Wikipedia:Media copyright questions‎

I am preparing to upload an SVG of the Toronto Raptors primary icon logo. However:

• The file being uploaded is not original; it was modified in Adobe Illustrator to change the shade of red used in the logo.
• Is the Raptors logo simple geometric shapes? It is a basketball with claw marks.

Mario662629 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|Mario662629}}. Are you asking about :File:Toronto Raptors logo.svg? The claw marks could be enough to push the file above :c:COM:TOO Canada and :c:COM:TOO US or at least make it a really close call. It's certainly trademarked as seen [https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/trademark-search/1707080?lang=eng here], but I'm not sure how to check copyright records for Canadian organizations. Given that the team seems to be very proactive in protecting what it percieves to be its [https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/raptors-court-battle-monster-energy-logo/ rights related to the logo], it might be better to treat the logo as non-free just to err on the side of caution. As for the color change, the file currently being used does seem to be sourced to an [https://www.nba.com/team/1610612761/raptors official NBA website]; moreover, the [https://www.nba.com/raptors/ team's official website] also looks to be the same shade of red. So, you probably shouldn't be changing the shade of red unless you can verify the change is needed per some kind of official source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::The modified color shade is to match the shade listed on the guideline sheet. The shade used on the guideline sheet is #ce1141, while the shade used elsewhere on the website is #bc2126. Mario662629 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is the {{tq|guideline sheet}} you're referring to something officially provided by either the team or the NBA or is it [https://teamcolorcodes.com/disclaimer/ something unofficial] like [https://teamcolorcodes.com/toronto-raptors-color-codes/ this]? Unless there's something official provided by either the team or the NBA that specifically states the shade of red should be #cell14, I don't think you should be trying to change the color of the logo from what can be downloaded from an official team or NBA website.{{pb}} Finally, a non-vector version of the logo (e.g. png) might actually be better than a vector version if the vector version isn't officially provided by either the team or the NBA for reasons related to :WP:NFCC#3b (:WP:IMAGERES) and :WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://cdn-assets-us.frontify.com/s3/frontify-enterprise-files-us/eyJwYXRoIjoibmJhXC9maWxlXC81UUFSdTZRektvVFNIVzNGcHBTSC5wZGYifQ:nba:n4DIyUJKoLK0A0QeWccDL2TeIs0G3AWIh8NHJJJURwI| I'm referring to the official guideline sheet.] Mario662629 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The link you've provided doesn't work for me, but that could just an issue on my end. Regardless, you probably shouldn't really be using software to modify the coloring of the logo despite what the guideline might say. You can update the file, however, with a more correct version from an official team or NBA website (if you can find one), but I wouldn't suggest trying to "fix" things on your own per se. If a logo with the incorrect shade of red is being used on official team or NBA websites, then they should be fine for Wikipedia as well. Any issues associated with the logo's coloring would've most likely have already been fixed by the either team or NBA if it really matter with respect to the team's branding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Marchjuly}} Remove "%7C" from the URL in the address bar and it should work. Wikipedia was weird with adding this link... Mario662629 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your link fix suggestion worked. Thank you for that. To be completely honest, though, the logo shown on that guidelines page look pretty much the same as the one currently used in the article, at least to me. So, I'm not sure a change is really needed here because any difference in the shade of red is most likely going to be pretty much non-discernable to the typical Wikipedia reader and be a negligible improvement encyclopedically. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am concerned about adding it to the top of the article or adding a logo gallery to the "Logos and uniforms" section of the article, due to possible violations of one of the following non-free content criteria:

::::::::* Minimal usage (due to there being a logo gallery being planned or for it to be alongside the original logo at the top)

::::::::* Restrictions on location (possibly temporarily using it in a page in my user namespace that is basically another sandbox; will not stay there permanently)

::::::::The logo often does appear in YouTube thumbnails and other places, by the way, including sportslogos.net. If I get a violation alert when I upload this modified logo, it is not intentional. Also, how do I manage uploading this logo when it was modified from its original source? Mario662629 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. If you try to use non-free content on other pages (even temporarily), it will be removed as a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, most likely by a :WP:BOT and most likely rather quickly. If you re-add the content after it has been removed, it will just be removed again. If continue to try to re-add the content, it will not only keep being removed, but you're also likely to attract attention (perhaps even from a Wikipedia administrator). For reference, users have been blocked for repeated violations of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, it's best to make sure you've got a valid use (or at least what you feel is a valid use) for the content before uploading it.{{pb}}Non-free logos such as this generally are OK when they're being used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organizations they represent; however, trying to use the logos in other articles or in other ways (e.g. a in-body section of a stand-alone article about the organization in question) often becomes much harder to justify per :WP:NFC#cite_note-4, :WP:NFC#CS and :WP:JUSTONE. Simply wanting to "show" the logo is almost never considered a sufficient justification for non-free use, and sourced critical commentary specifically about the logo (or change in logo branding) often is considered the bare minimum to contextually connect the file to corresponding text about the logo or the organization's choice of branding. Non-free use isn't automatic; so, even if you think the non-free use is justified, another user could challenge it and possibly even remove the file; if that happens, the burden will fall upon you to establish a consensus in favor of the use per :WP:NFCCE.{{pb}} A simple update (e.g. color correction) of the existing file being used in the main infobox of the article can most likely just be done by going to the file's page and clicking on "Upload a new version of this file" as long as the change is minor (i.e. likely non-contentious) and the format is the same; in such a case, you would just need to update the existing non-free use rationale to reflect the information of the updated version of the logo. Significantly different versions of the logo should be uploaded as a separate file; you can then replace the old file with the new one. Please note though that some could disagree with the replacement and revert the change; if that happens, you should establish a consensus for replacing the logo, most likely on the article's talk page. If you edit war over non-free content, you're likely going to be blocked. Please also note that once you update or otherwise replace an existing non-free file, it's justification for non-free use disappears (or least changes), and the "old" file/version will be tagged for speedy deletion per :WP:F5 if a new valid non-free use for it can't be found.{{pb}}As I mentioned above, the differences in the shade or red seem fairly minor to me, and don't really necessitate an updating of the logo. You can, however, start a discussion about things if you want on the article's talk page or seek additional feedback from a WikiProject like :WP:NBA.{{pb}}Finally, what other websites might be doing isn't really relevant when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. They have their own policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia doesn't follow them. You should, in principle, stick to using non-free content as found on official sources since that's how the organization has chosen to represent itself. You shouldn't really be modifying anything at (except perhaps to make a minor correction like straightening) because you think that's how the logo should be. If you can find the logo with the shade of red you think is appropriate being used on some official team or NBA website, then use that. You really should take a logo from such a site and modify its coloring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::OK then, thanks for the info. This is what caused me to prepare uploading the logo and filling the form several times before stopping. In addition:

::::::::::* I'm worried about being blocked for creating a logo gallery on the team's Wikipedia page, especially if it takes a while for it to get noticed or if I don't get a warning before the block.

::::::::::* A lot of the teams that have logo galleries on their pages have the logos under the threshold of originality, or their first publications are a long time ago. In addition, I've not really seen copyright information for the logo, and people have used it all over the place.

::::::::::* The original file that I was preparing to upload was the modified version of the logo, not the original version. I'm not sure how to source it if the file was modified.

::::::::::* What if I add a warning to the file page to try and persuade other editors to help me add a fair-use rationale and/or put the logo in an article so that the file isn't orphaned anymore?

::::::::::* Does the article's talk page also cause a violation, or only the other namespaces (e.g. Help, Template, User, Wikipedia, etc. and their talk pages)?

::::::::::* What if I uploaded an existing logo (that someone else uploaded and was already used on the team's article) to another page?

::::::::::* Is the below message the warning you get on your talk page when you insert a sports logo in the wrong namespace? If not, what do you get? Note that this is not a real warning, it's just a sample. {{blockquote|File:Information.svg Hello! Your image was inserted successfully but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.}}

::::::::::Mario662629 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|10}} Non-free content is, for the most part, not allowed in image galleries per :WP:NFG; so, it's best to avoid doing so. If you're worried about being blocked due to creating an image gallery, don't create it. Wikipedia's non-free content policy only applies to content licensed as non-free; it doesn't apply to freely licensed files. All files, however, are still subject to :Wikipedia:Image use policy, and this includes :WP:GALLERY.{{pb}}:WP:BLOCKs are intended to be preventative, not punitive; in other words, they're intended to prevent further disruption or inappropriate behavior and not really to punish people for something they might've done. Unless what you do is so bad that pretty much any Wikipedia administrator will see it as warranting an immediate block, you're likely to be warned before your blocked. It's OK to make mistakes, but repeating the same mistakes or inappropriate behavior over and over again despite being advised not to is generally why users end up being blocked.{{pb}}You should only upload non-free logos from official websites under control of the original copyright holder of the logo and avoid everything else unless you're fairly certain of the :provenance and accuracy of the logo. You also shouldn't upload modified versions of logos unless they were modified by the original copyright holder since user-modified logos might not be accurate or might be sort of an :WP:IMAGEOR.{{pb}}I'm not sure what you mean by adding a "warning", but you shouldn't upload any non-free files if you don't have a valid non-free use for them. It's your responsiblitly to make sure the file at least meets :WP:NFC#Implementation (i.e., has a non-free copyright license and separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use). You shouldn't upload a file missing any of these things and just expect others to come around and add them for you. Someone might just do that if they want, but you shouldn't expect others to do so.{{pb}}Non-free content can only be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace. If you try to use it anywhere else, it will eventually be removed. If you want to discuss a non-free file on a talk page or some noticeboard like this, you can add a link to the file as explained in :WP:COLON.{{pb}}Non-free content use criterion #7 only requires that non-free content be used in at least one article; it doesn't say it can only be used in one article. So, non-free content can be used in more than one article or more that one way in the same article, but non-free content use criterion #10c requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use, and it's the responsibility of the user wanting to use the file in a particular way to provide a corresponding non-free use rationale specifically for that use; in other words, you should expect others to add a missing non-free use rationale for you or expect to cleanup any incomplete or malformed rationale you might've added. non-free content criterion #1 does, however, require us to use free alternatives (:WP:FREER) to non-free content whenever possible, and non-free content use criterion #3 requires us to keep non-free content use as minimal as possible. 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 tend to be even more exceptional and, therefore, correspondingly much harder to justify. So, using a non-free file in more that one article or in the same article more than one way isn't expressly prohibited per se; it's just really hard to justify in terms of relevant policy.{{pb}} Most user warnings (like :Template:uw-image1) are actually templates containing boilerplate text intended to cover as many possibilities as possible. If such a warning was added to your user talk page, the user who added it most likely signed their post. You can also check your user talk page's history to see which user added it. If you want clarification on why it was added, you can simply ask that user themselves. User warnings were develped to help let others know that something they did was not really in accordance with some Wikipedia policy or guideline. The original intent was good, but that intent has been somewhat lost in the shuffle as Wikipedia has grown over the years. So, many users add such warnings either too quickly or for inapproriate reasons. If someone adds a user warning to your user talk page, try to understand why. If you don't understand why, you can always ask them for clarification or ask for help at at :WP:HD or :WP:TEA. Anyone can add a user warning to another user's talk page, in principle, but it should really only be done when necessary and usually a more personalized post will get a better response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to restore and improve the original version of this image from 1910, which is incorrectly marked as a non-free image on Wikipedia when it should be a pre-1930 public domain image:

::File:University of Chicago Basketball Team, Intercollegiate Champions, 1909-10.jpg

I can't "Export to Wikimedia Commons" as that gives the error "Can't import file because at least one of its file revisions is hidden."

Is there a way to boldly edit an image like this so that at can be moved to commons? Or mark it in a way so that a bot un-hides the revisions? If not, where should technical requests like this be made?

Is there any process that automatically un-hides revisions like this for the next Public Domain set on January 1?

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|PK-WIKI}} The date of first publication of a photo is generally more relevant to its copyright assessment than the date of creation when it comes to old photos like this under US copyright law; so, if you're able to show this photo was not only taken but also first published prior to 1930, then it can be relicensed and moved to Commons by requesting the originally uploaded version of the file be restored via :WP:REFUND. Before you do this though, you should convert the file's licensing to something other than a non-free one and also convert the file's non-free use rationale to the template {{tlx|Information}}. In your REFUND request, explain your rationale for why the file no longer needs to be non-free. If a Wikipedia administrator agrees with your assessment, they'll restore the older hidden version of the file, which should make it now possible to move the file.{{pb}} Given that the source provided for the photo is rather general, though, you might first try asking the uploader if they remember how they obtained the photo. The better you can source the photo's :provenance, the easier it will be to assess its copyirght status. If the University of Chicago archives can be found online, then that could help verify the publication date. It might also provide you with a higher resolution version of the file that could be directly uploaded to Commons. Similarly, if the photo can be found somewhere else online and shown to have appeared in print prior to 1930, you could use that as the source and upload that version to Commons.{{pb}} Finally, since your ultimate intention for the file is to be on Commons, you might want to check with :c:COM:VPC for feedback on its licensing. It makes little sense to reupload or move the file if there a reasonable chance it will just end up being deleted from Commons. Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects that don't always agree on things. The file's not in danger (at least in my opinion) of being deleted from Wikipedia anytime soon as non-free content; so, it might be a good idea to just get a sense of how some on Commons assess this photo's copyright. Even if the photo isn't {{tlx|PD-US}} due to its date of first publication, it could still possibly be either {{tlx|PD-US-no notice}} or {{tlx|PD-US-not renewed}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::The photo is available from the university archive here: https://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf5-02983.xml

::The image was published [https://campub.lib.uchicago.edu/view/?docId=mvol-0001-0015-0000#page/223 in the 1910 yearbook]. I'm mainly asking if there's a way to modify the existing image file on Wikipedia so that future revisions aren't auto-resized, and so that it can be exported to Commons. If each photo requires a manual WP:REFUND by an admin, I'll probably just re-upload to Commons myself. But that seems worse and breaks the existing image's history and links. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Only non-free files are subject to reducing in size by a bot, and that's because non-free files are required to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (more specifically, :WP:NFCC#3b). In some cases, the template {{tlx|Non-free no reduce}} can be added to a non-free file's page, but this doesn't automatically mean the file won't still end up being reduced if someone challenges the tagging. Public domain or otherwise freely licensed files aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, bots shouldn't be resizing them in principle. Old unused revisions of files are subject to speedy deletion per :WP:NFCC#7 and :WP:F5, and most of these deletions are done by bots. So, if you convert the licensing of a non-free file to, for example, a public domain license, the bots should leave it alone from that point forward, unless you also don't convert the file's non-free rationale to either template {{tlx|Information}} or a non-template equivalent. If you only convert the file's copyright license but leave the non-free use rationale as is, bots will see that as conflict and perhaps continue to treat the file as non-free; the same thing would happen if you convert the non-free use rationale but leave the non-free copyright license as is. The only way to restore a previously deleted ("hidden" is as actually a more accurate description since files are not really ever "deleted" per se) is to ask a administrator to do so (at least that's the case to the best of my knowledge). You can do this via REFUND, or you can just ask one on their user talk page. There are several administrators who answer questions here at MCQ; perhaps one will see your post and restore the older version for you. If, for reference, you decide to just go ahead an upload a new file to Commons, you should pick a different file name. If you use the same file name with the same format, the local file will shadow out the Commons file, and you will need to request that the local file be deleted per :WP:F7 or :WP:F8 before the Commons file will start being used in its place. If you use a different file name, you can just replace the local file and it will eventually be deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@PK-WIKI old version undeleted and restored for you. Nthep (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{file links|File:Fatah logo.png}}

I wonder if this image is actually nonfree. A black-and-white version appears on :File:Fatah 59 June 1970.jpg, which is tagged as PD, but I am not entirely sure if the PD claim is correct. The coloring of File:Fatah_logo.png seems to be too trivial to attain copyright protection. Janhrach (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 21 § File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The image [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geopelia_striata_by_Foo_Chuan_Wei.jpg File:Geopelia striata by Foo Chuan Wei.jpg] was originally posted under CC-BY and was uploaded under that license, but has now been changed to CC-BY-NC at it's source (seen [https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/469710563 here]). Would the image now need to be changed to CC-BY-NC on commons, or does it retain CC-BY because it was uploaded when the photo was still under the CC-BY license? Sorry if this is a simple question, I'm still fairly new to copyright license details. -‪Fneskljvnl🪱 (Contributions, Talk) (stay silly forever) 16:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Fneskljvnl}}. Since the file in question has been uploaded to Commons, it's probably best to ask about it on Commons (try :c:COM:VPC) since that's where any decision about the file (e.g. whether it can be kept) needs to be made. In principle, though, "CC-by" types of licenses are considered to be non-revocable; so, if the license change occured after the file was uploaded to Commons and the original licensing wasn't clearly a case of :c:COM:LL, Commons might decide to keep the file. In some cases, though, when the change happens relatively quickly after a file's been uploaded, Commons does make allowances for image copyright holders changing their minds or even admitting they've made a mistake; this grace period, however, is only for less than seven days after upload per :c:COM:G7, and a :c:COM:DR is required beyond that. It's not clear whether the copyright holder or the file and the uploader of the file are the same person; if they are, then that person could start a COM:DR about the file and request that it be deleted. If they're not, then they might need to file a DMCA takedown request with the Wikimedia Foundation to get the file removed from Commons servers.{{pb}}FWIW, I believe the relicensing of the file only affects reuses of the file from the time of the relicensing, and they anyone who downloaded the file prior to its relicensing can continue to reuse the file as long as they do so under the terms of the original licensing. This doesn't mean that the copyright holder can't try to get them to stop, but it could mean a weaker claim of copyright infringement, especially if quite a bit of time passed between the time the file was published under its original licensing and the time the copyright holder relicensed it. In addition, some sites (e.g. Flickr) have ways to see the "license history" of content they host, and sometimes there might be archived screenshot versions of the site which show the content as released prior to the change; so, if any of those things are applicable to this image, you probably should add information about it (e.g. links) to the file's descritpion and make note of them when asking about the file at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Why did JJMC89 bot delete file:LelandDoan.png from Leland Doan? The file had a public domain explanation. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Mgreason probably because :File:LelandDoan.png is somewhat unclear in it's description. It started with various non-free templates on it and has migrated to the obviously incorrect {{tl|US-PD}} - this image does not pre-date 1930. the source is probably correct in saying there is no known copyright but it does need a proper description adding e.g. using {{tl|information}} and a more apt licence. I did wonder if it's PD as a work of the US government but again with no certainty. There are images from the same signing by JFK available on Alamy, these say they were contributed by Gibson Moss and are PD but isn't explicit why. So it needs a bit more investigation. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mgreason}} First of all, the bot didn't delete :File:LelandDoan.png per se, it removed it from an article where it wasn't being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You originally uploaded the file as non-free content, and only later converted it to a public domain license. Non-free content is required to have two things per :WP:NFC#Implementation: a non-free copyright license and a spearate, specific non-free use rationale (for each use). You did add a non-free copyright license to file's page but failed to also add a non-free use rationale for the use in the Doan article, which is a violation of non-free content use criterion #10c. The bot that removed the file has been tasked to look for such things; so, when it saw the file had a non-free license but no corresponding non-free use rationale, it removed the file from the article per :WP:NFCCE.The bot removed the file on May 11, which was both before you removed the non-free copyright license on May 15 and before you added the public domain license on May 19; so, as far as the bot was concerned, the file was non-policy compliant non-free content when it was removed from the article.{{pb}} You can resolve this in a couple of ways: (1) relicense the file once again as non-free but only this time add the required non-free use rationale (I suggest using the template {{tlx|Non-free use rationale biog}}) before re-adding the file to the article (the bot shouldn't remove it again per NFCC#10c if you do that), or (2) provide more information about the file's :provenance (as mentioned by {{u|Nthep}} above using the {{tlx|Information}} template) that allows a better assessment of its copyright status (i.e., whether it's really within the public domain or needs to be treated as non-free). As Nthep mentioned above, there's no way for you or anyone else to claim that this file is within the public domain because of {{tlx|PD-US}} given the date of its first publication, but there could be other reasons such as {{tlx|PD-US-no notice}}, {{tlx|PD-US-not renewed}} or {{tlx|PD-USGov}} for which it might be within the public domain. Since sorting that out could take some time, you might want do (1) (i.e., relicense the file as non-free and add the missing non-free use rationale) just for now since the file should be OK as such, and then ask about the file at :c:COM:VPC to see whether anyone there can help you sort out the file's copyright status. Commons won't host non-free files, but it has no problem hosting public domain files (as long it the file is public domain in both the US and the country of first publication): Commons is actually more suitable for hosting public domain images and is where the file should really be hosted if it's truly public domain.{{pb}}Finally, if the photo is within the public domain, it would be perfectly file (even preferable) to upload the whole photo to Commons and then create a crop for just Doan (if you want); someone somewhere might be able to find an encyclopedic use for the whole photo, whereas the crop is only really suitable for content about Doan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

For High School Musical China College Dreams I got the copyrighted image from a wiki called AsianWiki VegetaBlack7 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|VegetaBlack7}} :File:High School Musical China College Dreams.jpg is almost certainly under copyright protection, which means it wil need to be treated as non-free content and comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy, however, is quite restrictive and one of these restrictions is that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9: this means the file can't be used in :Draft:High School Musical China: College Dreams even if you were to add a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale to the file's page for the draft. My suggestion to you, therfore, would be to follow the advice given in :WP:DRAFTS#Creating and editing drafts and focus on getting the draft approved as an article first; if you're able to accomplish that, the file should be OK to license as non-free content and use in the article. The file is going to end up being deleted in a few days (there's really no policy-compliant way to prevent that), but you can request it be restored if the draft is eventually approved as an article. Finally, you really will need provide a much better source for the file than "AsianWiki" for it to be OK for Wikipedia to host, even as non-free content. Since the draft appears to be about a movie, look for images of the poster on official websites of the movie's production company or reputable media outlets discussing/reviewing the movie; try to avoid blogs, personal websites, social media accounts or other Wikipedia like sites, unless they're clearly under the control of the movie's production company or someone officially associated with the making of the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::How do I find a better source for the movie? VegetaBlack7 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You would want to find the image from a better source like an official press release or perhaps a review in a reliable source. You may wish to use a reverse image search to help find such a source. The problem with using a wiki is that the images uploaded there usually do not have any information about the origins. You might not think that matters, but there is no guarantee that the uploaded poster on the wiki is a real official poster image versus a fan-made posterIMD. I know in the past we've had many Ru Paul Drag Race season posters uploaded from wikis that turned out to be fan-made. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Does IMDb work or it’s not reliable VegetaBlack7 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::IMDb isn't really a reliable source for citing content about a film or stuff related to a film as explained in :WP:RS/P#IMDb, but it sometimes can be OK to use a source for a film poster, when the accuracy of the poster can be verified. If there's an IMDbPro page about the film, then that would be better because it allow some sort of editorial control to be implemented by the account holder. An official source tends to be preferred to other sources because it aids in the verification of copyright status and accuracy. For what it's worth, just Googling the name of your draft [https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=FDeui5qI&id=28BD8E9D2BFA0BBFF35358627E9EE7E14C7DD8D5&thid=OIP.FDeui5qId_yaUCXctR6kYgHaK9&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fhsm%2Fimages%2F0%2F09%2FHigh_School_Musical_China_College_Dreams.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20211016001205&exph=1280&expw=865&q=high+school+musical+china%3a+college+dreams&simid=608017235326495715&form=IRPRST&ck=48C7652B52DC30CEC0AE1DBCBF6C37D5&selectedindex=0&itb=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&pivotparams=insightsToken%3Dccid_FDeui5qI*cp_48C7652B52DC30CEC0AE1DBCBF6C37D5*mid_28BD8E9D2BFA0BBFF35358627E9EE7E14C7DD8D5*simid_608017235326495715*thid_OIP.FDeui5qId!_yaUCXctR6kYgHaK9&vt=0&sim=11&iss=VSI&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0 shows several movie posters being used on various websites], and which of these is the official one is not clear.{{pb}} Films often do have multiple posters for different regions or different releases, but any Wikipedia article about a film should try to use the "official" one used when the film was first released in theaters if possible. Even if there's no longer an official website for the film (in English or Chinese) accessible, perhaps there's an archived version of the website that shows the poster that was used. The closer you can find a poster to the film's original release date the better. If finding proper source for a poster turns out to be too hard, perhaps there is cover art from an official Bluray or DVD version could be used instead, You could ask about these things at :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China to see if any members of those two WikiProjects can help you out.{{pb}}Anyway, as I posted above, there's no way for a non-free film poster to be used in a draft (even one from an official source); so, there's no way for Wikipedia to keep this file unless a valid non-free use can be found for it. Even if you find a good source, relicense the file as non-free and provide a non-free use rationale, the non-free use won't be considered valid and the file will be removed (perhaps quickly) by a bot from the draft as a violation of :WP:NFCC#9. The approval of the draft your working on, for reference, depends entirely on whether the film meets :Wikipedia:Notability (films); whether there are images being used in the draft doesn't matter. So, my suggestion to you, once again, is to focus on getting the draft approved as an article, and then worry about adding images to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I put the HSM China there because that is the only spin off not shown in Wikipedia. I need a link to help me fix something VegetaBlack7 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@VegetaBlack7, @Marchjuly It is a copyvio. I have flagged it for CSD G12

:::::::Things found online are almost always subject to copyright. VegetaBlack7, please do not upload copyright materials. Film posters are always subject to copyright. Once any draft where such a file might be appropriate becomes an article you may be able to upload it here under the Doctrine of Fair Use, but not until then 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How can I upload copyright stuff without getting in trouble VegetaBlack7 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@VegetaBlack7 You have answered your question by asking it. You cannot. Continual upload of copyright material will result in your being blocked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Fine VegetaBlack7 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I also decided to vanish my account because I want to start something new VegetaBlack7 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Just going to add that all non-free content (including non-free film posters) needs to be used in accordance with Wikipdedia's non-free content use policy, which has been set up to be intentionally more restrictive that the Doctrine of Fair Use. -- 01:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a query of this image. Natalie_Matosin#/media/File:Dr_Natalie_Matosin.jpg. It appears to be lifted from an online newspaper and possible breach of copyright? https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4417586/wollongong-neuroscientist-named-in-the-prestigious-forbes-30-under-30-list/ LibStar (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are always a couple of things I check in cases like that. First, of course, is whether the remote site indicates the image is licensed under CC-BY-SA or a compatible license (in this case, it is not). Second, and one that sometimes gets missed too, is checking whether the remote material came after the Commons upload; there are sites that reuse Commons images and don't properly credit them. In this case, though, the newspaper article was written four years before the Commons upload. Given that, I'd agree with you and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Seraphimblade}} I agree with your assessment, in prinicple, but there could be something more to this. The attribution for the photo in website article states the photo was "supplied", and the file's EXIF data states "Barnbear" is the copyright holder (it also gives a contact email address); so, it could be a case where the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person. If that's the case, the photo could be the uploader's "own work" and just in need of :c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. Given those things, perhaps a :c:COM:DR might be a better choice in this case. The file is the only record of the account on Commons, and the only record of activity for the account on English Wikipedia is for edits to :Natalie Matosin. So, it's not totally unreasonable to think that there could be a connection between the account and Matosin, which could mean that a VRT member contacting the email address in the EXIF data might lead to :c:COM:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I did see that, and had the uploader gone by the "Barnbear" name, that would give me more pause, but I'm rather skeptical of that. Regardless, if that really is the case, they can always provide what's needed to VRT and get it undeleted. This, though, looks like a standard case where someone found something on the Web, slapped a false "Own work" template on it, and uploaded it that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)