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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons 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.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Egypt copyright law (1954)Edit

Hi there. I see User:Ashashyou has placed this image Mahmoud Khalil Al-Housary under public domain by the virtue of Egypt's 1954 law that was applicable on works published prior to 2002.

So, would the Qur'an (audio) recitations of the famous Egyptian reciters (El Minshawi, Al Hussary, Abdul Basit Abdus Samad, Mustafa Ismail) fall under public domain too, especially since most of them published their works well before 2002 regardless of whether anyone claims legal rights to the recitals (record companies or firms that acquired rights to the recordings post their deaths or secured rights in other countries)?


Originally asked here: User_talk:Ashashyou#Egypt_copyright_laws and here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1068#Egypt_copyright_law_(1954).

Question about Criteria One of WP:NFCCPEdit

Hello all. I have been told that I might find it useful to ask my question about a copyright issue on this board. I'm being told File:Map of the Russell Islands.jpg may violate WP:NFCCP criteria one. My intent is to provide the readers with a window onto the late 20th century (1968-1995) professional perception of (1) the spelling of the local geographical names of over twenty geographical features (that could of course be duplicated in a free image), (2) the contours of the undersea features in the positions they were at as understood at that time (I guess that could be duplicated too), and (3) the contours of the coastlines and land elevations as they were understood at that time (that could be duplicated too, right?). BUT my thought is that if you duplicate the core content of the map and then change the colors or scale, isn't that just a form of copyright infringement? When I asked this question, I was referred to this board. Thanks for any guidance. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Would it be used to significantly increase readers' understanding of sourced commentary on how cartographic understanding in the late 20th century differs that of today? If not how would it significantly increase readers' understanding of the article more than a current map? —teb728 t c 18:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, teb728's question is not a response to my question about criteria one, but is a new question about criteria eight of WP:NFCCP. To maintain the clarity of this thread, I would like to confine discussion in this thread to criteria one, otherwise we will get into the weeds with discussion of all the different criteria. The only basis on which the image is being challenged at this time is on the basis of not meeting criteria one (there is a secondary challenge by a bot on the basis of criteria seven that is easily resolved) . If there is a challenge to that image under anything other than criteria one, then I will start responding on those questions once that challenge is asserted on that page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course this violates criterion 1. A free version could be created to replace that map. The purpose of using the map is not about understanding of undersea contures over time. That might be relevant in a history of mapping Russell Islands, but not on a general article about Russell Islands. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett's response does not directly address Criteria One that reads "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The first two sentences of this response assert that the image fails under criteria one, but then the third and fourth sentence seem to address issues related to criteria eight. (8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") In this thread, I want to talk about exactly whether or not criteria one is met because that's the actual basis of the copyright challenge that exists on that page, not criteria eight. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Geographyinitiative: Clearly the original image from which File:Map of the Russell Islands.jpg was cropped is still under Australian copyright, so this is non-free. Ignoring the "Contextual significance" criteria #8, we know that a new map using the basic data could be created that us not a direct copy of that map, and for that reason the current map fails Criteria #1. Did you ever ask the c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop if someone would take up the request to create a new map for you? ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: That is my exact question: if you use the "basic data" on this map, but dress it up with new colors, wouldn't we still be in the same situation? That's why I'm saying "no free equivalent can be created" (given the three-point encyclopedic purpose mentioned above), hence criteria one is satisfied (as I was understanding it). Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)
Perhaps you need to stop playing with the words. So long as the new map is based on common knowledge and not on copyright data, then that map is a freely created equivalent. Find the raw data this map is based on and start over. Obviously dressing up the existing image is then merely a derivative work and will not pass muster. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
"Find the raw data this map is based on and start over." means to go through the whole map compilation process again in the mindset of a late 20th century cartographer with the sources they did/would have used if I want to reach the encyclopedic purpose mentioned. I assume I would create this map. Hence, no free equivalent of this map can be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, right? (PS: I'll give you an example of a difference between Google Maps and this map that I'm seeing: it looks like a channel has been dug in the close-to-surface sands to create a passable seaway north of Pavuvu Island. This map doesn't have it, but you can see it clearly in Google Maps. That's just one detail I can see as a non-cartographer. Development in the Solomon Islands and global warming will likely lead to further changes to the geography as this century goes on.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Channel north of Pavuvu
Here is my photo of that channel. It would be passable only in very small vessels. It was there in 2003, and given that the island to the north has a name, it would have been there before. It is just on the scale of the whole map, the channel is not drawn. (And the channel was there in 1968.[1]) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Please note that all ten NCC criteria have to be met. While you are trying to argue that there may not be a free replacement for the historical version of this map, that there is no real discussion on the page about why this historical map is needed means this will also fail WP:NFCC#8. So its not really appropriate to just focus on NCC#1 on whether a free replacement is possible or not given that we need to judge all 10 points. --Masem (t) 15:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I am just trying to keep this particular thread confined to criteria number one. You can raise a challenge based on criteria eight if you want- on that page. I'm just saying this particular thread should be confined to discussion of criteria one, because that's the actual existing challenge on that page at this time, and that's the criteria I have a question about. (PS Yes, all ten criteria must be met. But no one on that page is challenging criteria eight at this time, and I will work on each criteria that is brought up as a basis for removal as they actually arise. I followed the upload wizard procedure to the letter and I believe that the image passes all ten criteria. If you throw all the criteria together at once and say "nope" and try to run me out of town, then yes, the image will be removed. But if we look at each criteria separately when they arise, then I think that I have a good case on all ten.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But we don't look at each image as they arise, the evaluation is made for all ten at the same time.
And even if we restrict this to NFCC#1, we have to consider what you are asking for to consider why a new map created today is not a free replacement. And clearly because this is an historical map, the question is, what about the history of the geography is important that a modern map cannot show that is discussed at the article? So we have to consider reasoning along the lines of NFCC#8 here for that purpose. We can't just take your word at "It's an historical map that can't be recreated today", we need to see the reasons for it and that's likely going to be from sourced info in the article. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I did make the evaluation for all ten at the same time. If you want to challenge the image on the basis of criteria eight, that's fine- do that on that page. In this particular thread, I'm just trying to directly address criteria one. Here is the wording of these two rules: 1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." and 8: " Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see where you have to consider Criteria 8 before Criteria 1 or as part of Criteria 1. That's all I'm saying. If there is a Criteria 8 challenge on that page, I will address it there. Here, I'm just trying to ask about Criteria 1. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
You are saying, above my comment, that there are features of the geography today that vary significantly from this map. Okay, that makes sense, but manmade developments change maps all the time. A modern day map of the islands still seem to represent the islands just as well as the historic map outside those small changes - eg a free equivalent seems possible. Unless you are discussing these changes in a significant manner on the article, then the logic that "there is no free no equivalent for this historical version" breaks down because the reasoning to show the historic version isn't supported at all in the article. It's why this is tied to NFCC#8, in that we're trying to establish the reason you want to include this specific version of the map over a free version, and that requires that you have some type of discussion in the article, from sourced material and not OR, that explains the changes or historical layout of the islands compared to today, or the like. It's why at least these two criteria are connected, because we have to judge the argument that "no free content exists" in the context of what it is being used for --Masem (t) 16:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot for writing this. All I have to prove in criteria one is that there's no possible free image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. I have established an encyclopedic purpose and it seems that there is no free image that could be created that would provide the same encyclopedic purpose. That's all I want to talk about in this thread, because Criteria 8 is just not part of Criteria 1- not at all. A criteria 8 challenge has not been raised on that page at this time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Whenever there's a disagreement over non-free content use, it is the "burden" of the person wanting to use said content in a particular way to establish a WP:CONSENSUS that the use complies with all ten non-free content use criteria. Even if the use is deemed not to comply with only WP:JUSTONE of these criterion, then the use is considered to not comply with policy. So, unless you can establish a consensus that WP:FREER is met, it makes no difference whether anyone has challenged the file for WP:NFCC#8 reasons; similarly, unless you can establish a consensus that WP:NFC#CS is met, it makes no difference as to whether a free equivalent of the map cannot be created or found. That's why even though the file might not have been initially challenged for NFCC#8 reasons, it still something that needs to be resolved. I think that's the point that Masem is trying to make above. It matters not if you truly think the file's non-free use satisfies all ten criteria if you're unable to convince others that it does. Now, if you want to try and do that, then perhaps a better place to do so would be at WP:FFD. Either way, the file currently fails WP:NFCC#7 which means it's "orphaned non-free use" and will eventually be deleted per WP:F5 if that doesn't change. Trying to hide the file in the article won't change that. WP:F5 deletions are, however, generally considered to be non-contentious; so, if you're able to establish a consensus for the file's non-free use, it can be restored by an administrator per WP:REFUND. For WP:F7 types of disagreements, the reviewing administrator might feel that more discussion is needed at FFD to resolve matters; so, you can wait another day or so to see what the reviewing administrator decides to do, or you can start an FFD discussion yourself now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The file was deleted a couple of minutes ago by user:Explicit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: To beat a literally dead horse, the Russell Is. North map cited above by Graeme Bartlett is part of a 1968 (i.e. PD-UKGov) series, which could be merged to create a PD equivalent. —teb728 t c 03:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


The uploader claims this qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} but I think it has too much creative content to qualify.

If it DOES qualify, it should be moved to the Commons. If it does NOT qualify, it should be reduced in scope and the appropriate non-free fair use rationale added for its use in Grease (franchise).

So, is this in the public domain, or not? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

davidwr: Usually text logos are composed of regular text and simple shapes while in this logo some design has gone into creating the flowing connected text of the single word "Grease" superimposed on the car shape. Personally this is too complex to go to the commons but each use must have its own non-free rationale justifying that specific use. ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave this open a few more days or until I see WP:SNOW then change the license and request a size reduction. Note that I am not the file uploader, I have no particular "stake" in the outcome one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I have replaced the licensing and description and added {{Non-free reduce}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair use guidanceEdit

Hello, we are currently working Anjum Singh at WP:ITNRD and wanted this group's guidance regarding fair usage guidance for File:Anjum Singh.jpg. When I uploaded the file with a fair use rationale, I followed the steps that had been undertaken earlier at Ben Cross and Marguerite Littman, starting off with a search, albeit by myself alone, to look for free alternates. Is there some additional guidance that group will be able to help us with? E.g. time to wait after the subject of an article is deceased etc. For now, pending this guidance, we have removed the page from the article. Appreciate any guidance. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the time before you can add non-free to a recently deceased person who otherwise was not known to be recluse or impossible to photograph is about 3 to 6 months; obviously you can try searching but the idea is that that time allows you to approach those that may have known the person (family or friends) after a sufficient period from their death to get a freely licensed photograph as an option. Others may come forward in the period after death with their own photos which could be chased down to mark as free. --Masem (t) 19:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Masem, this is good guidance. Will leave the article as-is for now sans the image. Ktin (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

About the photo of meetkatEdit

I create this meetkats picture and placed to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Probophilic (talkcontribs) 13:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Probophilic, in order to have a picture on Wikipedia, you have to license it under a free license by adding the tag for that license to the file description page. You could choose one of the licenses at WP:ICTIC. Do this each of your pictures. —teb728 t c 21:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You should also add a completed {{information}} template to each file page. ww2censor (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Question on multi-licensing photosEdit

I have taken some photos and would like to upload them to Wikipedia for use in some articles. However, I would like them to be released under some restrictive licenses.

If, per WP:IUP, non-commercial licenses are not accepted as free licenses (and thus CC BY-SA is the most restrictive CC license allowed on Wikipedia), can I dual-license the photos as CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC? (c:Commons:Licensing allows such practice, but I would like to be sure here as the photos would not be suitable for Commons.) Ntx61 (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's licensed by CC-BY-SA, you remain free to release it under any additional licences you like, whether more restrictive, less, or the same. You still own the copyright under CC-BY-SA, so you can do what you like. The CC-BY-SA is just telling other people what they can do. WilyD 10:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You seem to want to apply c:Commons:Multi-licensing to a file uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but it's not clear why and what benefit you think you'd obtain from doing so. Wikipedia seems, in principle, to follow Commons for the most part when it comes to file licensing with the exception of non-free content (which Commons doesn't accept at all per c:COM:FAIR). So, if the file is OK to be uploaded to Commons, then it will probably end up there some day per WP:MTC. Wikipedia is not really an file hosting site à la Commons and most of the files uploaded here tend to be those that Commons won't accept for some reason but which have encyclopedic value (i.e. are used in some article) to Wikipedia. Perhaps the NC part of the licensing you're describing might mean such a file would be treated locally on Wikipedia as non-free content, but this type of licensing is quite restrictive per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and there are ten specific criteria that need to be met for each use of the file. There seems to be a convention of letting editors upload Commons acceptable files locally to Wikipedia under a request of {{Keep local}} because they don't want their images to eventually end up on Commons for some reason, but I'm not sure how often that's done these days or whether it would apply here. Even if that was possible, I think people would still be able to download the file (much in the same way as the would be able to do if you uploaded it to Commons) and reuse it as long as they complied with the terms of the licenses; so, it's not sure what's gained by not uploading the file to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Uploading locally has nothing to do with the NC license. Because the photos in question are buildings in the Philippines (which has no freedom of panorama per c:COM:FOP Philippines), I have to upload them locally and tag them with {{FoP-USonly}}. Ntx61 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
If you give multiple licences a reuser will be legally able to use whichever suits them, generally the least restrictive. It is the reusers who select which of your offered licences they wish to use. Hence the NC licence will not have any legal effect. Whether it would have an ethical effect on Wikipedia or Commons I'm less sure. Anyway, if anyone used one of your photos for commercial purposes they would not be in breach of CC BY-SA even if you also issued CC BY-NC. A few years ago some commercial photographers uploaded lowish resolution photos under CC BY-SA in the hope that they would maintain commercial control over their full resolution photos which they did not upload. This provided publicity for the photographer by the required attribution. I don't know the upshot of that but you could ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or search the archives there. Thincat (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@WilyD and Thincat: Thanks. I would just like to reduce hassle for those who can't comply with the CC BY-SA license but still want to legally use my uploads for noncommercial purposes. (Unless I changed my mind,) full-resolution images will be licensed under CC BY-SA. Also, I could even drop the NC license altogether if I changed my mind. Ntx61 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC) —updated Ntx61 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not positive how it'd play out in practice, but by the licence terms, you can't drop them. Once it's licensed CC-WHATEVER, it's so licensed irrevocably. Otherwise, the licenses wouldn't be workable. WilyD 14:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@WilyD: I meant not licensing under CC BY-NC at all on release (and thus CC BY-SA only) if I changed my mind. Ntx61 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, you can release by CC-BY-SA now, and later release it by any other licence (including CC BY-NC, but also one where you give very limited rights, including ones where you're paid) as well. But everyone will always be able to use the CC-BY-SA licence regardless. WilyD 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Question on orphaned non-free imageEdit

Hello. I am drafting an article (Draft:DispteSoft) and recently uploaded a logo for the infobox (File:DisputeSoft Logo for Wikipedia SMALL.jpg), but @B-bot keeps deleting the image as orphaned, claiming that it is not used in any articles. But I am using it on Draft:DisputeSoft. This is a draft form of the article, as I am adjusting content before posting. Why does the bot keep removing the image? AvdITSoftware (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft space is not considered an allowed space for non-free images (see WP:NFCC#9). Once the article is moved into mainspace you will be able to use it but not before. If you need an image placeholder to check layout you can use a random free placeholder and replace once moved. But be aware that the orphaned image will be up for deletion until the draft is accepted into mainspace. --Masem (t) 17:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC photo of Alasdair Milne - deceased person but no identification of photographerEdit

I would like to use the following photo - under his obit would it be fair use?

Many thanks,

Greenpark79 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Similar to what you asked below, Alasdair Milne is dead so a non-free photo of him is, in principle, allowed per item 10 WP:NFCI. However, unlike the case below, there appear to be lots of photos of Milne available online which were taken at various times, which makes WP:FREER a bit more of a concern. Wikipedia could most likely use the photo you want to use per fair use, but fair use and non-free content are not really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is what needs to be satisfied and this policy can be quite restrictive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No photos are available of Tom Burns (sociologist) except via the British AcademyEdit

The only photo that appears of him is linked here -

Is it worth contacting Charlotte MacDonald via the University of Edinburgh for a photo?

Greenpark79 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Since Tom Burns (sociologist) died in 2001, a non-free photo of him used for primary identification purposes at the top of the stand-alone article about him would seem to be OK per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as there are no WP:FREER concerns. It would be great if the university has a better photo of him that they would give their WP:PERMISSION to upload; so, perhaps contacting them is worth a shot. It seems a little unlikely that the link you've provided for this photo is the original copyright holder of the photo, but most likely that the author who wrote the piece got it from somewhere else since it can also be seen here. Perhaps if the original provenance of that photo can be narrowed down a bit, it might turn out to be something that actually is no longer protected by copyright for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A book cover source and resolutionEdit

Hi, I'm interested in uploading book cover images, however it's not clear whether I can use book covers from external sites like Amazon or any other online bookstore as a source. (for example en:File:A Masculine Ending.jpg states Amazon as a source). Or maybe I must scan the cover myself?

2nd question - usually I see fair-use images are cropped to resolution 200x... or 250x... . Is it set as a standard somewhere? Can I upload 300, 400 or 500 px version?

Thanks. Please, ping me on reply. --Kanzat (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You can use any storefront as long as its reputable. We prefer Amazon because they either start with the cover art direct from the publisher or if they have to scan it they have high quality scan systems.
As most book cover art is non-free (copyrighted), it must meet the non-free requirements. And that for size, that means it shouldn't have more than 100,000 pixels total. For the typical aspect ratio of a book, this will usually mean that a 250 pixel wide image will be the largest size we can accept. But that will depend on each book. --Masem (t) 14:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PDO-Logo.svgEdit

I uploaded File:PDO-Logo.svg three years ago and used boilerplate text for the "Non-free media information and use rationale" template. Today, I got a message on my talk page challenging that rationale. I really do think the image is used in the spirit of the WP:FUR guidelines. However, I'm not sure how to change/clarify the text in the template to convey that.

Any guidance y'all can offer would be much appreciated. Notification of replies on my talk page would also be appreciated.

-Dπ (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dave314159. Generally, non-free logos can be uploaded and used per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about whatever the logo is intended to represent; so, an organization's logo might be OK to use in the infobox of an article solely about the organization for primary identification purposes and because there is (or there could be) some encyclopedic critical commentary about the organization's choice of branding (e.g. its logo) included somewhere later on in the article. Trying to use such logos in other ways or in other articles tends to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#CS, WP:FREER and WP:DECORATIVE because the logo itself is often not really the subject of any critical commentary and omitting it is often not really detrimental to the reader's understanding of the relevant section.
When I look at the section where those three files are being used, I don't really see any information being lost to the reader by not seeing each logo. There's really nothing specific about each logo (i.e. its design, origin) which require the reader see the logo for that reason and there's really nothing indirectly about the logo which discusses how its use makes things easier for consumers to know what they're buying, etc. The logos also seem quite similar to each other, except for some minor differences in color and text (which are generally not elements considered copyrightable), which also means there might be an issue per WP:NFC#Number of items. So, if you can find a way to add specific information about each logo to those sections, then perhaps that would clarify the reason why you feel using them meets all ten non-free content criteria. You can of course challenge the tagging of the file's for speedy deletion by posting on their respective talk pages and perhaps ask for clarification from JJMC89, the editor who tagged the files.
Finally, another possibility might be that these logos are considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection (at least here in the US) or are considered to be public domain for some other reason. If that's established through consensus, then the files wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Perhaps some others who often watch this page will have an opinion on that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)