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
On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
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.
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.
Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
Hit Publish changes.
If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
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.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
This is a reduced-resolution still from a 44-minute Syrian documentary film from 2004. There are very few photos of this article’s subject, who was a politician in the now fallen Syrian Arab Republic, and this film still is the only one of certain authorship besides press agency photos (which are presumed to fail the NFCI). The filmmaker died in 2011 with no children or spouse. There is no public-facing estate for the filmmaker’s work. Do I need to try and track down the copyright, ask for a free use license, and be turned down before the photo meets WP:NFCI? It’s being suggested at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_December_12 that this would be necessary for the photo to meet fair use criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There being only few photos of the subject isn't in and or itself really a good justification for non-free use in my opinion; however, that in combination with the subject being deceased could be a good argument in favor of non-free use. It's not automatic, but it does make a stronger case. Finally, given that this file is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png, there really nothing to gain by opening a new discussion about it here. In fact, doing so just runs the risk of splitting the discussion and confusing things. The best thing to do is to keep discussing the file at FFD because that's where a consensus regarding it will be established. Using {{Please see}} to notify others of the FFD discussion is fine, but it's not really a good to discuss anything else anywhere other than FFD now that the file is there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the FFD has now closed, I might as well comment here that any pre-1994 photograph first published in Syria will be free of copyright in both Syria and the US. So if such a Syrian photograph were to be found, we can replace this file. Felix QW (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't understand why this would still be under a copyright. The author can't be Noel, as he is on the picture. Whether the author is Bruce or unattributed, it is out of copyright in UK and in USA. Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because of the RGS captioning the photographer as being Noel himself and the uncertainty this introduces. Personally I don't think this is a selfie by any stretch of the imagination, and would put the RGS part down as a error. Nthep (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the copyright holder was (is) Noel, it is still under UK copyright (died 1989). At the time I uploaded RGS said he is the photographer but now they are more nuanced.[1] I have placed a {{keeplocal}} because I want to minimise the risk of deletion from both platforms. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a Sherpa took the photograph then it wouldn't now be under US copyright but what about UK, China, Nepal, India and their law regarding (presumably) unknown photographers? Thincat (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think UK (and India) law would say copyright to an unknown photographer would have expired.[2] At the time, and generally, Sherpas were born in Nepal but most expedition Sherpas had gone to live in Darjeeling, India where expeditions went to find staff. Tibet and Nepal had no concept of nationality (or copyright?). This photo was taken from Chang La (i.e. the North Col) on the Tibet/Nepal border (our Chang La and Changla articles are about different locations). Tibet was effectively independent with a feeble claim by China to have suzerainty. Thincat (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this doesn't matter for copyright (i.e. place it was taken, photographer's nationality, etc.), only the place of first publication does, which is undoubtedly UK. Yann (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've been here a (very) long time I did not realise that. I'm pretty sure it was fist published in the UK and then immediatlely rushed into print in the US. Taking Commons' precautionary principle it may still be in UK copyright but out of copyright in US. Thank you for your advice. Thincat (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Noel could have been his own photographer. They had remote wiring and delays in camera equipment even back then. It's absurd to think that he wasn't able to. Noel died in 1989. Bastique☎ call me!02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! File:Igor_Kirillov_scoooter_bomb_video.webm is listed as public domain and credited as CCTV footage. While the original video clearly qualifies, the current video, which was taken from Reddit, features uncredited additional text and graphics overlayed on top the footage (which I'm fairly certain were not part of the original footage). I am uncertain of the current status, is the file free or a possible copyright violation? 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images from a blog with written statement but no precise license
The website contains the statement "Please feel free to use any info or images on here for your own purposes", and I contacted the author who also confirmed that I have permission to add them to Wikipedia. However, I don't know what specific license to add. Thanks for your help.
@Junkribbons: What Wikipedia is going to need is the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT. The "permission" you received isn't specific enough and too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. The copyright holder has to bascially make it clear that they're releasing their work under a copyright license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to download it at anytime from Wikipedia and reuse it for any purpose (including commercial and derivative reuse). They don't need to transfer their copyright ownership to others, but they do need to make their work available under a copyright license that places minimal restrictions on the reuse of their work. Finally, the copyright holder of a work is the original creator of the work, and only the original creator can release it under the type of copyright licenses that Wikipedia accepts. A website operator only is the copyright holder of content that is 100% percent their "own work"; they don't really have any claim of copyright ownership over content created by others that they just happen to be hosting on their website. I'm only bringing this up because the images you want to upload and some of the other images from that blog seem like they're just being hosted by that blog and weren't originally created by the person writing the blog. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe that the images I want to use were created by the website creator but will verify that. The consent link you provided describes an email they can send. Would it also be an option for them to add a CC license to the page? I suppose that would be difficult given that, as you mentioned, some of the content was contributed by others.
Can you comment on whether or not a "fair use" scenario could apply here to make things easier? I don't get the impression that the creator has a lot of time or interest for this project. Junkribbons (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say I believe that the images I want to use were created by the website creator, it's unclear what you mean. The two linked images appear to be photographs of posters. The copyright holder would the person who made the poster, and not the person who took a photograph of the poster. The person who needs to give consent would be the person who created the posters. As for "fair use", Wikipedia goes by its own stricter standard of non-free content. These would need to meet all of the non-free content criteria in order to be used. Without any information about how you intend to use these, it's impossible to provide any guidance on that. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "created" I meant that they took the photographs of the magazine adverts. Does that not count as authorship and the copyright still belongs to whoever created the ads themselves? I'll take a look at the non-free content page you linked, thank you. Junkribbons (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as the photographs are derivative (or even slavish reproductions) of the magazine adverts, we would need permission from the copyright holder of the magazine advert. This in itself has nothing to do with whether the photograph itself is also copyrightable; it is just that in that case there would be an extra (second) layer of photography copyright to worry about... Felix QW (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone recommend the easiest method of changing the licensing & summary of existing image files? Perhaps it's easier to delete and reupload? Junkribbons (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was wondering if I could use a screenshot from a Youtube video for the image of a person for an article about that person and in what manner i would upload it, because I am not sure if it is copyrighted or not. Zzendaya (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zzendaya. There's some information about this at c:COM:YOUTUBE; that page is for Wikipedia's sister site Wikimedia Commons, but the same also applies to Wikipedia. Most YouTube content is uploaded under YouTube's standard license which is, in general, too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes; there is some YouTube content that has been uploaded under a less restrictive licensing and this is usually clearly indicated somewhere in the content's description on the YouTube page. Another problem with YouTube is that those uploading content to it need to be 100% the original creator of such content. YouTube uploaders often upload content either entirely or partially created by other parties, and in such cases this third-party content may be eligible for separate copyright protection on its own. So, even a less restrictive YouTube license would only apply to the 100% originally created content of YouTube uploader. Anyway, it would be easier for someone to give you a more specific answer if you could (1) provide the name of the Wikipedia article where you want to use this image and (2) provide a link to the YouTube page you want to take the image from. In the case of (2), though, you need to be careful of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK, and not post any links which you think might be to copyright violating content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will just hold off then, because it seems like the youtube video is copyrighted. But the person I am trying to find a picture for is Dean Withers, who is a tiktok personality. I can't seem to find any videos with a CC license. Can I use Instagram pictures? Zzendaya (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was posted above about YouTube videos, in principle, applies to any image of Withers you might find online. You should assume it's protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise. You should also assume that the copyright holder is whoever originally created and the image and only that person can release their work under a copyright license that's OK for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to link to the page where the image is used instead of directly to the image. I assume you are referring to this page. Yes, the image is copyrighted absent any further information from the author of the image. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donkey Kong1018: In general, pretty much anything (images or text) you find online that you didn't originally create yourself should be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it's clearly stated to the contrary. Even if there's no author attributed to it or no visible "This image is copyrighted" type of language (i.e. copyright notice) anywhere to be found on the website, you should assume it's protected. Anonymous creative works are still eligible for copyright protection for various lengths of time under the copyright laws of the US and many other countries; moreover, visible copyright notices or other formalities are no longer required by most countries, with something becoming eligible for copyright protection as soon as it's published in some tangible medium. Of course, something you find online could be considered to be within the public domain because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, too old to still be eligible for copyright protection or some other reason, but most photos are deemed to involve sufficient creative input to warrant copyright protection with the copyright holder in nearly all cases being the person who actually takes the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I upload this image to Wikipedia, Commons, or not at all?
I recently purchased the attached photograph (which I have uploaded to the IMSLP website) and would like to use it to replace the current image on the Archibald Joyce page here on Wikipedia; however, I have no way of knowing for certain when it was taken or by whom. Based upon the current image in the article (which was taken between 1908 and 1910) as well as the general style, I estimate it was taken around 1918-1920, but this obviously just conjecture. The image also doesn't appear to have ever been published. Knowing this, I am unsure if I should upload the image here on Wikipedia (where US copyright law applies), on Commons (where, since the image is most certainly of British origin, British copyright law applies), or not at all since no concrete date can be ascertained. What should I do? Physeters✉21:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it would come down to whether we can somehow reliably date the image to 1929 or earlier. It is a bit difficult with an entertainment personality, I suspect, since he could well be wearing clothes that are more elaborate than usual for the period. Felix QW (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Physeters IMO, it comes down to a judgement call. Based on what you've posted, I don't think he's 20 years older in your pic than in the current WP pic. His mustache seems to reach higher in 1909, whatever that indicates. I'd put it on Commons, "c. 1920" or something like that. If someone wants to challenge that, you can talk about it in a deletion discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to agree to the dating – however, I would host it here locally under {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}, as I don't think we have enough information to assert that it is public domain in the United Kingdom yet with no provenance information whatsoever. Felix QW (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is to ascertain whether the photograph is truly anonymous, rather than us just not knowing who the photographer is. I concur though that it is unlikely to be deleted from Commons, just that I personally would not upload it there without a source that calls it anonymous or a little more provenance (such as the identification of a photography studio known not to identify its individual employee photographer). Felix QW (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is not completely without provenance. It was part of a collection of Joyce's papers. Here's a link to the listing on the autograph site I purchased the collection from: https://www.taminoautographs.com/products/archibald-joyce-autographs-lot From my interpretation of the letter that is part of the collection, all of the items were sent as a group to the letter's recipient in January 1950. Joyce mentions mentions the photo in the letter when he says he "enclose[s] a "Photo," also a few callings etc." In my opinion, it's pretty much impossible that the picture was taken anywhere near 1950, and I think the quotation marks around the word photo in the letter also give this fact away. Physeters✉20:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree so far that you can upload it on the English Wikipedia, dated to "ca. some time between 1910 and the early 1920s" or similar. You could also upload it to Commons as an anonymous photograph, citing the sales page where it was from. I wouldn't, because I try to be maximally careful with such "anonymous work" claims if there could well be people out there who do know who the author is, but I certainly wouldn't nominate it for deletion on Commons either. Felix QW (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of your inputs! I have uploaded the image to Wikipedia and would like you both to look my documentation over just so I don't run into any issues in the future. Portrait of Archibald Joyce (1873 – 1963)Physeters✉02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did an excellent job! I removed the {{PD-because}} since I think that the permission field is the better place for this information, and to the best of my knowledge {{PD-because}} should only be used instead of, not in addition to a regular PD tag. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blitzite2: I've restored the WP:REDIRECT of Sean Diaz to Life Is Strange article because article was completely unreferenced with not indication that the subject meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Leaving the article where as it was in the WP:MAINSPACE would almost certainly lead it to being nominated for deletion. If you think you find the reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) need to establish the character's Wikipedia notability, you should continue working on it as a WP:DRAFT and then submitted it to WP:AFC when you think its ready for review. As for File:Sean Diaz.png, this is almost certainly a copyrighted image and the opyright holders are whoever created Life Is Strange. For that reason, it will need to be treated as non-free content and subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free content use is heavily restricted and one of these restrictions is that it can only be used in articles; so, there's no way to use this image in Draft:Sean Diaz. My suggestion to you would be to first work on improving the draft itself and only worry about adding images to it until after it's been approved as an article. I recommend tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:G7, and then requesting that it be WP:REFUNDed once the draft has been approved. After the file has been refunded, you can add the {{Non-free character}} template to the file's page as the copyright license, and the {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} or template to the file's page as the non-free use rationale. Doing those things now won't stop the image from being deleted as long as it's not being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but things should be OK after the draft has been approved as an article. Finally, since you're working on draft for an article about a character from a videogame, you might want to ask for suggestions or help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games because that WikiProject is where Wikipedians interested in articles about videogame are likely going to be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I uploaded an excerpt of the song "Storm" by Godspeed You! Black Emperor to use the in article for Lift Your Skinny Fists like Antennas to Heaven as per a GAN review request. Shortly afterward, the file was tagged by the ImageTaggingBot as lacking a provided source. But it does have a source; it says it is an excerpt of the song "Storm", which is copyrighted to either Godspeed You! Black Emperor or the song's labels. The excerpt I uploaded of "Then It's White" for the Field's Looping State of Mind has a similar description of the excerpt's source and it was never tagged. Can anyone clarify this for me? Lazman321 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lazman321. For future reference, it can save others from the need to do some digging when asking about a particular file if you provide a link to the actual file. I'm assuming you're asking about File:Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Storm.ogg, right? The bot that tagged that file is run by Carnildo; so, any questions about the why the bot did something are probably better asked of Carnildo. Carnildo seems to be pretty good in responding to queries about the bot, but they haven't edited in about a month in a half. Maybe they've got things going on in the real world at the moment, but there's an explanation of the bot and what it does provided at the top of Carnildo's user talk page. FWIW, the files the bot tags as missing source information are still subject to administrator review, and it's unlikely an administrator is going to delete this file per WP:F4. This seems to me like a false positive, with the bot mistakenly assessing that Wikilinks you provided for the song's label are insufficient (i.e. it might be looking for a link to an external website for some reason) because you left both the |source= and |website= parameters for the {{Non-free use rationale audio sample}} template empty; scrolling through Carnildo's user talk page shows that something similar for some other non-free use rationale templates has been discussed before by others. I don't know why the bot didn't do this for the other file, but that file was uploaded almost two years ago; maybe the bot was inactive or wasn't looking at files the same way then. Anyway, I'll add a {{Please see}} template for this discussion to Carnildo's user talk page, but you should be OK in removing the template. If it gets re-added again and Carnildo hasn't yet responded, there could be a problem with the bot that might have nothing to do with this file per se that needs to be discussed at WP:AN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When using a template from the {{Non-free use rationale}} family, the bot expects you to fill out at least one of the "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields, or provide source information as free-form text. The defaults for those fields tend to be quite vague about who the copyright holder is. --Carnildo (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SimpleSubCubicGraph: In the general, most photos are considered to involve sufficient copyright protection to warrant copyright protection, and the person who takes a photo is considered to be its copyright holder. It seems the Daily Mail is attributing the image to Yohap News, which could mean it was taken by an YN employee. So, the copyright holder would be YN, the employee or possibly shared copyright between the two depending on whether the person taking the photo did so as part of a work for hire agreement. You won't be banned per se for uploading a copyright work, but you shouldn't really upload a photo taken by another person without providing a way to verify that person's WP:CONSENT. In some cases, copyrighted photos taken by others can be uploaded as non-free content, but each use of the photo needs to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In this particular case, it might be hard to meet non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #2. There could be a less restrictive photo of the same crash capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose of any non-free one per WP:FREER, and non-free photos attributed to press agencies or commercial image agencies tend not to be allowed unless the photo itself (not the event it depicts but the actual photo itself) per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The site specifically has to say that image reuse can be done under a free license or in the public domain; this is usually something either said in the image caption or as a site disclaimer. There's nothing clearly stated in this direction on any of the sites involved, so no, there's no allowed use for the image Masem (t) 03:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dillbob07: Pretty much any image you find online should be assumed to be under copyright protection unless it clearly states otherwise by its original creator. There's licensing information for images uploaded to Flickr almost always found somewhere on the image's page, usually in the lower right of the page. The Flickr image you linked to above is licensed as "All rights reserved" which is too restrictive of a license for Wikipedia's purposes. The other two images are from stock photo sites used by uploader's to "sell" their photos per se; you're paying for a license to allow you to use the photo only in certain ways as explained here and here. Even if you decided to "buy" the image, however, the licensing agreement you enter into with the image's creator via the site would only apply to you, and it would be way too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. So, uploading any of these images to Wikipedia would be a clear copyright violation and not allowed per Wikipedia policy, and the images would likely end up being deleted (perhaps rather quickly) per one of the speedy deletion criteria for files. Generally, for images such as the ones linked to above, you're going to need to demonstrate that the image has already been released by its copyright holder under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes or obtain the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dillbob07: There are some examples of commonly used copyright licenses shown at WP:FCT, but basically anything indicating the copyright status of an image could, I guess, be considered a "license" so to speak. However, most copyright laws around the world these days don't require copyright formalities for something to be eligible copyright protection; copyright protection kicks in as soon as something considered eligible for copyright protection is published in some sort of tangible medium. So, pretty much anything you find online, in a print publication, or published by its original copyright holder in some other form should be considered to be eligible for copyright protection unless it clearly states it's not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As excited as I am about File:MagrittePipe.jpg to be in the public domain, the Center for the Study of the Public Domain has urged caution as it is unclear whether the work was actually "published" in 1929:
Magritte’s painting is actually a useful illustration of the intense difficulties in determining the copyright status of many works from long ago. It is only public domain in 2025 if it was “published,” as defined by copyright law, in 1929. If its first publication was not until later, for example at the Palais des Beaux-Arts exhibition in 1933, then the copyright lasts for 95 years after that year. (For never-published, never-registered works, the term is life + 70 years.) Publication dates can be more challenging to determine for art than it is for books, songs, or films, which were published when they were officially put on sale or released. Generally the law looks at whether the art was genuinely released to the public. If it was created but remained only in the artist’s studio, this did not count. But the rules are murky and “published” is a term of art in copyright law that was not well-defined. Early court cases suggest that artworks were considered published if they were exhibited without restrictions (sometimes there were measures preventing people from copying works on display), circulated in a magazine, catalogue, or other media with authorization, or offered for sale to the public.
Did any of these things occur in 1929 with The Treachery of Images? We are trying to find out. With the help of art historians and librarians, we have combed through catalogues and magazines from the era and biographies of Magritte. We discovered that another version of the image with the pipe reversed appeared in Variétés magazine—that image is public domain in 2025. But out of an abundance of caution we are still looking into the historical records for information about the famous painting before heralding its official entry into the public domain.
I'm not sure where to ask this, but I was looking for someone with better copyvio experience to look at the Attacks section of 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence. Particularly the 'Division' subsections. I've removed some very obvious copyvio, but a lot of seemingly close paraphrasing still remains. However I'm unsure exactly how problematic it is. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logo of the Indonesian military institution and the copyrigth
Bukansatya: Those logos have been removed from MV Sinar Kudus hijacking because there is no rationale for the use in that article. Each different article use of a non-free image MUST have a rationale specific to that use to justify it, and without it, it will be removed. Sometimes it may not be possible to justify such an additional use. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a military engagement, so it is reasonable to include the logos of the units involved.
By the why Would it be possible to change the copyright status of these logos from non-free content to public domain? Many other military unit logos or emblems are classified as public domain. Bukansatya (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
#/media/File:Kolinlamil.png){kind=link}