someone. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semilore90 Public domain has a very specific meaning and is not the same as being available to the public. News photos of living people are almost certainly not public domain, they have a copyright holder. Unless the copyright holder has made a explicit statement to the contrary, then the protection of copyright laws applies and any usage of the image without the copyright holder's permission is a copyright violation. Nthep (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Noted
    Thanks for the clarification Semilore90 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This image was cropped from File:P20211102AS-2249-2 (51846559463).jpg, an official White House photograph featuring both Prince Charles (as he was called then) and President Joe Biden, and whose license says among others "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way […]". IIUC, extracting less than half of the image in order to display it without the rest is "some way of manipulation" therefore forbidden by that license. — Tonymec (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That file is not protected by copyright as a US government work. The law explicitly says that. The federal agency that published it can say that they don't want you to alter it, but it lacks the force of law. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kix

    I fixed the Kix page. 2A00:23C8:3984:6201:65D4:C916:EDCC:7670 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Inquiry to put Insignia of Bangladesh Infantry Regiment on Bangladesh Infantry Regimental Centre

    The Logo of BIRC follows the same logo as Bangladesh Infantry regiment since it is the centre and school of the regiment itself. Other than that, it comes under Army Training and Doctrine command. 2607:FEA8:571F:B850:2C32:CDC:23E6:4A7D (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially I am trying to upload a photo of the Draft:Arkville Maze, though I'm running into some difficulty in doing so. It seems that Satellite images from say google maps would not be allowed, but essentially all photos of said maze are private.

    I did however reach out to a small photo management company/estate that has the rights to a particularly high resolution aerial photo of the maze. While they are unsure about allowing the image to be rendered completely into public domain, they said that they would be apt to allow the image to be used on Wikipedia if given proper accreditation. I don't think this is permissible, but I figured I would ask here as I'm feeling somewhat out of options on how else to get a photo of this maze here. Thanks! A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They can't allow usage in only Wikipedia, but they don't need to donate it to the public domain either. They can upload it as a CC-BY-SA license. In plain English, it means you can use it as long as you credit them. And if you publish a new version of it, you have to release it under the same terms. The easiest way is to ask them if they would be okay with that, and ask them to upload it to Wikimedia Commons themselves.
    The full guide is at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A MINOTAUR One possibility for the copyright holder is to "donate" a low-res version of their image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it another way, is the company willing to release a version of their image under one of the "ok" licenses here:[1]? They can do so on their own website like in this example: [2], see CC BY-SA mark under photo. Or upload it on Commons, but in that case they will probably need to verify they are who they say they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @The Quirky Kitty Thank you both for your responses! They're very helpful. I think I'll wait (and cross my fingers) until the draft is reviewed and then pursue further. Aside from the methods suggested by you two I consider that I may be able to make a representation in a drafting software or even request an image from another Wikipedian (the gravestone of the artist who made the maze happens to have it's design carved within it, pretty cool!). Regardless, I appreciate your expertise in this matter - it's invaluable to newer editors such as myself. A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Scan of German Church record from 1800s

    Hello, I have uploaded a scan of a birth record at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Church_Record_-_henselt_birth_date.png I believe this to be public record and am unaware of any copyright or licensing issue. However the file is marked for deletion pending the appropriate licensing tag. With what should I tag it? Any help appreciated. Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One might ask WHY you uploaded it? Of what use is it to Wikipedia? Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the birthdate of the person to which the wiki page refers. The image of the church record shows the evidence of the birthdate. The use is to make a Wiki entry correct an authentic. Can you offer any guidance as to the tags that I should use? Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you directly scanned the original source (not a reprint or something like that) Template:PD-old-100 is probably applicable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice, I have added the Template PD-old-100 and hope that is acceptable to the admins. Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, an original record like this which has not been published in any public compilation is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.--Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but how else can someone verify the birthdate of a notable person for Wikipedia purposes? Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If no reliable sources verify the birth date, it should generally be omitted, like any other unverifiable information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His article in the Deutsche Biographie gives the same birth date as the Taufbuch.(digital entry, scan of original) You can use that for attribution. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...actually the Deutsche Biographie and the Taufbuch have different dates of birth! Thanks for the links though. 24.146.50.227 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both have May 9, 1814 as birth date and October 10, 1889 as date of death. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Newspapers.com

    Hello. I am wondering if you're allowed to upload clippings (Images of people and stuff) found on Newspapers.com to Wikimedia. It should be fine if the newspaper is public domain ie pre 1923 at the moment I believe but I just don't know if the website hosting the papers has any rights in play. Newspapers.com let's you clip things and freely download them so I'm thinking it should be fine as long as the underlying paper is public domain. Thoughts? Thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally speaking, an exact copy of a two-dimensional work, such as scanning or photographing it, does not, in the United States, give the person or organization who made the scan or photograph any copyright interest in the work, as there is not sufficient creative effort to pass the threshold of originality, with the best known case there being Bridgeman v. Corel. So if the underlying work was public domain, the scan/photograph is in the public domain as well. (It's not generally so for 3D works.) Since newspapers are 2D works, I believe you should be fine to upload such images, provided of course that the underlying newspaper is indeed in the public domain. Laws in other jurisdictions can vary on that, though, so be careful to check that if you plan to use any material from outside the US. (You may also want to check newspapers.com's terms of use; if they hold that you agree not to do that, you could still be liable under a breach of contract theory or the like, even if not liable for copyright violation.) As always, though, that's just my best guess, it is not legal advice, and it's worth exactly as much as you paid for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans. Just going to add to what Seraphimblade posted above that it's pretty much never necessary to upload scans of newspaper articles to Wikipedia, particularly when the uploaded content is primarily text, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES even when copyright isn't a concern because the original content is within the public domain. Files of text only content can create MOS:ACCESS problems for those who might be "reading" Wikipedia using assistive devices (e.g. screen readers). In most cases, quotes from cited articles can usually be incorporated in much easier ways and simply supported by a citation to relevant source. It's also not necessary for newspaper articles cited as sources in Wikipedia articles to actually be available online per WP:PUBLISHED as long as the source itself meets Wikipedia's deinition for a reliable source and is used in proper context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as sources, but I could see such images being useful for the article about the newspaper itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for the help everyone. This is incredibly helpful as sometimes Newspapers.com is the only way to find a portrait of people so it’s helpful knowing I can upload these (Newspaper copyright dependant). Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    w:File:Road to Rhode Island.jpg 'No fair use rationale' tag removal

    Hello - I have uploaded the file w:File:Road to Rhode Island.jpg, but when I did so the non-free use rationale I supplied wasn't sufficient. As a result, it was given the 'No fair use rationale' tag. I have since revised the rationale - could someone please look at the rationale I have supplied and inform me if the tag should be removed or not? Thank you in advance. (Edited for clarity) Plug cryostat (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hackney Diamonds cover image

    Hackney Diamonds was created yesterday, following the discovery of a teaser ad in a London newspaper. The ad is widely believed to refer to a forthcoming Rolling Stones album. Regarding the artwork, the article states that it was posted on the band's social media profiles, but this is not correct. It was actually posted inadvertently on the design agency's website, and has since been taken down. So, is it OK to have this artwork in the article? Nothing official has yet been announced or released by the band or their management concerning this album. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 09:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NFCC#4 requires that there be previous publication by or with the permission of the copyright holder. If this was an accidental release on the design agency web site, then this criterion of the non-free content criteria is not met. Use of non-free content must meet all of the criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I suspected that would be the case. I don't have a horse in this race and won't be taking any action myself, I was just drawing attention to the issue in case anyone else feels strongly enough to do something about it. Courtesy ping to User:Koavf, who created the article and uploaded the image. --Viennese Waltz 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accidentally publish something, then you publish something. I don't see how being an accident changes anything. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is more that we don't actually know yet if the image you uploaded is going to be the album cover or not. As I said above, nothing has been officially announced yet. --Viennese Waltz 15:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's different, then we change it. That is not a copyright issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's a copyright issue. I'm saying there are no reliable sources which state that it's the cover image. The album hasn't been released yet and its existence hasn't even been officially acknowledged. --Viennese Waltz 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can File:BRICS Russia 2020.svg get a public domain tag?

    I added {{Maybe free media}} to File:BRICS Russia 2020.svg a while back, and someone reverted my edit referencing a discussion about freedom of panorama in Spain. So I will ask it here: Can this file get a public domain tag? I think it should be retagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since Russia's threshold of originality is fairly low according to Commons. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mexican peso

    Mexican peso is currently using 103 non-free files and is leading Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files by a lot. Is this massive use of non-free files really justified? Jonteemil (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I add a movie poster from IMDB to an article (still in draft stage) I am writing on a new movie?

    hello! I want to add this movie poster https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28686328/mediaviewer/rm2971556097/?ref_=tt_ov_i to a draft I am writing about the movie Man Suang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Man_Suang

    is it possible to upload the poster on the info box of this article?

    guidance is really appreciated!

    SilverQuill27 (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi SilverQuill27. Non-free content cannot be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9. So, if you add a non-free file to a draft, it will be removed by either a WP:BOT tasked to do such things or a human file reviewer. If the file has no other possible uses that satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, it will eventually be deleted. Since most movie posters tend to be eligible for copyright protection and need to be treated as non-free content, it's better to wait until the draft has been approved as an article before adding any non-free content to it as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. Finally, adding a movie poster or any other images to your draft has no effect on whether it will be accepted as an article; that pretty much depends upon whether the subject is deemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films); so, I suggest focusing on that and worrying about adding images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    okay I understand! Thanks for explaining! : ) SilverQuill27 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1172157279"