![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 |
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 03:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:MCQ § Are philippine bldg and sculpture 0hotos acceptable on wikipedia?. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Should the File namespace be added to the exemptions section? — andrybak ( talk) 11:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
[[File:...]]
syntax. There are two ways that (a) will happen: (i) as the large image displayed at the top; (ii) as one or more smaller images in the "File history" table lower down. There are also at least two ways that (b) might happen, the most common are: (iii) an informational or decorative icon, such as the logo in a license; (iv) as an example of a similar or derivative work. Non-free images may not be displayed as examples of similar or derivative works, but they may be linked. It is not the (a) cases but the (b) cases that are forbidden by
WP:NFCCP#9. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 08:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The image in the infobox at Cuties (which is the current film poster) has been nominated for deletion simply because one editor prefers to use a different one even though both images are permitted under fair use. This was done with no discussion on the article's talk page. Please see WP:Files for discussion/2020 October 9. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:orfud}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor can be bold and remove a file from an article much in the same way they can be bold in removing text; if someone else comes along and undos their bold edit, then they're expected to try and sort things out through discussion. In the case of a file, this might mean discussing on the article's talk page, but it could also mean discussing at FFD and you don't have to do either in any specific order. As for notification, again FFD only requires that the file's uploader be notified. In many cases, the uploader has (as you point) done nothing more than upload the file and in some cases that might've been years ago with the uploader is no longer even active. So, I get it seems pointless in some cases to even notify the uploader. In addition, there are many cases, particularly when it comes to none free files, where the editors adding files to articles are not the original uploaders of the files; these editors saw the file being used in some article and thought it was OK to use in other articles. FFD doesn't require those nominating a file for discussion to dig through page histories and try to sort out those who might be interested in the way the file is being used. That is what I mean by only notifying the uploader not being "bad faith". Now, I understand your concerns and if you search the archives at WT:FFD, you'll find they are things which have been brought up before by others (though no consensus seems to have been reached either way). Perhaps it would be a good idea if some bot could be set up (like Community Tech bot) that would automatically add notifications to article talk page when a local Wikipedia file ends up at FFD, or perhaps the instructions for FFD should be changed to require that notifications be added to article talk pages. Right now, {{ Ffd notice}} is used for user talk pages, but perhaps that template can be used to create a new one for article talk pages. Those are good things that might be worth discussing at WT:FFD.
Now, as I posted above, it's generally not a good idea to try and get a file deleted per WP:F5 simply for the sake of getting it deleted; F5 is for non-controversial things like a non-free file has been replaced and is legitimately orphaned or there are orphaned non-free revisions. Even then the F5 issue can be resolved by simply re-adding the file to some article. Even if by chance the file is deleted, it almost always will be restored by an admin per WP:REFUND when asked. There are other ways to discuss concerns about a file that don't involve removing it from articles when there's not a clear policy based reason for doing so (i.e. just because you don't like a file). Disruption in my opinion, though, would be trying to continuously remove the same file over and over again each time its re-added in the hope that it eventually ends up deleted per F5. Doing it once is being bold, doing it again is not a wise thing to do (but probably not quite DE yet). Since Emir from Wikipedia went to FFD after the file was re-added a second time, I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and assume good faith. If they would've kept removing the file, I would tend to see it more as disruption, edit warring or both.
Finally, as for Both images were equally acceptable for fair use
, I think it's important to remember that
fair use and
non-free content aren't the same thing in a Wikipedia sense as explained in
WP:NFC#Background and
WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Pretty much any copyrighted content you could find anywhere else (i.e. online) would most likely be OK to upload and use on Wikipedia as "fair use" for "educational purposes", but it's meeting
WP:NFCC which matters when it comes to such files and the reasons while non-free files are removed or deleted is because they don't satisfy Wikipedia policy not because they aren't fair use. The mixing up of the two concepts is something that Wikipedia even does itself, and it is something that has been previously discussed on this talk page; it's just something that hasn't been quite sorted out yet. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded a fair use image at File:Lillian Brown.jpg. The resolution is too high, but I assumed the bot would fix this. Would someone be able to assist with the shrinkage? If there is a better forum to raise such an issue, let me know. Thanks. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please give me a guide as how to propose images that may contravene WP:NFCC#3a for deletion? An editor uploaded the images for the cover art of the "deluxe versions" of all albums by a certain group, and I'm certain that at least two of them are not different enough from the standard album covers to pass WP:NFCC#3a. I tried to revert the additions, but the editor reverted me with the simple edit summary "they pass". I left a polite message on their talk page asking them to explain how they think the images pass non-free criteria, but they have ignored my message. So I am unsure how to proceed from here. Any advice would be appreciated – I've been on Wikipedia ten years but I'm not familiar with this area, and I don't want to tread on anyone's toes or not follow the correct procedure. Thanks. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I wondering what others think about this file's non-free use in the image gallery in B. Hick and Sons#Soho Iron Works. The file was originally uploaded to Commons, which lead to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg, but it has now been re-uploaded locally as non-free. I don't really see how this would be considered an exception to WP:NFG and the non-free use rationale is really just a boilerplate one that doesn't really reflect how the file is actually being used. However, I'm wondering if those things could be resolved by moving the image to the main infobox. Apparently the company/works doesn't exist anymore so this could be considered {{ Non-free destroyed architecture}}, but I think that only really works if the image is used in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
We generally allow non-free design drawings for buildings to be used for primary identification purposes when they up unitl a certain point (e.g. the topping out of a building) when it's deemed reasonable that a free equivalent can be either created or found to serve the same purpose. There's a specific license ({{ Non-free proposed architecture}}) that is used for this. Is bascially the same thing followed for images of vehicles, e.g. cars, planes, ships?
For example, a new model of a car is going to be released and it has received lots of significant coverage in reliable sources; so, someone creates either a stand-alone article about the specific model itself (e.g. Ford Mustang (sixth generation)) or adds content about it to the more general article about the make of car (e.g Ford Mustang) and then uploads a non-free image to use in the article. What point would we consider to be the "topping out" point for the car? Would it be when the car officially starts appearing in dealerships and can be bought by the general public? Typical cars are for the most part considered fairly utilitarian objects and not eligible for copyright protection, right? So, someone should be able to snap a photo of one and upload it to Commons. What about when the car first appears (i.e. is unveiled to the public); for example, at some autoshow? There might be some non-copyright restrictions in place, but those aren't really of a concern to Commons. Would we consider that to be the point where a free equivalent beconmes reasonable to expect and thus a non-free is no longer acceptable?
The reason I started thinking about this kind of thing is because of File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg, which is a press release photo being used for identification purposes in Airbus A320neo family#A321XLR. I had the file on my watchlist (most likely because it had been previously tagged for speedy deletion which was declined), and it showed up when recently edited. Anyway, it's the only non-free image being used in the article; the other images are from Commons and are of planes actually in service or other prototypes. The section about the A321XLR states that the deliveries of the plane are scheduled to being in 2023, but that it was officially launched at the Paris Air Show in June 2019. The file was uploaded in February 2020 almost eight months after the Paris Air Show. Using the car example given above, the plane has already been unveiled (i.e. made public), but it won't hit the showrooms for a few more years. At what point would a replaceable free equivalent image for a non-free PR photo of the plane be reasonable to expect? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.
Does "historical images", above, refer to the age of the photograph? Or is it meant to denote photos with "iconic status or historical importance"?
What is the exemption, if any, for non-notable-themselves historic photographs (of a notable subject or event) of unverifiable origin? Especially new digital scans of what can be assumed to be the only physical print of that image. Are these types of images used on Wikipedia?
For example, a scan of an unmarked amateur 1940s "found photograph" purchased at a flea market that depicts a now-demolished building.
PKAMB ( talk) 07:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I found portraits of the United States Team handball team for the 1972 Olympic Games and 1976 Olympic Games.
In the internet I didn't found better and free portraits. Could I upload this portraits accoring to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2?
For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
If yes is this (This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use.) the correct reason which I've to choose at the Upload Wizard? Malo95 ( talk) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19 § File:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.jpeg.
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I want to illustrate some graphical layout solutions through screenprints, I made, from the CNN and NYT websites. Their actual contant is not essential (and to be used off-mainspace only, FWIW). Can I upload such screenprints at all, and if so with which precautions? - DePiep ( talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Their actual contant is not essential (and to be used off-mainspace only, FWIW).No, especially not with these caveats. -- Izno ( talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello NFCC people etc. Just wanted to start a quick chat around what the community believes is realistic when it comes to posting fair use images of recently deceased people. I've always been a believer in allowing some time (e.g. a few months) to find images on other websites or through family etc, which people are prepared to re-license as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or whatever. I've done it myself a couple of times with success. What I do find, at WP:ITNC for instance, is that people are uploading images of people who are one or two days dead (or even five or six weeks dead) who have clearly been in the public eye and for whom quick Google image searches reveal they are not in any sense reclusive. Can we find a way to determine what backs up NFCC criterion 1 in an objective way? E.g. could we create a checklist of things people should do before declaring "no, no way we can ever get a free-to-use image"? The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I was thinking of starting an article regarding Lex Luthor and the primary image I had planned to use was already uploaded and is used on his main article. This is fine to use, right?-- Amelia-the-comic-geek ( talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This is related to something currently being discussed at User talk:JJMC89#Removal of gallery at FFD. Does it seem reasonable to add FFD discussions to WP:NFEXMP since FFD is in a sense sort of a maintenance page and in cases like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 20#A few more Google logos actually seeing logos might help resolve questions regarding their licensing. Perhaps such an exemption could be limited to ongoing FFD discussions. Bascially, the current situation on that FFD page has devolved into edit warring between a bot that is removing the files per NFCC#9 as it's been set up to do and the editor who started the discussion, which is probably not going to end well for any of those involved if it continues. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so this has come up twice in my time on Wikipedia. I would like to discuss this here to ensure we have long lasting consensus on this topic.
On YouTube and similar social media platforms, there is a concept called a "face reveal". Normally, content creators who have not shown their face previously in any of their videos will eventually do a special video where they reveal what they actually look like to their audience. In general, the expectation for when and if a face reveal happens at the exclusive decision of the creator, and fans normally try to respect their direction on the matter.
However, sometimes a creator expresses their desire to never do a face reveal to maintain their privacy. In some cases, pictures exist of the creator (like with CGP Grey), but normally this is not the case (like with Dream).
On Wikipedia, articles should be suitably illustrated. We are charged with creating content that meaningfully conveys information to our readers. However, we must always try to respect the copyright of individuals. The only time we use non-free images are when they qualify under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
So far, we have local consensus in the different two case studies. Let me outline what was basically decided:
Should we update our guidelines to reflect these cases and maybe apply them more broadly outside these two exceptional circumstances? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have two examples of quotations in articles I'd like to ask about. Are these OK from a copyright perspective?
X is "definition from Oxford dictionary". [1]Example diffs: [4] [5] [6] I am using quotes instead of paraphrase because I do not want to try to paraphrase these carefully crafted definitions, as it could change the meaning.
Are these OK from a copyright perspective? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about some UK TV logos over at c:COM:VPC#UK TV station logos and am posting a link here for reference. There are couple such logos uploaded to Commons as "PD-textlogo" that are identical or similar to local versions of files Wikipedia is treating as non-free or "PD-ineligible-USonly"; so, if the Commons files are OK, the local-only versions are probably no longer necessary and can be either relicensed or removed. Anyone whose interested should feel free to post over at Commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't find the answer to this question. If Wikipedia is American, why isn't fair use the standard for Wikipedia in every language? It seems that for instance the French Wikipedia applies the laws of France in which fair use doesn't exist, but what about the French-speaking Quebeckers who live under the laws of Canada which uses a variant of fair use? That seems unfair to them. Laws are tied to a country, not a language, so I fail to see the logic in this... Can anyone answer to this? Klow ( talk) 10:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
According to
Dylsss (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA), There is no requirement in
WP:NFCC/
WP:NFC that a copyright holder be identified
. What, then, is the provenance of the 14.65-year-old {{
no copyright holder}}, which when I've used before, other administrators have acted upon? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= | 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The file upload wizard can display non-free images if you choose the file name of an existing non-free file. This page is not a special page nor a category page for reviewing questionable non-free files. If this project page is exempt from WP:NFCC, it should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Otherwise it should be changed to link them instead. Dylsss( talk contribs) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:MCQ § Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The kind of question asked at WP:MCQ#Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17 is going to keep being asked because this issue will always pop up whenever such a file is removed for UUI#17 reasons. This talk page's archives contains numerous attempts to clarify UUI#17, but they always peter out before doing so. Telling people to look at WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:JUSTONE, or trying to explain "parent" vs. "child" is not going to be effective as long as there are differences in opinion as to how (or even whether) UU1#17 applies to this type of non-free use, especially when there are inconsistencies not only among football/soccer articles, but national sports team articles in general. Perhaps if there was something like WP:FILMSCORE or WP:FILMNFI to clarify this use a WikiProject level, it would probably be easier to explain this type of thing. I understand WP:CONLEVEL and not suggesting that WikiProjects be able to ignore or circumvent the NFCC; however, nothing is going to be resolved as long as UUI#17 remains broadly construed on the guideline page without any follow-up interpretations or clarifications provided regarding this type of non-free use at the WikiProject level, as an explanatory note to NFCI (or UUI) or by an actual RFC which can be specifically cited whenever such a file has been removed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I starting this discussion about UUI#14 partly based upon Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg (see also User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 26#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg and User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 55#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg for reference) but also because I think it needs some clarification. The question is whether a "season" article should be treated as a "perennial event" and whether "sport team" should be considered a "sponsoring company". Right now (partly because of the aforementioned close), a new rationale is being added in good faith to File:RIT Hockey.svg each time a new season article is created, and the same thing is being done with respect to other non-free logos as well like File:This is a logo for American International Yellow Jackets men's ice hockey.png and File:Niagara Purple Eagles.svg and probably more cases as well. Before trying to start FFDs for all of these individual files (which is likely going to make some editors and some WikiProjects angry), it might be a good idea to figure whether this type of non-free use is covered by UUI#14 and UUI#17 or whether it should be covered by either if it's not. This can be done informally at first among those normally working with non-free content who who might be familiar with the background regarding this type of file use, but probably should be expanded to a formal RFC if some actual changes to the UUI are needed to clarify things. Even though I mentioned some example files above, I think discussing things in general first would be a good idea since things might get murky and bog down if we focus too much on individual files too quickly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
types of boundsbeing used for non-free content use assessment. If clarification is needed, maybe it could be done as an WP:SRF#Explanatory notes similar to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4. It's not only the above-mentioned files and the articles they're being used in, but also the non-free use in season articles (not just sports related articles) in general which might benefit from little more clarification on this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
OK Masem, LtPowers and Hammersoft. Any suggestions then on how to deal with this because it's probably going to keep happening, most likely going all the way to that "no consesnus" close. I'll let PensRule11385 know about this discussion, but it still might be better to add an explanatory note for UUI#14. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if official character posters are acceptable to be added to Wikipedia, such as this image of Din Djarin or this image of Thor. Painting17 ( talk) 21:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a question: why are File:Islamic Republican Party.jpg (dissolved in 1987) and File:National Democratic Party logo.jpg (banned in 2011) not free? Braganza ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've sort of asked about this before in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Non-free images of crime victims as well as some other times, but I'm still wondring about non-free images of deceased individuals who are pretty much only mentioned on Wikipedia for WP:BIO1E reasons. The most examples I come across are mainly articles about crimes (usually pretty bad ones) where victims are mentioned by name or is some small detail, but nothing which would be sufficient enough to support a stand-alone article. The latest one I've stumbled upon is Redhead murders which has a montage of non-free images being used in the main infobox and a few others used in the body of the article. It's always a bit awkward (at least for me) to try and figure out what the best thing to do here because these tend to basically be images of people who were murdered and that were added because someone feels they should be remembered in some way (so that it's not a faceless crime). It would be great to discuss things dispassionately in terms of policy, but emotional arguments are probably impossible to avoid. The "Redhead murders" article is a bit odd in that there's a non-free photo of a hat of one of alleged victims being used in the main infobox, but the use of that particular file and rationale provided for it seem to have zero contextual relevance to the actual content of the article. That's a easy one to sort out perhaps, but the other images of the murdered women are also a bit iffy. They are mentjioned by name outside of the main infobox, but once again it's not clear whether these women would meet WP:BIO where a non-free image of them might be justified. There are lots of articles like this and maybe it's best in some ways to just leave them be, but at the same time it's also probably best (in some ways) to try and enforce the NFCC consistently project-wide and not create too many unwiritten exemptions (or at least not more than already kind of exist). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCC#4 ( WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion), non-free content needs to have been previously published and displayed outside of Wikipedia by or with permission from the copyright holder. Often this (as well as WP:NFCC#10a) can be met by simply providing a link to where the image can be found online, which is usually an official website of some type. Sometimes though the link (i.e. the source) provided is a direct link to the actual image file or a link to a website like Fandom. Is NFCC#4 being met in such cases? For example, the sources provided for File:KDUZ.png, File:KARP.png and File:KGLB.png are actually to the same page, which appears to be some kind of direct link or something other than the official website for each radio station. The official website for each station is the same and does show the that logs are the ones being used by the stations; so, perhaps the only thing that needs to be done is to tweak the source link it the files' non-free use rationales. Still in some cases (like a former logo) it might be hard to find an official website version (even a Wayback Machine archived version) of a logo for NFCC#4 and NFCC#10a purposes. Would only a direct link be OK in such cases? What if no link is provided like in the case of like in the case of File:KPTH44.PNG, which probably should be PD-logo anyway? Should it be assumed that NFCC#4 is met as long as NFCC#10a can be assessed from the information provided in the rationale?
A related question about this has to do with Fandom sites sites like Logopedia and Wikia. For example, File:KPTH-DT3.png seems to be {{ PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States and c:Category:Category:CBS logos; so, it probably can be converted from non-free. The source provided, however, is to some Wikia/Logopedia page (though for some reason the link doesn't seem to be working). Are links to non-official websites OK in such a case or is it better to replace them with official links if they can be found? Is the file not considered to be NFCCP compliant if an official link can't be found? It might not make a difference when a file seems to have been incorrectly licensed as non-free, but even PD of free files are required (both on Wikipedia and Commons) to have proper information about their provenance. Just for reference, a slightly different version can be found on the station's official website. The "official version" is still most likely PD-logo, but it does seem to be combination of both the FOX and CBS logos plus the name of the station; so, maybe one file can due the work of two currently being used. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
"non-free content [that] may have been originally 'leaked' and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia"rather than include simply anything previously published by anyone anywhere. There are a few considerations. First, if a work was "leaked" and published in full, we obviously wouldn't publish it in full here because that always violates WP:NFCC#3, so there is a safeguard against that. Second, if a work was "leaked" and it was published as fair use somewhere else, then certainly it would be fair use here as well. Now, we don't do "fair use" but "non-free content" which approximates fair use, but the fact of the matter is that fair use is irrespective of whether the content was previously published or not. I don't know why we've set ourselves this limitation when we have so many safeguards against abuse: NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4 even if it did not disallow "leaks". There are tons of foreseeable encyclopedic uses for leaks that are fair use. Fortunately, US govt works are PD so we can and do publish "leaks" that the public has a great interest in. But that is not the case with most governments. That is not the case with "leaks" from companies either. I'm certain that if we had less systemic bias toward the US, we wouldn't have this rule for that very reason. If the above discussion is suggesting that we should always include two sources: one from WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and a second one to prove that it has been previously published by the copyright holder, I find that development going to the wrong direction. I share the worry about inauthentic images (fanart, flipped logos etc.) but I think this is a WP:NFCC#8 issue: a fake image can illustrate no point whatsoever. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
"leaked files that have some relevancy for inclusion on WP, [where] an acceptable source would be a respectable media source that knows how to handle the appropriateness of handling these 'leaks'". The way respectable journalists handle these leaks is that they verify the authenticity and relevancy of leaks and then either publish or don't publish them. They don't go to the copyright holder to ask for their permission to publish. But our policy requires them to do just that. On the other point, I explicitly mentioned NFCC#2 above because it's a separate criteria from NFCC#4 and can be considered separately. If it fails NFCC#2 then it doesn't matter what NFCC#4 says, hence it's a safeguard. NFCC#2 of course varies according to the material. If it's the script of a future blockbuster film then obviously publishing it here fails NFCC#2. If it's state secrets of a government then it probably won't fail NFCC#2 because that's not something that was ever going to be in the market to begin with; it has no commercial opportunities. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this has come up before, but I can't remember where or when. How should we treat non-free images of people who are presumed dead? WP:BDP, for example, states BLP applies to anyone who is 115 years old or younger unless their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Is that standard also applied to non-free image use? The example I'm thinking of is D. P. Jadeja. He was born in 1935 according to the article which would make him 86 years old. There's nothing in the article about him having died, but the non-free use rationale for File:Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja.gif states "The demise date of this politician namely D. P. Jadeja (Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja) was not known", which seems to imply that at the uploader believes him to be dead. I think this might be the same person given the age seems about right, but it's a bit odd that someone uploading a photo in 2020 would not be aware of someone who died in 2015. I guess that could be due to lots of things and maybe that image is fairly easy to sort out. What about cases where things might not be so clear? Do we just assume that person is dead and let a non-free image to be used, or do we need to follow BDP? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello and good afternoon.
Some time before I'd said that I was going to leave the project after some problems in Commons. I probably had commeted errors in the past, but I think that it is common for somebody when he or she beguins into a proyect. But I'm interested to check my mind and treating to do the correct.
However, the most important reason for I open this request is because, refter read the article, I was interested to verify if I can upload here five images that, although were taken in 1900's/1910's, I'd coloured they myself.
Here I put the links to those pictures, which I'd uploaded in my Flickr's account: • https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50944561711/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50499867466/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/51101755573/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50576965691/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50576967961/
Four of them depicts four passengers/crew members of the Titanic, the most known Isidor and Ida Straus, who perished in the sinking, Edith Rosenbaum, journalist and survivor of the sinking, and Violet Constance Jessop, sterwardess and survivor of Titanic's disaster and the sinking of it' sister ship, HMHS Britannic. The 5th photograph depict one of the few photographs of the near-completed Titanic with her sister ship, the RMS Olympic in Belfast, at early March 1912.
I await your answers and opinions. Since my main intention is to contribute in the most appropriate way. Cordial greetings.
-- SandyShores03 ( talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly and HighInBC. Thanks for your comments. I think it woud be better to keem things like there are currently. Because I dom't want to be inside problems for a second time. I was interested with this because, previously, I have uploaded in Commoms, but there were deleted because were declared license laundering and that for public domain of my photos there woud have passed 120 years after creation, this is, until 2030s. I couldn't say too much there becaus I don't like be inside problems with others, my only intention is contribute with the most better faith possible for create reliable and complete articles for these encyclopedias.
That's is as I was interested to contribute here with this form. But I think that it is better for all to keep the things like are now. I'm not a totally expert with Wikimedia functions, only the basic things....
Anyway ... Thank you very much again for the time dedicated to reading my comment and for the kindness of answering me. Kind regards for all. -- SandyShores03 ( talk) 20:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4 § Files in Category:Cap logos. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Occasionally, I come across a non-free file like File:Homeless Vehicle New York 2 SMALL.JPG or File:Hiroshima Projection 1999 D SMALL.JPG in which there seems to be a non-free license and non-free content use rationale provided for some 3D work of art, and a {{ OTRS permission}} template added to the file's page which is apparently for the photo of the work. I think there probably should also be a license for the photo, but the fact that there's not doesn't seem like too big a deal.
There are, however, also files like File:Sentinel High School logo.jpg tagged with "OTRS permission" templates that make no sense (at least to me) at all. This is basically a copyrighted logo and it seems to have the right license and non-free use rationale, but it's also OTRS verified. I guess the "verification" could just be for the identify of the uploader, but that seems completely unnecessary as long there's a valid source provided for the file. If, for example, OTRS has verified that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT, then there's no reason for the file to be licensed as non-free; at the same time, if the file is going to be treated as non-free, then there's no real reason for the copyright holder to give their consent. A photo of a 3D work of art may be a derivative work that generates its own copyright, but a photo of school logo (like the Sentinel file) seems to be more likely than not to be a case of c:COM:2D copying no new copyright generated. Of course, the current version of a non-free file might not actually be the same version that was originally uploaded, but that would seem to mean that the OTRS template should've been removed when it was no longer applicable.
Looking at the page history of this file, it looks like it was originally uploaded without a license and then was tagged with {{ npd}}; most likely the uploader saw that and sent in an email to OTRS. However, before OTRS could verify the email, another editor stepped in and added a non-free license and rationale. An OTRS volunteer then a few days later added the "OTRS permissions" template, but did not change the file's licensing or replace the non-free use rationale with {{ Information}}; so, the file has been treated, perhaps incorrectly, as non-free since that time. Does this assessment make any sense? Is the file non-free or free? Should the OTRS template be removed? Should the file be converted to whatever license what specified in the OTRS email? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Are they compatible, at all? From what I see, WP:Imageres allows only bitmaps to certain size but not vector files, or ...? Retired electrician ( talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to voice your concerns at the deletion discussion for Template:Audio sample.
My concern was that the template encourages violations of WP:NFCCP #8, that it lets users add non-free audio without contextual significance. The template represents a significant expansion of our non-free policies, basically allowing one non-free audio sample per song article, without any description to provide contextual significance. Binksternet ( talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that certain living people that were notable in the past yet have absolutely no current public presence (and I mean a complete lack, not just low-profile, as in near-anonymous) should be acceptable under the non-free criteria. If someone, especially an actor/musician that was notable in the past, has no new visual documentation, free and/or non-free, and I mean absolutely no imagery of the person ever since their notable past, especially if no imagery has been created/surfaced for a significant amount of time, then we should assume that no free equivalent will be conceivably created in the future. let alone a non-free image at all. Conversely, if a modern image is later found to exist, or has been created, then whatever non-free image is used on their article should be removed, as it indicates that a free image can be conceivably created once again.
To put it a bit simpler, if neither a free or non-free image of a past, living, notable subject has ever been created, let alone surfaced in say, the last 20-30 years, then it should be assumed that no free equivalent, let alone a non-free one, WILL be conceivably created in the future. "Past" is the key word here; if a subject continues to be notable, or if they no longer are notable but images still exist of them now or recently, then a free image can obviously be conceivably created in the future. This proposal concerns article subjects that were once notable in the past but not nowadays, and have no visual documentation anywhere else except of whatever they were notable for in the past. ToQ100gou ( talk) 07:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. A pervasive thing is lack of sources on fair use files. It makes it really hard to find the originals. It's not so important to the encyclopedia, but being able to find the high-quality images and doing less dumping of low-resolution junk without a link to the original for search engines to follow would be nice. A;so for stuff like File:TheMusicManPoster.jpg it would be easier to make sure it's actually not free content if there were a link to the page the image came from.
Just a thought; please link where you got images from. "It can be obtained from the owner" or whatever is not very helpful! DemonDays64 ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about spammy-looking sources for non-free content. Some additional opinions would be welcome, but my gut feeling is to seek getting the source added to the blacklist. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There have been a couple of recent discussions ( 1 (closed), 2 (archived), 3 (archived), 4 (currently ongoing)) which partially involve(d) differing interpretations over what makes non-free content "historic". Part of the reason there might be differences of opinion on this perhaps may have to do with different philosophies regarding WP:NFCC since some might feel the policy is too restrictive and that it should be more akin to fair use. Other reasons, however, might have to with any inconsistencies or ambiguities unintentionally introduced over the years into WP:FUR#Non-template ("Historical photographs" example), WP:FURE#Historical photographs, WP:NFCI (item 8), Template:Non-free historic image, WP:ITSHISTORIC, etc. when those various pages or sections of pages were created or modified. Whether an image is considered to be "non-free historic" seems to be mainly an interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFC#CS), but there might in some case also be WP:NFCC#1 ( WP:FREER and WP:NFC#UUI (item 1)) aspects to sort through as well, particularly with respect to images of still living persons.
So, maybe this would be a good time to examine what it means for something to be uploaded, licensed and used as a "non-free historic image" to see whether it's being clearly defined in terms of the NFCC or perhaps is something in need of clarification. For reference, my understanding has always leaned towards an "historic image" being something that has itself been the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources, and not simply an image that has been used by reliable sources (even lots of reliable sources) in discussions about a "historic event". So, award winning or otherwise critically acclaimed images, or maybe even highly controversial, etc. images which have had a huge impact on events, etc. could possibly be consider historical images. I do think it's quite natural to associate the word "historic" with being "old" or "unique"; so, an old photograph of someone or something (particularly if the person's current appearance is vastly different or the "something" no longer exists) might be considered historic in many ways. The question though is whether it would be considered historic in terms of the NFCC.
If you look at the " What links here" for "Template:Non-free historic image" and then click on "Transclusion count", you find that the license has been transcluded onto 15733 pages (which I'm assuming are almost all non-free files) since Category:Wikipedia non-free historic files lists 15,716 files. In many cases, the license might be being used together with another non-free license, and thus it might not matter much in terms of the overall validity of a file's non-free use; in other cases though, the license might be the sole justification of a file's non-free use and this might be what needs to be assessed. Maybe some files that were originally licensed as "Non-free historic image" would be better off licensed as {{ Non-free biog pic}} or some other license, but many might also need to be considered for deletion. Before any individual files can be assessed though, I think it would be helpful to know whether a consensus as been established regarding what standard should be applied when assessing this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
while the guidance in WP:FURE#Historical images states as followsIt is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. [To strengthen the claim, consider adding sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it)]
and these seem to be consistent with WP:ITSHISTORIC in that it's the image itself, not the event or individual associated with the image, that needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary. Item 8 of WP:NFCI is even more specific, but it also makes an allowance for non-free images which might not be the subject of sourced critical commentary.Maybe a general example will better help illustrate what I trying to find out about. Someone uploads a non-free image of a still living person that shows the individual at a significant point in their life (e.g. winning an award or competition) and the photo is widely used in newspaper articles, etc. about the event. The image itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary; moreover, the person is still living and their Wikipedia notability isn't really related to their physical appearance so to speak. In such a case, it's the second bullet point of NFCI#8 that statesIt is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. (Add sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it.)
which seems to be most relevant. In some cases, there might be three of the NFCCP (NFCC#1, NFCC#2, and NFCC#8) as well as things like items 6, 8 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI involved in assessing whether an image "significantly" aids in illustrating an historic event and this might not be so easy to do when the article is about a person and not an event. What I'm asking about is whether this has come up before, not so much with respect to articles about the photos or events themselves, but with respect to articles about the individuals associated with the events, particularly when the individual is still living. Previous discussion about FREER seem to suggest that a non-free photo of a living person is simply not acceptable just because it shows a person as they looked at the peak of their career or as they looked when they were in the public eye. What about a non-free photo which might show them accomplishing something they are best known for such as a sporting achievement or perhaps an award winning or very popular movie or TV role? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance.
If a newspaper article contains the front cover of it, which clearly shows the logo at the top, would it be appropriate to still add the non-free logo at the top of the article? Would it go against NFCC#3? — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 14:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there any precedent for how we treat fair use images on Wikipedia when they are themselves the subject of conversation on talk pages, for the purposes of maintaining the encyclopedia? I am specifically thinking of instances like this screenshot [11] which was taken for use in a discussion about sourcing issues. It was recently brought up on WP:FfD. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 20:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I've asked about this kind of thing here before, but I can't find the exact thread. It also appears to have been brought up before by others based upon a look at the WT:NFCC archives. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing it up again is because of something I saw posted over at Commons VPC and also because of the way some of the templates are still named/worded in Category:File deletion templates. It seems like there's a bit of confusion regarding fair use and non-free content, and I think the part of this could be due to the way the term is being used on relevant policy and guideline pages as well as in templates related to non-free content use. It also seems quite clear from WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE that the two are not the same thing when it comes to image use on Wikipedia and I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by not being consistent in the way we use the terms on Wikipedia. If the preferred term is going to be "non-free content use" or "non-free use", then I think we need to find those cases where "fair use" is still being used and replace them with "non-free" to clearly differentiate between the two at least in terms of the WP:NFCC and how it's applied. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A curious case I just encountered and realized it probably extends to a few others are where we have living people that are popular on YouTube or other places that influencers, and to that end typically have adapted some type of persona image or logo to use (eg Dream (YouTuber) or Videogamedunkey. Some of these people may not be out in public that much but are in front a camera to the point that NFCI#1 should be held that non-free images of those people would not be allowed (though there are cases like Dream there that are known not to reveal themselves or go to great lengths to avoid showing their face, but that's usually a minority). The question that came to me is if it is reasonable for us to use these non-free personas/logos in lieu of possible free imagery.
To take a counter example, TotalBiscuit (dead several years, but that's not that relevant) has a few free images of him, but we do not include his branding/logo (a top hat, see the YT channel link there for it).
A strict reading of NFC#UUI#1, to me, only refers to non-free directly of the person, and that other non-free aspects can be included if they otherwise meet all other factors. And in the case of these type of people where their logos are likely the way most people recognize these people, I can sorta see that when no free images of the person are available, that this branding/logo could fall under NFCI#2's allowances for logos. But at the same time, this could be seen to discourage editors to look for free images of these people. (obviously, if the logo/branding is the subject of significant commentary on its own, that's a different matter). So I wonder if we need a bit more fine tuning along this area to be clear or not. I don't know what the right answer is for sure. -- Masem ( t) 21:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I have just deleted this former item. It was the last item in a list of "Unacceptable uses" on Wikipedia for non-free images, and in my view was itself unacceptable. It asserted that the following was unacceptable:
The former item that I have deleted was added to the WP:NFC#UUI by one editor in 2014, after only two other editors had held a brief and desultory discussion lasting fewer than two days that had not been officially closed. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_63#Thoughts_on_a_new_NFC#UUI_item. The very brief discussion about the formulation and the addition of that item appears to have been prompted by nothing more than the fact that one of those editors had a bee in his/her bonnet about non-free logos being used in more than one article. It appears that other editors had not been alerted, or properly alerted, to that discussion. Additionally, there is nothing on the Wikipedia:Logos page that provides any degree of support for the assertions made in the discussion, or in the former item.
My objection to the former item that I have deleted goes way beyond the procedural issue of the inappropriate way it came to be in the list in the first place. I also have a substantive objection, which is that the former item was clearly nonsense and should never have been in the list at all.
The assertion made by the inclusion of the former item in the list is clearly at odds with common practice of major companies and their subsidiaries. For example, Sony Corporation of America, a subsidiary of the Japanese company Sony Group Corporation, uses the same logo as its parent company. Not surprisingly, and appropriately, the Wikipedia articles about those two companies have the same logo at the tops of their infoboxes (see File:Sony logo.svg). The fact that that is so should not hinge on the completely irrelevant happenstance that that particular logo (to quote its licensing statement) "... consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain."
The point is, simply, that the parent company and the subsidiary company have made their own arrangement, under which the same logo is used as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies. That is so regardless of whether the logo is either public domain or the subject of copyright and/or trademark protection. It must follow that the logo can be fairly used by an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." the subject of the encyclopedia's article about the subsidiary company, as well as the subject of the article about the parent company. That, indeed, is exactly as the two companies intend and practice in their very own promotional material.
A commercial and even a non-commercial entity will commonly expend a massive amount of money on the design and development of the entity's logo and associated corporate image material. For Wikipedia to insist, on some spurious basis contrived in fewer than two days in a brief not-properly-closed discussion between just two Wikipedia editors, that a logo that a parent and a subsidiary company have themselves designated and used as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies should, and therefore can, only be used in Wikipedia to identify the parent company, and not also the subsidiary company, is a wholly unjustifiable unilateral diminution by Wikipedia of the value to the two companies of the logo they both use as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies, by agreement between themselves to which Wikipedia is not a party.
I also have a substantive objection to reliance upon the former item I have deleted in assertions that it is somehow illegitimate and unacceptable for Wikipedia to use the logo of a sport governing body to identify the subjects of separate articles about the top level men's and women's sporting teams fielded by the governing body in international sporting competitions. Those who favour that approach seem to think that even if the sporting body itself uses its own logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both of those top level sporting teams, Wikipedia should not and therefore must not do the same. Such an approach is simply nonsense.
Once again, it is common practice for sporting bodies to use their own logos in that way. International cricket is a good example. With just one exception of which I am aware, it is the invariable practice of cricket governing bodies worldwide to use their own logos to identify their top level teams in that way. So, for example, two of the three most prominent such bodies, the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India both use their own logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both of their top level teams. See this page, depicting England men's team members wearing shirts and trousers with the governing body's logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." the team (as opposed to visual identification of England, the country where the governing body and team are based). See also this page, depicting India men's team members wearing shirts and helmets with the governing body's logo as the as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." of the team (as opposed to visual identification of India, the country where the governing body and team are based).
As far as I am aware, the only cricket governing body that does not follow this practice is Cricket Australia, which uses a logo different from its own logo to identify its men's team, and a slightly modified version of the men's team logo to identify its women's team (some of the colours in the men's team logo are reversed in the women's team logo). The men's team logo was first used in the nineteenth century, before the Commonwealth of Australia even came into existence, whereas the governing body's own logo is only a recent creation.
In any case, the former item 17 does not even properly refer to this type of use, because a sporting team has no separate legal existence from the governing body, and therefore cannot properly be described as a "child entity" of the governing body. In law, a sporting team is no more than a group of individual employees, contractors or volunteers who are fielded as a team by the governing body as a core activity of the governing body itself. In the case of most national governing bodies, the fielding of the top level men's and women's teams is one of two main functions of the governing body (the other being the co-ordination of national domestic competitions), and not merely a subsidiary activity. Further, for Wikipedia to use the sporting body's logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both the governing body and its top level teams is to use the logo only three times, and that is hardly a non-minimal usage of the logo. Sporting bodies do not field large numbers of top level teams, and even if they also use their own logo to identify a number of lower than top level teams (such as a second XI, or a junior national team), it would still not be non-minimal use of such a logo to use it as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." all of the teams, if that is precisely what the governing body does itself.
In my view, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles about teams of which "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." is the logo of the governing body to have no logo at all, and even less appropriate for the national flag of the relevant country to be used as a substitute primary visual identifier. The use of a national flag in Wikipedia as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." a sporting team implies that the government of the relevant country controls either the sport governing body or the team, or both, which is seldom the case. On the contrary, the International Cricket Council specifically forbids any control by a government of any member cricket governing body, and any such body that comes under such control, influence or intervention, is liable to expulsion. Recently, the ICC even threatened to suspend Cricket South Africa from membership for precisely that reason, and Zimbabwe Cricket has already twice been suspended for political intervention.
Finally, it is also not appropriate to equate, on the one hand, the fair use of a logo of an entity to identify a subsidiary of, or sporting team fielded by, the entity and primarily visually identified by the entity's own logo with, on the other hand, the use of such a logo to identify specific products marketed by the entity (such as cars marketed by a car manufacturer that identifies itself by a logo). In the case of such products, the reason the logo cannot be fairly used to identify the product is that "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." of the product is not the manufacturer's logo, but the design of the product itself. So, eg, the "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." a Porsche 911 as a product is not the logo of the Porsche company, but the shape of the Porsche 911. That is why manufacturers such as Porsche commonly claim copyright for, or register the design of, their products, something that a company cannot do with a subsidiary company or a sporting team, neither of which is an artistic work or design. Bahnfrend ( talk) 10:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The posts that have been added to this discussion since I made my last post do not really grapple with, and therefore are not a satisfactory answer to, the point I am making. That point is that it is not "fair use" of logos to have an inflexible policy that a logo of a parent entity must not be used as the primary visual identifier in Wikipedia of a child entity, even if is clear, from the actual use of that very same logo outside Wikipedia, that that very same logo is actually used by the child entity for that very purpose, under a licence from the logo's owner. Such restrictive use is just as much "unfair use" as would be the use of that logo as the primary visual identifier on Wikipedia of an unrelated entity that is not licensed by the logo's owner to use that logo in that way. Similarly, it is not "fair use" of a logo of a sporting body to have an inflexible policy that that body's logo must not be used as the primary visual identifier of a top level sporting team fielded by that sporting body, even if the sporting body actually uses its own logo outside Wikipedia for that very purpose. In both of these cases, the policy that Wikipedia may only use the logo in a restricted way unjustifiably devalues the logo, and, where applicable, also unjustifiably devalues the child entity. That's why it's not "fair use". To be "fair use", the use on Wikipedia of an entity's logo should aim to be no narrower (and also no broader) than its actual lawful use outside Wikipedia.
With that in mind, I suggest that item 17 be reworded along the following lines:
Bahnfrend ( talk) 05:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey so I have a new editor I've been helping out on 2020 Summer Olympics pictograms who doesn't know how to go about the WP:NFCI process; they're a non-native English speaker so I'm pretty sure that's also added to their confusion. If someone here can help them out, that would be awesome (I have no idea how to do this process, so I can't help them with this regard). The editor in question is 東京オリンピック1964. Thanks in advance! Curbon7 ( talk) 04:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Per this diff [16] (which wasn't talked on this page), the U3 repeal was properly discussed and closed here [17]. -- Masem ( t) 23:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Right now, we state that images of living persons are not acceptable for non-free images. It seems to me that we should make an exception for dangerous persons, where it would be unsafe to attempt to photograph the person. This may include people like terrorists, officials in dictatorships, and violent criminals, and should probably be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. It is not at all reasonable to expect a volunteer editor to risk their life to take a photo in such a situation. This discussion is prompted by Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 14#File:Mullah Muhammad Rasul.jpg, a non-free photo of a terrorist connected to the Taliban. Pinging @ Tartan357 who nominated the image in question. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 08:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
So, just a suggestion - Our current text reads:
For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. In considering the ability to take a free photograph, it is expected that the photographer respect all local property and privacy laws and restrictions. For example, we would not accept a free photograph of a structure on inaccessible private property that is not visible from public locations.
What about changing it to:
A non-free image may be acceptable if a person would need to endanger their life or break laws to create a free alternative. This may include images of terrorists or prisoners, or buildings that are not visible from public locations. Non-free images also may be acceptable for retired persons or groups whose notability rests in their earlier visual appearance, where a new picture would not serve the same purpose.
This places the unsafe and impossible scenario first, since it is clearly more important, while the merely out-dated scenario comes second. It isn't instruction creep, since my proposed revision is shorter than what we have now. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
someone at age 20 because they are currently age 70. This is actually thing that has been discussed quite number of times before on this page (you find these in the talk page archives) and which is something that has never gained enough support to be considered an acceptable type of non-free use. It's also something that has been discussed before at FFD with respect to individual images before at FFD, and I can't recall a consensus ever being established in favor of keeping an image simply based on a persons age. In most cases, non-free photos of still living persons in their prime simply added because that's how they looked in their prime usually end up tagged with {{ rfu}}. I think the current text focuses on physical appearance, not age or "occupation", and gives it as one possible example in which a non-free image of a still living person might be acceptable. The wording "would be acceptable" might be a bit misleading because it doesn't mean that such a type of non-free use is automatically OK (at least per my understanding), but that it might be OK. The key part of that text is, IMO, "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" in which "notability" means, IMO, "Wikipedia notability". Since "Wikipedia notability" generally is taken to mean that there's WP:SIGCOV about something, if it can be shown that part of the reason that a person received significant coverage had to do specifically with their physical appearance at the time and their current physical is quite different, then perhaps a non-free image could be justified. I think what you're proposing has more to do with a persons chosen "occupation" or "area of activity" which are things that they might be Wikipedia notable for, but which are aren't things that are necessarily tied into their physical appearance.Just for reference, there are a number of non-free images of still-living or presumed to be still living individuals being used in articles, and some of these are of murders, mobsters and terrorists. The reason these seem to be OK, though, isn't necessarily because of what they did but rather because it appears to be a case in which the procurement of a free equivalent image with a reasonable amount of effort isn't considered to be very likely. It's unfortunate perhaps that this seems more likely to be the case with respect to people who have done some really bad things (e.g. long-term incarcerated criminals and international terrorists), but it's not specifically limited to them. My apologies if I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to have been started because of this comment made at FFD. FWIW, I think that comment is true in a sense, but it's also an oversimplification of things. First of all, WP:NFC#UUI are not really exceptions to WP:NFCC; they are just examples of types of non-free uses that seem to have come up quite a bit in the past for which a clear consensus against their use was established. It's only intended to be a non-exhaustive list of some examples, but that part often gets left out because the shortcut link NFC#UUI doesn't go to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use where is states as much. My guess is that all 17 of the UUI are things that kept getting discussed over and over again without establishing a consensus for anything other than that they were "unacceptable"; so, at some point back in the day, it was decided to add to the page in the form of a list. The same thing probably happened with respect to WP:NFCI with respect to uses repeatedly discussed in the past that are typically considered "acceptable". Both the UUI and NFCI do mention certain cases or gray areas where their application may require further discussion on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think these are meant to be seen as automatic exceptions one way or the other. The only true 100% exceptions/exemptions to the NFCC that I'm aware of are those granted per WP:NFEXMP and those seem to be primarily for maintenance pages used for reviewing non-free content use and not for specific types of uses in articles. This, however, is something that those who were around at the time like Masem and I believe also Hammersoft, Whpq and King of Hearts might be able to better comment on. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC) [Note: I actually posted more this time than I posted last time. I didn't intend to do so when I started, but that's what ended up happening. My apologies for the lack of brevity. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)]
I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this. If not, then feel free to point me to the right venue. It seems that certain templates related to file deletion or file discussion (e.g. {{
di-replaceable fair use}}, {{
Ffd}}) have a |help=
parameter which can be set to |help=off
. I'm not sure whether this is done automatically when tagging files using a script/tool or whether it's something being manually added by those tagging files, but it seems like kind of a bad idea and I'm not finding any mentions of how to use the parameter on template documentation pages. If you look at the pages of the two templates I've referenced above, you'll see there is guidance about notifying uploaders, adding templates to captions, etc. that is hidden when the "help" parameter is set to "off". This might not matter for editors who look at lots of files and are aware of how to use them; for less familiar editors, however, they might just assume that nothing further really needs to be done. This could lead to situations where files are tagged or nominated, but uploaders aren't notified or caption templates aren't being added. Even though bots might eventually take care of the notifications and tagging captions is "optional", it still seems like bad practice to me. I know FFD involves more than non-free files, but I think we should be trying to encourage others to do as much as possible when tagging or nominating files to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding; so, I don't think we should necessarily be allowing "help" instructions or guidance to be hidden. We seem to lose more than we gain by doing so. Maybe this is just a general set up for all templates and not something specific to these types of image related templates, but perhaps there should be some kind of guidance added to the various image deletion template documentation pages about this parameter to explain what it does and perhaps how to use it. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 23:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
help=off
parameter always is "undocumented" in that it isn't mentioned on the /doc
subpage to the template, so I don't think that new users who don't know how the template works are likely to find the parameter. It is added automatically by
Twinkle and can be added manually by experienced users who know of the parameter, but I think it's unlikely to be added in other situations. The information directed to the tagging user can be confusing for the uploader in particular if the uploader isn't an experienced user. The uploader might think that following some of the instructions there solves the problem with the file. For assisting the uploader, I think that it is better if the information isn't there.caption
parameter, and there is an {{
ffdc}} template from last year there. Since
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FFDC is full of those pages with deleted images, it's difficult to find pages with kept images with forgotten tags.{{
FFDC}}
tags (and I'm happy to code & run this task if there's consensus to do so). On the other hand, adding {{
FFDC}}
to articles is very difficult from the perspective of a bot. Agreed that it'd be nice to have, but imo the high effort to reward ratio makes it hard to justify. -
FASTILY 03:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
ffdc}}
, is the issue finding the file in the markup or handling widely-used files?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 22 § File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if a similar justification to using photographs of deceased people could be applied to photographs of recently extinct organisms. Examples I have in mind are the Saint Helena olive, the Baiji, and the Christmas Island forest skink. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:COPY § Fair use guidelines. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I've asked about this a couple of times before at Help talk:Template/Archive 4#Non-free image use and Help talk:Template/Archive 5#Non-free content use, but the threads were archived without ever receiving any response; so, I'm going to bring it up for discussion here. It seems that there should be some guidance somewhere on the main template pages about non-free content use like there is for drafts, talk pages and user pages because the template namespace is also where NFCC#9 violations are often found. It might also be helpful to add such information to H:TQG since the only mention of images on that pages makes it seem as if it's OK to add any image to a template. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I started this discussion to see whether there was any need to add some general guidance about non-free content use to Wikipedia pages related to templates in a similar manner that is already done for talk pages, user pages, drafts, userboxes, etc. I realie that adding such information isn't going to prevent anyone from ever adding a non-free file to a template in the future, but the intent is only to provide some basic information and possible something to link to when it comes to templates regardless of how experienced the editors making such errors might be. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to broach this issue on the WP:COMIC talk page, but no one seemed to respond. I feel as though a lot of comic book characters (and possibly comic topics) use fair use in excess, often using images where the rationale is identical to the lead image. This is usually done to depict each variant of a character. I attempted to remove some images with a poor fair use rationale on the Cheetah (comics) article, but this was disputed. As such, I am hoping to get some resolution and other opinions on this topic. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa ( talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I got a note of concern this morning:-
User_talk:ShakespeareFan00#Stop
Abut the apparent over-use of FFD, for what the contributor described as trivial cases, of potentially mistagged non-free file locally.
The reason I was using FFD, was because in the past, I'd been advised not to unilaterally F8, or change local tags, because files that I'd identified as potential F8's of material tagged as non-free locally, had subsequently been identified as problematic on Commons, typically due to threshold of originality concerns, or URAA interactions.
I would be willing to concede that perhaps use of FFD, to pre-confirm an F8 might be seen as some as overly cautious for something most people would consider an obviously text-logo or word-mark however.
So, can there please be clear guidance on when apparently misidentified non-free content licenses can be overridden for F8 when the commons equivalent has been duly marked with a free license?
Alternatively, can we have an agreed policy between Commons and English Wikipedia, that anything that's tagged as non-free on English Wikipedia, gets a DR raised at Commons to resolve the licensing conflict (irrespective of the license tag at Commons.)?
ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Peter Hujar Self-Portrait (book cover).jpg is currently being used for primary indentification purposes in the main infobox of Peter Hujar. Hujar died in 1987 so it's not a case where a non-free image absolutely cannot be used per the WP:NFCCP (item 10 of WP:NFCI), but this particular image is the cover art from one of the books written by Hujar. The file is described as a self-potrait and Hujar apparently worked professionally as a photographer; so, I guess this could be an example of his work. The thing about this type of cover art though per item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI is that it's generally not OK to use in main infoboxes simply for primary identification purposes and needs itself to be the subject of sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article. Perhaps since Hujar is both the author of the book and the photographer of the cover (apprarently) as well as the subject of the cover, then maybe item 9 should be given a little less weight. Hujar seems to be q quite highly regarded photographer so there might be other images of him out there which could be used as non-free instead of this one, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I still had File:CGP Grey stick figure.png on my watchlist from a previous FFD and, thus, noticed this edit. I'm not looking to relitigate the FFD, but the recent update of the file might be something worth discussing in terms of WP:IMAGERES. It's not so much a case perhaps with respect to this particular file, but it might be something that becomes more and more common moving forward with respect to screenshots or other types of video captures. 4K resolution TVs and video screens seem quite common these days (I believe it's also found on newer smartphones and tablets as well) and by it's very nature seems to higher quality and higher resolution when it comes to files than perhaps was available when the NFCCP were first created back around 2007. Is the current WP:NFCC#3b set up to accommodate such images or does it need to be updated in someway. There is, after all, already 8K resolution video technology, right? So, perhaps 4K is already moving towards obsolesence as happened with SD and HD technologies. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Binksternet: I appreciate your addition to WP:NFC#CS about non-free samples. However, I think one of previous rules you added may encourage poor textual editing, even with examples you provided. Furthermore, it may discourage whatever is better or good textual quality. I changed the rule for now, especially to align with WP:NFC#Unacceptable use about non-free samples. George Ho ( talk) 20:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It's my understanding that {{ out of copyright in}} is only for files that are public domain in the U.S. but not their home countries. I don't think we have a template that indicates when a work will be out of copyright in both countries, and so have decided to make one. Hope people find it useful. Ixfd64 ( talk) 21:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The NFCC seems to make allowances for non-free images of bands that no longer exist, even if some of their members may still be living and performing. I think this might be one of the reasons that photos such as File:NSYNC in 1998.jpg and File:Cindy Wilson.jpg might be considered or at least are claimed to be OK. FWIW, I say "might" because I'm not sure with so many bands reuniting off and on post-breakup which is probably why we use photos like the one used in Culture Club instead of one from the band's heyday. Anyway, if, for the sake of argument, such non-free photos can be considered NFCC-compliant per WP:FREER, then what about posters or artwork showing bands like File:Y PANTS poster for TR3.jpg. There seems to be very little primary identification value of a band provided by a non-free poster such as this, unless they all look like stick people. One of the members of the Y Pants is dead, and the other two might be dead (there seem to be no Wikipedia articles about them); so, any new photos of the three together (e.g. a live performance photo) can be taken. There might be an existing free photo to be found or a better non-free one which could be used like this one which could be used instead. Anyone have any suggestions on how this kind of non-free use is covered or has been covered under the NFCC? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem and Whpq: Do either of you have any opinion on File:The Kinleys.jpg? Neither of The Kinleys seem to have died and their appearance doesn't seem to be the reason why they're Wikipedia notable. In fact, it's quite possible that they look not all that different today from how they looked in 2000. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Wikipedia:Non-free content policy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 |
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 03:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:MCQ § Are philippine bldg and sculpture 0hotos acceptable on wikipedia?. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Should the File namespace be added to the exemptions section? — andrybak ( talk) 11:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
[[File:...]]
syntax. There are two ways that (a) will happen: (i) as the large image displayed at the top; (ii) as one or more smaller images in the "File history" table lower down. There are also at least two ways that (b) might happen, the most common are: (iii) an informational or decorative icon, such as the logo in a license; (iv) as an example of a similar or derivative work. Non-free images may not be displayed as examples of similar or derivative works, but they may be linked. It is not the (a) cases but the (b) cases that are forbidden by
WP:NFCCP#9. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 08:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The image in the infobox at Cuties (which is the current film poster) has been nominated for deletion simply because one editor prefers to use a different one even though both images are permitted under fair use. This was done with no discussion on the article's talk page. Please see WP:Files for discussion/2020 October 9. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:orfud}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor can be bold and remove a file from an article much in the same way they can be bold in removing text; if someone else comes along and undos their bold edit, then they're expected to try and sort things out through discussion. In the case of a file, this might mean discussing on the article's talk page, but it could also mean discussing at FFD and you don't have to do either in any specific order. As for notification, again FFD only requires that the file's uploader be notified. In many cases, the uploader has (as you point) done nothing more than upload the file and in some cases that might've been years ago with the uploader is no longer even active. So, I get it seems pointless in some cases to even notify the uploader. In addition, there are many cases, particularly when it comes to none free files, where the editors adding files to articles are not the original uploaders of the files; these editors saw the file being used in some article and thought it was OK to use in other articles. FFD doesn't require those nominating a file for discussion to dig through page histories and try to sort out those who might be interested in the way the file is being used. That is what I mean by only notifying the uploader not being "bad faith". Now, I understand your concerns and if you search the archives at WT:FFD, you'll find they are things which have been brought up before by others (though no consensus seems to have been reached either way). Perhaps it would be a good idea if some bot could be set up (like Community Tech bot) that would automatically add notifications to article talk page when a local Wikipedia file ends up at FFD, or perhaps the instructions for FFD should be changed to require that notifications be added to article talk pages. Right now, {{ Ffd notice}} is used for user talk pages, but perhaps that template can be used to create a new one for article talk pages. Those are good things that might be worth discussing at WT:FFD.
Now, as I posted above, it's generally not a good idea to try and get a file deleted per WP:F5 simply for the sake of getting it deleted; F5 is for non-controversial things like a non-free file has been replaced and is legitimately orphaned or there are orphaned non-free revisions. Even then the F5 issue can be resolved by simply re-adding the file to some article. Even if by chance the file is deleted, it almost always will be restored by an admin per WP:REFUND when asked. There are other ways to discuss concerns about a file that don't involve removing it from articles when there's not a clear policy based reason for doing so (i.e. just because you don't like a file). Disruption in my opinion, though, would be trying to continuously remove the same file over and over again each time its re-added in the hope that it eventually ends up deleted per F5. Doing it once is being bold, doing it again is not a wise thing to do (but probably not quite DE yet). Since Emir from Wikipedia went to FFD after the file was re-added a second time, I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and assume good faith. If they would've kept removing the file, I would tend to see it more as disruption, edit warring or both.
Finally, as for Both images were equally acceptable for fair use
, I think it's important to remember that
fair use and
non-free content aren't the same thing in a Wikipedia sense as explained in
WP:NFC#Background and
WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Pretty much any copyrighted content you could find anywhere else (i.e. online) would most likely be OK to upload and use on Wikipedia as "fair use" for "educational purposes", but it's meeting
WP:NFCC which matters when it comes to such files and the reasons while non-free files are removed or deleted is because they don't satisfy Wikipedia policy not because they aren't fair use. The mixing up of the two concepts is something that Wikipedia even does itself, and it is something that has been previously discussed on this talk page; it's just something that hasn't been quite sorted out yet. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded a fair use image at File:Lillian Brown.jpg. The resolution is too high, but I assumed the bot would fix this. Would someone be able to assist with the shrinkage? If there is a better forum to raise such an issue, let me know. Thanks. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please give me a guide as how to propose images that may contravene WP:NFCC#3a for deletion? An editor uploaded the images for the cover art of the "deluxe versions" of all albums by a certain group, and I'm certain that at least two of them are not different enough from the standard album covers to pass WP:NFCC#3a. I tried to revert the additions, but the editor reverted me with the simple edit summary "they pass". I left a polite message on their talk page asking them to explain how they think the images pass non-free criteria, but they have ignored my message. So I am unsure how to proceed from here. Any advice would be appreciated – I've been on Wikipedia ten years but I'm not familiar with this area, and I don't want to tread on anyone's toes or not follow the correct procedure. Thanks. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I wondering what others think about this file's non-free use in the image gallery in B. Hick and Sons#Soho Iron Works. The file was originally uploaded to Commons, which lead to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg, but it has now been re-uploaded locally as non-free. I don't really see how this would be considered an exception to WP:NFG and the non-free use rationale is really just a boilerplate one that doesn't really reflect how the file is actually being used. However, I'm wondering if those things could be resolved by moving the image to the main infobox. Apparently the company/works doesn't exist anymore so this could be considered {{ Non-free destroyed architecture}}, but I think that only really works if the image is used in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
We generally allow non-free design drawings for buildings to be used for primary identification purposes when they up unitl a certain point (e.g. the topping out of a building) when it's deemed reasonable that a free equivalent can be either created or found to serve the same purpose. There's a specific license ({{ Non-free proposed architecture}}) that is used for this. Is bascially the same thing followed for images of vehicles, e.g. cars, planes, ships?
For example, a new model of a car is going to be released and it has received lots of significant coverage in reliable sources; so, someone creates either a stand-alone article about the specific model itself (e.g. Ford Mustang (sixth generation)) or adds content about it to the more general article about the make of car (e.g Ford Mustang) and then uploads a non-free image to use in the article. What point would we consider to be the "topping out" point for the car? Would it be when the car officially starts appearing in dealerships and can be bought by the general public? Typical cars are for the most part considered fairly utilitarian objects and not eligible for copyright protection, right? So, someone should be able to snap a photo of one and upload it to Commons. What about when the car first appears (i.e. is unveiled to the public); for example, at some autoshow? There might be some non-copyright restrictions in place, but those aren't really of a concern to Commons. Would we consider that to be the point where a free equivalent beconmes reasonable to expect and thus a non-free is no longer acceptable?
The reason I started thinking about this kind of thing is because of File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg, which is a press release photo being used for identification purposes in Airbus A320neo family#A321XLR. I had the file on my watchlist (most likely because it had been previously tagged for speedy deletion which was declined), and it showed up when recently edited. Anyway, it's the only non-free image being used in the article; the other images are from Commons and are of planes actually in service or other prototypes. The section about the A321XLR states that the deliveries of the plane are scheduled to being in 2023, but that it was officially launched at the Paris Air Show in June 2019. The file was uploaded in February 2020 almost eight months after the Paris Air Show. Using the car example given above, the plane has already been unveiled (i.e. made public), but it won't hit the showrooms for a few more years. At what point would a replaceable free equivalent image for a non-free PR photo of the plane be reasonable to expect? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.
Does "historical images", above, refer to the age of the photograph? Or is it meant to denote photos with "iconic status or historical importance"?
What is the exemption, if any, for non-notable-themselves historic photographs (of a notable subject or event) of unverifiable origin? Especially new digital scans of what can be assumed to be the only physical print of that image. Are these types of images used on Wikipedia?
For example, a scan of an unmarked amateur 1940s "found photograph" purchased at a flea market that depicts a now-demolished building.
PKAMB ( talk) 07:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I found portraits of the United States Team handball team for the 1972 Olympic Games and 1976 Olympic Games.
In the internet I didn't found better and free portraits. Could I upload this portraits accoring to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2?
For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
If yes is this (This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use.) the correct reason which I've to choose at the Upload Wizard? Malo95 ( talk) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19 § File:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.jpeg.
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I want to illustrate some graphical layout solutions through screenprints, I made, from the CNN and NYT websites. Their actual contant is not essential (and to be used off-mainspace only, FWIW). Can I upload such screenprints at all, and if so with which precautions? - DePiep ( talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Their actual contant is not essential (and to be used off-mainspace only, FWIW).No, especially not with these caveats. -- Izno ( talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello NFCC people etc. Just wanted to start a quick chat around what the community believes is realistic when it comes to posting fair use images of recently deceased people. I've always been a believer in allowing some time (e.g. a few months) to find images on other websites or through family etc, which people are prepared to re-license as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or whatever. I've done it myself a couple of times with success. What I do find, at WP:ITNC for instance, is that people are uploading images of people who are one or two days dead (or even five or six weeks dead) who have clearly been in the public eye and for whom quick Google image searches reveal they are not in any sense reclusive. Can we find a way to determine what backs up NFCC criterion 1 in an objective way? E.g. could we create a checklist of things people should do before declaring "no, no way we can ever get a free-to-use image"? The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I was thinking of starting an article regarding Lex Luthor and the primary image I had planned to use was already uploaded and is used on his main article. This is fine to use, right?-- Amelia-the-comic-geek ( talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This is related to something currently being discussed at User talk:JJMC89#Removal of gallery at FFD. Does it seem reasonable to add FFD discussions to WP:NFEXMP since FFD is in a sense sort of a maintenance page and in cases like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 20#A few more Google logos actually seeing logos might help resolve questions regarding their licensing. Perhaps such an exemption could be limited to ongoing FFD discussions. Bascially, the current situation on that FFD page has devolved into edit warring between a bot that is removing the files per NFCC#9 as it's been set up to do and the editor who started the discussion, which is probably not going to end well for any of those involved if it continues. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so this has come up twice in my time on Wikipedia. I would like to discuss this here to ensure we have long lasting consensus on this topic.
On YouTube and similar social media platforms, there is a concept called a "face reveal". Normally, content creators who have not shown their face previously in any of their videos will eventually do a special video where they reveal what they actually look like to their audience. In general, the expectation for when and if a face reveal happens at the exclusive decision of the creator, and fans normally try to respect their direction on the matter.
However, sometimes a creator expresses their desire to never do a face reveal to maintain their privacy. In some cases, pictures exist of the creator (like with CGP Grey), but normally this is not the case (like with Dream).
On Wikipedia, articles should be suitably illustrated. We are charged with creating content that meaningfully conveys information to our readers. However, we must always try to respect the copyright of individuals. The only time we use non-free images are when they qualify under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
So far, we have local consensus in the different two case studies. Let me outline what was basically decided:
Should we update our guidelines to reflect these cases and maybe apply them more broadly outside these two exceptional circumstances? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have two examples of quotations in articles I'd like to ask about. Are these OK from a copyright perspective?
X is "definition from Oxford dictionary". [1]Example diffs: [4] [5] [6] I am using quotes instead of paraphrase because I do not want to try to paraphrase these carefully crafted definitions, as it could change the meaning.
Are these OK from a copyright perspective? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about some UK TV logos over at c:COM:VPC#UK TV station logos and am posting a link here for reference. There are couple such logos uploaded to Commons as "PD-textlogo" that are identical or similar to local versions of files Wikipedia is treating as non-free or "PD-ineligible-USonly"; so, if the Commons files are OK, the local-only versions are probably no longer necessary and can be either relicensed or removed. Anyone whose interested should feel free to post over at Commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't find the answer to this question. If Wikipedia is American, why isn't fair use the standard for Wikipedia in every language? It seems that for instance the French Wikipedia applies the laws of France in which fair use doesn't exist, but what about the French-speaking Quebeckers who live under the laws of Canada which uses a variant of fair use? That seems unfair to them. Laws are tied to a country, not a language, so I fail to see the logic in this... Can anyone answer to this? Klow ( talk) 10:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
According to
Dylsss (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA), There is no requirement in
WP:NFCC/
WP:NFC that a copyright holder be identified
. What, then, is the provenance of the 14.65-year-old {{
no copyright holder}}, which when I've used before, other administrators have acted upon? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= | 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The file upload wizard can display non-free images if you choose the file name of an existing non-free file. This page is not a special page nor a category page for reviewing questionable non-free files. If this project page is exempt from WP:NFCC, it should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Otherwise it should be changed to link them instead. Dylsss( talk contribs) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:MCQ § Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The kind of question asked at WP:MCQ#Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17 is going to keep being asked because this issue will always pop up whenever such a file is removed for UUI#17 reasons. This talk page's archives contains numerous attempts to clarify UUI#17, but they always peter out before doing so. Telling people to look at WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:JUSTONE, or trying to explain "parent" vs. "child" is not going to be effective as long as there are differences in opinion as to how (or even whether) UU1#17 applies to this type of non-free use, especially when there are inconsistencies not only among football/soccer articles, but national sports team articles in general. Perhaps if there was something like WP:FILMSCORE or WP:FILMNFI to clarify this use a WikiProject level, it would probably be easier to explain this type of thing. I understand WP:CONLEVEL and not suggesting that WikiProjects be able to ignore or circumvent the NFCC; however, nothing is going to be resolved as long as UUI#17 remains broadly construed on the guideline page without any follow-up interpretations or clarifications provided regarding this type of non-free use at the WikiProject level, as an explanatory note to NFCI (or UUI) or by an actual RFC which can be specifically cited whenever such a file has been removed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I starting this discussion about UUI#14 partly based upon Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg (see also User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 26#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg and User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 55#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg for reference) but also because I think it needs some clarification. The question is whether a "season" article should be treated as a "perennial event" and whether "sport team" should be considered a "sponsoring company". Right now (partly because of the aforementioned close), a new rationale is being added in good faith to File:RIT Hockey.svg each time a new season article is created, and the same thing is being done with respect to other non-free logos as well like File:This is a logo for American International Yellow Jackets men's ice hockey.png and File:Niagara Purple Eagles.svg and probably more cases as well. Before trying to start FFDs for all of these individual files (which is likely going to make some editors and some WikiProjects angry), it might be a good idea to figure whether this type of non-free use is covered by UUI#14 and UUI#17 or whether it should be covered by either if it's not. This can be done informally at first among those normally working with non-free content who who might be familiar with the background regarding this type of file use, but probably should be expanded to a formal RFC if some actual changes to the UUI are needed to clarify things. Even though I mentioned some example files above, I think discussing things in general first would be a good idea since things might get murky and bog down if we focus too much on individual files too quickly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
types of boundsbeing used for non-free content use assessment. If clarification is needed, maybe it could be done as an WP:SRF#Explanatory notes similar to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4. It's not only the above-mentioned files and the articles they're being used in, but also the non-free use in season articles (not just sports related articles) in general which might benefit from little more clarification on this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
OK Masem, LtPowers and Hammersoft. Any suggestions then on how to deal with this because it's probably going to keep happening, most likely going all the way to that "no consesnus" close. I'll let PensRule11385 know about this discussion, but it still might be better to add an explanatory note for UUI#14. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if official character posters are acceptable to be added to Wikipedia, such as this image of Din Djarin or this image of Thor. Painting17 ( talk) 21:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a question: why are File:Islamic Republican Party.jpg (dissolved in 1987) and File:National Democratic Party logo.jpg (banned in 2011) not free? Braganza ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've sort of asked about this before in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Non-free images of crime victims as well as some other times, but I'm still wondring about non-free images of deceased individuals who are pretty much only mentioned on Wikipedia for WP:BIO1E reasons. The most examples I come across are mainly articles about crimes (usually pretty bad ones) where victims are mentioned by name or is some small detail, but nothing which would be sufficient enough to support a stand-alone article. The latest one I've stumbled upon is Redhead murders which has a montage of non-free images being used in the main infobox and a few others used in the body of the article. It's always a bit awkward (at least for me) to try and figure out what the best thing to do here because these tend to basically be images of people who were murdered and that were added because someone feels they should be remembered in some way (so that it's not a faceless crime). It would be great to discuss things dispassionately in terms of policy, but emotional arguments are probably impossible to avoid. The "Redhead murders" article is a bit odd in that there's a non-free photo of a hat of one of alleged victims being used in the main infobox, but the use of that particular file and rationale provided for it seem to have zero contextual relevance to the actual content of the article. That's a easy one to sort out perhaps, but the other images of the murdered women are also a bit iffy. They are mentjioned by name outside of the main infobox, but once again it's not clear whether these women would meet WP:BIO where a non-free image of them might be justified. There are lots of articles like this and maybe it's best in some ways to just leave them be, but at the same time it's also probably best (in some ways) to try and enforce the NFCC consistently project-wide and not create too many unwiritten exemptions (or at least not more than already kind of exist). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCC#4 ( WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion), non-free content needs to have been previously published and displayed outside of Wikipedia by or with permission from the copyright holder. Often this (as well as WP:NFCC#10a) can be met by simply providing a link to where the image can be found online, which is usually an official website of some type. Sometimes though the link (i.e. the source) provided is a direct link to the actual image file or a link to a website like Fandom. Is NFCC#4 being met in such cases? For example, the sources provided for File:KDUZ.png, File:KARP.png and File:KGLB.png are actually to the same page, which appears to be some kind of direct link or something other than the official website for each radio station. The official website for each station is the same and does show the that logs are the ones being used by the stations; so, perhaps the only thing that needs to be done is to tweak the source link it the files' non-free use rationales. Still in some cases (like a former logo) it might be hard to find an official website version (even a Wayback Machine archived version) of a logo for NFCC#4 and NFCC#10a purposes. Would only a direct link be OK in such cases? What if no link is provided like in the case of like in the case of File:KPTH44.PNG, which probably should be PD-logo anyway? Should it be assumed that NFCC#4 is met as long as NFCC#10a can be assessed from the information provided in the rationale?
A related question about this has to do with Fandom sites sites like Logopedia and Wikia. For example, File:KPTH-DT3.png seems to be {{ PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States and c:Category:Category:CBS logos; so, it probably can be converted from non-free. The source provided, however, is to some Wikia/Logopedia page (though for some reason the link doesn't seem to be working). Are links to non-official websites OK in such a case or is it better to replace them with official links if they can be found? Is the file not considered to be NFCCP compliant if an official link can't be found? It might not make a difference when a file seems to have been incorrectly licensed as non-free, but even PD of free files are required (both on Wikipedia and Commons) to have proper information about their provenance. Just for reference, a slightly different version can be found on the station's official website. The "official version" is still most likely PD-logo, but it does seem to be combination of both the FOX and CBS logos plus the name of the station; so, maybe one file can due the work of two currently being used. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
"non-free content [that] may have been originally 'leaked' and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia"rather than include simply anything previously published by anyone anywhere. There are a few considerations. First, if a work was "leaked" and published in full, we obviously wouldn't publish it in full here because that always violates WP:NFCC#3, so there is a safeguard against that. Second, if a work was "leaked" and it was published as fair use somewhere else, then certainly it would be fair use here as well. Now, we don't do "fair use" but "non-free content" which approximates fair use, but the fact of the matter is that fair use is irrespective of whether the content was previously published or not. I don't know why we've set ourselves this limitation when we have so many safeguards against abuse: NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4 even if it did not disallow "leaks". There are tons of foreseeable encyclopedic uses for leaks that are fair use. Fortunately, US govt works are PD so we can and do publish "leaks" that the public has a great interest in. But that is not the case with most governments. That is not the case with "leaks" from companies either. I'm certain that if we had less systemic bias toward the US, we wouldn't have this rule for that very reason. If the above discussion is suggesting that we should always include two sources: one from WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and a second one to prove that it has been previously published by the copyright holder, I find that development going to the wrong direction. I share the worry about inauthentic images (fanart, flipped logos etc.) but I think this is a WP:NFCC#8 issue: a fake image can illustrate no point whatsoever. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
"leaked files that have some relevancy for inclusion on WP, [where] an acceptable source would be a respectable media source that knows how to handle the appropriateness of handling these 'leaks'". The way respectable journalists handle these leaks is that they verify the authenticity and relevancy of leaks and then either publish or don't publish them. They don't go to the copyright holder to ask for their permission to publish. But our policy requires them to do just that. On the other point, I explicitly mentioned NFCC#2 above because it's a separate criteria from NFCC#4 and can be considered separately. If it fails NFCC#2 then it doesn't matter what NFCC#4 says, hence it's a safeguard. NFCC#2 of course varies according to the material. If it's the script of a future blockbuster film then obviously publishing it here fails NFCC#2. If it's state secrets of a government then it probably won't fail NFCC#2 because that's not something that was ever going to be in the market to begin with; it has no commercial opportunities. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this has come up before, but I can't remember where or when. How should we treat non-free images of people who are presumed dead? WP:BDP, for example, states BLP applies to anyone who is 115 years old or younger unless their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Is that standard also applied to non-free image use? The example I'm thinking of is D. P. Jadeja. He was born in 1935 according to the article which would make him 86 years old. There's nothing in the article about him having died, but the non-free use rationale for File:Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja.gif states "The demise date of this politician namely D. P. Jadeja (Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja) was not known", which seems to imply that at the uploader believes him to be dead. I think this might be the same person given the age seems about right, but it's a bit odd that someone uploading a photo in 2020 would not be aware of someone who died in 2015. I guess that could be due to lots of things and maybe that image is fairly easy to sort out. What about cases where things might not be so clear? Do we just assume that person is dead and let a non-free image to be used, or do we need to follow BDP? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello and good afternoon.
Some time before I'd said that I was going to leave the project after some problems in Commons. I probably had commeted errors in the past, but I think that it is common for somebody when he or she beguins into a proyect. But I'm interested to check my mind and treating to do the correct.
However, the most important reason for I open this request is because, refter read the article, I was interested to verify if I can upload here five images that, although were taken in 1900's/1910's, I'd coloured they myself.
Here I put the links to those pictures, which I'd uploaded in my Flickr's account: • https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50944561711/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50499867466/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/51101755573/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50576965691/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50576967961/
Four of them depicts four passengers/crew members of the Titanic, the most known Isidor and Ida Straus, who perished in the sinking, Edith Rosenbaum, journalist and survivor of the sinking, and Violet Constance Jessop, sterwardess and survivor of Titanic's disaster and the sinking of it' sister ship, HMHS Britannic. The 5th photograph depict one of the few photographs of the near-completed Titanic with her sister ship, the RMS Olympic in Belfast, at early March 1912.
I await your answers and opinions. Since my main intention is to contribute in the most appropriate way. Cordial greetings.
-- SandyShores03 ( talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly and HighInBC. Thanks for your comments. I think it woud be better to keem things like there are currently. Because I dom't want to be inside problems for a second time. I was interested with this because, previously, I have uploaded in Commoms, but there were deleted because were declared license laundering and that for public domain of my photos there woud have passed 120 years after creation, this is, until 2030s. I couldn't say too much there becaus I don't like be inside problems with others, my only intention is contribute with the most better faith possible for create reliable and complete articles for these encyclopedias.
That's is as I was interested to contribute here with this form. But I think that it is better for all to keep the things like are now. I'm not a totally expert with Wikimedia functions, only the basic things....
Anyway ... Thank you very much again for the time dedicated to reading my comment and for the kindness of answering me. Kind regards for all. -- SandyShores03 ( talk) 20:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4 § Files in Category:Cap logos. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Occasionally, I come across a non-free file like File:Homeless Vehicle New York 2 SMALL.JPG or File:Hiroshima Projection 1999 D SMALL.JPG in which there seems to be a non-free license and non-free content use rationale provided for some 3D work of art, and a {{ OTRS permission}} template added to the file's page which is apparently for the photo of the work. I think there probably should also be a license for the photo, but the fact that there's not doesn't seem like too big a deal.
There are, however, also files like File:Sentinel High School logo.jpg tagged with "OTRS permission" templates that make no sense (at least to me) at all. This is basically a copyrighted logo and it seems to have the right license and non-free use rationale, but it's also OTRS verified. I guess the "verification" could just be for the identify of the uploader, but that seems completely unnecessary as long there's a valid source provided for the file. If, for example, OTRS has verified that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT, then there's no reason for the file to be licensed as non-free; at the same time, if the file is going to be treated as non-free, then there's no real reason for the copyright holder to give their consent. A photo of a 3D work of art may be a derivative work that generates its own copyright, but a photo of school logo (like the Sentinel file) seems to be more likely than not to be a case of c:COM:2D copying no new copyright generated. Of course, the current version of a non-free file might not actually be the same version that was originally uploaded, but that would seem to mean that the OTRS template should've been removed when it was no longer applicable.
Looking at the page history of this file, it looks like it was originally uploaded without a license and then was tagged with {{ npd}}; most likely the uploader saw that and sent in an email to OTRS. However, before OTRS could verify the email, another editor stepped in and added a non-free license and rationale. An OTRS volunteer then a few days later added the "OTRS permissions" template, but did not change the file's licensing or replace the non-free use rationale with {{ Information}}; so, the file has been treated, perhaps incorrectly, as non-free since that time. Does this assessment make any sense? Is the file non-free or free? Should the OTRS template be removed? Should the file be converted to whatever license what specified in the OTRS email? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Are they compatible, at all? From what I see, WP:Imageres allows only bitmaps to certain size but not vector files, or ...? Retired electrician ( talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to voice your concerns at the deletion discussion for Template:Audio sample.
My concern was that the template encourages violations of WP:NFCCP #8, that it lets users add non-free audio without contextual significance. The template represents a significant expansion of our non-free policies, basically allowing one non-free audio sample per song article, without any description to provide contextual significance. Binksternet ( talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that certain living people that were notable in the past yet have absolutely no current public presence (and I mean a complete lack, not just low-profile, as in near-anonymous) should be acceptable under the non-free criteria. If someone, especially an actor/musician that was notable in the past, has no new visual documentation, free and/or non-free, and I mean absolutely no imagery of the person ever since their notable past, especially if no imagery has been created/surfaced for a significant amount of time, then we should assume that no free equivalent will be conceivably created in the future. let alone a non-free image at all. Conversely, if a modern image is later found to exist, or has been created, then whatever non-free image is used on their article should be removed, as it indicates that a free image can be conceivably created once again.
To put it a bit simpler, if neither a free or non-free image of a past, living, notable subject has ever been created, let alone surfaced in say, the last 20-30 years, then it should be assumed that no free equivalent, let alone a non-free one, WILL be conceivably created in the future. "Past" is the key word here; if a subject continues to be notable, or if they no longer are notable but images still exist of them now or recently, then a free image can obviously be conceivably created in the future. This proposal concerns article subjects that were once notable in the past but not nowadays, and have no visual documentation anywhere else except of whatever they were notable for in the past. ToQ100gou ( talk) 07:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. A pervasive thing is lack of sources on fair use files. It makes it really hard to find the originals. It's not so important to the encyclopedia, but being able to find the high-quality images and doing less dumping of low-resolution junk without a link to the original for search engines to follow would be nice. A;so for stuff like File:TheMusicManPoster.jpg it would be easier to make sure it's actually not free content if there were a link to the page the image came from.
Just a thought; please link where you got images from. "It can be obtained from the owner" or whatever is not very helpful! DemonDays64 ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about spammy-looking sources for non-free content. Some additional opinions would be welcome, but my gut feeling is to seek getting the source added to the blacklist. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There have been a couple of recent discussions ( 1 (closed), 2 (archived), 3 (archived), 4 (currently ongoing)) which partially involve(d) differing interpretations over what makes non-free content "historic". Part of the reason there might be differences of opinion on this perhaps may have to do with different philosophies regarding WP:NFCC since some might feel the policy is too restrictive and that it should be more akin to fair use. Other reasons, however, might have to with any inconsistencies or ambiguities unintentionally introduced over the years into WP:FUR#Non-template ("Historical photographs" example), WP:FURE#Historical photographs, WP:NFCI (item 8), Template:Non-free historic image, WP:ITSHISTORIC, etc. when those various pages or sections of pages were created or modified. Whether an image is considered to be "non-free historic" seems to be mainly an interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFC#CS), but there might in some case also be WP:NFCC#1 ( WP:FREER and WP:NFC#UUI (item 1)) aspects to sort through as well, particularly with respect to images of still living persons.
So, maybe this would be a good time to examine what it means for something to be uploaded, licensed and used as a "non-free historic image" to see whether it's being clearly defined in terms of the NFCC or perhaps is something in need of clarification. For reference, my understanding has always leaned towards an "historic image" being something that has itself been the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources, and not simply an image that has been used by reliable sources (even lots of reliable sources) in discussions about a "historic event". So, award winning or otherwise critically acclaimed images, or maybe even highly controversial, etc. images which have had a huge impact on events, etc. could possibly be consider historical images. I do think it's quite natural to associate the word "historic" with being "old" or "unique"; so, an old photograph of someone or something (particularly if the person's current appearance is vastly different or the "something" no longer exists) might be considered historic in many ways. The question though is whether it would be considered historic in terms of the NFCC.
If you look at the " What links here" for "Template:Non-free historic image" and then click on "Transclusion count", you find that the license has been transcluded onto 15733 pages (which I'm assuming are almost all non-free files) since Category:Wikipedia non-free historic files lists 15,716 files. In many cases, the license might be being used together with another non-free license, and thus it might not matter much in terms of the overall validity of a file's non-free use; in other cases though, the license might be the sole justification of a file's non-free use and this might be what needs to be assessed. Maybe some files that were originally licensed as "Non-free historic image" would be better off licensed as {{ Non-free biog pic}} or some other license, but many might also need to be considered for deletion. Before any individual files can be assessed though, I think it would be helpful to know whether a consensus as been established regarding what standard should be applied when assessing this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
while the guidance in WP:FURE#Historical images states as followsIt is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. [To strengthen the claim, consider adding sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it)]
and these seem to be consistent with WP:ITSHISTORIC in that it's the image itself, not the event or individual associated with the image, that needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary. Item 8 of WP:NFCI is even more specific, but it also makes an allowance for non-free images which might not be the subject of sourced critical commentary.Maybe a general example will better help illustrate what I trying to find out about. Someone uploads a non-free image of a still living person that shows the individual at a significant point in their life (e.g. winning an award or competition) and the photo is widely used in newspaper articles, etc. about the event. The image itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary; moreover, the person is still living and their Wikipedia notability isn't really related to their physical appearance so to speak. In such a case, it's the second bullet point of NFCI#8 that statesIt is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. (Add sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it.)
which seems to be most relevant. In some cases, there might be three of the NFCCP (NFCC#1, NFCC#2, and NFCC#8) as well as things like items 6, 8 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI involved in assessing whether an image "significantly" aids in illustrating an historic event and this might not be so easy to do when the article is about a person and not an event. What I'm asking about is whether this has come up before, not so much with respect to articles about the photos or events themselves, but with respect to articles about the individuals associated with the events, particularly when the individual is still living. Previous discussion about FREER seem to suggest that a non-free photo of a living person is simply not acceptable just because it shows a person as they looked at the peak of their career or as they looked when they were in the public eye. What about a non-free photo which might show them accomplishing something they are best known for such as a sporting achievement or perhaps an award winning or very popular movie or TV role? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance.
If a newspaper article contains the front cover of it, which clearly shows the logo at the top, would it be appropriate to still add the non-free logo at the top of the article? Would it go against NFCC#3? — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 14:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there any precedent for how we treat fair use images on Wikipedia when they are themselves the subject of conversation on talk pages, for the purposes of maintaining the encyclopedia? I am specifically thinking of instances like this screenshot [11] which was taken for use in a discussion about sourcing issues. It was recently brought up on WP:FfD. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 20:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I've asked about this kind of thing here before, but I can't find the exact thread. It also appears to have been brought up before by others based upon a look at the WT:NFCC archives. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing it up again is because of something I saw posted over at Commons VPC and also because of the way some of the templates are still named/worded in Category:File deletion templates. It seems like there's a bit of confusion regarding fair use and non-free content, and I think the part of this could be due to the way the term is being used on relevant policy and guideline pages as well as in templates related to non-free content use. It also seems quite clear from WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE that the two are not the same thing when it comes to image use on Wikipedia and I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by not being consistent in the way we use the terms on Wikipedia. If the preferred term is going to be "non-free content use" or "non-free use", then I think we need to find those cases where "fair use" is still being used and replace them with "non-free" to clearly differentiate between the two at least in terms of the WP:NFCC and how it's applied. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A curious case I just encountered and realized it probably extends to a few others are where we have living people that are popular on YouTube or other places that influencers, and to that end typically have adapted some type of persona image or logo to use (eg Dream (YouTuber) or Videogamedunkey. Some of these people may not be out in public that much but are in front a camera to the point that NFCI#1 should be held that non-free images of those people would not be allowed (though there are cases like Dream there that are known not to reveal themselves or go to great lengths to avoid showing their face, but that's usually a minority). The question that came to me is if it is reasonable for us to use these non-free personas/logos in lieu of possible free imagery.
To take a counter example, TotalBiscuit (dead several years, but that's not that relevant) has a few free images of him, but we do not include his branding/logo (a top hat, see the YT channel link there for it).
A strict reading of NFC#UUI#1, to me, only refers to non-free directly of the person, and that other non-free aspects can be included if they otherwise meet all other factors. And in the case of these type of people where their logos are likely the way most people recognize these people, I can sorta see that when no free images of the person are available, that this branding/logo could fall under NFCI#2's allowances for logos. But at the same time, this could be seen to discourage editors to look for free images of these people. (obviously, if the logo/branding is the subject of significant commentary on its own, that's a different matter). So I wonder if we need a bit more fine tuning along this area to be clear or not. I don't know what the right answer is for sure. -- Masem ( t) 21:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I have just deleted this former item. It was the last item in a list of "Unacceptable uses" on Wikipedia for non-free images, and in my view was itself unacceptable. It asserted that the following was unacceptable:
The former item that I have deleted was added to the WP:NFC#UUI by one editor in 2014, after only two other editors had held a brief and desultory discussion lasting fewer than two days that had not been officially closed. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_63#Thoughts_on_a_new_NFC#UUI_item. The very brief discussion about the formulation and the addition of that item appears to have been prompted by nothing more than the fact that one of those editors had a bee in his/her bonnet about non-free logos being used in more than one article. It appears that other editors had not been alerted, or properly alerted, to that discussion. Additionally, there is nothing on the Wikipedia:Logos page that provides any degree of support for the assertions made in the discussion, or in the former item.
My objection to the former item that I have deleted goes way beyond the procedural issue of the inappropriate way it came to be in the list in the first place. I also have a substantive objection, which is that the former item was clearly nonsense and should never have been in the list at all.
The assertion made by the inclusion of the former item in the list is clearly at odds with common practice of major companies and their subsidiaries. For example, Sony Corporation of America, a subsidiary of the Japanese company Sony Group Corporation, uses the same logo as its parent company. Not surprisingly, and appropriately, the Wikipedia articles about those two companies have the same logo at the tops of their infoboxes (see File:Sony logo.svg). The fact that that is so should not hinge on the completely irrelevant happenstance that that particular logo (to quote its licensing statement) "... consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain."
The point is, simply, that the parent company and the subsidiary company have made their own arrangement, under which the same logo is used as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies. That is so regardless of whether the logo is either public domain or the subject of copyright and/or trademark protection. It must follow that the logo can be fairly used by an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." the subject of the encyclopedia's article about the subsidiary company, as well as the subject of the article about the parent company. That, indeed, is exactly as the two companies intend and practice in their very own promotional material.
A commercial and even a non-commercial entity will commonly expend a massive amount of money on the design and development of the entity's logo and associated corporate image material. For Wikipedia to insist, on some spurious basis contrived in fewer than two days in a brief not-properly-closed discussion between just two Wikipedia editors, that a logo that a parent and a subsidiary company have themselves designated and used as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies should, and therefore can, only be used in Wikipedia to identify the parent company, and not also the subsidiary company, is a wholly unjustifiable unilateral diminution by Wikipedia of the value to the two companies of the logo they both use as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies, by agreement between themselves to which Wikipedia is not a party.
I also have a substantive objection to reliance upon the former item I have deleted in assertions that it is somehow illegitimate and unacceptable for Wikipedia to use the logo of a sport governing body to identify the subjects of separate articles about the top level men's and women's sporting teams fielded by the governing body in international sporting competitions. Those who favour that approach seem to think that even if the sporting body itself uses its own logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both of those top level sporting teams, Wikipedia should not and therefore must not do the same. Such an approach is simply nonsense.
Once again, it is common practice for sporting bodies to use their own logos in that way. International cricket is a good example. With just one exception of which I am aware, it is the invariable practice of cricket governing bodies worldwide to use their own logos to identify their top level teams in that way. So, for example, two of the three most prominent such bodies, the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India both use their own logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both of their top level teams. See this page, depicting England men's team members wearing shirts and trousers with the governing body's logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." the team (as opposed to visual identification of England, the country where the governing body and team are based). See also this page, depicting India men's team members wearing shirts and helmets with the governing body's logo as the as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." of the team (as opposed to visual identification of India, the country where the governing body and team are based).
As far as I am aware, the only cricket governing body that does not follow this practice is Cricket Australia, which uses a logo different from its own logo to identify its men's team, and a slightly modified version of the men's team logo to identify its women's team (some of the colours in the men's team logo are reversed in the women's team logo). The men's team logo was first used in the nineteenth century, before the Commonwealth of Australia even came into existence, whereas the governing body's own logo is only a recent creation.
In any case, the former item 17 does not even properly refer to this type of use, because a sporting team has no separate legal existence from the governing body, and therefore cannot properly be described as a "child entity" of the governing body. In law, a sporting team is no more than a group of individual employees, contractors or volunteers who are fielded as a team by the governing body as a core activity of the governing body itself. In the case of most national governing bodies, the fielding of the top level men's and women's teams is one of two main functions of the governing body (the other being the co-ordination of national domestic competitions), and not merely a subsidiary activity. Further, for Wikipedia to use the sporting body's logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both the governing body and its top level teams is to use the logo only three times, and that is hardly a non-minimal usage of the logo. Sporting bodies do not field large numbers of top level teams, and even if they also use their own logo to identify a number of lower than top level teams (such as a second XI, or a junior national team), it would still not be non-minimal use of such a logo to use it as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." all of the teams, if that is precisely what the governing body does itself.
In my view, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles about teams of which "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." is the logo of the governing body to have no logo at all, and even less appropriate for the national flag of the relevant country to be used as a substitute primary visual identifier. The use of a national flag in Wikipedia as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." a sporting team implies that the government of the relevant country controls either the sport governing body or the team, or both, which is seldom the case. On the contrary, the International Cricket Council specifically forbids any control by a government of any member cricket governing body, and any such body that comes under such control, influence or intervention, is liable to expulsion. Recently, the ICC even threatened to suspend Cricket South Africa from membership for precisely that reason, and Zimbabwe Cricket has already twice been suspended for political intervention.
Finally, it is also not appropriate to equate, on the one hand, the fair use of a logo of an entity to identify a subsidiary of, or sporting team fielded by, the entity and primarily visually identified by the entity's own logo with, on the other hand, the use of such a logo to identify specific products marketed by the entity (such as cars marketed by a car manufacturer that identifies itself by a logo). In the case of such products, the reason the logo cannot be fairly used to identify the product is that "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." of the product is not the manufacturer's logo, but the design of the product itself. So, eg, the "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." a Porsche 911 as a product is not the logo of the Porsche company, but the shape of the Porsche 911. That is why manufacturers such as Porsche commonly claim copyright for, or register the design of, their products, something that a company cannot do with a subsidiary company or a sporting team, neither of which is an artistic work or design. Bahnfrend ( talk) 10:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The posts that have been added to this discussion since I made my last post do not really grapple with, and therefore are not a satisfactory answer to, the point I am making. That point is that it is not "fair use" of logos to have an inflexible policy that a logo of a parent entity must not be used as the primary visual identifier in Wikipedia of a child entity, even if is clear, from the actual use of that very same logo outside Wikipedia, that that very same logo is actually used by the child entity for that very purpose, under a licence from the logo's owner. Such restrictive use is just as much "unfair use" as would be the use of that logo as the primary visual identifier on Wikipedia of an unrelated entity that is not licensed by the logo's owner to use that logo in that way. Similarly, it is not "fair use" of a logo of a sporting body to have an inflexible policy that that body's logo must not be used as the primary visual identifier of a top level sporting team fielded by that sporting body, even if the sporting body actually uses its own logo outside Wikipedia for that very purpose. In both of these cases, the policy that Wikipedia may only use the logo in a restricted way unjustifiably devalues the logo, and, where applicable, also unjustifiably devalues the child entity. That's why it's not "fair use". To be "fair use", the use on Wikipedia of an entity's logo should aim to be no narrower (and also no broader) than its actual lawful use outside Wikipedia.
With that in mind, I suggest that item 17 be reworded along the following lines:
Bahnfrend ( talk) 05:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey so I have a new editor I've been helping out on 2020 Summer Olympics pictograms who doesn't know how to go about the WP:NFCI process; they're a non-native English speaker so I'm pretty sure that's also added to their confusion. If someone here can help them out, that would be awesome (I have no idea how to do this process, so I can't help them with this regard). The editor in question is 東京オリンピック1964. Thanks in advance! Curbon7 ( talk) 04:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Per this diff [16] (which wasn't talked on this page), the U3 repeal was properly discussed and closed here [17]. -- Masem ( t) 23:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Right now, we state that images of living persons are not acceptable for non-free images. It seems to me that we should make an exception for dangerous persons, where it would be unsafe to attempt to photograph the person. This may include people like terrorists, officials in dictatorships, and violent criminals, and should probably be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. It is not at all reasonable to expect a volunteer editor to risk their life to take a photo in such a situation. This discussion is prompted by Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 14#File:Mullah Muhammad Rasul.jpg, a non-free photo of a terrorist connected to the Taliban. Pinging @ Tartan357 who nominated the image in question. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 08:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
So, just a suggestion - Our current text reads:
For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. In considering the ability to take a free photograph, it is expected that the photographer respect all local property and privacy laws and restrictions. For example, we would not accept a free photograph of a structure on inaccessible private property that is not visible from public locations.
What about changing it to:
A non-free image may be acceptable if a person would need to endanger their life or break laws to create a free alternative. This may include images of terrorists or prisoners, or buildings that are not visible from public locations. Non-free images also may be acceptable for retired persons or groups whose notability rests in their earlier visual appearance, where a new picture would not serve the same purpose.
This places the unsafe and impossible scenario first, since it is clearly more important, while the merely out-dated scenario comes second. It isn't instruction creep, since my proposed revision is shorter than what we have now. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
someone at age 20 because they are currently age 70. This is actually thing that has been discussed quite number of times before on this page (you find these in the talk page archives) and which is something that has never gained enough support to be considered an acceptable type of non-free use. It's also something that has been discussed before at FFD with respect to individual images before at FFD, and I can't recall a consensus ever being established in favor of keeping an image simply based on a persons age. In most cases, non-free photos of still living persons in their prime simply added because that's how they looked in their prime usually end up tagged with {{ rfu}}. I think the current text focuses on physical appearance, not age or "occupation", and gives it as one possible example in which a non-free image of a still living person might be acceptable. The wording "would be acceptable" might be a bit misleading because it doesn't mean that such a type of non-free use is automatically OK (at least per my understanding), but that it might be OK. The key part of that text is, IMO, "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" in which "notability" means, IMO, "Wikipedia notability". Since "Wikipedia notability" generally is taken to mean that there's WP:SIGCOV about something, if it can be shown that part of the reason that a person received significant coverage had to do specifically with their physical appearance at the time and their current physical is quite different, then perhaps a non-free image could be justified. I think what you're proposing has more to do with a persons chosen "occupation" or "area of activity" which are things that they might be Wikipedia notable for, but which are aren't things that are necessarily tied into their physical appearance.Just for reference, there are a number of non-free images of still-living or presumed to be still living individuals being used in articles, and some of these are of murders, mobsters and terrorists. The reason these seem to be OK, though, isn't necessarily because of what they did but rather because it appears to be a case in which the procurement of a free equivalent image with a reasonable amount of effort isn't considered to be very likely. It's unfortunate perhaps that this seems more likely to be the case with respect to people who have done some really bad things (e.g. long-term incarcerated criminals and international terrorists), but it's not specifically limited to them. My apologies if I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to have been started because of this comment made at FFD. FWIW, I think that comment is true in a sense, but it's also an oversimplification of things. First of all, WP:NFC#UUI are not really exceptions to WP:NFCC; they are just examples of types of non-free uses that seem to have come up quite a bit in the past for which a clear consensus against their use was established. It's only intended to be a non-exhaustive list of some examples, but that part often gets left out because the shortcut link NFC#UUI doesn't go to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use where is states as much. My guess is that all 17 of the UUI are things that kept getting discussed over and over again without establishing a consensus for anything other than that they were "unacceptable"; so, at some point back in the day, it was decided to add to the page in the form of a list. The same thing probably happened with respect to WP:NFCI with respect to uses repeatedly discussed in the past that are typically considered "acceptable". Both the UUI and NFCI do mention certain cases or gray areas where their application may require further discussion on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think these are meant to be seen as automatic exceptions one way or the other. The only true 100% exceptions/exemptions to the NFCC that I'm aware of are those granted per WP:NFEXMP and those seem to be primarily for maintenance pages used for reviewing non-free content use and not for specific types of uses in articles. This, however, is something that those who were around at the time like Masem and I believe also Hammersoft, Whpq and King of Hearts might be able to better comment on. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC) [Note: I actually posted more this time than I posted last time. I didn't intend to do so when I started, but that's what ended up happening. My apologies for the lack of brevity. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)]
I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this. If not, then feel free to point me to the right venue. It seems that certain templates related to file deletion or file discussion (e.g. {{
di-replaceable fair use}}, {{
Ffd}}) have a |help=
parameter which can be set to |help=off
. I'm not sure whether this is done automatically when tagging files using a script/tool or whether it's something being manually added by those tagging files, but it seems like kind of a bad idea and I'm not finding any mentions of how to use the parameter on template documentation pages. If you look at the pages of the two templates I've referenced above, you'll see there is guidance about notifying uploaders, adding templates to captions, etc. that is hidden when the "help" parameter is set to "off". This might not matter for editors who look at lots of files and are aware of how to use them; for less familiar editors, however, they might just assume that nothing further really needs to be done. This could lead to situations where files are tagged or nominated, but uploaders aren't notified or caption templates aren't being added. Even though bots might eventually take care of the notifications and tagging captions is "optional", it still seems like bad practice to me. I know FFD involves more than non-free files, but I think we should be trying to encourage others to do as much as possible when tagging or nominating files to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding; so, I don't think we should necessarily be allowing "help" instructions or guidance to be hidden. We seem to lose more than we gain by doing so. Maybe this is just a general set up for all templates and not something specific to these types of image related templates, but perhaps there should be some kind of guidance added to the various image deletion template documentation pages about this parameter to explain what it does and perhaps how to use it. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 23:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
help=off
parameter always is "undocumented" in that it isn't mentioned on the /doc
subpage to the template, so I don't think that new users who don't know how the template works are likely to find the parameter. It is added automatically by
Twinkle and can be added manually by experienced users who know of the parameter, but I think it's unlikely to be added in other situations. The information directed to the tagging user can be confusing for the uploader in particular if the uploader isn't an experienced user. The uploader might think that following some of the instructions there solves the problem with the file. For assisting the uploader, I think that it is better if the information isn't there.caption
parameter, and there is an {{
ffdc}} template from last year there. Since
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FFDC is full of those pages with deleted images, it's difficult to find pages with kept images with forgotten tags.{{
FFDC}}
tags (and I'm happy to code & run this task if there's consensus to do so). On the other hand, adding {{
FFDC}}
to articles is very difficult from the perspective of a bot. Agreed that it'd be nice to have, but imo the high effort to reward ratio makes it hard to justify. -
FASTILY 03:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
ffdc}}
, is the issue finding the file in the markup or handling widely-used files?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 22 § File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if a similar justification to using photographs of deceased people could be applied to photographs of recently extinct organisms. Examples I have in mind are the Saint Helena olive, the Baiji, and the Christmas Island forest skink. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:COPY § Fair use guidelines. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I've asked about this a couple of times before at Help talk:Template/Archive 4#Non-free image use and Help talk:Template/Archive 5#Non-free content use, but the threads were archived without ever receiving any response; so, I'm going to bring it up for discussion here. It seems that there should be some guidance somewhere on the main template pages about non-free content use like there is for drafts, talk pages and user pages because the template namespace is also where NFCC#9 violations are often found. It might also be helpful to add such information to H:TQG since the only mention of images on that pages makes it seem as if it's OK to add any image to a template. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I started this discussion to see whether there was any need to add some general guidance about non-free content use to Wikipedia pages related to templates in a similar manner that is already done for talk pages, user pages, drafts, userboxes, etc. I realie that adding such information isn't going to prevent anyone from ever adding a non-free file to a template in the future, but the intent is only to provide some basic information and possible something to link to when it comes to templates regardless of how experienced the editors making such errors might be. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to broach this issue on the WP:COMIC talk page, but no one seemed to respond. I feel as though a lot of comic book characters (and possibly comic topics) use fair use in excess, often using images where the rationale is identical to the lead image. This is usually done to depict each variant of a character. I attempted to remove some images with a poor fair use rationale on the Cheetah (comics) article, but this was disputed. As such, I am hoping to get some resolution and other opinions on this topic. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa ( talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I got a note of concern this morning:-
User_talk:ShakespeareFan00#Stop
Abut the apparent over-use of FFD, for what the contributor described as trivial cases, of potentially mistagged non-free file locally.
The reason I was using FFD, was because in the past, I'd been advised not to unilaterally F8, or change local tags, because files that I'd identified as potential F8's of material tagged as non-free locally, had subsequently been identified as problematic on Commons, typically due to threshold of originality concerns, or URAA interactions.
I would be willing to concede that perhaps use of FFD, to pre-confirm an F8 might be seen as some as overly cautious for something most people would consider an obviously text-logo or word-mark however.
So, can there please be clear guidance on when apparently misidentified non-free content licenses can be overridden for F8 when the commons equivalent has been duly marked with a free license?
Alternatively, can we have an agreed policy between Commons and English Wikipedia, that anything that's tagged as non-free on English Wikipedia, gets a DR raised at Commons to resolve the licensing conflict (irrespective of the license tag at Commons.)?
ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Peter Hujar Self-Portrait (book cover).jpg is currently being used for primary indentification purposes in the main infobox of Peter Hujar. Hujar died in 1987 so it's not a case where a non-free image absolutely cannot be used per the WP:NFCCP (item 10 of WP:NFCI), but this particular image is the cover art from one of the books written by Hujar. The file is described as a self-potrait and Hujar apparently worked professionally as a photographer; so, I guess this could be an example of his work. The thing about this type of cover art though per item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI is that it's generally not OK to use in main infoboxes simply for primary identification purposes and needs itself to be the subject of sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article. Perhaps since Hujar is both the author of the book and the photographer of the cover (apprarently) as well as the subject of the cover, then maybe item 9 should be given a little less weight. Hujar seems to be q quite highly regarded photographer so there might be other images of him out there which could be used as non-free instead of this one, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I still had File:CGP Grey stick figure.png on my watchlist from a previous FFD and, thus, noticed this edit. I'm not looking to relitigate the FFD, but the recent update of the file might be something worth discussing in terms of WP:IMAGERES. It's not so much a case perhaps with respect to this particular file, but it might be something that becomes more and more common moving forward with respect to screenshots or other types of video captures. 4K resolution TVs and video screens seem quite common these days (I believe it's also found on newer smartphones and tablets as well) and by it's very nature seems to higher quality and higher resolution when it comes to files than perhaps was available when the NFCCP were first created back around 2007. Is the current WP:NFCC#3b set up to accommodate such images or does it need to be updated in someway. There is, after all, already 8K resolution video technology, right? So, perhaps 4K is already moving towards obsolesence as happened with SD and HD technologies. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Binksternet: I appreciate your addition to WP:NFC#CS about non-free samples. However, I think one of previous rules you added may encourage poor textual editing, even with examples you provided. Furthermore, it may discourage whatever is better or good textual quality. I changed the rule for now, especially to align with WP:NFC#Unacceptable use about non-free samples. George Ho ( talk) 20:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It's my understanding that {{ out of copyright in}} is only for files that are public domain in the U.S. but not their home countries. I don't think we have a template that indicates when a work will be out of copyright in both countries, and so have decided to make one. Hope people find it useful. Ixfd64 ( talk) 21:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The NFCC seems to make allowances for non-free images of bands that no longer exist, even if some of their members may still be living and performing. I think this might be one of the reasons that photos such as File:NSYNC in 1998.jpg and File:Cindy Wilson.jpg might be considered or at least are claimed to be OK. FWIW, I say "might" because I'm not sure with so many bands reuniting off and on post-breakup which is probably why we use photos like the one used in Culture Club instead of one from the band's heyday. Anyway, if, for the sake of argument, such non-free photos can be considered NFCC-compliant per WP:FREER, then what about posters or artwork showing bands like File:Y PANTS poster for TR3.jpg. There seems to be very little primary identification value of a band provided by a non-free poster such as this, unless they all look like stick people. One of the members of the Y Pants is dead, and the other two might be dead (there seem to be no Wikipedia articles about them); so, any new photos of the three together (e.g. a live performance photo) can be taken. There might be an existing free photo to be found or a better non-free one which could be used like this one which could be used instead. Anyone have any suggestions on how this kind of non-free use is covered or has been covered under the NFCC? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem and Whpq: Do either of you have any opinion on File:The Kinleys.jpg? Neither of The Kinleys seem to have died and their appearance doesn't seem to be the reason why they're Wikipedia notable. In fact, it's quite possible that they look not all that different today from how they looked in 2000. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Wikipedia:Non-free content policy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)