Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

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

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

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

How to ask a question

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

Note for those replying to posted questions

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

Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

PD-US-expired?

I don't think File:Creolefamily1918.jpg and File:TraditionalCreolehouses1885.jpg are licensed correctly given their respective file names since it seems rather unlikely the the uploader themselves took these photos. There's no source or other information provided about the photos on their file pages, but the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license the uploader choose suggest they feel these are their "own work", which again seems highly unlikely. Given that the files are being used in Sierra Leone Creole people, these could've already entered into the public domain per c:COM:Sierra Leone and perhaps even {{PD-US-expired}}. Even if these photos are from a photo album possessed by the uploader (like they've claimed for two other of their uploads in a post on my user talk page), possessing a photo doesn't necessarily make one its copyright holder, and a scan or otherwise slavish reproduction of a photo isn't considered sufficient to establish a new copyright for the scan/reproduction; so, the cc-by-sa-4.0 licensing seems incorrect regardless of how you try to justify it.

Given that the definition of published with respect to copyright law can vary (sometimes even quite a bit) from country to country, and Sierra Leonean copyright law only grants copyright protection for anonymous works for 50 years after publication (which could in some cases simply mean distributing copies of the photo) these could've entered into the public domain many years ago under Sierra Leonean copyright law. Moreover, Sierra Leone isn't a signatory of the Berne Convention, which could mean there's no DMCA restoration to worry about under US copyright law. Still having posted all of the above, it's quite possible I'm missing something important here, which is why I asking others to take a look at these files and assess their licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, File:TraditionalCreolehouses1885.jpg is OK on Commons with c:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired. Yann (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Headline1933.jpg

Would like some other opinions on File:Headline1933.jpg as to whether it might be OK to relicense as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. It's a clipping from the February 12, 1933, issue of the Oakland Tribune, and was uploaded as non-free content back in 2007. The way it's being used in Delilah Beasley#Community service and social activist fails (at least in my opinion) WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8; FWIW, there is also a MOS:TEXTASIMAGES issue but that minor in comparison the non-free ones. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be fine. The Online Periodicals Renewal Archive dates the first renewed contribution from that paper to 1936, and in my experience they are generally very reliable. Felix QW (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

A bot is continuing to eliminate an image

the file 2024 logo of the People's Power (Georgia).png that i added on the info box of 2024–2025 Georgian protests was eliminated by a bot and i cant understand why. Boackandwhite (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Boackandwhite: Because that is not a free file. It can only be used when the stringent criteria of WP:NFCC are met. That does not include using it next to the name on any page they’re mentioned on. Since you did not include a valid fair use rationale for using it on the page you added to, per policy it will be removed by the bot. You must place a fair use rationale for each and every page you want to use it for on the file page before you add it. But again, there is not a valid use case under the NFCC for your desired use. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Boackandwhite: There's really no way to justify the use of any non-free file as a flag icon in an infobox like you were trying to do; so, even if you added a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page, it would almost certainly be challenged and subsequently removed. Adding the missing rationale would stop the bot from removing the file again, but there would still be other non-free content use criteria the use failed.

Finally, just for reference, a WP:BOT like the one that removed the file is tasked to do certain specific things based on certain criteria, and it will keep doing those things as long as the same situation persists. When this particular bot removed the file the first time, it left an edit summary explaining why. If you didn't understand the edit summary, then that's OK; however, it's better to ask for assistance in such cases than to immediate re-add a file like you did here because the bot will only come back (like it did) and remove the file again as long as the same issue persists. For sure, there could be a bug or something else wrong with the bot, but you probably should ask the bot's operator about that to make sure. Continuing to re-add the file after it was removed again by the same bot several times for exactly the same reason was not wise at all and could easily be considered edit warring by an Wikipedia administrator. Edit warring is bad in general, but it makes even less sense to edit war with a bot because the bot will keep doing what it's been tasked to do no matter how many times you state it's wrong in edit summaries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, This remember me the movie where the genius kid invent a robot based on chess logic for stop every launch of Nuclear weapons during cold war, what was the title?🤔 Boackandwhite (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

...WarGames? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

YESS, This one Thank you man 😉 Boackandwhite (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Assistance

Does anybody know if these are able to be used on Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]

I'm intending to use them on the Ahmad Shah Durrani page if possible. Noorullah (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

No. They are not freely licensed. Rule of thumb - if the image is being sold, it's not free and is highly unlikely to be relicensed as free (because the photographer is trying to sell it). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Fix ping, @Noorullah21:. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Noorullah21 There are several issues with respect to those photos. The first is that there's a chance that they're WP:Derivative works in which there are two separate copyrights to take into account. The first copyright has to do with the photographed artwork and the second has to do with the photo itself. Unless it can be verified the both the artwork or the photo are either within the public domain for some reason per c:COM:Afghanistan or have been otherwise licensed in a way that's not too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, these photos are going to need to be treated as non-free content. Now, there's a really good chance that the artwork has already entered into the public domain because of its age, but the photos themselves are most likely still under copyright protection and shouldn't be uploaded without first obtaining the photographer's (i.e. the copyright holder's) WP:PERMISSION. You can try asking for the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT if you want, but it seems kind of unlikely that will happen with respect to these photos given that the photographer is trying to sell copies of them via Alamy. It's also unlikely that the non-free use of these photos could be justified per WP:NFC#CS, WP:FREER and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI since someone could take a similar new photo or even relicense a previously taken photo under a type of free license that Wikipedia accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

GA Cohen

Hi, can you advise me where you feel the fair use rationale is (or was) failing for File:GA COHEN 1986.jpg please? Given what I've given -

Philosopher G.A. Cohen (deceased since 2009), screenshot image (published) in 1986 Episode of Opinions (TV series), broadcast on Channel 4 (Uk TV station) but the 1986 copyright resides (as per titles) with the production company PANOPTIC. No commercial value to sucj a screenshot image (professional portraits exist) and any residual commercial opportunities for PANOPTIC would be in selling rights to the episodes for broadcast or sale not small screenshots. One use only, small size, cropped, to identify deceased individual at top of their biographical page. No public domain or otherwise 'free' alternative found despite looking. No camera operator named, director: Stephen Lenhoff.

immediate source... etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GA_COHEN_1986.jpg#Summary

I have further (a 2nd time) cropped and reduced it resolution, further (I think) than the bot would normally do.. is it ok now?

Thanks Jy Houston (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

any thoughts? (sorry if intervening edits by me have mucked up the comment system) Jy Houston (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jy Houston it's an okay rationale but you need to fill it out using Template:Non-free use rationale and add the article you want to add it to (G. A. Cohen) for the bot to recognise it. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

ah right, no worries, cheers, thanks for your time Jy Houston (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jy Houston: This file was deleted per WP:CSD#F1 for being redundant to File:Philosopher G. A. Cohen in 1986.jpg. It's not clear why you felt it necessary to upload the same image twice but under a different file name, but generally this isn't a good idea. Perhaps you want to change the file name for some reason but didn't know how? If that's why, then that's OK; for future reference, though, request for file name changes can be made as explained in WP:File names without needing to delete and reupload the file. Finally, regarding the source for "File:Philosopher G. A. Cohen in 1986.jpg", the YouTube video you've cited shouldn't really be linked to per WP:COPYLINK and WP:YOUTUBE because the YouTube account which uploaded the video is almost certainly not the original copyright holder of the video in question. You probably should remove that link and instead use the original TV program the screenshot comes from as the source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the advice, though the fair use summary was deemed fine I was told to upload the image via a separate process to stop it being removed by a bot, I'll try to avoid this difficultly in future, will remove the source URL as you suggest though it seems I'm explicitly asked for it Jy Houston (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

​ You should be OK citing the original TV show (and its official website if there is one) and then mention you found it on YouTube, but you probably shouldn't link to YouTube. As for someone telling you to reupload the file, then seems wrong to me. Do you remember who told you to do such a thing or where they posted that you do such a thing. The bot that was removing File:GA COHEN 1986.jpg from G. A. Cohen was doing so because the file didn't have a valid non-free use rationale for the file's use in that article, and all that needed to be done it that case was to add a valid non-free use rationale to the file's page; there was really no need to reupload the file under a different file name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I told them above to use the non-free use rationale template, I just wasn't clear enough and they understood me to re-upload it. But it's all good now 😁 Yeshivish613 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated images from Coca-Cola and Call of Duty

Can we include a screencap from one of Coca-Cola's AI holiday commercials or the infamous six-fingered Necroclaus loading screen from Black Ops 6 on the AI slop page under the in advertising and in video game section, or do these fall under copyright despite being generated by AI? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Edelgardvonhresvelg. It isn't clear whether you're asking if you can upload and use such clips as non-free content or free content. Uploading and using them as non-free content should be fine as long as you're able to do so in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and Wikipedia's image use policy. Uploading and using them as free content, should be OK as long as you can do so in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy.

Now, whether AI images are eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, however, seems to largely depend on whether the AI is a 100% original random creation or involves some degree of creative input from whoever used AI to create the work; in addition, it could also depend on whether the AI work was a derivative work directly incorporating or closely based on some other creative work. My guess is that both Coca-Cola and the creators of Call of Duty are pretty aggressive when it comes to asserting their intellectual property rights and thus regularly register their works for copyright protection. There was also most likely quite a lot of creativity involved even if the final work was created using AI. So, it seems a bit unlikely that they wouldn't at least try to claim copyright authorship over such clips. Whether their claims would be legitimate is probably something a court would need to decide, which probably means its better to play it safe at treat the works as non-free.

Finally, although copyright status plays an important role it determining whether something can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, there other things to consider as well. The image in question so also have encyclopedic value to Wikipedia readers (assuming you're asking about adding images to articles), and assessing that might require a separate discussion on the relevant articles talk page to determine whether adding the image to the article actually improves it encyclopedically. It could be the case that there's no consensus to use the image regardless of its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I was asking if the AI-generated images from the 2024 Coca-Cola Holiday ads and Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 fall under copyright due to being associated with brands despite being created by AI. There is a discussion on the AI slop talk page about this, and I was told to ask again here. We want to include the images to enhance the article to show visual examples of the AI slop in advertising (Coca-Cola) and video games (Black Ops 6). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

File:CHS Sports Logo.webp

File:CHS Sports Logo.webp
I have no idea how to attribute copyright on this, It is used by the public high school for just about everything (See sources I've added in the info.) Gumby-andrit (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gumby-andrit you can probably make a fair use rationale for the logo. Use {{Non-free use rationale}} and fill it as best you can. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gumby-andrit and Nthep: It's possible that this logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US; generally, simple text logos are considered to be ineligible for copyright protection and, thus, can be licensed as {{PD-logo}} instead of {{Non-free logo}}. Although there's some 3D aspect to this logo, it seems (at least to me) a fairly simple combination of three letters and basic colors that has a wordmark kind of feel to it. If the consensus is that it does need to be treated as non-free, though, whether it's needed in the infobox of Cairo High School together with File:Cairo High School (Cairo, Georgia) (logo).png could be an issue with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy due to non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it's almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection in the US. All-text logos seem to be denied copyright registration almost ubiquitously, even those with custom fonts that can be quite complex. I've marked it as {{PD-textlogo}}. Ajpolino (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Barnetts creek water bucket.webp

File:Barnetts creek water bucket.webp This photo, I pulled from a local paper, which I thought was free use,
https://timesenterprise.com/2014/10/15/the-story-of-the-barnetts-creek-water-bucket/ Gumby-andrit (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gumby-andrit: you've got two copyrights to consider here. Firstly the bucket itself. It's possibly borderline if it's copyrightable or not. Does the plaque take it beyond utilitarian? Secondly, the copyright of the photograph. Even though the photo isn't credited, this is certainly still in copyright. Just because something is on the internet, doesn't make it fair game for use by anyone else. Yes, US copyright law allows for fair use but Wikipedia takes a much harder line on reusing images on fair use that the law. That's a deliberate policy to ensure as much Wikipedia content can be freely reused as possible. Nthep (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The plaque attached to it is a plaque of what High School had won the bucket (the bucket is a trophy between two schools on opposite side of the creek) Gumby-andrit (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gumby-andrit: The copyright status of the bucket/plaque is only one of the issues; the other has to do with the copyright status of the photo you linked to. As Nthep mentioned above, the bucket without the plaque would be something considered to be too utlilitarian (i.e. a common enough object to be absent any individual copyright eligible element) for it to be eligible for copyright protection, but the plaque could be something eligible for copyright protection depending upon its complexity of the imagery and text on it. If all that's on this particular plaque is simple factual information (a list of dates and names) and an image of a football, then it's most likely not eligible for copyright protection and can be freely photographed without worrying about infringing on any copyright; that, however, is just my opinion and others might feel differently. The photo, on the other hand, is definitely eligible for copyright protection and the copyright holder would be the person who took it. Wikipedia, therefore, is going to need some formal way of verify the WP:CONSENT (see also WP:PERMISSION) of whoever took the photo in order to keep this photo, or the copyright holder of the photo is going to need to otherwise release it under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. Since the newspaper article given as the source of the photo doesn't attributed it to anyone in particular, figuring out the photo's provenance might be a bit hard. Someone working for the paper could've taken it, someone working for the school could've taken it or someone totally unconnected to either could've taken it; regardless, someone did take it and that person's CONSENT needs to be verified. Perhaps the paper can tell you who took the photo. In certain cases, copyrighted photos can be treated as non-free content, but I don't believe this is one of them and a free license is going to be needed for the photo. If you're unable to obtain the copyright holder's consent for this particular photo, then perhaps there's another already existing photo of the bucket or a new photo can be taken for which copyright holder CONSENT can be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

New editor's questions about a non-free audio sample

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse § song sample durations. A new editor has questions about using a non-free audio sample at the It's My Life (Bon Jovi song) article. The discussion there would benefit from input from people familiar with explaining and evaluating the NFCC in relation to audio samples. Please respond there to keep discussion together. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Author headshot from website

Hi. (I think the answer to this is "No", but I did want to check!)

An author's website (based in the UK) contains publicity headshots [4]. I couldn't see an explicit copyright notice, either on the page or for the site generally. Can I upload one of the pictures to Commons or enwiki to illustrate Andy Shepherd (writer)? I think not, because absence of a copyright statement doesn't mean public domain, but I would be grateful for your insight. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi SunloungerFrog. Given that Shepherd is alive, pretty much any type of non-free image of him/them isn't going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since non-free images of living people are almost never allowed because it's almost always considered reasonable for a freely licensed or public domain licensed image to either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. In addition, most copyright laws worldwide no longer require copyright formalities (such a visible copyright notice) for photos, and copyright statrts to kick in once a photo has been published in some sort of tangible medium or is otherwise widely distributed; so, even though there might not be a visible notice for said photo, it's going to be assumed to be copyrighted unless it clearly states otherwise.

Finally, even though you didn't ask about this, File:Book cover - The Boy Who Grew Dragons by Andy Shepherd.jpg, which you also uploaded, also doesn't meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy given the way it's being used in the Shepard article. Non-free book cover art is generally OK to be uploaded an used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book the cover represents, but other types of non-free use tends to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. So, unless you're able to create a stand-alone article about the book itself (per WP:NBOOK) and move the file there, it's likely going to end up being tagged with {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} or nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly. Subsequent to writing the article, I did wonder whether my use of the picture was pushing the envelope. I do plan to write an article in the next couple of days about the book series though per NBOOK, and was hoping to use that there, at which point I'll remove it from the Shepherd article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Artwork for Metropolis (1927 film)

Hi all, I came across this image, some advance publicity for Metropolis, published in Germany in 1924 in UFA Verleih-Programme 1924-25, UFA's film rental catalogue. It's signed at lower right, "Hunte", who I imagine was Otto Hunte, one of the art directors and set designers of the film. According to our article he died on 28 December 1960. Am I correct in thinking that copyright on his work expires in 2030, and can't be uploaded to en:WP/Commons till then? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

In Germany, it expires at the end of 2030, so it can't be uploaded to Commons. But it can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia; use {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Wow, that's great to know. Thank you so much for your swift and concise reply. The joys of the Upload Wizard™ await. After its première at the Ufa-Palast am Zoo, Metropolis was shown exclusively at the Ufa-Pavillon am Nollendorfplatz for several months, the reason for my interest. Many thanks again, and best wishes to all the experienced and tireless contributors on this desk. :) >MinorProphet (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Foley Beach Express AA Roads image

Hey, I wonder if it's okay to use this image for the Foley Beach Express article as is. The roadway itself is definitely owned by ALDOT, but the copyright status is very much unclear, especially taking into account the complex logo. Since the roadway was completed in 2000, it's currently not eligible for public domain. Pinging Fredddie and Imzadi1979 for some expert opinions. ToThAc (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi ToThAc. This probably falls under c:COM:CB#Road signs in that unless there's a reason for this to be treated as public domain per c:COM:United States or it has been released under a free license by its copyright holder, Wikipedia is going to need to treat it as non-free content subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Generally, non-free logos are OK to use when they're used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at top of stand-alone articles about whatever the logo represents; so, at least in principle, it should be OK to upload this as such for local use on Wikipedia. Whether someone might try to argue that seeing a non-free highway road sign isn't really going to improve the understanding of Foley Beach Express by those reading the article and challenge the non-free use, I can't say; such a use doesn't, however, seem to be a clear-cut violation of relevant policy, and least would need to be discussed at WP:FFD to see what the consensus is. A claim for non-free use would be strengthen, though, if there was some sourced content added to the article about how the ALDOT is trying to brand the FBE; perhaps, there was a contest or something and this design was ultimately selected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Michel Bouvier (1792–1874).jpeg

I'm not sure that File:Michel Bouvier (1792–1874).jpeg needs to be licensed because the subject of the photo Michel Bouvier (carpenter) died in 1874, which means this photo probably entered into the public domain under US copyright law quite awhile ago per {{PD-old-assumed}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

File:MovieMaker Magazine Logo.png

File:MovieMaker Magazine Logo.png is licensed as non-free, but the logo itself seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US. The 3D effect is the only real concern, but that even seems to be fairly simple. Any opinions as to whether this needs to remain licensed as {{Non-free logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's clearly ineligible for copyright protection in the US. Logos that are solely text almost never seem to receive US copyright protection. {{PD-textlogo}} and transfer to Commons seems appropriate. Good catch. Ajpolino (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

File:MTV%27S_Hip_Hopera-_Carmen.jpeg

What is missing on the description of the file File:MTV'S_Hip_Hopera-_Carmen.jpeg so it can be used to illustrate the respective soundtrack album page? This is the article MTV's Hip Hopera: Carmen (another user uploaded an alternate album cover and it passed, but the official album cover keeps getting rejected.) UltimateDisco (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi UltimateDisco. All image files uploaded to Wikipedia are required to have two things: (1) information about the provenance of the image and (2) a file copyright license. For non-free files like this, a non-free use rationale is generally more than sufficient for providing source information about the file, and that's what this file is missing and why it's being removed by a bot per WP:NFCCE and WP:NFCC#10c The bot will keep removing the file from any articles it's being used in as long as there's no non-free use rationale provided for the file's use in the article. So, my suggestion to you is to replace the first copyright license (most files really only needs one copyright license regardless of how they're being used) with a non-free use rationale for the file's use in MTV's Hip Hopera: Carmen.

You can use the template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for this if you want, but you don't need to use a template to write a proper non-free use rationale. Once you've done this, the bot should stop removing the file. Of course, someone could still challenge the file's non-free use if they feel it's not policy compliant despite the rationale, but adding the rationale should stop the bot. For reference, bots like the one that removed this file are only doing what they've been tasked to do; so, reverting a bot doesn't resolve anything because the bot will keep coming back to do what it's been tasked to do as long as it feels there's a need to do so. So, it's generally a much better idea to ask for assistance instead of reverting when you're not sure why the bot did what it did because repeatedly reverting a bot will be considered edit warring by an administrator and could lead to your account being formally sanctioned in some kind of way.

Finally and this is a separate issue, given that another album cover File:MTV's Hip Hopera.Carmen.jpg is currently being used in the article, there's no real need to have two album cover images. Which of the two is better is probably something you should discuss at Talk:MTV's Hip Hopera: Carmen to see which one should be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)